Microsoft Word - Middle Ground of Curriculum-original


 

African Journal of Teacher Education 

ISSN 1916-7822. A Journal of Spread Corporation 
 

Volume 8      2019     Pages 111-138 

 

The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in 

Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 

Charles A. Oppong,
1
 Moses Allor Awinsong,

2
 & Stephen Kwakye Apau

3
 

1
College of Education Studies, University of Cape Coast, Ghana. 

2
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. 

3
University of Education, Winneba, Ghana. 

 

 

Abstract  

This study explores Ghanaian history teachers’ experiences of the "middle ground of 

curriculum; a crucial stage of curriculum negotiation and a process, according to  Harris 

(2002), that includes what “teachers individually and collectively perceived and enacted. . . 

prior to classroom implementation” The study employed the concurrent parallel design (Quan-

qual). The researchers collected quantitative data from sixty history teachers in Cape Coast 

Metropolis through the census method. Six teachers were randomly selected from the sixty to 

participate in the qualitative phase of the study. The quantitative data was analysed descriptively 

(means and standard deviations) while the qualitative data was analysed based on emerging 

themes. The findings revealed that the history departments through departmental relation, 

subject conceptualisation and governance influence the ways in which teachers negotiate the 

formal curriculum prior to teaching. More specifically, the study established the interaction of 

these variables that shape history teachers’ decision-making on the middle ground of the 

curriculum. The study, therefore, showed that the internalisation of curriculum change is a 

                                                           
1
  *Dr. Charles A. Oppong is a Senior lecturer of history education and curriculum studies at the College of 

Education Studies of the University of Cape Coast, Ghana.  
2 
*Moses Allor Awinsong is a Teaching Fellow at the Department of History, University of Saskatchewan with 

interests in international studies, education, history, and policy analysis 
3
*Stephen Kwakye Apau is an Assistant Lecturer in the Faculty of Educational Studies, University of Education, 

Winneba, Ghana. His interests are in history education, curriculum research, and secondary education. 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 112 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

dynamic process that is evidenced at all levels of curriculum change – the high ground, middle 

ground of the curriculum, and lower ground. 

Key words: Subject department, middle ground of curriculum, departmental relation, subject 

conceptualisation, departmental governance.  

 

Introduction 

The development of the curriculum is normally the responsibility of policy makers through the 

appropriate regulatory institution (Ball, 2012; Goodson, 1994). The 2007 Education Reforms of 

Ghana, for instance, witnessed the production of curriculum materials by the Curriculum 

Research and Development Division of the Ghana Education Service (GES). The Curriculum 

Research and Development Division determines what should be taught, the learning experiences 

to encourage, and the ends that must be sought by all agents of education (Kuyini, 2013). 

However, the process of curriculum changes in Ghana over the years stressed the provision of 

resources for teaching rather than a retooling and retraining of the main agents, teachers, to carry 

out the mandates or specifications of the formal curriculum (Kadingdi, 2006). This has made it 

difficult for teachers to undertake the gathering, organizing, and deploying of available teaching 

resources because sometimes they lack knowledge or training for the implementation of new 

reforms, particularly in the reforms' early years.(Harris, 2005). But it is the school resources and 

teacher-initiated activities that ensure effective curriculum implementation in the classroom. 

How teachers understand the formal curriculum and their use of resources to transmit knowledge 

in the classroom is what Harris (2002) describes as the middle ground of the curriculum. 

This study locates the middle ground of the curriculum between the high ground 

curriculum (the formal construction of the written curriculum) and its lower ground-level 

(implementation in the classroom). The middle ground of the curriculum acknowledges the 

dynamic interaction between these varying levels of curricula and the role of teachers as active 

participants in the interpretation and enactment of the curriculum (Harris, 2002). In the Ghanaian 

educational context, this space is dominated not only by teachers’ decoding of the high 

curriculum but their ability to deploy scarce resources to meet the goals set out by the formal 

curriculum in ways which grant them agency to shape practice (Lovat & Smith, 1991). This 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 113 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

space, therefore, serves as a political resource for teachers to interpret and re-interpret the high 

ground of curriculum at the micro level of practice (Ball & Bowe, 1992; Goodson, 1983).  

There are, however, differences in the way teachers understand and perceive the 

curriculum, and how they implement it in classroom through teaching. Here, the middle ground 

of the curriculum includes the various consultation teacher make, their choices of teaching 

resources, recommendations to students and parents on what to read, their relations with each 

other, and their approach to and understanding of the subject’s intellectual breadth, and how to 

make complex problems easy for digestion by students. Invariably, teachers’ ability to engage 

effectively in all these pre-teaching phase interactions allow for a negotiation to be made with 

the formal curriculum in ways that enable its implementation within the specific community and 

the school contexts that teachers find themselves. Harris (2005) identified three factors that 

define the middle ground of the curriculum namely, sites, contexts and processes. This study is 

framed within the site variable conceptualized as the subject department. The subject department 

is the site in which teachers most often form collegial relationships and develop shared social 

norms (Siskin, 1994). These social norms can promote cohesion and support teachers’ 

understanding of the received (high ground) curriculum. Subject departments shape how the 

teaching and learning aims of the formal curriculum are addressed, achieved and sustained for 

generations through the brewing of norms peculiar to the department. So important are these 

subject departments that Clark (1987) referred to them as “small worlds, different worlds.” On 

his part, O’Boyle (2000) notes that subject departments are places where a strong sense of social 

and professional ties are built among teachers which reinforce teachers’ marquee position in the 

field of education. The History subject department recognises the workplace as of the greatest 

significance to history teachers as it “collects teachers of like subject-area interests, expertise and 

professional language” (Grimmett & Neufeld, 1994, p. 34).  

Mulford (2003) suggests that the interaction among teachers in their subject departments 

shape teachers 'curriculum decision-making. Teachers’ individual and collective perceptions of 

the nature and number of decisions available to them are evident in the micro-political processes 

through which they negotiate the curriculum. These processes are theorized along departmental 

relations; subject conceptualization; and departmental governance practices. These are, therefore, 

major starting points for comprehending the middle ground of the curriculum in schools. In this 

regard, the current study seeks to examine History departments’ role in the negotiation of the 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 114 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

high curriculum before classroom implementation. Specifically, an attempt is made to examine 

how teachers interpret and reinterpret curriculum to suit their understanding.  

The Purpose of the Research  

A myriad of reasons account for History teachers’ individual and collective impression, grasp, 

and subsequent negotiations of the history curriculum prior to classroom implementation. Firstly, 

the success or otherwise of history teaching across a country is informed by mediating factors in 

the process of decoding the nation's curriculum in schools. Secondly, knowledge of the middle 

ground of curriculum in Ghanaian schools could provide information on what areas of staff 

capacity building interventions could help improve the teaching of history.  This allows for a re-

concentration of attention on an important neglected part of curriculum implementation aside 

from the usual focus of research on the formal and ground level curriculum (Cobbold & Opong, 

2010; Goodson, 1994; Kwarteng, 2011). This study thus replicates Goodson's (1994) British and 

Harris's (2002) Australian examination of the middle ground of curriculum in the context  of the 

Ghanaian school system. This internationalizes the study of the concept for the benefit of the 

educational systems of developing economies. It also popularizes this process in order to spread 

awareness and elicit policy responses and interventions for better curriculum enactment in 

Ghanaian schools. We examine History departments’ role in the interposition between the formal 

curriculum and lower ground curriculum in schools. Hence, how teachers interpret and 

reinterpret curriculum before teaching is the central focus of this study. 

Context 

In Ghanaian high schools, the teaching of history is traced back to the colonial school system 

where much of what was taught was British history. In postcolonial Ghana, the focus shifted to 

the teaching of Afrocentric history highlighting African and Ghanaian achievements in many 

areas. Ghanaian senior high school history departments are staff based on the number of students 

taking the course. Due to low enrolment of students over the past two decades, the number of 

history teachers has reduced considerably (Cobbold & Opong, 2010).  Nonetheless, a history 

departmental culture and outlook remain pervasive in Ghanaian schools even where there are 

only two or three teachers (Amengor, 2011). Where there are fewer students taking history, 

schools tend to combine History departments with others such as Government, Social Studies 

and Economics to allow for effective collegial bonds, resources maximization, and improvement 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 115 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

of contact hours. Trained history teachers may therefore end up teaching other subjects in 

addition to history. Within such contexts, teachers are still able to negotiate the history 

curriculum with other trained history teachers who might not necessarily be teaching the subject 

due to the small class sizes in recent years. In this sense, the negotiations made of the formal 

curriculum for history teaching in Ghanaian senior high schools differ from the Australian and 

British contexts examined by Harris and Goodson where history departments are staffed with 

teachers teaching the subject throughout the school year. Thus, in Ghana’s senior high school 

system, the middle ground of curriculum implies negotiations of the formal curriculum not just 

among teachers teaching History but with other teachers who, though trained as History teachers, 

might not be teaching the subject. And as Eshun and Mensah (2013) note, the mastery teachers 

make of the formal curriculum impact their choices of teaching approaches and resources. These 

professional impressions and understanding of the curriculum and the corresponding adoptions 

and adaptations do, in the long term, become a salient part of the culture of teaching a subject in 

schools. This means that the middle ground of curriculum in Ghanaian schools invariably draws 

on interdisciplinary subcultures without diluting the quality of history teaching.  

In this study, we used teachers who teach history and other subjects in the same cognate 

subject department in Ghanaian schools. This gave us insight into how departmental cultures for 

the teaching of history are established and sustained. This brought us closer to understanding the 

site and context within which history teaching is done while allowing for generalization about 

similar sites and contexts to be made about the Ghanaian school system. We focus our 

examination of the middle ground of curriculum in Ghana on three main points namely, 

departmental relations, subject conceptualization, and departmental governance.  The ways in 

which history teachers interpret and reinterpret the history curriculum through these three 

parameters before teaching it in the classroom are interrogated deeply and interpretations made 

of them.  

The middle ground of curriculum 

The middle ground of curriculum, as Harris (2002) indicated, is what “teachers individually and 

collectively perceived and enacted...prior to classroom implementation” of a given curriculum 

document. As the name suggests, it is located between the high ground of curriculum (the formal 

or written curriculum) and the lower ground of curriculum (classroom implementation). The 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 116 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

middle ground of the curriculum was first theorized by Ivor Goodson in 1994. Without rejecting 

Harris’ contention that the subject department is the most important site where interaction and 

reinterpretation of the curriculum occur, we add that the Ghanaian context shows that the middle 

ground of curriculum can be experienced within an interdisciplinary subject department of 

cognate areas of teaching such as Humanities, Social Science and Human/Biological Sciences. 

We also make an important theoretical contribution to the field of curriculum enactment by 

designing a construct that explains how the formal curriculum is mediated in the subculture 

before classroom implementation. Whilst it is broadly acknowledged that curriculum change 

often takes place before classroom implementation (McLachlan, Fleer, & Edwards, 2018; 

Parkay, Anctil, & Hass, 2014), this study will explore how departmental relation, subject 

conceptualization and departmental governance as salient variables in the middle ground of the 

curriculum, play significant roles in curriculum mediation. Through the framework shown in 

figure 1, the dimensions of the history subject department as experienced by history teachers is 

illuminated. The middle ground of curriculum framework provided here is an emergent design 

by the researchers. We add understanding to both Goodson’s and Harris’ examinations of this 

concept of the middle ground of the curriculum.  

Departmental Relation 

Departmental relation refers to social and professional interaction and engagements that take 

place among teachers in the same subject department. Warm interpersonal relationship within the 

subject department is a subject subculture variable that nourishes the realization of the middle 

ground of curriculum. For instance, Wang (2015) argued that well-arranged school structures 

boost teacher collegiality which in turn furthers collective enquiry, responsibility and 

subsequently guarantee effective teaching. He found that a cooperative relationships among 

teachers benefit students when such arrangements are not imposed form above but were the 

result of intentional organization of the school or departmental space to foster interaction among 

teachers. Similarly, Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, and Grissom (2015) found that a good 

relationship exists between the breadth of teachers’ instructional collaboration and students 

achievements. While this study does not show how collaboration affected the quality of 

understanding of syllabi, it shows that teachers improved professionally when they team up with 

others to address professional needs in the design of instructions.  A study by UK's Department 

for Education and Skills (2002) also revealed that 80% of the teachers felt that support and co-



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 117 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

operation from departmental colleagues had greatly impacted their work as professionals. 

Reeves, Pun, and Chung (2017) similarly confirmed that student achievement and teacher 

satisfaction with their job were predicated on how effective teachers collaborated both in 

designing instructions and observing each other during teaching. Reeves, Pun, and Chung (2017) 

therefore concluded that not all collaborative activities may produce desirable results. Rather, 

schools and teachers need to identify the areas of collaboration among them that produce 

substantial professional results. Deductively, we see that sincere, trustworthy relations among 

teachers in a subject department constitute an important means by which curriculum documents 

are decoded through the shared meaning made of them by teachers in deliberation with each 

other.  

O’Boyle (2000) suggested that an absence of discussions and meetings on teaching 

methods, learning outcomes, and assessment instruments, would result in individualism and 

could negatively affect departmental success in the implementation of curriculum. The success 

or otherwise of a subject department in implementing syllabi documents stems from the bonded, 

interpersonal relationship among teachers and how that relationship supports information 

sharing, instructional collaboration and other professional engagements.  Doppenberg, den Brok, 

and Bakx (2012) also add that the frequency of dialogue among teachers and the varying aims of 

those discussions inform the effectiveness teachers perceive  of those collaborations. In other 

words, the frequency of engagement and diversity of concerns resolved from time to time in 

collaborative teams help deepen teacher cooperation in gaining shared knowledge of the formal 

curriculum and taking responsibility to implement it well.  Siskin (1994)  refers to departments 

with commendable teacher working relations as “bonded departments”. And this working bond 

informs teachers’ interpretation and negotiation of the formal curriculum document for effective 

implementation in classrooms.  

Collegiality’s role in achieving meaningful middle ground of the curriculum cannot 

therefore be underestimated. Discussions and interactions among teachers may include teaching 

methods, instructional resources, clinical observations, supporting roles from other teachers in 

class, and creating rare teaching and learning resources for curriculum implementation. 

Respectable, trustworthy and confidential relationships among teachers in a subject department 

create a social context in that site within which teachers act collectively to realize formal 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 118 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

curriculum objectives. Thus, social and professional interactions in the subject department are a 

subculture prerequisite which molds the way the middle ground of curriculum is achieved. 

Subject Conceptualization 

Subject conceptualization specifies teachers understanding and perceptions of the subject they 

teach. It includes the nature, scope and importance of the subject they teach. These 

understandings that teachers possess about their subjects constitute a crucial subculture variable 

that mediates the formal curriculum and ground level curriculum. Beswick (2012) explains that 

mathematics teachers’ “beliefs about the nature of mathematics influence the ways in which 

they teach the subject.” He contends that teachers understanding of mathematics as a school 

subject differ significantly from the discipline as it is known among mathematicians. This 

implies that there might exist a gap between what teachers learn in training and what they 

teach in schools. That gap has huge potential to shape the practice of teaching in the classroom. 

Where a curriculum document dwells much on the discipline as it is rather than how it might be 

taught in schools, teacher collaboration is key to supporting the decoding of the document into 

teachable forms that support students’ growth in knowledge of the discipline. And it is that 

decoding and practicalizing that highlight the curriculum’s middle ground occupied by teachers 

and their subject departments. Also, Douglas (2011) submitted that teachers’ perception of the 

subject, such as its status and scope, significantly tells how they teach it. The decisions on the 

methods to adopt, assessment tools, and classroom organization are all made based on the 

perception teachers make of their subject. In a study of teachers’ relationship to their subjects, 

John (2005) concluded that teachers’ perception of the subject influences their views of student 

academic progression and how their subjects ought to be taught. For instance, history teachers 

may think that the history subject is structured chronologically therefore, if a student fails to 

understand Form One concepts, the student would find it difficult to appreciate Form Three 

abstract generalizations. Again, English teachers may think that the content of the English 

curriculum is too broad as far as the goals of reading, writing and speaking are concerned. These 

discrete forms of perceptions may inform teachers’ preparation and implementation of the 

curriculum` in the classroom.  

Stodolsky and Grossman (1995, p. 6) add clarity to this as they argue that “these 

conceptions of subject matter create a ‘conceptual context’ that helps frame the work of high 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 119 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

school teachers and mediates their responses to reform proposals”. For example,  teachers 

willingness to employ information and communication technology (ICT) in teaching is heavily 

influenced by their perception of their subject and its ability to accommodate changes 

(Prestridge, 2012). In an observation of three English teachers in Australia, Ningsih and Fata, 

(2015) found that specific methodological choices of teachers emerged from their pre-established 

views of English as a school subject. Here, the conception teachers make of their subject enable 

them select resources, tools, and approaches to teaching that work best for them in each 

circumstance. For this reason, teachers’ belief systems about their teaching subject augment how 

they implement the formal ground curriculum.  

In the Ghanaian environment, similar experiences of teacher beliefs about the subjects 

exist. As Akyeampong (2017) noted recently, the grasp teachers make of mathematics determine 

their choice of particular methods and approaches in delivering mathematics instructions to 

primary school pupils. While difficulties remain on how to efficaciously incorporate learner-

centered pedagogies in the teaching process, teachers’ methods show that certain intimations of 

the subject ground them in some approaches rather than others. Buabeng-Andoh and Yidana 

(2015), for instance, add that teachers teaching approaches in Ghanaian schools remain highly 

teacher-centered. In their study, Buabeng-Andoh and Yidana (2015) discovered that these 

teacher-centered approach were responsible for the limited accommodation made for information 

and communication technology in teaching in Ghanaian schools. However, the ambivalence they 

saw can be explained as emanating from teachers’ impressions about their subjects and whether 

technology could have grave consequence on their ability to transmit intended subject matter. All 

these calculations form part of the decoding of the formal curriculum teachers do based on their 

grasp of their teaching subjects. Subject conceptualization, therefore, forms an important part of 

mediation between the formal and ground curriculum called the middle ground of curriculum. 

The conceptualizations that teachers make of the subject matter mediate what formal designers 

of the curriculum think and, how teachers perceive them to be as well as how to teach them 

based on their grasp of the subject.  

Departmental Governance 

Departmental governance relates to how subject departments are run for the purposes of 

academic work in schools. Departmental heads and instructional leadership are used 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 120 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

interchangeably in this paper because they are both linked to leadership in schools. The middle 

ground of curriculum metaphor is actualized within educational settings when effective 

departmental governance facilitates teachers’ ability to negotiate the curriculum towards 

implementation. In a large scale study in Kenya, Wanzare (2012) sought to examine how 

headteachers and supervisors perceived instructional supervision in schools. While there was 

consensus that internal instructional supervision sought to meet regulatory requirements, there 

were benefits such as advanced teacher competence and improved students’ academic 

performance. The act of internal instructional supervision serves as a check on how the formal 

curriculum is decoded and whether other sharers of instructional power mainly headteachers or 

departmental leaders add to the process of negotiating the formal curriculum before classroom 

implementation. School leaders also possess inspirational influences on teachers’ ability to and 

actual negotiation of the formal curriculum (Spillane & Kim, 2012). In a study in an American 

suburban school district, Spillane and Kim (2012) posited that the key position occupied by 

school leaders empower them to not only share instructional power with teachers but they are 

also able to inspire relations among teachers in ways that further collaboration and professional 

cooperation.  

 A reason for department leaders’ effectiveness in shaping curriculum negotiation come 

from teachers’ perception of these leaders as experienced minds in the subject area, according to 

Leithwood (2016). This is because departmental leaders invariably garner experience in the 

teaching of the subject over years prior to their appointment in most schools. They expend the 

legitimacy extended to them by teachers to lead the process of decoding the high curriculum 

together with teachers in the enactment process (Siskin, 1997). Lochmiller (2016) highlights this 

in his study which concluded that school administrators’ instructional feedback to teachers build 

on the commentators’ own experience of teaching the subject. The effect is that over time, 

distinct subcultures emerge in those departments that may inspire how particular curricula are 

received, decoded and implemented. While Lochmiller (2016) found it problematic that 

feedbacks to teachers emphasized pedagogy rather than content knowledge, the overall act of 

engaging in conversations about instructional methods buttresses the significance of leadership 

in the subject department in the negotiation of the curriculum. John and La Velle (2004) 

suggested that such pedagogical decisions are informed as much by subject departments leaders. 

Gordon (2008) also made the point that even the choice of pedagogies or methods depend on the 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 121 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

professional leadership available to teachers in the department. When efficient departmental 

leadership supports teachers’ pedagogical decisions, the choices made are invariably a mediation 

of what a formal curriculum sets down and specific local conditions or contexts within which 

instructions take place. 

 Though there is research paucity on departmental leadership in the Ghanaian educational 

context (Donkor, 2015; Kwadzo Agezo, 2010), Baffour-Awuah (2011) found that instructional 

supervision guidelines set out under the Ghana Education Service are archaic. Teachers, 

however, did well to practice instructional supervision and those experiences were useful to 

improving professional growth in the teachers’ estimation. Instructional supervision therefore 

constitute one way teachers gauge their maturity and grasp of a formal curriculum through the 

collective feedback from departmental leaders, headteachers and others. Donkor (2015) indicated 

that school leaders better support the attainment of educational goals when they demonstrate 

skills and experience of effective classroom practice. This expertise legitimizes their 

instructional and other professional input that they give to teachers. Clearly, that sharing of 

professional experience will, over time, embed into the subject department’s teaching culture. 

Such cultures could superimpose themselves on how curriculum documents are read, understood 

and practiced. That middling in the curriculum implementation process reinforces the power of 

site and context of the subject department in the negotiation of formal curricula documents. 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 122 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

 

  

Figure 1: Representation of Curriculum Negotiation between the Middle Ground of Curriculum 

and the Formal and Lower Ground Curriculum. 

 

The figure demonstrates how the three factors of subject conceptualization, departmental 

governance, and staff relations mediate the high and lower ground curriculum in the process we 

have referred to as the middle ground of curriculum. Teachers’ conceptual understanding of the 

subject, teacher relations and the quality of departmental leadership are central to the negotiation 

History teachers make between the high ground curriculum and the ground level curriculum. 

Thus, we have theoretically established that three interrelated variables - departmental relation, 

subject conceptualization, and departmental governance - impact history teachers’ interpretations 

and negotiation of the history curriculum document. A well-structured and responsive subject 

department is thus, an important step in the middling of the curriculum that facilitate the 

attainment of curriculum goals. 

 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 123 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

Methodological Considerations 

The mixed method paradigm was used for this study. Specifically, the study employed the 

concurrent parallel design (Quan-qual). This design was found to be the most appropriate as the 

researchers sought to triangulate the methods by directly comparing quantitative results with 

qualitative findings for corroboration and validation purposes. In the collection of survey data, 

we employ the census method to collect data from sixty history teachers in the Cape Coast 

Metropolis. Subsequently, six history teachers who participated in the survey phase were 

conveniently selected for interviews. The six teachers selected represented 10% of the 60 used, 

and according to Creswell (1998), this is considered as appropriate.  

The instruments employed to collect data were questionnaire and semi-structured 

interview guide. The four-point Likert-type scale questionnaire had three sections with 24 items 

on departmental relation, subject conceptualization and departmental governance. The 

quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately. Means and Standard Deviations were 

computed with the use of the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) to determine the 

direction of the quantitative responses. The range for the means score was 1.0 to 4.0. A score 

from 1.0 to 2.4 represented disagreement on a response while a score between 2.5 to 4.0 

represented consensus. Standard deviation scores are from 0.0 to 1.0. There is homogenous 

response when the score is 0.9 below and heterogeneous when it is above 1.0.  The interview 

data were subjected to a thematic analysis using constant comparison analysis. First, the 

researchers studied the field notes, transcribed the recordings into manuscripts and carefully read 

through them. This was done to identify main themes and ideas based on the questions posed to 

participants.. 

Findings and Discussion  

The results obtained from this study are presented in this section. Three key elements namely, 

departmental relation, subject conceptualization, and departmental governance, that support the 

middling process in curriculum mediation were examined.  

 

 

 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 124 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

Departmental Relation 

The purpose of this theme was to interrogate how teacher relations in the Ghanaian high school 

history department contribute to curriculum negotiation in schools. Table 1 contains the data on 

the above theme.  

Table 1: Departmental Relations  

Statement  Mean SD 

I have regular meetings with colleagues in the Department over matters 

concerning pre-teaching preparation 

2.6 .73 

I frequently ask for the aid of colleagues when I encounter a challenge 

before or after teaching  

3.8 1.1 

Colleagues cooperate effectively to solve teaching and learning related 

problems facing the department 

2.9 .81 

My colleagues’ support has greatly improved the way I teach and enact the 

curriculum  

2.7 1.0 

My colleagues and I have very friendly disposition and respect for each 

other which helps me enact the syllabus well through teaching 

2.8 1.0 

There is frequent discussion in the Department on the syllabus before 

academic work starts 

2.8 .90 

Departmental members always review teaching and learning strategies 

within the term and academic year 

2.8 .77 

Mean of Means/Average Standard Deviation 2.9 .90 

 

There was a general agreement, on the average among respondents, that departmental 

relation influences how history teachers negotiate the curriculum before classroom 

implementation. This position is informed by the mean scores of the various items. It was 

observed that all the mean values were within the affirmation range. A mean of mean score of 

2.75 added iteration that teacher relations is a major variable in the interposition of the high 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 125 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

ground and lower level curriculum in history departments in high schools in Ghana. Also, the 

average standard deviation of 0.92 indicates homogeneity of teachers’ thoughts that interpersonal 

relations drive the efforts at decoding the formal curriculum document. It further demonstrates, 

as Wang (2015) found, that interactions in the history subject departments improved teachers’ 

teaching preparation and grasp of teaching and learning resources. The subject department is, 

therefore, better understood in negotiating the curriculum when teachers’ relationships in the 

department come under scrutiny.  

During interview sessions, all respondents reported that they engaged in various forms of 

departmental interactions with colleagues from time to time. These exchanges included regular 

meetings on pre-teaching preparation; solving teaching and learning problems facing the 

department; discussions of the meanings and demands of the curriculum. Teachers, from these 

responses, valued how these arrangements in the history department helped them make sense of 

the intents of curriculum designers as contained in the formal curriculum documents. This adds 

to the findings of the Department for Education and Skills' (2002) that teachers’ quality of 

practice got a notch higher when they cooperated with other teachers. One teacher stated that 

“departmental interaction regarding the teaching and learning of history motivates me to be 

innovative in my teaching. For example, I have been able to get ideas on other methods to help 

impart knowledge to students.” Such discussions on the methods of teaching history among 

teachers improve quality resource gathering for classroom practice in ways that echo Ronfeldt et 

al's (2015) contention that teacher cooperation translates into enhanced students outcomes. Other 

teachers also shared similar views. Another high school history teacher said that: 

We consult each other with regard to the teaching of the history subject. These could 

be lesson preparation, the teaching of certain topics in the syllabus, the use of 

certain instructional materials. This is normally done on individual level, because it 

is not all the time that we meet us a department to discuss teaching related issues. 

Sometimes it could even be at the middle of the term that we may need assistance. 

And so, the person who needs assistance may have a discussion with those with 

enough experience. 

This means that fruitful teacher relations may even supersede departmental leadership in 

negotiating curriculum documents because teacher interrelations engender constant dialogue. In 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 126 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

this way, the new teachers tap into the expertise of experienced teachers all the time. This is 

particularly important in Ghanaian high schools were scarce resources, unequal economic 

situation of communities, and limited technology demand close collaboration among teachers in 

key areas of need to successfully decode and practicalize formal curriculum documents in the 

history classrooms (Reeves et al., 2017). A teacher from a southern Cape Coast high school also 

held that: 

Departmental colleagues’ discussions of the History syllabus before lesson 

preparation help a lot in breaking down the issues for effective classroom teaching. 

This is because most of the issues are not simple enough for easy understanding. 

Therefore, when we meet, we are able to discuss for better simplification.  

For the Ghanaian high school history teacher, speaking to colleagues about professional 

opportunities and challenges boosted their effectiveness as professionals. Given the long silences 

in Ghana’s curriculum reform and retraining initiatives, teacher dialogues facilitate proactive 

curriculum implementation as Doppenberg et al (2012) noted. Teachers’ enhanced grasp of the 

curriculum stems from this collective approach to analyzing it and sharing ideas on how to 

implement it. In Ghanaian high schools, such interpersonal relations make up for the gap in 

training between teachers who were trained during curriculum reforms and teachers who enter 

the classroom long after reforms are implemented without the benefit of knowing completely the 

curriculum beyond what is written in the syllabus. Departmental interactions therefore engender 

knowledge sharing and generate social capital which develop enduring teacher professionalism.  

Day and Sachs (2004) observed that the subject matter students learn and how they learn 

emerge from a potpourri of teachers’ informal negotiations and conventional professional 

engagements. This observation presupposes that departmental interaction not only fosters 

curriculum implementation but also ensures teachers’ professional development through the 

breeding of ideas (Siskin, 1997). Therefore, professional and social dialogue aid the transitional 

engagement with the formal curriculum towards realizing lower level implementation.  

Subject Conceptualization  

This theme aims to find out how teachers conceptualize and understand the History subject, and 

how that understanding helps them to negotiate formal curriculum for classroom 

implementation. Table 2 presents the data on the above rubric.  



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 127 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

Table 2: Subject Conceptualization 

Statement   Mean  SD 

The subject is very important in the school system so teaching it requires 

special expertise 

3.2 .84 

The subject is unique from other subjects in form and purpose so it cannot be 

taught like other subjects 

3.4 .73 

My understanding of what the subject is determines how I teach it in class 3.0 .66 

My understanding of what the subject is determines the resources I select for 

my teaching 

3.1 .74 

My lesson preparation is influenced by my understanding of the subject I 

teach 

3.2 .76 

My Attitude towards the subject I teach is determined by my understanding 

of the subject 

3.1 .79 

Mean of Means/Average Standard Deviation 3.2 .75 

 

The questionnaire collated yielded mean scores ranging between 3.0 and 3.2. This 

showed teachers’ belief that their understanding of the nature of history as a subject informed 

how they prepared, organized and executed teaching responsibilities in classrooms. Also, a mean 

of mean score of 3.13 further reiterated the subject conceptualization’s role in decoding and 

implementing the high ground curriculum in history classrooms. By inference, history teachers' 

understanding of the subject which they teach facilitates not only their negotiation of formal 

curriculum content but the teaching methods they decide to use. Such decisions over content, 

methods, collaborations, and other professional choices form significant part of the middling of 

the curriculum. The average standard deviation score of 0.78 demonstrate the proximate nature 

of teachers’ responses to enquiries on how critical subject conceptualization is in mediating high 

curriculum documents before classroom implementation. The findings show that the ways 

teachers conceptualize the subject tell the way they go about decoding and teaching the formal 

curriculum. Whereas formal Ghanaian curriculum document requires fidelity to the tenets laid 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 128 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

out in it, teachers in this study show that their understanding of the nature of the subject they 

teach is a negotiating factor in how the curriculum is understood and taught to learners in 

schools. In this sense, the grasp of the history subject among teachers in Ghanaian high schools 

constitute a subculture variable in our understanding of the middle ground of the curriculum.  

A major theme in the interviews was how the nature of history as a subject informs the 

professional decisions of teachers with regard to the formal curriculum. When asked how the 

understanding of history as subject impacts the ways teachers negotiate the formal curriculum’s 

requirements for teaching, one teacher explained that “the subject is very chronological and 

structured in content in many ways. It is sequential.” For this reason, this teacher adapted topics 

and subtopics tactfully to the individual capacities and the special circumstances of the school. 

This is important because “without a good understanding of one topic, it is difficult for students 

to understand certain subsequent topics,” according to another teacher. This teacher explained 

further that “it is like Mathematics. You cannot jump some topics.” This deviates from the largely 

thematic arrangement of ideas in the Ghanaian history syllabus. The intent of the curriculum 

designers was to allow students enter the study of history through exposure to African history, 

world history and then Ghanaian history. However, teachers appear to have adopted far more 

practical approaches other than those prescribed by the formal curriculum. There is therefore a 

gap between how professional historians expect history to be taught and what teachers actually 

do with the curriculum. It recalls Beswick's (2012) observation that professional expectations 

does not always translate into teaching practice for subjects in schools. Respondents were also 

asked how their grasp of subject matter content determined their choice of teaching methods. 

One teacher said that, “my understanding of the subject content determines how I teach it in 

class.” On further probe, the respondent said, “The subject deals with past events that are remote 

in terms of time. Therefore, with this understanding, I always rely on the use of current affairs as 

a springboard when teaching.” While this may describe entry approaches, this teacher relies on 

present events to relate the significance of historical facts to learners. It betrays the strictly 

professional tune and direction of the Ghanaian history curriculum which emphasis training in 

the art of history at a basic level in preparation for university level work. The declining interest 

in the study of history (Cobbold & Oppong, 2010) may have compelled a shift by teachers to 

breath life into teaching history through using modern stories.  Content knowledge and the 

meanings made of that knowledge tell the approaches teachers adopt in transferring nuggets of 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 129 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

information or knowledge to learners in the classroom. Other teachers confirmed this when one 

recalled that “lesson preparation and resource gathering are influenced by my understanding of 

the subject I teach.” “The history subject is very abstract so that compels me to assemble a lot of 

teaching and learning materials,” he added. Ningsih and Fata (2015) and Akyeampong (2017) 

emphasized this point when they contended that teachers’ presumptions about their subject 

determine their choice of methods and resources for teaching. Content knowledge not only 

inform practice, it also imbues confidence in the teacher about their abilities to lead subject 

matter learning at the Ghanaian high school level. Overall, teachers’ responses cluster around the 

imaginative, abstract, critical thinking nature of the history subject (Oppong, 2011), and how 

these motivate their ways of decoding the formal curriculum. These understandings of the 

history subject, therefore, inspires history teachers’ interaction with the formal curriculum.   

 The findings suggest that subject conceptualization determines how the formal 

curriculum is negotiated through their professional preparation before implementing the 

curriculum in the classroom. These show a clear tilt toward individual professional 

understanding of the subject rather than strict adherence to the impositions of the formal 

curriculum. Also, teachers’ responses indicate that they do not implement the formal curriculum 

hook, line and sinker.  Rather, teachers negotiate the formal curriculum with their professional 

conceptualizations of the subject as a foundation for the decisions they make about the subject 

matter and methods needed to make a success of the transmission of knowledge to students. 

Stodolsky and Grossman (1995) rightly pointed out that teachers’ perception about the subject 

mediate their response to formal curriculum documents. 

 Despite the thematic arrangement of the Ghanaian history curriculum, teachers adopt a 

chronological rather than progressive approach to teaching as the findings here demonstrate.  

Teachers make practical choices about the quality and complexity of content types, and how to 

transmit same to students.  In the Ghanaian high school, as this study has shown, the tendency to 

adopt other ways of content organization betrays not only the formal curriculum  requirements 

but also demonstrates teachers’ instructional power over specificities indicated by the formal 

curriculum (Akyeampong, 2017; Buabeng-Andoh & Yidana, 2015). Another point worth noting 

is that professional notions and understanding of subject matter among Ghanaian teachers are 

difficult to erase even if a new curriculum document proposes to do so (cf. Stodolsky & 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 130 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

Grossman, 1995). Teachers’ grasp of the subject they teach is therefore a key subculture feature 

that underlies the mediations of the formal curriculum by Ghanaian high school history teachers.  

Departmental Governance 

With reference to the above theme, the researchers sought to investigate the role of departmental 

leadership in mediation teachers made with the curriculum.  

Table 3: Departmental Governance  

Statement  Mean SD 

The department head fully supports effective teaching by teachers.  3.3 .83 

The head of department is accountable to teachers on issues affecting 

teaching in the department 

3.2 .92 

The leader advocates for the teachers’ welfare at school administrative level 

to ensure teaching efficiency 

2.9 .85 

The head is a role model in teaching effectiveness for teachers in the 

department 

3.0 .91 

The head heavily influences the decisions about how I teach the subject by 

giving me pre-teaching resource support  

2.3 .95 

The head use his/her administrative power to influence effective teaching by 

teachers through role allocation 

2.7 .87 

The head organizes periodic workshops and seminars for teachers to be 

educated on the new approaches to teaching and learning  

2.4 .83 

The head reviews previous teaching and learning before the new term begins 2.8 .87 

The head always organize meetings to discuss how the subject should be 

taught before academic work starts 

2.8 .87 

Mean of Means/Average Standard Deviation 2.8 .86 

 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 131 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

Departmental governance within Ghanaian high schools appeared to have been a major 

instrument for mediating formal curriculum. Perhaps, with the exception of two items: 1) "The 

head heavily influences the decisions about how I teach the subject by giving me pre-teaching 

resource support", 2) "The head organizes periodic workshops and seminars for teachers to be 

educated on the new approaches to teaching and learning" - which both received mean scores of 

2.33 and 2.48 respectively, all the mean scores of the other items fell within 2.5 – 4.0. This range 

(2.5 – 4.0) indicates greater conformity and consensus in responses. The mean of means scores 

of 2.84 reiterate that respondents were close in their opinions than apart. Overall, respondents 

concurred that good departmental governance facilitates history teachers’ efforts at decoding and 

making sense of the formal curriculum. Again, the extent of homogeneity of the responses is 

illuminated by the average standard deviation of 0.86. Both the mean of means and standard 

deviation scores suggest that respondents agree generally that departmental governance had an 

influence on how teachers interpret the high ground curriculum for classroom teaching.  

Interviews buttressed the intimations gleaned from the questionnaires. One teacher 

commented that:  

There is always departmental meeting at the beginning of each term to discuss how 

the subject should be taught before academic work starts. Such meetings also review 

previous term’s academic work and how the subject could be handled effectively. The 

Head of Department usually calls such meetings when normally students’ 

performance is not encouraging, and complaints are also made by students on how 

the subject is being taught. 

A second teacher recalled that: “The Head of Department always assesses pre-lessons 

preparation and makes suggestions and contributions at the beginning of every term. Most of 

these assessments are done individually with the teachers.” These responses reveal a dialogic 

line of action among teachers and department leaders to confidently decipher formal curriculum 

documents, collaborative decision making on teaching methodologies, and collective redress of 

learners’ challenges. These echo the findings of Spillane and Kim (2012) and Wanzare (2012) 

that school leaders’ work enhance teacher professional advancement in areas such as 

instructional supervision and collaborative initiatives. The more teachers interact at a 

departmental level with leaders in those departments, their capacity for professional engagement 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 132 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

with the formal curriculum gets better because collective understanding of the subject enables 

them to decide how to effectively teach content. 

  When asked what other issues were discussed at department meetings, one of the 

respondents cited “scheme of work, unit planning, lesson plans and the instructional materials 

that would be used” as driving the agenda. Such comments are incisive in that they demonstrate 

department leaders’ ability to sponsor dialogue that engender mediation of the formal 

curriculum. Lochmiller (2016) highlights that discussions created by departmental leaders 

emphasize leadership’s critical role in the negotiations made of the content and methodological 

demands of the formal curriculum. Therefore, decisions made about the formal curriculum after 

it is received in the department are informed as much by departmental leaders (John & La Velle, 

2004). Department and even, unit heads’ constant review and check of schemes of work, lesson 

plans, teaching methods, class journals and subjects’ logbooks drive best practices in the 

classroom in Ghanaian high schools (Baffour-Awuah, 2011; Donkor, 2015; Kwadzo Agezo, 

2010). As Masuku (2011) argues, it is unlikely that schools can attain the desired academic 

standards if cultural patterns and methods to support teaching and learning are not created 

through departmental leaders.  

Department leaders were also noted to have executed their administrative functions to 

support academic ends. A respondent recollected that “When there is a new trend like a change 

in WAEC’s way of setting questions, the head of department supplies us books and other 

materials to keep us abreast of time.” This additional indicator of leadership support for 

academic work iterate that arbitrations of the formal curriculum may go beyond the contents of 

the syllabus. Department leaders’ role in recommending resources calls to mind Donkor's (2015) 

finding that skilled teachers acting as departmental leaders immensely impact classroom practice 

of teachers in Ghanaian schools. The accumulated years of teaching experience department 

leaders in Ghana gain before taking up administrative duties in Ghanaian schools make them 

particularly effective in providing and recommending resources for teachers they manage in the 

subject department.  

Holistically, the three variables explored are the most important subject department 

subculture variables that make for successful negotiation of the formal curriculum. Siskin’s 

(1994) point that the subject department is the site in which teachers most often form collegial 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 133 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

relationships and develop shared social norms is rightly accepted. This observation is  reinforced 

by Ball and Bowe's assertion that, “The ways in which the National Curriculum is construed are, 

in part, dependent on existing subject paradigms and subject subcultures” (1992, p. 103). The 

internalisation of curriculum change is therefore a dynamic process that is evidenced not only at 

the ground level but is mediated by the subcultures that receive and implement the formal 

curriculum. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

The study explored the experience of history teachers in mediating the history curriculum in high 

schools in Cape Coast, Ghana. Some observations were drawn from this study. Firstly, the social 

and professional relation and interactions among teachers in the same subject department weigh 

on teachers' understanding of the curriculum and how to practicalize it in classrooms. Also, 

professional dialogues enable teachers master the art and act of preparing and presenting 

curriculum content to students. Therefore, the existence of a cooperative spirit among teachers in 

a subject department is beneficial to both teachers and students. It is, therefore, important that 

stakeholders pay critical attention to what goes on in subject departments in schools since 

departmental relations shapes classroom practices. It is important that education stakeholders pay 

critical attention to organizing school space in ways that bring teachers together so they can 

fruitfully engage to shape classroom practices. 

 Secondly, the way professional teachers conceive History as a subject affects their 

content preparation and teaching in class. In this sense, the strong interposition of subject 

conceptualization calls for greater efforts from trainers and government to synthesize teacher 

training content and high school curriculum that better prepare teachers for both content and 

pedagogical readiness in schools. Some of the findings here could be extended to cognate subject 

areas in the Ghanaian high school system.  

Lastly, the quality of departmental governance inform the way teachers decode, interpret 

and implement the formal curriculum. There are salient implications of departmental governance 

on classroom practices. Firstly, the findings point to the centrality of efficient departmental 

leadership to the mediation of the formal curriculum for classroom implementation. The criteria 

for leadership selection should be drawn to take cognizance of coordination, inspirational, and 

professional experience abilities. Secondly, given that inefficient unit or departmental leadership 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 134 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

derails teacher preparation, the researchers found that such circumstances mitigate successful 

transition of the curriculum document from the realm of the abstract to classroom praxis. The 

provision of appropriate training for departmental heads is recommended. The training would 

help departmental heads foist excellent condition over their departments for efficient teacher 

output in implementing curriculum documents.  

 

Bibliography 

Akyeampong, K. (2017). Teacher Educators’ Practice and Vision of Good Teaching in Teacher 

Education Reform Context in Ghana. Educational Researcher, 46(4), 194–203. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17711907 

Amengor, J. (2011). History teachers’ perception of ICT in promoting teaching and learning. 

Baffour-Awuah, P. (2011). Supervision of instruction in public primary schools in Ghana: 

Teacher’s and headteacher’s perspectives (Prof, Murdoch University). Retrieved from 

https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/8483/ 

Ball, S. J. (2012). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. 

Routledge. 

Ball, S. J., & Bowe, R. (1992). Subject departments and the ‘implementation' of National 

Curriculum policy: an overview of the issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 97–

115. 

Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs about school mathematics and mathematicians’ 

mathematics and their relationship to practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 

79(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9333-2 

Buabeng-Andoh, C., & Yidana, I. (2015). Teachers’ ICT usage in second-cycle institutions in 

Ghana: A qualitative study. International Journal of Education and Development Using 

ICT, 11(2). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/151849/ 

Clark, B. R. (1987). The Academic Life. Small Worlds, Different Worlds. A Carnegie Foundation 

Special Report. ERIC. 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 135 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

Cobbold, C., & Oppong, C. A. (2010). Re-echoing the place of History in the school curriculum. 

International Journal of Educational Leadership, 3(3), 89–96. 

Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in 

the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. International 

Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers, 3–32. 

Department for Education and Skills. (2002, March 2). Securing improvement: the role of 

subject leaders. Retrieved from 

https://www.rgs.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?nodeguid=7455df98-a535-4135-8dca-

af5736a0000f&lang=en-GB 

Donkor, A. K. (2015). Basic school leaders in Ghana: how equipped are they? International 

Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(2), 225–238. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2013.817610 

Doppenberg, J. J., den Brok, P. J., & Bakx, A. W. E. A. (2012). Collaborative teacher learning 

across foci of collaboration: Perceived activities and outcomes. Teaching and Teacher 

Education, 28(6), 899–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.007 

Douglas, A. S. (2011). Learning on the job: a Cultural Historical Activity Theory approach to 

initial teacher education across four secondary school subject departments. Ethnography 

and Education, 6(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2011.587359 

Eshun, I., & Mensah, M. F. (2013). Investigation of pedagogical content knowledge of graduate 

social studies teachers in Senior High Schools in the Western Region of Ghana. Journal 

of Education and Practice, 4(4), 176–184. 

Goodlad, J. I., & Associates. (1979). Curriculum Inquiry. The Study of Curriculum Practice. 

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 

Goodson, I. (1983). Subjects for study: Aspects of a social history of curriculum. Journal of 

Curriculum Studies, 15(4), 391–408.  

Goodson, I.F. (1994).  Studying Curriculum: Cases and Methods. Open University Press, 

Buckingham. 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 136 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

Gordon, S. P. (2008). Collaborative Action Research: Developing Professional Learning 

Communities. ERIC. 

Grimmett, P. P., & Neufeld, J. (1994). Teacher development and the struggle for authenticity: 

Professional growth and restructuring in the context of change. New York: Teachers 

College Press. 

Harris, C.R. (2002). History Teachers and Syllabus Change: Examining the Middle Ground of 

Curriculum. (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Faculty of Education, University of 

Sydney, Sydney, Australia. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/7787 

Harris, C. R. (2005). Curriculum theorising: examining the middle ground of curriculum. 

Curriculum and Teaching, 20(2), 81–96. 

John, P. (2005). The sacred and the profane: subject sub‐culture, pedagogical practice and 

teachers’ perceptions of the classroom uses of ICT. Educational Review, 57(4), 471–490. 

John, P. D., & La Velle, L. B. (2004). Devices and desires: Subject subcultures, pedagogical 

identity and the challenge of information and communications technology. Technology, 

Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 307–326. 

Kadingdi, S. (2006). Policy initiatives for change and innovation in basic education programmes 

in Ghana. Educate~, 4(2), 3-18–18.  

Kuyini, A. B. (2013). Ghana’s education reform 2007: A realistic proposition or a crisis of 

vision?. International Review of Education, 59(2), 157-176. 

Kwadzo Agezo, C. (2010). Female leadership and school effectiveness in junior high schools in 

Ghana. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(6), 689–703. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231011079557 

Kwarteng, J. T. (2011). Status of Accounting Curricukum Implementation: A concerns-based 

adoption model assessment in Ashanti and Central Regions. University of Cape Coast, 

Cape Coast. 

Leithwood, K. (2016). Department-Head Leadership for School Improvement. Leadership and 

Policy in Schools, 15(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1044538 



 

Charles A. Oppong,  Moses Allor Awinsong, &  Stephen Kwakye Apau 

 137 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

Lochmiller, C. R. (2016). Examining Administrators’ Instructional Feedback to High School 

Math and Science Teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 75–109. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616660 

Lovat, T. J., & Smith, D. L. (1991). Curriculum: Action on reflection. Wentworth Falls, N.S.W: 

Social Science Press. 

Masuku, S. (2011). The instructional leadership role of the high school head in creating a 

culture of teaching and learning in Zimbabwe. 

McLachlan, C., Fleer, M., & Edwards, S. (2018). Early childhood curriculum: Planning, 

assessment and implementation. Cambridge University Press. 

Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school 

effectiveness. Education and Training Policy Division, Oecd. 

Ningsih, S. R. J., & Fata, I. A. (2015). Exploring Teachers’ Beliefs and the Teaching Profession 

in Aceh. Studies in English Language and Education, 2(1), 61–71. 

https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v2i1.2235 

O’Boyle, A. (2000). St. Colman’s: a case study in teachers’ perspectives: history teachers in 

context. 

Oppong, C. A. (2011). An evaluation of the teaching and learning of history in senior high 

schools in the Central Region of Ghana. 

Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. (2014). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing 

quality educational programs. Prentice Hall. 

Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. 

Computers & Education, 58(1), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028 

Reeves, P. M., Pun, W. H., & Chung, K. S. (2017). Influence of teacher collaboration on job 

satisfaction and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 227–236. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.016 

Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in 

instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 

52(3), 475–514. 



The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools 

 138 

AJOTE Vol. 8 (2019), 111-138. 

 

Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. Falmer 

Press London. 

Siskin, L. S. (1997). The challenge of leadership in comprehensive high schools: School vision 

and departmental divisions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(1_suppl), 604–

623. 

Spillane, J. P., & Kim, C. M. (2012). An Exploratory Analysis of Formal School Leaders’ 

Positioning in Instructional Advice and Information Networks in Elementary Schools. 

American Journal of Education, 119(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1086/667755 

Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: 

An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 

227–249. 

Wang, T. (2015). Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: demystifying professional 

learning communities in Chinese schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and 

International Education, 45(6), 908–930. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2014.952953 

Wanzare, Z. (2012). Instructional Supervision in Public Secondary Schools in Kenya. 

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(2), 188–216. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143211427977