Home Elements for a Diagnosis of the Spanish Educational System
3 - Syllabus and teaching methods (end)


Previous Table of Contents Next


Differences in approach


TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Appraisals of the remaining groups of teachers supposes prior consideration of the differences within the schools. The differences due to experience are not excessive. On the contrary to what was initially expected, a technically more innovative talent was noted among the older teachers with more than 20 years experience.

The text book is highly valued and used by teachers with more than 20 years experience, while to a lesser extent than among those who have only been teaching for five years. Teachers with more than 20 years experience are more willing to accept and carry out syllabus adaptations and join the less experienced in the search for strategies to provide diversity (graph 19). These teachers are also those with the greatest appraisal of traditional and criteria evaluation (graph 20), the functional atmosphere and advisory bodies of an institutional nature. There is scarce difference in profile between the remaining categories by experience.



Graph 19. Differences due to diverse teaching experience



Graph 20. Differences in evaluation by experience




TEACHERS AND AREAS

Organisation of teachers in groups according to the areas taught gives rise to considerable differences.

The distances are not expressive in such aspects as generic valuation of teaching objectives and contents, with the sole exception of the discrepancy already stated between appraisal of the importance of each area and its timetable, which was stated above (graphs 2 and 3). This disparity has no projection on the results at statistical level.

There is no significant difference between the groups by subjects in the planning instruments and modes, nor in appraisal of comprehensiveness. The differences appear intensely in the facets related to resources, the teaching and evaluation activities and processes. This calls ones attention to the problem of special teaching methods.

Mathematics teachers are those who value and use material means the least: audiovisual, photocopiers, computers ..., and those who use them most are those in the area of technology. Text books, above all according to the greater or lesser availability of means, are more valued and used by language teachers.

Those most in favour of an innovative and participative methodology are Technology teachers, and the least Mathematics teachers. Those most in favour of a conventional methodology are Language teachers and the least, Technology ones. The teaching staff which is most in favour of lecturing is that in Social Sciences (graph 21).



Graph 21. Differences in methodologies by areas

Mathematics teachers are less inclined to evaluation and promotion of students based on the reform. The most favourable to traditional evaluation are Language teachers and the least Technology teachers, who are openly in favour of product evaluation (graph 22).



Graph 22. Differences in evaluation by area taught




THE TEACHING GROUPS

The most important differences between the groups of teachers come to rise in the comparison of the results according to the professional groups of origin. As aforementioned, the ESO has three coexisting groups according to the administrative body of origin and, even as to qualifications: Primary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers and Vocational Training Technical Teachers.

The greatest contrast is that between the group of Secondary Teachers and Primary Teachers. If one considers the concordances or discrepancies arising am the 31 dimensions obtained, in an evaluation that is essentially approximate in nature, the correlation between Primary and Secondary Teachers is negative, with a value that exceeds 0.60. This is a clearly divergent view between the two groups mentioned. It is not an exaggeration to conclude that the organisational culture of one group and the other, in terms of size, is very far apart.

The Primary School teacher has a greater appreciation - in a significantly different way to the Secondary School teacher - of the intentions of the LOGSE syllabus, flexibility of content (graph 23) and programming based on the reform. Lecturing as a teaching technique is accepted by secondary but not by primary school teachers. The latter have a positive appreciation of the factor known as "conventional methodology", while the others value it less. To be in favour of that methodology, according to the definition of the relevant dimension, implies acceptance of effort by the teacher to facilitate the students' learning.



Graph 23. Differences in "intentions" of the Reform by teaching groups

Primary teachers are more inclined to accept and perform syllabus adaptations and to accept integration than secondary teachers. From the viewpoint of evaluation and promotion, primary teachers are more in favour of evaluation and promotion based on the Reform and of performing a criteria based evaluation (graph 24. Lastly, they have a greater appreciation of provision and optimization of means and resources and understand the tutorial to be a fundamental teaching function in this stage of education that they consider themselves sufficiently qualified for.



Graph 24. Differences in evaluation according to the teaching group

The correlation between Primary Teachers and Vocational Training Technical Teachers is similar in nature. The discordancies are similar to those seen between primary and secondary school teachers. They also hold clashing, distant postures. However, there is no common ground between Vocational Training Technical Teachers and Secondary Education Teachers either: there is practically no correlation between these two groups.

The presence of three professional cultures that are so different may give rise to peculiar problems. The secondary culture is regulated, as may be seen, predominantly by transmission rather than participation, due to a sense that is selective more than generalising, a vision requiring effort by the student rather than facilitating matters. These adjectives, as a simple and scarcely detailed contrast, are nothing more than a synthesis of the differences in second level factor marks detected through analysis of the variance. Moreover, they have a reference one may consider identifiable as traditional features of a propaedeutic Baccalaureate for other levels of education. To compare ESO with Basic General Education (EGB) or Primary Education is not a whimful identification. ESO and Primary are levels of obligatory education. Baccalaureate is especially aimed at achieving "entrance to higher education".

If these disparities are added to the series of differences based on professional functions to be performed by some and others, in remunerations and working timetable, internal discrepancies within the schools could lead to situations of cultural fragmentation: it would be a derivation caused by the relatively low permeability between the groups rendered, the different ways of working noted, and the presence of a certain "group awareness".

Yet another factor must be pointed out. Secondary school teachers are not only caught up in the conflict mentioned within the schools. Their simultaneous involvement with the two modes of Secondary Education, the Obligatory and Baccalaureate, may require them to perform difficult double natured professional duties. One would have to perform individual evaluation of a session in Baccalaureate and a group one for those in ESO. One would have to act in a participative and facilitating manner in one class and transmissive and selective in another.

This almost instant change in the modal context is not easy to assimilate..

This problem of coexistence of subcultures within the school may be an interesting way of enrichening the group of teachers, if it may be adequately managed. However, it may also become the basis for a concerning disfunction.


Previous Table of Contents Next


© Instituto Nacional de Calidad y Evaluación (INCE)
calle San Fernando del Jarama, 14
E28002 MADRID
Tel: +34 91.745.9200
Fax: +34 91.745.9249
email: info@ince.mec.es