A low hanging fruit

Tshwarelo Hosia | Monday April 28, 2025 16:13

The existence of two classes of subjects in the curriculum appears to be more of a perception rather than a reality. The attempt to make a distinction between, on the one hand, the so-called more taxing and exacting subjects and less rigorous and demanding subjects on the other hand is a creation of a very fertile imagination, devoid of any empirical evidence.

I used to have this illusion before I was properly grounded on curriculum matters. Before I began my five-year university education journey, I thought there were soft and easy programmes of study. While visiting a friend at the University of Botswana in 1987, I enquired about what programme of study he had chosen to pursue and he said a Bachelor’s of Arts in Humanities. Motivated by my naive and uneducated mind at the time, I confidently and unashamedly said he had selected an easy learning task.

Shocked and awed by my glaring drought of knowledge, he responded not in so many words that no programme of study in the University of Botswana was easy. If not fully convinced then my experiences and tussle with the same course in subsequent years confirmed this to be an incontrovertible truth. I thought this debate on classifying subjects had long been settled until my recent experiences proved me wrong.

I recently heaped praises on some teachers offering certain practical subjects for their instructional prowess as evidenced by a maintenance of a sustained culture of attainment of outstanding student learning outcomes. But someone whispered in my ear saying the good student outcomes should not be much of a surprise because the subjects in question are soft and easy. It dawned on me that the arbitrary classification of subjects that sub divides curriculum into two groups of hard and soft lingers on to this date.

When giving what I still consider well-deserved accolades to teachers who are doing well, I do it unapologetically. I did because I had no doubt in mind (and still don’t have) about the intimate connection between the teacher factor and student learning outcomes. The rigour of classroom is a serious game changer capable of sealing the fate of students for good or worse. It makes a difference when students fully apply themselves, parental influence also adds impetus but the quality of instruction makes a profound impact on the performance trajectory of students.

When subjected to a rigorous and inspiring instructional regimen, all students including the traditionally chronically low performing students stand a better chance of doing extremely better in managing and overcoming their learning hurdles they had previously perceived difficult. The role of a teacher as the instructional leader cannot be over emphasised in the teaching and learning process. Students achieve better and respond positively well when sufficiently challenged and encouraged by their subject and form teachers.

What should be borne in mind is that practical subjects have one comparative advantage, offering a unique and distinct learning experience. Students are hands on and not free passengers when attending practical subjects. They are actively involved in using the knowledge taught, raw materials provided to create something new. Creating in terms of Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy and the newly revised Anderson and Krathwhl’s hierarchy of educational objectives, represents the apex form of learning. It is so exciting and refreshing for a student to be in a practical oriented classroom environment. The attitude of students towards practical lessons is good as these are the only subjects perhaps offering them sufficient opportunity to express themselves and showcase what they themselves can bring to the classroom instruction.

With respect to other subject areas, there is more talk and less action. In most cases due to the need to complete the long and overcrowded syllabi, teachers cannot resist the temptation of dominating the talking sessions, which unfortunately leaves students feeling unengaged. It seems the question of whether some subjects are ‘easy’ and others ‘difficult’ often pops up whenever classroom practitioners have to account for student learning outcomes. In my view this question is irrelevant and borders on an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for whatever is taking place or not taking place in every subject area. There is no basis for comparison.

There is no easy or difficult subject. Students tend to fare badly or well in various subjects depending on their degree of student interests in the subjects and the extent to which their teachers bring their very whole and best selves in the teaching and learning rooms. We cannot therefore deny and withhold credit to teachers who are performing exceptionally well on account of the fundamentally flawed thinking, not backed up by scientific research and evidence that they are doing well because they teach easy subjects.

All subjects can be so easy or difficult to teach, learn and navigate depending on the quality of interactions between the teacher, student and content. The myth therefore of the existence of imaginary easy subjects does not hold any water. Each and every subject in the school curriculum deserves some modicum of respect. The reference to a subject as easy and less exacting borders on contempt and disrespect. All subjects made it to the curriculum because they can subject students to varying hierarchy of educational goals ranging from the most simple tasks to the most complex.

All subjects conform to Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills ranging from remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating. No subject is falling short of taking students across the hierarchy of the levels of difficulty. If you ask me, I would say credit should go to all classroom practitioners who try against all odds to successfully sell their subjects to students. The past generation of history teachers made history a very likeable and prestigious subject. Many students including who had a predisposition to do well in science subjects equally elected to do history. The attraction was the teacher factor, nothing more and less.

One can only encourage and wish well all classroom room practitioners who are obviously contending with challenges of shortage of critical teaching learning inputs and other conditions that continue to dog the education sector to soldier on and continue to make sacrifices for the good of the nation. Teachers should work together collaboratively and exchange best teaching practices. Students stand to benefit enormously from a united teaching force.