Stages of educational development? Beeby revisited

Abstract

-Beeby's model of stages of educational change in developing countries has been accepted into the educational literature with remarkably little critical analysis. Though valuable for a large number of experiential insights, the author argues that the model has certain weaknesses which should restrict its application. The stages have a teleological bias and are not sufficiently distinct, nor do the labels used for them meet the formal requirements of measuring scales. Furthermore, the model overgeneralizes from the experience of British-tradition South Pacific school systems, and the equation of western teaching with good teaching is an unsupported view which may not be valid in many countries. The most fundamental problem is the lack of clear distinction between empirical issues and the ethical judgements implicit in the formulation. However, the model has a number of positive features well worth building upon, such as its focus on the qualitative aspects of teaching and on qualitative change, the realistic emphasis on the gradualism of such change in practice, and the identification of the teacher as the key change agent in the classroom -a fundamental point often overlooked by innovators. The continua of general and professional education which underlie the teaching styles provide useful hypotheses for empirical analysis of the relationship between teacher education and classroom teaching style, but the association of this education with certain types of teaching style needs careful examination. Stripped of its evaluative connotations, Beeby's interest in qualitative change was a valuable early attempt to move attention in developing countries from linear, quantitative expansion of existing systems to a consideration of what was actually being taught and how. The real lesson to be learned from his work is that education should be paying closer attention to its theoretical propositions.R6sum~ -La th6orie de Beeby relative aux &apes de la transformation de l'enseignement dans les pays en d6veloppement a 6t6 accept6e dans la litt&ature sp6cialis6e sans que des analyses critiques approfondies en aient 6t6 faites. Bien qu'appr6ciable pour l'abondance des connaissances profondes bas6es sur l'exp6rience qu'elle fournit, cette th6orie de Beeby pr6sente toutefois bon hombre de probl6mes analytiques qui devraient en restreindre rapplication. Les &apes ont un patti pris t616ologique; elles ne sont pas suffisamment diff&enci6es, et leurs d6signations ne r6pondent pas aux critdres d'une 6chelle nominale. En outre, le mod61e a le d6faut de surg6ndraliser en s'appuyant sur l'exp6rience des systdmes scolaires dans le Pacifique sud de tradition britannique. Impliquer que l'enseignement occidental 6quivaut fi un 'bon' enseignement peut ne pas &re valable dans un grand nombre de pays. Le grand d6faut de ce mod61e est son incapacit6 fi 6tablir une distinction pr6cise entre les r6sultats empiriques et les jugements &hiques impticites dans sa formulation.Toutefois, il prbsente un grand nombre de traits positifs: l'insistenc...

Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries

“…Beeby's work is not without controversy or problems. Guthrie (1980) devotes a whole article to a critique of the model. One of the problems he expands on is the whole notion of distinct stages.…”

The Progressive Education Fallacy in Developing Countries

“…This empirically grounded research was based on a theoretically informed critique of C.E. Beeby's (1966) influential Stages of Educational Development -leading to a significant debate within the comparative and international literature of the day (Guthrie 1980;Beeby 1980;1986). This early work informs the present study, as revisited in Chapters 2 and 3.…”

Environmental education in third world schools: Rhetoric or realism?

“…They incorporated elements of 'progressive' teaching styles adopted in the West, such as student-centred learning strategies, project work, discussion groups, drama, games and simulations, and so on. Empirical evidence, however, suggests that teachers in many developing countries are at what Beeby calls 'the stage of formalism' (Musgrave, 1974;Guthrie, 1980). In such circumstances not only are such pedagogical styles unrealistic, but their attempted introduction, in the absence of a massive inservice training programme to support them, is likely to lead to confusion and demoralisation for teachers.…”