0 Leadership and Teacher Development Program (LTD) Evaluation Report Impact of the Leadership and Teacher Development Program on Improving the Quality of Education in Palestine July 2014 This publication was produced for the United States Agency for International Development. 1 Evaluation Report Impact of the Leadership and Teacher Development Program on Improving the Quality of Education in Palestine July 31, 2014 The Leadership and Teacher Development Program Cooperative Agreement No. AID-294-A-12-00006 DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Contents are the responsibility of AMIDEAST and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. i CONTENTS Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4 Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions ...................................................................................... 9 1 Evaluation Purpose .................................................................................................................... 9 2 Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................................... 10 Project Background ........................................................................................................................ 12 1 Design and Methods................................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Impact on School Leadership ............................................................................................ 13 1.2 Impact on Teacher Education ........................................................................................... 14 1.3 Impact of TEEP Teacher Educators on In-Service Teachers ............................................... 15 1.4 Impact on Pre-Service Teacher Education at Al-Azhar University, Gaza ........................... 17 2 Challenges .............................................................................................................................. 17 2.1 Conflict of Interest Disclosure .......................................................................................... 17 2.2 Data Quality Assurance .................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Quasi-Experimental Design ............................................................................................. 18 2.4 Socially Desirable Responses ............................................................................................ 18 2.5 Security in Gaza ............................................................................................................... 18 Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................... 20 1 To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of principals to promote effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices?.................... 20 1.1 Principal Effectiveness Survey (principal’s form) ............................................................... 20 1.2 Principal Effectiveness Survey (teacher’s form) ................................................................. 22 1.3 Leadership Training Assignments .................................................................................... 24 1.4 School Improvement Team (SIT) Survey ............................................................................ 26 1.5 School Improvement Team (SIT) Focus Groups ................................................................. 28 2 To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teachers to enact learner-centered approaches and strategies? ................................................................................. 33 2.1 Teacher Effectiveness Survey (Teacher’s form) ................................................................. 33 2.2 Principals’ assessment of Teacher Effectiveness............................................................... 34 2.3 Action Research ............................................................................................................... 36 2.4 Review of Selected Action Research Projects .................................................................... 39 ii 2.5 Classroom Engagement Survey ........................................................................................ 43 2.6 Technology for Leadership, Instruction, and Professional Development ........................... 45 2.7 Standardized Tests of Achievement.................................................................................. 47 2.8 District Unified Tests of Achievement ............................................................................... 50 3 To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teacher educators to model learner-centered approaches and practices? ................................................................... 51 3.1 Training Satisfaction Survey ............................................................................................. 51 3.2 Action Research ............................................................................................................... 52 4 To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of instructors at Al￾Azhar University’s Faculty of Education to enact learner-centered practices in the context of pre￾service teacher education? .............................................................................................................. 56 4.1 TEEP Satisfaction Survey ................................................................................................... 56 4.2 Action Research ............................................................................................................... 57 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 60 Annexes ......................................................................................................................................... 62 ANNEX A: Principal Effectiveness Survey (Principal’s form).......................................................... 62 ANNEX B: School Improvement Team Survey ............................................................................... 69 ANNEX C: Moderator’s Guide for SIT Focus Groups..................................................................... 72 ANNEX D: Teacher Effectiveness Survey (Teacher’s Form) ........................................................... 75 ANNEX E: Classroom Engagement Survey (Students’ Form)......................................................... 82 ANNEX F: Training Evaluation Form (NIET/generic form) ............................................................ 88 ANNEX G: Action Research Questionnaire ................................................................................... 91 iii Acronyms Accreditation and Quality Assurance Commission AQAC America-Mideast Educational and Training Services AMIDEAST Assessment and Evaluation Department AED Automated Directives System ADS Chief of Party COP Directorate of Planning DP Directorate of Supervision and Qualifications DSQ District Leadership Team DLT Geospatial Management Information System Geo-MIS Leadership and Teacher Development LTD LTD/NIET Joint Working Group JWG Leadership Diploma Program LDP Middle East and North Africa MENA Ministry of Education and Higher Education MoEHE Model Schools Network MSN Monitoring and Evaluation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation Task Force METF National Institute for Educational Training NIET National Teacher Education Strategy TES Operational Plan OP Professional Certificate in English Language Teaching PCELT Quality Assurance Unit QAU School Improvement Team SIT Supervision Diploma Program SDP Teacher Educator Enhancement Program TEEP United States Agency for International Development USAID University of Massachusetts, Amherst UMass 4 Executive Summary EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The overarching purpose of the evaluation is to assess the impact of LTD on improving the conditions and practices that contribute to quality teaching and learning in Palestinian schools. In the West Bank, the evaluation focuses on LTD’s interventions intended to enhance the capacity of principals, teachers, and teacher educators to enact learner-centered approaches and strategies in the context of school leadership and classroom instruction in the 88 schools comprising the first of three cohorts of the LTD program. In Gaza, the focus is on interventions to improve the quality of pre-service teacher education. The evaluation is framed by four major research questions: 1. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of principals to promote effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices? 2. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teachers to enact learner-centered approaches and strategies? 3. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teacher educators to model learner-centered approaches and practices? 4. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of instructors at Al￾Azhar University’s Faculty of Education to enact learner-centered practices in the context of pre￾service teacher education? Findings of the evaluation will be used to inform decisions by AMIDEAST/LTD and its key partners in the Ministry of Education and Higher Education, and Al-Azhar University, Gaza, to improve and/or develop policies, strategies and approaches that to enhance the quality of professional development of principals, teachers, and teacher educators. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Leadership and Teacher Development (LTD) program is a comprehensive four-year strategy of top￾down and bottom-up capacity building whose overarching aim is to promote a sustainable system of school-based professional development that aligns policies, management structures, and local school leadership to support effective schools characterized by learner-centered classrooms. LTD supports the mission of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education to improve the quality of basic education so that all children are prepared to contribute to the future of Palestine's social, economic, and political development. LTD has established a broad-based consultative process among Ministry and district stakeholders and is working to identify needs, plan strategic capacity building, and implement activities for the professional development of up to 1600 in-service and pre-service teachers, 300 school principals, over 100 managers of district leadership teams, and provide support for community-based school improvement initiatives in 300 schools across all 16 school districts. In Gaza, LTD is working to enhance the quality of pre-service teacher education for some 4,500 undergraduates enrolled in Al-Azhar University's Faculty of Education. 5 The strategic goal of LTD therefore is to increase learning and achievement for some 55,000 school children in grades 5-10 through innovative approaches to school leadership and continuous professional development of the teaching profession based on learner-centered instructional and leadership strategies. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS LTD Theory of Change and Evaluation The core questions, research design, and methods comprising the data collection and analysis of the evaluation are derived from LTD's theory of change which predicts that learning outcomes of students will improve if: 1) Principals enact methods of supportive instructional supervision learned in LTD trainings; 2) School Improvement Teams (SITs) enact shared leadership based on LTD’s model of community￾based strategic planning aligned with the Ministry of Education’s standards for effective schools; and, 3) Teachers enact learner-centered instructional practices acquired in LTD trainings. The theory change is fundamentally the same in the context of pre-service teacher education in the Faculty of Education at Al-Azhar University, Gaza, where the quality of pre-service teacher education will improve if: 1) Instructors enact learner-centered instructional practices acquired through LTD’s model of the action research inquiry cycle; and, 2) Senior administrative leaders of the Faculty of Education enact shared leadership based on LTD’s model of participatory and inquiry-based strategic planning. Design and Methods To address the main evaluation questions, LTD uses a mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative), quasi-experimental design that incorporates baseline and endline data from representative samples of LTD’s diverse groups of beneficiaries—principals, teachers, teacher educators, and students. The use of a quasi-experimental approach is intended to strengthen the reliability of inferences drawn from the impact of LTD on its primary beneficiaries in comparison with individuals (i.e., “controls”) who did not participate in LTD. Each of the core evaluation questions relies on a specific set of data collection and analysis methods.  To explore the extent that principals report and demonstrate improved capacity to support the development of effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices, the evaluation relies on baseline/endline surveys of principals and teachers, and an analysis action research.  To understand the extent that LTD enabled teachers to enact standards and competencies aligned with learner-centered instruction, the evaluation relies on baseline/endline surveys of teachers, principals, and students, the systematic analysis of action research, and scores from two sources of standardized tests of achievement.  To determine the extent that teacher educators (i.e., members of NIET’s national cadre) report and provide evidence their TEEP training enhanced their capacity to model learner-centered approaches and practices to in-service teachers, the evaluation relies on baseline/endline training satisfaction surveys, and on a survey to assess the role of action on improving training delivery and its impact on improving the practices of in-service teachers. 6  To examine the extent that instructors at Al-Azhar University’s Faculty of Education enact learner-centered practices, the evaluation relies on an endline satisfaction survey and an analysis of the results of action research. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Findings Following is a summary of key findings and conclusions that address each of the four major evaluation questions. Data and other supporting evidence, including charts and tables, are found in the body of the report. 1. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of principals to promote effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices? 1.1. LTD principals improved their capacity (35% improvement on average from baseline survey results) to provide effective instructional support that empowers teachers to diversify learning activities and assessments that increase the engagement of all students; integrate educational technology in the classroom; engage in school-community relations that strengthen learner-centered classrooms; contribute to results-based decisions about improving classroom instruction; follow up on their professional development experiences. 1.2. Principals are more effective in enabling teachers and others in the school community, including school counselors, to engage students more in service learning and other extra- and co-curricular activities that allow students to transfer their classroom learning to real-world contexts. 1.3. LTD principals improved their capacity (by a dramatic increase of 96% from baseline to endline) to effectively marshal the available human and material resources inside and outside the school￾community to support improved teaching and learning. This change is mainly taking place through the mechanism and process of the school improvement team (SIT), in which the principalship is being transformed from one characterized by total control over decision making to one exemplified by the principal as “lead facilitator” of results-based management and shared leadership. 1.4. As a result of LTD’s provision of technology resources and training to school leadership, principals show greater confidence not only in supporting of teachers’ integration of technology in their classrooms, but also using technology to facilitate school management (increased by 35% from baseline survey) and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the school improvement planning process of the SIT. 2. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teachers to enact learner-centered approaches and strategies? 2.1. LTD teachers report improvements in their capacity to design and use of learning materials and resources (up 25%) and offer supportive counseling and guidance for learners (up 24%). These were followed by seeking continuous professional development (up 21%), contributing to a safe and effective learning environment (up 18%), facilitating student-centered teaching and learning (up 18%), effective assessment of student learning (up 17%), and building partnerships inside and outside the school community (up 17%). These findings are corroborated independently by principals’ evaluations of changes in their teachers’ core professional competencies. 7 2.2. Some 411 LTD teachers conducted an estimated 4,500 action research projects—approximately 50 projects in each of the 88 schools of Cohort 1—enabling them to identify specific problems of practice and diagnose students’ needs and take action to improve student learning. Eighty-five percent of teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that action research improved not only their professional practices in the classroom, but also directly benefited their students' learning. 2.3. Surveys and interviews with teachers, principals, students and parents substantiate the claim by LTD teachers that action research has empowered them to help students become more engaged with curriculum content and concepts; use higher order thinking and reasoning skills in more authentic, real-world learning assessments; and develop positive social values and dispositions associated with local and global citizenship. 2.4. LTD teachers are contributing to improved academic achievement of their students. Scores of achievement in all four subjects taught by LTD teachers show improvement: Arabic improved 9.4%; English by 12.6%; mathematics by 33.4%; and, science by 26.3%. This trend is partly supported by results of district Unified Exams, where nearly all test scores from LTD schools in May 2014 (endline results) are higher than those of non-LTD schools in the same district. 2.5. Teachers report increases across the board in their use of technology for enhancing teaching and learning, in researching subjects they teach, and in their professional development. Survey results indicate that the frequency that teachers use of technology in the classroom and for professional development rose from increased 21% as a result of LTD’s provision of technology resources and training. 3. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teacher educators to model learner-centered approaches and practices? 3.1. There is solid and consistent agreement on the 12 monthly training satisfaction surveys among the 411 in-service teachers of Cohort 1 (average score of 3.1 on a 4-point Likert scale) that the trainers’ methods for the delivery of learning and assessment activities were effective. 3.2. Both quantitative and qualitative data provide strong evidence that the trainers’ use of action research for their own professional development (concurrently with the in-service teachers use of action research) enhanced their capacity to reflect more critically on and adjust their training practices so as to improve the learning outcomes of the trainees. 4. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of instructors at Al-Azhar University’s Faculty of Education to enact learner-centered practices in the context of pre-service teacher education? The deteriorating security situation in Gaza since the end of June 2014 prevented LTD from completing the collection and analysis of evaluation data from Gaza. What we can report at present is provisional. The collection, analysis and reporting of data will resume as soon as security conditions on the ground permit. 4.1. The faculty members of the TEEP pre-service program unanimously agreed that the program contributed to improving of their instructional practices in general and their capacity to increase the active learning of their students in particular. 4.2. TEEP faculty participants completed 81 action research projects in their classrooms and have documented evidence of improvement in students’ active engagement, higher order thinking skills, cooperative teamwork, problem solving, research skills, and overall academic achievement. 8 4.3. All TEEP faculty successfully learned how to use MOODLE as a virtual learning environment in which they shared and exchanged feedback on the progress of their action research projects; communicated with their “critical friends” in discussion forums; and, updated their philosophies of teaching in response to their ongoing professional development during TEEP. Conclusions 1. LTD contributed to improving the capacity of principals in supporting school-based professional development that fosters effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices. 2. LTD contributed to building the capacity of teachers to enact standards and competencies aligned with learner-centered instruction 3. LTD contributed to building the capacity of teacher educators (i.e., members of NIET’s national cadre) to enact learner-centered approaches and practices. 4. LTD contributed to building the capacity of instructors at Al-Azhar University’s Faculty of Education to enact learner-centered practices in the context of pre-service teacher education. 9 Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions 1 Evaluation Purpose The primary beneficiaries of LTD’s four-year strategy top-down and bottom-up capacity building of school-based professional development are Palestine's school children. The overarching purpose of the evaluation is to understand the impact of LTD on improving the conditions for student learning. In the West Bank, the evaluation focuses on LTD’s interventions intended to enhance the capacity of principals, teachers, and teacher educators to enact learner-centered approaches and strategies in professional contexts of school leadership and classroom instruction in 88 schools of Cohort 1. In Gaza, the focus is on interventions to enhance the quality of pre-service teacher education. The core questions, design, and methods comprising the data collection and analysis of the evaluation are derived from LTD's theory of change which predicts that learning outcomes of students will improve if: 1) Teachers enact learner-centered instructional practices acquired in LTD trainings; and, 2) Principals enact methods of supportive instructional supervision learned in LTD trainings; and, 3) School Improvement Teams (SITs) enact shared leadership based on LTD’s model of community￾based strategic planning aligned with the Ministry of Education’s standards for effective schools. This sequence of change is fundamentally the same in the context of pre-service teacher education in the Faculty of Education at Al-Azhar University, Gaza, where the quality of pre-service teacher education will improve if: 1) Instructors enact learner-centered instructional practices acquired through LTD’s model of the action research inquiry cycle; and 2) Senior administrative leaders of the Faculty of Education enact shared leadership based on LTD’s model of participatory and inquiry-based strategic planning. LTD’s theory of change situates the school as the primary unit of change; however, the school cannot effectively serve as the key unit of analysis for the evaluation of LTD’s school-based interventions because there are too many internal and external variables operating in the many systems in which a school’s complex organizational structures and processes are embedded. In the face of this challenge, the evaluation focuses on those members of the school community most directly affected LTD’s interventions, namely, the principal and teachers, and indirectly, students enrolled in “LTD” schools of Cohort 1. Over the life of LTD, the scope of the program’s impact is expected include 300 principals awarded diplomas for excellence in school leadership; 1500 teachers licensed according to national standards for quality teaching; some 50 teacher educators meeting international standards for expert trainers; and approximately 54,000 students developing 21st century learning skills in learner-centered, child-friendly classrooms. Findings of the evaluation will be used to inform decisions by AMIDEAST/LTD and its key partners in the Ministry of Education and Higher Education, and Al-Azhar University, Gaza, to improve or develop policies, strategies and approaches that will enhance the quality of professional development of principals, teachers, and teacher educators. 10 2 Evaluation Questions The fundamental question every impact evaluation seeks to answer about any education development project is, What change can be attributed a program’s interventions? LTD asks the same question, but we approach it in the context of our specific theory of change described above. Our evaluation is thus framed by the following four primary research questions: 1. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of principals to promote effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices? 2. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teachers to enact learner-centered approaches and strategies? 3. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teacher educators to model learner-centered approaches and practices? 4. To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of instructors at Al￾Azhar University’s Faculty of Education to enact learner-centered practices in the context of pre￾service teacher education? The first three questions are specific to LTD’s programming in the West Bank. The diagram below illustrates the flow of inputs, outputs and outcomes. These elements move from the Leadership Diploma Program’s focus on developing shared leadership based on the Ministry of Educations’ standards for effective schools, which in turn helps principals empower teachers engaged in the Teacher Education Program taught by LTD-trained teacher educators, who then enact learner-centered approaches and strategies that create the conditions for students to develop 21st century learning skills (communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity) leading to improved learning outcomes. Figure 1: LTD’s theory of change for in-service training, West Bank 11 The fourth question is Gaza specific. The diagram below illustrates how the flow of inputs and outputs move in complementary directions. The LTD Strategic Planning Process is guided by a steering committee chaired by the Dean of the Faculty of Education and the heads of the four departments. The committee functions like a “school improvement team” and works to engage key stakeholders in various units of the Faculty of Education to identify needs and contribute to the building of a strategic plan that will align policies, curricula, teaching, and professional development. The TEEP faculty enhancement program and the LTD PCELT program both focus on professional developing of teaching practices based on reflective practice, action research and supportive learning communities of practice. These three components—strategic planning, TEEP, and PCELT—work in a complementary fashion to enhance the quality of teaching and learning taking place in courses and classrooms intended to prepare well-qualified and effective teachers for Gaza’s school system. Figure 2: LTD’s theory of change for pre-service training, Gaza 12 Project Background The Leadership and Teacher Development (LTD) program is a comprehensive four-year strategy of top￾down and bottom-up capacity building whose overarching aim is to promote a sustainable system of school-based professional development that aligns policies, management structures, and local school leadership to support effective, learner-centered classrooms. LTD supports the mission of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education to improve the quality of basic education for all and to nurture a youth population prepared to contribute to Palestine's social, economic, and political development. LTD has established a broad-based consultative process among Ministry and district stakeholders and is working to identify needs, plan strategic capacity building, and implement activities for the professional development of up to 1600 in-service and pre-service teachers, 300 school principals, over 100 managers of district leadership teams, and provide support for community-based school improvement initiatives in 300 schools across all 16 school districts. In Gaza, LTD is working to enhance the quality of pre-service teacher education of some 4,500 students at Al-Azhar University's Faculty of Education. The strategic goal of LTD therefore is to increase learning and achievement for up to 55,000 school children in grades 5-10 through innovative approaches to school leadership and continuous professional development of the teaching profession based on 21st century, learner-centered instructional and leadership strategies. The following diagram presents LTD’s results framework. Figure 3: Results framework of the Leadership and Teacher Development Program 13 Evaluation Methods and Challenges 1 Design and Methods To address the main evaluation questions, LTD uses a mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative), quasi-experimental design that incorporates baseline and endline data from representative samples of LTD’s diverse groups of beneficiaries—principals, teachers, teacher educators, and students. The quasi-experimental approach is intended to strengthen the reliability of inferences drawn from the impact of LTD’s interventions on its primary beneficiaries in comparison to individuals, “controls,” outside of LTD’s sphere of interventions. Each of the core evaluation questions relies on a specific set of data collection and analysis methods, summarized in the following description. 1.1 Impact on School Leadership LTD’s provision of technical expertise and procurement of resources for the Leadership Diploma Program (LDP) includes the upgrading of existing materials and trainer-of-trainer activities and offering financial incentives to support the work of school leadership teams to produce a school improvement plan (SIP). The principals’ role in applying the values and practices of shared leadership is a major goal of the LTD leadership training as it demonstrates the principal's ability to plan and lead a participatory model of school improvement involving key stakeholders of the school community—teachers, students, and parents. To explore the extent that principals report and demonstrate improved capacity to support the development of effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices, the evaluation relies on surveys of baseline/endline principals and teachers, and an analysis action research. Data collection followed a mixed-methods design and included baseline data collection wherever appropriate and feasible. Participating principals and a sample of teachers from all 88 schools of Cohort 1 schools completed the Principal Effectiveness Survey. For the other surveys and the qualitative data collection methods, a purposive sample of principals and teachers from the four districts of Cohort 1 was selected; likewise a purposive sample of parents was selected for participation in the focus groups with members of school improvement teams (SIT). Data collection combined the use of surveys administered by NIET staff to principals and teachers and the work of an independent team of four field researchers hired by AMIDEAST who collected survey data from principals, teachers and students from a purposive sample of 40 LTD schools and 40 comparison schools. Based on the preliminary results from the quantitative results of data from principals, analytical focus groups were conducted with members of school improvement teams from a purposive sample of 16 schools. 14 Table 1: Data collection methods to address evaluation question #1 Data Collection Method Frequency of Data Collection Sample Principal Effectiveness Survey (principal’s form)* Baseline & End 82 Principal Effectiveness Survey (teacher’s form)* Baseline & End Baseline Post 160 6011 Leadership Training Assignments (archival) During training period 22 assignments School Improvement Team (SIT) Survey End Principals Teachers Parents 30 140 29 School Improvement Team (SIT) Focus Group End 16 16 16 1.2 Impact on Teacher Education From its inception, one of the chief strategic goals of LTD has been to build the capacity of the National Institute for Educational Training (NIET) to deliver high quality in-service professional development to under qualified (non-certified) teachers leading to their earning the equivalent of a teaching diploma. To this end, LTD provided technical expertise in the design and development of a 12-module teacher education curriculum that forms the basis of NIET’s teacher qualification training. Furthermore, LTD designed and delivered the training-of-trainer program, the Teacher Educator Enhancement Program (TEEP), whose primary is build the capacity of NIET’s national cadre to master learner-centered instructional and assessment practices that teachers themselves are expected to enact in their classrooms. To understand the extent that LTD enabled teachers to enact standards and competencies aligned with learner-centered instruction, the evaluation relies on baseline/endline surveys of teachers, principals, and students, the systematic analysis of action research, and scores from two sources of standardized tests of achievement. Table 2: Data collection methods for addressing evaluation question #2 Data Collection Method Frequency of Data Collection Samples Teacher Effectiveness Survey Baseline & Endline Teachers Principals 182 200 Classroom Engagement Survey Endline Students Teachers LTD Controls LTD Controls 2830 2389 117 112 Action Research Survey Endline 62 Action Research Projects Endline 16 Standardized Tests of Achievement Baseline & Endline LTD Controls 410 445 District Unified Tests of Achievement Baseline & Endline LTD Non-LTD 545 (approx.) 1900 (approx.) 1 The pre-test was administered by NIET to LTD teachers only; however, for the post-test, AMIDEAST surveyed all teachers in each of the 40 LTD schools of the sample. This larger sample size is thus more representative of a school’s teaching staff and, we believe, provides a more reliable credible assessment of a principal’s performance. 15 Sampling: A variety of sampling strategies was used in order to test key assumptions. For the Teacher Effectiveness Survey, a purposeful sample of participating LTD teachers and principals from 40 LTD schools was selected. These schools, representing about 45% of the 88 schools of Cohort 1, were selected on the basis of their “LTD saturation level;” that is, of the 88 schools, these had the highest ratio of LTD teachers per student population of any. The underlying assumption is that the bigger the number of LTD teachers in a school (relative to the student population), the greater the probability of seeing improvements in student learning compared to schools with fewer LTD teachers. A preliminary analysis of the ratio of LTD-only teachers to all students in the 88 schools of Cohort 1 showed a range from 1:13 to 1:485, with 1:81 being the average, 1:71 the median, and 1:50 the mode. Using the median figure, it was decided to select schools with a saturation ratio of 1:70 or better, and this generated a sample of about 44 schools (50% of Cohort 1) from which the final 40 were selected. An equal number of control schools with comparable student populations (size and gender) were selected for comparison. For the training satisfaction surveys, LTD relied on NIET’s data collection of satisfaction surveys at the end of each of the 12 monthly modules. For the Action Research Survey, an online survey was sent out to all 44 members of NIET’s LTD training staff and 26 responded (59%). Finally, for the assessment of action research projects, documentary evidence of projects was inventoried and a sample of “case studies” was selected to represent the differing pedagogical themes and goals of monthly face-to-face sessions and bi-monthly learning circles comprising the 12 module curriculum. 1.3 Impact of TEEP Teacher Educators on In-Service Teachers To determine the extent that teacher educators (i.e., members of NIET’s national cadre) report and provide evidence their TEEP training enhanced their capacity to model learner-centered approaches and practices to in-service teachers, the evaluation relies on baseline/endline training satisfaction surveys, and a survey that assesses the role of action on improving training delivery and its impact on improving the practices of in-service teachers. Although LTD was not responsible directly for the training of under-qualified teachers—NIET’s trainers delivered the trainings under a special arrangement between USAID and the European Joint Financial Agreement with the MoEHE—LTD played a significant role in building the capacity of NIET to undertake this task. LTD provided technical expertise in the design and development of the 12-module teacher education curriculum used by NIET. Moreover, LTD designed and delivered the trainer-of-trainer program, the Teacher Educator Enhancement Program (TEEP). The main goal of TEEP was to prepare NIET’s teacher educators to enact and model the same learner-centered instructional and assessment practices that teachers themselves were expected to enact in their classrooms. The action research inquiry cycle (figure 4, below) served as the backbone of LTD’s approach to professional development for both the TEEP program and the 12-module curriculum of the Teacher Education training delivered by NIET’s trainers. The action research inquiry cycle offers a set of tools and processes that TEEP participants and in-service teachers used in identifying, problematizing, taking action, collecting data, and reflect upon problems of practice in the specificity of their respective educational contexts—for teachers, the classroom; for trainers, the training venue. The core assumption is that the professional development of both trainers (TEEP participants) and trainees (in￾service teachers) is strengthened by their mutual participation in learning communities of practice. 16 Figure 4: Action research inquiry cycle Following are the data collection methods: Table 3: Data collection methods to address evaluation question #3 Data Collection Method Frequency of Data Collection Sample Training Satisfaction Survey (by teachers) 12 times (administered by NIET at end of each face-to-face training) 411 Action Research Survey Endline 26 Action Research Projects (archived in Portfolios of Professional Practice) Endline NIET Staff Faculty 24 19 17 1.4 Impact on Pre-Service Teacher Education at Al-Azhar University, Gaza At the time of this writing, the Israel-Gaza conflict was entering its fourth week. Since the intensification of hostilities in late June, the security situation has prevented LTD from completing the collection and analysis of evaluation data from Gaza. What we can report at present is provisional. The collection, analysis and reporting of data will resume as soon as security conditions on the ground permit. To examine the extent that instructors at Al-Azhar University’s Faculty of Education enact learner￾centered practices, the evaluation relies on two sources of data currently available: results of an endline satisfaction survey filled out by TEEP participants (teaching faculty), and a survey to evaluate the impact of doing action research. Additional data collection methods (highlighted in yellow in table 4) will be accessed when security conditions in Gaza permit. Table 4: LTD data collection methods to address evaluation question #4 Data Collection Method Frequency of Data Collection Sample TEEP Training Satisfaction Survey (by instructors) Endline 16 Action Research Survey Endline 20 Action Research Projects (archived in Portfolios of Professional Practice) Endline 20 Final Exam Scores (of students enrolled in courses taught by TEEP faculty) Baseline semester/endline semester TBD Practicum Evaluations (by faculty advisors of PCELT graduates) Endline (PCELT cohorts 1 & 2) 24 2 Challenges The findings of any evaluation research face limitations associated with the collection of data, methods of analysis, and other limiting factors related potentially to budget, time, and technical constraints. This LTD evaluation is no exception. 2.1 Conflict of Interest Disclosure In the spirit of full disclosure, The M&E Department made every effort to ensure that the design of tools and the collection and analysis of data were conducted in accordance with the highest ethical standards of program evaluation. Furthermore, to ensure the integrity of the protocols for data collection and analysis, LTD consulted with the Monitoring and Evaluation Task Force, a special consultative body of M&E experts from five directorates of the MoEHE whose purpose is to assure the quality of monitoring and evaluation of LTD’s interventions, and with the Joint M&E Working Group comprised of senior M&E specialists from both LTD and the National Institute for Educational Training (NIET). 18 2.2 Data Quality Assurance LTD relied a good deal on data collected by NIET for its own internal monitoring and evaluating its delivery of LTD’s leadership and teacher education trainings. To introduce an extra layer of impartiality to the collection of data, LTD hired and trained four qualified independent consultants who went into the field and carried out data collection in a sample of 40 LTD schools and 40 comparison schools. Three additional consultants were hired to conduct focus groups with members of school improvement teams. Furthermore, the M&E Department employed a three-step process to verify the accuracy of all data collection and entry. The procedure included field visits to monitor data collection; random verification of data by the M&E officer; and, final confirmation of data accuracy by the Director of the M&E department. The evaluation intended to explore the assumption improvements in student behavior— reduced absenteeism and fewer reports of misconduct—would be attributable to LTD teachers’ use of learner-centered approaches. Unfortunately, data about student attendance rates and misconduct proved either unattainable or unreliable since not all schools keep accurate and consistent records of such data. 2.3 Quasi-Experimental Design Ideally, the use of randomized control sampling in research is considered the best method for eliminating selection bias and attributing causality. LTD concluded, however, that this approach was unfeasible given the host of complex technical and practical challenges such an attempt would face in the Palestinian context. For this reason, LTD attempted, with limited success, to use a quasi￾experimental design to investigate LTD’s impact in 40 of the 88 schools of Cohort 1 compared with 40 non-LTD schools of similar size and student composition. Independent t-tests were used to determine whether the differences in the means of the LTD and comparison schools were statistically significant. The t-tests were applied to the results of the Classroom Engagement Survey and to the AED Student Achievement Tests. The results of the t-tests proved disappointing in that the differences were not statistically significant, essentially refuting our assumptions for justifying the use of “control” schools in a quasi-experimental design. What the t-tests tell us is that whatever apparent difference between the means of the treatment and control groups may in fact be due to chance. In other words, if surveys were to be re-administered a second time, the difference might turn out just the opposite. The reasons for this may be the result of sampling or measurement error or for other external factors beyond LTD’s control. 2.4 Socially Desirable Responses Finally, self-reported data on surveys in which principals and teachers assess their development are susceptible to the phenomenon of socially desirable responses. For this reason, additional sources of data were collected to allow for cross-checking the reliability of self-reported data. Teachers and principals, for example, filled out surveys that permitted them to evaluate not only their own performance, but also for principals to evaluate teachers and vice-versa. Likewise, a student engagement survey was completed by both students and teachers. 2.5 Security in Gaza LTD was prevented from completing the collection and analysis of evaluation data from Al-Azhar University in Gaza because of deteriorating security conditions on the ground at the end of June 2014. LTD collected some data, the results of which are presented in the report. The retrieval of additional 19 data from the Dean’s office was delayed, however. The collection, analysis and reporting of the remaining data will resume as soon as security conditions on the ground permit. 20 Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations 1 To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of principals to promote effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices? 1.1 Principal Effectiveness Survey (principal’s form) Findings: The Principal Effectiveness Survey is comprised of 68 questions divided into seven scales measuring the self-reported frequency (on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from always to never) that a principal applies the Effective School Standards of the MoEHE in his/her daily leadership performance.2 An additional scale asks the principal to assess the level of his/her understanding of the Effective School Standards. In Figure 5, the results are arranged by the degree of change in each scale from the baseline (pre-test) to the end of the training period (post-test). Figure 5: Results of Principal Effectiveness Survey (principals’ data) 2 Each of the seven scales has a Cronbach's Alpha of .800 or higher. 21 Change across the seven domains ranged from 19% to 96% and averaged 35%. The most dramatic change is in the domain of Planning School Improvement, which improved from 2.11 to 4.13, a dramatic 96% difference. Improvement is seen in the four scales most directly related to the principal’s capacity to empower of teachers to use learner-centered instruction and assessment: Technology (30% improvement); Assessment (29% improvement); Teaching and Learning (28% improvement); and Learning Environment. Discussion: These self-reported findings strongly suggest that LTD contributed to increasing the principals’ attention given to empowering the school community in greater shared leadership. These results imply that principals increased their efforts to engage teachers, parents, and even students in a community-wide self-assessment to collect data by which to build the vision and mission of the school. When we analyzed the scores on the individual items comprising each of the seven domains, the results strongly suggest improvement in the capacity of principals to support school-based professional development for learner-centered instructional practices and assessments. In supporting the use of educational technology in the classroom, for example, the number of principals reporting they do this often or always rose from about 50% before to 100% afterwards. More principals (11% before versus 68% after) reported giving more attention to encouraging teachers to use a variety of methods in the assessment and evaluation of students' performance and in involving more teachers in results-based decisions about improving classroom instruction. Likewise, in terms of their support for teaching and learning, more principals (from about 70% to over 90% after) reported giving attention to supporting and following up on the professional development of teachers. Furthermore, the results overall show that principals are giving more attention to empower teachers and others in the school community, including school counselors, to engage students more in service learning and other extra- and co-curricular activities that allow students to transfer their classroom learning to real-world contexts. In sum, these results provide strong indications that, from the perspective of principals, LTD’s Leadership Diploma Program contributed toward improving their capacity to support school-based professional development promoting effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices. Do these conclusions stand up, however, from the teachers’ assessment of their principals’ performance? 22 1.2 Principal Effectiveness Survey (teacher’s form) Findings: Results of the teachers’ assessment of their principals’ performance (Figure 6) on the same seven domains are slightly more modest than the principals’ results, but they are consistent with the mean scores and rates of change from the baseline to the end of the training program. Figure 6: Results of Principal Effectiveness Survey (teachers’ data) The trend line of change across the seven domains shows modest but good improvement, ranging from about 11% for Teaching and Learning to a high to 26% change for the Planning School Improvement. In all domains, teachers report that the frequency of the principals’ effective leadership increased from “often” to “always.” A closer examination of several individual items in the seven domains revealed that teachers report improvement of their principals’ performance in key areas of teaching and learning. Teachers reported improvement from 3.62 to 4.17 (a 15% change) in leadership promoting successful learning of all students, particularly those who are under performing. As seen in the Table 5 below, a 12% change was observed for the principal’s attention to working with the school community to support student learning; supplementing teachers’ knowledge of theories of learning and cognitive development to improve teaching and learning; and, following up with teachers after they complete in-service professional development workshops or programs. 23 Table 5: Key variables related to principal’s support of teaching and learning Domain: Teaching and Learning Pre Post % change The principal… Mean q4.9 Promotes success and learning for all students (including those with difficulties and academic excellence) 3.62 4.17 15% q4.4 Emphasizes the building the student's character (cognitive, behavioral, social) in an integrated manner 3.67 4.12 12% q4.3 Works with the school community to support student learning 3.76 4.21 12% q4.2 Enhances teachers’ knowledge of theories of learning and development in order to improve teaching and learning in my school. 3.66 4.09 12% q4.6 Follows up with the professional development experiences of teachers to improve their educational practices. 3.77 4.22 12% q4.8 Provides facilities and equipment to enable teachers to implement educational strategies. 3.76 4.14 10% q4.7 Emphasizes extra-curricular activities that support student learning in the school improvement plan and its alignment with classroom activities. 3.77 4.15 10% q4.10 Supports teachers of the same subject to work cooperatively towards achieving the objectives of the integrating the curriculum. 3.81 4.17 10% q4.1 Supervises the teaching-learning practices of teachers in their classrooms. 4.02 4.33 8% q4.5 Supports the professional development of teachers by encouraging their participation in workshops. 4.09 4.33 6% gtot4 3.79 4.21 11% Discussion: These findings support the reliability of the principals’ own self-reported results. Taken together, results from the principals’ and teachers’ surveys suggest that LTD’s leadership training is contributing to improvements in the capacity of LTD principals to exercise leadership that supports areas of professional development for themselves and their teaching staff that create better conditions for improving student learning. Furthermore, the findings point to a shift towards a model of shared leadership involving key stakeholders in the school community. The framework for this model is implicit in the MoEHE’s standards for effective schools. The seven core domains of these standards form the policy basis by which shared leadership works more effectively toward achieving a sustainable, learner-centered and child-friendly school environment. In the next two sections, we present additional qualitative and quantitative findings from data about action research assignments carried out by principals in actual workplace context of the schools, particularly in the process of creating School Improvement Teams, the primary mechanism underpinning LTD’s model of shared leadership and school-based reform. 24 1.3 Leadership Training Assignments Findings: Table 6 lists 22 key assignments for action research required by principals as partial fulfillment for the Leadership Diploma. Seven out of the 22, or 31%, engage the principal in action research designed to establish mechanisms and practices that foster a sustainable model of shared leadership: Planning (the school improvement plan); Assessment (using assessment data to inform improvements in teaching and learning); School-Community Relations; and, Learning Environment. The four assignments in Module 4 are of particular importance. These were conducted over a three￾month period and resulted in the establishment of school improvement teams comprised of a principal and several teachers and parents. Each team coordinated a school-wide self-assessment process that collected and analyzed data that formed the basis for developing goals and objectives for the annual school improvement plan. Six of the 22 assignments, or 27% of the total, focus on developing the principal’s capacity to support teachers in improving teaching and learning in their classrooms. These are spread across the four domains of Technology, Assessment, Teaching and Learning, and School-Community Relations. Table 6: Action research training assignments for principals # Domain Module Leadership Assignments for Action Research 1 Planning 4 A. Write the school vision and mission statements. B. Prepare a school strategic plan. C. DLT to prepare a procedural plan and discuss it with the school teachers. D. Write a proposal for an entrepreneur project in the school improvement field. The project has to be included in the school's annual plan. 2 Technology 10 A. Conduct a meeting with school teachers in the computer lab to show them the educational websites provided to the principals during the training. Discuss with them the obstacles of using technology in the learning and teaching processes. B. Try to implement the communication-through-technology policy among the school teachers, school admin staff, and the parents. C. Conduct a poll of all students to learn how many have computers (or similar devices) and internet access at home. 3 Assessment 8 A. Prepare portfolios for students of one of the school classes that include: Cover page, introduction by the learner, index, academic results for one subject or more, achievements, and comments by the leaner, the teacher, the school principal, and the parents (if possible). B. Prepare teachers' portfolios that include their achievements. 3 A. Promote and strengthen the concept of "self-assessment" among the school team. Train the school team on using the assessment tools towards constructing a self-assessment plan. B. Conduct school self-assessment using the tools listed in the school improvement guide. 4 Teaching and Learning 6 A. Discuss the concept of "integrated curriculum" with the school teachers, and ask them to provide suggestions for implementing it. B. Ask the teachers of a subject taught at any grade level to design learning activities that accommodate the different academic levels of students. Try to measure how the goals of the lesson have been achieved to each group of students that belong to a certain academic level. 25 5 School￾Community Relations 2 A. Fill the form entitled "practices of working within a team". B. Prepare a draft terms of reference for the DLT. C. Prepare a conflict resolution plan to use with your teaching staff. Implement the plan and document the results. 5 A. Analyze the status of school-community relationships, and design an action plan to improve the relationships among the different stakeholders. 6 Learning Environment 7 A. Conduct a joint meeting between the school improvement team and the parent council to discuss the issue of "school attractiveness". B. Choose three of the child rights mentioned in the curriculum and explain how the school supports these rights. C. Choose one of the policies for effective schools in the MoEHE's five-year plan and suggest ways to implement the policy in your school. 7 Resources 9 A. Identify the material resources in your school and select one and explain how to maximize its benefit to the school (goal, procedures, evaluation). B. Assess the extent that the local community contributes to school resources: actual support and principal expectation. Discussion: LTD principals carried out their assignments using the action research inquiry cycle. This required that they focus on a particular problem of leadership in their actual workplace context and then plan and implement actions to address the problem. In each instance, the principal was required to exercise shared leadership by involving others in the school community in the collection and analysis of data, and to document the results and share these with peers in learning circles. The trend lines of change we observed from the survey results about the principals’ performance appear validated by the actions carried out by the principals in completing their action research. The assignments afforded principals multiple opportunities to question their assumptions about the “principal-in-total-control” model by actually experimenting with and documenting the benefits of engaging the whole school community in building and sustaining effective, learner-centered classrooms. The survey results are further validated by the variety of assignments intended to build the principals’ capacity to engage teachers more effectively. We see principals encouraging teachers to use educational technology; to diversify learning activities and assessments that engage all students; to give ongoing support of teachers’ professional development; and to improve school-community relations that strengthen learner-centered classrooms. The three-month focus on the principal’s efforts to lead the formation of the school improvement team lends further validation of the survey results. This labor-intensive self-assessment of school effectiveness required principals to distribute some of their “control” to teachers and parents, whose cooperation sustained the lengthy process of research, analysis and decision-making that resulted in the collective development of the annual school improvement plan. In the next section, we examine the results of our evaluation study about the critical role played by the school improvement team (SIT) as a mechanism of shared leadership. 26 1.4 School Improvement Team (SIT) Survey The SIT survey is comprised of two sets of 5-point Likert scales and several open-ended questions.3 The first set of scales includes a seven-item measure of the quality of tasks carried out by the team members in developing the school improvement plan. This is followed by a ten-item measure of the effectiveness of tasks performed during the implementation of the plan. The second set includes two seven-item “agreement” scales that measure the team members’ opinions about the effectiveness of teamwork and the overall quality of the principal’s leadership as chair of the SIT. The open-ended questions asked respondents to identify and comment on important achievements of the school team this year; challenges faced by the school team; examples of success stories of how the SIT contributed to improving school effectiveness; what the school can do to increase the effectiveness of SIT in the coming year; and, their opinion on whether the SIT is a mechanism worth implementing in other schools. These questions are discussed in detail in the subsequent section that reports on the findings of focus groups. Findings: The three groups of team members—principals, teachers and parents—rated “high” (4 out of a 5-point scale) the quality of the team’s task performance during both the development and implementation phases of the school improvement plan (Figure 7). Figure 7: Task performance of SIT team members Results of the two scales measuring teamwork and the quality of the principal’s leadership show, once again, the overall positive assessment by members of all three groups. On the teamwork scale, teachers expressed the highest level agreement regarding the effectiveness of teamwork (4.23). Parents agreed the most about the effectiveness of the principal’s leadership role (4.37), followed by 3 Each of the four scales has a Cronbach's Alpha of .840 or higher. 27 teachers (4.18), with principals also expressing agreement (4.09). Table 7 shows detailed results for the individual items on the scale of “Principal’s Leadership.” Figure 8: Effectiveness of teamwork and leadership Table 7: Indicators of the principal’s effective leadership of the SIT The principal… Principal s Teachers Parents Mean D1 Helped members of the team to complete their tasks in a timely manner. 4.07 4.15 4.25 D2 Respected the scope of work agreed upon by the team. 4.03 4.22 4.36 D3 Shared information with the rest of the team. 4.1 4.23 4.32 D4 Encouraged team members to freely express their views and opinions. 4.2 4.23 4.46 D5 Provided support for all team members. 4.13 4.15 4.43 D6 Provided feedback to team members. 4.07 4.16 4.39 D7 Effectively managed conflicting views or opinions. 4.03 4.12 4.39 Total Avg. 4.09 4.18 4.37 28 Turning briefly to the open-ended questions, the most frequently repeated comments about accomplishments and challenges faced by the school improvement teams may be summarized as follows: Achievements  Principals noted the effective use of technology in the teaching-learning process; improvements to the school learning environment; and successful efforts to complete the school self-assessment and use the results to build their strategic plan.  Teachers frequently mentioned improvements to the school learning environment; the efforts to develop the school's mission and vision; and steps to improve the use of educational technology.  Parents pointed to improved efforts to increase community participation; more attention given to improving the learning environment; and, the use of technology in the teaching-learning process. Challenges  Principals repeatedly pointed to workplace stress; lack of financial support; and the difficulty of communicating effectively with the local community.  Teachers noted the lack of sufficient financial support; finding enough time; and not enough participation from the local community.  Parents concurred with the lack of financial resources and weak participation of the local community. Discussion: Findings from the School Improvement Team (SIT) Survey provide evidence that SITs are in fact serving as a model of shared leadership. This conclusion is supported by independent evidence from teachers and parents signifying their empowerment not only to collaborate in leading a school￾wide needs assessment, but also in developing and implementing their school’s annual school improvement plan. The findings, in other words, show that while the principal’s role as lead administrator remains vital to effective school management, the principalship is being transformed as principals themselves see the efficacy of serving as “lead facilitator” in a school improvement process. Through the mechanism of the SIT, the principalship is empowered to marshal more effectively the available human and material resources from the local community to support improved teaching and learning. 1.5 School Improvement Team (SIT) Focus Groups As a final basis for testing the proposition that the SIT is helping to create a culture of shared leadership in LTD schools, we conducted a series of focus groups involving principals, teachers and parents representing 16 schools across four school districts. The following core questions guided the focus group discussions: 1) What successes and challenges were experienced while performing individual roles and responsibilities? How were challenges managed? 2) To what extent did the quality of teamwork empower participants to share their views, ideas, and contribute to decisions? 3) What elements of the School Improvement Plan were implemented and did they improve the school? What contributed to this success? 29 4) What barriers did the team face while implementing the SIP and how were they managed? These questions were answered through an analytical process involving several phases. First, full transcripts were made of each focus group and these were coded by three researchers based on a coding index derived from the research questions. Next, the results of the coding were analyzed first within each individual focus group, and then compared between two groups (e.g., principal groups #1 and principal group #2). Finally, the results were compared across the three categories—principals, teachers, and parents. Findings 1) What successes and challenges were experienced while performing individual roles and responsibilities? How were challenges managed? From the principals’ perspective, teamwork among the SIT members resulted in bringing the needs of students into sharper focus and, through data collection, added students’ voices into decision-making concerning the development of the learning environment. Two areas of improvement included the addition of extracurricular activities and greater use of technology to enhance the educational process, and more attention to learner-centered teaching methods in the classroom. One of the principals remarked, "I wanted to develop unused space in the back of the school, so we did a very simple opinion poll to elicit students’ views about what they saw missing from school. They all agreed that the school’s physical environment needed improving and we took their ideas into consideration.” Teachers recounted a variety of ways that the SITs improved the child-friendly environment at their respective schools. These included: reducing arguments and violence among students; increasing the use of educational technology in classrooms; adding to the inclusiveness student presenters during morning assemblies; improving water quality with the installation of purification unit; adding a library and laboratory; and enhancing student engagement through more active learning strategies in the classroom. A teacher recalled: "After we installed a modern IT laboratory and LTD provided us with Internet, teachers rushed to use the lab. For example you can see the Arabic teacher using YouTube for the first time. The teachers and students love how technology has added to the learning experience.” Teachers also saw improved attitudes toward school in general among teachers and students alike. Students are showing more enthusiastic school spirit during the morning assemblies and teachers are networking more and sharing ideas and resources, especially between the LTD and non-LTD teachers. This increased cooperation among the teaching staff reflects, they believe, a major change in teachers’ attitudes about the teaching profession, a change that is reinforced by improvements they are seeing in student learning and academic achievement. While there was much praise for the work of the SITs, teachers also pointed out certain aspects in need of improvement. Some teachers felt they had limited freedom in expressing their opinions. Others argued that the considerable amount of time and effort they contributed to the SIT deserved compensation in the form of incentives or credit toward promotion. And a few remarked that the work of the SIT, while mostly constructive, was sometimes compromised by the irregular attendance of some parents and a lack of commitment by some teachers. Parents commented that their participation on the SIT contributed to improving their schools in a number of ways. These included enhancing communication between parents, teachers, and students; 30 assisting in the physical restoration of the school environment; leveraging their connections to the larger community to boost fundraising and build bridges with local and international organizations to secure resources to improve student learning; contributing to the development of objectives to address the learning needs of students; and by championing ways to recognize and reward students’ accomplishments and increase their motivation to learn. Despite these achievements, parents acknowledged challenges they all faced at their respective schools, including not having sufficient information about the school budget and the allocation of funds; the slow pace of change away from the traditional teacher-centered classroom; and, having too little voice in decision-making, which they attributed to some parents not fully understanding the expectations of their roles, duties, and powers as members of the SIT. 2) To what extent did the quality of teamwork empower participants to share their views, ideas, and contribute to decisions? From the principals’ perspective, a good level of teamwork and cooperation characterized the interaction of the SIT members and most felt they could openly discuss and exchange ideas. Some teachers were so motivated by the process of collective decision-making that they willingly worked overtime to complete the development of the school improvement plan. The main threats to teamwork were when some members would defer to the authority of others during discussions or when carrying out tasks. Another challenge was when some individuals remained obstinate about their own opinions. Teachers for their part commented that they appreciated the high degree of teamwork that allowed the members to openly share and exchange ideas and to cooperate in completing tasks. One teacher explained: "My definition of School Improvement Team (SIT) is all about the spirit of working together as one team to improve teaching and learning that our principal, teachers and students are engaged in." Teachers also valued the opportunity to work closely with parents, a fact that enabled the teachers to improve communication and cooperation with parents more generally at school. Teamwork, however, wasn’t without its challenges. Some complained about the irregular attendance at meetings of some members, resulting in a less than ideal exchange of ideas and perspectives. Some teachers also expressed frustration about the occasional idleness of some teachers who would let others do most of the work. Parents held the same view as principals and teachers that the SIT created an unprecedented level of teamwork among parents, teachers, and principals. This increased their sense of ownership in the process of developing the annual improvement plan. The problem-solving orientation of the regular meetings also helped to strengthen bonds between the school and parents, resulting in school￾community efforts that helped address chronic problems at some schools such as student truancy and misconduct. 3) What elements of the School Improvement Plan were implemented and did they improve the school? What contributed to this success? Many of the principals observed that the implementation of the plan improved the use of technology in some classrooms and this, in turn, increased student engagement. 31 One principal shared this example: “Girls started using computers by themselves, and it is really wonderful to see students researching online. Our technology teacher saw an increase in student achievements in IT." Others commented that the plan helped win greater support of the local community, resulting in improved intervention to resolve problems related to the school and students; increased the frequency of parental visits; more participation from the local community to support procurement, for example the purchase of computer equipment and other items for classroom instruction. Teachers likewise observed that their school improvement plans helped boost cooperation and financial support from the local community while also supporting the principal’s efforts to empower teachers to improve their classroom practices. Focus group participants who were also LTD teachers were pleased with the alignment goals of their improvement plans with the approaches to learner-centered instruction and authentic assessment they had learned in their LTD trainings. Further examples of this alignment included: integrating educational technology; connecting curriculum content to the real￾world contexts of the local community; and applying the theory of Multiple Intelligences to lesson planning to improve differentiated instruction. One teacher recalled, "We saw that our own learner-centered training helped us reflect on how our teaching practices needed to put the student at the center of the teaching and learning process—more of a partner in learning, not just a recipient." Parents echoed many of the same examples. They were pleased that the implementation the plans often highlighted the need for continuous professional development of teachers’ practices. One aspect of improved practice was the improved capacity of teachers to diagnose misconceptions students may have about learning content and then design learning activities that address these in ways that reach the differentiated learning styles of students. Parents also observed that the implementation phase of the plan contributed to the overall learning environment of the school. In particular they gave examples of how improved communication among the main stakeholders of the school community—leadership, teachers, and parents—resulted in fewer instances of student misbehavior, more effective extracurricular activities, and a greater willingness by the local community to contribute human or financial resources. A parent remembered, "Students started to feel that the connections between the school and the local community were much better.” 4) What barriers did the team face while implementing the SIP and how were they managed? The principals spoke about a host of challenges. The most frequently discussed issues was the lack of material resources and the difficulty of trying to rely on the local community in places with a majority of low-income households, or the failure to develop effective strategies for identifying opportunities or alternative sources of community support. One of the principals reflected, "You know, the financial aspect was an obstacle. Our school is large size and there are so many needs. The curriculum is so demanding and we have so few realistic possibilities." Some principals commented that during the planning phase, their local directorate was less helpful than hoped for with regard to identifying and prioritizing goals and objectives. Other frequently mentioned obstacle was the busy work schedules of both teachers and parents that made regular attendance to meetings difficult during the normal work week. To overcome these various obstacles in the future, it was recommended that the SIT be more creative in exploring possibilities for improving schools; team 32 members need to learn how to give and receive constructive criticism; and, heads of departments in the district office should be more involved in the development phase of the school improvement plan. Teachers likewise identified the pervasive lack of human and financial resources as one of the biggest challenges to implementing school improvement plans. The usual strategy to address this problem is to appeal to the local community for contributions and hope that enough are provided to shore up some of the gaps in school budgets. Time is also a key resource in very short supply. Finding a meeting time that that accommodated all members of the team was a chronic problem given the differing schedules and heavy workloads of teachers. A typical remedy for this was to schedule meetings during lunch. For parents, too, the problem of budgetary constraints was cited a big obstacle to implementing their improvement plans, particularly in regard to extracurricular activities and the cost of purchasing educational equipment and teaching resources. Parents noted also that fundraising can be problematic as schools are prevented by the Ministry of Education from collecting donations from the local community on a regular annual basis. Finally, parents also observed that implementing those elements improvement plans focusing on improving home support for children’s learning occasionally runs up against cultural and economic barriers. The biggest one is pressure on children to help support the household economy. For some parents, making sure homework gets done is less of a priority than requiring capable children to work and contribute to the household purse. Discussion: Limited financial resources notwithstanding, the many stories of successes or of strategies for easing challenges faced in the development and implementation of school improvement plans paint a picture of the SIT as an emergent structure of shared leadership. In the role of chief facilitator, the principal is still the lead decision-maker, but the making of decisions is now a collaborative process that involves coordinated actions to identify needs, collect and analyze data, prioritize goals and objectives against available resources, and implement and monitor activities. Evidence from the focus groups indicates also that the SIT is creating a space that strengthens the social capital of the principalship. The SIT, in other words, appears to be empowering the principalship to more effectively, and democratically, marshal strategic human and financial resources of the school community in ways that help build the kind of learner-centered and child-friendly environment that all stakeholders desire. 33 2 To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teachers to enact learner-centered approaches and strategies? 2.1 Teacher Effectiveness Survey (Teacher’s form) Findings: The survey was constructed on the MoEHE’s official competencies for effective teacher performance. The survey consists of seven domains, each comprised of a set of competencies that forms a 5-point proficiency scale ranging from “Very low” to “Very high.” Figure 9 presents the chief results of the survey. Substantive changes are evident in all seven domains from a self-reported “moderate” in all categories at the start of the training program in March 2013 to “high” by completion of training in May 2014. Teachers reported the biggest changes (table 8) in their capacity to design and use of learning materials and resources (25%) and offer supportive counseling and guidance for learners (24%). These were followed seeking continuous professional development (21%), contributing to a safe and effective learning environment (18%), facilitating student-centered teaching and learning (18%), effective assessment of student learning (17%), and building partnerships inside and outside the school community (17%). Figure 9: Results of teacher effectiveness survey Results in Table 8 of eight survey items specifically measuring discreet competencies associated with learner-centered practices show an average change of 21%. Big changes are seen in teachers’ 34 competencies in helping students develop 21st century learning skills: critical thinking (27% improvement) and engaging students in group learning activities (25% improvement). Table 8: Changes in teachers’ learner-centered practices In my role as a teacher, I… Mean % change Domain Pre Post Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning 1.8 Use activities to promote critical thinking 3.23 4.10 27% 1.7 Use activities to enhance participatory learning among students 3.39 4.24 25% 1.6 Organize extracurricular activities designed to support student learning 3.50 4.31 23% 1.5 Clarify with students intended learning outcomes. 3.41 4.19 23% 1.4 Design learning outcomes aligned with the learning standards of the curriculum 3.47 4.24 22% 1.1 Take into account individual learning differences among students 3.58 4.23 18% 1.2 Take into account the students' prior knowledge and skills 3.78 4.42 17% 1.3 Build lesson and unit plans taking into account different learning styles of students 3.89 4.43 14% Total Avg. 3.53 4.27 21% 2.2 Principals’ assessment of Teacher Effectiveness Results: In Figure 10, principals report substantive growth across all domains of teacher competencies. They report significant change in their teachers’ capacity to seek continuous professional development, representing a 32% change over the course of the LTD program, followed closely by building partnerships inside and outside the school community (29%), and then by facilitating student-centered teaching and learning (25%). 35 Figure 10: Improvement in teachers’ competencies as reported by principals In Table 9, results of survey items specifically measuring principals’ assessment of discreet teaching competencies associated with learner-centered practices show an average change of 27%. Table 9: Improvements in teachers’ learner-centered competencies as reported by principals Mean Domain The LTD teachers… Pre Post % change Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning 1.7 Use activities to promote critical thinking 2.94 3.84 31% 1.6 Use activities to enhance participatory learning among students 3.08 4.02 31% 1.8 Organize extracurricular activities designed to support student learning 2.99 3.87 29% 1.5 Clarify with students intended learning outcomes. 3.05 3.87 27% 1.4 Design learning outcomes aligned with the learning standards of the curriculum 3.12 3.92 26% 1.2 Take into account individual learning differences among students 3.24 4.05 25% 1.3 Takes into account the students' prior knowledge and skills 3.31 4.10 24% 1.1 Builds lesson and unit plans taking into account different learning styles of students 3.27 4.05 24% Total Avg. 3.12 3.96 27% 36 Discussion: Teachers’ self-reported assessments indicate very positive movement in the direction of putting into practice competencies associated with learner-centered teaching. Results of the principals’ evaluation of their LTD teachers strongly support this conclusion. LTD’s interventions contributed to this positive trend in three respects. First, the national cadre of teacher educators who delivered the teacher trainings were themselves beneficiaries of the LTD training-of-trainer program, the Teacher Educator Enhancement Program (TEEP). The TEEP program prepared them to enact and model the same learner-centered instructional and assessment practices the teachers themselves were expected to enact in their classrooms. Second, the curriculum of the 12- module teacher education curriculum designed by LTD and implemented by NIET is anchored in the principles of learner-centered professional development. Finally, the learning assessments of the training curriculum required the teachers to identify and conduct action research on problems of practice in the authentic context of their classrooms. The following section presents findings from data collected about the impact of action research on improving teachers’ practices. 2.3 Action Research How beneficial was doing action research to the teachers’ professional development? To what extent did action research improve teachers’ capacity to enhance students’ learning? How difficult was it to conduct action research? Was it worth the time and effort? These questions framed the evaluation of the action research inquiry cycle. A note about evaluation methods: Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the evaluation of the impact of the action research inquiry cycle on teachers’ professional development and teaching practices. Quantitative data was collected from a sample of sixty-two teachers between February and June 2014. The researcher was a university instructor who was also one of the trainers for the math teachers, and 68% of the respondents (42 teachers) comprised a convenience sample of math teachers participating in monthly face-to-face trainings. The remaining 25% of the respondents (20 teachers) were selected also from a convenience sample of teachers who attended the TEEP conference in Ramallah on June 25, 2014. The survey instrument is divided into two domains: perceived benefits to professional development and to students’ learning; and, perceived challenges in conducting action research inquiry cycle. The questions use a 5-point Likert-scale agreement scale (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). The survey also included three open-ended questions designed to explore how doing action research changed specific teaching practices, improved students’ learning, and contributed to their overall professional development. Qualitative data was collected from evidence documented by teachers based on action research projects completed in their classrooms as part of their LTD assignments. The selection of projects was drawn from the convenience sample of teachers who attended the TEEP conference in Ramallah on June 25, 2014. Findings Results of the action research survey assessed the benefits and challenges faced by teachers in carrying out action research. Table 10 shows items in the first section of the survey addressed the benefits of action research to professional development and student learning. The means of the 13 questions ranged from 3.97 to 4.42, with the overall mean response totaling 4.23, indicating solid agreement that doing action research contributed to improving both the teachers’ professional development and students’ learning. 37 Table 10: Action research and student learning Benefits to Professional Development and Student Learning Mean (n=62) Std. Dev. A10 I have become a better reflective practitioner. 4.42 0.71 A13 My satisfaction with the development of my teaching practices increased. 4.40 0.69 A2 My level of self-confidence in my professional practice increased. 4.31 0.59 A8 The benefits from doing action research were well worth the time and effort. 4.31 0.72 A9 My motivation to improve my problems of practice increased. 4.30 0.76 A11 My ability to identify the educational needs of students improved. 4.24 0.69 A6 The action research I completed benefited my students' learning. 4.23 0.67 A12 Sharing my reflections with peers in learning circle’s increased my capacity to take informed actions to improve my teaching. 4.21 0.66 A3 My goals for improving my practice were achieved. 4.19 0.72 A7 Doing action research allowed me to share experiences with fellow teachers who teach the same subject. 4.19 0.85 A4 The use of action research increased my ability to address my problems of practice. 4.11 0.79 A5 Doing action research increased opportunities for me to include my students and peers in my professional development. 4.08 0.71 A1 My capacity to identify my problems of practice improved. 3.97 0.72 TotA 4.23 0.45 The implicit theory of change in action research is that if a teacher increases her capacity to identify her problems of practice and her students’ needs, then taking action in the classroom will result in improved student learning. Four survey items in particular are worth looking at in detail as they pertain to this theory of change:  The use of action research increased my ability to address my problems of practice  My ability to identify the educational needs of students improved  The use of action research increased my ability to address my problems of practice.  The action research I completed benefited my students' learning. Figure 11 shows that eighty-five percent of more of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with these statements. 38 Figure 11: Impact of action research on in-service teachers’ professional development Table 11 shows the 10-item scale in the second section of the survey addressed the challenges teachers faced in doing action research. The scale used a 5-point “difficulty” scale to rate each task (1= Very easy, 2= Easy, 3= Neutral, 4=Difficult, 5= Very Difficult). An average of 2 would thus indicate the task was easy, while anything above a 3 would suggest increasing difficulty. As seen in the figure, the results cluster around 2, indicating the tasks were not difficult to carry out. 39 Table 11: Challenges Challenges to Doing Action Research Mean Std. Dev. B2 Finding literature relevant to my particular problems of practice. 2.48 0.97 B1 Identifying a problem of practice. 2.34 0.94 B8 Finding enough time to complete the research. 2.19 0.99 B3 Identifying the steps in carrying out action research. 2.02 0.88 B7 Writing up my action research report. 2.02 0.98 B4 Ensuring quality (reliability) of the data I collect. 1.93 0.85 B5 Analyzing and interpreting the data I collect. 1.89 0.89 B9 Cost of doing action research. 1.89 0.96 B10 Sharing the results with a critical friend. 1.89 1.05 B6 Organizing and drawing conclusions from the results. 1.84 0.91 Total Avg. 2.05 0.62 Discussion: These results strongly suggest that LTD teachers effectively developed and achieved competency in carrying out the multiple stages of doing action research in their classrooms in order to document, reflect, interpret and revised their strategies in an on-going inquiry cycle (figure __, above). It bears emphasizing, too, that the teachers did not conduct action research in a silo. On the contrary, they developed their action research plans and shared feedback about the results with fellow LTD teachers during learning circles held bi-monthly in LTD schools. Importantly, the results also suggest that action research, as a tool for continuous and reflective professional development, has helped LTD teachers to improve their ability to identify and diagnose discreet learning needs and challenges facing students. The key implication of this change is that rather than wait for the results episodic quizzes or tests, LTD teachers now perceive the classroom as a “laboratory” where their daily interaction with students offers an authentic source of immediate data by which to assess and modify their teaching practices to better meet the learning needs of their students. 2.4 Review of Selected Action Research Projects Over the course of 12 face-to-face trainings delivered by NIET between March 2013 and May 2014, some 411 teachers each conducted at least one action research project per module in his/her classroom. This translates into almost 5,000 action research projects conducted in classrooms for Arabic, English, mathematics, science, and technology education in 88 LTD schools of Cohort 1. It is beyond the scope of this report to present an analysis of such a large number of projects. However, a convenience sample of 16 projects presented at a conference was selected to serve as illustrative case studies (Table 12). These projects were conducted by teachers whose students are in grades 5-10 in the following subjects: Arabic (4 projects); English (2 projects); mathematics (3 projects); science (5 projects); and technology education (2 projects). 40 Table 12: Sample of action research projects Arabic Focus of Problem of Practice Teacher’s Classroom Intervention (Action Research) Impact on Student Learning 1. Students' mixing formal Arabic and colloquial Arabic in the classroom Introduced a monitoring system for students to reflect on their speech in different learning contexts; coordinated with teachers of other subjects to use the monitoring through cross-disciplinary cooperation. The percentage of correct use of formal Arabic increased from 50% to 70%. 2. Health risks for students Students formed groups and developed anti-smoking campaigns through outreach with local community. Increased teamwork, communication skills, and leadership. 3. Slow reading and reading comprehension Groups of students assigned authentic performance tasks involving reading and receiving feedback. Increase in students’ reading of books, stories and newspaper articles; use of portfolios resulted in increased students interest in creative writing. 4. Difficulty identifying and summarizing main ideas Teacher designed lessons based on Multiple Intelligence theory and created learning activities and assessments giving students more flexibility to engage in learning. Proficiency in summarizing main ideas increased through the use of concept mapping and other types of graphic organizers. English Focus of Problem of Practice Teacher’s Classroom Intervention (Action Research) Impact on Student Learning 5. Low reading comprehension Applied Multiple Intelligence theory to learning activities; teacher modeled pre￾reading strategies to help students read more deeply and reflectively. Scores on tests of reading comprehension improved; increased vocabulary; 6. Addressing differentiated learning styles Introduced project-based learning and assessments: project aimed at establishing an "English Club" for students; students engaged with school administration and local community organizations. Students improved collaborative learning skills; increased use of design thinking; improved leadership skills; success of English club project boosted motivation. Mathematics Focus of Problem of Practice Teacher’s Classroom Intervention (Action Research) Impact on Student Learning 7. Bullying students with disabilities (Bullying of a student with a speech impediment triggered a school wide initiative to educate students and the larger school community about tolerance and respect for people with disabilities.) Project-based service learning: students organized an awareness campaign framed by World Disabled Day; teacher organized other teachers to engage parents and a local speech therapy center; students developed ground rules for respecting students with disabilities and posted these in all classrooms. Reported incidents of bullying decreased; improved child-friendly culture in the school community; students' attitudes and beliefs about the value of community organizing enhanced. 41 8. Difficult math concepts. Employed drama, stories, songs, and poems in math class, and connected students' learning to real-world contexts. Increased student attentiveness and engagement during math classes. 9. Working with fractions. Introduced games allowing students more freedom to explore and learn math concepts more collaboratively. Quiz and test scores showed improvements in previously troublesome operations with fractions. Science Focus of Problem of Practice Teacher’s Classroom Intervention (Action Research) Impact on Student Learning 10. Underdeveloped research skills. Group project-based assessment focusing on Thalassemia, an inherited blood disorder found in the local community, and which is taught in different courses of the school wide curriculum. Improved conceptual and practical understanding about both quantitative and qualitative research methods (interviewing teachers with knowledge about Thalassemia); increased awareness of how research can inform change: data collected by students were used by teachers to create inter￾disciplinary integrated lesson plans about the disease and its impact on the local community. 11. Service learning. Integration of project-based learning and research methods; goal: to increase public awareness about the blood disease Thalassemia; Students' understanding of the science behind the disease increased; improved research schools and academic writing; improved attitudes about the value of community service: students interviewed a local health worker about the disease, developed a case study, and produced and disseminated an informational booklet in the school and local community about the importance of blood screening before marriage. 12. Making connections between chemistry and the local community. Introduced group-based project and authentic assessment (rubrics); project goal: using chemistry concepts to produce hand soap. Results of rubric evaluation and other conventional assessments indicated improved student understanding of chemistry concepts and their relevance to everyday lives. 13. Connecting theory and practice in science class. Introduction of assessment activities to help teacher assess students' prior knowledge and identify misconceptions about targeted science concepts and ideas; teacher augmented lectures with hands-on activities and assessments. Scores on classroom assessments increased. 14. Weak academic performance in science. Introduction of collaborative problem solving and authentic assessment to help students connect science concepts to local environmental problems. Results of formal and informal assessments indicated improved understanding of science concepts and their application outside the classroom. Technology Education 42 Focus of Problem of Practice Teacher’s Classroom Intervention (Action Research) Impact on Student Learning 15. Making connections between technology and real-world problems. Project-based learning task using IT to improve the lending system of the school library; goal of project: writing a computer program using Visual Basic to create user accounts to track books borrowed by students and teachers from school library. Motivation to learn increased; improved capacity to work cooperatively to solve problems; development of higher order thinking skills; pride in having contributed to their school's vision of reducing consumption of ink and paper by rationalizing the library's lending system. 16. Misconceptions about agricultural technology and nomenclature. Introduction of project-based learning and assessment strategies using the “GRASPS” method to design authentic role playing and problem solving that allow learners to monitor their own progress; goal of project: making a school garden. Students improved their research and collaborative learning skills by networking with local farmers and others in the local community in order to research information and advice for designing and implementing their projects. Discussion: This selective review of action research projects shows a diverse range of problems of practice, classroom interventions, and learning outcomes. Even though only 16 projects are represented out of the thousands that were done, one can find in them elements of virtually all seven major domains of professional competencies demanded by the MoEHE for quality teaching. In addition to the domain, “Seeking Continuous Professional Development,” we find direct evidence of teachers:  Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning (#s 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16);  Designing and using teaching/learning materials and resources (#s 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16);  Assessing and evaluating the teaching/learning process and its outcomes (#s 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16);  Contributing to a safe and effective learning environment in the school (#s 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16);  Providing counseling and guidance for learners (#s 2, 7); and,  Strengthening partnerships within and outside the school (#s 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16) What can we infer about the impact on student learning from this tiny sample of action research projects? Across the 5 subject areas, we see students more deeply engaged in the curriculum content, concepts, higher order thinking and reasoning skills, and social values of local and global citizenship than most students are likely experiencing in classrooms of most non-LTD teachers. To lend further explore this claim, we now present findings from the Classroom Engagement Survey. 43 2.5 Classroom Engagement Survey To cross-check findings from the Teacher Effectiveness Survey and our analysis of action research, a sample of students from classes taught by LTD teachers from 40 Cohort 1 schools were surveyed to assess the extent their classroom engagement reflects learner-centered practices and assessments. To test the validity of the students’ responses, we cross-check the results against data collected from teachers who filled out the same survey. Items on the questionnaire were divided into four scales: 1) General satisfaction with the learning environment of the school 2) Learner-centered classroom instruction 3) Use of IT at home 4) Personal security, such as bullying and threats or injury from physical violence (from other students or adults in the school). Findings: For our purpose in exploring possible connections between LTD training on improving teachers’ use of learner-centered, active learning practices in the classroom, the survey items measuring learner-centered classroom instruction are most important. We classified the 20 items comprising the scale into four categories corresponding to what are popularly known as 21st Century Learning Skills, namely: communication; collaboration; critical thinking; and, creativity. The questions use a 5-point Likert-scale agreement scale (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). In Figure 12, results of student survey (figure 12) show that compared to students in classes taught by non-LTD teachers, students taught by LTD teachers appear to evaluate the learning and assessment activities in their classrooms as slightly more learner-centered. Differences between the two types of classrooms across the four categories of learning skills include 2% in the area of critical thinking, to 3% for communication and collaboration skills, and 5% for creativity. Figure 12: Students’ assessment of the classroom learning environment 44 While these numbers point to only modest differences, the large sample size of students allows us to use a statistical test to see if the means between the two groups. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare total “learner-centered” scores for LTD and non-LTD classrooms and there is a significant difference in scores between the two types of classrooms. 4 Table 13 shows the results. Table 13: Independent t-test comparing means of student data from LTD and non-LTD schools Results of the teacher survey in Figure 13 show that the comparison between classes taught by LTD and non-LTD teachers appear to suggest a slightly higher “learner-centered” description of classroom practices by non-LTD teachers, with the differences ranging between 2 to 3%. Figure 13: Teachers’ assessment of the classroom learning environment 4 p = .000, two-tailed. 45 However, we ran an independent-samples t-test and the results indicate that there is no significant difference in scores between the two types of classrooms. 5 Table 14 shows the results. Table 14: Independent t-test comparing means of teacher data from LTD and non-LTD schools What this statistical test tells us is that the apparent difference between the means of the two groups may be due to chance. In other words, if we were to re-administer the survey again to compare the two groups of teachers, the difference might turn out just the opposite. The reasons for this may be the result of sampling or measurement error. Because of this outcome, we believe that the findings from the students’ evaluation of the learner-centered quality of their classroom experiences are more reliable than those of their teachers. Regarding the availability and use of IT at home, a little over 80% of the LTD students reported they have computers at home and about 60% indicated they also have Internet access. Nearly two-thirds of the students (63%) reported using a computer at home to do homework either often (19%) or sometimes (44%); and 65% report that they use a computer to supplement what they learn in the classroom often (24%) or sometimes (41%). With regard to questions about personal security, the data were intended allow for inferences on whether LTD might be contributing in some way toward reducing student misconduct. Unfortunately this variable proved highly unreliable. We suspect that students found it difficult to distinguish between simple mischief and teasing and deliberate bullying. Moreover, since we did not have a baseline, we could not reliably draw inferences as to the extent LTD may have contributed to improvements in the personal security inside the school. Nonetheless, the data may be used as a potential “baseline” by which to compare with follow-up research on Cohort 1 schools and for comparison with the next cohort of schools. 2.6 Technology for Leadership, Instruction, and Professional Development LTD seeks to enhance the quality of teaching and learning and improve administrative school functions by providing IT equipment and technology capacity building to schools, including the provision of laptops, LCD projectors, and internet routers, Ultimately, LTD’s aim is to support the MOEHE's capacity to meet its education technology standards in 300 LTD schools through the provision of internet connectivity and other IT related hardware. Results: In general, the results of the three surveys described above—Principal Effectiveness Survey, Teacher Effectiveness Survey, and Classroom Engagement Survey—provide evidence of LTD’s 5 p = .206, two-tailed. 46 contribution to increasing the competency of both principals and teachers to use technology resources more effectively. The survey of principal's use of Technology shows an increase in using technology by principals after participating in LTD where the average increased from 3.45 to reach 4.62. Besides that, the principals' use, encouragement, and strengthening of technology in different educational activities, in research and in professional development rated 4 or above on a 5-point scale. The principals’ capacity to use technology as a means of communications between principals and teachers, between school and parents, between school and Ministry of Education, and in managing the school Website improved increased 35% by the end of their LTD leadership training (Figure 14). Figure 14: Technology and school leadership In Figure 15, teachers report increases across the board in their use of technology for enhancing teaching and learning, in researching subjects they teach, and in their professional development. Survey results (based in a frequency scale from 1=rarely to 5=always) indicate that teachers’ use of technology in the classroom and for professional development rose from 3.5 to 4.3 after their participation in LTD, an increase of 21%. 47 Figure 15: Technology for improved teaching and learning Finally, teachers’ responses on the Classroom Engagement Survey point to no real difference between LTD and control schools, 4.06 and 4.12 respectively. However, students’ responses to the same questions about their teachers’ use of technology in the classroom indicate that LTD teachers are more likely than non-LTD teachers to integrate technology in classroom instruction, 3.56 versus 3.31 respectively. Discussion: These results indicate that LTD’s provision of technology resources and training to both school leadership and teachers contributed to improvements in school effectiveness inside and outside the classroom. Most notably, principals show greater confidence and competence in using technology not only to facilitate school management, but are more supportive of teachers’ integration of technology in their classrooms. Likewise, teachers are more competent in using technology as a tool for their own continuing professional development. This is corroborated by students in LTD schools who, compared to non-LTD schools, report more use of technology in their classrooms. 2.7 Standardized Tests of Achievement In an attempt to explore whether the LTD model of teacher professional development improves student academic achievement, AMIDESAST is working with the Ministry of Education’s Assessment and Evaluation Department to administer a series of achievement exams in the four subjects of Arabic, English, math and science to students in grades 6, 7, 8, and 10 in some 300 LTD schools in the West Bank. Our theory of change assumes that student achievement will improve if teachers enact the knowledge and skills learned in their LTD professional development delivered by NIET. There are two major caveats, however. The first is that LTD cannot control for the many variables—psychological, social, cultural, economic, political—that may impinge on a teacher’s in-service learning or on a student’s learning inside and outside the classroom. 48 The second is the well-established fact that the impact of professional development on student achievement (as measured by standardized tests) may take several years before measurable improvements are perceptible. The third is measurement error due to the unreliability of the design of the test instruments themselves. That is, test of achievement in a teacher-centered classroom rely more on student recall of facts (reliance on lower-order thinking skills) than on alternative forms of assessment that measure not only factual recall but also critical thinking and problem-solving in collaborative contexts (i.e., higher order thinking skills). The shift from a traditional teacher-centered context to the LTD model of a learner￾centered classroom entails learning activities and alternative assessments that convention paper-and￾pencil, multiple-choice testing are not designed to assess reliably. That scores on conventional tests of achievement would drop is not entirely unexpected. Given these caveats, LTD worked with AED to design a testing protocol to be administered over a three￾year period (Figure 16). The plan is for AED to administer a battery of achievement tests to three cohorts of students (grades 5-10 in Arabic, English, mathematics, and science) in three phases: a pre-test (baseline) at the start of their teachers' LTD training, followed by a post-test at the end of the one-year training, and finally a second post-test ("ex-post") test a year later. Figure 16: Timeframe for AED/LTD tests of academic achievement To pilot this effort with Cohort 1, AED administered pre-post exams to over 400 students from a sample of 16 LTD schools in the four districts of Ramallah, South Hebron, Jenin, and Qabatiyah. The pre-test (baseline) was administered in October 2013 and the post-test in May 2014. This pilot also attempted to test the use of a quasi-experimental design by including a sample of 16 non￾LTD schools for comparison. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the means of the two groups. The results indicated there was no statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups. That is to say, the apparent difference between the means of the two groups may be due to chance, rendering the reliability of comparing the two groups highly doubtful. Put simply, when selecting the control schools we did not know enough about the characteristics of the teachers and students to presume they were reasonably “equivalent” to the LTD schools. The results of the independent￾samples t-test clearly bears out this weakness in our design. For this reason, we are presenting the results of the baseline and posttest scores for only the LTD schools in the pilot study. 49 Results: Scores of achievement in all four subjects taught by LTD teachers showed improvement (Figure 17). Arabic improved 9.4%; English by 12.6%; mathematics by 33.4%; and, science by 26.3%. Figure 17: Results of AED tests of achievement, Cohort 1 schools Discussion: The results suggest that LTD training of teachers may be contributing to the improved students learning as measured on standardized tests. By “contributing” to the changes, we are saying that we cannot attribute causality between LTD’s interventions with teachers and student academic achievement. The reason for this is that it was beyond the capacity of LTD’s resources to expose teachers to intervention and control conditions under precisely the same circumstances at exactly the same time. Despite this limitation, we are confident that these results, taken in light of data collected from the variety of other quantitative and qualitative sources described earlier, allow us to infer that LTD’s impact on the improvement of teachers’ capacity to enact learner-centered approaches and strategies are contributing to improved students learning outcomes. 50 2.8 District Unified Tests of Achievement As an additional source of data to triangulate results of the above results of standardized tests of achievement, LTD requested from the MoEHE scores of the district-wide Unified Tests given at the end of each semester of the school year (December and May). The results, however, should not be construed as drawn from wholly reliable data. On the contrary, persons in the Ministry of Education with expert knowledge of the methods and procedures how the tests are administered and scored admit confidentially they do not consider them reliable. The districts collect the data and there is no systematic quality control. Moreover, it is widely believed that data get manipulated at the school level to show improved scores. Results: Test scores of LTD school are higher than those of non-LTD schools in the same district in May 2014 at the completion of the teachers’ LTD training (Figure 18). Figure 18: Endline results of Unified Tests of achievement for LTD schools only (May 2014) Discussion: While the May 2014 results may be construed as promising and may prove useful as a “baseline” for continued monitoring of LTD’s impact on students’ academic achievement with respect to future cohorts of teachers, the previously mentioned caveats cast serious doubts on the wisdom of using the scores to evaluate LTD. In sum, attempting to use of Unified Test scores to draw inferences about the impact of an in-server professional development program is highly flawed and risks making wholly erroneous inferences. Any future use of Unified Test scores should be done with extreme caution, or abandoned completely unless the quality of test administration and data entry can be strengthened and guaranteed. 51 3 To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of teacher educators to model learner-centered approaches and practices? 3.1 Training Satisfaction Survey LTD’s chief partner in the MoEHE, NIET, distributed a satisfaction survey to teachers (trainees) at the conclusion of each monthly F2F training module. The themes, big ideas and major pedagogical approaches are unified across the 12 modules; each module, however, is tailored to the specific content area of the teachers: Arabic, English, math, science, and technology education. The satisfaction survey assesses the participants’ agreement with a set of statements grouped into six domains: learning outcomes; training content; training methods and activities; administrative matters; physical amenities; and assessments. The survey used a 4-point Likert agreement scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree). NIET trainers collected and entered the data and then shared cleaned data files with LTD. For our evaluation purposes, the best indicators of the teachers’ assessment of the quality of the trainers’ modeling of learner-centered practices are 1) training methods and activities, and, 2) assessments methods and activities.  Six items comprise the scale of training methods and activities. These cover the following: using a variety of learning activities; balancing theory and practice; use of active learning and learner￾centered techniques; integration of educational technology and new media; facilitating critical thinking; and transferability to classroom contexts.  Five questions comprise the scale of training assessment methods, and these items cover: using a variety of assessment methods; selecting appropriate assessment activities; employing continuous assessment; providing continuous feedback; allowing sufficient time to complete all assessment activities. Findings: On average the in-service teachers agreed (3.16 on the 4-point scale) that the delivery of training methods/activities and the use of assessment methods/activities (3.11 out of 4) were effective (Table 17). Table 15: Teachers’ evaluation of training methods and activities, NIET teacher trainings Training Methods and Activities Module Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Math 3.19 3.21 3.19 3.14 3.14 3.24 3.15 3.19 3.25 3.20 3.15 3.28 Science 3.25 3.26 3.02 3.27 3.34 3.20 3.25 3.38 3.35 3.30 3.43 3.33 Arabic 3.28 3.18 3.20 3.18 3.19 3.21 3.16 3.03 3.05 3.10 3.05 3.15 English 3.02 3.12 3.09 3.08 3.04 3.02 3.05 3.03 2.83 2.95 3.00 2.97 Technology Ed 3.16 3.16 3.18 3.13 3.13 3.09 3.12 3.13 3.13 3.18 3.15 3.25 Total Avg. 3.18 3.18 3.14 3.16 3.17 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.12 3.15 3.16 3.19 52 Table 18 shows that scores for training methods/activities remained fairly constant throughout the entire period, but there was an increase of 3% for assessment methods/activities over the duration of the 12 modules. Table 16: Teachers’ evaluation of assessment methods and activities, NIET teacher trainings Assessment Methods and Activities Module Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Math 3.12 3.13 3.03 3.02 3.01 3.19 3.13 3.17 3.23 3.23 3.15 3.25 Science 3.22 3.20 3.09 3.11 3.24 3.19 3.21 3.34 3.40 3.27 3.37 3.33 Arabic 3.08 3.16 3.10 3.05 3.11 3.19 3.08 3.13 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.08 English 2.96 2.98 2.95 2.94 3.04 2.98 2.97 3.04 2.87 2.93 2.93 3.07 Technology Ed 3.05 3.06 3.10 3.05 3.10 3.01 3.12 3.08 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.15 Total Avg. 3.08 3.10 3.05 3.03 3.10 3.11 3.10 3.15 3.14 3.12 3.13 3.17 Discussion: We can infer from these results indicate that in general the teacher educators (i.e., university faculty consultants participating in LTD’s Teacher Educator Enhancement Program, or TEEP) were successfully enacting learner-centered learning and assessment methods and activities. An important implication of this is that the university instructors who were successfully suspended their teacher-centered habit of lecturing that prevails in most university classrooms and adopted instead the learner-centered approaches and strategies expected in the monthly face-to-face trainings there were delivering. It bears mentioning that the increase in the teachers’ rating of the trainers’ use of effective assessment methods and activities in a learner-centered context may reflect the TEEP participants’ use of the action research inquiry cycle. The trainers used action research to identify and take action to improve problems of practice they identified while delivering the trainings. In other words, the added value of using action research as a reflective tool for their own formative assessment is that it focuses the trainers’ attention on the impact their practices are having on the learning of the in-service teachers. 3.2 Action Research How beneficial was doing action research to the professional development of the teacher educators? To what extent did action research improve their capacity to enhance the teachers’ capacity to enact learner-centered practices in their classrooms? How difficult was it to conduct action research? Was it worth the time and effort? These questions framed the evaluation of the action research inquiry cycle. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the evaluation of the impact of the action research inquiry cycle on teachers’ professional development and teaching practices. The survey instrument is divided into two domains: perceived benefits to professional development and to students’ learning; and, perceived challenges in conducting action research inquiry cycle. The questions use a 5-point Likert-scale agreement scale (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). The survey also included three open-ended questions designed to explore how doing action research changed specific teaching practices, improved students’ learning, and contributed to their overall professional development. Qualitative data was collected from evidence documented by teachers based on action research projects completed in their classrooms as part of their LTD assignments. The selection of projects was 53 drawn from the convenience sample of teachers who attended the TEEP conference in Ramallah on June 25, 2014. Findings: Items in the first section of the survey addressed the benefits of action research to professional development and student learning (Table 19). The means of the 13 questions ranged from 3.77 to 4.35, with the overall mean response totaling 4.23, indicating solid agreement that doing action research contributed to improving both the teachers’ professional development and students’ learning. Table 17: Impact of action research on trainers’ professional development and teachers’ learning Benefits to Professional Development and Teachers Mean (n=26) Std. Dev. A10 I have become a better reflective practitioner. 4.35 0.94 A8 The benefits from doing action research were well worth the time and effort. 4.27 0.87 A1 My capacity to identify my problems of practice improved. 4.23 0.91 A3 My goals for improving my practice were achieved. 4.15 0.93 A9 My motivation to improve my problems of practice increased. 4.15 0.97 A11 My ability to identify the educational needs of students improved. 4.15 0.88 A12 Sharing my reflections with peers in learning circles increased my capacity to take informed actions to improve my teaching. 4.15 0.83 A6 The action research I completed benefited my trainees' learning. 4.08 0.80 A13 My satisfaction with the development of my teaching practices increased. 4.08 0.89 A2 My level of self-confidence in my professional practice increased. 4.04 0.82 A5 Doing action research increased opportunities for me to include my trainees and peers in my professional development. 4.00 0.89 A7 Doing action research allowed me to share experiences with fellow teachers who teach the same subject. 3.85 0.97 A4 The use of action research increased my ability to address my problems of practice. 3.77 0.86 TotA 4.10 0.89 The implicit theory of change in action research is that if a teacher educator increases her capacity to identify her problems of practice and trainees’ needs, then taking action in the training context will result in improved professional growth. Four questions in particular are worth looking at in detail as they pertain to this theory of change: 1) The use of action research increased my ability to address my problems of practice; 2) My ability to identify the educational needs of trainees improved; 3) The use of action research increased my ability to address my problems of practice; and, 4) The action research I completed benefited my trainees’ learning. Figure 20 shows that a strong majority of respondents (over 77%) agreed or strongly agreed with these statements. 54 Figure 19: Link between trainers’ action research and teachers’ professional growth How difficult was it to conduct action research? This question was addressed using a 10-itme scale to identify obstacles the trainers may have experienced while conducting key tasks associated with action research. The scale used a 5-point “difficulty” scale to rate each task (1= Very easy, 2= Easy, 3= Neutral, 4=Difficult, 5= Very Difficult). Thus an average of 2 would indicate the task was easy and anything above 3 would suggest increasing difficulty. As seen in Table 19, the results cluster around 2, indicating the tasks were not difficult to carry out. Table 18: Challenges Challenges to Doing Action Research Mean Std. Deviation B3 Identifying the steps in carrying out action research. 1.77 0.82 B6 Organizing and drawing conclusions from the results. 1.77 0.95 B5 Analyzing and interpreting the data I collect. 1.81 0.94 B9 Cost of doing action research. 1.85 0.88 B7 Writing up my action research report. 1.88 0.99 B4 Ensuring quality (reliability) of the data I collect. 1.92 0.94 B10 Sharing the results with a critical friend. 1.92 1.09 B2 Finding literature relevant to my particular problems of practice. 2.08 0.85 B1 Identifying a problem of practice. 2.27 0.87 B8 Finding enough time to complete the research. 2.31 0.93 TotB 1.96 0.57 55 Qualitative Evaluation of Action Research Over the course of the year-long TEEP program, the 44 participants (19 faculty consultants and 25 NIET trainers) conducted, on average, 4 projects each totaling some 170 in all. It was beyond the scope of the evaluation to conduct an exhaustive qualitative analysis of such a large number of projects. Instead, a purposive sample of 36 projects was selected from portfolios of professional practice submitted by the university consultants. These consultants were hired by NIET to deliver the monthly face-to-face modules to 411 in-service teachers; they, along with 24 NIET trainers, comprised the candidates for the MoEHE’s National Cadre of Teacher Educators.  Twenty-three of the 36 projects (64%) identified problems of practice associated with diagnosing and addressing in-service teachers’ own misconceptions in the subject matter they teach (e.g., math or science concepts, or rules of grammar and syntax in Arabic or English).  Eleven projects (30%) addressed problems of practice in the context of pre-service courses that the faculty taught in addition to their monthly delivery of F2F sessions for NIET.  Several other projects focused on using technology to create “virtual” learning circles to help in￾service teachers network and communicate and exchange ideas and feedback with each other and with their learning circle facilitators. Each of the 36 projects included results of a self-assessment rubric used by the trainers to evaluate their capacity to conduct action research effectively. On average, the trainers rated their mastery of action research at a level of 83% in the following skills:  Stating the problem of practice and learning goals  Articulating a plan of action which includes the concrete teaching and learning activities  Articulating a plan of action which includes data collection strategies  Taking action and collecting data  Documenting the process  Assessing and evaluating the problem of practice  Reflecting upon and documenting how the AR cycle helped achieve the teaching goals as well as state next steps for future action Discussion: These results provide corroborating evidence that the action research inquiry cycle played a significant role in helping teacher educators increase their capacity to identify problems of practice in the specificity of in-service teacher training. By reflecting critically on their own problems of practice, the teacher educators demonstrated their improved capacity to: identify and assess the needs of the teachers prior to and during the training sessions; check for understanding throughout their delivery of content; collect feedback from participants to improve their own problems of practice and to identify opportunities for improving their delivery of training; promote learner-centered, collaborative learning; and, foster positive trainer￾trainee and trainee-trainee interactions through reflective listening and feedback and mutual respect. It bears mentioning that nearly all of the 19 university faculty members transferred their master of the action research inquiry cycle to the professional context of the per-service teacher education courses they teach at their respective universities. This added value of the TEEP program cannot be over emphasized. For although TEEP’s primary focus is on enhancing the capacity of teacher educators to promote effective professional development of in-service teachers, the unintended consequence of TEEP’s impact on improving the quality of pre-service teacher education is a success story whose implications for expanding the scope of TEEP to faculties of education is worth considering. 56 4 To what extent has the LTD program contributed to building the capacity of instructors at Al-Azhar University’s Faculty of Education to enact learner-centered practices in the context of pre-service teacher education? LTD was prevented from completing the collection and analysis of evaluation data from Al-Azhar University in Gaza because of deteriorating security conditions on the ground at the end of June 2014. LTD collected some data, the results of which are presented below. The retrieval of additional data from the Dean’s office was delayed, however. The collection, analysis and reporting of the remaining data will resume as soon as security conditions on the ground permit. To examine the extent that instructors at Al-Azhar University’s Faculty of Education enact learner￾centered practices, the evaluation relies on two sources of data currently available: results of an endline satisfaction survey filled out by TEEP participants (teaching faculty), and a survey to evaluate the impact of doing action research. 4.1 TEEP Satisfaction Survey Results: As seen in Table 20, virtually all of the TEEP participants agreed (4.62 on a 5-point Likert scale) that learning how to conduct action research benefited their professional development. Specifically, all agreed that action research enhanced their classroom instructional practices (100%) and they report it contributed to improving the active learning of their students (91%). Table 19: Satisfaction with TEEP’s contribution to faculty professional development Satisfaction with the TEEP Program (n=16) Mean Std. Dev. % Respondent s’ Agreeing Q3 I benefited from doing action research. 4.62 0.50 100% Q5 I understand the concept and practice of being a critical friend. 4.19 0.83 93% Q9 This program has contributed to improving my performance in the classroom. 4.06 0.68 100% Q2 Information presented in workshops contributed to my continuous professional development. 4.00 0.82 100% Q7 I have a clear understanding of using action research to enhance my classroom performance. 4.00 0.82 93% Q1 0 My TEEP training has helped me improve my students' active classroom engagement. 3.88 0.96 91% Q1 My professional practice has developed. 3.87 0.62 100% Q6 The importance of self-reflection is clear to me. 3.81 0.98 90% Q4 The TEEP approach to professional development is applicable across disciplines and specializations. 3.75 1.00 83% Q8 I had prior knowledge of many aspects of the TEEP workshops. 3.31 1.25 62% Total Avg. 3.95 0.48 91% 57 4.2 Action Research Results: Of the 81 action research projects completed by the TEEP faculty, a convenience sample of 20 projects (Table 21) provided empirical evidence that support the abovementioned survey results suggesting that action research contributed to improved classroom instruction resulting in enhanced student engagement and active learning. Table 20: Sample of action research projects and their impact on students’ learning Focus of Problem of Practice Intervention (Action Research) Impact on Student Learning 1. Over dependence on theory in psychology and other related subjects. Used small group work and problem-based assessments to create opportunities to gain deeper understanding of key concepts and theories. Positive changes observed in learners' behavior as a result of less reliance on lecturing. 2. Lack of active learning and engagement. Challenged students to teach part of the course materials and provided them opportunities for peer feedback from critical friends. Noticeable improvement in students' teaching skills and on their academic achievement. 3. Over-reliance on lecturing and note-taking. Employed active teaching strategies as a result of experimenting with a variety of active teaching strategies during data collection for action research. All students demonstrated increased engagement during face￾to-face sessions. 4. Difficulties in representing modern concepts and theories underlying contemporary methods of teaching and learning. Two action research projects introduced small group work and performance tasks to help students understand theories through practical application. Tangible improvements in instructor’s own practices during class in which students engaged in more participatory learning and assessment activities that modeled connections between theory and practice. 5. Passivity of students during class. Engaged students in: identifying learning and teaching goal; designing and preparing exams; presenting their own ideas; and, in using computers to present their ideas. After all these procedures, there were great improvements in the students’ level of active engagement in class, which were reflected in improved scores on assessments. 6. Difficulty in representing new concepts and theories in the field of education and in giving them supportive feedback. Less lecturing and instead gave students tasks focused on inferring main ideas from assigned texts and allowing them to share in class discussions that included opportunities for peep feedback. Great impact on the instructor’s performance and with impressive improvements in students' reading comprehension and understanding of big ideas in educational theory. 7. Dependency on lecturing and note taking. Distributed course plan to students and encouraged students to think critically in groups and used cooperative teamwork to explore core ideas and skills in each lesson. Students began using action research to identify their own problems in the context of their practice teaching. 8. Reliance on rote memorization. Through action research, students were asked to provide practical examples outside of the textbook and to discuss these in groups and Substantive improvement observed in students’ capacity to use higher order thinking skills to assess their own understanding and/or 58 with the instructor. misconceptions about core ideas. 9. Lessons lacked well defined goals and objectives. Students given opportunities to use teamwork to explore lesson content collaboratively by first identifying what the learning goals were of each activity and explain the rationale for the activities need to achieve them. Improvements observed in students' academic achievement. 10. Representing scientific concepts and theories. Engaged students in group work activities that included opportunities for open discussions about learning content and for giving and receiving feedback among critical friends (peers). Students' approach to thinking about and exploring the meaning of scientific terminology and concepts has improved. 11. Ineffective test review procedures. Through the use of action research, discussed with students their suggestions for improving methods to help them prepare for exams more effectively. Reversed the policy of not permitting students to see previous versions of tests. Better test results. 12. Over-reliance on lecture- based instruction resulting in passive learning among students. Increased class time and opportunities for structured discussions, to ask questions, and become more engaged in the learning process. Students liked the new approach and stared being more attentive in class. 13. Poor integration of digital technologies to support learning. Used elements of the “flipped classroom” to augment students’ use of new media like YouTube to substitute for teaching time spent lecturing, allowing for more time in class for discussion and feedback among and with students. Students are engaged and active in class through group work and displayed more confidence in working in teams. 14. Over-reliance on lecture-based instruction. Introduced “Reciprocal Teaching” that allows students to be an active part in class as both learners and teachers. Student engagement increased. 15. Over-reliance on lecture-based instruction. Applied the use of “critical friends” to help students share feedback about their learning. Students more actively engaged and reflective about what they are learning in class. 16. Over-reliance on lecture-based instruction. Introduced active learning teaching techniques that included competition among groups of students. Success rate reached 100% and students are more active in class 17. Lack of variety of leaning activities to appeal to different learning styles of students. Gave students a variety of structured opportunities to discuss learning content and to work cooperatively to complete assignments. Students’ motivation increased and many became more competitive toward improving their academic achievement. 18. Coverage of curriculum content without checking if students actually understood what was Introduced problem-based, small group activities in which each group must research a problem and teach Students far more confident and well informed about what they are learning; some students took their 59 being taught; held the false assumption that memorization equals understanding. the rest of the class. own initiative and created a Facebook page for the class and encouraged fellow students to discuss, participate, and use the Internet to supplement the curriculum content and enhance their own understanding. 19. Passivity in class. Introduced elements of action research for students to use on their own to conduct research and fill in gaps in their own knowledge and understanding of course content. Students improved their abilities to identify gaps in their knowledge and to set their own immediate learning goals to improve their learning. 20. Over-reliance on lecture-based instruction and traditional assessment methods (paper and pencil tests). Introduced more creative and flexible learning and assessment techniques such as guided and open discussions in class, learning circles, group work, and the critical friend approach. Students are more engaged in class and less dependent on rote memorization and more willing to question and discuss issues in the discipline (teaching Islamic Studies). Discussion: The faculty members of the TEEP pre-service program unanimously agreed that the program contributed to improving of their instructional practices in general and their capacity to increase the active learning of their students in particular. Evidence from the sample of action research projects provides documented proof that instructors’ critical reflection on their problems of practice has contributed to improvements in students’ active engagement, higher order thinking skills, cooperative teamwork, problem solving, research skills, and overall academic achievement. It bears mentioning that TEEP faculty successfully learned how to use MOODLE as a virtual learning environment in which they shared and exchanged feedback on the progress of their action research projects. For most, this was the first time in their professional careers that they used technology as a tool for advancing their own professional development. In particular, the virtual “learning circle” created by Moodle allowed the faculty to give and share feedback with their “critical friends” in a discussion forum. They also used the platform as a space for sharing and updating their evolving philosophies of teaching in response to their ongoing professional development during TEEP. 60 Conclusions From the preceding presentation and discussion of findings, the evaluation draws the following major conclusions. 1. LTD contributed to improving the capacity of principals to support school-based professional development that fosters effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices. LTD’ flagship leadership development component, the Leadership Diploma Program, contributed to improving the capacity of principals in enacting shared leadership and in supporting school-based professional development that fosters effective schools characterized by learner-centered instructional practices. Multiple sources of evidence from both principals and teachers, and corroborated by data collected from parents who participated in school improvement planning, indicate that LTD’s approach to engaging principals in authentic community-based learning activities improved their capacity to empower their teachers’ use of educational technology, active learning activities, and alternative assessments that reflect real-world connections to curriculum content. 2. LTD contributed to building the capacity of teachers to enact standards and competencies aligned with learner-centered instruction LTD’s introduction of inquiry-based in-service professional development into teacher training modules and learning circles contributed to enhancing teachers’ competencies associated with learner-centered teaching. This finding is corroborated by principals’ evaluations of their LTD teachers’ practices. The curriculum of the 12-module teacher education curriculum designed by LTD and implemented by NIET is anchored in the action research inquiry-cycle, which is now one of the leading approaches internationally to teachers’ professional development. With support from their trainers, who were also engaged in a concurrent program of teacher educator enhancement using action research (the TEEP program), teachers used action research as a tool for continuous and reflective professional development. This iterative process of inquiry in the authentic context of their classrooms enabled teachers to identify and diagnose discreet learning needs and challenges facing their students and then use these data to modify their teaching practices to improve student learning. 3. LTD contributed to building the capacity of NIET’s national cadre of teacher educators to enact learner-centered approaches and practices. LTD’s Teacher Educator Enhancement Program (TEEP) successfully prepared teacher educators (i.e., university faculty consultants and NIET trainers) to enact and model learner-centered teaching and assessment methods and practices for the in-service teachers they trained. The action research inquiry cycle enabled the teacher educators to identify and reflect on problems of practice in the specificity of authentic training contexts. By design, action research functioned as LTD’s chief driver of professional development for both the trainers and the in-service teachers they served. An unintended consequence bears mentioning. Nearly all of the 19 university faculty members used their mastery of action research to identify and address problems of practice in pre-service teacher education courses they teach at their respective universities. This added value to pre-service teacher education is a success story, albeit unintended, that LTD may want to leverage with stakeholders about the possibility of expanding TEEP to higher education in the West Bank. 61 4. LTD contributed to building the capacity of instructors at Al-Azhar University’s Faculty of Education to enact learner-centered practices in the context of pre-service teacher education. Based on a partial analysis of evaluation data collected from Al-Azhar University, LTD can report that it contributed to improving the capacity of instructors to enact learner-centered teaching and assessment methods in pre-service teacher education courses. Data collected and documented by the 20 TEEP faculty participants in their portfolios of professional practice indicate that changes in the instructors’ approaches and strategies—less reliance on lecturing—has led to improvements in students’ active engagement, higher order thinking skills, cooperative teamwork, problem solving, research skills, and overall academic achievement. Furthermore, LTD contributed to the sustainability of its inquiry-based model of professional development by instituting real-time and virtual “critical friend groups”. These are periodic learning circles of faculty affiliated to the four departments comprising the Faculty of Education who, with the support of the Dean and the heads of the departments, meet periodically to share and exchange results and reflections about their action research. 62 Annexes ANNEX A: Principal Effectiveness Survey (Principal’s form) ب هللا الرحمن الرحيم الكفايات القيادية عند مديري المدارس الفلسطينية في الضفة الغربية استبانة المدير عزيزي المدير : تذكر، هذه االستبانة لغرض البحث فقط و ليس لتقييم المدرسة او آداء اعضاء الهيئة التدريسية حيث سيتم االحتفاظ بردودكم وبكل ما تقدموه من معلومات بسرية تامة وألغراض البحث فقط معلومات يملؤها الباحث: رقم االستبانة اسم الباحث المديرية التي تقع فيها المدرسة رقم المدرسة الوطني دولة فلسطين وزارة التربيـة والتعلـيم المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي State Of Palestine Ministry of Education National Institute for Educational Training 63 : المعرفةاألول القسم ياق المدرسي( بتقدير يترواح من ّ قدر درجة معرفتك وفهمك في الموضوعات اآلتية )ضمن الس :-حيث 1-5 .5 لدي معرفة وفهم كبير وعميق بالموضوع. .4 لدي معرفة وفهم بالموضوع . .3 أعرف عن الموضوع بعض الشيء. .2 معرفتي قليلة عن الموضوع. .1 ليس لدي أية معرفة بالموضوع. الرقم الموضوع 5 4 3 2 1 ّ .1 الة. المعايير الفلسطينية للمدرسة الفع .2 الرؤية والرسالة. .3 التقويم الذاتي. .4 بناء الفرق المدرسية. .5 التخطيط المدرسي. .6 العالقات ودورها في تحسين العملية التعليمية التعلمية. .7 صناعة قرارات مبنية على البيانات. .8 إدارة الموارد البشرية. .9 إدارة الموارد المادية. .11 البيئة المدرسية الداعمة للتعلم. ّ .11 ال. مباديء التعليم والتعلم الفع .12 متابعة تحسين التعليم والتعلم وتقويمه. .13 دور المجتمع المحلي في التحسين المدرسي. .14 دور التكنولوجيا في العملية التعليمية. .15 األبحاث اإلجرائية. 64 القسم الثاني: الكفايات القياد ية: ّر درجة ممارستك للعمليات الواردة في كل من المجاالت اآلتية : قد المجال األ ول: التخطيط الممارسات درجة الممارسة أبدا دائما غالبا أحيانا نادرا .1 أشرك المعلمين في بناء رؤية المدرسة ورسالتها. .2 أشرك المعلمين في بناء خطة المدرسة. .3 أشر ك أولياء األمور في بناء خطة المدرسة. .4 أوضح رؤية المدرسة ورسالتها للمجتمع المحلي وأسوقها. .5 أبني الخطة المدرسية بناء على نتائج عملية تقويم ذاتي لواقعها. .6 اقوم بأبحاث إجرائية لتطور عملي في المدرسة. المجال الثاني : العالقات الممارسات درجة الممارسة أبدا دائما غالبا أحيانا نادرا .1 أشجع العمل الجماعي في المدرسة وأنمذجه. .2 أشرك المعنيين في صناعة قررات تتعلق بتحسين المدرسة تستند الى بيانات نتائج التقويم الذاتي .3 أتواصل بفاعلية مع الطاقم في المدرسة. .4 أشرك المجتمع المحلي في نشاطات تدعم عمليتي التعليم والتعلم .5 أعزز اخالقيات المهنة وأنمذجها )أنمذج السلوكيات التي أتوقعها من اآلخرين(. .6 أظهر االحترام والتقدير ألفراد مجتمع المدرسة على اختالفهم. .7 أعامل طاقم المدرسة بعدالة ) بدون تحيز ( .8 أدعو أولياء األمور لزيارة المدرسة ومناقشة أوضاع أبنائهم التعليمية وتحسينها. 9 أستثمر المؤسسات المحلية في دعم عمليتي التعليم والتعلم. 11 أحل الصراعات بين العاملين بمهنية. 65 المجال الثالث: الموارد الممارسات درجة الممارسة أبدا دائما غالبا أحيانا نادرا 1 أستثمر خبرات طاقم المدرسة في دعم أهدافها. 2 أعمل على تحديد احتياجات الطاقم المدرسي التي تدعم العملية التعليمية التعلمية. 3 أسهل التحاق المعلمين ببرامج تطور مهني لسد احتياجاتهم وتحسين ممارساتهم التعليمية. 4 أصرف ميزانية المدرسة حسب احتياجاتها واولوياتها. 5 أؤكد على استخدام مصادرالتعلم في المدرسة ومراكزها التطويرية )المكتبة،غرف الرياضة......،( وصيانتها بإستمرار. 6 أحافظ على دقة المعلومات المالية للمدرسة وتوثيقها. 7 أتواصل مع المجتمع المحلي لز يادة موارد المدرسة وتفعيلها. المجال الرابع: التعليم والتعلم الممارسة درجة تكرار الممارسة أبدا دائما غالبا أحيانا نادرا .1 أشرف على ممارسات المعلمين التعليمية التعلمية في صفوفهم. .2 أثري معرفتي بنظريات التعلم والتطور بهدف تحسين عمليتي التعليم والتعلم في مدرستي. .3 أعمل مع المجتمع المدرسي لدعم تعلم الطلبة .4 أؤكد على تعزيز شخصية الطالب بشكل متكامل .5 أدعم التطور المهني للمعلمين ) أسهل لهم االلتحاق بالتدريب( .6 أتابع تطور ممارسات المعلمين التعليمية نتيجة التحاقهم ببرامج التطور المهني. .7 أؤكد على النشاطات الالصفية التي تدعم تعلم الطلبة في خطة المدرسة وتكاملها مع األنشطة الصفية. .8 أقدم التسهيالت والتجهيزات حتى يتمكن المعلمين من تنفيذ االستراتيجيات التعليمية .9 اتبنى سياسة التعلم و النجاح لجميع الطلبة ) بمن فيهم ذوي الصعوبات والتفوق االكاديمي( 11 أؤكد على تشارك معلمي المادة للعمل المتكامل نحو تحقيق األهداف التعلمية المقصوده. 66 المجال الخامس: البيئة المدرسية الممارسات درجة تكرار الممارسة أبدا دائما غالبا أحيانا نادرا .1 أفوض العاملين في المدرسة بصالحيات تتناسب مع مقدراتهم. .2 أشرك المعلمين في صناعة قرارات ذات عالقة بالمدرسة ومجتمعها .3 أشجع الطلبة على العمل التطوعي والتعاوني .4 أبني بيئة تعلمية تعزز االحترام وتقدير الذات .5 أطور سياسات توفر بيئة مدرسية أمنه تعزز تعلم الطالب وراحته. .6 أضع قواعد واضحه للحفاظ على نظافة المدرسة وممتلكاتها. .7 أعزز دور المرشد التربوي في المدرسة .8 أبحث عن األمور التي تحفز المعلمين على العمل وأعززها .9 أقدر جهود العاملين في المدرسة. المجال السادس: التقويم الممارسه درجة تكرار الممارسة أبدا دائما غالبا أحيانا نادرا .1 أعلم أولياء األمور بنتائج تقويم ابنائهم بهدف التحسين .2 أؤكد على استخدام اساليب متنوعة في تقويم أداء الطلبة .3 اتبع اجراءات مختلفة في تقويم الطلبة لتحسين تعلمهم .4 أقدم للمعلمين تغذيه راجعه عن ممارساتهم التعليمية بهدف التحسين المستمر .5 أوثق نتائج تقويم المعلمين وانجازاتهم بهدف التطوير والتحسين .6 أشرك المعلمين في صناعة قرارات تستند الي نتائج تقويم الطلبة المجال السابع: التكنولوجيا الممارسات درجة تكرار أبدا دائما غالبا أحيانا نادرا 1 أعزز استخدام المعلمين للتكنولوجيا في انشطتهم التعليمية. 2 أشجع المعلمين على تطوير مقدراتهم في استخدام التكنولوجيا في التعليم ) بالذات 3 الحاسوب( استخدم التكنولوجيا في تيسير العمليات اإلداريه. 4 أتابع صيانة األجهزه التكنولوجيه في المدرسه وتحديثها. 5 استخدم التكنولوجيا في التواصل مع المعلمين والطاقم المدرسي 67 6 استخدم التكنولوجيا في التواصل مع اولياء االمور 7 استخدم التكنولوجيا في التواصل مع المديرية والوزارة 8 استخدم التكنولوجيا في ادارة الموقع االلكتروني للمدرسة 9 استخدم التكنولوجيا في البحث عن مصادر التعليم والتعلم 10 استخدم التكنولوجيا في التنمية المهنية 11 غير ذلك: الرجاء التحديد..................................................... القسم الثالث-: معلومات عامة .1 الجنس .1 ذكر .2 أنثى .2 العمر .1 أقل من 31 سنة .2 من 31 – 39 سنة .3 من 41 - 49 سنة .4 أكثر من 51 سنة .3 الحالة االجتماعية .1 أعزب/ عزباء .2 متزوج /ة .4 سنوات الخبرة في التعليم .1 أقل من 5 سنوات .2 من 5 إلى أقل من عشرة .3 من 11 إلى أقل من 15 .4 أكثر من 15 سنة .5 سنوات الخبرة في االدارة .1 أقل من 5 سنوات .2 من 5 إلى أقل من عشرة .3 من 11 إلى أقل من 15 .4 أكثر من 15 سنة .6 ما هو معدل عدد الساعات التي تمضيها/ تمضينها بالنشاطات اإلدارية المتعلقة بالمدرسة، خالل أسبوع كامل )7 أيام( .1 أقل من 35 ساعة .2 من 35 – 39 ساعة .3 من 41 – 44 ساعة .4 من 45 – 49 ساعة .5 أكثر من 51 ساعة .7 المؤهل العلمي .1 دبلوم .2 بكالوريس .3 ماجستير .4 دكتوراة .5أخرى ____________ .8 ما هو اختصاصك الرئيسي والفرعي في الكلية أو الجامعة )التعليم الرسمي(؟ .1 التخصص الرئيسي )حدد(: .2 التخصص الفرعي )حدد(: .9 هل تعمل/ين حاليا للحصول على درجة علمية جديدة؟ .1 نعم .2 ال .11 المؤهل التربوية .1 دبلوم تربية .2 بكالوريس تربية .3 ماجستير تربية .4 دكتوراة تربية .5 68 أخرى ____________ ً .3 جيد .4 متوسط .11 ما درجة اتقانك الستخدام الحاسوب؟ .1 ممتاز .2 جيد جدا .5 ضعيف أو معدوم .12 هل يوجد انترنت في البيت؟ .1 نعم .2 ال نشكر لكم تعاونكم 69 ANNEX B: School Improvement Team Survey المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي برنامج تطوير القيادة و المعلمين المقدمة والتعليمات: من اجل تعزيز التطوير القائم على المدرسة باعتب ارها قائدة التغيير المبني على التقييم الذاتي وعلى معايير المدرسة الفاعل قامت ة المدارس بانشاء فريق التطوير المدرسي )مكون من مدير المدرسة و معلمين و اولياء امور( في مدارس الفوج األول وعددها 88 مدرسة حكومية بهدف اجراء التقييم الذاتي للمدرسة و اعداد الخطة المدرسية و المشاركة في تنفيذها . إن الغرض من هذا االستبيان هو معرفة وجهة نظرك باداء فريق التطوير المدرسي من خالل تحديد نقاط القوة والضعف والتحديات التي واجهها اعضاء الفريق , حيث سيكون آلرائك مس اهمة مهمة في تحسين اداء الفريق و بالتالي المساهمة في تطوير المدرسة . الحظة : سيتماالحتفاظ بردودكم وبكل ما تقدموه من معلومات بسرية تامة وألغراض البرنامج فقط. نم يوذج تقييم فر ق التطوير المدرسي اسم المديرية : __________________________ : اسم المدرسة __________________________ رقم الهاتف : ___________________________ انثى الجنس: ذكر مدرسة ة:/ مديري/هل انت ة /معلم ة/ولي أمر طالب اذا كنت معلماً أو مديراً فما عدد سنوات العمل في المدرسة الحالية: ________ سنة اذا كنت ولي أمر هل انت/ي عضو في مجلس اولياء االمور : نعم ال القسم االول: تقييم مهام ودور الفريق في اعداد خطة تطوير المدرسة: الرجاء تحديد مستوى أدء الفريق في المجاالت التالية: المجال منخفض جدا منخفض متوسط عال عال جدا جمع البيانات الخاصة بالتقييم الذاتي للمدرسة اعداد رؤية ورسالة المدرسة وضع ا هداف واضحةلتطوير المدرسة اعداد خطة لتطوير المدرسة االشراف على تنفيذ خطةتطوير المدرسة 70 تقويم سير الخطة اعداد التقارير الخاصة حول سيرالخطة ونجاحات المدرسة القسم االثاني: تقيي مستوى مساهمة الفريق في تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة: الرجاء تحديد مستوى مسا همة الفريق في تنفيذ المجاال ت التالية: المجال منخفض جدا منخفض متوسط عال عال جدا ادارة عملية بناء الخطة المدرسية ادارة الموارد بفعالية بما يخدم جودة التعليم و التعلم ادارة عمليتي التعليم و التعلم بمستوى عال من االداء تحسين الالقات الداخلية للمدرسة تحسين العالقات الخارجية للمدرسة تحسين البيئة المدرسية تشجيع المشاركة المجتمعية تفعيل التكنولوجيا في التعليم و التعلم تفعيل التكنولوجيا في االدارة المدرسية تفعيل المصادر المادية والبشريةللمدرسة من وجهة نظرك ما أهم ثالثة انجازات لفريق المدرسة هذا العام: ) – 1 ) – 2 ) – 3 من وجهة نظرك ماأهم التحديات التي واجهت فريق المدرسة ) – 1 ) – 2 ) – 3 القسم الثالث: التقييم الداخلي لممارسات اعضاء الفريق: الرجاء تحديد إلى أي درجة تتفق مع ما يلي : الممارسات ال اوافق بشدة ال اوافق محايد اوافق اوافق بشدة قيادة فريق التطوير المدرسي كانت فاعلة التزم اعضاء الفريق في حضور االجتماعات يوجود رؤية و منهجية مشتركة بين اعضء الفريق يوجود مناخ تعاوني و ثقة متبادلة بين اعضء الفريق يوجد اتجاهات االيجابية العضء الفريق نحو العمل في المدرسة ومع المؤسسات" يتقبل اعضء الفريق المساءلة الخارجية انجز اعضء الفريق األعمال بخبرة و مهارة 71 القسم الرابع: تقييم اداء مدير الفريق : الرجاء تحديد إلى أي درجة تتفق مع ما يلي : الممارسات ال اوافق بشدة ال اوافق محايد اوافق اوافق بشدة ساعد مدير الفريق بقية االعضاء في انجاز ال مهام في مواعي دها لم يخالف مدير الفريق ما اتفق علي ه من لوائح و مواثيق منظمة العمل قام مدير الفريق بمشاركة المعلومات مع بقية الفريق وعدم احتك ارها شجع مدير الفريق بقية أعضاء الفريق على ابداء ارائهم وفر مدير الفريق الدعم العضء الفريق وفر مديرالفريق التغذية الراجعة العضء الفريق ساعد مدير الفريق بقية االعضاء في التغلب على مصادر الصراع ما ألمور التي قامت بها المدرسة لزيادة فعالية الفريق: )- 1 )- 2 )- 3 ما ألمور التي كان يمكن للمدرسة القيام بها لزيادة فعالية الفريقولكنها ستقوم بها في العام القادم ألنها لم تقم بها هذه السنة: )- 1 )- 2 )- 3 بشكل عام هل تنصح في تطبيق وتعميم فرق التطوير في المدارس األخرى: نعم ال , الرجاء التوضيح ؟ 72 ANNEX C: Moderator’s Guide for SIT Focus Groups المبادئ التوجيهية يسرللم المجموعة البؤرية : فريق التطوير المدرسي ( دقائق 3-5المقدمة ) 1. استقبال المشاركين 2. المشرف نفسه و مساعده يعرق عن 3. شرح باختصار طبيعة والهدف من المجموعة البؤرية النص الموصى به : يست " األمد والمعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي يرحبان بكم في المجموعة البؤرية حول فريق التطوير المدرسي . هدفنا هو معرفةالنجاحات والتحديات التي يعاني منها فرق التطوير المدارسي في المدارس المشاركة في برنامج تطوير القيادة و أحيث .المعلمين ن النتائج م ن هذه المجموعة البؤرية ستساعد األمديست والمعهد الوط ني للتدريب التربوي في تحسين أداء فرق التطوير المدارسي في المستقبل . " في الدقائق 90المقبلة ، سوف نطرح سلسلة من األسئلة. أطلب منك أن م تفكر و تخبرنا ببصدق و صراحة عن دورك كعضو في فريق التطوير المدرسي في مدرستك .بطبيعة الحال ، ردودكم ستكون مختلفة، ألنه ال يوجد مدرستين على حد متماثالت سواء. كما انه ال توجد إجابات صحيحة و اخرى خاطئة. نحن فقط نطلب منك احترام اراء االخرين وحتى اآلراء التي قد تختلف عن ارائك الخاصة و ذلك من اجل تبادل وج هات النظر . يسر" دوري كم هو وسيط لتسهيل المناقشة. عملي هو الحفاظ على ال الموضوع. مناقشة حول لن أشارك في المناقشة أو اقدم رأيي الشخصي في أي وقت . " للتأكد من جميع ال الحظات الدقيقة ، لدينا جهاز التسجيل الصوتي لتسجيل المناقشة. كما نعدكم ن ال أحد من خارج فريق البحث لدينا سوف يستمع للتسجيل. أيضا نود ان نؤكد لكم أن ايشيئا تقوله في أي وقت لنيتم نشره بأي شكل من األشكال بحيث يمكن التعرف عليك " كمتحدث. 73 طريقة طرح االسئلة )دقائق :5-10 ) A الجزء االسئلة االفتتاحية : وغيرها( ، ألم مدرس، ، مدير) بالمدرسة صلتك و ، مدرستك اسم و اسمك بنفسك التعريف يرجى االسئلة الت مهيدية: ، عموما من ما الذي يجب نظرك جهةو أن تقوم به التعليم نوعية لتحسين المدارس في ؟ الفلسطينية المدارس االسئلة النتقالية: لشخص المدرسي التطوير فريق ووظيفة بنية تصف كيف ، باختصار ال شيئا يعرف عن ؟ ذلك كم غالبا اجتمع فريق التطوير المدرسي الخاص بمدرستك هذ العام ؟ : B الجزء االسئلة الجوهرية ) دقيقة( 60-70 1. هداف أحد يتمثل ل الرئيسية األ فريق التطوير المدرسيفي المدرسة تطوير خطة وضع . الرجاء التفكيرفي دورك .التخطيط عملية أثناء ما التي انجزت ها المحددة ال مهام و ما مور كان بالنسبة تحديا اكثر اال لك ؟ شخصيا 2. التفكيرفي أعضاء بين ماعيالج العمل جودة فريق التطوير المدرسي . بمدرستك الخاص هل على بالقدرة شعرت والمساهمة األفكار، ، النظر وج هات تبادل في اتخاذ القرارات؟ اشرح . 3. ما كمجموعة الفريق واجه ها التي العوائق الل تطوير خطة وكيف المدرسة تطوير تم التعامل مع ها؟ 4. لفريق الثاني الرئيسي الهدف ال المدرسي تطوير هو .المدرسة تطوير تنفيذ خطة ما االمور التي تغيرت الفضل في مدرستك كنتيجه لجهود فريق التطوير المدرسي الذي ساهم وما ؟ في هذا ؟ النجاح 5. ما كمجموعة الفريق واجه ها التي العوائق مقابل للفريق الداخلية العوامل) ؟ المدرسة تطوير الل تنفيذ خطة الخارجية( العوامل جزء C : االسئلة الختامية )دقيقة 10-15) 1. مع أخذ جميع األمور بعين االعتبار هل أن تعتقد فريق التطوير المدرسي هو فعالة آلية للقيادة التشاركية تحسين نحو يمكن كيف المدرسة؟ أن ؟ أفضل نحو على تعمل 2. هل هناك أي قضية أو مناقشته ينبغي فاتنا مهم سؤال 74 نواحيللتحقيق (الجوانبالسلبية يجببحثهابدقة!( االسئلة الجوهرية كيفتماالختيار؛ المسؤولياتالرئيسية المتعلقةبمايلي: ال مهمة والرؤية؛ التقييم الذاتي للمدرسة؛ جمعالبيانات؛تحليل البيانات؛صياغة خطةتطوير المدرسة ؛ نشر/ تسويق خطةتطوير المدرسة ؛تنفيذ خطةتطوير المدرسة ؛رصدالتنفيذ،الخ. .1 يتمثل أحد األ هداف الرئيسيةلفريق التطوير المدرسيفي وضع خطةتطويرالمدرسة . الرجاء التفكيرفي دورك أثناءعملية التخطيط .ماال مهامالمحددة التي انجزت ها و ماكان اكثر االمورتحديابالنسبةلك شخصيا ؟ أسلوبقيادةمدير الفريق؟ منفتح؟ علىاستعدادللتعلم من اآلخرين؟ يقدر؟ مرن؟ متعصب؛تحفيزي؛ يشجع التوقعاتالعالية ؛ملتزم؛ وما إلىذلك؟ الهيكلية ،الثقافية أو السياسية الصغيرة؟ الغرور/ الشخصيات؟المحاباة الغير ديمقراطية؟ عدمالمرونة؟ عدم وجودلغة مشتركة حول الدوار؟ عدم وجودالقيم المشتركة أوالسلوكياتالمرتبطةبالقيادة؟ .2 التفكيرفي جودةالعمل الجماعيبين أعضاء فريق التطويرالمدرسي الخاص بمدرستك. هلشعرتبالقدرة علىتبادل وج هاتالنظر ،األفكار، والمس اهمةفي اتخاذالقرارات؟اشرح العوامل الخارجية :القيود المالية ؛ المواردالبشرية؛السياسات؛ االحتالل ........ العواملالداخليةالتي تتعلق بديناميةالشخصية بين أعضاء الفريق.الفريقيشمل جميع ما ذكر عنالسؤال رقم 2 أعاله. .3 ماالعوائق التي واجه ها الفريقكمجموعة الل تطوير خطةتطويرالمدرسة وكيف تمالتعامل مع ها؟ القيادةالتعليمية؛تنظيمالمدرسة أفضل؛ ظروف عمل أفضل؛ ارتفاع الروح المعنويةبين الموظفين؛ ارتفاع احترام الذاتبين الطالب؛ حضورأفضل؛ مشاكل النضباط أقل؛ وما الى ذلك أي أل هداف ال يزالقيذ التفيذ ؟تأجل؟ ألغي؟ ثالثة جاالت واسعةللتغيير: 1( التعليم والتعلم، 2( إدارة العمليات المدرسية، 3( اعالقاتبين المدرسةوالمجتمع - ردم الحدود؟ .4 الهدف الرئيسيالثانيلفريقالتطوير المدرسي هوتنفيذ خطةتطويرالمدرسة . ما االمور التي تغيرت الفضل في مدرستك كنتيجه لجهود فريق التطوير المدرسي ؟ وما س اهمفي هذاالنجاح ؟ .5 ماالعوائق التي واجه هاالفريقكمجموعة الل تنفيذ خطةتطويرالمدرسة ؟ ) العواملالداخليةللفريقمقابلالعوامل الخارجية( 75 ANNEX D: Teacher Effectiveness Survey (Teacher’s Form) ب هللا الرحمن الرحيم الكفايات التعليمية لدى معلمي المدارس الحكومية الفلسطينية استبانة المعلم عزيزي/تي المشارك/ة يسعى المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي إلى تطوير وبناء قدرات معلمي المدارس الفلسطينية في كافة المراحل من خالل برامجه المختلفة، ويأتي برنامج تأهيل المعلمين للصفوف من )10-5( في المرحلة الثانية بعد البدء بمشروع تأهيل المعلمين للمرحلة األساسية من )4-1( بالتعاون مع الجامعات الفلسطينيية. واآلن وبعد أن شارف البرنامج على االنتهاء، يعمل قسم الدراسات في المعهد الوطني على معرفة التغييرات التي أحدثها البرنامج التدريبي على كفايات المعلمين التعليمية، لذا نأمل منك التعاون في تحديد رأيك في مستوى كفايات المعلمين الملتحقين بالبنامج التدريبي في مدرستك اآلن وقبل البدء في البرنامج في المحاور والمجاالت الوارده في الصفحات اآلتية. عزيزي المعلم : تذكر، هذه االستبانة لغرض البحث فقط و ليس لتقييم المدرسة او آداء اعضاء الهيئة التدريسية حيث سيتم االحتفاظ بردودكم وبكل ما تقدموه من معلومات بسرية تامة وألغراض المشروع فقط معلومات يملؤها الباحث: رقم االستبانة اسم الباحث المديرية التي تقع فيها المدرسة رقم المدرسة الوطني دولة فلسطين وزارة التربيـة والتعلـيم المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي State Of Palestine Ministry of Education National Institute for Educational Training 76 الولالقسم ا : درجة توافر الكفايات عند المعلم عزيزي المشارك/ة: الرجاء تقدير درجة توافر الكفا ية لديك )اآلن وقبل االلتحاق ببرنامج التدريب LTD بوضع إشارة ) ( Χ )تحت الخيار الذي تجده مناسباً لك. درجة توافر الكفاية لديك قبل التحاقك الكفايات الفرعية بالبرنامج التدريبي درجة توافر الكفاية لديك اآلن منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( الرقم الكفاية الرئيسية أبني خطط يومية وفصلية تنسجم مع أنماط تعلم الطلبة المختلفة. 1.1 تسهيل التعليم والتعلم المتمركز حول الطالب 1.2 أراعي الفروق الفردية بين الطلبة. 1.3 أراعي خبرات الطلبة السابقة. أبني مخرجات تعلم محددة تنسجم مع مخرجات التعلم العامة لمنهاج المرحلة األساسية. 1.4 1.5 أناقش مع الطالب مخرجات التعلم المتوقعة. 1.6 أنفذ أنشطة مرافقة تعزز التعلم التشاركي بين الطلبة. 1.7 أطبق أنشطة تشجع الطلبة على التفكير الناقد. ّة تهدف إلى دعم ُ أنظّم أنشطة ال صفي م الطلبة. 1.8 تعل 77 درجة توافر الكفاية لديك قبل التحاقك بالبرنامج الكفايات الفرعية التدريبي درجة توافر الكفاية لديك اآلن منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( الرقم الكفاية الرئيسية أضع خطة سنوية لتطوير مواد التعليم والتعلم ومصادرهما ) من، وكيف، ومتى، وأين، ولماذا؟(. 2.1 مواد التعليمية والتعلمية تصميم المصادر وال الكفاية الثانية: ُ أوظف تكنولوجيا المعلومات واالتصاالت م في تعليم وتعل الطلبة. 2.2 2.3 أستعمل المصادر المجتمعية في تحسين عملية التعلم. أوظف مصادر التعليم والتعلم التي تتناسب مع احتياجات الطلبة. 2.4 ّن من ا أحس ة اإلبداعية ّ لقدرات والمهارات التعلمي باستخدام مصادر التعليم والتعلم المختلفة. 2.5 2.6 أشرك الطلبة في تطوير مصادر تعل . ّم متنوعة 2.7 أوظف مصادر تعليم وتعلم متنوعة لتحقيق عناصر المنهاج. ً 3.1 أصمم خطط تحسين فردية بناء على عملية التقويم. الكفاية الثالثة: المتابعة والتقويم لعملية التعليم والتعلم ومخرجاتها 3.2 أستخدم نتائج التأمل الذاتي لتحسين عمليات التعلم. أنفذ برامج تعلم عالجية تتالءم مع احتياجات الطلبة الخاصة باالستناد إلى نتائج التقويم. 3.3 78 3.4 أزود أولياء األمور بالتقارير حول النتائج الدراسية الخاصة بأبنائهم. درجة توافر الكفاية لديك قبل التحاقك بالبرنامج الكفايات الفرعية التدريبي درجة توافر الكفاية لديك اآلن منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( الرقم الكفاية الرئيسة 3.5 التعلم. ُ أستخدم نتائج المتابعة والتقويم لتحسينالتعليم و الكفاية الثالثة: المتابعة والتقويم لعملية التعليم والتعلم ومخرجاتها 3.6 أبني أدوات تقويم مختلفة تناسب الفروق الفردية عند الطلبة. أستخدم إستراتيجيات التقويم التشخيصية والنهائية والتكوينية بحسب الحاجة بهدف تحسين عملية التعلم. 3.7 ُ أختار إستراتيجيات التقويم التي ة. 3.8 تتالءم مع حاجات الطلبة التعلمي ُ أوثق نتائج التقويم الستخدامها م الطلبة. 3.9 في متابعة تقد 3.11 أقدم التغذية الراجعة المناسبة للطلبة بناء على نتائج التقويم. 3.11 أستخدم التقويم كإستراتيجية تعليم وتعلم. 3.12 أشجع الطلبة على إستخدام التقويم الذاتي. أعزز مشاركة ا ة المختلفة ّ 4.1 لطلبة في األنشطة الصفي . الكفاية الرابعة: المشاركة في توفير بيئة تعلميه ّ وآمنة فاعلة 4.2 على التعلم من خالل المحاولة والتجريب. ُ أستخدم بيئة تعل الطالب ّم تشجع ّة والمدرسية 4.3 أشرك الطلبة في عمليات صياغة القواعد الصفي . 4.4 أوفر فرص تعلم متساوية لجميع الطلبة. 79 4.5 أوفر بيئة تعلم صحية وآمنة تشجع الطلبة في عملية تعلمهم. 4.6 أوفر بيئة تعلمية جاذبة للطلبة تحفزهم على التفكير االبداعي والناقد. ً تحملهم لمسؤولية مهم. ّ أكلف الطلبة بمهام تعزز ثقتهم بأنفسهم و 4.7 جودة تعل درجة توافر الكفاية لديك قبل التحاقك بالبرنامج التدريبي درجة توافر الكفاية لديك اآلن الكفايات الفرعية منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( الرقم الكفاية الرئيسة ّه أوج الطلبة نحو السلوكيات اليومية ) مثل الصحة والنظافة الشخصية و السالمة العامة واالنضباط الذاتي...(. 5.1 الكفاية الخامسة: اإلرشاد والتوجيه للمتعلمين ّبع اإلجراءات المناسبة لتحسين سلوك الطلبة اليومي 5.2 أت . 5.3 أرفع من شأن القيم واالتجاهات االيجابية لدى الطلبة. 5.4 أكلف الطلبة بمهام أداء وواجبات ترتبط بواقع حياتهم. أستخدم اإلرشاد والتوجيه المناسبين الختيار مسارهم المهني المالئم المكانياتهم. 5.5 5.6 أتواصل مع المختصين إليجاد أفضل الحلول لمعالجة صعوبات التعلم. 6.1 أستخدم نتائج التقييم في تحديد احتياجاتي التدريبية. الكفاية السادسة: السعي للتطور المهني 6.2 أطبق الخبرات التدريبية التي أكتسبها في تفعيل األنشطة الصفية. أتبادل الخبرات مع الزمالء الستخدام األساليب المشتركة في التعليم والمشاريع. 6.3 6.4 أجمع المقاالت ذات الصلة بعملي بواسطة وسائل تكنولوجيا المعلومات 80 واالتصاالت. 6.5 أفيد من المنهجيات المالئمة للوصول الى مخرجات تعلم الطلبة. 6.6 أستخدم البحث اإلجر ائي في تحسين عملية التعليم والتعلم. 6.7 أحتفظ بملف يحتوي الفعاليات واألنشطة المختلفة لمتابعة تطوري المهني. 6.8 أشارك في الدورات واأليام الدراسية لتطوير أدائي. درجة توافر الكفاية لديك قبل التحاقك بالبرنامج التدريبي درجة توافر الكفاية لديك اآلن منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( منخفضة )1( مقبولة )2( متوسطة )3( عالية )4( عالية جدا )5( الرقم الكفاية الرئيسة أشجع الطلبة على االنخراط بالتجارب المجتمعية المحلية التي تدعم تعلمهم. 7.1 لسابعة: تفعيل الشراكة داخل المجتمع الكفاية ا 7.2 أشارك في وضع الحلول المناسبة للمشكالت المجتمعية. 7.3 أزود أولياء األمور بتقارير حول نتائج تحصيل أبنائهم. أتعاون مع أولياء األمور لحل مشكالت الطلبة المختلفة )السلوكية ُمية والصحية(. والتعل 7.4 أحدد مخرجات التعلم بالتعاون مع المعلمين اآلخرين بغرض التكامل بين المواد المختلفة. 7.5 أستخدم مهارات االتصال والتشبيك لتعزيز دور الطلبة في توظيف التعلمية. ُ المصادر التعليمية- 7.6 81 القسم الثاني-: معلومات عامة .1 الجنس .1 ذكر .2 أنثى .2 العمر .1 أقل من 31 سنة .2 من 31 – 39 سنة .3 من 41 - 49 سنة .4 أكثر من 51 سنة .3 الحالة االجتماعية .1 أعزب/ عزباء .2 متزوج /ة .4 سنوات الخبرة في التعليم .1 أقل من 5 سنوات .2 من 5 إلى أقل من عشرة .3 من 11 إلى أقل من 15 .4 أكثر من 15 سنة .5 التخصص )المادة التي تدرسها هذا العام ( __________________________ .6 ما هو معدل عدد الساعات التي تمضيها/ تمضينها بالنشاطات التعليمة خالل أسبوع كامل )7 أيام( .1 أقل من 30 ساعة .2 من 30 – 34 ساعة .3 من 35 – 39 ساعة .4 من 40 – 44 ساعة .5 أكثر من 45 ساعة .7 المؤهل العلمي: .1 دبلوم .2 بكالوريس .3 ماجستير .4 دكتوراة .5أخرى ____________ .8 هل تعمل/ين حاليا للحصول على درجة علمية جديدة؟ .1 نعم .2 ال ً .3 جيد .4 متوسط .5 .9 ما درجة اتقانك الستخدام الحاسوب؟ .1 ممتاز .2 جيد جدا ضعيف أو معدوم .11 هل يوجد انترنت في البيت؟ .1 نعم .2 ال .11 أستخدم التكنولوجيا في البحث عن مصادر التعليم والتعلم 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .12 أستخدم التكنولوجيا في التنمية المهنية 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة نشكر لكم تعاونكم 82 ANNEX E: Classroom Engagement Survey (Students’ Form) ب هللا الرحمن الرحيم المشاركة الصفية استبانة الطالب عزيزي الطالب : تذكر، هذه االستبانة لغرض البحث فقط و ليس لتقييم المدرسة او آداء اعضاء الهيئة التدريسية حيث سيتم االحتفاظ بردودكم وبكل ما تقدموه من معلومات بسرية تامة وألغراض البحث فقط معلومات يملؤها الباحث: رقم االستبانة اسم الباحث المديرية التي تقع فيها المدرسة رقم المدرسة الوطني E في أي صف تم تعبئة االستبانة؟ .1الصف السابع .2 الصف الثامن .3 الصف التاسع .4 الصف العاشر في أي حصة تم تعبئة االستبانة ؟ دولة فلسطين وزارة التربيـة والتعلـيم المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي State Of Palestine Ministry of Education National Institute for Educational Training 83 .1الرياضيات .2 العلوم .3 اللغة العربية .4 اللغة االنجليزية A األولالجزء : عن مدرستك: انطباعك الرجاء التفكير في مدرستك فقط أثناء اإلجابة عن األسئلة التالية: ما درجة اتفاقك مع العبارات التالية: اإلجابة دائرة حولضع التي تراها مناسبة لكل جملة. .1 أشعر بأن مدرستي تقوم بإعدادي الكون ناجحا في تعلمي المستقبلي 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .2 أنا سعيد لكوني طالب في هذه المدرسة 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .3 اكون متحمسا عند القدوم الى المدر سة 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة B الجزء الثاني: تجربتك داخل الصف/الحصة الرجاء التفكير في حصص مادة )مبحث هذه الحصة ( أثناء اإلجابة عن األسئلة التالية: ما مدى اتفاقك مع العبارات التالية : اإلجابة دائرة حولضع التي تراها مناسبة لكل جملة. .1 يشجعني معلمي على التفكير اليجاد االجابات و الحلول 84 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .2 أشارك في مجموعات تعاونية صغيرة داخل الصف 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .3 أعبر عن رأيي بحرية داخل الحصة 1 ( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة 4 .يستخدم معلمي اسلوب يجعل عملية التعليم ممتعة 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .5 أأشارك في نشطة صفية متنوعة 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .6 يساعدني معلمي عندما اجد صعوبة في فهم الدرس 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .7 يهتم معلمي كثيرا بافكاري المطروحة 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .8 يشجعني معلمي على طرح األسئلة في الصف 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .9 يقضي معلمي معظم وقت الحصة في قراءة المعلومات وكتابتها 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .10 أقضي معظم وقت الحصة في نسخ المعلومات 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة 11 . في معظم الحصص، معلمي يطلب مني حفظ الحقائق واالرقام دون التحقق من درجة معرفتي و فهمي لها 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .12 لنقاش يعطيني معلمي وقتا ما تعلم ته في الصف 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .13 يتحدث معلمي اكثر من الطلبة في الحصة دون السماح للطالب بالنقاش 85 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .14 أسلوب معلمي يساعدني على الفهم بسهولة 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .15 أشارك في المشاريع 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .16 يعطيني معلمي مالحظات حول ادائي في اإلختبارات والواجبات 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .17 يعطيني معلمي مالحظات حول الدرس ادائي أثناء 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .18 أشارك في انشطة مثيرة لإلهتمام 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5 ق بشدة( ال أواف .19 يستخدم معلمي ادوات ووسائل تكنولوجية في الحصة 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة .20 يربط معلمي بين ما ما نتعلمه وبين الحياة اليومية 1( أوافق بشدة 2( أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( ال أوافق 5( ال أوافق بشدة C الجزء الثالث: الحاسوب استخدام ضع دائرة حول اإلجابة التي تختارها لكل سؤال: .1 هل لديك جهاز حاسوب في البيت؟ 1( نعم 2 ال ( .2 هل لديك انترنت في البيت؟ 1( نعم 2 ال ( 3 . أستخدم جهاز الحاسوب النجاز الواجبات البيتية 1( غالبا 2( احيانا 3( نادرا 86 .4 أستخدم جهاز الحاسوب لزيادة المعرفة التي اكتسبتها داخل الصف 1( غالبا 2( احيانا 3( نادرا D الجزء ال العام الخالل )السلوك :رابع (دراسي الحالي الرجاء التفكير في مدرستك .االسئلة التالية تطلب منك ذكر عدد المرات التي قمت بها باالمور التالية داخل المدرسة . تذكر ، ال أحد سيعلم انك من قمت باالجابة عن االسئلة : .1 ضربت احد الطالب متعمدا داخل المدرسة: a )وال مرة b )1 5- مرات c )6 10- مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات .2 تعرضت للضرب المتعمد من قبل احد الطالب: a )وال مرة b )1 5- مرات c )6 10- مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات .3 تعرضت للضرب من قبل المعلم : a )وال مرة b )1 5- مرات c )6 10- مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات .4 غادرت المدرسة بدون اذن : a )وال مرة 87 b )1 5- مرات c )6 10- مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات .5 احضرت ولي أمري الى المدرسة بسبب قيامي بأمر خاطئ : a )وال مرة b )1 5- مرات c )6 10- مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات E الجزء الخامس: معلومات إضافية عني وعن عائلتي 1 . ضع دائرة حول الجواب الذي ينطبق عليك؟ 1 أنثى أو . 2 . ذكر .2 كم سنة قضيت في هذه المدرسة بما فيها حالية؟ السنة ال )أكتب عدد السنوات في المستطيل( _________ ضع دائرة حول االجابة التي تناسبك. .3 ما هي أعلى درجة علمية حصلت عليها والدت ؟ك/ولية أمرك 1 أقل من ثانوي . .2 الدراسة الثانوية .2 جامعي )بكالوريوس (أكثر أو 4 . ما هي أعلى درجة علمية حصل عليها والدك ؟/ولي امرك 1 أقل من ثانوي . .2 الدراسة الثانوية .2 جامعي )بكالوريوس (أكثر أو نشكر لكم تعاونكم 88 ANNEX F: Training Evaluation Form (NIET/generic form) الرجاء إلجابة عناألسئلة آلتية بوضع اشارة x أمام كل عبارة تحت التقدير المنا سب: بشدة أوافق 4. أوافق 3. أعارض . 2 بشدة أعارض 1. A مخرجات التدريب أوافق بشدة أوافق اعارض أعارض بشدة 1A اكتسبت مهارات جديدة 2A يزيد التدريب من قدرتي على التطور المهني 3A ساعدني التدريب على إدراك نقاط القوة والضعف لدي 4A لبى التدريب احتياجاتي التدريبية 5A يمكنني التدريب من الحصول على شهادة B محتوى التدريب أوافق بشدة أوافق اعارض أعارض بشدة 1B محتوى التدريب يتناسب مع أ هداف البرنامج 2B محتوى التدريب له صلة بعملي. ً علي. 3B كان محتوى التدريب جديدا 4B محتوى التدريب يواكب االتجاهات التربوية الفعالة. 5B محتوى التدريب يراعي التسلسل المنطقي للموضوعات 5B أعتقد أن المواد التدريبية سوف تفيدني في المستقبل، وتترك أثر في مستواي األكاديمي 6B المواد التدريبية سوف تحسن مستواي المهني 7B محتوى المادة التدريبية يجمع بين الجانب النظري والتطبيقي 8B إخراج المادة التدريبية واضح ومنظم Cألساليب والنشاطات التدريبية أوافق بشدة أوافق اعارض أعارض بشدة 1C األساليب المستخدمةتناسب مع المحتوى المطروح في البرنامج 2C األساليب متنوعة " نقاش، تمارين تدريبي ة، محاضرات، مجموعات "... 3C أساليب التدريب عملية وتطبيقية 4C أساليب التدريب تركز على التعلم الذاتي 5C األساليب المقترحة تطلب استخدام تقنيات متنوعة مثل ) التلفاز، الفيديو، جهاز العرض، الحاسب، ... الخ . 6C األنشطة وأساليب التدريب المقترحة تستثير التفكير D ألمور إلدارية أوافق بشدة أوافق اعارض أعارض بشدة 1D برنامج التدريب مناسب " ساعات البدء، واالنت هاء وقت االستراحات، " ...... ً لي 2D كان وقت انعقاد الدورة مالئما 3D كانتالمواصالت من و إلى مكان التدريب مؤمنة. 4D المواد االزمة للدورة كانت معدة )قرطاسية ،ورق قالب، أ الم 89 فلوماستر....( 5D منهجية التدريب في البرنامج تعزز الممارسة الميدانية وتأخ ذها بعين االعتبار 6D منهجية البرنامج ومسؤولياته، ومتطلباته الئمة 7D عدد ساعات التدري خالل اليوم الئم لألنشطة Eبيئة التدريب أوافق بشدة أوافق اعارض أعارض بشدة 1E يوجد تناسب بين عدد المتدربين وسعة قاعات التدريب 2E زودت قاعات التدريب بالوسائل التعليمية المعينة للتدريب 3E كانت قاعة التدريب مريحة من حث اإلضاءة والمقاعد والتهوية.... " . 4Eتوفرت في مكان التدريب الخدمات والتسهيالت مثل كفتيريا وغي رها. F التقويم أوافق بشدة أوافق اعارض أعارض بشدة 1F استخدمت أدوات تقويم متنوعة في البرنامج. 2F وسائل وأدوات التقويم تناسب ال مهام التدريبية 3F كانت عملية التقويممستمرة. 4F كانت التغذية الراجعة مستمرة. 5F أعطى الوقت الكافي لتنفيذ التقويم أثناء تنفيذ الفعاليات. .1 مور الثة ما أكثر األ " المرتبطة في مجال القيادة المدرسية "التي اكتسبتها من الل اللقاءات اثالث السابقة؟ .2 ما الواجبات المهمة التي أخذتها في اللقاءات السابقة ؟ ولماذا تعتبرها مهمة ؟ .3 ما الممارسات القيادية التي ستتبناها نتيجة للتدريب؟ .4 ضمن محاور وموضوعات اللقاءات التي تم تناولها سابقا. ما األمور التي ترغب االستزادة والتعمق فيها الحقاً؟. - - - 5. الحظات أخرى لتطوير جوانب التدريب: 90 - الفنيّة ) مثال:ً موضوعات وأساليب تدريب في اللقاءات الوجا هية ، وحلقات التعلم( . 91 ANNEX G: Action Research Questionnaire المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي برنامج تطوير القيادة و المعلمين ب هللا الرحمن الرحيم :الول الجزء كالمشتر ة/المعلم عزيزي في برنامج LTD وبعد،، طيبة تحية ستبانه، هذه على الجابة دقائق بضع اخذ برجاء ل ستستخدم ونتائجها مطلقة، بسرية ستحاط اجابتكم اال الج خدمة الهدف بأن علما العامة، المصلحة من تبانه هذه االس هو على اعتمادا الجرائية البحوث حول نظركم وجهة فهم ما تعرضتم له ركتكممشا اثناء في التعليمي الكادر تطوير برنامج LTD. الدقةفي بة اصدق فهما تعكس االجا تجربتكم لواقع مع الجرائية البحوث . مع والتقدير الشكر د. النجدي رندة ل القسم األو الديمغرافية المعلومات -1 الشخصي، السم أو بكم الخاص الرمز ----------------------- كتابة برجاء اي يتكون رمز من عدد . منازل بأربعة الرمز حفط يرجى) من (المقبلة المرحلة اجل -2ضع حول دائرة انثى ، ذكر الجنس -3 التدريس سنوات ----------------------- -4 بها تدرسون التي المدرسة --------------------- -5 تدرسونها التي الصفوف --------------------------- -6 عدد بها تدرسون التي درسةالم الب (تقدير) ------------------- 92 القسمالثاني: عزيزيالمعلم/ة المشتركفيبرنامج LTD تحية طيبة وبعد،، نتوقعانك االن انهيت او علىمشارف انهاءبحث اجرائي واحدعلى األقل،برجاء اخذبضعدقائق الجابة على هذهالستبانه،علمابأن اجابتكمستحاطبسريةمطلقة، ونتائجهاستستخدم الجل خ دمة المصلحةالعامة، علمابأنالهدف من هذه االستبانه هوفهم وجهةنظركم حولالبحوث الجرائية اعتماداعلى ماتعرضتمله اثناءمشاركتكم فيبرنامجتطويرالكادر التعليمي LTD. الدقةفي االجابةتعكسف همااصدقلواقعتجربتكم معالبحوث الجرائية. معالشكر والتقدير د. رندةالنجدي القسمالثاني السم الشخصي أوالرمز الشخصيالذياستخدمتهفي الجزء االول --------------------- ما عدد االبحاث االجرائية التي انهيتها او التي ما زلت تعمل عليها-------------------- برجاء وضعاشارة xفيالخانةالتيتصف رأيك ووضعكبعدتعرفك او اجرئك الفعليلبحث اجرائي الرقم الفقرة موافقبشدة موافق محايد غير موافق غير موافق بشدة امتيازات حققتها بعد تطبيقي للبحوثاالجرائية .1 طورت قدرتيفيتحديد مش التي الصفية بدقة .2 اصبحتثقتيبممارساتيالتعليمية أعلى .3 حققت رغبتيالدائمة فيتحسين ممارساتيالتربوبة .4 زادتقدرتيعلىالسيطرةعلى 93 مش التعمليبسب امكانيةالتغيير الذي اتاحتهلي البحوث االجرائية .5 زادفرصةعملي مع البي وزمالئي بسبب التفافنالتحقيق هدف معينمعلن .6 البحث الجرائيالذي انهيته،قدم خدمة تربويةكبيرةلمدرستي .7 اتاحليتبادلالخبرات مع ز الئي من نفسالتخصص .8 يستحقالبحث الجرائيكلالوقت الذييبذل النهائهبسبفوائده .9 زاد من حماسيلتغييرمشاكلياليومية .10تأمليبممارساتي اصبح أعمق زاد منقدرتيعلىتشخيص حاجات .11 البيالتربوية .12 زادتقدرتيعلىاتخاذقراراتصائبة لحل المش التبسببتاملي وجمعي المعلوماتحولها .13 زادرضائي عنممارساتيالتربوية الصعوبات )قدر مدىالصعوباتالتي واجهتك اثناءتطبيقكالبحوث الجرائية( الرقم ا لفقرة التوجد صعوبة مطلقا صعوبة خفيفه صعوبة عادية صعوبة مرتفعة صعوبة شديدة .1 تحديد مشكلةالدراسة بدقة .2 ايجادالمراجع والدراسات السابقة الداعمةللمشكلة .3 تحديد خطوات اجراءاتالدراسة .4 صحة البيانات ومصداقيتها .5 تحليل وتفسير البياناتالتيحصلت عليها .6 تنظيم وتأمالنتائج .7 كتابةالتقرير البحثي 94 .8 طول الزمن الذي احتاجه النجاز البحث .9تكلفة البحث االقتصادية .10 1 نشر البحث القسم الثالث 1 - ما هي التغيرات في عليك مرت التي المهنية ممارساتك او رائية؟ حوثللب اجرائك أثناء اختبرتها االج اعط ذلك؟ على مثاال 2 - ما هي التغيرات في عليك مرت التي للتعلم ال الب استجابة طريقة او للبحوث اجرائك أثناء اختبرتها اعط الجرائية؟ ذلك؟ على مثاال 3 يمكن كيف - ان لك تصف ) الجرائية بحوثك لنتائج استغال ان وجدت ( في المهنية؟ ممارساتك 4 - ما هي ا قتراحات لتطوير البح ث االجرائية والحد من الصعوبات 5 االجمال - هل ترى ان البحوثاالجرائية اسهمت في تحسين ممارساتك ال مهنية؟ اشكرلكموقتكم