baselinestudyofclassroom!practices ... · classroom(practices(inunrwaelementary(schools((1((!!!!!...

Classroom Practices in UNRWA Elementary Schools

1

BASELINE STUDY OF CLASSROOM PRACTICES

IN UNRWA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

FINAL REPORT

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT – HEADQUARTERS, AMMAN JUNE, 2014


2

© United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, 2013.

All rights reserved. The contents of this publication shall not be quoted or reproduced or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of UNRWA. For enquiries about use or reproduction of the text or other parts of this publication, please contact UNRWA Department of Education [email protected]. Where use or reproduction of this material is authorized by UNRWA, credit shall be given to UNRWA and a copy of the publication containing the reproduced materials will be sent to UNRWA Department of Education, [email protected]. For copying or reproduction for commercial purposes, a fee may be charged by UNRWA.


3

CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 5

FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................... 6

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 7

2. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ............................................................................................... 9

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 14

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................................ 14

3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................. 14

3.4 SEMI-‐STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS .................................................................................. 16

3.5 SAMPLE ......................................................................................................................... 16

3.6 TRAINING OF DATA COLLECTORS ................................................................................. 17

4. FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 18

4.2 ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATION DATA .......................................................... 18

4.3 ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................ 43

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................... 53

APPENDIX 1: TIMELINE OBSERVATION SCHEDULE ................................................................... 53

APPENDIX 2: FREQUENCY OBSERVATION SCHEDULE ............................................................... 63

APPENDIX 3: INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 70

APPENDIX 4: HEAD TEACHER INTERVIEW ................................................................................. 71

APPENDIX 5: TEACHER INTERVIEW ........................................................................................... 74

APPENDIX 6: PUPIL FOCUS GROUP ........................................................................................... 77


4

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Breakdown of observed lessons by Field, subject and year group 19

Table 2: Class size by Field and treatment 19

Table 3: Comparison between Fields on 26 teaching and learning behaviours 20

Table 4: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities across all 5 Fields 25

Table 5: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in Gaza 27

Table 6: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in Jordan 28

Table 7: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in Lebanon 30

Table 8: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in Syria 32

Table 9: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in West Bank 33

Table 10: Summary of teacher-‐directed and pupil-‐directed activities 35

Table 11: Total, percentage and mean of initiation moves 37

Table 12: Total, percentage and mean of response moves 38

Table 13: Total, percentage and mean of follow-‐up moves 38

Table 14: Extract from Grade 2 science lesson 40

Table 15: Extract from second phase of Grade 2 science lesson 42

Table 16: Teacher level of motivation across 5 Fields 46

Figure 1: Use of open questions across all 5 Fields 21

Figure 2: Use of teacher comments across all 5 Fields 21

Figure 3: Use of teacher probes across all 5 Fields 22

Figure 4: Use of uptake questions across all 5 Fields 22

Figure 5: Use of group work across all 5 Fields 23

Figure 6: Timeline data: variation in teaching and learning activities across 5 Fields 26

Figure 7: Timeline data: variation in teaching and learning activities in Gaza 28

Figure 8: Timeline data: variation in teaching and learning activities in Jordan 29

Figure 9: Timeline data: variation in teaching and learning activities in Lebanon 31

Figure 10: Timeline data: variation in teaching and learning activities in Syria 33

Figure 11: Timeline data: variation in teaching and learning activities in West Bank 34

Figure 12: Mean of initiation moves 37

Figure 13: Mean of response moves 38

Figure 14: Mean of follow-‐up moves 39


5

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CPD Continuing Professional Development

EDC Education Development Centre

EP Educational Psychology

HQ Head Quarters

ICT Information and Communications Technology

INSET In-‐service Education and Training

IRF Initiation-‐Response-‐Feedback

NGO Non-‐governmental Organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-‐operation and Development

PRESET Pre-‐service Education and Training

SBTD School Based Teacher Development

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The UNRWA Education programme would like to thank Professor Frank Hardman and the Institute for Effective Education, University of York for leading on the design of this study, the analysis of the complex data set and the writing of this report. We also acknowledge the engagement throughout of the UNRWA education team in the HQ and all five Fields who contributed to the design of the study and were responsible for the data collection and inputting and for giving input in the writing of this report.


6

FOREWORD This report captures the findings of the observation of teaching and learning practices in 361 lessons in 56 elementary schools across the five Fields of UNRWA. The design, implementation and analysis of the study was rigorous, and of international standard, and thus the report makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of UNRWA classrooms and how the current teaching practices may impact on our students’ learning. The design of the classroom observation tools and the framework for analysis reflect what is known globally about effective teaching and learning. In this way, the practices in UNRWA schools and classrooms are placed in a broader context so that we can better understand the implications of these practices. The findings also serve as a baseline, and a key strand in the monitoring and evaluating framework, of the education reform. Throughout the process educationalists from the five Fields played an active role, that is, from the design, to data collection, to interaction with the draft report. This was crucial for the validity of the report and its findings, but further it served to build the capacity of the UNRWA education team in researching and analyzing classroom practices. With the new structures being put in place, through the Teacher Policy, the insight that this study gives, and the rich resource material (videos and transcripts of lessons), will support the agency wide move towards a more coherent and strategic response to the professional development needs of UNRWA teachers. We therefore hope you find the report of great interest. Dr Caroline Pontefract Director of Education June, 2014


7

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The UNRWA Education Reform Strategy has identified teacher education as a critical area of concern and key for improving the quality of education. It recognises that a motivated and well-‐trained teaching force is a prerequisite for quality education and that this can only be brought about by improving the status, quality, management, policies and training of teachers.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This report provides information on the findings of a baseline study designed to investigate teaching and learning practices in UNRWA elementary schools (Grades 1 – 6) in each of the 5 Fields where UNRWA operates (Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, West Bank). The main purpose of the baseline was to provide quality data on classroom interaction and discourse practices in UNRWA elementary classrooms in order to inform the design of UNRWA’s teacher policies and related work; this is to develop and support teachers and teacher educators throughout their careers to maximize the Agency’s investment in teachers and improve the quality of education. The baseline study will be used as one tool in measuring the impact of the Education Reform on pedagogic practices and pupil learning in UNWRA’s schools over the coming years. Using a mixed-‐method design to collect both quantitative and qualitative data, the study made use of 3 systematic classroom observation schedules to measure and triangulate classroom processes. The first observation instrument recorded the frequency of use of effective teaching behaviours drawn from the international literature, the second used a timeline analysis framework to record the time spent on a range of teaching and learning behaviours, and the third recorded the types of discourse moves used by used by teacher and pupils in sub-‐sample of digitally recorded lessons. Semi-‐structured interviews were also conducted with head teachers, teachers and pupils to elicit their views on UNRWA’s current provision of professional development activities for teachers and their impact on classroom practices. The study was also designed to act as a capacity building exercise for UNRWA Field officers. Staff from the five UNRWA Fields were offered training in research methods and fully involved in the design and implementation of the baseline study.

1.2 FINDINGS Observations of 361 lessons, collected from 56 elementary schools covering the teaching of Arabic, English, mathematics and science, show the ubiquity of a transmission model of teaching in which the teacher often used a chalk board and/or textbook to transmit recipe knowledge for recall. There also appeared to be little difference in the underlying pedagogy used across subjects and grades in all 5 Fields. Pupils spent a great deal of time listening to the teacher explaining, asking questions and writing on the chalk board. The closed nature of the questioning and direction by the teacher meant that pupils were rarely given the opportunity to participate in the classroom talk. There was also very little paired or group work being used to promote problem solving and exploration of ideas. This therefore limited the extent to which


8

pupils could develop their oral skills and critical thinking, and take responsibility for their own learning. The interviews revealed a high level of commitment and motivation on the part of teachers and that, compared to other systems in the region, UNWRA teachers are quite well provided for with regard to in-‐service education and training (INSET). However, much of the current INSET provision available to teachers appeared to be ad hoc, short-‐term in nature and based on a cascade, workshop-‐based approach with little follow-‐up in the classroom. The interviews also suggested there was little focus on developing interactive, communicative practices so that teachers engage, understand, participate and learn. Head teachers and teachers discussed the need for a better alignment between UNRWA's current INSET provision and the professional development needs of teachers. Many expressed the view that there was a need for a systematic programme of INSET to ensure that all teachers received equal training opportunities to improve their pedagogic and assessment practices. The majority of head teachers and teachers wanted to see more training focused on pedagogy content knowledge and subject content knowledge to develop the teaching and assessment of subjects. They also wanted training in ICT and the use of other learning resources. There was a general consensus that teacher development and support should be offered at the school and classroom level to blend theory and practice, supported by external professional support cadres providing mentoring, observation and feedback in the classroom.

1.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall, the baseline study findings suggest the need for UNRWA elementary teachers to broaden their pedagogic repertoire beyond the use of teacher-‐led rote, recitation, instruction and exposition to address the narrow range of practices identified in the observation studies. In line with other high achieving systems, UNRWA teachers need to include high quality dialogue and discussion in whole class, group-‐based and individual activities, where pupil are expected to play an active role by asking questions, contributing ideas and explaining and demonstrating their thinking to the teacher and peers, alongside the traditional classroom practices identified in the baseline. Changing teachers’ current pedagogical practices will require bringing teachers together in professional learning communities in, and beyond, the school, informed by external expertise from teacher professional support staff and teacher educators, and regular follow-‐up in the classroom. Reflecting the baseline findings, a more systematic approach to teacher development and support is needed. School-‐based INSET that includes blended learning and teacher development at school and school cluster level, will lead to a more systematic, longer-‐term and sustainable approach to INSET. It will provide opportunities for teachers to work together on issues of instructional planning, to learn from one another through mentoring or peer coaching, and to conduct action research on the outcomes of classroom practices in order to collectively guide curriculum, assessment and professional learning decisions.


9

2. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY This section reports on the background to the study in terms of its rationale and design building on UNRWA’s Education Reform Strategy (2011 – 2015)1 and Teacher Education and Development Policy Framework2, and draws on recent evidence to support the development of the baseline from the international literature into teacher development. In common with international development agencies, national governments and International non-‐government agencies, UNRWA, as part of its Education Reform Strategy, has focused on improving the quality of its education system by investing in teachers, their education and education leadership training. The Education Reform Strategy was informed by the Universalia review of UNRWA teacher education, which found that classroom pedagogy was often made up of rote learning and memorisation, rather than the acquisition of skills and the development of understanding in terms of higher order cognitive abilities, leading to poor learning outcomes, grade repetition and pupils dropping out of school3. As the UNRWA Education Reform Strategy recognises, the quality of an education system depends to a large extent on the quality of its teachers, as they are the key source of knowledge and skills. The Education Reform is therefore focusing on facilitating a pedagogical shift that will enable active learning methodologies to replace more traditional rote-‐learning approaches. Much of the evidence on effective teaching and learning practices comes from high income countries. For example, Hattie’s synthesis of 800 meta-‐analyses involving over 50,000, studies related to achievement in school-‐aged children in respect of interactive strategies, such as reciprocal teaching, collaborative group work and peer tutoring encouraging student verbalisation and teacher feedback, shows that high quality classroom talk enhances understanding, accelerates learning and raises learning outcomes4. Such interactive approaches make the learning visible for both teachers and students allowing for the monitoring of learning and formative evaluation. They also point to the importance of investigating what can be observed in the act of teaching (i.e. task, activity, classroom interaction, assessment) as key indicators of quality5. While much of the evidence on effective teaching and learning processes has come from high income countries, a substantial body of evidence from low-‐ and middle-‐income countries is starting to emerge6. It has been found that teachers who promote an

1UNRWA, Education Reform Strategy 2011 – 2015, UNRWA HQ, Amman. 2UNRWA, Teacher Education and Development Policy Framework, December 2011, UNRWA HQ, Amman. 3Universalia. 2010. Review and Forward-‐Looking Assessment of UNRWA Teacher Education. UNRWA HQ, Jordan. 4Hattie, J., 2008. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-‐Analyses Relating to Achievement. Abingdon, Routledge. 5Alexander, R. 2008. Education for All, The Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy, London, DFID 6Westbrook, J. Durrani, N. Brown, R. Orr, D. Pryor, J., Boddy, J. and Salvi, F. 2013. Pedagogy, Curriculum, Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in Developing Countries.London, Institute of Education, EPPI Education Rigorous Literature Review. London.


10

interactive pedagogy with significant impact on learning also demonstrate a positive attitude towards their training and the students, and see teaching and learning as an interactive, communicative process. Such research into classroom processes recognises that managing the quality of teacher-‐pupil interaction is one of the most important factors in improving the quality of teaching and learning, particularly in contexts where learning resources and teacher training are limited7. The research also suggests it is possible to pinpoint universals in teaching and learning, such as teacher-‐pupil and pupil-‐pupil interaction in whole class, group based and one-‐to-‐one teaching and learning situations which must be attended to so as to improve the quality of education. Helping teachers to transform classroom talk into a purposeful and productive dialogue, through a pedagogy and curriculum which is relevant to the lives and linguistic profile of the communities from which the pupils come, is therefore seen as being fundamental to improving the quality of education in UNRWA elementary schools. Developments in teacher education in each of the host countries where UNRWA is operating are also influenced by the international literature into teacher development and support. In its most recent review of teacher education covering 65 countries from around the world, the Organisation for Economic Co-‐operation and Development (OECD) reported that in the high-‐performing education systems teachers have a central role to play in improving educational outcomes, and are also at the centre of the improvement efforts themselves8. Such systems are driven by teachers embracing and leading on reform, taking responsibility as professionals, thereby developing a wider repertoire of pedagogic strategies for use in the classroom. The OECD study also found that the most effective professional development programmes upgrade pedagogic knowledge and skills over a sustained period of time, rather than through disjointed one-‐off courses. They bring together initial teacher education, induction and continuing professional development so as to create a lifelong framework for teachers. In this way, high performing education systems provide opportunities for teachers to work together on issues of instructional planning, to learn from one another through mentoring or peer coaching and by conducting research on the outcomes of classroom practices to collectively guide curriculum, assessment and professional learning decisions. The high performing education systems also benefit from clear and concise profiles of what teachers are expected to know and be able to do at different stages of their careers, so as to guide initial teacher education, induction and professional development and create a lifelong learning framework for teachers 9 . The establishment of such benchmarks to assess progress in professional development

7Hardman F. 2011, A Review of Save the Children’s Global Teacher Support and Development Interventions. Save the Children Global Alliance, London. 8OECD. 2011. Building a High Quality Teaching profession: Lessons From Around the World. Paris: OECD publishing. 9Darling-‐Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S. 2009.Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Stanford University/National Staff Development Council.


11

over time means that appraisal and feedback are used in a supportive way to recognise and reward good performance. Studies of pedagogy in primary, elementary and secondary schools in the five Fields where UNRWA operates show teacher-‐led explanation, rote and recitation dominate the different stages of schooling10. Such interaction often takes the form of lengthy recitations comprising of teacher explanation and questions, and brief answers often chorused by the whole class or by individual students. International research suggests changing such a narrow repertoire of pedagogic practices by managing the quality of classroom interaction can be a cost effective way of improving classroom pedagogy11. As the Education Reform Strategy acknowledges, helping teacher educators and teachers transform classroom talk from the familiar rote, recitation and exposition to include a wider repertoire of dialogue and discussion in whole class, group-‐based and one-‐to-‐one interactions will require providing in-‐service education and training in alternative classroom interaction and discourse strategies that are more student-‐focused and dialogic in nature. Because teaching is a complex activity in which moment-‐by-‐moment decisions are shaped by teacher beliefs and theories about what is effective teaching, theory and practice must be carefully integrated. In effective professional development, theories of curriculum, effective teaching and assessment are developed alongside their application in the classroom. Such integration allows teachers to use their theoretical understandings as a basis for making ongoing, principled decisions about practice. Focusing only on skills will not develop the deep understanding needed if teachers are to change their beliefs and practices and meet the complex demands of everyday teaching. Conversely, merely teaching theoretical constructs to teachers without helping to translate them into classroom practice will also prove ineffective. Challenging and changing beliefs and classroom practices also requires the development of self-‐regulatory skills that enable teachers to monitor and reflect on the effectiveness of the changes they make to their classroom practice. Such change appears to be promoted by a cyclical process of professional learning in which teachers have their current assumptions challenged by the demonstration of effective practice, develop new knowledge and skills, make small changes to practice aided by classroom observation, and observing resulting improvements in student learning outcomes. It also requires teachers being brought together in professional learning communities and informed by expertise external to the group of participating teachers. According to the 2011 OECD study, the best performing education systems encompass all of these sources of teacher education and training at the pre-‐service education and training (PRESET) and in-‐service education and training (INSET) stages with the school and classroom at the heart of the co-‐learning process to blend theory and practice12.

10Rajab, T. 2013. Developing whole-‐class interactive teaching: meeting the training needs of Syrian EFL secondary school teachers. Unpublished PhD, University of York, UK. 11 Alexander, R. 2008. Education for All, The Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy. London: DFID. 12OECD. Op.Cit.


12

Intervening at the school and classroom level through school-‐based INSET is therefore crucial in raising the quality of teaching and learning in UNRWA elementary schools, as educational quality is ultimately obtained through pedagogical processes in the classroom: through the knowledge, skills, dispositions and commitments of the teachers in whose care pupils are entrusted. For this reason, over the past 20 years, PRESET and INSET have undergone major reforms in many industrialised countries like Australia, United States of America and the United Kingdom13. All have seen shifts towards a largely school-‐based system, guided by standards and competency frameworks agreed at the national or state level, with higher education coordinating partnership arrangements with schools. Such partnerships recognise the capacity of schools, and especially of the teachers who work in them, to make a major contribution to the professional education of those entering the profession14. Similarly, within the Asia-‐Pacific region, Japan, Singapore and South Korea, for example, have moved towards school-‐based models of training at the PRESET and INSET stages by building enhanced partnerships arrangements between higher education and schools15. Therefore, UNRWA has placed the classroom and the development of pedagogical approaches that will improve the quality of teacher-‐student interaction and discourse at the heart of its Education Reform Strategy. Focusing on the school as the site for training represents a fundamental shift away from the traditional training model of INSET that was usually ‘delivered’ off-‐site to teachers and student teachers by an ‘expert’ from a higher education institute, and was often criticised for its lack of connection to the classroom context in which teachers worked16. In the case of INSET, the training often involved teachers attending ‘training events’ and then cascading or disseminating the information to colleagues back in school. The cascade model of training has been commonly found in situations where resources are limited and therefore has been a dominant model in developing and middle income countries. However, research suggests it often lacks transferability to the classroom and indicates a lack of respect for teachers by suggesting a lack of capacity for reflection and critical enquiry. The Reform Strategy recognises that school-‐based training can help teachers develop more of a dialogic pedagogy to broaden the repertoire of whole class teaching currently found in UNRWA elementary classrooms. In this way dialogue and discussion can be included alongside the more traditional drilling, closed questioning and telling, thereby raising cognitive engagement and understanding. Such an approach builds on the traditional model of whole class teaching which is found in many elementary classrooms in the region, but which avoids the simplistic polarization of pedagogy into ‘teacher-‐ 13Jasman, A. 2003. Initial Teacher Education: Changing Curriculum, Pedagogies and Assessment. Change: Transformations in Education, 6, 3, 1-‐22. 14Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C. & Whitty, G. 2000.Teacher education in transition: reforming professionalism? Buckingham: Open University Press. 15Suzuki, S. & Howe, E. R. 2010.Asian perspectives on teacher education. London: Routledge. 16 Kennedy, A. (2005) Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for analysis. Journal of In-‐service Education, 31, 2, 235-‐ 249.


13

centred’ versus ‘student-‐centred’ that has characterised much of the educational discourse in the international donor community17. It will also help to ensure there is a better balance and blending of local cultural practices with internationally informed teacher education reforms18. The Education Reform also recognises that quality education is unlikely to be achieved through focusing on single initiatives like teacher education alone and that it will require a systemic approach which also strengthens support systems that address the capacity and training needs of those charged with organising and providing the training, mentoring and coaching. It will also require clear promotion pathways that motivate and support teachers and teacher educators throughout their careers, curriculum, and assessment and governance reforms, and an effective communication and advocacy strategy, and ongoing appraisal and monitoring and evaluation.

17Hardman, F., Abd-‐Kadir, J., Agg, C. Migwi, J., Ndambuku, J. & Smith, F. 2009.Changing pedagogical practice in Kenyan primary schools: the impact of school-‐based training. Comparative Education, 45 (1), 65 – 86. 18Hardman, F., Abd-‐Kadir, J. & Tibuhinda, A. 2012.Reforming Teacher Education in Tanzania. International Journals of Educational Development, 32, 826 – 834.


14

3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section reports on the design and implementation of the research study. Having given an overview of the research design, it goes on to describe the sample and research instruments used and training of data collectors. 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN The main purpose of the baseline study was to provide quality data on current classroom interaction19 and discourse practices in UNRWA elementary classrooms in order to allow for subsequent evaluation of reform interventions designed to improve the quality of education in UNRWA schools. The study was also seen as a capacity building exercise for UNRWA Field officers. Staff from the 5 UNRWA Fields were therefore offered training in research methods and fully involved in the design, implementation and dissemination phases of the project. The main research question the baseline study set out to answer was: What types of classroom interactions do UNRWA elementary teachers use with pupils to present, organise and sustain learning tasks and activities in Arabic language, English language, mathematics, and science classes? In order to fully address the complexity of the research questions, a multi-‐method research design using both quantitative and qualitative methods was used. This allowed for methodological triangulation to achieve greater validity and reliability in the study. 3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS Each of the observation instruments were closely related to each other to ensure a fully integrated research design with a central focus on classroom processes. They were also designed to be comprehensive, manageable and as low-‐inference as possible to compare pedagogical practices in UNRWA elementary schools. They were informed by international pedagogical research focusing on what can be observed in the act of teaching (i.e. task, activity, interaction, assessment) so as to ensure the observations of classroom processes are as valid and reliable as is practically possible20. Because managing the quality of classroom interaction is seen as the single most important factor in improving the quality of teaching and learning, investigating the quality of classroom interaction in UNRWA elementary schools was a central focus of

19By classroom interaction we mean how teacher interact and talk with pupils in whole class, group-‐based and one-‐to-‐one teaching situations 20Hardman, F. and Abd-‐Kadir, J. 2010. Classroom discourse: towards a dialogic pedagogy. In: D. Wyse, R. Andrews & J. Hoffman (eds.) The International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis, pp. 254 – 264.


15

the study. The classroom interaction study made use of two systematic observation schedules completed in the natural setting of a lesson and a computerised software programme and discourse analysis of transcribed lessons to systematically analyse discourse moves in digitally recorded lessons. Semi-‐structured interviews were also conducted with Head Teachers and teachers to elicit their views on UNRWA’s current provision of professional development for teachers and their impact on classroom practices. Focus group interviews with Grade 6 pupils were also used to elicit their views on current classroom interaction practices of UNRWA teachers. To ensure they were appropriate to UNWRA school contexts the interview schedules were piloted as part of the data collector training programme. International research into effective teaching suggests that classroom interaction is the pedagogical key21. The use of instructional variety, using and incorporating pupil ideas, appropriate and varied questioning, probing for knowledge, and frequent feedback by teachers is key to improving the quality of learning and raising pupil learning outcomes as is the use of peer-‐to-‐peer interaction in paired and collaborative group work.22 Therefore, all three instruments were designed to capture the extent to which these behaviours are currently being used in UNRWA elementary classrooms and drew upon the 3-‐part teaching exchange structure that research suggests is central to teacher-‐pupil interaction23. In its prototypical form a teaching exchange consists of three moves: an initiation, usually in the form of a teacher question, a response in which a pupil, or group of pupils, attempts to answer the question, and a follow-‐up move, in which the teacher provides some form of feedback (very often in the form of an evaluation) to the pupil's response (from now on referred to as IRF). Research into classroom interaction suggests that the IRF structure can take a variety of forms and functions leading to different levels of pupil participation and engagement, particularly through the use that is made of the follow up move. Such studies suggest that teacher follow up which goes beyond evaluation of the pupil answers, by asking pupils to expand on their thinking, justify or clarify their opinions, or make connections to their own experiences, can extend the answer in order to draw out its significance so as to create a greater equality of participation. The IRF structure can therefore be opened up to create more of a student-‐centred form of teaching in whole class, group-‐based and one-‐to-‐one exchanges where teacher questions and student responses are woven together into an unfolding exchange to encouraging more pupil-‐initiated ideas and responses and consequently promoting higher-‐order thinking. In such cases, the IRF pattern can be said to take on a dialogic function. Observation schedule 1: Timeline analysis: this schedule required the observer to record the main teaching activities from a list of prompts every five minute interval in the

21Westbrook, J., Durrani, N., Brown, R., Orr, D., Pryor, J., Boddy, J. and Salvi, F. (2013) Pedagogy, Curriculum, Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in Developing Countries, EPPI Education Rigorous Literature Review. London: IoE. 22See, for example, Muijs, D & Reynolds, D. (2011) (3rded) Effective teaching: evidence and practice. London: Sage. 23Alexander, R., 2008. Education for All, The Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy. DFID, London.


16

lesson. In the note section, observers were asked to record activities not covered in the checklist and to provide further contextual information on the activities ticked in the checklist (Appendix 1). Because it is following the time-‐line of the lesson, and completed during the course of the lesson observation the timeline analysis was designed as an aide-‐memoire so as to inform the completion of Observation Schedule 2 at the end of the lesson. Observation schedule 2: Frequency of teacher/pupil activities:this schedulewas designed to capture the frequency of teacher and student activities occurring during the course of a lesson and was completed at the end, building on the time-‐line analysis (Appendix 2). The observation schedule was informed by pedagogical research into whole class, group-‐based and one-‐to-‐one teaching and focuses on what can be observed in the act of teaching (i.e. task, activity, interaction, assessment) so as to collect data on classroom processes that are as valid and reliable as is practically possible. The schedule asked the observer to record the frequency of 26 teaching and learning activities using a 4 point scale: 1 = behaviour never observed; 2 = behaviour rarely observed (i.e. once or twice); 3 = behaviour occasionally observed (i.e. four or five times); 4 = behaviour consistently observed. Observation schedule 3: Computerised systematic observation schedule: the computerised interaction analysis system first developed for use in the UK in 2003 has subsequently been used over a number of years in six other countries24 (Appendix 3). It uses a coding scheme that is fully grounded in the discourse observed (thus increasing the measurement validity of the coding scheme). The coding scheme analyses teacher-‐pupil interaction by recording the different types, frequency and length of discourse moves made by teachers and pupils. In addition to the computerised coding, selected episodes from the lessons were selected for transcription to allow for more qualitative analysis of the discourse moves used by teachers and pupils in the digital lessons. 3.4 SEMI-‐STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS In addition to the classroom observations during the school visits, semi-‐structured interviews were conducted with the Head Teachers (Appendix 4), teachers (Appendix 5), and a focus group of 6 Grade 5 pupils (Appendix 6) to elicit their opinions on current classroom practices and to better understand their attitudes, perceptions and beliefs with regard to the roll out of the school-‐based INSET. 3.5 SAMPLE Each Field was asked to select 12 schools that were representative of UNRWA schools in terms of the socio-‐economic status, school size, gender and urban/rural location. In each school, data collectors were asked to observe an Arabic language, English language, mathematics and science lesson at Grades 2 and 5, giving a total of 8 observations in each school. A sub-‐sample of 20 lessons was video-‐recorded for the computerised interaction analysis. 24Smith, F. & Hardman, F. 2003. Using Computerised Observation as a Tool for Capturing Classroom Interaction. Educational Studies, 29 (1), 39 – 47.


17

3.6 TRAINING OF DATA COLLECTORS Ten data collectors, from each of the 5 Fields, were selected and trained over the course of 3 days. During the training workshop, inter-‐observer reliability checks were conducted on Observation schedules 1 and 2, using video-‐recorded lessons consisting of descriptive item analysis so as to achieve reliability ratings of at least 80% amongst the data collectors. Led by an UNRWA team leader, the data collectors visited the school over a period of 4 weeks and were responsible for: recording background information on the schools, teachers and classes observed; interviewing head teachers, teachers and a focus group of Grade 6 pupils; completing the systematic observations of lessons; supervising the digital recording of lessons; and, returning the data to UNWRA HQ25.

25Data collection in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and West Bank was collected in October/November 2012 and in Jordan in October 2013.


18

4. FINDINGS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the main findings of the study. Firstly, a detailed analysis of the classroom observation data is presented to showing current teacher-‐pupil interaction patterns and discourse practices in UNRWA elementary schools. Secondly an analysis of the semi-‐structured interviews with head teachers and teachers presenting their views on UNRWA’s current provision of professional development for teachers and its impact on classroom practices. Finally, an analysis of the focus group interviews with Grade 5 pupils presenting their perceptions of current classroom interaction practices used by UNRWA teachers is presented for triangulation with the observation data. 4.2 ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATION DATA The following section reports on the classroom observation findings fromeach of the 5 Fields. Firstly, the section reports on frequency of use of 26 teaching and learning behaviours within and across the 5 Fields in terms of subject teaching (i.e. Arabic, English, mathematics and science) and across grades (i.e. grades 2 and 5). Secondly, using timeline analysis each of the 5 Fields is compared on a range of teaching and learning behaviours.

a) OBSERVATION SCHEDULE 1: FREQUENCY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING BEHAVIOURS

Three hundred and sixty one lessons from 56 schools were analysed using the schedule designed to capture the frequency of the 26 teacher and student behaviours. A breakdown of the lesson observations by subject and gradeis given in Table 3. Table 4 gives a breakdown of class size by Field.

In Part A of the schedule, observers were asked to record general information on the school. In Part B, they were asked to record whether there was a lesson plan and to use it as a guide in their observation of the lesson26. In Part C, observers were asked to record the frequency of teaching and learning activities observed during the course of the lesson. The 26 observable practices were categorised into 4 sections on the observation schedule. In Section 1 there were 11 teaching and learning behaviours covering lesson clarity, the setting of learning objectives, instructional variety (i.e. use of whole class, paired/group-‐based and individual teaching) and the general climate of the classroom. Six behaviours were captured in Section 2 covering teacher approaches to questioning, and 6 behaviours were captured in Section 3 covering teacher feedback and follow-‐up to the questions. Section 4 was made up of 3 behaviours exploring teacher management of the class.

26Most observers completed Part B on lesson planning suggesting the majority of observed teachers in each of the three fields had a lesson plan. However, given that it was not possible to carry inter-‐observer reliability checks between the 5 fields no further statistical analysis was conducted on the on the ‘quality’ gradings.


19

Table 1: Breakdown of observed lessons by Field, subject and year group

Field Number of schools Subject

Number of observations

Grade 3

Number of observations

Grade 5 Total

Gaza 11

Arabic 10 11 21 English 10 10 20 Maths 10 11 21 Science 10 11 21 Total 40 43 83

Jordan 12


Lebanon 11


Syria 10


West Bank 12


Total 56 167 194 361 Table 2 gives a breakdown of the mean for class size across each of the 5 Fields, suggesting a mean of 35, with Gaza and Jordan nearly 40 pupils and Lebanon 27. Table 2: Class size by Field

Field Min Max Mean St. Deviation Gaza 31 51 39.93 4.80 Jordan 24 51 38.14 6.25 Lebanon 10 38 27.10 6.86 Syria 13 43 30.27 6.99

West Bank 21 42 33.11 5.58


20

i) FIELD COMPARISIONS All 5 Fields were statistically compared using the 26 effective teaching and learning behaviours27. Although the table shows thatsome significant differences in teaching and learning behaviours did emerge between Fields, no discernible patterns emerged and the underlying pedagogy appeared to be the same: teaching and learning was largely teacher-‐fronted talk made up of teacher explanation and teacher-‐led recitation. It also revealed very few of the dialogic teaching behaviours (i.e. open questions, probes, comments, uptake questions) and group work to open up space in the discourse for pupil contributions were used across all 5 Fields. Table 3: Comparison between Fields on 26 teaching and learning behaviours

Item Gaza v

Leb.

Gaza v West Bank

Gaza v

Syria

Gaza v Jor.

Leb. v West Bank

Leb. v

Syria

Leb. v Jor.

West Bank v Syria

West Bank v Jor.

Syria v Jor.

C1_StatesObjectives 0.131 0.026 0.098 0.061 0.503 0.008 0.776 0.002 0.672 0.005 C2_PriorKnowledge 0.044 0.826 0.145 0.314 0.096 0.007 0.008 0.130 0.268 0.478 C3_ExplainsMaterial 0.049 0.432 0.573 0.396 0.330 0.047 0.009 0.295 0.139 0.944 C4_KeyPoints 0.505 0.108 0.232 0.055 0.026 0.096 0.014 0.930 0.641 0.808 C5_RangeOfMaterial 0.061 0.005 0.006 0.181 0.160 0.082 0.835 0.592 0.157 0.106 C6_ChalkBoard 0.011 0.135 0.925 0.084 0.389 0.021 0.000 0.192 0.001 0.196 C7_Positive 0.000 0.032 0.069 0.377 0.216 0.427 0.009 0.894 0.230 0.298 C8_PupilNames 0.000 0.005 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.002 0.800 0.447 0.748 C9_GroupWork 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.961 0.028 0.249 0.044 0.298 0.231 C10_ClassLayout 0.372 0.242 0.811 0.000 0.654 0.702 0.002 0.554 0.033 0.009 C11_Plenary 0.489 0.666 0.003 0.000 0.349 0.009 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.630 C12_Cued 0.002 0.641 0.976 0.010 0.000 0.017 0.991 0.764 0.003 0.059 C13_ClosedQuestions 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.059 0.000 0.544 0.037 0.541 C14_OpenQuestions 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.094 0.247 0.000 0.016 0.043 C15_Individual 0.000 0.964 0.568 0.560 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.605 0.620 0.824 C16_Demonstrate 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.671 0.272 0.242 0.164 0.116 0.743 C17_AdditionalLearningNe

eds 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.251 0.013 0.691 0.074 0.342 0.013 C18_Acknowledges 0.000 0.038 0.141 0.371 0.022 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.218 0.038 C19_Probes 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.125 0.000 0.000 C20_Comments 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.930 0.000 0.489 0.000 0.589 0.001 C21_Builds 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.563 0.000 0.024 0.886 0.022 C22_Encourages 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.598 0.380 0.012 0.060 0.262 C23_MovesForFeedback 0.121 0.843 0.412 0.490 0.348 0.950 0.058 0.694 0.465 0.332 C24_Relates 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.024 0.035 0.001 0.672 0.303 0.770 C25_ManagesClass 0.000 0.017 0.005 0.001 0.155 0.926 0.357 0.373 0.539 0.611 C26_ManagesLessonTime 0.168 0.029 0.020 0.032 0.367 0.139 0.469 0.484 0.851 0.373 No Significant Differences 16 10 12 14 7 6 9 5 4 3 Red = significant difference For example, it was also found that closed questions (i.e.test questions calling for a single ‘yes/no’ answer or offering facts) were the most common form of teacher questioning with 42.9% of teachers consistently asking such questions. Conversely, open questions (i.e. questions which encourage speculation and require more than a ‘yes’ or

27Kruskal–Wallis one-‐way analysis of variance by ranks


21

‘no’ answer or the recall of information), were far less common: only 6.6% of teachers across the 5 Fields ‘consistently’ asked open questions (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Use of open questions across all 5 Fields In terms of following up a pupil answer to a question, only 13.4% of teachers would consistently comment on an answer (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Use of teacher comments across all 5 Fields Similarly, in terms of teachers probing a pupil answer to elicit further elaboration or explanation, only 12.8% of teacher ‘consistently’ used probing to follow up an answer across the 5 Fields (Figure 3). Similarly, only 5.4% of teachers across 5 Fields used uptake questions. A similar figure emerged with teachers asking ‘uptake questions’ (i.e. a follow-‐up question which builds on a pupil answer so as to acknowledge its contribution to the lesson) (Figure 4).

Gaza Jordan Lebanon Syria West Bank

Consistently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never


Consistently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never


22

Figure 3: Use of teacher probes of student answers across all 5 Fields Pupil questions were also rare, with only 4.9% of teachers across the 5 Fields ‘consistently’ encouraging pupils to ask questions directed to both the teacher and other members of the class.

Figure 4: Use of uptake questions across all 5 Fields Similarly, the frequency analysis suggests teacher use of group work across the 5 fields was also low (Figure 5). It was found that 46.3% of teachers ‘never’ used group work and a further 23.4% of teachers ‘rarely’ used it. The figure was higher in Gaza where 79.3% of teachers ‘never’ used paired or group and 13.4% ‘rarely’ used. Teachers in Gaza were also less likely to ‘asks pupil to demonstrate in front of the class’, with 45.6% ‘never’ using it as an activity and 32.5% ‘rarely’ using it. In Lebanon the combined figure for ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ using demonstration was 46.3% and in West Bank it was 50.7%.


Consistently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never


Consistently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never


23

Figure 5: Use of group work across all 5 Fields

ii) PUPILS WITH ADDITIONAL LEARNING NEEDS In addition to patterns of teacher-‐pupil interaction, the Frequency of Teacher Pupil Activities observation schedule revealed some interesting findings with regard to the inclusion of pupils with additional learning needs in the observed lessons28. Prior to the lesson, observers asked teachers if they had children with additional learning needs in their classes. If teachers stated that had, they were asked to identify the pupils to the observer so that the observercould record their interactions with the teacher. In Gaza only 2% of observed lessons recorded any pupils with additional learning needs and for Lebanon and Syria it was 4% and 5% respectively. In Jordan and West Bank, however, in 24% and 35% of lessons respectively at least one pupil with additional needs was identified. No differences were found betweengrades. This finding suggests that in the majority of lessons such pupils were either not present in the classroom, they had not been identified, or their needs were not being addressed, particularly in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. While the findingsfrom Jordan andWest Bank suggest more attention is being paid to the identification of pupils with additional learning needs, no additional provision or adaptation of the curriculum was recorded by the observers.

iii) COMPARISON OF SUBJECTS The frequency data were analysed to investigate whether there were any significant differences in the teaching of specific subjects across the fiveFields29. It was found there were very few statistically significant differences between subjects: none between the teaching of Arabic, maths and science, 4 differences between English and Arabic, and English and maths, but no discernible patterns were found to indicate consistently

28 While pupils with additional learning needs were not a specific focus of the study, their inclusion in lessons in terms of teacher-‐pupil interactions was thought to be of relevance. Future research using focal sampling, focusing upon the teacher‘s interaction with pupils with additional learning needs would be useful. 29Mann-‐Whitney U test


Consistently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never


24

differing teaching behaviours. This finding suggests that the underlying pedagogy varied little according to the subject being taught, with teachers using the same patterns of interaction, regardless of subject content and language medium of instruction.

iv) COMPARISON OF GRADES The data were also compared in order to investigate whether there were any differences in teaching and learning approaches according to grade level. Eight of the 26 observable practices were found to be significantly different between the two grades. Grade 5 teachers were more likely to states objectives and provide an overview of the lesson, and use paired or group work. Grade 2 teachers were more likely to use a range of instructional materials, make effective use of the chalkboard, know and use pupil names, to rearrange the classroom layout to facilitate learning, ask pupils to demonstrate in front of the class and acknowledge a pupil answer. Overall, however, in terms of classroom interactive practices, there were few discernible differences in the patterning of the classroom interaction between grades: teacher-‐fronted explanation and question and answer dominated both year groups.

b) TIMELINE ANALYSIS Working independently in the same classroom, two observers were asked to complete the Timeline Analysis schedule. The schedule required the observers to record the main teaching activities from a list of 14 prompts during every five minute interval in the lesson. Observers could record more than one activity in each of the five minute sections of the lesson. Two hundred and thirty lessons were cross-‐checked for observer-‐rater reliability, and this was found to be above 90 percent and the data was thus merged and analysed. In order to analyse the data a count of the number of times an activity occurred within a 5-‐minute interval was carried out and divided by the total number of activities to arrive at a percentage of the time spent on the activity. Officially in UNRWA elementary schools, Grade 2 and 5 lessons are meant to last 40 minutes so the timeline schedules were completed within these time frames. If the lesson ended before the official designated time, observers coded the behaviour as ‘off-‐task’. Tables 4 shows a breakdown of the most common teaching and learning activities as a percentage of the lesson time in which they were observed, for each of the five minute intervals across all five Fields.


25

Table 4: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities across all 5Fields Min

1-‐5 Min 6-‐10

Min 11-‐15

Min 16-‐20

Min 21-‐25

Min 26-‐30

Min 31-‐35

Min 36-‐40

Overall

A1 24.2 22.3 22.1 20.3 19.3 17.6 18.1 15.2 19.9 A2 9.9 10.9 9.6 8.4 7.4 7.4 6.3 5.1 8.1 A3 18.5 16.5 16.6 15.3 15.1 13.7 13.4 11.9 15.1 A4 4.8 6.9 5.8 5.1 5.0 5.2 3.6 4.1 5.0 A5 4.6 6.9 7.3 6.5 7.2 7.5 5.9 4.7 6.3 A6 8.8 8.3 9.2 12.3 12.2 13.7 16.1 16.9 12.2 A7 1.4 3.0 4.6 4.4 5.1 4.6 3.8 3.7 3.8 A8 3.0 5.0 3.9 4.4 3.9 3.7 4.8 4.1 4.1 A9 7.3 3.6 2.7 3.4 2.5 3.7 3.5 7.8 4.3 A10 3.8 2.9 4.8 7.4 7.4 8.8 11.1 11.8 7.3 A11 8.0 7.9 7.7 7.1 8.0 7.9 7.6 7.1 7.7 A12 4.4 4.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 4.0 2.0 2.5 3.6 A13 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.9 A14 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.2 3.2 4.9 1.7 100.0

Key:A1 = Teacher explanation/question & answer; A2 = Teacher rote/chorus responses; A3 = Teachers writing on chalkboard; A4 = Teacher reading to whole class; A5 = Pupil reading to whole class; A6 = Pupils working individually; A7 = Pupils working in pairs/groups; A8 = Pupil demonstrating to class; A9 = Teacher reviews lesson topic; A10 = Teacher marking work; A11 = Class Management; A12 = Class administration; A13 = Interruption to lesson; A14 = Pupils off-‐task It can be seen from Table 4 and Figure 6 that teacher-‐fronted teaching activities (i.e. teacher explanation, question and answer, teacher rote and chorus responses, teacher writing on the chalkboard, teacher reading to the class, teacher reviews lesson topic, class management, administration) accounted for 63.3% of the lesson time. More pupil-‐centred activities (i.e. paired/group work, pupil demonstration, pupil reading to the class) accounted for 13.7% of the time, with the rest being made up of individual seat work 30 (12.2%), teacher marking work (7.3%), pupiloff-‐task behaviour(1.2%) and interruption to lesson (0.9%). The findings therefore triangulate closely with the frequency of teaching and learning behaviours discussed in the previous section. 30Although individual seat work could be pupil directed through project work, it was found to be often teacher directed and made up of individual exercises and working from the chalk board


26

Key:A1 = Teacher explanation/question & answer; A2 = Teacher rote/chorus responses; A3 = Teachers writing on chalkboard; A4 = Teacher reading to whole class; A5 = Pupil reading to whole class; A6 = Pupils working individually; A7 = Pupils working in pairs/groups; A8 = Pupil demonstrating to class; A9 = Teacher reviews lesson topic; A10 = Teacher marking work; A11 = Class Management; A12 = Class administration; A13 = Interruption to lesson; A14 = Pupils off-‐task

i) VARIATION BETWEEN GRADES ACROSS ALL 5 FIELDS A statistical test was used to analyse differences in the timeline distribution of teaching and learning activities between Grade 2 and Grade 5 lessons across all 5 Fields.31 Statistically significant differences were found on only 3 of the teaching and learning activities: pupils worked in pairs or groups for a greater proportion of time in Grade 5 lessons. In Grade 2 classes more time was spent with pupils demonstrating to the whole class and class management. Again, this finding supports the frequency of teaching and learning behaviours analysis that found little variation in the underlying pedagogy between grades across the 5 Fields.

ii) VARIATION ON THE TIMELINE ANALYSIS WITHIN THE 5 FIELDS • GAZA Table 5 and Figure 6 show a breakdown of the most common teaching and learning activities as a percentage of the lesson time for Gaza.

31Independent samples t-‐test

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Min1-‐5 Min6-‐10 Min11-‐15 Min16-‐20 Min21-‐25 Min26-‐30 Min31-‐35 Min36-‐40

Percen

tage of f

me spen

t on acfv

ifes

Figure 6: Timeline data: variagon in teaching and learning acgviges across 5 Fields A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

A11

A12

A13

A14


27

Table 5: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in Gaza Min

1-‐5 Min 6-‐10

Min 11-‐15

Min 16-‐20

Min 21-‐25

Min 26-‐30

Min 31-‐35

Min 36-‐40

Overall

A1 26.1 34.6 34.4 23.8 28.9 21.9 20.7 17.8 27.2

A2 4.3 10.9 10.5 7.0 4.4 3.1 2.3 3.6 6.1 A3 23.2 17.1 17.2 17.6 18.2 19.6 17.4 20.8 18.6

A4 4.3 6.6 6.7 3.1 5.8 4.0 3.3 4.1 4.8

A5 2.8 9.5 8.6 4.4 6.7 5.8 5.6 3.6 6.2 A6 20.4 8.5 9.6 21.6 16.0 19.6 22.1 17.3 16.8

A7 0.5 0.9 2.9 2.2 1.8 2.7 0.9 1.5 1.7 A8 0.9 3.3 2.4 2.6 4.4 3.1 6.1 2.5 3.3

A9 2.4 2.4 0.5 1.3 0.9 2.7 2.3 8.6 1.8 A10 14.2 5.2 4.8 14.5 10.2 12.9 14.1 15.7 10.9

A11 0.5 0.9 1.9 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 1.0 1.4

A12 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 A13 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1

A14 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 3.0 0.5 100.0

Key:A1 = Teacher explanation/question & answer; A2 = Teacher rote/chorus responses; A3 = Teachers writing on chalkboard; A4 = Teacher reading to whole class; A5 = Pupil reading to whole class; A6 = Pupils working individually; A7 = Pupils working in pairs/groups; A8 = Pupil demonstrating to class; A9 = Teacher reviews lesson topic; A10 = Teacher marking work; A11 = Class Management; A12 = Class administration; A13 = Interruption to lesson; A14 = Pupils off-‐task From Table 6 and Figure 7 it can be seen that teacher-‐fronted teaching activities (i.e. teacher explanation, question and answer, teacher rote and chorus responses, teacher writing on the chalkboard, teacher reading to the class, teacher reviews lesson topic, class management, administration) accounted for 60.5% of the lesson time in Gaza. More pupil-‐centred activities (i.e. paired/group work, pupil demonstration, pupil reading to the class) accounted for 11.2% of the time with the rest being made up of individual seat work (16.8%), teacher marking work (10.9), pupil off-‐task behaviour (0.5) and interruption to lesson (0.1%). Compared to the other four Fields, the timeline findings suggests Gaza teachers spent more timeworking with the whole class through teacher explanation, question and answer, and less time on class management and on administration. Pupils also spent more time on individual seat work (16.8) while the teachers marked their work (10.9%). Pupils were rarely ‘off-‐task’ and ‘interruptions’ to the lesson were the lowest across all 5 Fields. Gaza teachers also use less group work compared to the other four Fields.


28

Key:A1 = Teacher explanation/question & answer; A2 = Teacher rote/chorus responses; A3 = Teachers writing on chalkboard; A4 = Teacher reading to whole class; A5 = Pupil reading to whole class; A6 = Pupils working individually; A7 = Pupils working in pairs/groups; A8 = Pupil demonstrating to class; A9 = Teacher reviews lesson topic; A10 = Teacher marking work; A11 = Class Management; A12 = Class administration; A13 = Interruption to lesson; A14 = Pupils off-‐task • JORDAN Table 6and Figure 8 show a breakdown of the most common teaching and learning activities as a percentage of the lesson time for Jordan. From Table 6 and Figure 8 it can be seen that teacher-‐fronted teaching activities (i.e. teacher explanation, question and answer, teacher rote and chorus responses, teacher writing on the chalkboard, teacher reading to the class, teacher reviews lesson topic, class management, administration) accounted for 63.4% of the lesson time in Jordan. More pupil-‐centred activities (i.e. paired/group work, pupil demonstration, pupil reading to the class) accounted for 15.1% of the time with the rest being made up of individual seat work (11.7), teacher marking work (5.6%), pupil off-‐task behaviour (2.6%) and interruption to lesson (1.6%).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Percen

tage of f

me spen

t on acfv

ifes

Figure 7: Timeline data: variagon in teaching and learning acgviges in Gaza A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14


29

Table 6: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in Jordan Jordan

Min 1-‐5

Min 6-‐10

Min 11-‐15

Min 16-‐20

Min 21-‐25

Min 26-‐30

Min 31-‐35

Min 36-‐40

Overall

A1 23.2 21.3 22.5 21.2 19.9 18.7 19.2 14.1 20.0 A2 10.9 8.3 8.4 7.2 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.1 7.0 A3 19.9 18.3 18.3 17.0 16.4 11.2 12.5 10.3 15.4 A4 4.8 6.8 5.7 4.2 4.0 3.1 3.3 4.2 4.5 A5 4.8 6.5 6.8 7.5 7.5 6.8 4.6 4.2 6.1 A6 9.1 9.5 9.7 10.7 12.4 14.5 13.6 14.4 11.7 A7 1.3 2.8 3.7 4.7 5.7 4.9 4.3 3.5 3.9 A8 4.3 6.3 5.2 5.0 5.0 3.9 5.4 5.4 5.1 A9 7.1 3.8 2.6 4.0 2.5 4.2 5.1 9.0 4.8 A10 1.0 2.3 3.9 5.7 6.0 9.1 8.9 7.7 5.6 A11 10.1 11.3 10.4 10.2 10.2 12.7 11.4 11.5 11.0 A12 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 A13 1.8 1.8 1.3 0.7 2.7 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.6 A14 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.2 2.5 2.6 4.1 9.0 2.6 100.0


It is interesting to note that Jordan had the second highest amount of time spent on class management, after Syria, occupying 11% of the time. It also had the highest level of pupil off-‐task behaviour, taking up 2.6% of the class time

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Percen

tage of f

me spen

t on acfv

fes

Figure 8: Timeline data: variagon in teaching and learning acgviges in Jordan A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14


30

• LEBANON Table 7 and Figure 9 show a breakdown of the most common teaching and learning activities as a percentage of the lesson time for Lebanon. Table 7: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in Lebanon

Lebanon Min

1-‐5 Min 6-‐10

Min 11-‐15

Min16-‐20

Min21-‐25

Min26-‐30

Min31-‐35

Min36-‐40

Overall

A1 23.3 19.7 17.1 18.9 15.0 15.1 14.3 14.7 17.6

A2 9.5 11.4 9.4 8.9 9.5 11.1 9.5 5.9 9.9 A3 19.4 14.5 15.0 10.7 12.9 12.4 10.2 8.4 13.6

A4 4.7 6.9 6.3 6.0 4.1 6.7 5.1 5.9 5.7

A5 4.7 5.5 7.7 6.8 5.8 7.4 7.5 6.6 6.5

A6 7.9 11.7 12.6 14.2 14.3 12.8 15.6 16.8 12.7

A7 2.0 3.8 5.2 6.0 6.5 6.0 4.8 4.4 4.9 A8 2.4 4.1 3.1 3.9 2.7 3.4 4.4 3.7 3.4

A9 5.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.7 3.0 4.1 5.1 3.2

A10 3.2 2.8 4.2 8.2 8.5 9.7 10.5 11.0 6.7

A11 9.5 6.9 6.6 6.4 9.2 5.0 5.8 7.7 7.1

A12 6.3 6.9 5.6 4.3 5.1 5.4 4.1 6.6 5.4 A13 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.4

A14 0.4 1.4 2.1 1.4 3.1 1.3 3.7 3.3 1.9

100.0

Key:A1 = Teacher explanation/question & answer; A2 = Teacher rote/chorus responses; A3 = Teachers writing on chalkboard; A4 = Teacher reading to whole class; A5 = Pupil reading to whole class; A6 = Pupils working individually; A7 = Pupils working in pairs/groups; A8 = Pupil demonstrating to class; A9 = Teacher reviews lesson topic; A10 = Teacher marking work; A11 = Class Management; A12 = Class administration; A13 = Interruption to lesson; A14 = Pupils off-‐task From Table 7 and Figure 9 it can be seen that teacher-‐fronted teaching activities (i.e. teacher explanation, question and answer, teacher rote and chorus responses, teacher writing on the chalkboard, teacher reading to the class, teacher reviews lesson topic, class management, administration) accounted for 62.5% of the lesson time in Lebanon. More pupil-‐centred activities (i.e. paired/group work, pupil demonstration, pupil reading to the class) accounted for 14.8% of the time, with group work taking up 4.9% of the time, the highest across the 5 Fields. The rest of the lesson time was made up of individual seat work (12.7), teacher marking work (6.7), pupil off-‐task behaviour (1.9) and interruption to lesson (1.4).


31

• SYRIA Table 8 shows a breakdown of the most common teaching and learning activities as a percentage of the lesson time for Syria32. From Table 8 and Figure 10 it can be seen that teacher-‐fronted teaching activities (i.e. teacher explanation, question and answer, teacher rote and chorus responses, teacher writing on the chalkboard, teacher reading to the class, teacher reviews lesson topic, class management, administration) accounted for 73.4% of the lesson time in Syria. More pupil-‐centred activities (i.e. paired/group work, pupil demonstration, pupil reading to the class) accounted for 15.3% of the time with the rest being made up of individual seat work (5.7%), teacher marking work (4.5%), administration (11.3%), pupil off-‐task behaviour (0.1%), and interruption to lessons (1.1%). The finding that UNRWA teachers in Syria spent more time on teacher-‐fronted activities compared to the other 4 Fields needs interpretation. The teachers also spent significantly less time on whole class explanation and questions and answer (11.9%), and significantly more time on class administration (11.3).At a data validation workshop in December 2013, it was suggested that UNRWA teachers in Syria are facing greater challenges organising the children because of the emergency situation, necessitating a shorter working day and split shifts in the schools. This could account for the higher amount of time being spent on class administration leaving less time for teaching and learning activities.UNRWA pupils in Syria also spent significantly less time on individual activities compared to the other 4 Fields (5.7%), particularly in comparison to Gaza where pupils spent 16.8% of the time on individual activities. Combined with the shorter lesson times, the pupils in Syria were spending significantly less time on teaching and learning activities compared to the other 4 Fields. 32In Syria, lessons are timetabled to last only 30 minutes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Percen

tage of f

me spen

t on acfv

ifes

Figure 9: Timeline data: variagon in teaching and learning acgviges in Lebanon A1

A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14


32

Table 8: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in Syria

Syria Min

1-‐5 Min 6-‐10

Min 11-‐15

Min 16-‐20

Min 21-‐25

Min 26-‐30

Overall

A1 13.0 13.0 11.8 12.0 10.7 11.2 11.9 A2 12.1 11.9 12.2 11.6 10.0 8.6 11.1 A3 11.7 12.3 12.2 10.8 11.9 11.2 11.7 A4 6.7 7.7 6.3 7.6 7.4 9.4 7.5 A5 5.4 6.9 8.3 8.0 8.9 9.4 7.8 A6 3.8 5.4 4.3 5.2 6.3 9.0 5.7 A7 1.7 2.3 5.1 4.4 4.8 3.9 3.7 A8 3.3 4.6 3.9 4.4 3.0 3.9 3.8 A9 13.4 7.3 4.7 6.8 5.6 6.0 7.3 A10 2.5 3.4 5.9 4.4 7.4 3.4 4.5 A11 13.8 13.0 13.0 11.6 11.5 12.4 12.6 A12 12.1 12.3 11.0 11.2 10.7 10.7 11.3 A13 0.4 0.0 1.2 2.0 1.9 0.9 1.1 A14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0


• WEST BANK Table 9 shows a breakdown of the most common teaching and learning activities as a percentage of the lesson time for West Bank.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Percen

tage of f

me spen

t on acfv

ifes

Figure 10: Timeline data: variagon in teaching and learning acgviges in Syria

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14


33

Table 9: Percentage of time spent on teaching and learning activities in West Bank West bank

Min 1-‐5

Min 6-‐10

Min 11-‐15

Min 16-‐20

Min 21-‐25

Min 26-‐30

Min 31-‐35

Min 36-‐40

Overall

A1 42.4 27.6 29.8 27.7 25.7 22.3 20.3 15.3 26.4 A2 12.0 14.4 7.9 7.3 8.9 8.5 6.4 5.7 8.9 A3 17.1 21.0 21.3 22.0 16.8 17.0 16.3 10.2 17.7 A4 2.5 6.1 3.4 4.5 3.9 3.2 1.2 1.1 3.2 A5 5.1 6.6 5.1 4.5 6.7 9.0 5.8 4.0 6.1 A6 1.9 4.4 9.0 11.3 12.3 12.2 16.3 20.5 9.6 A7 1.3 5.5 6.7 4.0 6.1 4.8 4.1 5.7 4.6 A8 3.2 6.1 3.9 6.2 4.5 4.3 2.9 4.0 4.4 A9 8.9 0.6 2.2 1.1 1.1 2.1 1.2 9.1 3.3 A10 0.0 1.1 6.2 5.1 5.6 8.5 13.4 15.9 5.7 A11 1.9 2.8 2.8 4.0 2.8 3.7 7.0 4.5 3.7 A12 3.2 2.8 1.1 2.3 4.5 2.7 3.5 1.7 2.7 A13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 A14 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.7 2.3 0.9 100.0

Key:A1 = Teacher explanation/question & answer; A2 = Teacher rote/chorus responses; A3 = Teachers writing on chalkboard; A4 = Teacher reading to whole class; A5 = Pupil reading to whole class; A6 = Pupils working individually; A7 = Pupils working in pairs/groups; A8 = Pupil demonstrating to class; A9 = Teacher reviews lesson topic; A10 = Teacher marking work; A11 = Class Management; A12 = Class administration; A13 = Interruption to lesson; A14 = Pupils off-‐task From Table 9 and Figure 11 it can be seen that teacher-‐fronted teaching activities (i.e. teacher explanation, question and answer, teacher rote and chorus responses, teacher writing on the chalkboard, teacher reading to the class, teacher reviews lesson topic, class management, administration) accounted for 65.9% of the lesson time in West Bank. More pupil-‐centred activities (i.e. paired/group work, pupil demonstration, pupil reading to the class) accounted for 15.1% of the time with the rest being made up of individual seat work (9.6), teacher marking work (5.7), pupil off-‐task behaviour (0.9) and interruption to lesson (0.1%). It is interesting to note that after Gaza, teachers in the West Bank used high levels of teacher-‐led explanation, question and answer and use of the chalkboard, 26.4% and 17.7% respectively. After Lebanon, teachers in West Bank also used more group work, i.e. compared to Gaza, Jordan and Syria, accounting for 4.6% of the time.


34

iii) OVERALL FINDINGS OF TIMELINE ANALYSIS ACROSS THE 5FIELDS The timeline data were statistically analysed to investigate variations in the distribution of teaching and learning activities across all 5 Fields. It revealed little in the way of significant differences between the Fields, with the exception of class management and administration, and, in the case of the Syria, teacher explanation, question and answer. Table 10 summarises the overall findings of the timeline across the 5 Fields. Activities have been grouped according to whether they are ‘teacher-‐directed’ or ‘pupil-‐directed’. ‘Individual seat work’ is when pupils are working individually from a text or chalkboard on a class exercise. ‘Other activities’, such as taking registers and collecting money are non-‐curricular focused, in other words they are not driven by a pedagogic agenda. Teacher-‐directed activities were more or less evenly spread across the 5 Fields. This finding triangulates well with the frequency analysis, as do the trends revealed in the timeline analysis with regard to pupil-‐directed activities. However, the frequency and timeline analysis data showthat Gaza and West Bank teachers were spending more time on whole class instruction through the use of teacher explanation, question and answer, and less time on class management compared to the other 3 Fields. Gaza teachers were also spending more time on individual seat work and the marking of workand less time on group work. As discussed in the previous section, teachers in Syria were spending a higher amount of time on class administration.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Percen

tage of f

me spen

t on acfv

ifes

Figure 11: Timeline data: variagon in teaching and learning acgviges in West Bank

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14


35

Table 10: Summary of teacher-‐directed and pupil-‐directed activities Teaching & Learning Activity


Teacher-‐directed Activity A1 = Teacher explanation, question & answer

27.2 20.0 17.6 11.9 26.4

A2 = Teacher rote/chorus responses

6.1 7.0 9.9 11.1 8.9

A3 = Teachers writing on chalkboard

18.6 15.5 13.6 11.7 17.7

A4 = Teacher reading to whole class

4.8 4.5 5.7 7.5 3.2

A9 = Teacher reviews lesson topic

1.8 4.8 3.2 7.3 3.3

A11 = Class Management 1.4 11.0 7.1 12.6 3.7 Pupil-‐directed Activity A5 = Pupil reading to whole class

6.2 6.1 6.5 7.8 6.1

A7 = Pupils working in pairs/groups

1.7 3.9 4.9 3.7 4.6

A8 = Pupil demonstrating to class

3.3 5.1 3.4 3.8 4.4

Individual Seat Work A6 = Pupils working individually

16.8 11.7 12.7 5.7 9.6

A10 = Teacher marking 10.9 5.6 6.7 4.5 5.7 Other A12 = Class administration 0.6 0.7 5.4 11.3 2.7 A13 = Interruption to lesson 0.1 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.1 A14 = Pupils off-‐task 0.6 2.6 1.9 0.1 0.9

c) INTERACTION ANALYSIS

i) LESSON STRUCTURE For the interaction analysis of the 20 lessons, an Arabic, English, mathematics and science lesson was selected from each of the five Fields.The digital analysis investigatedthe different types, frequency and length of discourse moves made by teachers and pupils. Extracts from the lessons were also selected for transcription to allow for more qualitative analysis and to illustrate the types of discourse moves made by teachers and pupils in the lessons. Across all 20 schools from all 5 Fields, the average length of the lessons was 34 minutes. Traditionally lessons follow a three-‐part structure: the first stage being made up of teacher explanation, question and answer, followed by individual seat work with the pupils completing exercises from the board while the teacher marked pupil work, and a brief revision period when the teacher went over the answers to the exercises with the class. Only 6 of the lessons recorded, however, used all three stages with most missing


36

out the ‘plenary’ stage despite its importance in consolidating learning33. Across all 20 lessons, the interaction analysis showed that the average length of time spent on whole class interaction, where the teacher mainly used explanation, question and answer and the chalk board to engage the whole class, was 19 minutes, over half of the lesson time, supporting the findings of the frequency and timeline analysis. Of the 19 minutes spent interacting with the whole class, teacher explanation took up 47% of the time, question and answer sequences took up 27% of the time and the rest was made up of reading from the chalk board or textbook, pupil demonstration, silences and interruptions.

ii) INITIATION MOVES The digital analysis counted all requests for information by the teacher as questioning sequences. In addition to teacher questions designed to elicit an answer from the pupils, one prominent ‘questioning’ move was the use of a mid-‐sentence rise in voice intonation that acted as a teacher elicit, designed to get a response from the pupils during, or at the end of, an explanation or following a pupil response. Usually, the elicitation was in the form of a repetition or completion of a phrase or word. It was often direct and pupils often knew from the intonation of the elicitation whether it required an individual answer or a choral response. This was categorised as a ‘cued elicitation.’ Teachers would also use a tag question, such as ‘do you understand?’ at the end of a statement to check on pupil understanding. Rather than being a genuine check on children’s understanding, it often constituted a pseudo-‐checking with the ritualised response being an affirmative answer from the pupils. This was categorised as a teacher check. Cued elicitations and teacher checks therefore mainly functioned as participation strategies designed to keep the pupils involved, rather than requiring an answer to a question. Only teacher elicitations that went beyond a strategy to get the pupils to participate, were classified as teacher questions. The interaction analysis system recorded whether teacher questions were open (i.e. defined in terms of the teacher’s reaction to the pupil’s answer: only if the teacher accepted more than one answer to the question would it be judged as open) or closed (i.e. calling for a single response or offering facts). The system also recorded teacher directs where the teacher directed the class to do something that did not require a verbal response. Pupil questions, and teacher responses to such questions, were also recorded. Altogether the study coded and analysed 1357 questioning sequences within the 20 lessons using the above categories. The number, percentage break down and mean score for each of the initiation moves are given in Table 11 and Figure 11 below. 33Borich, G.D., 2014. Effective Teaching Methods: Research-‐based Practice, eighth ed. London: Pearson.


37

Table 11: Total, percentage and mean of initiation moves Type Total Percentage Mean (n=20) Inform 328 24.17 16.4 Teacher Question 530 39.06 26.5 Cued elicit 308 22.69 15.4 Teacher Check 148 10.90 7.4 Teacher Direct 33 2.34 1.65 Pupil Question 10 0.73 0.50 Total 1357 The data in Table 11 and Figure 12 show that teacher questions were the most frequent of the initiation moves with teacher explanations and cued elicitations being the next most frequent. Further analysis of teacher questions shows that 94 per cent of all such questions were closed requiring recall of information. More thought provoking, open-‐ended questions, eliciting a range of responses, were therefore very rare. The comparatively low use of teacher directs to get a pupil to do something suggests classroom routines were clearly established and understood by the pupils, reducing the need for frequent reminders. Pupil questions were extremely rare: in all 20 lessons only 10 pupils asked questions, making up less than 1 per cent of the total initiations moves.

iii) RESPONSE MOVES The following moves were coded in response to teacher questioning moves as boy answers, girl answers, choral response, pupil demonstration and teacher answer. Pupil demonstrations were coded when pupils were called to work at the chalk board to demonstrate an answer to a question or to recite. In total 983 response moves were coded, a breakdown of which is given in Table 12 and Figure 12. Table 12: Total, percentage and mean of response moves Type Total Percentage Mean (n=20) Individual 380 38.66 19.00 Choral 530 53.91 26.50 Pupil Demonstration 38 3.86 1.90 Teacher Answer 35 3.56 1.75 Total 983

0 5

10 15 20 25 30

Inform T. Quest Cued Elic T. Check T. Direct P. Quest

Mean

Figure 12: Means of inigagon moves


38

Choral pupil responses were therefore the dominant method of responding to teacher initiations making up 54% of the response moves with 39% being individual responses.

iv) FOLLOW-‐UP MOVES The following discourse moves were coded in follow-‐up to a response from a pupil(s): whether there was a response; whether it was affirmed (i.e. acknowledging that the teacher accepts or rejects the answer); whether it was praised; whether it was probed; whether the answer is commented upon; whether the teacher asks another pupil to answer; and, whether the teacher builds an answer into a subsequent question which we termed an uptake question. In total, 1170 follow-‐up moves were coded, a breakdown of which is given in Table 13. Figure 13 shows the means for each of the follow-‐up moves. Table 13: Total, percentage and mean of follow-‐up moves

Type Total Percentage Mean (n=20) None 573 48.97 28.65 Affirm. 288 24.62 14.40 Praise 168 14.35 8.40 Probe 30 2.56 1.50 Comment 23 1.96 1.15 Ask other 70 5.98 3.5 Uptake question 18 1.52 1.14 Total 1170

The findings show it was common for an answer to receive no follow-‐up in just under half of the questioning sequences, particularly when a teacher cued elicitation called for a choral response. When it did occur, teachers usually affirmed an answer or praised it (often by asking the class to clap). However teacher comments on pupil answers, whereby they would rephrase, build or elaborate upon an answer, were rare, as were teacher probes (i.e. teacher would stay with a pupil and ask for further elaboration upon his/her answer).

0 5

10 15 20 25 30

Indiv. Choral P.Dem T.Answ

Mean

Figure 13: Means of response moves


39

d) TRANSCRIPT ANALYSIS

The following transcript (Table 14), taken from a Grade 2 science lesson from a Gaza elementary school, is representative of the patterns of interaction we found in many of 20 lessons analysed. The class was made up of 37 boys. The lesson was structured around the reading of a short passage discussing how water can take on three different forms and shapes once cooled or heated. To illustrate the different states of water, the teacher brought in a bottle of water, a bag of iced water, and a kettle as visual aids. The teacher presented the lesson in three main parts: the first part was mainly made up of extensive explanations, question and answer followed by a close reading of the science textbook, and in the final stage the teacher provided advice on how best to conserve water. This extract is taken from the first third of the lesson: (the moves, Initiation, Response, Feedback, make up the three-‐part teaching exchange which in turn are made up of acts: accept, teacher check, teacher comment, teacher direct, teacher evaluation, teacher question’ teacher inform’ nomination, prompt, reply, starter. Re-‐initiations (R/I) moves usually following a repeat question by the teacher are embedded within a teaching exchange and together with the act of cued elicitation are often designed to elicit a repetition or completion of a phrase or word. Boundaries between indicated by a marker and/or meta-‐statement show a change in lesson topic; ^ indicates rising intonation; T = teacher; P = pupil; C = choral response): Table 14: Extract from Grade 2 Science lesson

Exchanges Moves Acts

1 T water can take different forms different shapes it can be liquid (the teacher illustrates with a bottle of water) we drink the liquid water

I starter initiation

2 T we drink which water^ R/I cued elicit

3 C liquid R reply

0

5

10

15

Affirm Praise Probe Comment Ask other Uptake

Mean

Figure 14: Means of follow-‐up moves


40

4 T this is water the liquid so this is the first state of eater which is the liquid now how do we use this water how do we use this water in which things we use the liquid water

I starter elicit

5 C (Unclear response) R reply

6 T why do we use the liquid water why what for you stop and talk

I starter elicit nominate

7 P for drinking R reply

8 T for drinking F accept

9 P for washing R reply

10 T washing F accept

11 P for wudu R reply

12 T for wudu F accept

13 P for trees R reply

14 T for watering trees F accept

15 P for taking showers R reply

16 T yes showers liquid water is used for drinking by human beings in addition birds and plants drink liquid water for plants as well and we wash dishes and lots of things

F evaluate comment

17 T the second state of water is the solid like the snow or ice this water was in the past what water

I starter elicit inform

18 T now why do we use the ice which things we use ice In which things

I starter elicit elicit

19 P we put it on the juice R reply

20 T aha we put it on juice F accept

21 T let me pick another pupil I elicit/ nominate


41

22 P We put it on … on ice R reply

23 T erm F accept

24 T yes I elicit/ nominate

25 P when in high temperature R reply

26 T yes good F evaluate

27 T we use it when there is a patient in high^ R/I cued elicit

28 C temperature R reply

29 T high temperature F evaluate

The extract shows the teacher’s use of teacher explanation (Turn 1) punctuated by a question and answer approach. It is interesting to note the teacher sometimes answers his own questions (Turn 17). Cued elicitations are also used often accompanied by a mid-‐sentence rise in voice intonation designed to get a response from the pupils, often as a choral response, during, or at the end of, an explanation or following a pupil response (Turns 2 & 27). The use of this ‘participation’ strategy, through the completion of phrases, the repetition of words and choral affirmation of ‘understanding’ was common throughout the lesson. It is also interesting to note that in this extract the teacher asks 2 open questions (Turns 4 and 18) allowing for more than one answer. However, in the whole of the lesson he only asks four open questions in total, as most were closed requiring one answer only, as in the following extract taken from of the second phase of the lesson when the teacher directs the class to open their textbooks (Table 15). Table 15: Extract from second phase of Grade 2 Science lesson

Exchanges Moves Acts

1 T now open your book on page 104 yes page 104

I marker direct

2 T what do you see in the picture what do you see

I starter elicit

3 R there is a child with his mum R reply

4 T The child tells his mum I do not like rain he told his mum I do not like rain why

I starter elicit

5 T he says because rain stops me from playing outside I inform


42

6 T now do you like rain I elicit

7 C yes R reply

8 T yes F accept

9 T why I elicit

10 P because water is a blessing from God R reply

11 T yes water is a blessing from^ R/I cued elicit

12 C God R reply

13 T yes a blessing from God F evaluate

14 T sometimes in winter rain falls and there are white crystals what do we call them

I starter elicit

15 C snow R reply

16 T snow we call it sleet

F evaluate comment

17 T but what happens if we leave this under sun shine for a while

I elicit

18 P it disappears or dissolves R reply

19 P it is liquid R reply

20 T yes F elicit

21 T what will it be^ R/I cued elicit

22 C liquid R reply

23 T it will be liquid because the sun shines that is in heat ice becomes liquid so we said that water has three states the water we drink the solid like ice and gas in the form of steam as we see it here

I inform inform

In this extract all of the questions (Turns, 2, 4, 6 9, 14, 17) are closed. Although Turn 6 appears to be an open question, the response of the children suggests that it closed as the teacher requires only one answer and it is the same answer for all the class as reflected in the choral response. We also see that clued elicitations are common (Turns 11 and 21).


43

Both extracts show the dominance of the 3-‐part exchange structure, in that it dominated all 20 of the digitally recorded lessons. This meant that exchanges were predominantly conducted within the teacher's frame of reference. Because of the teacher's prior knowledge of the subject content, and control of the pacing and sequencing of its transmission, pupils were rarely given the opportunity to impose their own relevance outside the teacher's frame of reference. This is reflected in the type of moves pupils were usually restricted to within the IRF exchange, with their often being denied access to initiation and evaluation moves, resulting in the very low level of pupil questions. It also minimised the amount of responsibility that the pupils were able to take for their own learning, as they were usually dependent on the teacher's sense of relevance. In all 20 lessons analysed, teachers were predominantly seen to be retaining control over the direction and pace of the lesson and the lines of knowledge that were to be pursued. All of the lessons were conducted through teacher-‐led recitation and cued elicitation, where interrogation of the pupils' knowledge and understanding was the most common form of classroom interaction. In both extracts, the pupils are being called on to display their knowledge through responding to teacher-‐initiated explanation and questions. Pupil responses to these elicitations are then either positively or negatively evaluated by the teacher for accuracy, form and appropriateness against what was usually a predetermined answer by the teacher. The extracts are also typical in that they are brief and fast exchanges, which again characterise classroom recitation in which the pupils usually provide brief answers to the teacher's questions. The rapid pace and lack of pauses in the discourse also indicates that there was little time for reflection on the topic under consideration. The overall analysis of the 20 lessons reveals that teachers across all 5 Fields were using the same discourse style regardless of the year group and subject they were teaching teacher-‐presentation and teacher-‐directed question and answer therefore dominated most of the classroom discourse. The interactive analysis therefore supports the findings of the frequency and timeline analysis showing the dominance of teacher-‐fronted interaction, largely made up of teacher-‐led recitation and rote. There was also a notable absence of the higher order open questioning and teacher-‐led discussion which is said to characterise dialogic teaching which will allow pupils to develop more complete or elaborated ideas. 4.3 ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEWS In order to study current INSET provision within the Agency’s schools and to gauge knowledge about, and reactions to, the introduction of the SBTD programme in UNRWA schools, interviews were conducted with 54 head teachers and 262 teachers. Focus group interviews with 42 groups of Grade 5 pupils in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and West Bank, and with 24 individual pupils in Jordan were also conducted to explore their views on the quality of teaching they receive, and to triangulate the findings of the classroom observations with regards to the use of group work.


44

a) HEAD TEACHER INTERVIEWS

Interviews were conducted with the Head Teachers to gauge their views on professional development provision for their teachers and the kinds of programmes they would like to see being developed over the coming years (see Appendix 4). Initially Head Teachers were asked about their satisfaction with UNRWA’s current provision of INSET. Using a 4-‐point scale, 6 out of 12 Head Teachers in Gaza gave ‘very satisfied’, another 4 gave ‘on the whole satisfied’, and 1 reported ‘quite satisfied’. In Jordan: 6 out of 12 gave the ‘very satisfied’ rating for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provision, another 5 gave ‘on the whole satisfied’, and 1 reported ‘quite satisfied’. In Lebanon: 5 out of 11 schools gave the highest satisfaction rating while 4 out of 5 gave the next highest ‘on the whole satisfied’. Only 2 gave the third ranked rating of ‘quite satisfied’. In Syria, 3 out of 8 gave the ‘very satisfied’ rating for CPD provision, another 4 gave ‘on the whole satisfied’, and 1 reported ‘quite satisfied’. In West Bank, 4 out of 11 gave the ‘very satisfied’ rating, 7 out of 11 gave ‘on the whole satisfied’, and 1 reported ‘not at all satisfied’. When asked the range and types of professional development their teachers had participated in over the last years, 11 Head Teachers in Gaza reported that their teachers had been involved in CPD activities. Of these, 4 were training sessions offered by Education Development Centres, (EDC) (content not disclosed), 2 had been on training sessions in English and Sciences, and 3 on demonstration lessons (no additional detail). Other single responses were given for annual training in a range of subject areas, teacher performance and planning. In Jordan, 8 Head Teachers reported that their teachers had been involved in professional development activities. Of these, 3 were on UNRWA’s new School Based Teacher Development (SBTD)34. Other single responses were given for EDC training, action research, active learning and school workshops by education officers. In Lebanon, 10 out of 11 Head Teachers reported that their teachers had been involved in CPD activities, 6 had received training from the British Council, and 6 reported that teachers had received training from Hariri Canadian University. Other training providers that received 1 response only were French office, educational specialists, WLAR and ICDL.In terms of areas trained, 3 reported training in the new curriculum and 2 reported teachers having received short training within the school. Single responses were given for other categories, including training in guidance and counselling, educational psychology (EP) and EDC training. In Syria, 7 of the 8 Head Teachers reported their teachers had been involved in CPD activities in the last 3 years, mainly EDC courses and courses offered by NGOs. In West Bank, 10 out of 12 Head Teachers reported that their teachers had been involved in CPD activities, 3 focused on music, 2 on computers, and 2 on EDP, with single responses for a variety of additional areas, such as conflict resolution, school violence and Arabic.

34Data from Jordan were collected a year later than the other 4 fields following the commencement of SBTD


45

When asked about their awareness of UNWRA’s SBTD programme, all of the Head Teachers across all 5 Fields, with the exception of 2 Head Teachers from Syria Field, said they had received information and just over half had attended training on the new programme. In responseto the question about its perceived benefits, 6 Head Teachers from Lebanon stated that they expected it to improve classroom pedagogy, while 3 said it would enhance the critical reflection and self-‐assessment skills of teachers. Another 3 said it would raise pupil performance and 2 expected it to lesson planning and preparation and communicating with parents. Single responses were given for other areas such as saving money and time, and providing opportunities for teachers to exchange their experiences. In West Bank, 6 Head Teachers thought that SBTD would improve classroom pedagogy and 4 thought it would provide the opportunity for teachers to share their experiences with their peers would be valuable and for providing regular professional development of teachers. One Head Teacher expressed the belief that the programme would have limited benefit due to lack of time, and another stated it would be ineffective without regular follow-‐up from educational specialists in the schools. In Gaza: 8 Head Teachers thought it would improve classroom pedagogy and 4 said it would improve pupil performance. Single responses covered improved self-‐assessment skills and lesson planning. Similarly in Jordan, 9 Head Teachers thought it would improve classroom pedagogy and the critical reflection skills of teachers and 4 thought it would improve pupil performance. Most of the Syrian Head Teachers welcomed the idea of SBTD and felt it would lead to improvements in teaching and learning practices and improvedlearning outcomes as very little sustained INSET was currently being provided. Overall, the Head Teachers suggested that most of the current INSET was ad hoc, of a short duration, and lacking in a systematic and coherent approach. Many also spoke about a lack of transfer of any ideas given to the classroom, because of a reliance on workshops with little follow-‐up of teachers who had attended the courses.

b) TEACHER INTERVIEWS

Out the 361 teachers observed, 262 were interviewed about the professional development provision they had received in the previous 3 years, and they were asked about the kinds of INSET they would like to receive to improve their professional practice. At the start of the interview, teachers were asked about their current level of motivation for teaching across all 5 Fields using a 4-‐point scale. Table 16 gives a breakdown of their responses. Table 16: Teacher level of motivation across 5 Fields

Field Very motivated On the whole motivated Quite motivated Not at all

motivated Gaza 67 13 1 1 Jordan 17 5 2 Lebanon 25 25 6 Syria 12 8 4

West Bank 48 25 1


46

Teachers across all 5 Fields appeared to be generally to be motivated about their teaching. Building on this positive finding, teachers were asked about their participation inprofessional development activities.35 In Gaza, 68 teachers reported they had received professional development from EDC courses (unspecified), 9 from non-‐governmental organisations (NGOs), 6 from private providers, 1 from a university and 1 said it was provided within the school. Five said they had attended courses but did not specify the provider. In terms of the subject areas covered, most interest had focused on teaching methodology (57 respondents), classroom management (23) and computer technology (12). The remainder of the answers had 1-‐4 respondents only and were specific areas, such as helping young students (4), religion (3), leadership and management (3), motivating low ability pupils (2), handwriting (1), linguistic lab (1), design media (1) and time management (1). Most of the provision was delivered through workshops usually spread over the course of a day. In Jordan, 8 teachers reported they had attended courses run by NGOs, 7 had attended the UNRWA EP course, 6 had attended courses offered by private providers, 4 had attended courses offered by universities, and 4 had attended courses offered by EDCs. In terms of subject areas covered, the courses were primarily about teaching methodology (6 respondents), educational psychology (4), English language (4) and ICT (3). In Lebanon, 36 had attended ECD courses (unspecified) and 16 had attended university courses. Eleven had attended courses offered by private providers and 9 had attended course delivered by NGOs. In terms of subject areas covered, the training was primarily about teaching methodology (14), educational psychology and special needs (8) and English language (6). In Syria, 9 teachers reported they had attended EDC courses, 8 had attended NGO courses (3 by UNICEF), 4 had attended university courses, and 2 had attended courses offered by private providers. In terms of subject areas covered, the training was primarily about teaching methodology (11 respondents), education in emergencies (3), EP (2), English language (2) and ICT (2). In West Bank, 18 teachers reported they had received professional development from NGOs, 14 from EDC courses (unspecified), 9 from private providers, 7 University courses, and 10 from others sources but they were unspecified. In terms of subject areas covered, the majority were primarily about teaching methodology (15), computer and technology (14) and drama (6). The remainder of the answers had 1-‐3 respondents and included: linguistic lab (3), classroom management (3), special needs (3), religion (3), music (2), motivating low ability pupils (1), helping young pupils (1) and sport (1). Having been asked about the CPD they had attended, teachers were asked about their current level of satisfaction with the training and the kinds of provision they would like to receive in the future. In Gaza, out of 81 responses, the largest number (37) gave the second level rating of ‘on the whole satisfied’, 29 rated their satisfaction level as ‘very

35It should be noted that some teachers attended more than one CPD programme


47

satisfied’, 10 gave the third highest rating of ‘quite satisfied’, 4 said they were ‘not at all satisfied’ and 1 did not answer. In terms of the types of CPD they would like to receive, most spoke about subject and pedagogical content knowledge 36 (54) and ICT (22). In Jordan, out of 25 teachers, the largest number (10) gave the second level rating of ‘on the whole satisfied’, 8 rated their satisfaction level as ‘very satisfied’, 4 gave the third highest rating of ‘quite satisfied’ and 2 said they were ‘not at all satisfied’ by the professional training they had received. Like the Gaza teachers, when asked about the kinds of CPD they would like to receive, the majority asked for courses on teaching methodology (14), subject knowledge (8) and ICT (6). In Lebanon, out of 51 responses by teachers on their current level of satisfaction with the professional development training being offered, the largest number (22) gave the third level rating of ‘quite satisfied’, 9 rated their satisfaction level as ‘very satisfied’ while 20 gave the rating of ‘on the whole satisfied’. 4 said they were ‘not at all satisfied’ by the CPD training they had received. Again, in response to the question about the types of CPD they would like to receive, the majority of teachers spoke of the need for subject knowledge (6) teaching methodology (13) and training in ICT (19). In Syria, out of the 24 teachers interviewed, the largest number (16) gave the second level rating of ‘on the whole satisfied’, 2 rated their satisfaction level as ‘very satisfied’ while 2 gave the third highest rating of ‘quite satisfied’. Four said they were ‘not at all satisfied’ by the CPD training they had received. Asked about the types of CPD they would like to receive, the responses were very similar to teachers in the other 4 Fields. Most of the suggestions included teaching methodologies (11) and ICT (6) and dealing with emergencies (3). In West Bank, out of 75 teachers, the largest number (48) gave the second level rating of ‘on the whole satisfied’ when asked about their level of satisfaction with current CPD provision. Four rated their satisfaction level as ‘very satisfied’, 16 gave the third highest rating of ‘quite satisfied’ and 7 said they were ‘not at all satisfied’ by the CPD training they had received. Again, UNRWA teachers in West Bank wanted to see more provision being made in ICT, classroom pedagogy and subject knowledge. The largest group (43) reported that they would like to receive training in ICT, while another 18 asked for more practical demonstration training. Nineteen requested training in teaching methodologies and 8 expressed a need for training in the use of educational resources. Overall, when asked about what they think would be the benefits of participating in the SBTD programme, the majority of teachers across all 5 Fields responded that they expected the programme to improve teaching practices and pupil learning achievement through the development of new teaching approaches and increased pupil participation. 36Pedagogical content knowledge is defined as the interaction of the subject matter and effective teaching strategies to help students learn the subject matter. It requires a thorough understanding of the content to teach it in multiple ways, drawing on the cultural backgrounds and prior knowledge and experiences of student.


48

The picture to emerge from the teacher interviews is that the current professional development provision for UNRWA teachers is largely cascade, though workshops delivered away from the school, usually over the course of a day. It often appeared ad-‐hoc and uncoordinated across the 5 Fields with little in the way of needs analysis or canvasing of Head Teachers and teachers on what they wanted from the training.

c) PUPIL FOCUS GROUPS

Pupils were interviewed in groups of six. At the start of the interviews, pupils were asked about what they liked most about their teachers. Here, teacher-‐pupil relationships, the quality of teaching and the general classroom climate featured prominently in the pupil responses across all 5 Fields. For example, in Gaza, the majority of focus groups (9) answered that good explanations from teachers, including use of story narration, was important. In Jordan, the majority of focus groups (11) talked about teachers’ (non-‐academic) treatment of pupils, including being fair, helpful, patient and respectful, and not shouting or using corporal punishment. In Lebanon, 9 focus groups discussed effective teaching methods, including clear explanations, being able to work in groups, the use of games, and guiding and motivating pupils. Similarly, in Syria, all 6 focus groups talked about teaching qualities, including clear explanation and good communication skills, and active approaches to learningthrough the use of group work and games. In West Bank, 11 focus groups also spoke about teachers providing clear explanations, interesting work, and allowing pupils to express their own opinions. When asked about how often they had worked in groups (to triangulate the classroom observations), in Gaza 2 focus groups reported they had worked in groups 2 weeks ago, 2 groups said “yesterday”, and 1 group answered “today”. Two groups indicated that theyrarely worked in groups. In a follow-‐up question asking in which subjects they did the most group work, the focus groups indicated that it was evenly divided across English, Arabic and Sciences. In Jordan, of the 24 children interviewed, 7 reported they had worked in a group the previous day and 4 reported it had taken place on the day of the interview. Three said they worked in a group the previous week and 1 said it was last year. Eight reported they had not taken part in group work. They reported most of the group work took place in maths (6), science (4), Arabic (4) and English (2) lessons. In Lebanon, the majority of focus groups (8) reported having worked in groups “today”, while 2 said “yesterday”, 1 said “never”, and several gave no indication of time. For the majority of focus groups, group work was done in English class (12) followed by Arabic (4), sciences (2) maths (2), civics (1) and sport (1). In Syria, 3 of the 6 focus groups reported they had worked in a group in the previous week and 2 groups said it had taken place on the day of the interview. Group work was reported to have taken place in Arabic lessons (3), English (2) and science (1). Finally, in West Bank, 6 focus groups reported having worked in groups “today”; 1 said “yesterday,” 1 said “two days ago”, 1 said “a week ago” and 1 said “never”. Only 3 focus groups reported on the subject/class in which group work had taken place and answers were all different: maths, science and society education.


49

Overall, the pupil interviews support the classroom observation findings suggesting group work is relatively underutilized by teachers across all 5 fields.

d) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The observation findings show that the majority of the 361 lessons observed used a transmission model of teaching in which the teacher often used a chalkboard and/or textbook to transmit recipe knowledge for recall. There also appeared to be little difference in the underlying pedagogy used across subjects and grades in all 5 fields. While lessons traditionally are expected to follow a three-‐part structure (i.e. teacher explanation, question and answer, individual seat work with pupils completing exercises from the chalkboard or book, with a revision period when the teacher goes over answers to the exercises with the class), it appeared that only a third of the lessons observed used all three stages, with the concluding summary or plenary section for consolidation of the learning often missing from the lessons. Pupils spent a great deal of time, nearly 60 per cent of the lesson, listening to the teacher explaining, asking questions and writing on the chalkboard. The closed nature of the questioning and direction by the teacher meant that pupils were rarely given the opportunity to make a contribution to the classroom discussion by asking questions orbeing asked to elaborate on their ideas by the teacher. There was also very little paired or group work to promote problem solving and exploration of ideas. It therefore limited the extent to which pupils could develop their oral skills and critical thinking, and take responsibility for their own learning. The interviews indicated that teachers had a high level of commitment and motivation. Much of the current professional development provision available to these UNRWA teachers appeared to be ad hoc, short-‐term in nature and based on a cascade, workshop-‐based approach with little follow-‐up in the classroom. Head teachers and teachers both highlighted the need for a systematic programme of school-‐based training to ensure that all teachers received equal training opportunities to improve their pedagogic and assessment practices. The majority of Head Teachers and teachers also wanted to see a greater focus on pedagogic content knowledge and subject content knowledge to develop the teaching and assessment of subjects, and training in ICT and the use of other learning resources. For this reason, the majority felt teacher development and support should mainly be at the school level, with schools coming together to share and demonstrate effective teaching practices. Head teachers and teachers also said that as well as placing the school at the heart of teacher professional development, more time was needed for school-‐based INSET to take place, with official training days being set aside throughout the school year. In terms of improving pedagogic and assessment practices in UNRWA schools, building on the international findings into effective teaching practices, the baseline findings suggests the focus of the teacher professional development needs to address teaching and learning holistically but include the following components: training and support in providing feedback; sustaining pupil attention and inclusion in the classroom; creating a safe environment in which pupils felt supported in their learning; and, drawing on pupils’ backgrounds and experiences. More specifically, teachers need training in the frequent and relevant use of learning materials beyond the textbook; open and closed


50

questioning, expanding responses, encouraging pupil questioning; demonstration and explanation; and drawing on sound pedagogical content knowledge.The development of an interactive pedagogy could have a considerable impact on learning if it is supported by relevant school-‐based professional development. Such school-‐based teacher development has to be aligned with teachers’ needs, have the support of the Head Teachers and involve teachers working together at school and cluster level, with follow-‐up in the classroom involving observation, coaching and feedback. Such dialogic training would include, for example, how to ask open-‐ended questions, the sharing of questions at the start of a lesson and encouraging pupils to ask their own questions. Beginning lessons by giving pairs of pupils a question to answer from the last lesson, asking pairs to discuss a question for a minute before they answer it, and getting a pair or group of pupils to set questions for another pair or group have also proved effective strategies for promoting pupil questions. The findings also suggest teachers need additional training in the effective promotion and management of paired and group work and the setting of purposeful tasks, peer tutoring and in the use of plenaries to draw the whole class together, particularly at the end of lessons, to summarise, consolidate and extend what has been covered and direct pupils to the next stage of learning.


51

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This study has highlighted the need to broaden the teaching and learning practices pf UNRWA schools. As discussed in the introductory section to this report, it has also highlighted that school-‐based training at both pre-‐service and in-‐service levels has become increasingly common in high achieving systems and is also being adopted in many low and middle-‐income countries. As the findings of the baseline study suggest, there are many good pedagogic and professional development reasons why teacher education and professional learning should be located in the school environment. School-‐based training will be a key factor in building towardsa more systematic, longer-‐term and sustainable approach to teacher development where the teacher is much more involved in his or her on-‐going professional development, and where external support agents are playing a supporting role. Such an approach will do much to enhance the capacity of UNRWA elementary teachers to deliver quality education.37 A multi-‐mode system, including distance learning and teacher development at school and school cluster level, appears to be the most cost effective way for ensuring national teacher professional development coverage38. However, as the UNRWA Education Reform Strategy recognises, expectations of what can be achieved have to be realistic: serious investment has to be made inprofessional development materials (both in print and ICT-‐based) for trainees and for trainers, and school-‐based mentors and non-‐school based support cadres have to be trained in support and monitoring of needs and progress. Research suggests that blended distance education methods, supported by face-‐to-‐face teaching and local clusters offer a realistic and cost-‐effective way of training teachers because they allow teachers to be trained while on the job, which saves the costs of replacement teaching39. But crucially it allows for teachers to learn in-‐situ, to reflect on their own practices, try out new thing in their own classrooms and have a focus for professional dialogue with other educationalists. UNRWA’s School Based Teacher Developmentand Leading for the Future programmes are designed to build on the basic school-‐based INSET provided by Education Specialists and EDCs. Developing a system of mentors and professional support, as stipulated in the Teacher Policy, will see teachers taking greater responsibility for their professional learning. This will help teachers to improve the quality of their teaching by choosing appropriate methodological approaches that fit the specific conditions of their school. A strategic professional support system, which include school based mentors will support and guide teacher efforts to implement dialogic approaches at the class level. It will also guide the process of reflection and ensure the sharing of best practice among teaching staff and clusters of schools.

37 Avalos, B., 2011. Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10 – 20. 38Schweisfurth, M. 2013. Learner-‐centred Education in International Perspective: Whose Pedagogy for whose development? Oxford, Routledge. 39 Mattson, E., Op.Cit.


52

The scale up of school-‐based teacher professional development in UNRWA schools in the framework of the Teacher Policy will facilitate capacity building and a clear division of roles and responsibilities between HQ and regional offices, and between Head Teachers, schools and teacher educators. This will ensure teacher education is part of a broader capacity development strategy that supports all actors in the education system, including Education Specialist and Education Coordinators. It can pave the way for stronger and clearer links between PRESET and INSET, and an alignment of policies, plans and institutional arrangements with regard to teacher education, curriculum reform and assessment practice. The baseline established by the current study will provide the basis for monitoring and evaluating the effective, efficiency and impact of the Education Reforms on UNRWA schools over the next four years.


53

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1: TIMELINE OBSERVATION SCHEDULE

Observer: Date:

School: Area:

Lesson start time: Lesson end time:

Subject Grade:

No. of boys present: No. of girls:

No. of boys absent: No. of absent:

Lesson topic:

For each FIVE MINUTE section of the lesson, please record on the checklist the MAINteaching and learning activities you observe as defined by the descriptors on page 2.

Please use the note section to record activities NOT covered in the checklist and to provide further contextual information on your observations.

Where code switching between languages takes place, please record this in the notes section.


54

UNRWA Timeline Descriptors ACTIVITY Descriptor 1. Teacher explanation,

question & answer • Teacher lectures to class interspersed with

question and answer routines 2. Teacher rote/chorus

response • Uses cued elicitation for repetition and drilling of

facts and information 3. Teacher working on

chalk/white board • Teacher is writing or drawing on the chalk or

white board 4. Teacher reading to

whole class • Teacher reading to whole class from textbook ,

chalk/ whiteboard or visual aid 5. Pupil reading to whole

class • Pupil directed by teacher to read to the whole

class from textbook , chalk/white board or visual aid

6. Pupils working individually

• Pupils asked to work individually on task from textbook, worksheet, chalk/whiteboard

7. Pupils working in pairs/groups

• Pupils asked to collaborate together on task or activity in pairs/groups

8. Pupil demonstrating to whole class

• Pupils asked to demonstrate answer or make a presentation to whole class

9. Teacher reviews topic • Lesson topic reviewed to consolidate learning 10. Teacher marking work

• Teacher marks exercise books while class complete set task individually or in groups

11. Class management • Teacher attention focused on managing pupil behaviour

12. Class administration

• Administrative tasks e.g. taking register, giving out teaching materials, setting up equipment

13. Interruption to lesson

• Lesson stopped due to interruption e.g. visitor enters the room

14. Pupils off-‐task • Pupils not engaged in teaching and learning activity e.g. lesson ends early


55

Time -‐ 1 to 5 minutes Notes MAIN ACTIVITY(IES) 1.Teacherexplanation/ question & answer

2. Teacher rote/chorus responses

3. Teacher working on chalk/white board

4. Teacher reading to whole class

5. Pupil reading to whole class




9. Teacher reviews lesson topic

10. Teacher marking work

11. Class management



14. Pupils off-‐task


56
















57

Time -‐ 11 to 15 minutes Notes MAIN ACTIVITY(IES) 1.Teacher explanation/ question & answer















58
















59
















60
















61

Time -‐ 31 to 35 minutes Notes

MAIN ACTIVITY(IES) 1.Teacherexplanation/ question & answer















62

Time -‐ 36 to 40 minutes MAIN ACTIVITY(IES) 1.Teacherexplanation/ question & answer















63

APPENDIX 2: FREQUENCY OBSERVATION SCHEDULE

Observer’s Name:________________________________________________

A. General Information

Name of school:

Area:

Date:

B. Details of lesson

Teacher’s Name:

Subject:

Class:

Start Time: End Time:

No. of boys present:

No. of girls present:

No. of boys absent:

No. of girls absent:

No. of pupils with additional learning needs: Lesson topic: Lesson planning

Using the following scale, please indicate the quality of the lesson plan: 1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = good, 4 = very good 1 2 3 4 Clarity of learning objectives Lesson timeline Range of teaching and learning activities Use of instructional materials Additional learning needs Assessment of learning Setting of homework (if appropriate)

C. Judging the quality of teaching and learning


64

Please refer to the descriptors on pages 6 to 9 when applying judgements: 1 = behaviour never observed 2 = behaviour rarely observed (i.e. once or twice) 3 = behaviour occasionally observed (i.e. 4 or 5 times) 4 = behaviour consistently observed

Section 1: Demonstrating skills in lesson introduction and development 1 2 3 4 1. States objectives and provides overview of lesson 2. Checks for prior knowledge 3. Explains material accurately and clearly 4. Emphasises key points of the lesson 5. Uses a range of instructional materials 6. Makes effective use of chalk/white board 7. Creates positive classroom climate 8. Knows and uses pupil names 9. Uses paired or group work 10. Arranges classroom to facilitate learning 11. Uses plenary to summarise, consolidate and extends learning

Section 2: Demonstrating skills in questioning 1 2 3 4 12. Uses cued elicitation for repetition and drilling 13. Asks closed questions 14. Asks open-‐ended questions 15. Calls on pupils individuallyto answer questions 16. Asks pupils to demonstrate in front of class 17. Includes pupils with additional learning needs Section 3: Demonstrating skills in feedback 1 2 3 4 18. Acknowledges pupil answers 19. Probes pupil answers 20. Comments on pupil answers 21. Builds pupil answers into subsequent questions 22. Encourages pupils to ask questions 23. Moves around room to interact with pupils to providespoken and/or written feedback

Section 4: Demonstrating skills in classroom management


65

1 2 3 4 24. Relates well to learners 25. Effectively manages the class 26. Effectively manages timing of lesson Observation Descriptors Demonstrating skills in lesson introduction and development Statement Descriptor

1. States objectives and provides overview of lesson

Learning objectives are incorporated into a lesson plan and clearly stated at the beginning and various stages of a lesson

2. Checks for prior knowledge Teacher summarises what has been learnt at various stages throughout the lesson Teacher asks pupils about previous workcovered in the topic and questions themabout their understanding

3. Explains material accurately and clearly Teacher explanation is accurately and clearly presented with good signposting and makes strong connections to pupil experience Good examples, analogies, visual aids or other devices used to help the pupils understand

4. Emphasises key points of the lesson Teacher summarises what has been learnt at various stages throughout the lesson

5. Uses a range of instructional materials Teacher makes effective use of audio-‐visual aids and ICT where available Instructional aides, such as maps, tables, posters, pictures and charts, are clearly displayed so that all pupils can see and use them


66

Teacher makes effective use of teacher’s guide/textbook

6. Makes effective use of chalk/white board Teacher’s writing and diagrams are clear and effectively laid out

7. Creates positive classroom climate Teacher conveys enthusiasm through voice and body language Teacher uses encouragement and praise to give positive feedback Teacher does not shout, make, hurtful/embarrassing/humiliating remarks or use corporal punishment

8. Knows and uses pupil names Teacher calls on pupils by name to make a contribution to the lesson

9. Uses paired or group work Activities requiring pupil-‐pupil Interaction are built into lesson Pupils are clear about the purpose and outcomes of the paired or group work Pupils are trained in how to work in groups (e.g. how to ask questions, listen and respond to each other)

10. Arranges classroom to facilitate learning Layout of the classroom is appropriate to the learning task/activities Learning needs of all pupils accommodated by classroom layout

11. Uses plenary to summarise, consolidate and extend learning

Teacher uses plenary session to draw the whole class together, during and at the end of the lesson, to summarise, consolidate and extend what has been covered and direct pupils to the next stage of learning


67

Demonstrating skills in questioning Statement Descriptor

12. Uses cued elicitation for repetition and drilling

Teacher uses a mid-‐sentence rise in voice intonation to get a response from the pupils during an explanation or following a pupil answer The answer, usually in the form of a choral answer, takes the form of a repetition or completion of a phrase or word, initiated by the teacher

13.Asks closed questions Teacher asks test questions calling for a single ‘yes/ no’ answer or offering facts

14.Asks open‑ended questions Teacher asks questions to which there is more than one answer Teacher asks questions which encourage speculation and require more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer or the recall of information

15.Calls on pupils individually to answer questions

Teacher encourages individual rather than choral responses to question Teacher ensures all pupils have a chance to respond to a question In mixed classes distribution of questions is roughly equal to the gender make-‐up of the class

16. Asks pupils to demonstrate in front of class

Teacher calls on pupils to answer questions, explain ideas and report back on activities in front of class

17. Includes pupils with additional learning needs

Teacher involves pupils with additional learning needs matching question to their abilities


68

Demonstrating skills in feedback Statement Descriptor

18.Acknowledge pupil answers

Teacher indicates that their reply to question was appropriate with, for example, a ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘ok’ response

19. Probes pupil answers Teacher stays with the same pupil and asks for further elaboration or explanation as to how they arrived at the answer

20. Comments on pupil answers Teacher exemplifies, expands, justifies or provides additional information on a pupil answer

21. Builds pupil answer into subsequent question(s)

Teacher asks a follow-‐up question which builds on pupil answer

22. Encourages pupils to ask questions Teacher encourages pupils to ask questions directed to both the teacher and other members of the class

23.Moves around to interact with pupils to provide spoken and/or written feedback

Teacher provides spoken comments on pupil work individually or in groups to inform learning Written feedback gets beyond the simple marking of work to provide detailed formative feedback

Demonstrating skills in class management and control Statement Descriptor

24. Relates well to pupils Teacher has good rapport with pupils

Teacher demonstrates enthusiasm, commitment and warmth

25. Effectively manage the class Teacher uses positive behaviour management strategies and deals with pupils with respect and dignity Teacher has clear ground rules for


69

classroom behaviour Teacher stops potential discipline problem from escalating Teacher reinforces good behaviour with praise

26. Effectively manages timing of lesson Teacher sets clear, and restricted, goals Teacher effectively manages transitions between lesson activities High pupil levels of time on task


70

APPENDIX 3: INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS SCHEDULE Stage of the lesson:

Behaviour: Definition: Whole class The teacher is addressing the whole class Group work The pupils are working in groups Individual The pupils are working on their own Interruption An interruption to the lesson (e.g. another member of staff may come in)

Main behaviours:

Behaviour: Definition: Explanation To pass on facts, opinions and ideas about a subject. Delivering new info. Direction Designed to get pupils to do, not to say something (an order) Question A question designed to elicit an answer Open question Question calls for more than one answer Cued elicitation Where teacher says a sentence and then repeats it and the pupils finish the

sentence. E.g. The capital of Tanzania is. The capital of Tanzania is …’ Checks A quick knowledge check – usually ‘do you understand?’ or ‘yes?’ Seat work Pupils working individually on a task or exercise Evaluates Teachers evaluates a pupil Reads Teacher or pupil reading out loud. Writes Teacher or pupil writing for rest of class to see. Refocus To get the attention of a pupil back on the curriculum content (e.g. ‘quiet!’) General talk A 'dump' category for any teacher talk not covered by the above Answer A response to a question Pupil initiation Pupil asks a question

Modifiers:

Evaluation type

Praise Praises in words or by expressing verbal affirmation Accept Simply affirms that the student's response is correct or not Comments Teacher rephrases or elaborates on a pupil answer

Probe Teacher requiring further information from a pupil’s answer by staying with same pupil or asking others in class (e.g. ‘Why? How?’)


71

APPENDIX 4: HEAD TEACHER INTERVIEW

Name of Interviewer:

Date:

School:

No. of pupils on role:

Boys:

Girls:

Area:

No. of teachers:

Male:

Female:

Years as Head teacher:

Start Time: Finish Time:

INTRODUCTION STATEMENT This survey is being undertaken by the United Nations Work and Relief Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA). We would like to explore your views on teacher development and the new School Based Teacher Development Programme that is being launched in 2012 In order to do this we require accurate answers to the following questions. UNWRA thanks you in advance for the information provided. The information you provide is ONLY for research purposes. YOUR NAME WILL NOT BE RECORDED IN THIS INTERVIEW.

If respondents are unwilling to answer questions, please give details for non-‐response:

1. How satisfied are you with UNRWA’s current continuing professional development (CPD) programmes for teachers in your school? (Please √ response)


72

1 Very satisfied 2 On the whole satisfied

3 Quite satisfied 4 Not at all satisfied

2. What kinds of CPD activities would you like to see UNWRA make available to teachers in your school? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Have teachersin your school been involved in any CPD activities in the last three years? YES/NO (Please circle) If yes, please describe what they were, who provided them and how effective you found them. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Have you received any information or attended any meetings about the UNRWA School Based Teacher Development Programme?

YES/NO (Please circle)

If yes, please describe what they were and what you found out about the new programme? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.What do you think will be the benefits of the School Based Teacher Development Programme for teachers in your school?


73

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Have you any further comments you would like to make about CPD or the UNRWA School Based Teacher Development Programme?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for answering the interview questions


74

APPENDIX 5: TEACHER INTERVIEW


Date:

School: Area:

Years teaching in the school:

Subject(s) taught:

Year group(s) taught:

Start Time: Finish Time:

INTRODUCTION STATEMENT This survey is being undertaken by the United Nations Work and Relief Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA). We would like to explore your views on teacher professional development and the new School Based Teacher Development programme that is launched in 2012 In order to do this we require accurate answers to the following questions. UNWRA thanks you in advance for the information provided. The information you provide is ONLY for research purposes. YOUR NAME WILL NOT BE RECORDED IN THIS INTERVIEW.

If respondents are unwilling to answer questions, please give details for non-‐response:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. How would you rate your current level of motivation in your teaching post? (Please √ response)


75

1 Very motivated 2 On the whole motivated

3 Quite motivated 4 Not at all motivated

2. Have you attended any of the following professional develop programmes in the last 5 years?

In-‐Service Training Received

Yes No Length of Training (months)

Materials given during training

UNRWAEP course

Education Development Centre courses

University courses

Non-‐Government Organisation courses

Private provider courses

Other (specify)

3. How satisfied are you with UNRWA’s current continuing professional development (CPD) programmes for teachers in your area? (Please √ response)

1 Very satisfied 2 On the whole satisfied

3 Quite satisfied 4 Not at all satisfied

4. What kinds of CPD activities would you like UNRWA to offer? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Have you received any information or attended any meetings about the UNRWA School Based Teacher Development programme?

YES/NO (Please circle)

If yes, please describe what they were and what you found out about the new programme?


76

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6.What do you think will be the benefits of being involved in the School Based Teacher Development programme?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Have you any further comments you would like to make about your professional development needs and the UNRWA School Based Teacher Development Programme?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for answering the interview questions


77

APPENDIX 6: PUPIL FOCUS GROUP Note to interviewer: please choose 6 GRADE 5 students and interview them in a quiet area of the school with no teachers present


Date:

School:

Start Time:

Area:

Finish Time:

INTRODUCTION STATEMENT This survey aims to find out what you think about your lessons, what you like about them and how they can be made better. The information will be used by UNRWA to help improve your school. Anything that you tell us will not be reported back to your teachers and we would like you to be honest in your answers. YOUR NAMES WILL NOT BE RECORED IN THIS INTERVIEW. If respondents are unwilling to answer questions, please give details for non-‐response:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Classroom climate


78

A1. If I came to your school, what would I like? What would I not like?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A2. What subjects do you like the most? Please tell me why you like them.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A3. What kinds of things do you like doing in Arabic language lessons?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A4. What kinds of things do you like doing in mathematic lessons?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A5. What kinds of things do you like doing in science lessons?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A6. What kinds of things do you like doing in English lessons?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A7. What do you like most about your teachers?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


79

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

B. Teaching & learning

B1. Can you tell me about the last time you worked in a group*? In what subject(s) did you do the group work? What were you asked to do? Who was in the group? Did you work well together?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

B2. What one thing would help you become a better learner?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

B3. Are there enough books to help you learn in class?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

B4. What kinds of books do you like reading in class?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Please explain what you mean by group work to the students i.e. working collaboratively with other students in a pair or group in class

C. Classroom interaction


80

C1. When the teacher asks a question does she/he usually ask an individual pupil or the whole class to answer?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C2. Do you like being asked to answer a question in class? If not, why not?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C3. What normally happens if a pupil gets an answer right?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C4. What normally happens if a pupil gets an answer wrong?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C6. What happens if a pupil misbehaves in class?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for answering my questions


81

baselinestudyofclassroom!practices ... · classroom(practices(inunrwaelementary(schools((1((!!!!!...

Documents