Pacing of knowledge: Pedagogic code, pedagogic discourse, and teachers’ experiences
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that post-apartheid curriculum reform has failed to produce the desired equity in performance. Research of classroom practice in curriculum reforms preceding the current curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) showed very slow pacing of knowledge as a cause for poor performance. Amongst other complex changes the CAPS regulates pacing of knowledge. Adherence to prescribed CAPS pacing has been enforced in schools via monitoring tools by hierarchical management structures. This study sought to investigate the impact of the new pacing regime on teaching and learning. The study is framed by Bernstein’s theory (2003) that pacing carries invisible social class assumptions and cognitivist theory on policy implementation (Spillane, 2002) that teacher’s individual cognition is influenced by situated cognition and policy signals. How does the new pacing regime impact the pedagogic code and pedagogic discourse in lessons? What are teachers’ views of how the new pacing regime impacts teaching and learning. Based in a qualitative research design and phenomenological case studies of classroom practice, in-depth interviews with teachers preceded by classroom observations provided the main data sources. Data analysis shows strong pacing of knowledge; impoverished pedagogic discourse and restricted opportunities to learn the elaborated pedagogic code. Curriculum policy on pacing and hierarchical monitoring of enactment of pacing bring to life a tyrannical regime of pacing that displaces the pedagogic goal of transmission and acquisition of specialized knowledge. Furthermore, teachers are solely focusing on keeping up with the prescribed pacing although they know that average and slower learners are not learning at that pace. These learners are being excluded from acquiring the elaborated pedagogic code, its abstract orientation to meaning and the specialization of their identity. It is highly possible that the current curriculum reform will fail to produce the desired social justice and equity in performance.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first non-exclusive publication rights granted to Journal of Education. Authors agree that any subsequent publication of the article will credit the Journal as the site of first publication and provide a link to the Journal website. Authors contributing to Journal of Education agree to publish their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, allowing third parties users to copy, distribute and transmit an article as long as the author is attributed, the article is not used for commercial purposes, and the work is not modified or adapted in any way, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this license are made clear. Note: Authors who may need to comply with the particular open access requirements of their funding bodies can apply to JoE for a more liberal licence, such as Creative Commons CC BY.