40

Humanising pedagogy: 
An alternative approach 
to curriculum design that 
enhances rigour in a B.Ed. 
programme

Abstract

The minimum requirements for teacher education qualifications 
(MRTEQ) draws attention to the complexity of teaching as an 
activity that is premised upon the acquisition, integration and 
application of different types of knowledge practices or learning. 
As such, all initial teacher education programmes in South Africa 
should be designed such that they include disciplinary knowledge, 
pedagogical knowledge, practical knowledge, fundamental know­
ledge and situational knowledge. These types of knowledge 
underpin a teacher’s ability to facilitate meaningful learning in the 
classroom, which in turn facilitates higher education’s respon­
siveness to societal needs. 

In this article, we reflect on the faculty’s recent curriculum 
renewal journey towards designing a coherent and rigorous B.Ed. 
programme. We locate our curriculum renewal journey in critical 
theory and our new curriculum itself is grounded in humanising 
pedagogies, critical reflection and inquiry. We also describe the 
consultation and collaborative processes we engaged in to ensure 
that our new B.Ed. programme would be responsive to the needs 
of our students and society.

Keywords: Curriculum renewal, education theory, humanising 
curriculum framework, academic rigour, curriculum responsiveness

1. Introduction and background
This paper is premised on the understanding that teaching is 
a compound activity. Thus, teacher education programmes 
need to be designed in such a manner that students are 
able to acquire, integrate and apply a range of knowledge 
types, such as disciplinary knowledge, pedagogical know­
ledge, practical knowledge, fundamental knowledge and 
situational knowledge (Department of Higher Education 
and Training, 2015). These various types of knowledge’s 
of learning underpin teachers’ ability to make meaningful 
connections with the practice of education to facilitate 
meaningful learning. Teacher education programmes should 
be designed to enable the student to acquire and apply 
these knowledge’s in an integrated, fused manner.

Deidre Geduld
(deidre.geduld2@nmmu.ac.za)

Heloise Sathorar
(Heloise.Sathorar@nmmu.
ac.za)

DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.
v34i1.4
ISSN 0258­2236
eISSN 2519­593X
Perspectives in Education 
2016 34(1): 40­52
© UV/UFS

mailto:deidre.geduld2@nmmu.ac.za
mailto:Heloise.Sathorar@nmmu.ac.za
mailto:Heloise.Sathorar@nmmu.ac.za
http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v34i1.4
http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v34i1.4
http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v34i1.4


Geduld & Sathorar Humanising pedagogy: An alternative approach to...

41

This article describes our recent curriculum renewal journey towards designing a coherent 
and rigorous B.Ed. programme. In order to understand the complexities of our journey, it is 
firstly important to share our faculty’s evolving identity, coloured by diverse ideologies and 
biographies that shape current ways of being as teacher educators at a transforming post­
apartheid, post­merger higher education institution in South Africa. 

The current NMMU Faculty of Education came into being in 2005 as a result of the 
amalgamation of three former higher education institutions in the Nelson Mandela Metropole: 
The University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), the Port Elizabeth Technikon, and the PE campus 
of Vista University. UPE, a former white institution, was established during the apartheid 
years and operated as an Afrikaner Broederbond stronghold. The university promoted the 
political ideology of the National Party, upheld the principles of Christian National Education 
(CNE) and rooted its education in the philosophy of fundamental pedagogics. PE Technikon 
focussed predominantly on technically oriented undergraduate diplomas and to a lesser 
extent, postgraduate qualifications. The primary focus was on preparing students for 
industry. Countrywide, Vista University’s multi­campuses were established to accommodate 
black students who could not, due to policy, access so­called white universities. As such, 
the Vista PE campus was located at Missionvale, a black township on the outskirts of 
Port Elizabeth. Although all three institutions offered teacher education programmes, there 
was little overlap in terms of the content and structure of modules. Hence, during the merger 
process programmes were, in most cases, retained. 

A large component of our current staff attended school and university during the apartheid 
era when the vast majority of state­funded HEIs and teacher training colleges were merely 
complying with the status quo. Furthermore, for many colleagues, the conception of 
‘curriculum’ during the time of the merger was still rooted in a modernist paradigm, understood 
according to Tyler’s cause-and-effect, prediction-and-control model (Cullen & Hill, 2013). In 
addition, the vast majority of staff, black and white, went “through the mill of fundamental 
pedagogics” (Morrow, 2007: 135), our educational philosophies grounded in positivist 
certainty and rationality, with reality assumed to be stable and predictable (Cullen & Hill, 2013). 
Fundamental pedagogics propagated inter alia the idea that the child is a non­adult en route 
to adulthood. In order to ensure a meaningful being en route to, and a gradual conquest 
of adulthood, the assistance and support of a “proper adult”, was seen as indispensable 
(Landman et al., 1982: 3). Since fundamental pedagogics adopted Christianity as the ‘only’ 
philosophy of life, forms of ‘­isms’, such as pragmatism, liberalism, Marxism, existentialism and 
humanism were seen as undermining Christianity and as such were rejected. Paulo Freire’s 
Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) and other progressive educational texts were banned 
for promoting ‘liberal, communist’ ideology. In general, educational discourse at most state­
controlled education institutions during these years disregarded the impact of poverty, racism, 
and cultural struggles on the education of the majority of South African children, producing an 
“epistemological veil” (Apple, 2011: 223).

In order to transform the faculty, renew its curricula and facilitate much­needed educational 
change, thoughtful engagement with profound transformation was necessary. This would 
imply reconfiguring our inner personal landscapes as teacher educators. We had to revisit and 
interrogate our individual ideologies, philosophies, epistemologies, pedagogies and ontologies 
in a post-colonial, post-apartheid, post-merger faculty. Ultimately, we had to redefine who we 
are, not only as individuals but also as a collective. 



42

Perspectives in Education 2016: 34(1)

2. A curriculum underpinned by critical theory
Critical theory encapsulates multiple strands of scholarship united by a deep commitment 
to human emancipation. It was initiated by a group of prominent interdisciplinary thinkers 
whose ‘members’ include Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm 
and Jurgen Habermas. The interests of these intellectuals soon broadened into an attempt 
to build a theory of critical action dedicated to guiding a political, economic and intellectual 
revolution. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be set apart from a “traditional” 
theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks 
human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence” and works “to create 
a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer, 1972: 246). 
Since such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human 
beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. The result is 
to be an eventual democratic and free society founded on concepts such as social justice, 
interpersonal respect, universal rights and global citizenship. 

Higher education within South Africa needs to prepare teachers and scholars to confront 
the current political climate within the country. We need to change our theoretical orientation 
to one that is adaptable, critical and radical in the current South Africa. However, Arum and 
Roksa (2011) are of the opinion that the curriculum structures at universities do not indicate 
measurable improvement in critical thinking ability within students. One of the purposes 
of teacher education is to assist in improving the quality of teaching in schools and thus, 
student teachers need to learn more than the technicalities of teaching as well as something 
beyond classroom management techniques. As an alternative, Beyer (2001) suggests that 
teacher preparation courses include experiences that incorporate theoretical understandings, 
conceptual analyses, a range of inquiry orientations and activities, an array of literatures 
and research studies and an openness to novel ways of seeing and thinking about teaching, 
schooling and society. Teacher educators need to prepare student teachers for life after the 
classroom but also to help them to be able to change the world (De Leon & Ross, 2010).

A curriculum located within critical pedagogy focuses on student experience and social 
action, thus focusing on social dimensions and consequences of educational practices, the 
ideological meaning of texts and experiencing the power relations in schools and the need 
to interrogate theory and practice in new ways. Cohen’s (1999) strategies for dealing with 
controversial issues include inquiry, dialogue and multiple perspectives as the focus as well 
as community­based learning and bringing the world into the classroom. 

Through a critical interrogation of relationships and emerging identities in pedagogical 
contexts, we argue that three dominant patterns of interaction and experience shape our 
teacher education pedagogies: 

• cultural dimensions of self – ways of being; 

• intellectual dimensions of self – ways of knowing;

• social dimensions of self – ways of interacting with others. 

Surrounded by these dominant patterns, the emerging humanness becomes realised 
through and in relation to historical, cultural and social dynamics at play in the experiences of 
individuals, groups and institutions. We envisage the growth of the whole person (not a facet 
of a person) in relations with others. Viewing our curriculum through a lens of humanising 



Geduld & Sathorar Humanising pedagogy: An alternative approach to...

43

pedagogy helps us to understand that teacher education is a process and a vision for life in 
schools, institutions, society and beyond. 

3. Our journey towards a humanising curriculum framework 
underpinned by critical theory

After an intense revisioning journey, the faculty embarked on a comprehensive and intensive 
process of curriculum renewal, firstly defining its ‘groundation1’. This part of the renewal 
process was characterised by critical reflective inquiry and inclusive and participatory 
conversations, drawing on voices across a wide spectrum of stakeholders including students, 
alumni, teachers, principals and community leaders. These engagements enabled us to 
develop a shared understanding of our humanising philosophy of teacher education. In order 
for student teachers to be humanised, the teacher educators too must be humanised. In 
Freire‘s (1970) view, dehumanisation is reciprocal and existential. If a teacher dehumanises 
students, then the teacher too is dehumanised. 

The ‘groundation epoch’ was a critical episode in our journey as it forced us to revisit 
individual teaching philosophies, pedagogies and identities, shaped by diverse histories and 
biographies and redefine these. More engagements followed in the form of critical reflective 
inquiries and conversations. Inputs from these sources as well as more intensive discussions, 
debates, creative workshops and consultations, enabled us to develop a curriculum framework 
cradled in our vision, mission and pedagogy.

Pedagogy can be understood to constitute a set of social and political relations that “connects 
the apparently self­contained act of teaching with culture, structure and the mechanisms of 
social control” (Alexander, 2008: 3). As Bernstein (1999: 148) further observes, “pedagogy 
is a sustained process whereby somebody acquires a new form or develops existing forms 
of conduct, knowledge, practice and criteria from somebody or something deemed to be an 
appropriate provider and evaluator”. We employed Tintiangco-Cubales, Kiang and Museus’s 
(2010) definition of pedagogy to guide our curriculum framework (see diagram below): 
Pedagogy is seen as a philosophy of education informed by positionalities, ideologies and 
standpoints (of teacher and learner). It takes into account the critical relationships between 
the purpose of education, the context of education, the content of what is being taught and 
the methods of how it is taught. It also includes (the identity of) who is being taught, who 
is teaching, their relationship to each other and their relationship to structure and power 
(Tintiangco­Cubales et al., 2010). 

Power relations also mark the scope and content of higher education curricula. This 
is best reflected in the contested field of education policy making. Take, for example, the 
combined efforts of South African senior government officials, media experts, policy makers 
and academics to classify and legitimatise what types of knowledge and scientific practices 
and discourses should be taught and in some circumstances made compulsory through 
institutions. It is an ideological battlefield. Far from being neutral, random or even unbiased, 
the content and design of HE curricula is shaped by the cultural and political sensibilities of a 
given society (Korthagen, 2002). More importantly, national prescriptions for education policy 

1 With recognition to the late Andrew Sauls, in life a renowned poet from (The Northern Areas of 
Port Elizabeth) and SGB member of one of the local schools.



44

Perspectives in Education 2016: 34(1)

implementation and development are governed and sometimes impeded by transnational 
trends including the needs of labour markets and the global economy.

This point of departure that often divorces context from the discussion around training 
teachers manages to do a few things. It attempts to separate education from politics, it positions 
the institution (and by association the content and pedagogy within it) as ‘neutral’ thus shifting 
any critique and ‘blame’ to the context (the teachers, the communities and the students) and 
this in turn removes any responsibility in creating alternative solutions from the academy. 
Simultaneously, we are dealing with the ramifications of the current global debate around 
educational reform that align educational goals to those of the labour market. Schooling in 
post­apartheid South Africa is increasingly linked to employability, economic growth; the needs 
of business and ensuring our children have the ‘correct’ skills (for the market). This narrow 
view of the purpose of education redefines essential elements of learning and teaching in 
ways that standardise, quantify and limit our understandings of competence and performance.

Our ‘old’ curriculum had minimal input from teachers, was developed by ‘experts’ and 
publishers and was pre-packaged and “designed to be applied to any classroom context 
regardless of the historical, cultural, and socioeconomic differences that characterise various 
schools and students” (Giroux, 2009: 442). Giroux (2009) points out that the de­skilling 
of teachers appears to accompany the adoption of management­type pedagogies. This 
management type paradigm seeks to ‘improve’ education by “teacher-proofing” it and teachers 
are then relegated to semi­skilled, low­paid workers in the mass production of education 
(Giroux, 2009: 442). Despite insistence from all corners for the need to develop critical thinkers, 
solid literacy and numeracy skills and students that are able to contribute meaningfully to the 
development of the country, the current structure and culture of our education system is still 
highly prescriptive, standardised and driven towards narrow and specific assessment that 
favours rote learning, memorisation, standardisation and a culture of conformity. 

As part of our faculty’s agenda for the institution to take an active role in preparing teachers 
for schools, our humanising curriculum framework offers the reconnection of education to 
social justice — equity in the social, cultural, racial and economic realms — and disconnecting 
education from the reproduction of social and societal inequities (Furumoto, 2003). Freire 
(2005) offers a humanising pedagogy as an approach where the teacher is a revolutionary 
leader in establishing a permanent relationship of dialogue with her/his students in an effort 
to build confidence in students who may be alienated or feel alienated from teaching and 
learning. Our perspective of a humanising approach in education is grounded in critical theory, 
which is about coming to a critical understanding of oneself and understanding the self in 
relation to society (Christensen, 2000). 

We sought to create a curriculum framework where student learning was validated and 
where the shared experience and equality of student teachers was more in evidence. We 
propose a humanising pedagogy, which allows student teachers to co­create opportunities 
and situations from which they may organise and develop solid theoretical and practical 
approaches. These considerations have led us towards a set of fundamental questions 
guiding the curriculum choices we need to make, namely, what do we choose to teach, how 
will we do so, where will this learning and teaching take place, and how do we know that 
learning has taken place? 



Geduld & Sathorar Humanising pedagogy: An alternative approach to...

45

The following diagram captures our ‘humanising curriculum framework’ that guided our 
renewal work:

“Enabling a way of becoming for work and life”

Null

WHO?WHO?

Learning

ItThou

EmbodiedIntegrated

Hidden

WHY? Bigger purpose

Incidental

I

“Knowledges” 
WHAT?

Methods & Pedagogies 
HOW?

Assessment 
HOW DO WE KNOW?

Conductive  
environment  

WHERE?

E
nabling

Ideologies

V
alues

Beliefs

HistoriesSoci
ety

C
on

te
xt

s
C

ul
tu

re
s

Ph
ilo

so
ph

ies

Figure 1: NMMU Faculty of Education’s humanising curriculum framework

There are several layers of meaning encapsulated in this diagram. The outer layer of the circle 
acknowledges that our work is informed by and seeks to contribute to a range of historical, 
philosophical, political and cultural dimensions of our lives within a society (Zinn et al., 2014). 
At the centre of this diagram, is a heart representing the so­called who question, who are 
we as teacher-educators? Who are our students and who are their prospective learners? At 
the centre of the heart is the Hawkin’s (1974) learning triangle symbolising the learning act. 
Linked to the learning triangle are the critical questions of what will be taught, how it will be 
taught, where it will be taught and how we know learning has taken place. All these questions 
are intrinsically linked to the I (teacher) – THOU (student) – IT (content) interaction on the 



46

Perspectives in Education 2016: 34(1)

learning triangle. For the purpose of this paper, the IT will specifically refer to the disciplinary 
knowledge of the education theory modules and the work integrated learning modules in the 
B.Ed. programme.

Informing these reciprocal relationships are also the understandings and philosophical 
orientations of our ‘golden threads’ of humanising pedagogies and a culture of critical reflection 
and inquiry (Rodgers, 2002; Dewey, 1938). Thus, there is a commitment to pedagogy that:

• Is student­focused; 

• Is embedded in processes of dialogue and meaning making;

• Focuses on the praxis that combines new knowledge with meaning making through cycles 
of learning, action and reflection;

• Recognises the diversity of knowledge and experience of students as they enter the institution;

• Seeks to build bridges and scaffolds between this knowledge and the history of ideas, 
discourses and literacies of academic life;

• Consciously engages with the tension between the production of local and the global 
knowledge.

Hence, Freire (2005) argues that it is essential to realise that when we accept the struggle 
for humanisation we also accept, from that moment, our total responsibility for the struggle. 
We must realise that we are fighting not merely for freedom from hunger but for freedom to 
create and construct, to wonder and to venture.

The next section deals with humanising pedagogy within our curriculum frameworks as a 
way to set the backdrop for pedagogical transaction in a post­apartheid society.

4. How our humanising curriculum framework contributes to 
academic rigour in the B.Ed. programme

Academic rigour is determined not just by what is taught but how it is taught and how it 
is assessed (The Hechinger Report, 2008). Thus, to determine the rigour of a curriculum, 
questions should be asked about all three components of rigour – content, pedagogy and 
assessment (The Hechinger Report, 2008).

Schmidt (2008) describes a rigorous curriculum as being focused, coherent and 
appropriately challenging. Similarly Slonimsky and Shalem (2006: 36) refer to the appropriate-
ness of the curriculum by investigating higher educations ‘responsiveness’ to the difficulties 
experienced by ‘under prepared’ students. Moll (2004) developed the notion of ‘curriculum 
responsiveness’ which he argues includes economic, cultural/institutional, disciplinary and 
learning responsiveness. Moll (2004 as cited by Slonimsky and Shalem, 2006: 36) briefly 
describes economic responsiveness of the curriculum as the extent to which the teaching and 
learning in a university meet the changing needs of employers of graduates. Jacobs, Snider 
and Willen (The Hechinger Report, 2008) support the notion of economic responsiveness in 
that they highlight the importance of consulting employers to establish what their expectations 
of graduates are and then enhance the rigour of the curriculum by ensuring that these aspects 
are covered by the said curriculum within context. 

Furthermore, Moll (2004) refers to the cultural responsiveness of the curriculum as 
accommodating the diversity of socio­cultural realities of students by developing a wider variety 



Geduld & Sathorar Humanising pedagogy: An alternative approach to...

47

of instructional strategies and learning pathways. Jacobs, Snider and Willen (The Hechinger 
Report, 2008) also highlight the importance of talking to students to establish their interest 
and context and to incorporate this into the curriculum. The disciplinary responsiveness of the 
curriculum refers to a curriculum’s responsiveness to the nature of its underlying knowledge 
discipline that essentially refers to the link between the way knowledge is produced and the 
way students are educated and trained in the discipline area. From a teaching perspective, 
this requires socialisation into academic inquiry of specialised knowledge’s (Moll, 2004). 
Jacobs, Snider and Willen (The Hechinger Report, 2008) who highlight the importance of a 
curriculum developing higher order critical thinking skills in students also support this notion. 

Finally, Moll (2004) suggests that learning responsiveness entails teaching and assessing 
students in ways that are accessible to them. This means not only including students 
in determining what is valued about the underlying discipline in terms of assessment but 
also adjusting the teaching to the rhythms, tensions and emotions of learning (Slonimsky & 
Shalem, 2006: 37). 

To attain rigour in our B.Ed. curriculum we conceptualised our humanising curriculum 
framework to be responsive to the needs in higher education. Paramount in our humanising 
curriculum framework is “who” our students are. For this purpose, we consulted students 
and alumni to establish a profile of our student. This assisted us in understanding context 
and allowed us to accommodate students’ diverse socio­cultural realities in the range of 
instructional strategies and learning pathways (Moll, 2004). Oliva (2009) emphasises the 
importance of a curriculum specifying student, societal and school needs. This is in line with 
the “what” element in our humanising curriculum framework where what the student needs 
to know is the main focus. Moll (2004) refers to this as the economic responsiveness of the 
curriculum. However, we acknowledge that within South Africa’s two­tier education system – 
one for the middle class and rich, predominantly English and Afrikaans speaking elite and one 
for the poor, African language speaking majority; we should strive to achieve transformation 
and equality.

We consulted with a variety of other stakeholders including school principals, mentor 
teachers and Department of Education officials to establish what skills are required of teacher 
education graduates. A range of aspects was highlighted including resilience, ability to interact 
with society, classroom management and administration, handling disciplinary issues and a 
strong content knowledge. These aspects were addressed in the module design to ensure that 
students are adequately prepared to address the needs described earlier. It could be argued 
that the economic responsiveness of a curriculum contradicts the principles of critical theory 
that underpinned our renewal process; however, for us it highlighted the nuances between the 
reality and the ideal. We thus, had to ensure a balanced approach whereby students would be 
encouraged to think critically and to engage in meaningful dialogue in responding to societal 
needs while at the same time ensuring that they are aware of the requirements of the school, 
the Department of Education and society.

The “how” in our humanising curriculum framework refers to the pedagogies and methods 
of teaching. This echoes Moll’s (2004) notion of disciplinary responsiveness in the curriculum. 
The “where” element of our curriculum framework refers to a conducive learning environment 
while the “how do we know” refers to appropriate assessment that will establish whether 
learning took place. All three of these elements can be associated with Moll’s (2004) notion of 
learning responsiveness. Jacobs, Snider and Willen (The Hechinger Report, 2008) also support 



48

Perspectives in Education 2016: 34(1)

the notion of the learning responsiveness of a curriculum and they encourage curriculum 
makers to learn the most from students and to ask why they learn more in some classes than 
others. Furthermore, they encouraged curriculum makers to analyse assessment activities 
to establish whether it meets the requirement of developing high­order critical thinking skills.

As a faculty, we engaged in a review and analysis of our current curriculum. This called 
for deep reflection on our own practice. In addition to this, we consulted widely with students 
across the three different B.Ed. programmes and over the four year span to establish in which 
modules they learn the most and why. We also tapped into the voice of alumni to establish 
which modules that they completed during their study assisted them the most during practice. 
The information gathered during these sessions informed the programme framework and 
module design conceptualisation. 

5. How our humanising curriculum framework translated into 
rigorous and coherent modules

The B.Ed. foundation phase (FP), intermediate phase (IP), senior phase and further education 
and training phase (SP and FET) programmes at NMMU are bound by common education 
theory and school based learning (SBL) (or WIL) modules. In the process of curriculum 
renewal, it was important to ensure that the humanising curriculum framework translates into 
responsive modules that address the needs of students, the employers (schools/Department 
of Education) and society. The best place to manifest the responsiveness of the curriculum 
would be in the common education theory modules and the SBL modules in order to achieve 
coherence across programmes and integration between education theory and the SBL 
modules. Teacher education thus becomes a theoretically informed field where student 
teachers first acquire the theoretical and conceptual knowledge to put this into practice 
(Reeves & Robinson, 2014: 238).

First year student teachers are required to do the Education I module – Self and Human 
Development. Korthagen (2002), states that development takes existing knowledge and 
experience as a useful platform on which to build. This module aims at allowing students 
to reflect on their context and histories. Furthermore, it allows the student to expose “who” 
they are to us the teacher educators so that we, through the cultural responsiveness of the 
curriculum, can accommodate their socio­cultural diversity (Moll, 2004). Furthermore, the SBL 
I module is closely linked to the Education I module to achieve that integration of reflection 
and knowledge. A diversity of school contexts through four, daylong observation visits in which 
the general day­to­day operations of schools could be contrasted from the perspectives of 
students and teachers is also incorporated. These dimensions draw on a major purpose of 
social justice education in which the unsettling of cherished beliefs or assumptions about the 
world become not only unavoidable but also necessary (Berlak, 2004).

In the SBL and other modules, students discuss their school experience visits in small­
group discussions. Here emphasis is placed on the social construction of groups and societies 
and on the deconstruction, or elimination of political, economic and social oppression. The 
groups ought to be constructed in such a way that they promote structured dialogue. Through 
a dialectical process, student teachers become aware of who they are and where they come 
from and are able then to know reality on a higher level. The goal of critical theory, according 
to Popkewitz (1984: 45), is to “change the world not describe it”. To engage in the dialectical 



Geduld & Sathorar Humanising pedagogy: An alternative approach to...

49

process causes an increased awareness of reality and change occurs. Such change is not 
seen as serendipitous but as a dialectical process that leads to the emancipation of humankind.

The Education II module is called – The Self, Society and Education and focuses on the 
“what” a teacher needs to know, “how” learning takes place and “where” learning takes place. 
The module provides the student with an understanding of how “the self” (a teacher) interacts 
with society in the paradigm of education. The teacher gains an understanding of what is 
required of a teacher to work in a diverse society – aligning to the economic responsiveness 
of the curriculum. Furthermore, the student will be introduced to the cultural responsiveness 
of the curriculum (Moll, 2004) by studying a variety of instructional strategies to accommodate 
the diversity of their own learners. This knowledge enables student teachers to respond (act to 
address the needs) to their environment. Kaufman (1984) summarised Marx’s concepts on the 
relation between action and knowledge: Marx’s doctrine maintains that the knowing of reality 
was also the changing of it. That said, knowledge could not be understood independently 
of its relation to action. Action, within a mundane perspective, changes the objects in the 
environment acted upon and it changes the subject (Kaufman, 1984: 81). Marx viewed this 
interrelationship between knowledge and action as intrinsic to peoples’ natures. Knowledge 
produced change in people and change impelled action. 

In the third year, the education theory module focuses on the foundations of education 
and the theories of education. Here students engage with a variety of education theories and 
focus on curriculum theories. The students are exposed to the South African curriculum when 
they visit the schools during the SBL module where they are required to present lessons for 
the first time to classes under the supervision of their mentor teachers. The third year modules 
align themselves well with Moll’s (2004) disciplinary responsiveness of the curriculum. These 
modules address the “what”, the “how” and the “how do we know” elements of our humanising 
curriculum framework.

The theories that students are exposed to in these modules highlight the difference 
between appearance and reality and motivate action rather than directions for action. 
Habermas (as cited in Held, 1980: 349) explains as follows: 

They cannot dictate and justify action. Theory can only be used to create agents capable 
of full participation in decisions concerning action and it can be used to support arguments 
in favor of certain courses of action. But it cannot be used, in any automatic or mechanistic 
way, to generate strategy or to ensure the success of strategic action

The fourth year is a culmination of the previous three years of study, as students are 
required to reflect on what they have learnt and experienced during their previous three years 
in order to develop their own teaching philosophy. The fourth year SBL module requires 
students to be at a school for a whole year and to form part of a community of practice where 
they can implement their teaching philosophy and all that they have learnt over the past 
three years. It allows the student to engage with diverse learners, to learn from teachers in 
practice, to implement the curriculum and to focus on the assessment thereof. Most of all it 
will allow the student to adjust their teaching to the rhythms, tensions and emotions of the 
learning environment. 

The fourth year modules support Moll’s (2004) notion of learning responsiveness of the 
curriculum. It attempts to help students question and challenge domination and the beliefs and 
practices that dominate. In other words, it is a theory and practice of helping students achieve 



50

Perspectives in Education 2016: 34(1)

critical consciousness. However, as Darling­Hammond and Ducommun (2012) note: a high­
quality teacher may not be able to offer high-quality instruction in a context where there is a 
mismatch between the demands of the situation and his or her knowledge and skills. Thus, 
this serves as motivation for the following suggestions to form part of a teacher education 
curriculum that will enable student teachers to be effective in their teaching: 

• Well-supervised student teaching experiences that were also well-matched to the subjects, 
grade levels and students they would later teach; 

• More course work in teaching subject specialisations and teaching methods;

• Focused courses helping student teachers acquire specific practices and tools that they 
can apply in their student teaching or practicum experiences; 

• A capstone project that would usually require a performance assessment or portfolio of 
their work done in classrooms with learners

In evaluating our humanising curriculum framework, it is clear for us that education is 
humanising when it is critical, dialogical and praxical. 

6. Conclusion
We have reflected on our recent B.Ed. curriculum renewal journey towards a coherent, rigorous 
programme, enabling the beginner teacher to confront the numerous challenges synonymous 
with South African schools. We believe that the specific nature of this journey, underpinned 
by a critical theory, emancipated us from previously held assumptions, thereby enabling us to 
design an authentic, collectively owned, rigorous new B.Ed. programme. We suggest that with 
the thoughtful implementation of this programme we may be able to respond to the needs of 
society (Slonimsky & Shalem, 2006) by cultivating student teachers who, through on-going 
critical reflective inquiry, will indeed become the much needed ‘transformative intellectuals’, 
as proposed by Giroux (1988).

As these programmes are to be implemented, we acknowledge that much reflective 
work still needs to be done towards on-going refinement. This we will aim to do, through 
collaborative, collegial dialogue that reflects on problems and work towards solutions that 
provide the catalyst for our own and our students’ learning (Henderson & Gornik, 2007: 68).

References
Alexander, R. 2008. Pedagogy, culture and curriculum. In P. Murphy, J. Soler, & K. Hall (Eds.). 
Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities. Northallerton: The Open University: Milton 
Keynes. pp. 3-27.

Apple, M.W. 2011. Global crises, social justice, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher 
Education, 62(2), 222-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487110385428

Arum, R. & Roska, J. 2012. Academically adrift. Limited learning on college campuses. 
Chicago: Chicago Press. 

Berlak, A. 2004. Confrontation and pedagogy: Cultural secrets and emotion in anti­oppressive 
pedagogies. In Democratic Dialogue in Education: Troubling Speech, Disturbing Silence. New 
York: Peter Lang. pp. 123-144.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487110385428


Geduld & Sathorar Humanising pedagogy: An alternative approach to...

51

Bernstein, B. 1999. Official knowledge and pedagogic identities. In F. Christie (Ed.). Pedagogy 
and the shaping of consciousness. London: Continuum pp. 148.

Beyer, L. 2001. The value of critical perspectives in teacher education. Journal of Teacher 
Education, 52(3), 151-163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002006

Christensen, L.M. 2000. Critical literacy: Teaching reading, writing, and outrage. Trends and 
Issues in Secondary English, 11(2), 234-245.

Cohen, W. 1999. Learning trees and rules with set valued features. In 14th Conference of the 
American Association of Artificial Intelligence, AAAI.

Cullen, R. & Hill, R.R. 2013. Curriculum designed for an equitable pedagogy. Education 
Sciences, 3, 17-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci3010017

Darling­Hammond, L. & Ducommun, C. 2012. Recognizing and developing effective teaching: 
What policy makers should know and do. New York: Teachers College Press.

De Leon, A. & Ross, 2010. Critical theories, radical pedagogies, and social education. New 
Perspectives for Social Studies Education. Boston: Sense Publishers. 

Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). 2015. Minimum requirements for 
teacher education qualifications. Government Gazette, 38487. Pretoria: Government Printers. 

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. New York: Collier. 

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. 

Freire, P. 2005. Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th anniversary edition. New York: The Continuum 
International Publishing Group Inc.

Furumoto, W. 2003. Reconnecting education to social justice. Amerasia Journal, 29(2), 1­7. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.17953/amer.29.2.d3625q467wn4k3u0

Giroux, H. A. 1988. Teachers as intellectuals. New York: Bergin and Garvey. 

Giroux, H. A. 2009. Youth in a suspect society: Democracy or disposability? New York: 
Palgrave­Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230100565

Hawkins, D. 1974. The informed vision: Essays on learning and human nature. New York: 
Agathon Press. 

Held, D. 1980. Introduction to critical theory. London: Hutchinson and Co, Ltd.

Henderson, J.G. & Gornik, R. 2007. Transformative curriculum enquiry, 3rd edition. 
New Jersey: Pearson. 

Horkheimer, M. 1972. Bemerkungen zur Religion. Frankfurt: Fisher Verslag. 

Kaufman, B. 1984. Philosophy, common sense, and action in educational administration. 
Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.

Korthagen. F. 2002. Reframing teacher education: The realistic model. Teachers and Teaching: 
Theory and Practice, 2(2), 161-190.

Landman, W.A., Kilian, C.J.G., Swanepoel, E.M. & Bodenstein, H.C.A. 1982. An introductory 
reader in fundamental pedagogics for the students and the teacher. Cape Town: Juta.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002006
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci3010017
http://dx.doi.org/10.17953/amer.29.2.d3625q467wn4k3u0
http://www.amazon.com/Youth-Suspect-Society-Democracy-Disposability/dp/0230613292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230100565


52

Perspectives in Education 2016: 34(1)

Meadows, D. 2002. Dancing with systems. Systems Thinking, 13, 2-6. 

Moll, I, 2004. Curriculum responsiveness: The anatomy of a concept. In H. Griesel (Ed.). 
Curriculum responsiveness case studies in higher education. Pretoria: South African 
Universities’ Vice­Chancellors’ Association (SAUVCA).

Morrow, W.E. 2007. Learning to teach in South Africa. Pretoria: HSRC Press.

Popkewitz, T. 1984. Paradigm and ideology in educational research. New York: The Falmer 
Press.

Reeves, C. & Robinson, M. 2014. Assumptions underpinning the conceptualization of 
professional learning in teacher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 28(1), 
236-253.

Rodgers, C. 2002. Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard 
Education Review, 72(2), 230-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.2.5631743606m15751

Schmidt, A. A. 2008. Development and validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale. Available at 
< http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/8176/1/umi-umd-5358.pdf> [Accessed 19 February 
2016].

Slonimsky, L. & Shalem, Y. 2006. Pedagogic responsiveness for academic depth. Journal of 
Education, 40, 35-58.

The Hechinger Report. 2008. Understanding and reporting on academic rigor. The Hechinger 
Institute on Education and Media. Teacher College. Collumbia University.

Tintiangco-Cubales, A., Kiang, P.N. & Museus, S.D. 2010. Praxis and power in the intersections 
of education. AAPI Nexus, 8(1), 5­8.

Zinn, D., Geduld, D., Delport, A. & Jordaan, C. 2014. ‘Learning walks’: Dialogic spaces for 
integrating theory and practice in a renewed B.Ed. foundation phase programme. South African 
Journal of Childhood Education, 3(4), 103-121. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.2.5631743606m15751
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/8176/1/umi-umd-5358.pdf

	_GoBack