Stakeholders’ perspectives on the secondary school history curriculum towards national integration in Uganda.
Kakeeto, Mary Babirye
MetadataShow full item record
This study sought to establish the stakeholders’ perspectives on the role of the secondary school history curriculum in promoting national integration in Uganda. Specifically, the study set out to determine the extent to which; the objectives of the history curriculum, the content, teaching methods and assessment/evaluation promote national integration. Accordingly, three null hypotheses and one research question highlighting the above elements (objectives, content, methods and assessment/evaluation) were tested. The study was guided by the positivism epistemology and was essentially quantitative by methodology and a cross-sectional survey by design. Objective one was achieved by means of research question while objectives two, three, and four were achieved by means of hypotheses testing. For triangulation purposes, however, qualitative methods were employed to explore the perspectives of the stakeholders in more depth. Data was collected from a cross-section of 734 randomly and purposively selected respondents; comprising students, history teachers, NCDC and UNEB officials as well as UNEB history examiners. Results for objective one indicate a mismatch between the broad aims and objectives of teaching history as a subject of study and the specific lesson objectives at the classroom level. It was established that instead of focusing on the broad aims that emphasize national integration, the teachers of history place more emphasis on knowledge transmission and acquisition for examination purposes. As regards objective two, tested by hypothesis one: ‘‘History content does not influence students’ attitude towards national integration,’’ the null hypothesis was rejected in the Chi Square test of independence at a p-value of .000 and α = 0.05. This therefore implies that the history subject content taught at the secondary school level has positive but low influence on promoting national integration. Objective three that was tested by hypothesis two: ‘‘History methods do not influence students’ attitude towards national integration;’’ the Ho was accepted in the Chi Square test of independence at a p-value of 0. 351 and α = 0.05. This implies that the way history is taught does not influence students’ attitudes towards national integration. Lastly, objective four, tested by hypothesis three: ‘‘History assessment/evaluation does not influence students’ attitude towards national integration’’ was rejected in the Chi Square test of independence at a p-value of .044 and α = 0.05. This implies that the way history learning is assessed/evaluated has a moderate influence on students’ attitude towards national integration. On the basis of the study findings, the study concludes that the history curriculum has negligible influence in promoting students’ attitudes towards national integration. The study recommends the need to harmonize: the instructional objectives, the content structure and organization, the methods of teaching, and assessments/evaluation with the broad aims and objectives of teaching the history subject at secondary school level; notable of which is the promotion of national integration.