Contextualizing Teaching Methods in Africa

by Earle and Dorothy Bowen

Much is being said about contextualizing our material in theological education. Scholars tell us to “Africanize” or “Asianize” our courses. We readily admit that our courses should be contextualized within the constraint of biblical absolutes, of course.

Much is being said about contextualizing our material in theological education. Scholars tell us to “Africanize” or “Asianize” our courses. We readily admit that our courses should be contextualized within the constraint of biblical absolutes, of course.

But lost in this discussion is an equally important matter: contextualizing our teaching methods. If we contextualize our subjects, but fail to do the same for our methods, Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans will not learn as well as they might otherwise.

Before the Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology (NEGST) took its first student, the first principal and project director, Tony Wilmot, wrote: “We do not regard Western educational methodology as necessarily the best, and we consider that the unadjusted employment of Western methodology will not train an African.”¹

A.B. Fafunwa writes that in all developing countries priority should be given to integrating “certain aspects of the traditional education . . . into the imported European systems.”²

Unfortunately, missionary educators, for the most part, have not done this, especially in theological education. From our African vantage point, we would say that our students have had to adapt themselves to their instructors’ teaching methods, regardless of their own learning styles.

To take one basic difference, consider this helpful analysis by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, speaking to the Fifteenth World Methodist Conference (1986) in Nairobi:

It is important…to note the differences in the African perception and that of the Westerner…the Westerner is largely analytical, whereas the African tends to be synthetical…the Westerner breaks tings up and the other tends to see things as wholes. That is why Westerners can be such very good scientists, but they are not so good at putting things back together. The African may be good at seeing the woods, but most often will miss the significance of the individual trees. The Westerner will tend to be cerebral, whereas the African gives great play to feelings. The former, particularly in his worship may be cold and intellectual, while the latter might be emotional and warm, sticking loosely to intellectual content. The Westerner emphasizes the individual person, whereas the African will give an important place to the community. The one encourages initiative—-the Western view-—and is concerned about individual liberties, whereas the latter tends to stifle personal initiative for fear of being out of step with the herd. The Westerner will usually be lonely in a crowd, whereas the African comes into his own as a communal being and would understand what King David meant when he spoke about the “bundle of life.”³

We accepted these basic, general differences as hypotheses for our research. In both West Africa and East Africa we tried to identify the predominant African learning style. Then we proposed appropriate, contextualized teaching methods for our theological education.

We tested 205 students at four theological colleges and three government secondary schools. All were post-secondary, pre-degree students. They came from United Missionary Theological College, Ilorin, Nigeria; ECWA Theological Seminary, Igbaja, Nigeria; Moffat College of Bible, Kijabe, Kenya; Kenya Highlands Bible college, Kericho, Kenya; St. Anthony’s Secondary School, Ilorin, Nigeria; Kijabe High School, Kijabe, Kenya; and Kericho High School, Kericho, Kenya.

According to our first test, 91 percent of the students were field-dependent, compared to nine percent who were field-independent. (We’ll explain these terms later.) Geographically, there was a slight difference; 100 percent of the Nigerians were field-dependent, compared to 84 percent of the Kenyans. There was also a small difference between theological students (97 percent field-dependent) and secondary school students (83 percent field-dependent).

In our second instrument, we found these basic learning styles: Africans have a visual rather than an auditory orientation. They prefer structure and guidance from their teachers. They learn from group discussion and from small-group interaction. They dislike lectures and prefer both hand-outs and hands-on experiences.

What do we mean by “learning styles”? Boiling down a lot of scholarly discussion, you can say that your learning style is how you take in information; how you perceive, remember, think; how you apprehend, store, transform and use information.

Most research has been done on field-dependent and field-independent learning styles. This is how they differ: Field-dependent people approach situations “globally,” that is, they see the whole instead of the parts. They rely on external referents to guide them in processing information. They have a social orientation.

On the other hand, field-independent people approach their tasks analytically, separating the elements. They pay more attention to internal referents and are less influenced by social factors. (For a complete list of their preferences, see Table 1).

—-

Table 1

Preferences of field-dependent/field-independent students*

Field-dependent
1. Display of physical and verbal expressions of approval and warmth
2. Use of personalized rewards
3. Expressions of confidence in student’s ability
4. Teacher who gives guidance; makes purpose and main principles of lesson obvious
5. Teacher who encourages learning through modeling
6. Teacher who encourages cooperation and development of group feeling
7. Informal class discussions relating concepts to students’ experiences
8. Global aspects of concepts: clearly explained performance objectives
9. Personalized and humanized curriculum
10. Class discussion
11. Intergroup interaction
12. Small group tasks
13. Use of outline
14. Close supervision and direction
15. Planned questioning; prefers not to have to express ideas “on his feet”
16. Feedback to improve performance
17. Organization in order to aid performance; lack of organization hinders performance
18. Field experiences

Field-independent
1. Formal student-teacher relationships
2. Instructional objectives; social atmosphere secondary
3. Teacher who encourages independent student achievement
4. Teacher who encourages competition between students
5. Teacher as consultant
6. Trial and error learning
7. Task orientation
8. Details, facts and principles
9. Graphs, charts and formulas
10. Inductive learning and discovery approach
11. Lecture and learning through discovery
12. Working alone; dislikes small group tasks
13. Freedom to create own structure and or/outline
14. Distant supervision and less direction
15. Impromptu questioning; can express ideas “on his feet”
16. Teacher as subject authority
17. Not dependent on feedback
18. Minimum amount of time in discussion; dislikes discussion

* D.N. Bowen (1984). Cognitive Styles of African Theological Students and the Implication of Those Styles for Bibliographic Instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, p. 10.
——

Keep in mind that one’s learning style has nothing to do with his or her intelligence and ability. However, knowing your student’s basic learning styles can enhance your teaching effectiveness and their learning immensely.

Most learning style research has been done in the West, where we find the population pretty evenly split between field-dependent and field-independent. However, field-independent students have the edge in the United States because the educational system is geared their way.

Since many missionary theological educators are either Westerners, or have been educated in the West, it stands to reason that only those Africans, or Asians, or Latin Americans who either have the Western learning style, or learn to cope with it, are being rewarded.

Learning what we did about Africans, we asked ourselves, So what? What difference should the preponderance of field-dependent students make in the way we teach? Here’s what we decided:

• Make course outlines. Field-dependent students must be able to see the planning for the whole course at one time, because they think “globally.”

• Explain the entire course: what the student will be expected to learn and why. State course objectives clearly.

• Preview the material to be learned in each lesson: briefly tell what will be covered in that class period. Write and hand out objectives for each chapter and each daily lesson, because Africans are more visual than auditory. Give some daily overview.

• Identify the important points in a lesson, because field-dependent students are not analytical. They must be trained to do this.

• Encourage frequent feedback and give frequent reinforcement.

• Work with small rather than large units, because field-dependent students handle small modules easier.

• Give strong correction and support (this may be hard to do if you are a field-independent teacher), because field-dependent students are more sensitive to the praise and criticism of others-—both peers and instructors-—than are field-independent students.

• Emphasize group projects, group discussion, and working in pairs. African students work best that way. They do not do their best work alone. Encourage students to work together, study together, and do assignments together. Of course, tests are done individually.

• Give adequate structure and direction for projects.

• Provide textbooks or duplicated notes. Africans are more visual than auditory. Asking them to take lecture notes is unwise. If all else fails, write your notes on the board.

• Use numerous visual aids—-pictures, charts, posters, models—-not only to boost learning, but to ensure that any learning takes place at all.

• Give grades, praise and criticism, because field-dependent students are reinforced by external rather than internal motivators. In African classes, do more frequent grading than usual to improve learning.

• Be a model and an example. Students will learn more from your example than from your lectures about how to behave.

• Be clear and precise in your instructions. Field-dependent students prefer to do things the way they have been told, rather than do them their own way. Don’t frustrate them by saying, “Do it any way you like.”

• Avoid lectures, the weakest method with Africans. If you do lecture at all, be sure to give hand-outs, pictures, examples and illustrations.

• Relate your material to people, to real-life situations, because Africans learn best in social orientations.

• Use criterion-referenced grading. Base grades on students’ performance in relation to previously set standards, not in competition with others. Field-dependent students rarely benefit from competition.

In spite of the fact that some students can learn to adjust to teaching methods that do not fit their learning styles, it is foolish to assume that this will happen. Missionary teachers cannot assume that their students will learn simply because they present their material, especially if their teaching does not fit their students’ learning style.

Our task as theological educators is too important to leave the outcome to chance. We can do much more than just hope our students will learn. Teachers in both West and East Africa can contextualize their methods to provide the maximum learning opportunities for their students.

Endnotes
1. A.T. deB. Wilmot, “Guidelines for Faculty and Other Staff.” Unpublished manuscript, Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology (Nairobi: NEGST, 1983).

2. 2. A.B. Fafunwa, ed., Education in Africa: A Comparative Survey. (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1982), pp. 12, 14.

3. Desmond Tutu, “God’s Kingdom of Righteousness.” In proceedings of the Fifteenth World Methodist Conference, Nairobi, Kenya, 1986 (World Methodist Council, 1987), p. 161.

Bibliography
Bowen, D.N. “Cognitive Styles of African Theological Students and Implications of Those Styles for Bibliographic Instruction.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1984.

Bowen, E.A. “Cognitive Styles of African Students.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1984.

Cross, K.P., Accent on Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1976.

Even, M. J. “Cognitive Style Theory in Practice.” Life Long Learning, The Adult Years, January, 1971, pp. 14-17.

Fafunwa, A.B., ed. Education in Africa: A Comparative Survey. London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1982.

Hovey, R. L. “Cognitive Styles in African Cultures: The Global Articulated Dimension.” Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

Warren, J.R. “Adapting Instruction to Styles of Learning.” Findings, 1974, p. 1.

Witkin, H.A., C.A. Moore, P.K. Oltman, D.R. Goodenough, F. Friedman, D.R. Owen, and E. Raskin. “Role of the Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Style in Academic Evolution: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 69, 1977, pp. 197-211.

—–

Earle and Dorothy Bowen serve at the Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology. Earle’s doctoral research (Florida State University) was designed to determine the learning style of African students. Dorothy’s (also Florida State University) was a parallel study in bibliographic instruction. Earle has been academic dean since 1985; Dorothy is director of the library.

Copyright © 1989 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ. Published: July 1989 EMQ Vol. 25-3 pp 270-275
For Reprint permissions beyond personal use, please visit our STORE (here)

Comments are closed.