INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8928

www.rsisinternational.org

Pedagogical Preferences in the Teaching of Agriculture in Inclusive

Settings to Learners with Physical Challenges: The Case of Grade 6

Classes in Domboshava, Mashonaland East Province

Liana Musekiwa

, Loveness Dube

Ph.D Candidate Tutor- TTC Mbuga

Tutor –TTC Muramba

Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0676

Received: 01 October 2025; Accepted: 07 October 2025; Published: 19 November 2025

ABSTRACT

This study sought to analyse facilitators’ pedagogical preferences in the teaching of Agriculture in inclusive

Grade 6 Agriculture classes with specific reference to physically challenged learners. The researcher adopted a

qualitative, descriptive case study design, which employed a triangulation of interviews, document analysis, and

participant observation as data collection methods. A sample of three purposively sampled facilitators and ten

learners from Domboshava, Mashonaland East, participated in the study. It emerged from the study that whilst

some facilitators were aware of the need for individualization in inclusive classes, others were setting conditions

for its provision. The study also revealed that whilst some facilitators exhibited sound subject-content

knowledge, their pedagogical content knowledge left a lot to be desired. The application of learner-centred

pedagogies like project-based learning (PBL), collaboration, demonstration, and question and answer was

evident from the study. However, it also emerged that the application of such pedagogy was flawed. It was also

clear from the study that physically challenged learners exhibited a relatively dwindling enthusiasm during the

agriculture practical. Findings from the study implied that facilitators could do well by regarding the holistic

study of the child as the basis for pedagogical selection. Facilitators might also need to apply differentiation as

a responsive, inclusive pedagogy not only in Agriculture theory sessions but also in practical sessions. There

might be a need for facilitators to practice reflective teaching to enhance pedagogical practices. Mainstream

school administrators could also help the situation by maintaining the recommended facilitator: learner ratio for

inclusive classes and also mobilising parents to augment schools’ efforts. Pre-service Teacher Education could

also help by considering Special Needs Education as a stand-alone course in professional studies. Facilitators

who have not gone through the Theory of Education courses are also encouraged to undertake various forms of

Continuous Professional Development to enhance their pedagogical-content knowledge in handling classes with

physical exceptionalities.

Keywords: pedagogy, facilitator, agriculture, inclusive education, physically challenged learners.

INTRODUCTION

The onset of the Competence-Based Curriculum (CBC) gave birth to Agriculture as one of the standalone

examinable learning areas at the primary school level in Zimbabwe. As a hands-on learning area, the subject

calls for the active involvement of learners in the teaching-learning process. This study sought to analyse the

pedagogical preferences of facilitators in the teaching of Agriculture in inclusive classes with physically

challenged learners.

Background of the Study

A facilitator’s pedagogical preference tends to have a great bearing on learner efficacy in any learning area. The

teaching of Agriculture at the primary school level is no exception. The onset of the CBC saw the introduction

of Agriculture as an examinable standalone subject at the Grade 7 level since 2017. This development led to the

adoption of learner-centred, progressive, and multicultural pedagogies within the education discourse in

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8929

www.rsisinternational.org

Zimbabwe. If well handled, the application of learner-centred pedagogies could go a long way in developing the

much-needed enterprise skills in diverse learners from the grassroots level.

However, the teaching of Agriculture has been received with scepticism by some facilitators. Lack of

subjectcontent knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge by most facilitators is cited as the major driver of

this scepticism (Teacher Education Curriculum Review (TERC, 2015). This scepticism can translate into wrong

epistemology on the subject by these facilitators. It, therefore, follows that the selection of appropriate pedagogy

in the teaching of this key practical subject need not be overemphasised. The emergence of Inclusive Education

(IE) within education circles further compounds the situation.

There is no doubt that inclusive classes require careful selection of pedagogy. Any wrong pedagogical choice by

a facilitator in an inclusive Agriculture class may lead to disastrous learning outcomes. Unresponsive

pedagogical choices make the teaching of Agriculture practical problematic especially when there are physically

challenged learners involved. Unresponsive pedagogies might cause such learners to show a relatively higher

level of enthusiasm only in theory, as compared to practical sessions. Thus, correct pedagogical selection in

teaching agricultural practices in inclusive classes is a key driver in the success of the subject.

Statement of problem

The facilitators’ inability to come up with responsive pedagogies in an inclusive class may hinder the realisation

of enhanced learning outcomes in Agriculture learners. This is further compounded by the challenges some

learners have. More so, practical activities might end up being a daunting and time-consuming process for

learners with exceptionalities. Consequently, facilitators may not be able to satisfy all the pedagogical

expectations of these diverse learners, thus making Agriculture pedagogy in inclusive settings problematic. In

that respect, the employment of unresponsive pedagogy may cause those Agriculture learners with physical

challenges in inclusive settings to display a relatively dwindling enthusiasm in practical as compared to theory

sessions.

Main Research Question

Which are the preferred pedagogical practices in the teaching of Agriculture at the primary school level?

Sub Research Questions

1. Which pedagogies do facilitators mostly prefer in the teaching-learning of agriculture theory in inclusive

settings with physically challenged learners?

2. Which are the most prevalent pedagogical preferences for Agriculture practical in inclusive classes with

physically challenged learners?

3. What is the level of participation by physically challenged learners during practical Agriculture sessions

in inclusive settings?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Frameworks for Inclusive Education

IE has been a war cry in education circles not only in Zimbabwe but the world over. Many International

declarations call for inclusion. These declarations include the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action

(UNESCO, 1994) and the Dakar Framework (UNESCO, 2000). By being a signatory to these international

declarations, Zimbabwe is taking some strides towards the provision of IE, which is in tandem with these

international requirements. Back home, the Zimbabwean Constitution (2013), the Education Act (2006), Chapter

25:04, and the Disabled Persons Act (1996), among other legal instruments, act as the driving forces behind the

implementation of IE.

This international goal explicitly calls for schools all over the world to effectively embrace inclusive education

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8930

www.rsisinternational.org

and regard it as the only sensible way of developing every child’s potential. This then should have a bearing on

Agriculture facilitators’ pedagogy, hence the need to carry out this study.

This means that the state made it mandatory for the physically challenged learners to enjoy their right to

education on an equal opportunity basis with their normal peers. However, it should be noted that while there

are all those legislative frameworks, Zimbabwe has not boldly put in place a policy on IE.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study was foregrounded on the theory of constructivism. Constructivism is an educational theory rooted in

the ideas of various educational philosophers and psychologists (Ramsook & Thomas, 2016; Dagar & Yadaf,

2016). Such psychologist includes Piaget and Bruner of cognitive constructivism, Bandura and Vygotsky of

social constructivism, and Rousseau and Dewey of progressive constructivism (Ramsook & Thomas, 2016;

Dagar & Yadaf, 2016). At the core of constructivism is the idea that knowledge is constructed either individually

or collaboratively (Ramsook & Thomas, 2016; Dagar & Yadaf, 2016). This means that learning is a constructive

activity that demands the active engagement of learners.

Cognitive constructivism proffers that learning is an active mental activity in which learners construct personal

meaning from exploring the world around them (Piaget, 1980). In that respect, learning Agriculture should be a

pragmatic process achieved through pedagogies like experimentation, project-based, or inquiry-based learning.

On the other hand, social constructivism emphasises the collaborative nature of learning and the role of cultural

and social environment (Ramsook & Thomas, 2016). This argument situates learning as a collaborative process

in which meaning is derived from social interaction. In that manner, peer collaboration should become a key

feature in agricultural teaching-learning. The significance of the socio-cultural environment in cognitive

development (Vygotsky, 1978) situates the teaching of Agriculture as an integral curriculum area, as it is

cherished by the agro-based Zimbabwean society. Progressive constructivists argue that the study of the child

should be made the basis through which a sound education is built (Samkange, 2015). Therefore, curriculum

planning, which includes the selection of pedagogy, should be highly sensitive to the needs of diverse learners.

Put in educational vernacular, the teaching-learning of Agriculture in inclusive classes should be a

meaningmaking process for diverse learners.

Factors Influencing the choice of pedagogy

The conceptualisation of pedagogy brings out the fact that pedagogy is a dynamic issue. Traditionally, pedagogy

was only synonymous with the four walls of the classroom, but modernisation has pushed it beyond that. Eliassen

(2014) pointed out three major causes of constant changes in pedagogy. According to Watkins & ) the global

continuity in the knowledge base, the differentiation of learning environments and resources according to

learners’ level, and the extension of learning beyond the four walls of the classroom are the main causes for

pedagogical changes. These causes imply that pedagogy should be tailor-made to serve specific purposes. Factors

like learner diversity, learning styles, resource availability, nature of content, and class size present as contextual

factors that, in a real sense, should act as determinants of a facilitator’s pedagogical selection (Karki, 2014).

Learner Diversity

The learner should be at the centre of the learning-teaching process. There is no doubt that the twenty-firstcentury

class is characterised by learner diversity. Suleyman (2019) articulates that diversity refers to the range of

differences that encompass factors such as ethnicity, learning ability, and special needs. In the same vein,

Tomlison (2014) is of the view that learners vary in terms of physical, cognitive, and affective domains. This,

therefore, implies that there is a need for facilitators to have a holistic understanding of the needs of their learners

to improve the efficacy of every learner, despite the presence of physical challenges or other distinctions.

“No two persons are exactly alike” (Sharma, 2017). Learners differ in their level of intelligence, aptitude,

interests, creativity, and so on. This diversity calls for a holistic understanding of learners. Facilitators use

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8931

www.rsisinternational.org

psychological, philosophical, and sociological tools to gain insight into learner characteristics, how they acquire

knowledge, their motivation, and learning environments, among other issues (Sharma, 2017). The fact that

learners are uniquely endowed should form the basis for any facilitator’s pedagogical choices. Concerning the

study, a facilitator’s pedagogical choice for both the agriculture practical and theory lessons should be driven

towards meeting the needs of each learner. Each selected pedagogy should strive to contribute to meeting the

needs of both the normal and the physically challenged learner in an inclusive Agriculture class.

Learners style

Once the new knowledge to be grasped by learners is presented in a fashion that enables it to be perceived in

terms of the learners’ prior knowledge, then learning would never become a burdensome process to learners.

However, this could only be feasible if a facilitator’s pedagogy corresponds to the learners’ learning styles.

Therefore, to establish responsive pedagogy, inclusive classes, it becomes imperative to conceptualise a learning

style.

It is important to note that some scholars do not find a clear distinction between learning styles and cognitive

styles or sensory styles (Alwa, 2014). Hence, the terms may sometimes be used interchangeably. A learning style

indicates an individual’s preferential focus on different types of information, the different ways of perceiving,

and the rate of understanding the information (Alwa, 2014). The definition situates a learning style as one’s best

medium of learning. A learning style is the complex way in which, and conditions under which learners

effectively perceive, process, store, and recall what they are endeavouring to learn (Alwa, 2014). A learning style

is a way used by a learner to make meaning out of the teaching-learning process. It enables the learner to decipher,

relate, and retain the acquired knowledge. Thus, attuning an Agriculture facilitator’s pedagogy with a learner’s

learning styles enables learners to perform to the maximum extent appropriate.

Ozerem & Akkoyunlu (2015) argue that it should never be the learners who have to struggle to match their

learning styles with the facilitator’s pedagogy. Knowledge of learning styles assists learners in ‘learning how to

learn’ (Alwa, 2014). This means that knowledge on learning styles helps learners to become autonomous

Agriculture learners who take charge of their learning. This is quite crucial, especially in this era of IE. A learning

style can be regarded as the drawing board from which an Agriculture facilitator’s pedagogy should be derived.

In this regard, a learning style becomes an indispensable factor in determining agricultural pedagogy in inclusive

settings.

Learning as a social phenomenon

Learners, like all beings, are social creatures who always attach meaning to the interaction process (Carter &

Fuller, 2016). Sociocultural constructivists argue that knowledge and learning emanate from the interactions

between persons and the contexts they live in as well as the activities they partake in (Wilson & Peterson, 2006).

This argument situates learning communities as very critical components of learning. It is through social

interaction that learners learn first by observing others (Bandura in Sharma, 2017) and then gradually become

active participants in a group through collaborative learning (Sharma, 2017).

Learning is a process of active engagement

Contemporary changes within the education discourse have seen a paradigm shift in learning. Consequently,

learning has moved from being perceived as the passive regurgitation of factual information to the active

construction of meaningful knowledge (Sharma, 2017; Curriculum Framework, 2015-2022). The

teachinglearning pedagogies have shifted from the use of the ‘mug and jug' principle characterised by rote

learning (Freire 1970) to the active construction of knowledge through collaboration, experimentation, and

problem solving (Curriculum Framework 2015-2022; Slavin, 2011). In that respect, an inclusive pedagogy takes

into cognisance the fact that learners are not blank slates (Samkange & Samkange, 2015; Freire, 1970) but are

creatures who are trying to actively create meaning by making sense of the world around them (Sharma, 2017;

Slavin, 2011). Hence, Agriculture teaching-learning in inclusive classes demands active involvement of learners.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8932

www.rsisinternational.org

METHODOLOGY

This study employs a qualitative approach to investigate the various pedagogical preferences in the teaching of

Agriculture to learners with physical disabilities in primary schools in Domboshava district of Mashonaland East

Province, Zimbabwe. The qualitative approach aims to articulate and elucidate the sentiments, outlooks, and

experiences of the participants (Martic, 2018). This approach was particularly well-suited for this research, as it

facilitated a comprehensive exploration of pedagogies used in teaching agriculture. The interpretive paradigm,

as advocated by Cresswell (2024), underpinned this research, emphasising participants' subjective experiences

within their social context. It acknowledged knowledge as socially constructed and was influenced by

researchers' ontological and epistemological beliefs (Braun & Clarke, 2022a; Thomas, 2020).

Research design, according to Martic (2018), refers to the strategic plan used to address research questions. In

this study, a case study design was adopted to understand the pedagogies preferred in teaching Agriculture. Case

studies are well-known for providing in-depth analyses of single or limited units in real-world contexts and offer

rich qualitative insights (Cherry, 2022). To understand and analyse facilitators’ pedagogical preferences, the

researcher opted for an in-depth inquiry to unpack the complexities of the phenomenon. The researcher’s focus

was therefore to be able to analyse facilitators’ pedagogical preferences in an inclusive agriculture class situation.

Although case studies have a qualitative nature and limited generalizability, they provide valuable insights into

complex phenomena (McCombes, 2021).

Data collection tools

The study primarily used semi-structured interviews to gather data on participants. These interviews were

chosen for their flexibility and rigour and involved open-ended questions to obtain detailed and nuanced

responses (Buestrol, 2020). To ensure data integrity, all interviews were audio-recorded for accurate transcription

and analysis. In addition, observations and document analysis were other tools used to collect data. By combining

audio recordings and

document notes, the study aimed to capture the richness of participant responses and enhance the credibility of

the findings. Bonache and Festing (2020) emphasise the adaptability of semi-structured interviews, which allows

for coverage adjustment and exploration of unexpected issues while also accommodating individual differences

among interviewees (Buestrol, 2020).

Data analysis

The study used thematic analysis to identify and analyse emerging themes within the collected data (Maguire &

Delahunt, 2017). This approach allowed the researchers to understand shared meanings and experiences present

in the data. This rigorous approach facilitated the systematic identification of recurring themes and patterns

across the data, enabling a thorough exploration of the factors, including the attitudes and perceptions of the

participants. The researchers made sure that the themes were interconnected in a logical and meaningful way,

creating a coherent and convincing narrative that accurately represented the data, in line with Braun and Clarke's

(2022b) guidelines.

Presentation and findings

Facilitators’ awareness of individualised attention

It was established by this study that the participants had an awareness of learner diversity and the need for

Individualised Attention in inclusive grade 6 Agriculture classes with physically challenged learners. The

interview responses indicated that the participants had an awareness that some learners call for special attention

from the facilitator. Judging from the participants’ responses, the researcher could tell that the sample had basic

knowledge of learner diversity. This happened to be in tandem with what facilitators are required by the local

and international legislative frameworks about teaching and learning in inclusive learning environments

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8933

www.rsisinternational.org

(Zimbabwe’s Constitution, 2013; The Education Act, 2006, Chapter 25:04; Dakar Framework of Action, 2000;

Salamanca Statement, 1994).

Participant X’s responses indicated that he was aware of what inclusive or responsive classroom pedagogy calls

for. The response, I do not think there is any class without learners who need special attention, revealed that the

facilitator was aware of the demands of the twenty-first-century pedagogies, which call for putting the needs of

the learner at the core of the teaching-learning process (Gudjonsdottir & Óskarsdóttir, 2016). According to

Florian & Spratt (2014), inclusion is all about the embrace of all learners. In the same vein, Gudjonsdottir &

Óskarsdóttir (2016) posit that inclusion emanates from the notion of diversity rather than disability. This,

therefore, means that participant X was well aware that physical challenges are just a form of diversity. Thus,

the presence of physical challenges in learners should be celebrated through inclusive pedagogy.

Upon observation of Participant X’s theory lesson, the researcher noted that X paced his classroom activities

quite well. The researcher noted with amusement that participant X was always on the lookout for the learners

whom he had said needed special attention. However, the scheme cum -plan had nothing insofar as the provision

of differentiated instruction was concerned. Rasheed & Wahid (2018) contend that internal differentiation, in

which a facilitator modifies the learning content and methodology in a classroom, is one of the most appropriate

ways of meeting the needs of diverse learners. In that regard, the absence of differentiation in the scheme-cum

plan raised a red flag on part X’s pedagogy. It was clear that participant X used a ‘one-size-fits-all’ pedagogy

(Suleyman, 2019) even though he was aware that he had diverse learners. This defeated the essence of celebrating

learner diversity, which calls for the employment of different teaching-learning instructions for different learners.

Nevertheless, not much difference was noted between the participation of able-bodied learners and the physically

challenged in that theory lesson. The same learner performance was also confirmed by data gathered from the

facilitator’s progress record book. For the practical sessions, participant X paced his teaching-learning activities

quite well. To a larger extent, participant X’s pacing of practical learning activities showed that he was aware of

learners’ need for special attention. However, some learners, especially the amputee and the learner with a

deformed leg, could be seen struggling in carrying out the given steps for seedbed preparation. The one with a

deformed leg seemed better off than his counterpart. Their working pace was too slow for the tasks to be done

in the given time. This was also confirmed by the recordings in the learners’ practical diaries, which revealed

that a few learners, including the physically challenged, were always lagging in most of their practical tasks.

Upon analysis, one could suggest that there was a need for differentiation in time allocation during practical

tasks.

Participant Y responds that I have some learners who need more time to master even a very simple concept. For

instance, when pot-holing trees for water conservation, certain learners constantly require your assistance in

making basins; otherwise, it would be a disaster……

Indicated that she was also aware that some learners required more attention than others, particularly during

practical sessions. During the theory lessons, the researcher did not note any significant differences in

performance among the diverse learners in Y’s class. However, challenges were noted in the practical sessions.

Learners had to construct basins around three trees each. This meant that there was no variation between the

practical activities given to the learners despite the presence of physical challenges and the need for special

attention. Even the learners’ practical diaries revealed that the class always received the same quantity of

practical activities. The implication is that the physically challenged learners were somehow facing “exclusion

in inclusion” (Magwa & Jenjekwa, 2016). Participant Y needed to subscribe to Gudjonsdottir & Óskarsdóttir’s

(2016) idea that new classroom thinking, reasoning, and progressive beliefs should be derived from learner

diversity.

Furthermore, in her interview response,… this (giving attention to physically challenged) hinders me from

assisting the gifted learners, one could pick that participant Y was oblivious that even gifted learners were also

part of the learners who needed special attention. This was also evidenced by the unnecessarily slow pacing of

the teaching-learning activities in the practical lesson observed under the topic Water Conservation through Pot

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8934

www.rsisinternational.org

Holing. This is problematic insofar as IE in Agriculture classes is concerned. The same challenge was noted by

Bukaliya (2016) when he expounds that, “if not properly handled, facilitators in inclusive classes end up finding

themselves in a dilemma on whether to pitch lessons at either a basic level to accommodate the mediocre or at

an advanced level to ensure that gifted learners are not held back.” Holding back some learners defeats the notion

of taking the learners’ diverse needs as the basis for the provision of special attention during classroom

teachinglearning activities. On the same note, Florian & Spratt (2014) posit that inclusive pedagogy embraces

all learners and assumes learning together to be beneficial to everyone and not just those who are labelled as

having differences. Thus, special attention was not to be confined to the physically challenged learners only.

On the provision of PIA, participant Z said, I think all the learners need my attention. However, due to a high

teacher-pupil ratio, I end up giving special attention to only those who have the potential to do better. This

showed that participant X was also cognisant of the fact that some learners require special attention than others

in the teaching-learning process. However, her lamentation over the prevailing high-teacher pupil ratio, which

she cited as the major push factor for her failure to provide individualised attention to every learner who required

it, showed that there are some grey areas in her pedagogical beliefs. Tamimy (2015) confirms that once a

facilitator possesses low beliefs on how learners acquire knowledge, then pedagogy is automatically

compromised. The researcher also noted that the way Y provided special attention to learners implied that her

pedagogy was not grounded in the theories of learning. Even the learners’ practical diaries revealed that the

physically challenged learners were lagging behind the rest of the class in their project activities. For instance,

the recordings showed that physically challenged learners failed to finish their practical on tying six tomato

plants per learner for moisture conservation, unlike the majority of learners. The same thing occurred on the

recordings of tomato wire trellising, which was the third observed lesson. Such data confirmed that indeed not

all learners received specialised attention in participant Z’s class.

Setting conditions for the PIA to learners in an inclusive agriculture class not only defeats the whole purpose of

inclusive education but also violates the notion of responsive pedagogy, which brings about meaningful learning.

In his expert-novice theory, Vygotsky (1978) elucidates: scaffolding, which leads to the Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD), is essential in the cognition of a child. ZPD is the distance between the actual development

level as determined by independent problemsolving and the level of potential development, as determined

through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.

This, therefore, implies that unconditional provision of special attention to learners in inclusive classes is

essential as it enables even the physically challenged learners to reach higher operational levels, which they

might fail to reach independently. Even those learners who did not show the slightest signs of improvement still

needed special attention from their facilitators. Otherwise, failure to provide special attention to deserving

learners like those with physical challenges may have devastating effects on those learners’ self-concept, which

Cooley in his ‘looking glass-self’, regards as the self-image that reflects how others respond to us (Ritzer &

Stepnisky, 2014).

Subject and pedagogical content knowledge

In terms of pedagogical content knowledge, the study established that some Agriculture facilitators perceived

learners’ differences as a serious factor to be considered in pedagogical selection. The response, I have to

consider individual differences among learners. As I stated earlier, I have two physically challenged learners;

thus, I have to consider them in whatever pedagogy I select. In addition, I also consider the learning time as well

as the nature of the content to be taught, indicating that participant X always considered the physically challenged

in every pedagogy he selected. From the lesson observation, the researcher noted that participant X made sure

that he had explained every finer detail so that all learners understood. In other words, the researcher noted that

he was more conversant with explanations, questions, and answer and group work in theory lessons. This

observation resonated well with what participant X had singled out as recommended pedagogies for Agriculture

theory in inclusive classes. Apart from that, X also pointed out teacher-pupil ratio and the nature of the content

to be taught were other factors to be considered in the selection of Agriculture pedagogy.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8935

www.rsisinternational.org

The theory lesson observations showed that question and answer, explanations, and the group work in which the

learners listed the methods of trellising tomatoes indeed yielded positive results in terms of learner efficacy.

Participant X’s response, from my experience, I would recommend facilitators to employ explanations,

questions, and answers, and group work. These should be effective in teaching Agriculture theory lessons

revealed as he aimed at improving learner efficacy. Research has shown that 40% of classroom interaction is

spent on questioning (Amatari, 2015). Question and answer actively engage learners in the teaching-learning

process, keep learners on track, enable learners to share views with their peers, and help the facilitator to evaluate

learner understanding (Amatari, 2015). The researcher noted that the questions and responses enabled learners

to stay focused, as these had a motivational stimulus for learners, especially in theory sessions. It was through

questioning that learners were kept on track on the topic, tomato trellising. The researcher also noted that the

explanations which enabled the learners to have a deeper insight into the growing and caring of tomatoes were

well complemented by the collaborative work and the question and answer, as if confirming deep understanding.

An analysis of the progress record showed that the learners had grasped the topic. Most of the learners did well

insofar as theory sessions were concerned. All learners finished their work timeously.

Since participant X was hailed for keeping learners on track through his group work, questions and answers, and

explanations, the researcher noted some flaws in how these were carried out. From the theory lesson observation,

the researcher noted that despite the engagement of learners in collaborative work, the pedagogy was, to a large

extent, facilitator-centred. The researcher sadly noted that most of the questions and explanations were generated

by the facilitator himself. This was problematic in my view, especially when one is dealing with a curriculum

that aims at developing critical thinking and problem solving (Curriculum Framework, 2015-2022).

More so, the way the questions were asked contradicted what classroom interaction proponents advocate for.

According to the famous Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS), classroom interaction, be it

questioning or explanations, has to be characterised by more pupil-initiated talk than teacher-initiated talk

(Amatari, 2015). Amatari (2015) further elucidates that FIACS categories 8, 9, and 10 indicate that facilitators

need to build on learners’ ideas. All this is in line with the principles of learner-centred pedagogy. Most of the

explanations and the questions on caring for a tomato plant should have been generated by the learners

themselves to promote meaningful learning. Research indicates that there is a positive correlation between

learner-centred classroom questioning and pedagogy effectiveness (Young, 2017). Instead of participant X

spending too much time explaining concepts and asking questions to ensure that all the learners have understood,

he could have presented learners with opportunities for constructing their own questions and establishing their

explanations through collaboration. In a similar vein, Vygotsky views knowledge as being acquired through a

co-construction process between the expert and the novice (Sharma, 2017). That way, meaningful learning

would have taken place.

Moving on to the practical, the researcher noted that participant X’s response is a bit different from the theory

lessons. Therefore, like I stated earlier, I recommend explanations, questions and answers, demonstrations, and

the addition of Project-Based Learning was in tandem with what was obtained in his scheme-cum plan under the

topic Growing and caring for a fruit or vegetable (tomato)

Participant X employed explanations and questions and answers just in the same manner he conducted the theory

lessons. He also added PBL and demonstrations, as he had stated that some learners could not do anything

without him by their side. The three observed lessons, that is, one theory and two practical also showed that

participant X used all the outlined methods in his teaching-learning process.

The researcher found that some learners, including those who are physically challenged, did not do very well in

the practical activity of trellising tomatoes. Despite Participant X’s constant explanations and demonstrations on

the stages of trellising tomatoes to the learners, those learners still failed to finish their practical. Even other

recordings in the practical diaries confirmed that, in most cases, the same learners failed to finish their practical

tasks timeously. This repeated failure to complete practical tasks by physically challenged learners should raise

an alarm in any sensible facilitator. The researcher noted that there was a need to employ differentiation.

Differentiation, which is marked by flexibility of pedagogy which enables facilitators to perceive any form of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8936

www.rsisinternational.org

disability not as a challenge but rather as a classroom resource (Suleyman, 2019; Rasheed & Wahid, 2018). A

pedagogy should not be rigid, or rather homogenous but should be flexible enough to meet the needs of each

learner regardless the presence of physical disability. Flexibility in pedagogy through differentiation is an

extension of natural teaching, which does not take place at the school but rather develops from the child’s

socialcultural experiences (Rasheed & Wahid, 2018). This therefore, follows that differentiating learners’

practical activities would motivate even the physically challenged learners to finish their tasks.

Participant Y’s interview response, in practicals I recommend the same methods as in theory, that is, explanation

and discussion. These two methods go a long way in enhancing learner understanding on the steps to take in

practicals. However, in projects I have to demonstrate all the steps to those learners who need special attention,

revealed that she took demonstrations as a main pedagogy in practicals. From the practical lesson on preparing

brooder houses for poultry chicks, the researcher noted that participant Y was using explanations and

demonstrations as her main pedagogies. She spent much time demonstrating each and every stage of brooder

preparation to learners. It was noted that participant Y only explained and demonstrated the next stage after the

physically challenged learners had shown understanding. The third lesson observed was a practical lesson on

land preparation for tomato planting. The observation again showed that demonstration and explanation by the

facilitator were the dominant pedagogies. The scheme cum-plan for those particular practical lessons confirmed

that PBL, demonstration and explanations were to be employed. Data from the class’s practical diaries showed

that most learners always needed an extra session to finish the given task. The physically challenged learners

needed the facilitator by their side throughout the seedbed preparation process.

Upon analysis, one may note that a practical learning area like Agriculture cannot go without demonstrations.

Demonstration is an indispensable teaching pedagogy in practical disciplines (McLain, 2017). Indeed,

Agriculture practical activities like brooder preparation and tomato trellising would not be elaborate enough

without the application of demonstrations. Demonstration as a pedagogy on its own encompasses the fusion of

cognitive and physical tools, explanation, questioning and also caters to the learning styles of diverse learners

(McLain, 2017). This argument brings out that agricultural practical demonstrations, if well conducted, develop

in learners not only problem solving skills but also technical skills which are essential in solving everyday

societal problems.

An analysis of Participant Y’s response, that, however, in projects I have to demonstrate all the steps to those

learners who need special attention, showed that she practically did almost every necessary key step in solving

the problem, that is the construction of the brooder for day old chicks, without actively engaging the learners.

The researcher noted that Y’s demonstrations ended up engulfing the teaching-learning process, making the

pedagogy seem like facilitator-centred. Advocates of constructive learning argue that learners should not be

regurgitates of knowledge but rather be actively involved in the knowledge construction process (Ramsook &

Thomas, 2016; Dagar & Yadaf, 2016; Slavin 2011). This calls for Agriculture facilitators in inclusive classes to

actively involve their diverse learners in carrying out demonstrations. Rather than having the facilitator

demonstrate all the steps, the learners themselves need to be presented with opportunities to demonstrate to their

own peers. Because learning aetiology is largely due to social interaction, children ‘scaffold’ each other through

peer collaborative learning activities (Vygotsky, in Ramsook & Thomas, 2016). For instance, it could have been

different if the facilitator had picked a few learners to demonstrate what they had learnt to their peers in pairs or

small heterogeneous task groups. That way knowledge on brooder preparation could have been acquired in a

relaxed, flexible manner.

From the response, I am a holder of a Diploma in Agriculture from Chibero, therefore am quite sure that I have

got the relevant content needed in teaching Agriculture. My methodology is mainly rooted on timeous syllabus

completion and examination pass rates. Therefore, question and answer, a bit of lecturing and explanations take

a lion’s share in my methodology….., the researcher picked out that participant Z used the same pedagogies as

the other two facilitators but had the lecture method as an additional. It was also professionally heartening for

the researcher to note that participant Z was well grounded in subject-content knowledge as she was a product

of Chibero College of Agriculture. However, the researcher wondered whether the absence of the Theory of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8937

www.rsisinternational.org

Education (TOE) courses or the quest to finish the syllabus timeously could have driven participant Z to resort

to the traditional teacher-centred retrogressive lecture method in her classroom practice.

A closer inspection on the responsiveness of participant Z’s pedagogical practices showed that like earlier

mentioned, explanations and question and answers helped the learners to have a theoretical understanding of

how to make different housing systems for day old chicks. This was evidenced by the nature of responses

provided by the learners during the theory session. However, lecturing should never go uncriticised especially

in this CBC era. It is crucial to note that agriculture theory is crucial since every practical lesson comes as a

sequel to the theoretical lesson.

Lecturing, as a teacher-centred methodology has its own flaws as it falls short of the demands of the CBC

teaching-learning process. Freirre (1970) pronounces a teacher-centred school system as being more similar to

that which is being experienced by physically challenged learners in mainstream schools. Chemhuru (2013)

castigates:

A school system that is characterised by a teacher who teaches pupils through the mug and jug principle, knows

everything, always talks and expects pupils to listen as he/she deposits knowledge into the pupils’ minds, whom

he regards as ‘tabularassas’. The teacher also chooses the content to teach and dictates the pacing of the content.

Zimbabwe’s CBC also castigates the school curriculum described above. The CBC calls for facilitators to

provide opportunities in which the minority groups such as the physically challenged learners access knowledge.

Facilitators need to ensure that whatever pedagogy they employ, it has to avail opportunities for learners to

develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Samkange & Samkange, 2013; Chemhuru, 2013).

Ironically, participant Z denied learners the platform to actively construct theoretical knowledge on housing

systems for small livestock yet she wanted the same learners to later perceive that knowledge.

Furthermore, timeous syllabus completion should never be used by facilitators in inclusive settings as the

orientation basis for pedagogical selection, as alluded to by participant Z in her response. I usually consider the

teaching-learning time available. By this I mean the syllabus content to be covered in this examination-oriented

curriculum. It should be noted that in its bid to make learning a meaningful process, the CBC focuses on

competency development. The trend today is to pay increased attention to competency development, whose

focus is on the learners’ ability to mobilise their skills, knowledge and attitudes creatively and independently to

address different challenges (Curriculum Framework (2015-2022). In the same vein, the means to an end is more

important than the end itself (Kant’s categorical imperative in Ramaswamy, 2018; Eterovic, 2011). In that

respect, facilitators in inclusive Agriculture classes need to focus on how learners can best acquire and retain

meaningful knowledge rather than focusing on what is there to teach. This then would enable even physically

challenged learners to synthesise, evaluate and correctly apply the acquired knowledge, thus, promoting the

development of the much-needed enterprise skills. For instance, a learner may know through mere memorisation

that tied ridging conserves soil moisture yet he/she might possess limited knowledge on the real significance of

tied ridging in food production and self-sustainability in arid or semi-arid areas. Thus, the lecturing method

should be avoided at all cost.

On the recommended methods for Agriculture teaching-learning in inclusive classes, all three facilitators

advocated for explanations, PBL, collaborative learning, question and answer and demonstrations for agriculture

teaching and learning in inclusive classes. All the participants concurred that Agriculture teaching-learning is

incomplete without the use of PBL. Data from the facilitators’ scheme-cum plans revealed that all the interviewed

facilitators used the above-mentioned pedagogies and PBL appeared in all practical. This was also confirmed by

the observed practical lessons in which all three facilitators engaged learners in practical projects. Participant

X’s project was on growing a fruit or vegetable (tomatoes), whilst Y engaged her learners in caring for small

livestock (broilers) and participant Z’s class was managing a woodlot plantation. Recordings from the learners’

diaries also confirmed that learners were indeed being engaged in project activities. As one of the fundamental

inquiry-based learning pedagogies, PBL cultivates critical thinking, problem solving and reflection in diverse

learners (Curriculum Framework, 2015-2022).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8938

www.rsisinternational.org

The researcher also noted with amusement that even the physically challenged were being engaged in agriculture

projects. The facilitators’ pedagogical preference for PBL was actually in tandem with the demands of the CBC,

which advocates for a school education that contributes towards solving the needs of society (Curriculum

Framework, 2015-2022). In the same vein, Education 5.0. (2018) calls for the extension of the role of teaching

to research, innovation, industrialisation and serving the needs of the communities. This is indeed an implicit

call for Agriculture facilitators to desist from using pedagogies that produce learners who merely possess

theoretical agricultural knowledge but make a notable contribution to their agro-based Zimbabwean society. If

well handled, PBL in inclusive Agriculture teaching-learning at the primary school level could in one way or the

other, be the solution to the irrelevant education system Zimbabwe recently used to experience as lamented by

(Chemhuru, Makuvaza & Mutasa 2016)

The lack of relevance in our education system has contributed to our producing well-schooled products that are

not educated. These are individuals who have reached the highest level of education in terms of paper

qualification, but have no contribution to make in their society. They lack skills, attitudes, values and norms that

contribute to the development of society.

In light of the foregoing discussion, the employment of PBL in agriculture classes is a good sign that the nation

is in the right direction insofar as the development of enterprise skills from the grassroots level is concerned.

PBL in inclusive agriculture classes might result in the development of enterprise skills in all learners (including

the physically challenged). These project activities can also be extended to solving societal problems, as a school

is regarded as a microcosm of society (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2014).

However, the researcher noted some flaws in the way this PBL was being carried out. It is imperative to note

that PBL has distinct attributes that characterise it. A project has to be carried out in such a way that it develops

inquiry which leads to problem-solving. The Curriculum Framework (2015-2022) advocates that PBL is

characterised by:

the need to know in which learners are curious to gain knowledge, understand concepts and apply skills in order

to answer the key question. Learners are also allowed to make choices concerning how they work and how they

use their time, guided by the teacher depending on age level or PBL experience. Feedback on the quality of their

project work should be obtained leading them to make revisions or conduct further inquiry.

The above sentiments imply that in carrying out PBL, the learners’ needs should always be the point of departure.

Agriculture learners should be given the platform to fully and independently apply the knowledge they have

acquired in intriguing ways. PBL in Agriculture classes should have minimal facilitator demonstrations so as to

allow learners the opportunity to showcase what they have learnt theoretically. Learners should have the freedom

to work in groups of their own choice. However, all this was contrary to what the researcher observed from all

the three facilitators’ PBL.

Participant Y made use of several facilitator demonstrations. This in actual sense, defeats the whole purpose of

PBL which calls for learners to construct knowledge through inquiry and then apply it in addressing their own

generated questions (Curriculum Framework, 2015-2022). In his conditions of learning theory, Lougran (2006)

stresses the importance of the enhancement of retention and transferability of knowledge in the teaching-learning

process. This means that understanding of agricultural theoretical concepts and its application is enhanced when

learners themselves take charge of most of the demonstration activities during the teaching-learning process.

Agriculture learners in inclusive classes need to be presented with only guidelines and necessary skills so that

they would be able to do the projects by themselves. Availing the physically challenged learners the opportunity

to demonstrate might have signaled the facilitators that such learners were going to struggle, hence, the need for

peer collaboration which leads to problem-solving in a more relaxed, friendly manner. Peer collaboration and

differentiation might have prompted every learner to finish the given tasks. Inquiry and knowledge transferability

may as well remain an elusive dream once learners are treated as empty slates (Freire, 2020) in need of constant

facilitator demonstrations in carrying out practical work as displayed by the facilitators.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8939

www.rsisinternational.org

In addition, PBL goes hand in glove with reflective teaching. The failure to finish off practical tasks in time in

all the observed practicals by physically challenged learners spells out that the interviewed facilitators somehow

lacked reflection in the way they carried out PBL. On this note, Loughran (2006) emphasises that experience

alone does not lead to learning, but what is rather essential is reflection on experience. The three facilitators

should have used the failure to finish practicals in one lesson by the physically challenged as the basis of their

reflective practices. Continuing with the same modus operandi which yields unfruitful results clearly indicates

that meeting the needs of diverse learners was not the orientation basis for the facilitators’ pedagogical choices.

More so, the focus of BPL in inclusive agriculture classes should never be the content itself, in this case finishing

practical tasks, but it should rather be the development of problem-solving skills through inquiry in learners. The

Curriculum Framework (2015-2022), provides that PBL does not only call for significant content and

competency but also calls for in depth-inquiry in which the learners engage in a prolonged demanding process

of asking intriguing questions and finding answers in relation to the phenomenon under study. However, the

researcher sadly noted that all the three facilitators failed to engage learners in this kind of inquiry. It was rather

the facilitators who seemed to have been leading the inquiry process as they continuously posed questions to the

seemingly passive learners throughout the project. In such a scenario, the learners might even fail to find the

questions intriguing and meaningful.

Time Allocated for Agriculture Lesson

It was also evident from the study that time allocation for the theory sessions was adequate to cover the given

syllabus content. Only practical were problematic. Participant Y’s response, my opinion is that the current 2 by

30-minute slots we are having are quite alright. One hour per week is quite enough to cover the 8 syllabus topics.

You can use any teaching-learning activities you like without any hassle, revealed that the facilitators could

incorporate any activities they had planned in the teaching-learning process without the fear of running out of

time. An analysis of the scheme-cum plan for participant X revealed that she included some group activities in

his pedagogy. Participant X’s progress record entries showed that most of the learners, with the inclusion of the

physically challenged, were doing well in theory assessment. Even the lesson observation carried on the topic

caring for a fruit or vegetable (tomato trellising) was carried out in a way that all planned activities were covered

timely. Participant Y’s progress record also revealed that the majority of learners were deriving meaning from

the learning process. A look into Participant Y’s scheme-cum-plan revealed that she incorporated group work

teaching-learning activities too. The lesson observation carried on the topic Brooder Preparation showed that

Participant Y also exhausted all her planned teaching-learning activities within the stipulated time. The same

also applied to participant Z, whose theory lesson was on the management of woodlots. The progress record

marks also confirmed that the majority of the learners had grasped most of the concepts. Thus, from the gathered

data, the researcher noted that the three facilitators agreed that the time allocated for Agriculture practicals did

not affect their pedagogical preferences.

However, the story seemed different for practical sessions. According to participant Z’s interview response,

practical involve a lot of manual work, hence, demand more time, especially in classes where some learners are

in wheelchairs. That scenario alone makes agriculture practical a and cumbersome process. I think allocating at

least 3 by 30-minute periods to practical alone would be helpful, made it clear that the allocated practical time

impacted negatively on the participants’ pedagogy. The researcher noted with concern that all the physically

challenged learners in the three classes failed to finish their assigned practical task. As earlier stated, the lesson

observations carried out on participant X, the researcher picked out that the two physically challenged learners

and a few other learners did not finish their task of trellising six tomato plants per learner using the wire trellising

method within the stipulated one-hour period. The same also applied to the physically challenged and a few other

learners in participants Y and Z’s class, who failed to finish their practical on preparing hay box brooders and

pruning of trees, respectively. Even the other recordings in the learners’ practical records revealed that such

learners seldom finished their assigned practical activities.

From the gathered data, the researcher also established that the limited time available for the agriculture practical

could also be one of the drivers for the failure to complete given tasks by the physically challenged learners.

Research has proven that instructional time is an important variable in the teaching-learning process

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8940

www.rsisinternational.org

(Rintaningrum, 2018; 2016; Lavy, 2015). Even if one hour of instruction has the same productivity for all

subjects, it might be that different students profit differently from extra instructional time (Lavy, 2015). This

implies that Agriculture practical teaching-learning time can have a bearing on the facilitators’ pedagogical

effectiveness. Hence, some participants like Y would end up resorting to teacher demonstrations throughout the

entire practical session just for the sake of timely task completion.

In his model of school learning, Caroll (1963); (1975); (1989) cited in Rintaningrum (2018) advocates that the

time needed to learn (aptitude), the time students should spend on learning (perseverance), the time available for

learning (opportunity to learn), instruction quality and the ability to understand instruction are the five major

determinants of learner efficacy. This, therefore, follows that learners, especially those who are already

disadvantaged by physical challenges, need more time to complete a given Agriculture practical task. Had the

three facilitators been cognisant of the fact that their classes were not made of homogeneous learners who could

finish the same tasks in the same time, then even the physically challenged learners might have finished their

tasks. Indeed, trellising three tomato plants from a wheelchair in thirty minutes ends up being a dreadful task

for the physically challenged learners. This observation resonates well with the argument that learner diversity

should be a determinant of any teaching-learning activity (Elliassen, 2014) as diverse learners respond differently

to the same instruction (Cattaneo, Oggenfuss, & Wolter, 2016; Lavy, 2015). Therefore, in light of the foregoing

discussion, the time factor plays an integral role in determining not only learning outcomes but also instructional

quality in inclusive classes.

Resource Availability and its impact on pedagogy

The participants faced challenges in the provision of Agriculture teaching-learning resources. Participant Z’s

response, there is a rampant shortage of resources, which forces us to rely on one textbook per facilitator, and

that is supposed to cater for the whole class. This is why one ends up spending much time elaborating concepts

for learners to understand, making the lesson seem like a lecture. You can imagine writing four chalkboards full

of notes for learners to copy and digest. We cannot even talk of e-learning because we do not have an internet

connection and the necessary ICT tools. For the practical, the garden tools only suit the able-bodied learners,

which signifies a serious resource shortage.

Participant Y concurred with Z that his school lacked basic Agriculture teaching and learning resources. Only

participant X pointed out that his school provided adequate textbooks and conveniently used ICTs. The same

results were confirmed by data generated from the lesson observation and the scheme-cum plans for the three

facilitators. The researcher noted that Y and Z used pictures from textbooks and magazines, respectively. Data

from lesson observation pointed out that participant Z might have resorted to the retrogressive teacher-centred

pedagogy of lecturing (Samkange & Samkange, 2013) due to the extreme textbook shortage at her school. The

researcher, however, noted a difference in participant X’s lesson observation in which ICT was used to cater to

the learning styles of diverse learners. Even the learner motivation level was relatively higher in X’s class.

Although literature has it that effective facilitators adjust their pedagogy to meet the learning styles of their

learners (Alexander, 2013; Husbands & Peace, 2012; James & Pollard, 2011), this can only be feasible if the

learning environment has adequate teaching-learning resources. Responsive and inclusive pedagogies in the

teaching of Agriculture would be incomplete without the use of ICTs. ICTs enable facilitators to cater for the

learning styles of diverse learners, including those with special needs, during Agriculture teaching lessons.

Husbands & Peace (2012) assert that ICT is one of the best 21st-century learning tools that can be used to aid

the practice of differentiation pedagogy, in which more support is provided to specific groups of learners. In that

respect, physically challenged learners from participants Y and Z’s classes could have benefited from watching

videos on how other physically challenged learners prune trees in a woodlot. The videos alone could have catered

for those learners with auditory and visual learning styles (Kanchi, et al, 2013) whilst at the same time, the

physically challenged would have mastered the “how” part of the pruning process without the facilitators having

to demonstrate everything by themselves.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8941

www.rsisinternational.org

The above argument implies that ICT usage improves the accuracy and presentation of practical agriculture

activities by the physically challenged learners. ICT use accompanied by the provision of suitable garden tools

might result in all learners, including the physically challenged, being able to demonstrate tree pruning to other

learners. Therefore, digital media is quite essential in promoting learner-centred pedagogies in outdoor activities,

as alluded to by James & Pollard (2011).

From the lesson observations, the researcher could establish that the physically challenged learners were

struggling to use the agricultural tools that were available for use. For instance, the researcher sadly noted that

the amputees in participants X’s and Z’s classes had a difficult time using the ordinary-sized hoes. Data collected

from the three facilitators pointed out that the Agriculture tools that were available for use in their schools were

not supportive enough for the needs of the physically handicapped learners in their classes. Ironically, this is in

contrast to what the new Education Amendment Act (2020) section 68B of Cap 25:04 on learners with disabilities

advocates for when it states,

Every registered school shall provide infrastructure, subject to the availability of resources, suitable for use by

pupils with disabilities. The secretary shall monitor and enter the premises of every registered school to ascertain

whether the rights of pupils with disabilities are taken into account during teaching and learning.

Despite such calls, gathered data revealed that the provision of suitable inclusive learning resources in Zimbabwe

seems to be progressing at a snail’s pace. Without suitable resources it becomes difficult for the facilitator to

employ the process of normalisation (Charema, 2010 in Magwa & Jenjekwa, 2016), which seeks to improve

learner efficacy despite the presence of physical challenges. This then compromises whatever pedagogy one

selects for inclusive Agriculture classes. In addition, physically challenged agriculture learners also need to be

provided with LREs. Magwa & Jejekwa (2016) are of the view that the provision of LRE calls for the redesigning

of the educational settings to allow special needs learners to perform to the maximum extent appropriate. This

then implies that without the provision of LREs and normalisation, the effectiveness of any chosen pedagogy in

agriculture inclusive classes becomes compromised. Mafa (2012) postulates that teachers need resources to

produce teaching aids and to differentiate instruction. Had the hoes in question been tailor-made to meet the

needs of the learners with dwarfism, then participants Y and Z might even have applied learner demonstration

as a pedagogy. It would be meaningless for a facilitator to pick physically challenged learners to demonstrate to

his/her peers when these learners are struggling to use the available tools. This scenario indicated that a

facilitator’s pedagogical choice can be directly linked to the teaching and learning resources available (James &

Pollard, 2011).

Response to participation by physically challenged learners

Also evident from the data was the fact that the participants (learners) showed a relatively higher interest in

Agriculture compared to other learning areas. The three facilitators concurred that most of their learners, with

the inclusion of even the less gifted, showed a lot of enthusiasm, especially during the practical sessions. This

also tallied with data obtained from the lesson observations, which revealed that almost all the learners were

showing a high level of motivation during the practical sessions. Data gathered from the able-bodied learners’

practical diaries also showed that the whole class (with the exclusion of the physically challenged) was

performing well. An analysis of the progress record also revealed remarkable improvement even on the

nonreaders who tended to perform way much better in most of their practical activities when compared to their

performance in theory sessions.

However, with the physically challenged learners, the scenario was the opposite. Participant Y, had this to say:

All of the learners enjoy Agriculture lessons. The participation is relatively better when compared to what they

do in other learning areas. Even the not-so-gifted learners seem to be enthusiastic, especially in the practical

sessions. The only challenge comes when the physically challenged are engaged in practical activities. Probably,

the physical disabilities hinder them from finishing their tasks in time, thereby dropping their enthusiasm. From

the analysis of the progress record, the researcher noted that there was no significant difference between the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8942

www.rsisinternational.org

performance of the able-bodied and the physically challenged learners’ theory work. In contrast, data from the

lesson observations and Agriculture practical diaries revealed a relatively lower level of enthusiasm from

physically challenged learners during practical sessions when compared to theory sessions. Participants Y and Z

pinned the dropped enthusiasm in practice by physical challenges on their failure to finish practical tasks and the

unavailability of tailor-made agricultural tools for inclusive classes, respectively. Indeed, the absence of suitable

agricultural tools automatically hinders the provision of LREs (Mafa, 2012), thereby compromising the

effectiveness of any selected pedagogy.

Upon scrutiny, the researcher also factored out the absence of differentiation as a pedagogy both in practice and

theory, as one of the causes of the lack of enthusiasm displayed by the physically challenged learners during the

practical. Learner diversity, which emanates from differences due to learning styles, creative potential, and

exceptional conditions like physical challenges (Suleyman, 2019), calls for Agriculture facilitators to

differentiate the number of practical tasks given to learners in inclusive classes, as these learners are already

placed at a disadvantage. Differentiation motivates even the physically challenged or slow learners to finish off

whatever task they are given, hence boosting their enthusiasm towards Agriculture.

As noted from the lesson observation, enthusiasm significantly dropped among the physically challenged. This

might also have been due to the absence of motivation prompted by the unavailability of suitable practical tools

and the inadequate learning period for practicals. In his hierarchy of needs, Maslow elucidates that every group

of people entails individuals at different levels of motivation, with some having failed to meet even the lowest

physiological needs, thereby making it difficult to progress to higher levels of self-actualisation (Sharma, 2017).

This implies that once a physically challenged learner fails to finish off a given task, then the motivation to finish

other similar or more challenging tasks automatically dwindles. Consequently, this results in dwindling

enthusiasm towards agricultural practicals by such learners.

The researcher also noted that confining the demonstration to the facilitator only during Agriculture practicals

may reduce learner enthusiasm. By its nature, Agriculture is a learning area that promotes continuity between

home and school culture (Samakange & Samkange, 2015). Agriculture practical activities learnt at school are

not only confined to the four walls of the classroom but rather extend to the home and the community at large,

or vice versa. Similarly, Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory posits that the child’s socio-cultural background plays

a significant role in the process of ‘meaning making’ (Sharma, 2017). In that respect, confining practical

demonstrations to facilitators only in Agriculture practicals does not augur well with the extension of learning

beyond the four walls of the classroom. Facilitator demonstrations in Agriculture practicals may limit the

development of lifelong learning skills. Whatever pedagogy the inclusive Agriculture facilitators choose has to

promote learning without borders, as Agriculture content on its own is not alien to most, if not all, Zimbabwean

learners. Awarding learners, especially the physically challenged, the platform to do class demonstrations

enhances their enthusiasm towards practicals, especially when the facilitator makes use of positive regard

(Sharma, 2017) during these learner demonstrations.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study investigated the pedagogical preference in the teaching of agriculture to learners with physical

disabilities. the findings show that although pbl is addressed as a responsive, inclusive learner-centred pedagogy,

the way it is implemented in the teaching of agriculture practical by some facilitators is flawed. the absence of

differentiation in the allocation of practical tasks among diverse learners in some agriculture classes tends to

marginalise learners with physical challenges. absence of differentiation resulted in some physically challenged

learners developing relatively lower self-esteem. this negatively affected their learner efficacy in practical

sessions, thus reducing their chances of realising their full potential. over and above the study confines, the

stipulated 2 by 30-minute agriculture practical periods in inclusive classes seemed to be insufficient, considering

the pace at which the physically challenged learners may perform manual work.

The researcher recommended that the administrators in mainstream schools could help the situation by

maintaining the recommended teacher-pupil ratio for inclusive classes to facilitate the feasibility of the pedagogy

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8943

www.rsisinternational.org

of differentiation. There is also a need for the adoption and flexibility of differentiation as a pedagogy by

facilitators in inclusive Agriculture classes at the junior primary school level. Differentiation guards against the

use of ‘one size fits all’ pedagogy, which results in the classification of learners as ‘able or unable. Pre-service

teacher education might need to consider the provision of Continuous Professional Development (CPD) for

practising facilitators who do not have the background. Agriculture teaching and learning at junior primary

school inclusive classes calls for sound pedagogical content knowledge. Therefore, pre-service TE might need

to offer short compulsory courses for in-service practising teachers who possess only a Diploma in Agriculture.

REFERENCES

1. Alwa. H. A. (2014). Learning Styles and their Relation to Teaching Styles. International i. Journal of

Language and Linguistics. Vol 2 (3), pp 241-245.

2. Antia, S. D., & Rivera, M. C. (2016). Instruction and service time decisions: Itinerant services to deaf

and hard of hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(3), pp 293-302 available

Online at http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/IJER.

3. Bukaliya, R. (2016). Agriculture in the Primary School Curriculum: Providing an impetus the impetus to

the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation. International Open Distance

Learning Journal. Vol 1 (1), pp 12- 28.

4. Burke, P., Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2017). Exploring teacher pedagogy, stages of concern

and accessibility as determinants of technology adoption. Technology Pedagogy and Education vol 27

(2), 149-163.

5. Carter, J. M. & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning and action: The past, present and future symbolic

interactionism.Vol 64 (6) pp, 931-961. Also available

journals.sagepub.com/doilabs/10.1177/0011392116638396? journalCode=csia.

6. Cattaneo, M. A., Oggenfuss, C. & Wolter, S.C. (2016). The More, the Better? The Impact of Instructional

Time on Student Performance. Discussion Paper No. 9797. Germany: IZA

7. 7. Choy, L.T. (2014). The Strengths and Weaknesses of Research Methodology: Comparison and

Complimentary between Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches: IOSR Journal of Humanities and

Social Science, 19 (4), 99-104.

8. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. (7

ed.). iLondon:

Routledge.

9. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating i. quantitative and

qualitative research. (4

ed.). Boston: Pearson

10. 10. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating i. quantitative and

qualitative research. (6

ed.). Boston: Pearson.

11. 11. Cuenca, A. (2010). Self-Study Research: Surfacing the Art of Pedagogy in Teacher Education. i.

Journal of Inquiry and Action into Education. 3 (2), 151-291.

12. 12. Dagar, V. Y. & Yadaf, A. (2016). Constructivism: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. i. Arts and

Social Science Journals. Vol 7 (4), pp 1-5.

13. 13. Gudjonsdottir, H. & Óskarsdóttir, O. (2016). Inclusive education, pedagogy and practice. i. Iceland:

University of Iceland, School of Education.

14. 14. Gustafsson, J. (2017). Single Case Studies vs. Multiple Case Studies: A Comparative Study. Academy

of Business and Engineering and Science. Halmstad: Halmstad University.

15. 15. Hapanyengwi- Chemhuru, O., Makuvaza, N., and Mutasa, J. (2016). Hunhu: Making human rights

education discourse relevant. Journal of Pan African Studies, vol 9 (2), pp 100-168.

16. . Hapanyengwi-Chemhuru, O. (2013). Inclusion or Integration: Towards Conceptual Clarity in the

provision of Special Needs education in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Journal Educational Research, Vol. 25

(2), 201-216.

17. 17. Harris, D. R. & Fuller, D. Q. (2014). Agriculture: Definition and Overview. London: University

College Press. International Journal of Social Science & Education. Vol. 3(4), pp 123-133. http:

www.cbm.org/.../Jairos-Jiri_vocational-.....

18. 18. Husbands, C. & Peace, J. (2012). What makes great pedagogy? Nine claims from research. i.

Michigan: National College for School Leadership.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8944

www.rsisinternational.org

19. 19. James, M & Pollard A. (2011). TLRP’s ten principles for effective pedagogy: rationale, a.

development, evidence, argument and impact. Research Papers in Education, 26 (3), b. 275-328.

20. 20. Jenjekwa, V., Rutoro, E. and Runyowa, J. (2013). Inclusive Education and the Primary School i.

Teacher Education Curriculum In Zimbabwe: The Need for A Paradigm Shift: ii. The International

Journal of Humanities & Social Studies (ISSN 2321 -9203).

21. 21. Lavy, V. (2015). Do differences in schools’ instructional time explain international a. achievement

gaps? Evidence from developed and developing countries. The i. Economic Journal, Volume 125, (158),

pp397-424.

22. 22. Lehmann, T. & Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Influence of students’ learning styles on the effectiveness of

instructional interventions. International Conference on Cognition & Exploratory Learning in Digital

Age 2 (8), 180-189.

23. 23. Loughran, A. (2006). Developing a pedagogy for Teacher Education: Understanding teaching a. and

learning about teaching. London: Routledge.

24. 24. Mafa, O.M. (2012) Challenges of implementing inclusion in Zimbabwe’s Education System. a.

Online Journal of Education Research. Volume 1(2), pp 14-22.

25. Magwa, L and Jenjekwa, V. (2016). Handling Special Needs learners in Mainstream classes. a. The case

of Chirumhanzu District, Zimbabwe. International Journal of English and b. Education. Vol 5(1), 184-

192.

26. Manichander, T. (2015). Psychology of Learners and Learning. Maharashtra: Laxmi Book a.

Publications.

27. Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science & Technology Development. Educationa. Doctrine

5.0. (2018). Harare: Government Printers.

28. .Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (2016). The Handbook for Teacher Professional a.

Standards. Harare: Government Printers.

29. Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. Education Amendment Act (2020) section 68B a. of Cap

25:04. Harare: Government Printers.

30. Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. Curriculum Framework (2015-2022). Harare: a.

Government Printers.

31. Mohajan, H. K. (2017). Two criteria for Good Measurements in Research: Validity and a. Reliability.

Annals of Spiru Haret University Economics Series, 17(3), 58-82..

32. 32. Oppong, S.H. (2013). The Problem of Sampling in Qualitative Research. Asian Journal of a.

Management Sciences and Education. Vol 2 (1) pp, 202-209.

33. Ozerem, A., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2015). Learning Environments Designed According to Learning Styles

and its Effects on Mathematics Achievement. Eurasian Journal of Education Research. Vol 61 pp, 61-81.

34. Piaget, J. (1980). Adaptation and Intelligence. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

35. Pramodini, V. K. & Anu, S. (2012). Evaluation for importance of research in education. a. International

Journal of Social Science and Interdisciplinary Research. Vol 1. (9), b. pp 1-6.

36. 36. Rahman, M.S. (2017). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches and Methods in Language. “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review.

Journal of Education and Learning, (61), 102-112.

37. Ramaswamy, K. (2018). The right to Education: An analysis through the lens of the a. deontological

method of Immanuel Kant. North-western Journal of Human Rights., b. 16 (1), pp 48-64.

38. 38. Ramsook, L. & Thomas, M, (2016). Constructivism: Linking Theory with Practice among Pre-

service Teachers at the University of Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Learning Teaching

and Education Research. Vol 15 (7), pp127-137.

39. Rasheed, F. & Wahid, A. (2018). The theory of Differentiated Instruction and its Applicability: An E-

learning Perspective. International Journal of Technical & non-Technical Research. IX (IV), 194-202.

40. Ritzer, G. & Stepnisky, J. (2014). Sociological Theory. 9th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

41. Robinson, O.C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical

guide. Qualitative research in psychology, 11 (1), 25-41 Doi: 10.1080/1478 887.2013.801543.

42. Samkange W. (2015). Analysing the Philosophy of progressivism in relation to contemporary Education

practice on Zimbabwe. Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Science, 3 (9B), 1445-1488.

43. Samkange, W. (2013). Inclusive Education at Primary School: A Case Study of one Primary

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 8945

www.rsisinternational.org

a. School, Zimbabwe in Glenview/Mufakose Education District in Harare. SIDA i. Disability Rights on

Zimbabwe. Available on .http://www.msc.st/Docs%2Outdated%2013/HRBA-Diasbility-

Zimbabwe12105pdf 45. Sharma, S. (2017). Using Educational Psychology for Teaching-Learning

Environment. International Journal of Education. 8, 21-28.

44. Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data. Los Angeles: SAGE.

45. Slavin, R. (2011). Cooperative Learning. In V. G. Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in a. education.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam Academic Press.

46. Statutory Instrument 87 of 1992. Harare: Government Printers.

47. Suleyman, C. (2019). Creating an Inclusive and Multicultural Classroom by Differentiated a. Instruction.

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. Vol 9 (6), 30- b. 40.

48. Tamimy, M. (2015). Consistencies and inconsistencies between teachers’ beliefs and practices. a. he

Qualitative Report, 20 (8), 1234-1259.

49. The Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) (2013). Harare: a. Government

Printers.

50. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all a. learners. New

York: UNICEF.

51. 53. United Nations Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF) (2011). The Rights of Children with

Disabilities to Education: A Rights-Based Approach to Inclusive Education in the CEECIS Region.

Geneva: UNICEF.

52. 54. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Cultural communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. C. New a.

York: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: McGraw Hill.

53. 55. Waitoller, F. R. & Artiles, A.J. (2016). A decade of professional development research for inclusive

education: A critical review and notes for a research programme. Review of Educational Research, 83

(3), 319-356.

54. Westbrook, J., Durrani,. N., Brown, R., Pryor, J., Boddy, J., & Salvi, F. (2015). Pedagogy, a. Curriculum

Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in Developing Countries. b. Sussex; University of Sussex.

55. Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: designs and methods. (5

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage a.

Publications.

56. Yzzan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam and a. Stake. The

qualitative report, 20 (2). 134-152. http://networks, nova. Retrieved from b. Stake.