From Conviction to Classroom: Decoding the Belief- Practice Nexus Among Middle School Citizenship Teachers in Sidama

From Conviction to Classroom: Decoding the Belief- Practice Nexus Among Middle School Citizenship Teachers in Sidama | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article From Conviction to Classroom: Decoding the Belief- Practice Nexus Among Middle School Citizenship Teachers in Sidama Basha Bekele, Solomon Lema, Asfaw Gnefato This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9150616/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examined the pedagogical views of middle school citizenship teachers of Sidama Regional State. The aim was to examine the prevalence of constructivist and traditional pedagogical perspectives among teachers and to assess the correspondence between their stated views and actual classroom practice. The data was collected from 172 teachers through surveys and 10 teachers via interviews and analyzed quantitatively using both descriptive and inferential statistics such as t-test, correlation and one way ANOVA while the qualitative data were analyzed via content analysis methods. The results of the study revealed a fundamental contradiction. The middle school teachers showed a clear inclination towards constructivist approaches that illustrate their intellectual commitment to active teaching centered on critical thinking, engagement, and student agency. However, this theoretical inclination was compromised by inconsistent implementation oriented toward traditional practices. This requires the concerned bodies to work on the contextual factors that may influence teachers' practical aspects. Pedagogical Perspectives Citizenship Education Middle Schools 1. Introduction The 21st century is marked by unprecedented global challenges, including social division, political disengagement, the spread of fake news and misinformation, the rise of populism, and widespread human rights violations(Battista, 2024 ; Clements, 2018 ; Van Bavel et al., 2021 ). These challenges are further compounded by the rapid pace of globalization, increased migration, and technological advancements(Enchikova et al., 2021 ). Addressing this complexity necessitates the promotion of social responsibility, critical thinking, and decision-making skills(Niewiadomski et al., 2023 ).Within this context, Citizenship Education plays a crucial role. It equips students with an understanding of justice and legal knowledge, empowering them to actively engage in their communities and foster a social environment that upholds and exemplifies democratic values(Resh & Sabbagh, 2017 ). Fundamentally, Citizenship Education provides students with the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to contribute meaningfully to society as responsible and informed adults ((Martin, 2017 ; Niewiadomski et al., 2023 ). However, despite its increasing importance, Citizenship Education is susceptible to a continuum of interpretations regarding the attributes of good citizenship and the pedagogical approach best suited to achieve the objectives of the subject(Brooks & Holford, 2009 ; Kerr, 1999 ; Veugelers et al., 2017 ). These interpretations can be placed on a spectrum, from minimalist to maximalist orientations. In the former, the emphasis is on imparting knowledge of history, geography, government and governance, primarily through a content-based, teacher-led, instructional and examination- oriented approach. In this approach, due importance is given to the maintenance of social order, respect for authority and inculcating citizenship blandly just as a matter of widely voting representatives. The latter, however, focuses on developing active citizenship skills and values alongside the knowledge component by engaging students in meaningful ways through critical reflection and problem solving inside or outside the classroom(Dieltiens, 2005 ; McLaughlin, 1992 ; Muleya, 2019 ; Starkey, 2005 ) Given this divergence, it is necessary to understand from which perspective the goals of citizenship education are interpreted in the overall educational framework, especially from the perspectives of teachers in Ethiopia. Historically, Citizenship Education in Ethiopia has been repeatedly repurposed to serve as an instrument of socialization rather than active citizenship and sincere democratic participation under different regimes(Tlahun, 2006). During the imperial regime, for example, citizenship education (moral education then) was deeply embedded in the traditions of the Orthodox Church and aimed at rendering uncritical obedience to the regime (Bayeh, 2016 ; Gelaneh, 2012 ; Kihishen, 2017 ; Tadesse, 2019 ; Tafese & Desta, 2014 ) Similarly, during the Derg regime (1974–1991), the subject (political education then) was reoriented to serve Marxist-Leninist indoctrination, the aim of which was to introduce socialist nationalism to the neglect of democratic pluralism (Gelaneh, 2012 ; Semela et al., 2013 ; Yohans, n.d.). Even in the post-1991 period, the subject was introduced under the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), espousing democracy and human rights as its core values. However, questionably the subject remained to serve the purpose of legitimizing the regime by condemning the previous regimes as undemocratic ((Dibaba, 2017 ); Tilahun, 2006 , Yamada, 2014 ; (Muluye, 2018 ). This is notably evidenced by congruence of the elections (2000, 2005, 2010) with the curriculum reforms that instrumenting the political stability at the expense of democratic empowerment More recently, the new government took an immediate action of reforming the curriculum criticizing the former modality (civic and ethical education) as failing to cultivate the essences of critical thinking, problem solving and social cohesion(Teferra et al., 2018 ). The new general education curriculum framework took its inception from these limitations with the stated aims of shifting from the traditional, conformist, and teacher centered approach to a broader participatory approach together with the change in the nomenclature of the subject from civics to citizenship education. Consequently, given the persistence of using Citizenship Education as an apparatus of social conformity and ongoing educational reforms it becomes imperative to empirically re-examine the teachers’ perspectives on citizenship education in Ethiopia particularly in Sidama National Regional State beyond the state narratives to ensure its progressiveness and empower the students. 2. Statement of the Problem The teachers' pedagogical perceptions that is, their beliefs about what should be taught, how to teach it, and/or "what priorities do they place and what goals animate their teaching"(Estelles & Romero, 2019 )—have a significant effect on how well citizenship education is implemented. Indeed, “to what extent is the students' later participation a goal?” also needs to take center stage (Reichert & Torney-Purta, 2019) in exploring the pedagogical perspectives of teachers. This is primarily because teachers' pedagogical perspectives are crucial and have a significant effect on their methods of instruction, how they run their classrooms, and how decisions are made regarding Citizenship Education practices in classrooms (Li et al., 2016 ; Tadesse et al., 2020). Furthermore, in line with the favored teaching method, teachers' pedagogical beliefs dictate how lesson assessments should be carried out(Ibarra et al., 2023). Given this, the proficient execution of Citizenship Education fundamentally necessitates an examination of the objectives that guide the instructional approach. In this course, promoting conformity and indoctrination as the primary goal is undesirable for teachers since it deters students from engaging in critical thinking and holistic development(Rietbergen-McCracken, 2012 ). Instead, the development of critical thinking skills must be consciously and purposefully adopted to transcend uncritical socialization, engage in debates and discussions, and affect social change(Adebayo, 2019 ). This transition is smooth when teachers of Citizenship Education are preoccupied with constructivist perspectives rather than traditional ones in an effort to prepare students for possible opportunities and challenges (Zeybek & Şentürk, 2020). Particularly in the context of middle school education, where youths are preoccupied with the identity formation of both the group and personal onions that are taking place, it is highly recommended that teachers line up with a constructive, developmental, and emotionally attuned pedagogical framework(Johnson & Smith, 2008). This derives from the fact that their perspectives can have a significant influence on students' understanding of responsible citizenship(Boyden et al., 2019; Mee & Haverback, 2017 ). Accordingly, teachers at this level of education must adopt an educational perspective that views adolescence as a crucial time Boyden et al.(2019) and goes beyond the mere imparting of knowledge to instill values ​​that serve as a cornerstone for civic engagement and active participation in society(Johnson & Smith, 2008) to be politically active adults(Reichert et al., 2021 ). However, unfortunately, extant studies on citizenship education have focused exclusively on teachers’ perceptions of the subject itself or on teachers’ conceptions of good citizenship rather than on the pedagogical inclination of the teacher (Zaman, 2006 ;Leenders et al., 2008; Georgiou et al., 2021 ; Li et al., 2016 ; Sampermans et al., 2021 ; Wong, 2021 ).. Moreover, the majority of studies in Ethiopia ignore the particulars of the middle school level in favor of higher education or high schools by overlooking the pedagogical views and beliefs of middle school teachers. As a result, there remains a critical gap in the literature, particularly concerning the pedagogical perspectives of middle school teachers in Ethiopian contexts in generally and in Sidama’s case particularly. The current understanding of how teachers perceive and implement citizenship education is essentially with a remarkable lack of specific and localized evidence. Addressing this gap in the literature, the article, “Pedagogical Perspectives on Citizenship Education: Insights from Middle School Teachers,” therefore delves into this crucial topic by illuminating the perceptions of teachers who teach citizenship education in middle school contexts. This study examines their pedagogical views with an emphasis on how teachers' perceptions align with the educational expectations of citizenship education which thereby to enable the concerned bodies and decision-makers able to design specific interventions or support systems that efficiently facilitate citizenship education. With this intent, this research aimed to bring together teachers with diverse teaching experiences to answer the following research questions To what extent do teachers' pedagogical perceptions align with either constructivist or traditional approaches? Do teachers' pedagogical perceptions differ significantly based on their gender, educational level, and years of teaching experience? Is there a significant correlation between teachers' self-reported pedagogical perceptions and their reported classroom practices? 3. Theoretical Framework Building on the stated aim of this article, it was deemed necessary to provide a strong theoretical framework to analyze the pedagogical perspectives of citizenship education teachers. Therefore, in this study, constructivist theory is considered to examine the extent to which teachers' pedagogical perspectives and practices promote knowledge construction through active teaching practices such as debate, discussion, reflection, collaborative learning, problem solving, and critical thinking(Johnson, 2019 ). Furthermore, it is assumed that a specific link will be made to key theoretical frameworks in the field of citizenship education in order to analyze how well teachers' pedagogical perspectives are aligned to promote active citizenship. To achieve this, the study draws on several theories of citizenship. Specifically, (Biesta, 2011 ) notion of 'citizenship as becoming' provides a strong theoretical reference point to examine whether teachers' pedagogical perspectives focus on restoring students’ traditional socialization into existing norms alienating democratic practices from students’ daily lives, or whether they shift towards the continuous development of active citizenship. This study addresses the latter that allow students to experience democratic citizenship in their school-which he explains as a space for democracy wherein the students experience agency, deliberations, debates and dialogue. Consequently, this view provides theoretical guidelines for determining whether pedagogical perspectives and practices should promote unquestioned obedience and conformity or encourage critical engagement, agency, and the treatment of students as citizens. In addition, Westheimer & Kahne ( 2004 )framework of "citizen types" "(personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented) was used as a complementary tool to critically analyze teachers' pedagogical goals. By analyzing teachers' perspectives using this framework, we can assess whether teachers’ pedagogical insights emphasize the cultivation of passive obedience or the promotion of active community engagement or critical commitment to social justice, which has significant implications for the type of citizens they are shaping. 4. Methods and Design This study aimed to examine pedagogical attitudes of middle school civic education teachers. This study uses a mixed research method to better understand middle school teachers' perspectives on citizenship education. This method is flexible and adaptable to various study designs(Wisdom & Creswell, 2013 ). The study adopted a pragmatic theoretical philosophy that supports the idea of multiple interpretations of reality rather than a singular reality(Okesina, 2020 ) .This research philosophy was chosen in the view that, it allows the researcher to employ various research methods together to adequately address the research problems compared to employing a single research method(Makombe, 2017 ). In the present research, the whole processes for data collection and analysis were meticulously formulated within the contexts of convergent parallel mixed methods, wherein both qualitative and quantitative data were systematically gathered concurrently. Ultimately, the analysis of both datasets was conducted within the QUAN+QUAL framework, subsequently synthesizing the findings into a cohesive interpretation of the overarching results(Creswell & Creswell, 2017 ). 4.1. Participants The researcher used a multistage sampling method. In the first phase, the Sidama region was deliberately selected, keeping in mind the following considerations. First, the researcher's knowledge and experience of the sociocultural context of the region are taken into account to facilitate data collection and reduce research costs. This would simplify the process of contacting individuals and requesting assistance from the local education department. Furthermore, in this specific area, insufficient research has been conducted on the pedagogical perceptions of middle schools and teachers regarding citizenship education in this region. In the second phase, out of 38 districts in the Sidama region, 11 (30%) districts were selected via the purposive sampling technique to take an opportunity of locality knowledge for data collection. In the third stage, 89 (30%) of the 298 state middle schools in these districts were specifically selected. As Besekar et al.(2023) suggested, 30% of the total population of respondents is optimally suited for educational research. Furthermore, Louis Cohen, ( 2018 ) suggested that the acceptable sample size for a study actually depends on the type of research design; however, a sample should be 30% or more if the population is large, whereas 35% might be acceptable if the population is small. Finally, all 178 teachers teaching citizenship education in these schools were comprehensively selected for the survey data, but six respondents did not return the questionnaires. In qualitative research, determining sample size is contextual and depends in part on the scientific paradigm under which the study takes place. However, when considering theoretical saturation as a guide for designing qualitative research, 10 samples may be cases where data saturation occurs in a relatively homogeneous population(Boddy, 2016 ). Similarly, Vasileiou et al.(2018) suggested that a sample size between 9 and 17 is sufficient for a qualitative study. In relatively equally terms, Dworkin, ( 2012 ),suggested that a sample of 5–10 participants would be sufficient for interview if the population was homogeneous. On the basis of these empirical facts, the researcher selected ten (10) teachers for a semi-structured interview. The participants were purposively selected on the basis of their experience teaching citizenship education (formerly civics). This is frequently the case with qualitative researchers because qualitative researchers generally utilize purposive sampling, in which researchers deliberately pick individuals who are aware about or are acquainted with the important themes being examined(Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990 ). 4.2. Instruments In this study data were collected via survey questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis. To explore and understand complex phenomena, such as teachers' perceptions, qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Similarly, surveys have been used to collect quantitative data to identify trends or patterns in these viewpoints across a broader sample of teachers. 4.2.1. Survey The questionnaire was distributed to middle school teachers to obtain information about the teachers’ demographic characteristics, pedagogical perceptions, and the relationship between pedagogical perceptions and teachers' practices. To obtain the data regarding the teachers’ pedagogical perceptions, the Teaching and Learning Conceptions Questionnaire (TLCQ) was used as a survey tool. The TLCQ, developed by Chan & Elliott ( 2004 ) and further validated by Lee et al.(2013), was translated into Amharic employing the language expert to avoid the language barrier in responding and used to measure teachers' perceptions of their preferred teaching and learning methods in citizenship education. This questionnaire consists of 30 items composing two dimensions: constructivist belief (12 items) and traditional belief (18 items). The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” 4.2.2. Interview Data related to teachers' opinions to how citizenship education should be taught, how teachers' pedagogical perceptions relate to the curriculum they teach, and how pedagogical views are related to actual teaching practices were gathered through interviews. Because it is important to offer flexibility to participants, the researcher used unstructured interviews(Lodico et al., 2006) in a face-to-face setting. The interview schedule was prepared in English and asked in langue they preferred (Sidaamu Afoo or Amharic). Before the interviews were conducted, the teachers were given a consent form regarding the confidentiality of the data, permission to record their voices, and maintaining the participants' anonymity. After permission was obtained, the interviews were conducted, with thirty minutes given to each respondent. Each participant was interviewed in suitable, noise-free sites. 4.3. Data analysis The data analysis began by carrying out test of assumptions. In the first step, the data normality test was carried out via the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov and Shapiro‒Wilk tests. The normality test of the constructive perspective data was performed as follows: the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov test (D (172) = 0.067, p = 0.058) and the Shapiro‒Wilk test (W (172) = 0.986, p = 0.079). ). On the basis of these results, the p values of both tests were found to be above the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, both tests revealed that the constructive perspectives of data collection were normally distributed. Similarly, the normality of traditional perspectives was determined via the same tests. On this basis, the p values of the two tests were returned, with the p value of the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov test (0.066) slightly above the common significance value (0.05), while the p value of the Shapiro‒Wilk test (0.073) was also above 0.05. Therefore, on the basis of these results, the data regarding the traditional perspectives do not deviate from a normal distribution. To analyze the quantitative data, the researcher subsequently used comparison group means, independent samples t tests, one-way ANOVA and correlation analysis. To classify and interpret middle school teachers' pedagogical perspectives on the crucial elements of middle school citizenship education, their preferred teaching style, and their role as educators, content analysis was used in qualitative analysis. Teachers' responses were then carefully registered manually and examined to identify any recurring themes dividing the answers of respondents into two main pedagogical frameworks: constructivist perceptions, which focused on critical issues such as critical thinking, voice and agency, active participation, participatory learning, and engaged decision-making, and traditional perceptions, which commonly include topics such as knowledge transfer, discipline and preparation for social conformity, moral coaching, and respect for authority. On this basis, the participants' answers were coded according to their agreement with traditional or constructivist conceptions. The inclinations of the respondents' answers were then determined, taking into account the intensity and strength of the respondents in expressing their beliefs and feelings. Finally, by analyzing the data obtained from various sources, the researcher cross-referenced the results to ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of the findings. 4.4. Validity and reliability The quality of research depends on its validity and reliability(Shah & Al-Bargi, 2013 ). Accordingly, the researcher have tried and pursued several strategies that increase the credibility and trustworthiness of the results. To enhance the reliability of quantitative data, an attempt was made primarily to properly outline the objectives that the instrument was designed to measure. In addition, a pilot study was conducted. On the basis of the responses of 33 pilot respondents, item reliability was tested via Cronbach’s alpha, which was 0.75 According to Taber, (2018), 0.7 is the most commonly accepted alpha value for survey items. Moreover, the researcher used the validated tool to increase the validity of the instrument, and a proper analysis tool was also utilized. To improve the validity and reliability of the data, the tools were thoroughly reviewed by the experts; the questionnaire and interview schedule were translated into the participants' favorite languages (Amharic and Sidaamu Afoo); the interview was meticulously recorded and transcribed; each participant was given sufficient time; all audit trials were appropriately maintained; and the member checking technique was also employed(Coleman, 2022; Nasrabad, 2017). 5. Results and Discussion 5.1. Results This section analyzed data on the demographic distributions of respondents, differences in teachers' pedagogical perceptions based on demographic characteristics, the correlations between the teachers' perceptions and practice, perceived goals of teachers, effective citizenship teaching methods, teachers' perceptions of their role, and their perceptions of the impact of citizenship education. 5.1.1. Demographic Distribution of Respondents Table 1 Distribution of the demographic characteristics of the Survey respondents Demographic factors Frequency Percent Gender Male 75 43.6 Female 97 56.4 Educational level Diploma 101 58.7 B.A degree 71 41.3 Experience 1–5 years 36 20.9 6–10 years 86 50.0 11–15 years 50 29.1 Total 172 100 Table 1 presents a summary of the key demographic characteristics, such as sex, education level and experience, of the study participants in terms of frequency, percentage, valid percentage and cumulative percentage. The survey data included 172 respondents, (56.4%) of whom were women and 75 of whom were men (43.6%). This highlights that women are more strongly represented in the study. In terms of educational qualifications, the majority of respondents held a diploma (58.7%), whereas the remaining (41.3%) respondents held a B.A. degree. In terms of their teaching experience, the teachers had different teaching experience, with teachers with 6-10 years of experience accounting for half of the respondents (50.0%), followed by teachers with 11-15 years of experience 29.1%), and those with 1–5 years of experience (20.9%). This distribution therefore shows that the majority (79%) of teachers had sufficient teaching experience. Table 2 Demographic characteristics of interview participants Teacher Gender Educational Level Experience Teacher A Male Diploma 5 Teacher B Male Diploma 11 Teacher C Male B.A degree 6 Teacher D Male B.A Degree 8 Teacher E Male Diploma 14 Teacher F Male B.A Degree 15 Teacher G Female Diploma 7 Teacher H Female B.A Degree 12 Teacher I Female Diploma 9 Teacher J Male B.A Degree 13 As shown in Table 2 , of the interview participants, 7 were male and 3 were female, five of them had a B.A. degree and five had a diploma, five of them had more than 10 years of teaching experience, while the other five participants had less than 10 years of teaching experience. 5.1.2. Prevalent pedagogical perceptions Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Constructivist and Traditional Perspectives Belief Category N Mean Std. Deviation Traditional Perceptions 172 2.0333 .77603 Constructive Perceptions 172 3.4021 .78207 As shown in Table 3 , the average mean score for teachers' constructivist perspectives was (M = 2.0333, SD = 0.77603) while the mean score of the traditional perspectives was (M = 3.4021, SD = 78207). This indicates that the participant teachers had a high level of constructive perceptions. 5.1.3. Differences in Pedagogical Perspectives based on Demographic Characteristics This section presents an analysis of the data used to assess whether there are differences in pedagogical perspectives between teachers in terms of gender, educational qualifications and years of experience. For this purpose, the variables were first summarized in descriptive statistics, and then a comparative analysis was carried out via the t test and one-way ANOVA to determine the significance of the differences between the groups if they already existed. A. Gender Table 4 The mean distribution of the teachers’ pedagogical perceptions based on gender Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Traditional Perceptions Male 74 2.0893 .84213 Female 98 1.9909 .72368 Constructive Perceptions Male 74 3.2230 .91247 Female 98 3.5374 .63927 Table 5 Independent Samples Test for the differences of pedagogical perceptions for the gender groups F Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Traditional Perceptions Equal variances assumed .672 .414 .823 171 .412 .09841 Equal variances not assumed .805 143.526 .422 .09841 Constructive Perceptions Equal variances assumed 11.763 .001 -2.657 171 .009 -.31444 Equal variances not assumed -2.532 124.291 .013 -.31444 Tables 4 and 5 show the results regarding the significance of the differences in pedagogical perspectives (constructivist and traditional) between male and female participants. For traditional perceptions, Levene's test for equality of variances was not significant (F (1,170) = 0.672, p = 0.414), indicating that the assumption of equal variances was met. The t test for the equality of means revealed no significant difference between men (t (170) = 0.823, p = 0.412) in their traditional pedagogical perceptions, with M = 2.09, SD = 0.84, and women (M = 1.99, SD = 0.72). For constructive perceptions, the mean difference was 0.09841, with 95% confidence interval between − 0.13773 and 0.33455. In contrast, women performed more significantly in terms of constructive perceptions. For constructivist perceptions, the independent samples t test revealed a statistically significant difference between the two gender groups, t (170) = -2.657, p = 0.009, 95% CI [-0.548, -0.081], suggesting that this was the case with female teachers having a greater tendency toward constructivism in pedagogy than men do (M = 3.54, SD = 0.64) do (M = 3.22, SD = 0.91). Levene's test for equality of variances was significant (F = 11.763, p = 0.001), so the t test results with unequal variances were also considered, t (124.29) = -2.532, p = 0.013. Both tests revealed that the teachers had more constructivist perceptions than the male teachers did. B. Educational level Table 6 The mean distribution of the teachers’ pedagogical perceptions based on educational level Educational level N Mean Std. Deviation Traditional perceptions Diploma 101 2.1804 .90484 B.A degree 71 1.8239 .47522 Constructive perceptions Diploma 101 3.2706 .87038 B.A degree 71 3.5892 .59283 Table 7 Independent Samples Test for the differences of pedagogical perceptions for the educational groups F Sig. T df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Traditional perceptions Equal variances assumed 8.048 .005 3.036 171 .003 .35647 Equal variances not assumed 3.355 158.919 .001 .35647 Constructive Perceptions Equal variances assumed 13.971 .000 -2.677 171 .008 − .31857 Equal variances not assumed -2.855 169.859 .005 − .31857 Tables 6 and 7 show the presence and absence of significant differences between the two educational levels groups (diploma and B.A. teachers). In the case of traditional perspectives, the independent samples t- test revealed a statistically significant difference, t(170) = 3.036, p = 0.003, 95% CI [0.125, 0.588], between the two groups, with the mean value of diploma holders (M = 2.18, SD = 0.90), which was greater than the mean value of teachers with a B.A. degree (M = 1.82, SD = 0.48). This shows that teachers with diplomas had more traditional perceptions than teachers with B.A. degrees did. Levene's test for equality of variances was significant (F = 8.048, p = 0.005); therefore, the t test with unequal variances was also considered, t (158.92) = 3.355, p = 0.001, further confirming the result. In the case of constructivist perceptions, the t test results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference ( t (170) = -2.677, p = .008, 95% CI [-0.553, -0.084]) in pedagogical perceptions between B.A. degree holders (M = 3.59, SD = 0.59), who had significantly greater scores than diploma holders did (M = 3.27, SD = 0.87). This suggests that teachers with a B.A. degree have more constructive perceptions than do those with a diploma. Levene's test for equality of variances was also significant ( F = 13.971, p < .001), so the t test with unequal variances was examined, t (169.86) = -2.855, p = .005, confirming the significant difference. Table 8 The mean distribution of the teachers’ pedagogical perceptions based on teaching experience N Mean Std. Deviation Traditional Perceptions 1–5 years 36 2.7299 1.31436 6–10 years 86 1.7494 .35769 11–15 years 50 2.0200 .38404 Total 172 2.0333 .77603 Constructive Perceptions 1–5 years 36 2.6296 1.00444 6–10 years 86 3.6027 .57290 11–15 years 50 3.6133 .53842 Total 172 3.4021 .78207 Table 9 ANOVA Test for the differences of pedagogical perceptions for the experience groups df Mean Square F Sig. Traditional Perceptions Between Groups 2 11.822 31.333 .000 Within Groups 169 .377 Total 171 Constructive Perceptions Between Groups 2 13.587 29.661 .000 Within Groups 169 .458 Total 171 Tables 8 and 9 present the existence and nonexistence of significant differences in the pedagogical perceptions of teachers on the basis of their teaching experience. The teachers with fewer years of experience (1–5 years) showed a high mean preference for traditional pedagogy (M = 2.73, SD = 1.31), followed by those with 11–15 years (M = 2.02, SD = 0.38) and those with 6–10 years of experience (M = 1.75, SD = 0.36). The ANOVA revealed significant differences among the experience groups in traditional perceptions, F (2, 169) = 31.333, p < .001. This highlights that newly employed teachers had more conventional perceptions than did the other groups. Conversely, from a constructive perspective, teachers with more experience had significantly higher mean scores of 6–10 years of experience (M = 3.60, SD = 0.57) and 11–15 years of experience (M = 3.61, SD = 0.54) than those with 1–5 years of experience (M = 2.63, SD = 1.00). The ANOVA again revealed significant differences between groups, F(2, 169) = 29.661, p < .001, indicating that employees with more experience (6–15 years) reported more constructive perceptions than newer employees did (1–5 years). Finally, this result shows that teachers with teaching experience tend to have more traditional perspectives than do those with greater teaching experience. In light of these findings, it is crucial to determine the degree to which educators' perceptions differ among various cohorts of professional experience. Table 10 asserts whether there exist significant differences in traditional and constructive perceptions across three experience groups (namely (1-5 years, 6–10 years, and 11–15 years). Certainly, the results of the Tukey HSD post hoc analysis revealed the existence of significant differences in the dependent variables such as traditional perceptions and constructive perceptions across three experience groups (1-5 years, 6–10 years, and 11–15 years). With regard to traditional perceptions, individuals with 1–5 years of experience scored significantly higher than those with 6-10 years (mean difference = 0.95786, p = < .001, 95% CI [0.6695, 1.2462]) and 11–15 years (mean difference = 0.77607, p = < .001, 95% CI [0.4586, 1.0935]). However, no significant difference was observed between the 6-10- and 11-15-year groups (mean difference = -0.18179, p = .222, 95% CI = [-0.4401, 0.0765]). In this specific case, the increase in teaching experience of teachers doesn’t substantially cause a change in their pedagogical perceptions. Table 10 Tukey HSD Multiple Comparisons of the experience groups Dependent Variable (I) Experience (J) Experience Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. Traditional Perceptions 1–5 years 6–10 years .95786 * .000 11–15 years .77607 * .000 6–10 years 1–5 years − .95786 * .000 11–15 years − .18179 .222 11–15 years 1–5 years − .77607 * .000 6–10 years .18179 .222 Constructive Perceptions 1–5 years 6–10 years − .97308 * .000 11–15 years − .98370 * .000 6–10 years 1–5 years .97308 * .000 11–15 years − .01062 .996 11–15 years 1–5 years .98370 * .000 6–10 years .01062 .996 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Similarly, with regard to constructive perceptions, teachers with 1–5 years teaching experience had significantly lower perceptions than those with 6–10 years (mean difference = -0.97308, p = < .001, 95% CI [-1.2908, -0.6554]) and 11–15 years (mean difference = -0.98370, p = < .001, 95% CI [-1.3335, -0.6339]). However, no significant difference was found between the 6-10- and 11-15-year groups (mean difference = -0.01062, p = .996, 95% CI [-0.2952, 0.2740]). This suggests that the teaching experience of the teachers significantly influenced the perceptions of teachers with 1-5- and 6-10-years teaching experience however insignificantly contributing to the pedagogical perceptions of teachers after 10 years. 5.1.4. The correlation between teachers’ pedagogical perceptions and practices In this section, the analysis was carried out to discern the correlations between the teachers’ pedagogical perspectives and their reported pedagogical practices. Table 11 Correlations between the pedagogical perceptions and practices Constructive Perceptions Traditional Perceptions Practices Constructive perceptions Pearson Correlation 1 − .005 .027 Sig. (2-tailed) .944 .730 N 172 172 172 Traditional Perceptions Pearson Correlation − .005 1 − .802 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .944 .000 N 172 172 172 Practices Pearson Correlation .027 − .802 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .730 .000 N 172 172 172 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 11 shows the correlations between middle school citizenship education teachers' pedagogical perspectives and self-reported pedagogical practices. The results revealed negative relationships between traditional and constructive perceptions (r = − .005, p = 0.944), indicating that teachers with traditional perceptions were less likely to have constructive perceptions and vice versa. When the correlations between pedagogical perceptions and practices were taken into consideration, there were negative strong correlations between traditional perceptions and self-reported pedagogical practices of the teachers (r = − .802, p<.001), whereas the correlations between pedagogical practices and constructive perceptions were insignificant (r = 0.027, p=.730). These results illustrated that, compared with constructive perceptions; teachers' pedagogical practices were significantly linked to traditional perceptions. 5.1.5. Qualitative analysis In this section, the responses provided by the interview participants were subjected to a rigorous content analysis, through which the recurrence of themes was quantified and employed to facilitate a comparative determination regarding the themes that were articulated with greater frequency. The questions were mainly focusing on how the teachers perceive the main goal of the citizenship education, their roles in implementing citizenship education, their perceived best teaching methods, and what they think about how the citizenship education contribute for the future development of the students. The analysis considered participants' responses from both traditional and constructivist perspectives by counting the frequencies of recurring themes. A. The Perceived Primary Goals of Citizenship Education In this part, the teachers’ responses were coded into four themes with the frequency of recurrence as follows: Table 12 The perceived primary goal of citizenship education Theme Frequency Teachers Perspective Foundational knowledge 3 A, B, E Traditional Respect for authority and social order 2 A, E Traditional Critical thinking and problem solving 3 C, D, F Constructivist Active civic engagement/Leadership 3 C, H, F Constructivist As presented in Table 12 , the middle school citizenship education teachers perceived the goals of the subject in roughly different ways. On the basis of the content analysis, traditional themes such as delivering foundational knowledge, respect for authority and social order are mentioned five times, whereas constructive perspective themes such as critical thinking, problem solving, active civic engagement and leadership are mentioned six times. However, the difference was not significant; the interviews revealed that constructive perspectives were more prevalent than traditional perspectives were. B . Perceived Role of Teachers in Citizenship Education In this section, an attempt has been made to determine whether teachers see themselves as the sole provider of knowledge or as a facilitator of knowledge construction. Implicitly, this shed light on what teachers see about the role they play in promoting democratic citizenship through their pedagogy. Table 13 The Perceived Role of Teachers in Citizenship Education Theme Frequency Teachers Perspective Direct instruction/content delivery 3 A, B, E Traditional Authoritative knowledge transmission 3 A, B, E Traditional Inquiry-based learning/facilitation 3 C, H, I Constructivist Promoting open discussions 4 C, H, I, J Constructivist As Table 13 shows, teachers perceive their role in teaching citizenship education somewhat differently on the basis of the analysis of the interview data. When revisiting the topics considered, some teachers reported their pedagogical attitudes toward traditional perceptions and considered themselves as conduits of knowledge, content deliverers and authoritative knowledge transmitters by mentioning traditional perspective topics six times. However, the constructive themes in which teachers saw their role as facilitators of inquiry-based learning and open discussions were mentioned seven times. In fact, the emergence of traditional themes is not insignificant, but the return of constructive perceptions still outweighs traditional perceptions. B. The perceived effective teaching method In this section, we focus on analyzing teachers' perceptions of effective teaching methods for citizenship education. Through content analysis, the researcher sought to determine which teaching method was considered most effective by teachers. Table 14 The perceived effective teaching method for citizenship education Theme Frequency Teachers Perspectives Textbooks/structured lessons 2 B, E Traditional Clear notes/assessments 2 B, E Traditional Project-based learning/community involvement 3 C, D, I Constructive Real-world issues/discussions 3 C, H, J Constructive As shown in Table 14 , traditional teaching methods, which are considered the most effective teaching methods for citizenship education, were mentioned four times, whereas constructive teaching methods, such as project-based learning, community engagement, learning from real experiences, and discussions, were mentioned six times. This shows that most teachers consider constructive teaching methods to be the most effective approaches to teaching citizenship education. C. The perceived impact of citizenship education on student’s citizenship The aim of this section is to assess teachers' perceptions of how they believe that citizenship education can influence students' future development. Because teachers are key players in making students aware of their current and future roles, their views on how the subject influences learner development have a valuable influence on students' development both inside and outside the classroom. Table 15 The perceived impact of citizenship education on student’s citizenship Theme Frequency Teachers Perspective Respect for authority/social order 2 A, E Traditional National identity/pride 1 B Traditional Critical thinking/problem-solving skills 3 C, F, G Constructive Civic engagement/community participation 4 C, D, F, J Constructive Empathy, global awareness, ethical decisions 3 D, G, I Constructive Table 15 presents the middle school teachers’ perceptions regarding the contributions of citizenship education in preparing future citizens. Conventional themes, such as deference to authority, laws and order, and national pride were mentioned three themes according to the content analysis frequencies. However, the constructivist themes—which see citizenship education as a subject for fostering citizens' capacity for critical analysis and problem solving—were presented ten times. These themes include empathy, global awareness, civic engagement and participation, and ethical decision-making. This demonstrates that constructive themes tend to recur more frequently than traditional themes do. Table 16 Frequency Summary (Traditional vs. Constructive Perspectives) Aspect Traditional Frequency Constructive Frequency Primary Goal 5 6 Role of Teachers 6 7 Teaching Methods 4 6 Impact on Students 3 10 Total 18 29 Table 16 compares the recurrences of themes in content analysis regarding traditional and constructive perceptions. On the basis of the recurrence of themes among traditional and constructive perceptions, the content analysis results revealed that traditional themes were mentioned 18 times, whereas constructive themes were mentioned 29 times. Finally, the results of the content analysis revealed the complementarity between the findings from the quantitative data and those from the qualitative data. 5.2. Discussion Analysis of the data revealed some important insights into the pedagogical perspectives of citizenship education teachers. According to the results, the traditional perspective is preferred by male teachers. Accordingly, these results are discussed in this section in the context of previous studies in the field of citizenship education and pedagogy. Research has frequently demonstrated that, compared with female teachers, male teachers tend to favor traditional teaching techniques(Chick, 2014 ; Cruickshank et al., 2020 ; Havung, 2000 ; Mogra, 2020 ). Furthermore, according to Zúñiga et al.( 2020), compared with their female counterparts, the pedagogical inclinations of male citizenship education teachers were leaning toward traditional perspectives. Likewise, the research of Carr & Thésée(2017) also supports the finding that there is a difference in pedagogical preferences between male and male teachers, potentially because of the impact of gender norms in the classroom. Similarly, the alignment of male teachers’ pedagogical perspectives with traditional approaches reflects the influence of entrenched socio-cultural norms in Ethiopia. Specifically, in the patriarchal norm of Ethiopia, leadership and aggressiveness are often attributed to men, while women are assigned roles that manifest femininity, such as helpfulness, caring and submissiveness (Lehmann, 2022 ; Molla & Molla, 2018 ; Wolle, 2024 ). Indeed as many studies in Ethiopia show, (Browes, 2015 ; Halkiyo et al., 2023 ; Istratii, 2023 ) the influence of patriarchal norms has strongly shaped the pedagogical style of teachers. Consequently, this socially entrenched norm often influences gender roles in favor of male dominance and authority to reinforce their dominance and hierarchical relationships in the classroom. As a result, a didactic, inflexible and teacher-centered pedagogical style is perpetuated. In contrast, women who are influenced by the caring role tend to adopt a participative and inclusive teaching style. Based on these evidences, it can be argued that, gender is an important variable in shaping the pedagogical beliefs of the teachers The influence of educational qualifications on pedagogical preferences is highly supported by prior studies. (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017 ; Harber & Harber, 2019 ) reported that teachers with lower academic qualifications are mostly oriented toward the traditional approach. Accordingly, the preference for the constructivist perspective by teachers with higher qualifications supports the idea that greater exposure to educational theory and pedagogical innovation can promote a shift towards more student-centered practices(Avalos, 2011 ; Guskey, 2002 ; Opfer & Pedder, 2011 ) Analysis of the data in this study revealed that teachers with more teaching experience prefer constructivist pedagogical perspectives, whereas teachers with less teaching experience lean toward traditional perspectives. This is recurrently found in the studies of (Harber & Harber, 2019 ; Vavrus, 2018 ; Zúñiga et al., 2020 ), who reported that more experienced teachers are more likely to prefer constructivist pedagogy, whereas less experienced teachers prefer traditional pedagogy. Specifically, Vavrus ( 2018 ) argues that, as less experienced teachers lack confidence in and familiarity with constructivist pedagogy, they prefer to lean toward traditional pedagogy. In contrast, Tatto & Coupland(2003) does not accept the claim that more experienced teachers simply prefer constructive pedagogy, citing that more experienced teachers with traditional perspectives are more likely to adopt traditional approaches, making it difficult to shift their position because of the entrenched traditional perceptions. Moreover, it is widely perceived that teachers with greater experience prefer constructivist pedagogy; however,(Lee et al., 2013 ) traditional perceptions should not only be tagged with less experienced teachers because they can be held with teachers who have more experiences depending on their exposure and opportunities for professional development and the support they receive. Similarly, Gore et al., ( 2024 ) highlighted that there were no significant differences in the pedagogical perceptions of teachers regardless of their years of experience, which minimally impacted their pedagogical practices. However, Knowles, ( 2019 ) suggested that the extent of teachers’ exposure to civic issues and social processes influences the pedagogical perceptions of citizenship education teachers rather than taking service years into account. The results of this study's quantitative and content analysis revealed that constructivist views about teaching citizenship education in middle schools outweigh traditional views. Several studies support this increasing alignment of citizenship teachers’ pedagogical conceptions with constructivism, yet traditional views are persistently held. In this regard, Mijanović,(2023) reported that constructive pedagogy gained greater preferences among teachers, whereas the teacher-centered approach still perceived more feasibility among a group of teachers. Similarly, another study conducted by Szabó & Csépes, ( 2023 ) underlined the growing preferences of constructive pedagogy; however, factors such as conventional institutional settings still affect teachers from traditional perspectives. This aligns with a global inclination in educational discourses towards the constructivist pedagogy that gives emphasis to student-centered learning, critical thinking, and active participation(Hyde, 2020 ; Koptseva, 2020 ; Tan, 2017 ). Even though constructivist views were more common among the teachers, the content analysis clearly showed that traditional themes recurred with significant frequency, demonstrating the persistence of conventional views. In this regard numerous studies asserted that, while constructivist pedagogy is considered valuable for promoting critical thinking and creativity, preferences for traditional pedagogy are strongly sustained in citizenship education (Poudel & Subedi, 2024 ). According to the findings of the study's correlation analysis, the prevailing pedagogical perspectives had no significant relationship with teachers' pedagogical practices. Despite the predominance of constructivist perceptions, the results showed that teachers' pedagogical practices were significantly correlated with traditional perceptions. Different studies support these incontinences in teachers’ pedagogical perceptions and practices. In this context, Melesse & Jirata ( 2015 ) revealed that teachers with constructivist beliefs continue to practice traditional practices. Similarly, the study conducted by Ivorra-Catalá et al., ( 2024 ) indicated that there could be differences between teachers' pedagogical understanding and practices, suggesting that teachers use traditional pedagogy due to systemic challenges while pretending to be constructivist in their pedagogical beliefs. Consequently, the predominance of constructive perspectives alongside the persistence of traditional perspectives, together with discrepancies between perceptions and practices, places middle school citizenship education in Ethiopia particularly in Sidama region at a critical juncture. This can be further extrapolated with reference to theoretical frameworks in citizenship education. The dominance of constructivist perspectives demonstrates the teachers’ intellectual support for Biesta’s(2011) framework of "citizenship as becoming" endorsing the importance of deliberation, student agency, democratic participation and critical engagement. This in turn implies their endorsement of the participatory and justice-oriented citizenship of Westheimer and Kahne’s ( 2004 ) framework, as constructivism emphasizes active learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Conversely, the discrepancy between teachers’ theoretical alignment (pedagogical perspectives) with constructivist pedagogy and their continued reliance on transmission-oriented methods shows that the transition to Biesta’s concept of “citizenship as becoming” through pedagogy that promotes student agency and reflection is not complete. Moreover, this discrepancy between the perspectives and self-reported pedagogical practices that favor the traditional approach indicates a failure to move beyond Westheimer and Kahne's (2004) "personally responsible citizen" model. In this regard, it can be reasonably argued that the discrepancy in favor of the traditional approach corresponds to long-standing pedagogical expectations of the subject in the Ethiopian educational landscape that have historically encouraged unquestioning obedience and rigid patriotism, a deeply ingrained philosophy that was reinforced by the former curriculum. Since, most teachers were trained and taught within this very system, it is not surprising that they tended to demonstrate these traditional pedagogical practices. Consequently, in the Ethiopian context, it is critical to address the discrepancy, particularly considering vast demand for the citizens who are not only knowledgeable of their rights and duties but also active, critical and deliberative of the pressing social, economic and political issues to support ongoing democratization aspirations. 6. Conclusion To summarize, this study reveals a fundamental tension. The middle school teachers showed a clear inclination towards constructivist approaches that illustrate their intellectual commitment to active teaching centered on critical thinking, engagement, and student agency. However, this theoretical inclination was compromised by inconsistent implementation oriented toward traditional practices. Accordingly, even though citizenship education can be presented as an active process of developing citizenship - through the exercise of student agency and engagement - this is denied in practice. The inference is that cultivating active democratic citizenship requires more than theoretical alignment and intellectual affirmation. Indeed, it requires a fundamental shift from mere support for constructivist pedagogy to its practical application since they often fall back on the traditional, teacher-centered methods. Impliedly, the challenge seems lied not on a lack of teacher buy-in; rather, it’s that teachers' personal pedagogical views are overwhelmingly well-ordered by the realities of their teaching contexts that could actively maintained to reward traditional outputs like rote learning. 7. Recommendations Based on the findings several recommendations were forwarded. As there found a paradox in the perceptions and practices, it needs to pay a due emphasis to address the influence of contextual factors that hinder the effective implementation of citizenship education. Along with this, it necessitates targeted training and professional development opportunities for teachers in constructivist pedagogy to address the primary goals of citizenship education. By providing such type of training it becomes possible to meet the specific needs of different teacher groups. For instance, new teachers may need foundational training, while more experienced teachers who hold constructivist views but practice traditionally may benefit from workshops focused on practical application and overcoming classroom-specific barriers. Additionally, the existence a gap in perception among the demographic groups mandates to explore the opportunities diffusing the good pedagogical outlooks with females, more experienced and educated groups. Therefore, to reconcile the perception-practice disconnection, school-centered peer mentorship programs need to be established in which teachers with constructivist convections (more experienced and better qualified) mentor teachers with traditional pedagogical approaches to minimize the differences between teachers. Through this approach, teachers may have opportunities to access a supportive, collaborative environment where teachers can learn from their peers, exchange best practices, and gain the confidence to implement citizenship education constructively. Declarations *Data Availability Statement : The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. *Ethical Approval : This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of Hawassa University Ethics Review Board. All procedures performed in study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Hawassa University. The Ethical Committee of the Hawassa University College of Law and Governance Research Ethics Review Committeehas granted approval for this study on May 10/2025 ,Approval N o [CLGRECRC-006/25] . *Consent to Participate : Freely-given, informed written consent to participate in this study was obtained from all participants. There w ere no participants under the age of 16. *Consent to Publish : The authors affirm that the research participants provided informed consent for publication of the findings of the study. *Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. *Data Availability : Funding: we confirm that there was/were no bodies sponsored this study. Author Contribution Basha Bekele: wrote the articleSolomon Lema: edited Asfaw Gnefato: Refined the data References Adebayo GO. (2019). In Search of Maximal Citizenship in Educational Policy for Young People: Analysing Citizenship in Finnish Religious Education in View of the Maximal Conception. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8080232 Avalos B. Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teach Teacher Educ. 2011;27(1):10–20. Battista D. The Hybrid Warfare of the Digital Age: How Disinformation Destabilizes the World. HAPSc Policy Briefs Ser. 2024;5(2):65–70. Bayeh E. Role of civics and ethical education for the development of democratic governance in Ethiopia: Achievements and challenges. Pac Sci Rev B: Humanit Social Sci. 2016;2(1):31–6. Besekar S, Jogdand S, Naqvi W. (2023). Sample size in educational research: A rapid synthesis. F1000Research, 12, 1291. Biesta GJ. Learning democracy in school and society: Education, lifelong learning, and the politics of citizenship. Springer Science & Business Media; 2011. Boddy CR. Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: Int J. 2016;19(4):426–32. Brooks RM, Holford JA. (2009). Citizenship, learning and education: Themes and issues. Browes NC. Comprehensive sexuality education, culture and gender: The effect of the cultural setting on a sexuality education programme in Ethiopia. Sex Educ. 2015;15(6):655–70. Carr PR, Thésée G. Seeking democracy inside, and outside, of education: Re-conceptualizing perceptions and experiences related to democracy and education. Democracy Educ. 2017;25(2):4. Chan K-W, Elliott RG. Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teach Teacher Educ. 2004;20(8):817–31. Chick KA. The making of a man: Rethinking and challenging stereotypes. Kappa Delta Pi Record. 2014;50(4):175–80. Clements KP. Authoritarian populism and atavistic nationalism: 21st-century challenges to peacebuilding and development. J Peacebuilding Dev. 2018;13(3):1–6. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage; 2017. Cruickshank V, Pedersen S, Cooley D, Hill A. How do male primary teachers negotiate expectations to perform gendered roles in their schools? Australian Educational Researcher. 2020;47:307–22. Darling-Hammond L, Hyler ME, Gardner M. Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute; 2017. Dibaba FB. The Role of Civics and Ethical Education in Shaping Attitudes of Students: The Case of Jimma College of Teachers Education. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research; 2017. Dieltiens V. In defence of minimalism: Beyond a robust approach to citizenship education. J Educ. 2005;37(1):189–202. Dworkin SL. Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:1319–20. Enchikova E, Neves T, Beilmann M, Banaji S, Pavlopoulos V, Ferreira D, P. Active citizenship: Participatory patterns of European youth. J Social Sci Educ. 2021;20(1):4–29. Estelles M, Romero J. Tacit assumptions of citizenship education: A case study in Spanish initial teacher education. Educ Citizsh Social Justice. 2019;14(2):131–48. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE. How to design and evaluate research in education. ERIC; 1990. Gelaneh BJ. (2012). The role of civics and ethical education in the development of students’ behavior: The case of Kokebe Tsibiha secondary and preparatory school. Unpublished MA Thesis, Institute of Educational Research, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Georgiou Y, Hadjichambis AC, Hadjichambi D. Teachers’ perceptions on environmental citizenship: A systematic review of the literature. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2622. Gore J, Rosser B, Jaremus F, Miller A, Harris J. Fresh evidence on the relationship between years of experience and teaching quality. Australian Educational Researcher. 2024;51(2):547–70. Guskey TR. Professional development and teacher change. Teachers Teach. 2002;8(3):381–91. Halkiyo A, Hailu M, Lott B. Gender-based pedagogical inequity: Exploring faculty perspectives in Ethiopia. Cogent Educ. 2023;10(2):2249668. Harber C, Harber C. (2019). Evidence on Curriculum—Citizenship Education and Classroom Teaching Methods. Schooling for Peaceful Development in Post-Conflict Societies: Education for Transformation? 199–230. Havung M. Anpassning till rådande ordning. En studie av manliga förskollärare i förskoleverksamhet. Lund University; 2000. Hyde B. (2020). Constructivist and constructionist epistemologies in a globalised world: Clarifying the constructs. Globalisation, Ideology and Education Reforms: Emerging Paradigms, 125–138. Istratii R. Bridging religious tradition, gender norms and state institutions: Toward a faith-sensitive approach to addressing intimate partner violence in Ethiopia. American Behavioral Scientist; 2023. Ivorra-Catalá ES, Catret-Mascarell M, Moreno-Gálvez E. Are Our Schools Carrying Out Effective Environmental Education? In-Service and Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions. Social Sci. 2024;13(8):425. Jara Ibarra C, Sánchez Bachmann M, Cox C, Miranda D. The meaning of citizenship: Identifying the beliefs of teachers responsible for citizenship education in Chile. Theory Res Social Educ. 2023;51(3):464–85. Johnson AP. Essential learning theories: Applications to authentic teaching situations. Rowman & Littlefield; 2019. Kerr D. Citizenship education: An international comparison. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority London; 1999. Kihishen M. (2017). Civic and Ethical Education in Ethiopia since 1990s: Achievements and Challenges. J Citizsh Moral, 1(1). Knowles RT. Ideology in the schools: Developing the teacher’s Civic Education Ideology Scale within the United States. Educ Citizsh Social Justice. 2019;14(3):260–78. Koptseva N. Constructivist pedagogy in context of modern philosophy of education. Перспективы Науки и Образования Perspectives of Science and Education; 2020. p. 41. Lee JC-K, Zha Z, Song H, Huang X. Effects of epistemological and pedagogical beliefs on the instructional practices of teachers: A Chinese perspective. Australian J Teacher Educ (Online). 2013;38(12):120–46. Lee WO, Grossman DL, Kennedy KJ, Fairbrother GP. (2013). Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues. Lehmann KH. (2022). The Origins and Persistence of Gender Roles in Ethiopia: A micro-level analysis of the effects of traditional farming systems on modern gender roles. Li H, Kennedy KJ, Tan CB. Chinese teachers’ perceptions of the ‘good citizen’: Implications for implementing China’s civic education curriculum. Citizsh Teach Learn. 2016;11(2):139–55. Louis Cohen LM and K. M. Louis Cohen. Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison (Eighth edi); 2018. Makombe G. An expose of the relationship between paradigm. method and design in research; 2017. Martin LA. Exploring diversity within citizenship behavior. J Multicultural Educ. 2017;11(3):224–34. McLaughlin TH. Citizenship, diversity and education: A philosophical perspective. J Moral Educ. 1992;21(3):235–50. Mee M, Haverback HR. Middle school principals’ perceptions and preferences when hiring teachers. American Secondary Education; 2017. pp. 38–49. Melesse S, Jirata E. Teachers’ perception and practice of constructivist teaching approach: The case of secondary schools of Kamashi Zone. Sci Technol Arts Res J. 2015;4(4):194–9. Mijanović NV. (2023). As a Contemporary Teaching Paradigm. Mogra I. Traditional Texts and Contemporary Teaching Techniques. Global Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Paths in Islamic Education. IGI Global; 2020. pp. 60–75. Molla T, Molla T. (2018). Repressive Gender Culture. Higher Education in Ethiopia: Structural Inequalities and Policy Responses, 61–80. Muleya G. (2019). Civic Education and Civics: Where do we draw the line? Civic Education and Civics: Where do. (November 2017). Muluye K. The Problems beyond the Scene: Appraisals on the Content Related Problems of High School Civic and Ethical Education Textbooks in Ethiopia. Int J Social Sci Educational Stud. 2018;5(2):120–36. Niewiadomski R, Anisimova K, Quiroz L, Puglisi S, Ball C, Johnson G, Rodriguez D. (2023). Civic Education: Insights From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Middle School Students. Int J Educational Reform, 10567879231168374. Okesina M. A critical review of the relationship between paradigm, methodology, design and method in research. J Res Method Educ. 2020;10(3):57–68. Opfer VD, Pedder D. Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Rev Educ Res. 2011;81(3):376–407. Poudel P, Subedi D. (2024). Teacher perceptions and teaching practices of instructing students with limited eye sight in selected regular public schools of Nepal: A narrative inquiry. OUSL J, 19(1). Reichert F, Lange D, Chow L. Educational beliefs matter for classroom instruction: A comparative analysis of teachers’ beliefs about the aims of civic education. Teach Teacher Educ. 2021;98:103248. Resh N, Sabbagh C. Sense of justice in school and civic behavior. Soc Psychol Educ. 2017;20:387–409. Rietbergen-McCracken J. (2012). Civic education. Retrieved, 8(30), 2012. Sampermans D, Reichert F, Claes E. Teachers’ concepts of good citizenship and associations with their teaching styles. Camb J Educ. 2021;51(4):433–50. Semela T, Bohl T, Kleinknecht M. Civic education in Ethiopian schools: Adopted paradigms, instructional technology, and democratic citizenship in a multicultural context. Int J Educational Dev. 2013;33(2):156–64. Shah SR, Al-Bargi A. (2013). Research Paradigms: Researchers’ Worldviews, Theoretical Frameworks and Study Designs. Arab World Engl J, 4(4). Starkey H. Language teaching for democratic citizenship. Citizenship and Language Learning: International Perspectives; 2005. pp. 23–39. Szabó F, Csépes I. Constructivism in language pedagogy. Hung Educational Res J. 2023;13(3):405–17. Tadesse T. The Role of Civic and Ethical Education in Democratization Process of Ethiopia: Challenges and Prospects. Humanit Social Sci. 2019;7(2):49. Tafese GS, Desta DT. The roles of civics and ethical education in shaping attitude of the students in higher education: The case of Mekelle University. Int J Sci Res Publications. 2014;4(10):680–3. Tan C. Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges. Globalisation Soc Educ. 2017;15(2):238–47. Tatto MT, Coupland DB. (2003). Teacher education and teachers’ beliefs. Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The Impact of Teacher Education, 6, 123–182. Teferra T, Asgedom A, Oumer J, Dalelo A, Assefa B. (2018). Ethiopian education development roadmap (2018-30). An Integrated Executive Summary. Ministry of Education Strategy Center (ESC) Draft for Discussion: Addis Ababa, 4, 9–12. Tilahun M. (2006). Civic education and students of higher learning: A case study. Van Bavel JJ, Harris EA, Pärnamets P, Rathje S, Doell KC, Tucker JA. Political psychology in the digital (mis) information age: A model of news belief and sharing. Social Issues Policy Rev. 2021;15(1):84–113. Vasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, Young T. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:1–18. Vavrus F. Andreas goes to Africa: A comparative historical study of the teachers for East Africa programs. Eur Educ. 2018;50(2):171–84. Veugelers W, De Groot I, Stolk V. Research for CULT Committee-Teaching Common Values in Europe. European Union; 2017. Westheimer J, Kahne J. What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. Am Educ Res J. 2004;41(2):237–69. Wisdom J, Creswell J. Integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. pp. 1–5. Wolle G. Gender stereotypes and contributing factors for the gender gap in the school leadership position in North Wello Zone: Ethiopia. Cogent Educ. 2024;11(1):2375482. Wong KL. Teachers’ perceptions of preparing good citizens for the democratic development: Hong Kong case. Educational Stud. 2021;47(2):238–55. Yamada S. Domesticating Democracy? Civic and Ethical Education Textbooks in Secondary Schools in Democratizing Ethiopia. (Re) Constructing Memory: School Textbooks and the Imagination of the Nation. Springer; 2014. pp. 35–59. Yohans M. (n.d.). Ethiopias Multicultural Education: A Negation to the Past and Champion of the New Beginning in Nation Building. Zaman H. Teachers’ perceptions of citizenship and citizenship education: A comparative study. University of Pittsburgh; 2006. Zúñiga CG, Cárdenas P, Martínez R, Valledor L. Teachers’ classroom practices for citizenship education: Experiences of teachers rated as outstanding. Citizsh Social Econ Educ. 2020;19(1):3–22. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 04 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 30 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 23 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 19 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 19 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 17 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9150616","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":626105668,"identity":"1ddeab2a-b6dc-49a2-9330-82adba43bb06","order_by":0,"name":"Basha Bekele","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hawassa University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Basha","middleName":"","lastName":"Bekele","suffix":""},{"id":626105669,"identity":"121aa6a6-f8a7-45ca-91aa-9c6fbe81ea1f","order_by":1,"name":"Solomon Lema","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hawassa University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Solomon","middleName":"","lastName":"Lema","suffix":""},{"id":626105670,"identity":"2222f1f4-2a42-4dbb-970d-bbc61fcc5c4c","order_by":2,"name":"Asfaw Gnefato","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hawassa University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Asfaw","middleName":"","lastName":"Gnefato","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-17 15:38:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9150616/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9150616/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107707945,"identity":"e0f304f0-eca6-496d-9079-32a9aa0c70f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-24 09:21:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":632005,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9150616/v1/27a8de8a-283d-4da2-a46b-0e0763ab2724.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eFrom Conviction to Classroom: Decoding the Belief- Practice Nexus Among Middle School Citizenship Teachers in Sidama\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe 21st century is marked by unprecedented global challenges, including social division, political disengagement, the spread of fake news and misinformation, the rise of populism, and widespread human rights violations(Battista, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Clements, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Van Bavel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These challenges are further compounded by the rapid pace of globalization, increased migration, and technological advancements(Enchikova et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Addressing this complexity necessitates the promotion of social responsibility, critical thinking, and decision-making skills(Niewiadomski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).Within this context, Citizenship Education plays a crucial role. It equips students with an understanding of justice and legal knowledge, empowering them to actively engage in their communities and foster a social environment that upholds and exemplifies democratic values(Resh \u0026amp; Sabbagh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Fundamentally, Citizenship Education provides students with the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to contribute meaningfully to society as responsible and informed adults ((Martin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Niewiadomski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, despite its increasing importance, Citizenship Education is susceptible to a continuum of interpretations regarding the attributes of good citizenship and the pedagogical approach best suited to achieve the objectives of the subject(Brooks \u0026amp; Holford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Kerr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Veugelers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These interpretations can be placed on a spectrum, from minimalist to maximalist orientations. In the former, the emphasis is on imparting knowledge of history, geography, government and governance, primarily through a content-based, teacher-led, instructional and examination- oriented approach. In this approach, due importance is given to the maintenance of social order, respect for authority and inculcating citizenship blandly just as a matter of widely voting representatives. The latter, however, focuses on developing active citizenship skills and values alongside the knowledge component by engaging students in meaningful ways through critical reflection and problem solving inside or outside the classroom(Dieltiens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; McLaughlin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Muleya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Starkey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven this divergence, it is necessary to understand from which perspective the goals of citizenship education are interpreted in the overall educational framework, especially from the perspectives of teachers in Ethiopia. Historically, Citizenship Education in Ethiopia has been repeatedly repurposed to serve as an instrument of socialization rather than active citizenship and sincere democratic participation under different regimes(Tlahun, 2006). During the imperial regime, for example, citizenship education (moral education then) was deeply embedded in the traditions of the Orthodox Church and aimed at rendering uncritical obedience to the regime (Bayeh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Gelaneh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Kihishen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tadesse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Tafese \u0026amp; Desta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, during the Derg regime (1974\u0026ndash;1991), the subject (political education then) was reoriented to serve Marxist-Leninist indoctrination, the aim of which was to introduce socialist nationalism to the neglect of democratic pluralism (Gelaneh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Semela et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Yohans, n.d.). Even in the post-1991 period, the subject was introduced under the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), espousing democracy and human rights as its core values. However, questionably the subject remained to serve the purpose of legitimizing the regime by condemning the previous regimes as undemocratic ((Dibaba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e); Tilahun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, Yamada, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e ; (Muluye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This is notably evidenced by congruence of the elections (2000, 2005, 2010) with the curriculum reforms that instrumenting the political stability at the expense of democratic empowerment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore recently, the new government took an immediate action of reforming the curriculum criticizing the former modality (civic and ethical education) as failing to cultivate the essences of critical thinking, problem solving and social cohesion(Teferra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The new general education curriculum framework took its inception from these limitations with the stated aims of shifting from the traditional, conformist, and teacher centered approach to a broader participatory approach together with the change in the nomenclature of the subject from civics to citizenship education. Consequently, given the persistence of using Citizenship Education as an apparatus of social conformity and ongoing educational reforms it becomes imperative to empirically re-examine the teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives on citizenship education in Ethiopia particularly in Sidama National Regional State beyond the state narratives to ensure its progressiveness and empower the students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Statement of the Problem","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe teachers' pedagogical perceptions that is, their beliefs about what should be taught, how to teach it, and/or \"what priorities do they place and what goals animate their teaching\"(Estelles \u0026amp; Romero, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;have a significant effect on how well citizenship education is implemented. Indeed, \u0026ldquo;to what extent is the students' later participation a goal?\u0026rdquo; also needs to take center stage (Reichert \u0026amp; Torney-Purta, 2019) in exploring the pedagogical perspectives of teachers. This is primarily because teachers' pedagogical perspectives are crucial and have a significant effect on their methods of instruction, how they run their classrooms, and how decisions are made regarding Citizenship Education practices in classrooms (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Tadesse et al., 2020). Furthermore, in line with the favored teaching method, teachers' pedagogical beliefs dictate how lesson assessments should be carried out(Ibarra et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven this, the proficient execution of Citizenship Education fundamentally necessitates an examination of the objectives that guide the instructional approach. In this course, promoting conformity and indoctrination as the primary goal is undesirable for teachers since it deters students from engaging in critical thinking and holistic development(Rietbergen-McCracken, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Instead, the development of critical thinking skills must be consciously and purposefully adopted to transcend uncritical socialization, engage in debates and discussions, and affect social change(Adebayo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This transition is smooth when teachers of Citizenship Education are preoccupied with constructivist perspectives rather than traditional ones in an effort to prepare students for possible opportunities and challenges (Zeybek \u0026amp; Şent\u0026uuml;rk, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticularly in the context of middle school education, where youths are preoccupied with the identity formation of both the group and personal onions that are taking place, it is highly recommended that teachers line up with a constructive, developmental, and emotionally attuned pedagogical framework(Johnson \u0026amp; Smith, 2008). This derives from the fact that their perspectives can have a significant influence on students' understanding of responsible citizenship(Boyden et al., 2019; Mee \u0026amp; Haverback, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, teachers at this level of education must adopt an educational perspective that views adolescence as a crucial time Boyden et al.(2019) and goes beyond the mere imparting of knowledge to instill values ​​that serve as a cornerstone for civic engagement and active participation in society(Johnson \u0026amp; Smith, 2008) to be politically active adults(Reichert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, unfortunately, extant studies on citizenship education have focused exclusively on teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the subject itself or on teachers\u0026rsquo; conceptions of good citizenship rather than on the pedagogical inclination of the teacher (Zaman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e ;Leenders et al., 2008; Georgiou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e ; Sampermans et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Wong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)..\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the majority of studies in Ethiopia ignore the particulars of the middle school level in favor of higher education or high schools by overlooking the pedagogical views and beliefs of middle school teachers. As a result, there remains a critical gap in the literature, particularly concerning the pedagogical perspectives of middle school teachers in Ethiopian contexts in generally and in Sidama\u0026rsquo;s case particularly. The current understanding of how teachers perceive and implement citizenship education is essentially with a remarkable lack of specific and localized evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing this gap in the literature, the article, \u0026ldquo;Pedagogical Perspectives on Citizenship Education: Insights from Middle School Teachers,\u0026rdquo; therefore delves into this crucial topic by illuminating the perceptions of teachers who teach citizenship education in middle school contexts. This study examines their pedagogical views with an emphasis on how teachers' perceptions align with the educational expectations of citizenship education which thereby to enable the concerned bodies and decision-makers able to design specific interventions or support systems that efficiently facilitate citizenship education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith this intent, this research aimed to bring together teachers with diverse teaching experiences to answer the following research questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo what extent do teachers' pedagogical perceptions align with either constructivist or traditional approaches?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDo teachers' pedagogical perceptions differ significantly based on their gender, educational level, and years of teaching experience?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIs there a significant correlation between teachers' self-reported pedagogical perceptions and their reported classroom practices?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Theoretical Framework","content":"\u003cp\u003eBuilding on the stated aim of this article, it was deemed necessary to provide a strong theoretical framework to analyze the pedagogical perspectives of citizenship education teachers. Therefore, in this study, constructivist theory is considered to examine the extent to which teachers' pedagogical perspectives and practices promote knowledge construction through active teaching practices such as debate, discussion, reflection, collaborative learning, problem solving, and critical thinking(Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, it is assumed that a specific link will be made to key theoretical frameworks in the field of citizenship education in order to analyze how well teachers' pedagogical perspectives are aligned to promote active citizenship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo achieve this, the study draws on several theories of citizenship. Specifically, (Biesta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) notion of 'citizenship as becoming' provides a strong theoretical reference point to examine whether teachers' pedagogical perspectives focus on restoring students\u0026rsquo; traditional socialization into existing norms alienating democratic practices from students\u0026rsquo; daily lives, or whether they shift towards the continuous development of active citizenship. This study addresses the latter that allow students to experience democratic citizenship in their school-which he explains as a space for democracy wherein the students experience agency, deliberations, debates and dialogue. Consequently, this view provides theoretical guidelines for determining whether pedagogical perspectives and practices should promote unquestioned obedience and conformity or encourage critical engagement, agency, and the treatment of students as citizens.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, Westheimer \u0026amp; Kahne (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e)framework of \"citizen types\" \"(personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented) was used as a complementary tool to critically analyze teachers' pedagogical goals. By analyzing teachers' perspectives using this framework, we can assess whether teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical insights emphasize the cultivation of passive obedience or the promotion of active community engagement or critical commitment to social justice, which has significant implications for the type of citizens they are shaping.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Methods and Design","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to examine pedagogical attitudes of middle school civic education teachers. This study uses a mixed research method to better understand middle school teachers\u0026apos; perspectives on citizenship education. This method is flexible and adaptable to various study designs(Wisdom \u0026amp; Creswell, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The study adopted a pragmatic theoretical philosophy that supports the idea of multiple interpretations of reality rather than a singular reality(Okesina, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) .This research philosophy was chosen in the view that, it allows the researcher to employ various research methods together to adequately address the research problems compared to employing a single research method(Makombe, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the present research, the whole processes for data collection and analysis were meticulously formulated within the contexts of convergent parallel mixed methods, wherein both qualitative and quantitative data were systematically gathered concurrently. Ultimately, the analysis of both datasets was conducted within the QUAN+QUAL framework, subsequently synthesizing the findings into a cohesive interpretation of the overarching results(Creswell \u0026amp; Creswell, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe researcher used a multistage sampling method. In the first phase, the Sidama region was deliberately selected, keeping in mind the following considerations. First, the researcher\u0026apos;s knowledge and experience of the sociocultural context of the region are taken into account to facilitate data collection and reduce research costs. This would simplify the process of contacting individuals and requesting assistance from the local education department. Furthermore, in this specific area, insufficient research has been conducted on the pedagogical perceptions of middle schools and teachers regarding citizenship education in this region.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the second phase, out of 38 districts in the Sidama region, 11 (30%) districts were selected via the purposive sampling technique to take an opportunity of locality knowledge for data collection. In the third stage, 89 (30%) of the 298 state middle schools in these districts were specifically selected. As Besekar et al.(2023) suggested, 30% of the total population of respondents is optimally suited for educational research. Furthermore, Louis Cohen, (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) suggested that the acceptable sample size for a study actually depends on the type of research design; however, a sample should be 30% or more if the population is large, whereas 35% might be acceptable if the population is small. Finally, all 178 teachers teaching citizenship education in these schools were comprehensively selected for the survey data, but six respondents did not return the questionnaires.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn qualitative research, determining sample size is contextual and depends in part on the scientific paradigm under which the study takes place. However, when considering theoretical saturation as a guide for designing qualitative research, 10 samples may be cases where data saturation occurs in a relatively homogeneous population(Boddy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, Vasileiou et al.(2018) suggested that a sample size between 9 and 17 is sufficient for a qualitative study. In relatively equally terms, Dworkin, (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e),suggested that a sample of 5\u0026ndash;10 participants would be sufficient for interview if the population was homogeneous.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn the basis of these empirical facts, the researcher selected ten (10) teachers for a semi-structured interview. The participants were purposively selected on the basis of their experience teaching citizenship education (formerly civics). This is frequently the case with qualitative researchers because qualitative researchers generally utilize purposive sampling, in which researchers deliberately pick individuals who are aware about or are acquainted with the important themes being examined(Fraenkel \u0026amp; Wallen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this study data were collected via survey questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis. To explore and understand complex phenomena, such as teachers\u0026apos; perceptions, qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Similarly, surveys have been used to collect quantitative data to identify trends or patterns in these viewpoints across a broader sample of teachers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2.1. Survey\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was distributed to middle school teachers to obtain information about the teachers\u0026rsquo; demographic characteristics, pedagogical perceptions, and the relationship between pedagogical perceptions and teachers\u0026apos; practices. To obtain the data regarding the teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical perceptions, the Teaching and Learning Conceptions Questionnaire (TLCQ) was used as a survey tool. The TLCQ, developed by Chan \u0026amp; Elliott (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) and further validated by Lee et al.(2013), was translated into Amharic employing the language expert to avoid the language barrier in responding and used to measure teachers\u0026apos; perceptions of their preferred teaching and learning methods in citizenship education. This questionnaire consists of 30 items composing two dimensions: constructivist belief (12 items) and traditional belief (18 items). The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from \u0026ldquo;strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;strongly agree.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2.2. Interview\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eData related to teachers\u0026apos; opinions to how citizenship education should be taught, how teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical perceptions relate to the curriculum they teach, and how pedagogical views are related to actual teaching practices were gathered through interviews. Because it is important to offer flexibility to participants, the researcher used unstructured interviews(Lodico et al., 2006) in a face-to-face setting. The interview schedule was prepared in English and asked in langue they preferred (Sidaamu Afoo or Amharic). Before the interviews were conducted, the teachers were given a consent form regarding the confidentiality of the data, permission to record their voices, and maintaining the participants\u0026apos; anonymity. After permission was obtained, the interviews were conducted, with thirty minutes given to each respondent. Each participant was interviewed in suitable, noise-free sites.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe data analysis began by carrying out test of assumptions. In the first step, the data normality test was carried out via the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov and Shapiro‒Wilk tests. The normality test of the constructive perspective data was performed as follows: the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov test (D (172)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.067, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.058) and the Shapiro‒Wilk test (W (172)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.986, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.079). ). On the basis of these results, the p values of both tests were found to be above the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, both tests revealed that the constructive perspectives of data collection were normally distributed. Similarly, the normality of traditional perspectives was determined via the same tests. On this basis, the p values of the two tests were returned, with the p value of the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov test (0.066) slightly above the common significance value (0.05), while the p value of the Shapiro‒Wilk test (0.073) was also above 0.05. Therefore, on the basis of these results, the data regarding the traditional perspectives do not deviate from a normal distribution.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo analyze the quantitative data, the researcher subsequently used comparison group means, independent samples t tests, one-way ANOVA and correlation analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo classify and interpret middle school teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical perspectives on the crucial elements of middle school citizenship education, their preferred teaching style, and their role as educators, content analysis was used in qualitative analysis. Teachers\u0026apos; responses were then carefully registered manually and examined to identify any recurring themes dividing the answers of respondents into two main pedagogical frameworks: constructivist perceptions, which focused on critical issues such as critical thinking, voice and agency, active participation, participatory learning, and engaged decision-making, and traditional perceptions, which commonly include topics such as knowledge transfer, discipline and preparation for social conformity, moral coaching, and respect for authority. On this basis, the participants\u0026apos; answers were coded according to their agreement with traditional or constructivist conceptions. The inclinations of the respondents\u0026apos; answers were then determined, taking into account the intensity and strength of the respondents in expressing their beliefs and feelings. Finally, by analyzing the data obtained from various sources, the researcher cross-referenced the results to ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Validity and reliability\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe quality of research depends on its validity and reliability(Shah \u0026amp; Al-Bargi, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, the researcher have tried and pursued several strategies that increase the credibility and trustworthiness of the results. To enhance the reliability of quantitative data, an attempt was made primarily to properly outline the objectives that the instrument was designed to measure. In addition, a pilot study was conducted. On the basis of the responses of 33 pilot respondents, item reliability was tested via Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, which was 0.75 According to Taber, (2018), 0.7 is the most commonly accepted alpha value for survey items.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the researcher used the validated tool to increase the validity of the instrument, and a proper analysis tool was also utilized. To improve the validity and reliability of the data, the tools were thoroughly reviewed by the experts; the questionnaire and interview schedule were translated into the participants\u0026apos; favorite languages (Amharic and Sidaamu Afoo); the interview was meticulously recorded and transcribed; each participant was given sufficient time; all audit trials were appropriately maintained; and the member checking technique was also employed(Coleman, 2022; Nasrabad, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5.\tResults and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e5.1. Results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis section analyzed data on the demographic distributions of respondents, differences in teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical perceptions based on demographic characteristics, the correlations between the teachers\u0026apos; perceptions and practice, perceived goals of teachers, effective citizenship teaching methods, teachers\u0026apos; perceptions of their role, and their perceptions of the impact of citizenship education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.1.1. \u003cem\u003eDemographic Distribution of Respondents\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" style=\"width: 291px;\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistribution of the demographic characteristics of the Survey respondents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\" colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemographic factors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEducational level\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB.A degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\" rowspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41.2639px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003eTable 1 presents a summary of the key demographic characteristics, such as sex, education level and experience, of the study participants in terms of frequency, percentage, valid percentage and cumulative percentage. The survey data included 172 respondents, (56.4%) of whom were women and 75 of whom were men (43.6%). This highlights that women are more strongly represented in the study. In terms of educational qualifications, the majority of respondents held a diploma (58.7%), whereas the remaining (41.3%) respondents held a B.A. degree. In terms of their teaching experience, the teachers had different teaching experience, with teachers with 6-10 years of experience accounting for half of the respondents (50.0%), followed by teachers with 11-15 years of experience 29.1%), and those with 1\u0026ndash;5 years of experience (20.9%). This distribution therefore shows that the majority (79%) of teachers had sufficient teaching experience.\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"char\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemographic characteristics of interview participants\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducational Level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB.A degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher D\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB.A Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher E\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher F\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB.A Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher G\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher H\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB.A Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher I\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher J\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB.A Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, of the interview participants, 7 were male and 3 were female, five of them had a B.A. degree and five had a diploma, five of them had more than 10 years of teaching experience, while the other five participants had less than 10 years of teaching experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.1.2. Prevalent pedagogical perceptions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" style=\"width: 313.743px;\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Constructivist and Traditional Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth style=\"width: 136px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBelief Category\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth style=\"width: 87px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0333\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77603\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.78207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, the average mean score for teachers\u0026apos; constructivist perspectives was (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.0333, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77603) while the mean score of the traditional perspectives was (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.4021, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;78207). This indicates that the participant teachers had a high level of constructive perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.1.3. Differences in Pedagogical Perspectives based on Demographic Characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis section presents an analysis of the data used to assess whether there are differences in pedagogical perspectives between teachers in terms of gender, educational qualifications and years of experience. For this purpose, the variables were first summarized in descriptive statistics, and then a comparative analysis was carried out via the t test and one-way ANOVA to determine the significance of the differences between the groups if they already existed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA. Gender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 4\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe mean distribution of the teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical perceptions based on gender\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable width=\"586\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Traditional Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0893\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.84213\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.9909\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.72368\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Constructive Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2230\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91247\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5374\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.63927\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndependent Samples Test \u0026nbsp;for the differences of pedagogical perceptions for the gender groups \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable style=\"width: 585px;\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 217px;\" colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 61px;\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7593px;\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 82px;\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Traditional Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual variances assumed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;.672\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.414\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.823\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.412\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7593px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.09841\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual variances not assumed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.805\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143.526\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.422\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7593px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.09841\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 82px;\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Constructive Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual variances assumed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;11.763\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.657\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7593px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.31444\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 135px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual variances not assumed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.532\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124.291\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7593px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.31444\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTables 4 and 5 show the results regarding the significance of the differences in pedagogical perspectives (constructivist and traditional) between male and female participants. For traditional perceptions, Levene\u0026apos;s test for equality of variances was not significant (F (1,170)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.672, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.414), indicating that the assumption of equal variances was met.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe t test for the equality of means revealed no significant difference between men (t (170)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.823, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.412) in their traditional pedagogical perceptions, with M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.09, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.84, and women (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.99, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.72). For constructive perceptions, the mean difference was 0.09841, with 95% confidence interval between \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.13773 and 0.33455. In contrast, women performed more significantly in terms of constructive perceptions. For constructivist perceptions, the independent samples t test revealed a statistically significant difference between the two gender groups, t (170) = -2.657, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.009, 95% CI [-0.548, -0.081], suggesting that this was the case with female teachers having a greater tendency toward constructivism in pedagogy than men do (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.54, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.64) do (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.22, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.91). Levene\u0026apos;s test for equality of variances was significant (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.763, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001), so the t test results with unequal variances were also considered, t (124.29) = -2.532, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013. Both tests revealed that the teachers had more constructivist perceptions than the male teachers did.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB. Educational level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003eTable 6 \u0026nbsp;The mean distribution of the teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical perceptions based on educational level\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducational level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.1804\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.90484\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB.A degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8239\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.47522\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2706\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.87038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB.A degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5892\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.59283\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7 \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndependent Samples Test \u0026nbsp;for the differences of pedagogical perceptions for the educational \u0026nbsp;groups \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tabd\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual variances assumed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35647\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual variances not assumed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.355\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e158.919\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35647\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual variances assumed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.971\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.677\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.31857\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual variances not assumed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.855\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e169.859\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.31857\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTables 6 and 7 show the presence and absence of significant differences between the two educational levels groups (diploma and B.A. teachers). In the case of traditional perspectives, the independent samples t- test revealed a statistically significant difference, t(170)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.036, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003, 95% CI [0.125, 0.588], between the two groups, with the mean value of diploma holders (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.18, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.90), which was greater than the mean value of teachers with a B.A. degree (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.82, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.48). This shows that teachers with diplomas had more traditional perceptions than teachers with B.A. degrees did. Levene\u0026apos;s test for equality of variances was significant (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.048, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.005); therefore, the t test with unequal variances was also considered, t (158.92)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.355, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, further confirming the result.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the case of constructivist perceptions, the t test results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (170) = -2.677, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .008, 95% CI [-0.553, -0.084]) in pedagogical perceptions between B.A. degree holders (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.59, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.59), who had significantly greater scores than diploma holders did (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.27, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87). This suggests that teachers with a B.A. degree have more constructive perceptions than do those with a diploma. Levene\u0026apos;s test for equality of variances was also significant (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.971, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), so the t test with unequal variances was examined, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(169.86) = -2.855, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .005, confirming the significant difference.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe mean distribution of the teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical perceptions based on teaching experience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.7299\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.31436\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7494\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35769\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0200\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.38404\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0333\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77603\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.6296\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00444\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.57290\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.53842\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.78207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" style=\"width: 358px;\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eANOVA Test for the differences of pedagogical perceptions for the experience groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\" colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.0347px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\" rowspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.822\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.333\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.0347px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e169\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.377\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.0347px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.0347px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\" rowspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.587\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.661\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.0347px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e169\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.458\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.0347px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.0347px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTables \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e present the existence and nonexistence of significant differences in the pedagogical perceptions of teachers on the basis of their teaching experience. The teachers with fewer years of experience (1\u0026ndash;5 years) showed a high mean preference for traditional pedagogy (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.73, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.31), followed by those with 11\u0026ndash;15 years (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.02, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.38) and those with 6\u0026ndash;10 years of experience (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.75, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.36). The ANOVA revealed significant differences among the experience groups in traditional perceptions, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2, 169)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.333, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001. This highlights that newly employed teachers had more conventional perceptions than did the other groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConversely, from a constructive perspective, teachers with more experience had significantly higher mean scores of 6\u0026ndash;10 years of experience (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.60, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.57) and 11\u0026ndash;15 years of experience (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.61, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.54) than those with 1\u0026ndash;5 years of experience (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.63, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.00). The ANOVA again revealed significant differences between groups, F(2, 169)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29.661, p \u0026lt; .001, indicating that employees with more experience (6\u0026ndash;15 years) reported more constructive perceptions than newer employees did (1\u0026ndash;5 years). Finally, this result shows that teachers with teaching experience tend to have more traditional perspectives than do those with greater teaching experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn light of these findings, it is crucial to determine the degree to which educators\u0026apos; perceptions differ among various cohorts of professional experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 10 asserts whether there exist significant differences in traditional and constructive perceptions across three experience groups (namely (1-5 years, 6\u0026ndash;10 years, and 11\u0026ndash;15 years). Certainly, the results of the Tukey HSD post hoc analysis revealed the existence of significant differences in the dependent variables such as traditional perceptions and constructive perceptions across three experience groups (1-5 years, 6\u0026ndash;10 years, and 11\u0026ndash;15 years). With regard to traditional perceptions, individuals with 1\u0026ndash;5 years of experience scored significantly higher than those with 6-10 years (mean difference = 0.95786, p = \u0026lt; .001, 95% CI [0.6695, 1.2462]) and 11\u0026ndash;15 years (mean difference = 0.77607, p = \u0026lt; .001, 95% CI [0.4586, 1.0935]). However, no significant difference was observed between the 6-10- and 11-15-year groups (mean difference = -0.18179, p = .222, 95% CI = [-0.4401, 0.0765]). In this specific case, the increase in teaching experience of teachers doesn\u0026rsquo;t substantially cause a change in their pedagogical perceptions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" style=\"width: 461px;\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 10\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTukey HSD \u0026nbsp;Multiple Comparisons of the experience groups\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 124px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDependent Variable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(I) Experience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(J) Experience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Difference (I-J)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 124px;\" rowspan=\"6\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.95786\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77607\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.95786\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.222\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.77607\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.18179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.222\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 124px;\" rowspan=\"6\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.97308\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.98370\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.97308\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.996\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.98370\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 79px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24.7662px;\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.996\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432.766px;\" colspan=\"5\"\u003e*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, with regard to constructive perceptions, teachers with 1\u0026ndash;5 years teaching experience had significantly lower perceptions than those with 6\u0026ndash;10 years (mean difference = -0.97308, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [-1.2908, -0.6554]) and 11\u0026ndash;15 years (mean difference = -0.98370, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [-1.3335, -0.6339]). However, no significant difference was found between the 6-10- and 11-15-year groups (mean difference = -0.01062, p = .996, 95% CI [-0.2952, 0.2740]). This suggests that the teaching experience of the teachers significantly influenced the perceptions of teachers with 1-5- and 6-10-years teaching experience however insignificantly contributing to the pedagogical perceptions of teachers after 10 years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.1.4. The correlation between teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical perceptions and practices\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this section, the analysis was carried out to discern the correlations between the teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical perspectives and their reported pedagogical practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 11\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorrelations between the pedagogical perceptions and practices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePractices\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.944\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.730\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional Perceptions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.802\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.944\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePractices\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.802\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.730\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e shows the correlations between middle school citizenship education teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical perspectives and self-reported pedagogical practices. The results revealed negative relationships between traditional and constructive perceptions (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.005, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.944), indicating that teachers with traditional perceptions were less likely to have constructive perceptions and vice versa. When the correlations between pedagogical perceptions and practices were taken into consideration, there were negative strong correlations between traditional perceptions and self-reported pedagogical practices of the teachers (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.802, p\u0026lt;.001), whereas the correlations between pedagogical practices and constructive perceptions were insignificant (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.027, p=.730). These results illustrated that, compared with constructive perceptions; teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical practices were significantly linked to traditional perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.1.5. Qualitative analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this section, the responses provided by the interview participants were subjected to a rigorous content analysis, through which the recurrence of themes was quantified and employed to facilitate a comparative determination regarding the themes that were articulated with greater frequency. The questions were mainly focusing on how the teachers perceive the main goal of the citizenship education, their roles in implementing citizenship education, their perceived best teaching methods, and what they think about how the citizenship education contribute for the future development of the students. The analysis considered participants\u0026apos; responses from both traditional and constructivist perspectives by counting the frequencies of recurring themes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA. The Perceived Primary Goals of Citizenship Education\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this part, the teachers\u0026rsquo; responses were coded into four themes with the frequency of recurrence as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 12\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe perceived primary goal of citizenship education\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeachers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerspective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFoundational knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA, B, E\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRespect for authority and social order\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA, E\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCritical thinking and problem solving\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC, D, F\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructivist\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eActive civic engagement/Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC, H, F\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructivist\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs presented in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, the middle school citizenship education teachers perceived the goals of the subject in roughly different ways. On the basis of the content analysis, traditional themes such as delivering foundational knowledge, respect for authority and social order are mentioned five times, whereas constructive perspective themes such as critical thinking, problem solving, active civic engagement and leadership are mentioned six times. However, the difference was not significant; the interviews revealed that constructive perspectives were more prevalent than traditional perspectives were.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003ePerceived Role of Teachers in Citizenship Education\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this section, an attempt has been made to determine whether teachers see themselves as the sole provider of knowledge or as a facilitator of knowledge construction. Implicitly, this shed light on what teachers see about the role they play in promoting democratic citizenship through their pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 13\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Perceived Role of Teachers in Citizenship Education\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeachers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerspective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect instruction/content delivery\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA, B, E\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthoritative knowledge transmission\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA, B, E\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInquiry-based learning/facilitation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC, H, I\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructivist\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePromoting open discussions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC, H, I, J\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructivist\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e shows, teachers perceive their role in teaching citizenship education somewhat differently on the basis of the analysis of the interview data. When revisiting the topics considered, some teachers reported their pedagogical attitudes toward traditional perceptions and considered themselves as conduits of knowledge, content deliverers and authoritative knowledge transmitters by mentioning traditional perspective topics six times. However, the constructive themes in which teachers saw their role as facilitators of inquiry-based learning and open discussions were mentioned seven times. In fact, the emergence of traditional themes is not insignificant, but the return of constructive perceptions still outweighs traditional perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB. The perceived effective teaching method\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this section, we focus on analyzing teachers\u0026apos; perceptions of effective teaching methods for citizenship education. Through content analysis, the researcher sought to determine which teaching method was considered most effective by teachers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab10\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 14\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe perceived effective teaching method for citizenship education\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeachers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerspectives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTextbooks/structured lessons\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB, E\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClear notes/assessments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB, E\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProject-based learning/community involvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC, D, I\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReal-world issues/discussions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC, H, J\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, traditional teaching methods, which are considered the most effective teaching methods for citizenship education, were mentioned four times, whereas constructive teaching methods, such as project-based learning, community engagement, learning from real experiences, and discussions, were mentioned six times. This shows that most teachers consider constructive teaching methods to be the most effective approaches to teaching citizenship education.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC. The perceived impact of citizenship education on student\u0026rsquo;s citizenship\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe aim of this section is to assess teachers\u0026apos; perceptions of how they believe that citizenship education can influence students\u0026apos; future development. Because teachers are key players in making students aware of their current and future roles, their views on how the subject influences learner development have a valuable influence on students\u0026apos; development both inside and outside the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab11\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 15\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe perceived impact of citizenship education on student\u0026rsquo;s citizenship\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeachers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerspective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRespect for authority/social order\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA, E\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNational identity/pride\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCritical thinking/problem-solving skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC, F, G\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCivic engagement/community participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC, D, F, J\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmpathy, global awareness, ethical decisions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD, G, I\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e presents the middle school teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions regarding the contributions of citizenship education in preparing future citizens. Conventional themes, such as deference to authority, laws and order, and national pride were mentioned three themes according to the content analysis frequencies. However, the constructivist themes\u0026mdash;which see citizenship education as a subject for fostering citizens\u0026apos; capacity for critical analysis and problem solving\u0026mdash;were presented ten times. These themes include empathy, global awareness, civic engagement and participation, and ethical decision-making. This demonstrates that constructive themes tend to recur more frequently than traditional themes do.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab12\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 16\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency Summary (Traditional vs. Constructive Perspectives)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAspect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraditional Frequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructive Frequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimary Goal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRole of Teachers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeaching Methods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpact on Students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e compares the recurrences of themes in content analysis regarding traditional and constructive perceptions. On the basis of the recurrence of themes among traditional and constructive perceptions, the content analysis results revealed that traditional themes were mentioned 18 times, whereas constructive themes were mentioned 29 times. Finally, the results of the content analysis revealed the complementarity between the findings from the quantitative data and those from the qualitative data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the data revealed some important insights into the pedagogical perspectives of citizenship education teachers. According to the results, the traditional perspective is preferred by male teachers. Accordingly, these results are discussed in this section in the context of previous studies in the field of citizenship education and pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch has frequently demonstrated that, compared with female teachers, male teachers tend to favor traditional teaching techniques(Chick, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Cruickshank et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Havung, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Mogra, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, according to Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga et al.( 2020), compared with their female counterparts, the pedagogical inclinations of male citizenship education teachers were leaning toward traditional perspectives. Likewise, the research of Carr \u0026amp; Th\u0026eacute;s\u0026eacute;e(2017) also supports the finding that there is a difference in pedagogical preferences between male and male teachers, potentially because of the impact of gender norms in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the alignment of male teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical perspectives with traditional approaches reflects the influence of entrenched socio-cultural norms in Ethiopia. Specifically, in the patriarchal norm of Ethiopia, leadership and aggressiveness are often attributed to men, while women are assigned roles that manifest femininity, such as helpfulness, caring and submissiveness (Lehmann, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Molla \u0026amp; Molla, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wolle, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed as many studies in Ethiopia show, (Browes, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Halkiyo et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Istratii, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) the influence of patriarchal norms has strongly shaped the pedagogical style of teachers. Consequently, this socially entrenched norm often influences gender roles in favor of male dominance and authority to reinforce their dominance and hierarchical relationships in the classroom. As a result, a didactic, inflexible and teacher-centered pedagogical style is perpetuated. In contrast, women who are influenced by the caring role tend to adopt a participative and inclusive teaching style. Based on these evidences, it can be argued that, gender is an important variable in shaping the pedagogical beliefs of the teachers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe influence of educational qualifications on pedagogical preferences is highly supported by prior studies. (Darling-Hammond et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Harber \u0026amp; Harber, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) reported that teachers with lower academic qualifications are mostly oriented toward the traditional approach. Accordingly, the preference for the constructivist perspective by teachers with higher qualifications supports the idea that greater exposure to educational theory and pedagogical innovation can promote a shift towards more student-centered practices(Avalos, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Guskey, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Opfer \u0026amp; Pedder, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the data in this study revealed that teachers with more teaching experience prefer constructivist pedagogical perspectives, whereas teachers with less teaching experience lean toward traditional perspectives. This is recurrently found in the studies of (Harber \u0026amp; Harber, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Vavrus, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), who reported that more experienced teachers are more likely to prefer constructivist pedagogy, whereas less experienced teachers prefer traditional pedagogy. Specifically, Vavrus (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) argues that, as less experienced teachers lack confidence in and familiarity with constructivist pedagogy, they prefer to lean toward traditional pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Tatto \u0026amp; Coupland(2003) does not accept the claim that more experienced teachers simply prefer constructive pedagogy, citing that more experienced teachers with traditional perspectives are more likely to adopt traditional approaches, making it difficult to shift their position because of the entrenched traditional perceptions. Moreover, it is widely perceived that teachers with greater experience prefer constructivist pedagogy; however,(Lee et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) traditional perceptions should not only be tagged with less experienced teachers because they can be held with teachers who have more experiences depending on their exposure and opportunities for professional development and the support they receive.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Gore et al., (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted that there were no significant differences in the pedagogical perceptions of teachers regardless of their years of experience, which minimally impacted their pedagogical practices. However, Knowles, (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) suggested that the extent of teachers\u0026rsquo; exposure to civic issues and social processes influences the pedagogical perceptions of citizenship education teachers rather than taking service years into account.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results of this study\u0026apos;s quantitative and content analysis revealed that constructivist views about teaching citizenship education in middle schools outweigh traditional views. Several studies support this increasing alignment of citizenship teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical conceptions with constructivism, yet traditional views are persistently held. In this regard, Mijanović,(2023) reported that constructive pedagogy gained greater preferences among teachers, whereas the teacher-centered approach still perceived more feasibility among a group of teachers. Similarly, another study conducted by Szab\u0026oacute; \u0026amp; Cs\u0026eacute;pes, (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) underlined the growing preferences of constructive pedagogy; however, factors such as conventional institutional settings still affect teachers from traditional perspectives. This aligns with a global inclination in educational discourses towards the constructivist pedagogy that gives emphasis to student-centered learning, critical thinking, and active participation(Hyde, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Koptseva, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tan, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEven though constructivist views were more common among the teachers, the content analysis clearly showed that traditional themes recurred with significant frequency, demonstrating the persistence of conventional views. In this regard numerous studies asserted that, while constructivist pedagogy is considered valuable for promoting critical thinking and creativity, preferences for traditional pedagogy are strongly sustained in citizenship education (Poudel \u0026amp; Subedi, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccording to the findings of the study\u0026apos;s correlation analysis, the prevailing pedagogical perspectives had no significant relationship with teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical practices. Despite the predominance of constructivist perceptions, the results showed that teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical practices were significantly correlated with traditional perceptions. Different studies support these incontinences in teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical perceptions and practices. In this context, Melesse \u0026amp; Jirata (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that teachers with constructivist beliefs continue to practice traditional practices. Similarly, the study conducted by Ivorra-Catal\u0026aacute; et al., (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) indicated that there could be differences between teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical understanding and practices, suggesting that teachers use traditional pedagogy due to systemic challenges while pretending to be constructivist in their pedagogical beliefs.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsequently, the predominance of constructive perspectives alongside the persistence of traditional perspectives, together with discrepancies between perceptions and practices, places middle school citizenship education in Ethiopia particularly in Sidama region at a critical juncture. This can be further extrapolated with reference to theoretical frameworks in citizenship education. The dominance of constructivist perspectives demonstrates the teachers\u0026rsquo; intellectual support for Biesta\u0026rsquo;s(2011) framework of \u0026quot;citizenship as becoming\u0026quot; endorsing the importance of deliberation, student agency, democratic participation and critical engagement. This in turn implies their endorsement of the participatory and justice-oriented citizenship of Westheimer and Kahne\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) framework, as constructivism emphasizes active learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConversely, the discrepancy between teachers\u0026rsquo; theoretical alignment (pedagogical perspectives) with constructivist pedagogy and their continued reliance on transmission-oriented methods shows that the transition to Biesta\u0026rsquo;s concept of \u0026ldquo;citizenship as becoming\u0026rdquo; through pedagogy that promotes student agency and reflection is not complete. Moreover, this discrepancy between the perspectives and self-reported pedagogical practices that favor the traditional approach indicates a failure to move beyond Westheimer and Kahne\u0026apos;s (2004) \u0026quot;personally responsible citizen\u0026quot; model. In this regard, it can be reasonably argued that the discrepancy in favor of the traditional approach corresponds to long-standing pedagogical expectations of the subject in the Ethiopian educational landscape that have historically encouraged unquestioning obedience and rigid patriotism, a deeply ingrained philosophy that was reinforced by the former curriculum. Since, most teachers were trained and taught within this very system, it is not surprising that they tended to demonstrate these traditional pedagogical practices. Consequently, in the Ethiopian context, it is critical to address the discrepancy, particularly considering vast demand for the citizens who are not only knowledgeable of their rights and duties but also active, critical and deliberative of the pressing social, economic and political issues to support ongoing democratization aspirations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo summarize, this study reveals a fundamental tension. The middle school teachers showed a clear inclination towards constructivist approaches that illustrate their intellectual commitment to active teaching centered on critical thinking, engagement, and student agency. However, this theoretical inclination was compromised by inconsistent implementation oriented toward traditional practices. Accordingly, even though citizenship education can be presented as an active process of developing citizenship - through the exercise of student agency and engagement - this is denied in practice. The inference is that cultivating active democratic citizenship requires more than theoretical alignment and intellectual affirmation. Indeed, it requires a fundamental shift from mere support for constructivist pedagogy to its practical application since they often fall back on the traditional, teacher-centered methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpliedly, the challenge seems lied not on a lack of teacher buy-in; rather, it\u0026rsquo;s that teachers' personal pedagogical views are overwhelmingly well-ordered by the realities of their teaching contexts that could actively maintained to reward traditional outputs like rote learning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the findings several recommendations were forwarded. As there found a paradox in the perceptions and practices, it needs to pay a due emphasis to address the influence of contextual factors that hinder the effective implementation of citizenship education. Along with this, it necessitates targeted training and professional development opportunities for teachers in constructivist pedagogy to address the primary goals of citizenship education. By providing such type of training it becomes possible to meet the specific needs of different teacher groups. For instance, new teachers may need foundational training, while more experienced teachers who hold constructivist views but practice traditionally may benefit from workshops focused on practical application and overcoming classroom-specific barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the existence a gap in perception among the demographic groups mandates to explore the opportunities diffusing the good pedagogical outlooks with females, more experienced and educated groups. Therefore, to reconcile the perception-practice disconnection, school-centered peer mentorship programs need to be established in which teachers with constructivist convections (more experienced and better qualified) mentor teachers with traditional pedagogical approaches to minimize the differences between teachers. Through this approach, teachers may have opportunities to access a supportive, collaborative environment where teachers can learn from their peers, exchange best practices, and gain the confidence to implement citizenship education constructively.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Data Availability Statement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Ethical Approval\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of Hawassa University Ethics Review Board. All procedures performed in study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Hawassa University.\u0026nbsp;The Ethical Committee of the\u0026nbsp;Hawassa University College of Law and Governance Research Ethics Review Committeehas granted approval for this study on \u003cstrong\u003eMay 10/2025 ,Approval N\u003cu\u003eo\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;[CLGRECRC-006/25]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Consent to Participate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eFreely-given, informed written consent to participate in this study was obtained from all participants. There w ere no participants under the age of 16.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Consent to Publish\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThe authors affirm that the research participants provided informed consent for publication of the findings of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Conflict of Interest:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e The\u0026nbsp;authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Data Availability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ewe confirm that there was/were no bodies sponsored this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBasha Bekele: wrote the articleSolomon Lema: edited Asfaw Gnefato: Refined the data\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdebayo GO. (2019). In Search of Maximal Citizenship in Educational Policy for Young People: Analysing Citizenship in Finnish Religious Education in View of the Maximal Conception. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8080232\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/socsci8080232\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvalos B. Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teach Teacher Educ. 2011;27(1):10\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBattista D. The Hybrid Warfare of the Digital Age: How Disinformation Destabilizes the World. HAPSc Policy Briefs Ser. 2024;5(2):65\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBayeh E. Role of civics and ethical education for the development of democratic governance in Ethiopia: Achievements and challenges. Pac Sci Rev B: Humanit Social Sci. 2016;2(1):31\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBesekar S, Jogdand S, Naqvi W. (2023). Sample size in educational research: A rapid synthesis. F1000Research, 12, 1291.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiesta GJ. Learning democracy in school and society: Education, lifelong learning, and the politics of citizenship. Springer Science \u0026amp; Business Media; 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoddy CR. Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: Int J. 2016;19(4):426\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrooks RM, Holford JA. (2009). Citizenship, learning and education: Themes and issues.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrowes NC. Comprehensive sexuality education, culture and gender: The effect of the cultural setting on a sexuality education programme in Ethiopia. Sex Educ. 2015;15(6):655\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarr PR, Th\u0026eacute;s\u0026eacute;e G. Seeking democracy inside, and outside, of education: Re-conceptualizing perceptions and experiences related to democracy and education. Democracy Educ. 2017;25(2):4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChan K-W, Elliott RG. Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teach Teacher Educ. 2004;20(8):817\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChick KA. The making of a man: Rethinking and challenging stereotypes. Kappa Delta Pi Record. 2014;50(4):175\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClements KP. Authoritarian populism and atavistic nationalism: 21st-century challenges to peacebuilding and development. J Peacebuilding Dev. 2018;13(3):1\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCruickshank V, Pedersen S, Cooley D, Hill A. How do male primary teachers negotiate expectations to perform gendered roles in their schools? Australian Educational Researcher. 2020;47:307\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDarling-Hammond L, Hyler ME, Gardner M. Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDibaba FB. The Role of Civics and Ethical Education in Shaping Attitudes of Students: The Case of Jimma College of Teachers Education. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDieltiens V. In defence of minimalism: Beyond a robust approach to citizenship education. J Educ. 2005;37(1):189\u0026ndash;202.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDworkin SL. Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:1319\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnchikova E, Neves T, Beilmann M, Banaji S, Pavlopoulos V, Ferreira D, P. Active citizenship: Participatory patterns of European youth. J Social Sci Educ. 2021;20(1):4\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEstelles M, Romero J. Tacit assumptions of citizenship education: A case study in Spanish initial teacher education. Educ Citizsh Social Justice. 2019;14(2):131\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFraenkel JR, Wallen NE. How to design and evaluate research in education. ERIC; 1990.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGelaneh BJ. (2012). The role of civics and ethical education in the development of students\u0026rsquo; behavior: The case of Kokebe Tsibiha secondary and preparatory school. Unpublished MA Thesis, Institute of Educational Research, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeorgiou Y, Hadjichambis AC, Hadjichambi D. Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions on environmental citizenship: A systematic review of the literature. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2622.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGore J, Rosser B, Jaremus F, Miller A, Harris J. Fresh evidence on the relationship between years of experience and teaching quality. Australian Educational Researcher. 2024;51(2):547\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuskey TR. Professional development and teacher change. Teachers Teach. 2002;8(3):381\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalkiyo A, Hailu M, Lott B. Gender-based pedagogical inequity: Exploring faculty perspectives in Ethiopia. Cogent Educ. 2023;10(2):2249668.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarber C, Harber C. (2019). Evidence on Curriculum\u0026mdash;Citizenship Education and Classroom Teaching Methods. Schooling for Peaceful Development in Post-Conflict Societies: Education for Transformation? 199\u0026ndash;230.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHavung M. Anpassning till r\u0026aring;dande ordning. En studie av manliga f\u0026ouml;rskoll\u0026auml;rare i f\u0026ouml;rskoleverksamhet. Lund University; 2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHyde B. (2020). Constructivist and constructionist epistemologies in a globalised world: Clarifying the constructs. Globalisation, Ideology and Education Reforms: Emerging Paradigms, 125\u0026ndash;138.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIstratii R. Bridging religious tradition, gender norms and state institutions: Toward a faith-sensitive approach to addressing intimate partner violence in Ethiopia. American Behavioral Scientist; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIvorra-Catal\u0026aacute; ES, Catret-Mascarell M, Moreno-G\u0026aacute;lvez E. Are Our Schools Carrying Out Effective Environmental Education? In-Service and Pre-Service Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions. Social Sci. 2024;13(8):425.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJara Ibarra C, S\u0026aacute;nchez Bachmann M, Cox C, Miranda D. The meaning of citizenship: Identifying the beliefs of teachers responsible for citizenship education in Chile. Theory Res Social Educ. 2023;51(3):464\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson AP. Essential learning theories: Applications to authentic teaching situations. Rowman \u0026amp; Littlefield; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKerr D. Citizenship education: An international comparison. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority London; 1999.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKihishen M. (2017). Civic and Ethical Education in Ethiopia since 1990s: Achievements and Challenges. J Citizsh Moral, 1(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnowles RT. Ideology in the schools: Developing the teacher\u0026rsquo;s Civic Education Ideology Scale within the United States. Educ Citizsh Social Justice. 2019;14(3):260\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoptseva N. Constructivist pedagogy in context of modern philosophy of education. Перспективы Науки и Образования Perspectives of Science and Education; 2020. p. 41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee JC-K, Zha Z, Song H, Huang X. Effects of epistemological and pedagogical beliefs on the instructional practices of teachers: A Chinese perspective. Australian J Teacher Educ (Online). 2013;38(12):120\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee WO, Grossman DL, Kennedy KJ, Fairbrother GP. (2013). Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLehmann KH. (2022). The Origins and Persistence of Gender Roles in Ethiopia: A micro-level analysis of the effects of traditional farming systems on modern gender roles.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi H, Kennedy KJ, Tan CB. Chinese teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the \u0026lsquo;good citizen\u0026rsquo;: Implications for implementing China\u0026rsquo;s civic education curriculum. Citizsh Teach Learn. 2016;11(2):139\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLouis Cohen LM and K. M. Louis Cohen. Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison (Eighth edi); 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMakombe G. An expose of the relationship between paradigm. method and design in research; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartin LA. Exploring diversity within citizenship behavior. J Multicultural Educ. 2017;11(3):224\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcLaughlin TH. Citizenship, diversity and education: A philosophical perspective. J Moral Educ. 1992;21(3):235\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMee M, Haverback HR. Middle school principals\u0026rsquo; perceptions and preferences when hiring teachers. American Secondary Education; 2017. pp. 38\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMelesse S, Jirata E. Teachers\u0026rsquo; perception and practice of constructivist teaching approach: The case of secondary schools of Kamashi Zone. Sci Technol Arts Res J. 2015;4(4):194\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMijanović NV. (2023). As a Contemporary Teaching Paradigm.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMogra I. Traditional Texts and Contemporary Teaching Techniques. Global Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Paths in Islamic Education. IGI Global; 2020. pp. 60\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMolla T, Molla T. (2018). Repressive Gender Culture. Higher Education in Ethiopia: Structural Inequalities and Policy Responses, 61\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuleya G. (2019). Civic Education and Civics: Where do we draw the line? Civic Education and Civics: Where do. (November 2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuluye K. The Problems beyond the Scene: Appraisals on the Content Related Problems of High School Civic and Ethical Education Textbooks in Ethiopia. Int J Social Sci Educational Stud. 2018;5(2):120\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiewiadomski R, Anisimova K, Quiroz L, Puglisi S, Ball C, Johnson G, Rodriguez D. (2023). Civic Education: Insights From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Middle School Students. Int J Educational Reform, 10567879231168374.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOkesina M. A critical review of the relationship between paradigm, methodology, design and method in research. J Res Method Educ. 2020;10(3):57\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOpfer VD, Pedder D. Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Rev Educ Res. 2011;81(3):376\u0026ndash;407.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoudel P, Subedi D. (2024). Teacher perceptions and teaching practices of instructing students with limited eye sight in selected regular public schools of Nepal: A narrative inquiry. OUSL J, 19(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReichert F, Lange D, Chow L. Educational beliefs matter for classroom instruction: A comparative analysis of teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs about the aims of civic education. Teach Teacher Educ. 2021;98:103248.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eResh N, Sabbagh C. Sense of justice in school and civic behavior. Soc Psychol Educ. 2017;20:387\u0026ndash;409.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRietbergen-McCracken J. (2012). Civic education. Retrieved, 8(30), 2012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSampermans D, Reichert F, Claes E. Teachers\u0026rsquo; concepts of good citizenship and associations with their teaching styles. Camb J Educ. 2021;51(4):433\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSemela T, Bohl T, Kleinknecht M. Civic education in Ethiopian schools: Adopted paradigms, instructional technology, and democratic citizenship in a multicultural context. Int J Educational Dev. 2013;33(2):156\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShah SR, Al-Bargi A. (2013). Research Paradigms: Researchers\u0026rsquo; Worldviews, Theoretical Frameworks and Study Designs. Arab World Engl J, 4(4).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStarkey H. Language teaching for democratic citizenship. Citizenship and Language Learning: International Perspectives; 2005. pp. 23\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSzab\u0026oacute; F, Cs\u0026eacute;pes I. Constructivism in language pedagogy. Hung Educational Res J. 2023;13(3):405\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTadesse T. The Role of Civic and Ethical Education in Democratization Process of Ethiopia: Challenges and Prospects. Humanit Social Sci. 2019;7(2):49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTafese GS, Desta DT. The roles of civics and ethical education in shaping attitude of the students in higher education: The case of Mekelle University. Int J Sci Res Publications. 2014;4(10):680\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan C. Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges. Globalisation Soc Educ. 2017;15(2):238\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTatto MT, Coupland DB. (2003). Teacher education and teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs. Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The Impact of Teacher Education, 6, 123\u0026ndash;182.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeferra T, Asgedom A, Oumer J, Dalelo A, Assefa B. (2018). Ethiopian education development roadmap (2018-30). An Integrated Executive Summary. Ministry of Education Strategy Center (ESC) Draft for Discussion: Addis Ababa, 4, 9\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTilahun M. (2006). Civic education and students of higher learning: A case study.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Bavel JJ, Harris EA, P\u0026auml;rnamets P, Rathje S, Doell KC, Tucker JA. Political psychology in the digital (mis) information age: A model of news belief and sharing. Social Issues Policy Rev. 2021;15(1):84\u0026ndash;113.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, Young T. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVavrus F. Andreas goes to Africa: A comparative historical study of the teachers for East Africa programs. Eur Educ. 2018;50(2):171\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVeugelers W, De Groot I, Stolk V. Research for CULT Committee-Teaching Common Values in Europe. European Union; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWestheimer J, Kahne J. What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. Am Educ Res J. 2004;41(2):237\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWisdom J, Creswell J. Integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. pp. 1\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWolle G. Gender stereotypes and contributing factors for the gender gap in the school leadership position in North Wello Zone: Ethiopia. Cogent Educ. 2024;11(1):2375482.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWong KL. Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of preparing good citizens for the democratic development: Hong Kong case. Educational Stud. 2021;47(2):238\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYamada S. Domesticating Democracy? Civic and Ethical Education Textbooks in Secondary Schools in Democratizing Ethiopia. (Re) Constructing Memory: School Textbooks and the Imagination of the Nation. Springer; 2014. pp. 35\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYohans M. (n.d.). Ethiopias Multicultural Education: A Negation to the Past and Champion of the New Beginning in Nation Building.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZaman H. Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of citizenship and citizenship education: A comparative study. University of Pittsburgh; 2006.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZ\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga CG, C\u0026aacute;rdenas P, Mart\u0026iacute;nez R, Valledor L. Teachers\u0026rsquo; classroom practices for citizenship education: Experiences of teachers rated as outstanding. Citizsh Social Econ Educ. 2020;19(1):3\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Pedagogical Perspectives, Citizenship Education, Middle Schools","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9150616/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9150616/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the pedagogical views of middle school citizenship teachers of Sidama Regional State. The aim was to examine the prevalence of constructivist and traditional pedagogical perspectives among teachers and to assess the correspondence between their stated views and actual classroom practice. The data was collected from 172 teachers through surveys and 10 teachers via interviews and analyzed quantitatively using both descriptive and inferential statistics such as t-test, correlation and one way ANOVA while the qualitative data were analyzed via content analysis methods. The results of the study revealed a fundamental contradiction. The middle school teachers showed a clear inclination towards constructivist approaches that illustrate their intellectual commitment to active teaching centered on critical thinking, engagement, and student agency. However, this theoretical inclination was compromised by inconsistent implementation oriented toward traditional practices. This requires the concerned bodies to work on the contextual factors that may influence teachers' practical aspects.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From Conviction to Classroom: Decoding the Belief- Practice Nexus Among Middle School Citizenship Teachers in Sidama","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-24 06:20:25","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9150616/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-04T22:06:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"50594218890440141957395920399781100415","date":"2026-05-04T21:33:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"336262923245337632271376825324714131000","date":"2026-05-01T15:35:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T10:21:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"217639896119979184655199960899317594359","date":"2026-04-30T09:59:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-16T16:01:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-23T07:54:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-19T06:20:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-19T06:20:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2026-03-17T15:27:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"542681f8-bbbb-462d-b47e-5bb401d5375c","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 24th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-04T22:06:12+00:00","index":67,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"50594218890440141957395920399781100415","date":"2026-05-04T21:33:12+00:00","index":66,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"336262923245337632271376825324714131000","date":"2026-05-01T15:35:43+00:00","index":62,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T10:21:53+00:00","index":61,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"217639896119979184655199960899317594359","date":"2026-04-30T09:59:45+00:00","index":60,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-24T06:20:25+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-24 06:20:25","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9150616","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9150616","identity":"rs-9150616","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}