An assessment of in-service education and training Needs of primary school agriculture teachers in Kenya

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed a growing inclination in developing countries towards the diversification of the primary school curriculum. Pre-vocational subjects have been added to the traditional academic curriculum so that pupils are exposed to vocational knowledge, skills and attitudes which will enable majority of them to become self employed in the rural informal sector. Agriculture provides livelihood for about 80% of the people in these countries. Hence Agricultural education is given prominence in the curriculum. In Kenya the government has recognised the high status and priority . Agriculture ought to occupy in the school curriculum. Official policy documents on the 8-4-4 System of Education leave no doubt that Agriculture should be taught as a subject in all primary schools to enable majority of the youth to appreciate the role of agriculture in the nation building effort. However, the government's wishes have not been accompanied by commitment to ensure that there are competent teachers to implement the curriculum. Teachers who were assigned to teach Agriculture were not sufficiently prepared to handle the subject competently. Pre-service or initial teacher education was not adequate to enable the teachers to cope with the demands of the new Agriculture curriculum. The teachers needed in-service education and training (INSET) courses that would enable them to understand the philosophy of the new agriculture curriculum and its implementation strategies. However, existing INSET courses have been haphazard, unsystematic and ad hoc without a well thought out curriculum. The programmes lack relevance because they are usually structured on the basis of the Xl 11 observations of INSET providers and the requests of educational administrators. Very seldom are structured surveys undertaken by the providers to identify the priority INSET needs of their target groups. Yet psychology supports the notion that learning is at its optimum when what is learned satisfies the need of the learner. Similarly, INSET activities are most effective if participating teachers are ready for the topics addressed and if they feel that these topics are high on their priority list of problems. The purpose of this study was to find out the INSET needs of the teachers and to suggest guidelines for future development, implementation and evaluation of the INSET programmes in general and those related to the teaching of Agriculture in particular. The theoretical framework of the study was provided by the concept of "Needs Assessment". Needs assessment describes an operation designed to identify those areas of educational deficiency most worth of amelioration. In this study the Primary School Agriculture curriculum, teachers' experiences of previous INSET courses they attended and their current knowledge, skills and attitudes were used as sources from which to decipher their INSET needs. The sample for this study was 200 teachers of Agriculture. This figure represented 20% of all agriculture teachers in Vihiga District. The sample included only Primary School Agriculture teachers who had had initial teacher education, attended INSET course(s) on the teaching of the 8-4-4 primary school agriculture curriculum and completed at least two years in the service since attending the INSET course(s). This group of teachers was considered most likely to give an accurate assessment of INSET programmes. Data was collected in two phases. Phase one involved indepth study of 10 teachers through participant observation, unstructured interviews and document analysis. The second phase involved validation of the data collected in phase one, using a survey questionnaire covering the 200 teachers of Agriculture. Data collection and analysis was a concurrent process. Data analysis in the field was done for the purpose of generating generic and specific competencies for inclusion in the confirmation survey questionnaire. Data analysis at the end of field work focused on the questionnaire, and was done by use of descriptive statistics. The findings of the study showed that despite the official emphasis on INSET, its planning, implementation and evaluation left a lot to be desired. Teachers rarely attended INSET. The courses organised emphasised pedagogy at the expense of subject matter. Teachers were regarded by course facilitators as mere recipients of content, as they had little or no input. People with little or no experience of classroom teaching were drafted as course facilitators. Most of the courses were organised at zonal level, and Teacher Advisory Centres served as venues. Most of the courses lasted one day. This duration was too short to enable teachers to study all the materials in detail. This was worsened by the fact that courses were scheduled during school hours, hence putting pressure on teachers' time as far as their official duties were concerned. Course graduands were rarely given incentives for attending INSET. The lecture method was predominantly used. Finally, it was noted that the courses were rarely evaluated. In the light of the above findings it is recommended that; teachers should attend in service courses regularly, at least once in a year; INSET content should be balanced, that is, it should emphasise both academic and methodology competences. INSET courses should be organized at zonal, divisional and district level in line with the centralized curriculum development model currently used in the country; as much as possible courses should be held at venues with relevant facilities and materials; courses should last at least one week to give teachers adequate time to study; the courses should be organized during holidays when teachers have sufficient time; the courses should be designed to provide teachers with new knowledge, skills and attitudes as this tends to motivate them; andragogical methods should be emphasized in INSET; a variety of media should be selected and used during the courses; follow up evaluation should be undertaken after every course to provide feedback for improving the courses.