Tensions between Western ECCD and the Indigenous African Educational System and What This Means for ECCD Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tensions between the current model of Early Childhood Education practiced and the Indigenous or traditional ways of raising children are examined in the context of Ghana and West Africa. Ghana and other West African countries are making efforts to move away from didactic, teacher -directed methods of teaching in early childhood where children are treated as blank slates to be filled with knowledge by the teacher. These efforts are manifested in the multiple early learning theories that have been adopted in curricula to guide practice. However, this paper assesses tensions between the model of early childhood education currently practiced in Ghana (and West Africa more broadly) and Ghanaian Indigenous ways of raising children, which exposes how moving away from the teacher-centered method of teaching is difficult. Drawing on secondary data sources, in the form of a literature review of published articles, government documents, and reports from Non-Governmental Organizations, in this paper we identify that these tensions emerge due to the differences between the current Early Childhood Education program and the Indigenous educational system as well as the marginalization of Indigenous content from the Early Childhood Education program. Keywords : Early childhood education, child-led, teacher-centered, Indigenous, tensions. DOI: 10.7176/JEP/11-24-13 Publication date: August 31 st 2020
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".