Do Male and Female Teachers Teach Differently in Hohoe, Ghana? Exploring Gendered Perceptions of Learner-Centred Pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated gender-based differences in teachers’ perceptions of learner-centred pedagogical strategies in basic schools in Hohoe, Ghana. Five pedagogical approaches, constructivist, collaborative, inquiry-based, integrative, and reflective, formed the analytical focus. Guided by a positivist paradigm, the study employed a descriptive survey design and collected data from 364 teachers across 28 basic schools through a structured five-point Likert scale questionnaire. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine differences across gender. The results indicate no significant gender differences for constructivist, collaborative, inquiry-based, and integrative pedagogies. However, female teachers demonstrated significantly more positive perceptions of reflective pedagogy compared to their male counterparts, suggesting greater alignment of female teachers with self-evaluative and introspective teaching practices. The study highlights the need for professional learning programmes that encourage male teachers to engage more deeply with reflective teaching techniques. Strengthening reflective practice across gender groups may enhance the overall implementation of learner-centred teaching in Ghanaian basic schools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".