Bibliographic Information: USAID Award Number: AID 294-A-12-00006 USAID Program Area and Element: Program Area A12/ Element A055 Education / Strategic Objective SO 13 Author: Leadership and Teacher Development Program Contractor Name: AMIDEAST- Leadership and Teacher Development Program Sponsoring USAID Agency Operating Unit: Education Development Office Date of Publication: October 2016 Language of Document: English Contact Information: Dr. Said Assaf PhD , Chief Of Party : sassaf@amideast.org DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by the USAID Leadership and Teacher Development Program (LTD). The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. LEADERSHIP AND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM October, 2016 This publication was produced for the United States Agency for International Development. Evaluation Report Impact of the Leadership and Teacher Development Program on Improving the Quality of Education in the West Bank Fiscal Year 2016 Evaluation Report Impact of the Leadership and Teacher Development Program on Improving the Quality of Education in the West Bank Fiscal Year 2016 October 2016 The Leadership and Teacher Development Program Cooperative Agreement No. 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................................2 Section 1: Improving School Leadership ........................................................................................................... 14 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Sample ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Knowledge about the Standards and Competencies for Effective Leadership ........................................ 15 From Knowledge to Action: Changes in Practice across the Indicators of Effective Leadership .............. 16 Teacher Survey of Leadership Effectiveness ................................................................................................. 25 Overall Results .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Leadership Competencies Ranked Lowest by Teachers ........................................................................... 26 Results for PPR Indicator 2.1 ......................................................................................................................... 27 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Section 2: Empowering the School Improvement Team (SIT) .......................................................................... 30 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 Population and Sample ................................................................................................................................. 31 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................................... 32 Results across the Five Main Indicators .................................................................................................... 32 Monitoring SIP implementation ............................................................................................................... 33 Deploying and Managing Resources ......................................................................................................... 34 Practicing Teamwork and Collaboration ................................................................................................... 36 Modeling Shared Leadership by the Principal .......................................................................................... 37 Support from the Local DLT during SIT Planning and Implementation ........................................................ 40 Summary of Open-Ended Questions on the Survey ..................................................................................... 41 Focus Group Results ...................................................................................................................................... 42 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 42 Deploying and managing resources .......................................................................................................... 44 Practicing teamwork and collaboration .................................................................................................... 45 Modeling shared leadership ..................................................................................................................... 47 Support from the local DLT ....................................................................................................................... 48 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 50 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 52 Section 3A: Fostering Quality Teaching and Learning ...................................................................................... 53 Introduction: Teacher Effectiveness Survey ................................................................................................. 53 Results of the Teacher Effectiveness Survey ................................................................................................ 54 ii Overall Results .......................................................................................................................................... 54 Indicator 1: Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning ............................................................ 56 Indicator 2: Designing educational materials and resources .................................................................... 56 Indicator 3: Creating a safe and effective learning environment ............................................................. 57 Indicator 4: Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process ........................................ 57 Indicator 5: Providing guidance and direction for learners ...................................................................... 59 Indicator 6: Seeking continuous professional development .................................................................... 60 Indicator 7: Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community ........................................... 60 Results of Statistical Analysis between Dependent and Independent Variables ..................................... 61 Principal’s Questionnaire.............................................................................................................................. 61 Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 61 Teaching Competencies Ranked Lowest by Principals ............................................................................. 62 Results for PPR Indicator 3.2 ......................................................................................................................... 63 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 64 Section 3B: Classroom Engagement Survey ...................................................................................................... 66 Introduction: Classroom Engagement Survey .............................................................................................. 66 Sample ........................................................................................................................................................... 66 Data Collection .............................................................................................................................................. 67 Variables and Method of Analysis................................................................................................................. 67 Results ............................................................................................................................................................... 68 School Satisfaction ........................................................................................................................................ 68 Learner-Centered Classroom ........................................................................................................................ 69 21st Century Learning Skills .......................................................................................................................... 72 Student Behavior and Child-Friendly Environment ...................................................................................... 73 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 75 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 76 Section 4: Promoting the Integration of Technology in Pre-Service Teacher Education in Gaza ..................... 78 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 78 Moodle Evaluation Study .............................................................................................................................. 78 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 79 Part 1: Previous experience with Moodle................................................................................................. 79 Part 2: Ease of using and navigating Moodle’s course tools and functions ............................................. 80 Part 3: The extent that Moodle enhanced teaching/learning experiences and outcomes ...................... 81 Part 4: Student Achievement .................................................................................................................... 87 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 89 Section 5: Advancing Gender Equality and Female Empowerment ................................................................. 91 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 91 Research Design and Methods...................................................................................................................... 92 Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 94 iii Female Empowerment (Self-Efficacy) ....................................................................................................... 94 Gender Equality ........................................................................................................................................ 95 General Perceptions of Gender Equality in the Workplace ...................................................................... 97 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 98 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 98 Annex A: Survey of Leadership Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 99 Annex B: SIT Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 104 Annex C: SIT Focus Group Moderator’s Guide................................................................................................ 107 Annex D: Teacher Effectiveness Survey Questionnaire (Teacher’s Form)...................................................... 109 Annex E: Independent-samples t-tests ........................................................................................................... 114 Annex F: Classroom Engagement Survey (Student Questionnaire) ................................................................ 115 Annex G: Technology Survey Questions/Gaza ................................................................................................ 120 Annex H: Technology Focus Group Questions/Gaza ...................................................................................... 122 i 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 2 Executive Summary Project Background Quality education requires effective school leadership and teaching, an outcome that is the result of systemic changes in policies, structures, processes and practices that enable schools, district directorates and the central Ministry to ensure high levels of learning for all students. To support the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education to improve the quality of education, the Leadership and Teacher Development (LTD) Program has, since 2012, been working in partnership with key stakeholders— from the school, district, and central ministry levels—to plan and implement strategic capacity building designed to support the professional development of some 1600 in-service and pre￾service teachers, 300 school principals, and over 100 managers of district leadership teams across all 16 school districts. Furthermore, LTD has equipped its schools with essential ICT resources (i.e., Internet connectivity, laptops, and LCDs) to support effective teaching and school management. Evaluation Purpose and Design By the end the program, LTD will have enabled school leadership and teachers to empower over 55,000 students in schools and classrooms with knowledge, skills, and values for success in the 21st century knowledge economy. In order to capture these changes, LTD employs a robust evidence-based performance management plan (PMP) that provides for continuous monitoring and feedback to guide improvements to LTD’s interventions and to evaluate annually (per cohort) the impact of LTD’s interventions. Findings from the evaluation are shared with USAID, AMIDEAST, key partners in the MoEHE, and Al-Azhar University—Gaza, with the aim enhancing policies, strategies and approaches to improve the quality of professional development provided to principals, teachers, and teacher educators. 3 This report, therefore, presents findings of a mixed-methods study aimed at identifying the extent to which LTD contributed to enhancing the quality teaching and learning in the West Bank among the 72 schools of Cohort III during the 2015-2016 school year, with the addition of a short-term project to support pre-service teacher education at Al-Azhar University—Gaza. Five core research questions framed the study, as follows: What evidence do we have that LTD contributed to: 1. Improving school leadership? 2. Empowering the School Improvement Team (SIT)? 3. Fostering quality teaching and learning? 4. Integrating technology into pre-service teacher education in Gaza? 5. Advancing gender equality and female empowerment among program beneficiaries? To investigate these questions, LTD identified specific indicators to measure of each question, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Indicators for core research topics Research Topic Indicators 1. Improving school leadership 1.1. School Improvement Planning 1.2. School/Community Relations 1.3. Management of Human and Material Resources 1.4. Support for Teaching and Learning 1.5. Child-Friendly School Environment 1.6. Assessment for Improving Teaching and learning 1.7. Technology for teaching/Administration 2. Empowering the school improvement team (SIT) 2.1. Task performance (SIP planning) 2.2. Teamwork (SIP planning) 2.3. Principal’s leadership (SIP planning) 2.4. Monitoring SIP (SIP implementation) 2.5. Deploying and managing resources (SIP implementation) 2.6. Practicing teamwork and collaboration (SIP implementation) 2.7. Modeling shared leadership (SIP implementation) 2.8. Support from the local DLT (SIP planning and implementation) 3. Fostering quality teaching and learning 3.1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning 3.2. Designing educational materials and resources 3.3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment 3.4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process 3.5. Providing guidance and direction for learners 3.6. Seeking continuous professional development 3.7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community 3.8. Developing 21st century learning skills 4. Promoting the integration of technology in pre-service teacher education in Gaza 4.1. Completing assignments 4.2. Communication for learning among students and instructor 4.3. Improved learning experiences 4.4. Valuing Moodle as a learning tool 4.5. Improved student achievement 5. Advancing gender equality and female empowerment among LTD’s beneficiaries 5.1. Equal Access: Percentage female and male beneficiaries reporting equal access to opportunities, resources and services provided by LTD 5.2. Self-Efficacy: Average self-efficacy reported by women and men at the conclusion of USG-supported training/programming 4 LTD used a mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative), quasi-experimental design that incorporated baseline and endline data from representative and, in some cases, random samples of LTD’s diverse groups of beneficiaries—principals, teachers, teacher educators, and students (Table 2). Table 2. Methods of data collection Research Topic Data Collection Method Frequency of Data Collection Sources of Data 1. Improving school leadership Survey of Effective Leadership Twice: Baseline (reconstructed) and endline1  Principals  Teachers (LTD and Non-LTD, randomly selected) 2. Empowering the school improvement team (SIT) SIT Survey Twice: end of planning phase; end of implementation phase  Principals  Teachers  Parents SIT Focus Groups Twice: end of planning phase; end of implementation phase  Principals  Teachers  Parents 3. Fostering quality teaching and learning Teacher Effectiveness Survey Twice: Baseline (reconstructed) and endline  Teachers  Principals Classroom Engagement Survey Once: Endline only (quasi￾experimental design)  Teachers (LTD and Non-LTD, randomly selected)  Students (LTD and Non-LTD, randomly selected) 4. Promoting the integration of technology in pre￾service teacher education in Gaza Online Survey Once: endline  Student-Teachers  Instructors Focus Groups Once: endline  Student-Teachers  Instructors 5. Advancing gender equality and female empowerment among LTD’s beneficiaries Self-Efficacy Survey Twice: Baseline (reconstructed) and endline  Principals  Teachers Gender Equality Survey Twice: Baseline (reconstructed) and endline 1 NIET decided to use a reconstructed baseline approach where, instead of a true baseline before the start of an intervention, participants compare their change at the end of the intervention with their competency levels at the start. NIET’s rationale for this was because they knew from previous experience that principals found it difficult at the start of the trainings to accurately self-assess their performance on standards and competencies they were not entirely familiar with. 5 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 1. Improving School Leadership Overall, the principals reported an impressive 24% change in aggregate across the seven domains of effective school leadership, with the largest change in their competencies related to school improvement planning (55%). Results of the Teacher Survey of Leadership Effectiveness indicated, on average, a solid 17% improvement in their principals’ performance across all seven major domains of effective leadership; most notably, teachers observed a 25% increase in the principal’s capacity to effectively lead school improvement planning. Furthermore, the study found that 74% of the principals in Cohort III met or exceeded the benchmark score of 3.40 (on a 4-point scale) for “demonstrating effective school leadership,” which is one of LTD’s key “Performance Plan and Report” (PPR) indicators that is reported annually to USAID. Although LTD’s annual target (per cohort) for this indicator is 80%, the modest deviation of 7.8% from the target value is well within the ± 10% deviation allowed by USAID standards. In sum, and as the findings presented below will confirm, the vast majority of Cohort III principals have either met or exceeded the MoEHE’s standards for effective school leadership. 1.1. School Improvement Planning: The principals reported a remarkable 55% improvement overall across the six competencies comprising this indicator, the biggest level of professional growth of all seven Indicators of Leadership Effectiveness. 1.2. School/Community Relations: The principals reported a solid 19% improvement in their capacity to enact behaviors to improve school/community relations. 1.3. Management of Human and Material Resources: Overall, principals reported a satisfactory 17% change, on average, for the competencies comprising the skills of effectively managing human and material resources. 1.4. Support for Teaching and Learning: The principals reported a solid 20% improvement on average across the ten competencies comprising this indicator. 1.5. Child-Friendly School Environment: The principals reported a solid 20% improvement in their capacity to exercise effective leadership in fostering a child-friendly learning environment. 1.6. Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning: The principals reported a substantial 23% improvement in their effective use of assessment data and methods to improve teaching and learning. 1.7. Technology for teaching/Administration: The principals reported a solid 21% improvement in their effective deployment of technology for teaching and school administration. 2. Empowering the School Improvement Team (SIT) Overall, LTD contributed to the capacity of SIT members, and in particular the performance of principals, to work collegially and collaboratively in developing their school’s vision and mission, establish strategic goals, and prepare an implementation plan. 2.1. Task performance (SIP planning): 88% of SIT members surveyed rated as high the quality of their team’s performance of tasks required to develop their school’s vision and mission, establish strategic goals, and prepare an implementation plan. 6 2.2. Teamwork (SIP planning): 90% of SIT members surveyed agreed that team members exercised cooperation and collaboration in developing in the school improvement team. 2.3. Principal’s leadership (SIP planning): 94% of SIT members surveyed agreed that the principal was effective in sorting and managing collaborative work among SIT members in developing the SIP. 2.4. Monitoring SIP (SIP implementation): The overall quality of the role and tasks of the SIT in monitoring the implementation of the SIP was adequate, with some 75% of respondents agreeing that the SIT effectively monitored the progress of the implementation of the SIT; however, there was less agreement on the efficacy of reporting and using data to gauge progress on achieving the goals and targets of an SIP. 2.5. Deploying and managing resources (SIP implementation): Collectively, 93% of the SIT members agreed that SITs are able to effectively deploy and manage material and human resources during implementation of the SIP. In particular, SITs were successful in utilizing LTD’s robust provision of technology resources (i.e., laptops, LCDs, and Internet connectivity) to support effective teaching and school management. Likewise, the SITs were effective pooling and mobilizing human and material resources both inside and outside the school community towards improving the overall school environment. 2.6. Practicing teamwork and collaboration (SIP implementation): An impressive 90% of the respondents agreed that, as a team, the members of SITs exercised a high degree of cooperation and teamwork during implementation of their SIPs. The findings point to strongly levels of mutual trust, cooperation with individuals and groups inside and outside the school, openness to multiple perspectives and opinions, commitment to completing tasks in meetings; and sharing a common vision and methodology. 2.7. Modeling shared leadership (SIP implementation): A strong majority (93%) of the respondents SIT membership agreed that the leadership style of the principal—in his/her role as head of the SIT— has encouraged open dialogue and multiple perspectives, as well as in providing both technical and administrative support to facilitate the work of the team members. In other words, the SIT is serving as a mechanism for shared leadership. 2.8. Support from the local DLT (SIP planning and implementation): Based on data collected from principals, approximately three quarters of the respondents (77%) agreed that their local DLT effectively supported the planning and implementation of their school’s SIP, which, correspondingly, helped to strengthen relations between the school and the district directorate. 3. Fostering Quality Teaching and Learning The findings of the study point to solid evidence that LTD, primarily through the efforts of its partner, NIET, is successfully promoting the professional development of in-service teachers to implement knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are creating learner-centered classrooms. The results across the seven indicators point to substantive change in teachers’ self-reported assessment of their teaching competencies. On average, teachers reported that their competencies improved by 19% across the seven areas. Overall, the study finds that students of LTD teachers, compared to their non-LTD counterparts, are more actively engaged in their own learning and are given greater opportunities to develop 21st century learning skills—critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. The study is pleased to report that LTD met its annual USAID target of ensuring that at least 60% (rounded from 59.7%) of teachers in a cohort are applying effective teaching methods in their classroom based the MoEHE standards for effective teaching. 7 3.1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning: LTD-trained teachers are creating a more learner-centered classroom environment than their non-LTD peers. LTD teachers improved by 18% their capacity to apply principles and strategies associated with learner-centered teaching and learning, strategies that offer opportunities for students to engage more actively in meaningful learning and assessment activities. Likewise, LTD students are more likely to agree/strongly agree (70%) that their classrooms reflect a learner-centered environment compared to their non-LTD peers (65%). 3.2. Designing educational materials and resources: LTD teachers improved by 22% in designing and teaching lessons and units that utilize a variety of learning tools and resources to enhance the learning of students. Among the biggest self- reported changes is in the use of ICT, which improved by 21%, and is probably a reflection of LTD’s emphasis on the integration of technology in the classroom. Correspondingly, student results indicated that LTD teachers are using educational resources to produce 12% more opportunities than their non-LTD counterparts to engage students in project-based learning—a key policy priority of the MoEHE that is given pedagogical emphasis in the LTD Teacher Qualification training modules. 3.3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment: LTD teachers improved their capacity by 18% to create a child-friendly classroom environment, where students have opportunities to develop into confident and independent learners, to engage in active learning, and to use critical thinking and creativity. Overall, students of LTD teachers are slightly more satisfied by 3.4% with the learning environment compared to their non-LTD peers (a statistically significant finding). 3.4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process: LTD teachers improved by 20% their capacity to use a variety of methods for formative and summative assessments of student learning. This result is validated by the previously reported finding that LTD classrooms offer students 12% more opportunities than their non-LTD peers to engage in project-based learning, a finding that is consistent with the use of authentic assessment. 3.5. Providing guidance and direction for learners: Besides teaching skills, teachers are also expected to provide basic counselling skills to help their students manage emotional and behavioral problems and help them plan for future careers. Teachers reported an acceptable 15% change in this competency. Notably, the teachers reported a 23% change in their ability to consult “with experts to find appropriate solutions to students with learning difficulties.” 3.6. Seeking continuous professional development: Of all seven indicators of teacher effectiveness, this indicator registered the largest percent change of all—23%. The results show that teachers made substantial improvements in their capacity to self-direct their own professional learning through reflective practice and inquiry, and to participate in communities of practice at their schools to share and cooperate with colleagues. In particular, the teachers’ use of action research grew by an impressive 38%, a finding that reflects the importance given to action research and reflective practice in the LTD Teacher Qualification program. 3.7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community: LTD teachers improved by 17% their overall capacity to develop supportive relationships with peers, families, and others in the local community aimed at creating authentic contexts and extra support for students to apply their learning in real-world situations. 3.8. Developing 21st century learning skills: LTD classrooms appear to be creating more opportunities for students to develop their 21st century learning skills—communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity—than those in non-LTD schools. LTD students are more likely by 4% to practice critical thinking, creativity by 7%, communication by 4%, and collaboration by 8%. While the data suggests that both LTD and non-LTD teachers are making about equal efforts to develop 8 students’ 21st century learning skills, the LTD teachers—based on student results—appear to be having more success. 4. Promoting the integration of technology in pre-service teacher education in Gaza A pilot study of the impact of introducing tools and strategies for the integration of technology in a selection of pre-service teacher education courses at the Faculty of Education, Al-Azhar University—Gaza, found that students and instructors became more engaged in active learning both inside and outside the classroom than ever before. Instructors found that using a blended learning approach—aided with a classroom management system, Moodle—helped them question their assumptions about course design and to move away from a teacher-centered model of classical lecturing to a learner-centered approach characterized by active learning rather than passive memorization. Students found they were more able monitor and reflect on their learning progress more routinely, and to work cooperatively outside of class meeting times to share and exchange information and resources more easily and independently than before. 4.1. Completing assignments: Well over two-thirds of the students surveyed (68%) agreed they found it easy to use Moodle technology (68%) to complete assignments (67%) and follow up on (69%) their work and learning activities. In the focus groups, the students explained that compared to other courses, Moodle kept them more engaged with the course content outside of class. They explained that this was because Moodle made it easy for them to access and review lectures and quizzes throughout the week. 4.2. Communication for learning among students and instructor: Two-thirds (65%) agreed that communication with their instructor improved and, importantly, nearly three-quarters agreed (73%) that Moodle made them feel part of a learning community. In the focus group, students explained that Moodle boosted their learning performance by allowing them to exchange ideas and information and to ask questions and compare answers, and even help one another troubleshoot technical problems. In particular, the students commented that Moodle enabled them to deepen their learning and understanding by facilitating communication with their instructors. 4.3. Improved learning experiences: Nearly three-quarters of the students (71%) reported that Moodle enhanced their learning experiences, resulting in improved study habits (68%) and more time spent on studying (61%) which, they report, improved their learning (75%). Impressively, some 85% of the students agreed that doing multiple attempts for a quiz—a special feature in Moodle’s quiz settings—improved their understanding of course content. Furthermore, the students described how Moodle encouraged them to take more responsibility for their own learning, saying that the easy access to course resources and information allowed them to monitor their own progress and even look ahead and explore upcoming topics or issues in advance of a lesson. 4.4. Valuing Moodle as a learning tool: The vast majority of students (85%) agreed that using Moodle in their coursework made them see the importance of using technology in teaching and learning. They observed that unlike other instructors who mainly lecture from a textbook, Moodle enhanced their instructors’ capacity to make a lecture course more interesting and engaging, for example, through the addition of videos linked to online discussions, multiple-attempt quizzes, and the use of a Smart board. 4.5. Improved student achievement: Student achievement in three Moodle-enhanced courses that ended in May 2016 were compared with results from the same courses offered in the previous spring semester in May 2015. The results indicate marked improvement in academic achievement in all 9 three cases. Impressively, the percentage of students who either just barely passed or failed in the Pharmacology course (Figure 8) declined dramatically from 34% to just 14%, in Teaching Geometry (Figure 7) from 38% to 29%, and in Teaching Science (Figure 6) from 8% to 0%. In other words, the addition of technology enhanced teaching and learning helped good students do better and struggling students to improve. 5. Advancing gender equality and female empowerment among LTD’s beneficiaries Findings from the study indicate that both female and male beneficiaries perceived LTD’s activities as reflecting internationally recognized principles of gender equality and female empowerment. Specifically, LTD met its targets for its two main PMP gender indicators: Self- Efficacy and Equal Access. 5.1. Equal Access: Results of the survey found that 79% of a representative sample of its beneficiaries— females and males—reported that LTD provided them with equal access to opportunities, resources and services regardless of gender. Although this figure is 7% below LTD’s target of 85%, it is comfortably within the deviation margin of ± 10% allowed by USAID. Impressively, 90% of both women and men felt empowered by the participation in LTD. The program helped both groups to: gain and apply new skills that benefited their work, particularly in the areas of educational leadership (91%); meet their professional development needs (88%); and, use of ICT in teaching and learning (92%). 5.2. Self-Efficacy: Overall, 69% of both female and male respondents scored higher than the baseline median score of 10, which was 9 percentage points better than LTD’s target of 60%. Compared to the baseline median score of 11 (out of a possible 16 points) for females as a group, 63% of females surveyed scored above the baseline median on the endline survey compared to 70% for males, whose base median baseline score was 10 out 16. In sum, LTD appears to have contributed to more positive feelings of empowerment among both women and men. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF LEADERSHIP AND TEACHER TRAINING 1. Improving School Leadership The study provides strong evidence that LTD principals made solid progress across all seven domains of the MoEHE Standards for Effective School Leadership. At the same time, however, the study points to a number of competencies that principals, with the support of the District Directorate and fellow school principals, should consider for ongoing professional development. LTD, therefore, suggests the following actions: 1.1. School improvement planning would likely benefit if principals redoubled their efforts to involve parents in improvement planning through their participation on the School Improvement Team (SIT) and through their representatives on the school Parent Council. 1.2. School/community relations would likely benefit if principals explored more innovative ways to engage the local community—families, community groups, business, and local government—in activities that support the teaching and learning processes by, among other things, developing an asset map of local community resources; connecting the curriculum to real world experiences; and, giving students voice in finding solutions to local problems. 1.3. Management of human and material resources would likely benefit if principals, in the role of instructional leaders, increased their direct involvement in the design, delivery, and content of 10 professional development aimed at enhancing the teaching and learning environment, and, with support from District Supervision, took measures to monitor and evaluate the outcomes of professional development. 1.4. Support for teaching and learning would benefit if principals—independently and in communities of practice with other principals—continued to align and apply their understanding of theories of teaching/learning with educational leadership. 1.5. Child-Friendly school environment will benefit if principals created opportunities for teachers to become directly involved in decision making related to the school community in general and to the classroom in particular, with an emphasis on supporting teachers to plan lessons and strategies that reflect core principles of child-friendly schools in their own classrooms. 1.6. Assessment for improving teaching and learning would likely benefit if principals ensured there is a robust system of structures and procedures in place to monitor student progress at both the classroom and school wide levels, and to use assessment data for strategic instructional decision￾making aimed at improving the quality of student learning. 1.7. Technology for teaching/administration would likely benefit if principals used technology not only to search for resources on teaching and learning, but also to demonstrate “technology” leadership by modeling the use of technology in school management/administration, and by creating professional development opportunities for teachers and staff focused on the use of technology to enhance learning for all students. 2. Empowering the School Improvement Team (SIT) The findings from the study indicate there is much to be excited about regarding the crucial leadership role played by the SIT in steering a school towards continuously improving the quality of education for all students. The findings also suggest opportunities for improvement, and thus LTD suggests the following actions: 2.1. Continue to build the principal’s capacity to involve parents, teachers, and other stakeholders of the school community in discourses and decisions on improving the school; in particular, attention should be given to learning how to improve the flow of information using technology to communicate with stakeholders. 2.2. Improve the principal’s capacity to involve parent members of the SITs in planning and collecting data for the school self-assessment. 2.3. Empower the principal with greater discretion to manage the workload and scheduling of SIT tasks and meetings so as to accommodate the limited free time that school staff and parents have during a typical workday. 2.4. Build the principal’s skills in giving constructive feedback and in managing differences of opinion in order to reach a consensus in decision-making. 2.5. Emphasize the responsibility of the principal and the SIT to systematically monitor and document the implementation of the SIP. 2.6. Continue to build the capacity of the principal and the SIT in managing resources intended to support the quality of teaching and learning and improve learning outcomes. 2.7. Improve coordination for scheduling professional development trainings for principals and teachers to avoid situations where both are absent at the same time. This would increase the time they both have to work on the SIP. 11 2.8. Improve the level of coordination between the schools on the one hand and the district directorates and the central Ministry on the other in order to avoid having to produce two “identical” SIPs and budgets—one for LTD and the other for the ministry. 2.9. Encourage exchange visits among SIT teams from different schools and set up a Facebook page so as to facilitate sharing of ideas and information. 2.10. The SIP planning phase should pay more attention to aligning the national curriculum with specific goals to improve teaching and learning, for example, by planning and supporting co- curricular field trips that make real-world connections to what students are learning in the classroom. 2.11. Collect and use data to systematically monitor, report progress, share feedback, and take action to improve the implementation of goals and targets outlined in the SIP. 2.12. Establish a structured, systematic process for monitoring and evaluation of the SIP implementation. 2.13. Formalize the role, representation, and active participation of the parent council on the SIT in both the planning and implantation phases of school improvement. 2.14. Strengthen the focus of the SIP implementation process on the effective management and monitoring of teaching and learning towards improving students’ academic performance. 2.15. Manage resources—including time—more strategically to increase the successful completion of goals, objectives, and targets during the implementation of the SIP. With regard to improving the capacity of the DLT to fully support a school’s SIP planning and implementation process, LTD recommends that the heads of the district directorates take measures to build the capacity of the DLT to: 2.16. Cooperate more closely with the SIT to offer systematic, constructive, and timely comments and feedback during the development and implementation of a school’s SIP. 2.17. Offer strategic backing for the principal’s efforts to identify individuals, groups, or organizations in the local community, or the broader school district, who may have access to supplementary resources to support the successful implementation of the SIP. 3. Fostering Quality Teaching and Learning The study provides clear evidence that LTD teachers are making progress across all seven domains of the Standards for Effective Teaching. At the same time, however, the study points to a number of competencies that teachers, with the support of their principals and district leadership teams (DLT), ought to work on continuing to improve. 3.1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning will advance if teachers work on involving students and other key stakeholders—fellow teachers, principals, and parents—in discussing and clarifying desired learning outcomes of the curriculum. 3.2. Designing educational materials and resources will advance if teachers improve their writing of learning outcomes that align assessment with subject-specific learning standards and outcomes linked to the national curriculum. 3.3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment will advance if teachers receive additional support in identifying and maximizing the utilization of community resources (material and human) to improve the learning process. 3.4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process (i.e., assessment) will advance if teachers empower and motivate students to contribute to a positive learning environment by giving them a say in drafting rules and regulations of expected school and classroom behavior. 12 3.5. Providing guidance and direction for learners will advance if teachers make regular and frequent use of student assessment data (formative/summative) to inform decisions on teaching/learning strategies in lesson plans and units of instruction, as well as to provide parents with useful, actionable information on how they can support their children’s learning at home. 3.6. Seeking continuous professional development will advance if teachers build their capacity—with the support of experts in counseling and inclusive education—to diagnose and provide appropriate strategies to enhance learning opportunities for students with learning difficulties (i.e., cognitive and/or physical disabilities). 3.7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community will advance if teachers continue to utilize action research and reflective practice to improve methods and techniques for effective teaching and learning, and share results in communities of practice with fellow teachers in the same school and/or in local school clusters. Likewise, results of LTD’s study of classroom engagement provides solid evidence that LTD is promoting the effective professional development of in-service teachers who are implementing knowledge, skills, and attitudes to create learner-centered classrooms. At the same time, however, a number of the key indicators that measure the quality of both classroom instruction and the broader social contexts inside the school point to areas where actions are needed to improve both the learning and child-friendly conditions for students. Improvements in these areas will occur if: 3.8. Schools and districts provide in-service support to help teachers to strategize and integrate active learning and assessment methods into the planning for units of instruction. These may include methods such as: think-pair-share; puzzles; games; brainstorming; concept mapping; role-playing; case studies; group projects; peer teaching; debates; or, short demonstrations followed by class discussion. 3.9. Schools and districts provide regular and ongoing in-service support to help teachers enhance their pedagogical knowledge and skills for the effective infusion of technology in teaching and learning. Useful frameworks may include Technology Standards for Teachers and Students developed by ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), as well as models of technology integration based on TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge). 3.10. The MoEHE convenes a national dialogue at both local and district levels on all forms of school￾based violence aimed at developing policies, strategies, indicators, and programs to raise awareness and prevention of all forms of school-based violence. 3.11. Involve students and other key stakeholders—fellow teachers, principals, and parents—in discussing and clarifying desired learning outcomes of the curriculum. 3.12. Empower and motivate students to contribute to a positive learning environment by giving them a say in drafting rules and regulations of expected school and classroom behavior. 3.13. Make regular and frequent use of student assessment data (formative/summative) to inform decisions on teaching/learning strategies in lesson plans and units of instruction, as well as to provide parents with useful, actionable information on how they can support their children’s learning at home. 3.14. Diagnose and provide appropriate strategies—in cooperation with experts in counseling and inclusive education—to enhance learning opportunities for students with learning difficulties (i.e., cognitive and/or physical disabilities). 3.15. Continue to utilize action research and reflective practice to improve methods and techniques for effective teaching and learning, and share results in communities of practice with fellow teachers in the same school and/or in local school clusters. 13 4. Integrating Technology into Pre-Service Teacher Education in Gaza In order to build on this success and scale up the systematic integration of technology in teaching and learning at Al-Azhar University—Gaza, the Task Force urges the university leadership to consider adopting the following recommendations: 4.1. Establish a permanent Office for Teaching, Learning, and Technology. This unit would be comprised of a team of highly creative educators, instructional designers, and educational technologists who would work collaboratively with faculty members and students to design and implement courses that integrate technology to support active pedagogies and meaningful, learner-centered experiences in both onsite and blended instructional environments. 4.2. Develop an implementation plan that harmonizes and aligns the technology goals of the mission and vision of the Faculty of Education’s Three-Year Strategic Plan. The plan would identify the stages, required resources and marketing strategies for the implementation of the scope of work of the Office for Teaching, Learning, and Technology. 4.3. Recognize and support the use of technology in both onsite and virtual forms of classroom assessment by allowing faculty members flexibility in the points they may award for mid-term and final exams. 4.4. Upgrade classroom and lecture halls with instructional technology such as computers, projectors, Wi- Fi access, and interactive whiteboards. 4.5. Provide advanced training in educational technology and instructional design for the members of the Technology and Teacher Education Task Force. 4.6. Authorize and provide resources for the development and implementation of basic and intermediate Moodle training courses for all interested faculty members and students across the university. 4.7. Develop online training manuals and resources for faculty members and students on the use of Moodle and other educational technology tools. 5. Advancing gender equality and female empowerment among program beneficiaries It is recommended that LTD’s COP and senior management, in consultation with LTD’s partners in the MoEHE, should: 5.1. Continue to support LTD’s partners in the MoEHE and district directorates to provide opportunities for trainings that meet the professional development needs of leadership and teachers consistent with the principles of gender equality and female empowerment. 5.2. Investigate how to expand opportunities for professional networking beyond regular trainings through online communities of practice. 5.3. Identify and address gaps in gender sensitivity with regard to the development of training methods, the selection of training locations, and the scheduling of trainings. 14 Section 1: Improving School Leadership Introduction The Survey of Leadership Effectiveness, which was developed by NIET, uses a 4-point Likert scale that measures the extent that principals meet the seven domains of the MoEHE’s standards and competencies for effective leadership (Table 3). On the scale, the value of 1 equals “below expected level;” 2 is “approaching expected level; 3 is “achieved expected level;” and, 4 is “exceeded expected level.” When interpreting the results, the mean value of 2.5 to 3 indicates a satisfactory level competency, while a 3.5 or higher indicates the competency level was met or surpassed. For the purpose of analysis, a composite indicator for each of the seven means was produced by taking the average of the means the individual competences. The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the seven indicators was above the minimum acceptable value of .7, ranging from .834 to .905. The survey asked the principals to rate the level of their competency in leadership based on the seven domains of effective schools: Table 3. Major domains of leadership effectiveness Indicator Number of competencies 1. School Improvement Planning 6 2. School/Community Relations 10 3. Management of Human and Material Resources 7 4. Support for Teaching and Learning 10 5. Child-Friendly School Environment 9 6. Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning 6 7. Technology for teaching/Administration 7 Sample All 72 principals of Cohort III completed the Survey of Leadership Effectiveness (Table 4). In order to mitigate the effect of bias from self-reporting by the principals, a stratified random sample of 432 teachers—three LTD and three non-LTC teachers from each of the 72 schools—was selected from the 72 schools. The teachers evaluated the principals’ leadership performance based on the same survey items as the principals. Table 4. Demographic characteristics of sample Count % Sex Male 36 50.0% Female 36 50.0% District North Hebron 16 22.2% South Nablus 13 18.1% Tubas 12 16.7% Tulkarm 13 18.1% Nablus 18 25.0% Years in administration Less than 5 years 11 16.2% 15 5 to 10 years 22 32.4% 11 to 15 years 26 38.2% More than 15 years 9 13.2% Highest Degree Diploma 1 1.5% Bachelor's 57 83.8% Master's 9 13.2% Doctorate 1 1.5% Data Collection A team of 5 researchers, coordinated by the M&E officer of LTD, conducted the distribution and collection of surveys, and keyed in the data. Data collection and data entry took place from April 1 to May 31, 2016. Principals and teachers self-administered the survey questionnaire (Annex A), often in the presence of the researcher, or would complete the questionnaire and return it to the researcher the following day. To mitigate the possibility that bias might result from teachers feeling uncomfortable evaluating the performance of their principal, the teachers and principals each filled out their questionnaires in separate locations. Results Knowledge about the Standards and Competencies for Effective Leadership By the end of the year-long Leadership Diploma training, the principals reported that their theoretical understanding of the MoEHE Standards and competencies for Effective Leadership had had increased, on average, by 35% (Table 5). The results indicate that principals greatly improved their knowledge about strategic planning. In Table 1, these include knowledge about: the Ministry’s standards (63%); vision and mission statements (54%); school self-evaluation (57%); building a School Improvement Team (36%); and, school planning (34%). Notably, knowledge about action research—one of the core mechanisms for professional development in the Leadership Diploma Program (as well as for the Teacher Qualification Program)—increased by 43%, placing it among the top concepts that principals learned about in the Diploma Program. Table 5. Growth in knowledge and understanding of core standards for effective school leadership Standard Pre Post % Change Mean Mean 1. MoEHE Standards for Effective Schools 2.72 4.43 63% 2. Vision and Mission 3.07 4.74 54% 3. School Self-evaluation 2.90 4.56 57% 4. Building school teams 3.33 4.52 36% 5. School planning 3.42 4.59 34% 6. Relations and their role in improving the educational learning process 3.59 4.56 27% 7. Data-based decision making 3.16 4.34 37% 8. Human resource management 3.61 4.55 26% 9. Material resource management 3.91 4.63 18% 16 10. Supportive school environment for learning 3.62 4.50 24% 11. The principles of effective teaching and learning 3.36 4.48 33% 12. Monitoring and evaluation of improvements in teaching and learning 3.35 4.42 32% 13. The role of the local community in school improvement 3.51 4.51 29% 14. The role of technology in the educational process 3.41 4.53 33% 15. Action research 2.97 4.24 43% Grand mean 3.33 4.51 35% From Knowledge to Action: Changes in Practice across the Indicators of Effective Leadership Overall, the principals, as shown in Table 6, reported a 24% change in aggregate across the seven domains of effective school leadership, with the largest change in their competencies related to school improvement planning (55%). This finding makes sense because nearly a third of the 9-module Leadership Diploma Program focuses on the creation of the School Leadership Team (SIT) which takes the lead in conducting a school-wide needs assessment and using the results to develop and write up a school’s School Improvement Plan (SIP). The next largest change (Figure 1) is seen in competences associated with using learning assessments to improve teaching and learning (23%), followed by skills related to the use of technology to support teaching and school management and administration (21%). These are followed by improvements in competencies associated with: support for teaching and learning (20%); creating a child-friendly learning environment (20%); strengthening school/community relations (19%); and, effective management of human and material resources (17%). Table 6. Results for the seven domains of school leadership effectiveness Indicator Pre Post % Change 1. School Improvement Planning 2.24 3.48 55% 2. School/Community Relations 3.06 3.64 19% 3. Management of Human and Material Resources 3.23 3.77 17% 4. Support for Teaching and Learning 3.05 3.67 20% 5. Child-Friendly School Environment 3.07 3.68 20% 6. Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning 2.95 3.62 23% 7. Technology for teaching/Administration 3.03 3.66 21% Grand mean 2.94 3.64 24% 17 Figure 1. Results for composite indicators of leadership, ranked by % change Indicator 1: School Improvement Planning Of the seven domains of effective leadership, principals reported the largest change—by 55%--in their capacity to lead school improvement planning (Table 7). The principals reported they had increased their competencies the most in three key areas: involving parents in the school improvement planning (62%); using action research in the development of my work at the school (60%); and, clarifying the vision and mission to the community (60%). Although big improvement was made to involve parents in improvement planning, this competency garnered the lowest mean (3.17) of the six skills comprising the indicator and thus points to an area that principals may want to develop further. In sum, the Leadership Diploma Program appears to have greatly enhanced the capacity of principals to include and engage key stakeholders of the school community—parents and teachers—to formulate a school’s mission and vision and use data to assess school needs and formulate goals for school improvement. Table 7. Results for School Improvement Planning Competency Pre Post % Change 1.1 I involve teachers in the construction of the school's vision and mission. 2.39 3.69 54% 1.2 I include teachers in the school improvement planning. 2.47 3.64 47% 1.3 I involve parents in the school improvement planning. 1.96 3.17 62% 1.4 I clarify the vision and mission to the community. 2.16 3.46 60% 1.5 I build the school improvement plan based on results of the school self￾assessment. 2.41 3.60 49% 1.6 I use action research in the development of my work at the school. 2.06 3.30 60% Grand mean 2.24 3.48 55% 55% 23% 21% 20% 20% 19% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1. School Improvement Planning 6. Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning 7. Technology for teaching/Administration 4. Support for Teaching and Learning 5. Child-Friendly School Environment 2. School/Community Relations 3. Management of Human and Material Resources 18 Figure 2. Competencies of Indicator 1 ranked by % change Indicator 2: School/Community Relations Overall, the principals reported 19% improvement in their capacity to enact behaviors to improve school/community relations (Table 8). Of the ten competencies comprising this indicator, the three that showed the most change are closely associated with the strategy of shared leadership, a key approach that is emphasized in the Leadership Diploma Program (Figure 3). Specifically, the principals reported major growth with regard to: involving stakeholders in decision making to improve the school based on results of the school self-evaluation (35%); encouraging and modeling teamwork in school (29%); and, engaging the community in activities that support the teaching and learning processes (28%). In addition to solid growth in competencies related to building positive relations among school staff, principals also reported major improvement in their capacity to encourage local organizations to support teaching and learning (20%). Of the ten competencies comprising this indicator, the one that the principals rated the lowest (3.46 out of 4) was their skill in engaging the community in activities that support the teaching and learning processes. Though this particular skill showed a robust 28% change, this may be an area that principals way want to strengthen. Table 8. Results for School/Community Relations Competency Pre Post % Chang e 2.1 I encourage and model teamwork in school. 2.81 3.64 29% 2.2 I involve stakeholders in decision making to improve the school based on results of the school self-evaluation. 2.60 3.50 35% 2.3 I communicate effectively with school staff. 3.16 3.80 20% 62% 60% 60% 54% 49% 47% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1.3 I involve parents in the school improvement planning. 1.6 I use action research in the development of my work at the school. 1.4 I clarify the vision and mission to the community. 1.1 I involve teachers in the construction of the school's vision and mission. 1.5 I build the school improvement plan based on results of the school self-assessment. 1.2 I include teachers in the school improvement planning. 19 2.4 I engage the community in activities that support the teaching and learning processes. 2.70 3.46 28% 2.5 I promote and model ethical behavior as expected by others. 2.96 3.64 23% 2.6 I show respect and appreciation for differences of members of the school community. 3.51 3.81 9% 2.7 I treat school staff fairly (without bias). 3.54 3.78 7% 2.8 I invite parents to visit the school to discuss their child's performance and progress. 3.13 3.56 14% 2.9 I encourage local organizations to support teaching and learning. 2.94 3.53 20% 2.10 I resolve conflicts between staff professionally. 3.30 3.64 10% Grand mean 3.06 3.64 19% Figure 3. Competencies of Indicator 2 ranked by % change Indicator 3: Management of Human and Material Resources Overall, principals reported 17% change, on average, for the competencies comprising the skills of effectively managing human and material resources (Table 9). Mostly notably, and consistent with the values and behaviors associated with shared leadership, the principals showed substantive improvement (Figure 4) in their capacity to support the professional development of school staff (28%); to identify the needs of staff to support the teaching-learning process (23%); and, to provide teachers opportunities to improve their teaching practices (20%). Moreover, the principals enhanced their effectiveness in reaching out to the local community to mobilize resources to help meet the needs of the school (18%) and in encouraging the use and maintenance of existing resources at the school to support learning (e.g., library, labs, sports rooms, and so on). Although the principals reported a 28% growth in their capacity to support the professional development of school staff, they also rated this skill the lowest at 3.56 (on a 4-point scale) of the seven competencies comprising the indicator. In short, this may be an area that principals may want to continue developing. 35% 29% 28% 23% 20% 20% 14% 10% 9% 7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 2.2 I involve stakeholders in decision making to improve the school based on results of the school self evaluation. 2.1 I encourage and model teamwork in school. 2.4 I engage the community in activities that support the teaching and learning processes. 2.5 I promote and model ethical behavior as expected by others. 2.3 I communicate effectively with school staff. 2.9 I encourage local organizations to support teaching and learning. 2.8 I invite parents to visit the school to discuss their child's performance and progress. 2.10 I resolve conflicts between staff professionally. 2.6 I show respect and appreciation for differences of members of the school community. 2.7 I treat school staff fairly (without bias). 20 Table 9. Results for Management of Human and Material Resources Competency Pre Post % Change 3.1 I invest in developing the skills and expertise of school staff. 2.77 3.56 28% 3.2 I work to identify the needs of staff to support the teaching-learning process. 3.03 3.71 23% 3.3 I provide teachers opportunities for their professional development aimed at improving their teaching practices. 3.17 3.80 20% 3.4 I manage the school budget with transparency to address needs and priorities. 3.49 3.86 11% 3.5 I support the use and maintenance of all learning resources at the school (library, sports rooms, ......) 3.31 3.79 14% 3.6 I manage and accurately document the school's financial records. 3.67 3.96 8% 3.7 I reach out to the local community to mobilize resources to help meet the needs of the school. 3.16 3.73 18% Grand mean 3.23 3.77 17% Figure 4. Results of Indicator 3 ranked by % change Indicator 4: Support for Teaching and Learning Overall, the principals reported a 20% improvement in their capacity to effectively support teaching and learning (Table 10). The largest improvements, as seen in Figure 5, cluster around those skills that most directly related to effective instructional leadership. They improved their capacity to use theories of teaching and learning to inform how best to help teachers improve their teaching (28%); to follow up and support teachers apply what they learned from professional development trainings (24%); to promote communities of practice among teachers aimed fostering teaching and learning across the disciplines (22%). Similarly, principals reported strong changes in their capacity to support learning for all students. In particular, they improved their efficacy in implementing policies that promote successful learning both 28% 23% 20% 18% 14% 11% 8% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 3.1 I invest in developing the skills and expertise of school staff. 3.2 I work to identify the needs of staff to support the teaching-learning process. 3.3 I provide teachers opportunities for their professional development aimed at improving their teaching practices. 3.7 I reach out to the local community to mobilize resources to help meet the needs of the school. 3.5 I support the use and maintenance of all learning resources at the school (library, sports rooms, ......) 3.4 I manage the school budget with transparency to address needs and priorities. 3.6 I manage and accurately document the school's financial records. 21 strong and weak performers (21%); in providing extra-curricular activities that support student learning per the improvement plan and curriculum (21%); and, in working with the school community to support student learning (21%). Of the ten skills comprising this indicator, the principals rated the lowest (3.47 on a 4-point scale) their familiarity with theories of teaching and learning and the use of this knowledge to help teachers improve their teaching. Though they made impressive an impressive 28% growth in this competency, there may still be room for continued improvement. Table 10. Results for Support for Teaching and Learning Competency Pre Post % Change 4.1 I supervise the teaching-learning practices of teachers in their classrooms. 3.19 3.73 17% qE.2 I am familiar with theories of teaching and learning and use this knowledge to help teachers improve their teaching. 2.71 3.47 28% 4.3 I work with the school community to support student learning. 3.03 3.66 21% 4.4 I ensure the positive development of students' attitudes and behaviors. 3.17 3.71 17% 4.5 I support the continuous professional development of teachers. 3.23 3.76 16% 4.6 I follow up and support the professional development of teachers after the conclusion of trainings. 2.90 3.60 24% 4.7 I ensure there are extra-curricular activities that support student learning per the improvement plan and curriculum. 3.04 3.69 21% 4.8 I make available resources that enable teachers to implement curricular and extra￾curricular activities. 3.20 3.70 16% 4.9 I implement policies that promote successful learning for all students, both strong and weak performers. 3.01 3.66 21% 4.10 I support collaboration among subject teachers to work towards achieving integrated teaching and learning. 3.03 3.69 22% Grand mean 3.05 3.67 20% 22 Figure 5. Results for Support for Indicator 4 ranked by % change Indicator 5: Child-Friendly School Environment Overall, the principals reported a solid 20% improvement in their capacity to exercise effective leadership in fostering a child-friendly learning environment (Table 11). As shown in Figure 6, big improvements were made in leadership skills that foster school belonging among adults and children of the school community. In particular, principals made big gains in their ability to involve teachers in decision making about the school and its community (27%); to delegate tasks to staff that are commensurate with their capacity (26%); to implement policies that provide a safe and child-friendly school environment (23%), which includes encouraging students to volunteer for school- and community-based cooperative projects (22%) and fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect and self-esteem among children and adults (22%). Table 11. Results for Child-Friendly School Environment Competency Pre Post % Change 5.1 I delegate tasks to staff that commensurate with their capacity. 2.85 3.59 26% 5.2 I involve teachers in decision making related to the school and its community. 2.82 3.57 27% 5.3 I encourage students to engage in volunteer and cooperative work. 3.01 3.69 22% 5.4 I build a learning environment that promotes respect and self-esteem. 3.06 3.72 22% 5.5 I develop policies that provide a safe and child-friendly school environment. 2.99 3.67 23% 5.6 I set clear standards for the cleanliness of the school buildings and property. 3.21 3.75 17% 5.7 I fully support the work of the school guidance counselor. 3.13 3.65 17% 5.8 I seek ways to reward and incentivize teachers in their work. 3.10 3.72 20% 5.9 I show appreciation for the efforts of the school staff. 3.44 3.79 10% Grand mean 3.07 3.68 20% 28% 24% 22% 21% 21% 21% 17% 17% 16% 16% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 4.2 I am familiar with theories of teaching and learning and use this knowledge to help teachers improve their teaching. 4.6 I follow up and support the professional development of teachers after the conclusion of trainings. 4.10 I support collaboration among subject teachers to work towards achieving intergrated teaching and learning. 4.9 I implement policies that promote successful learning for all students, both strong and weak performers. 4.7 I enusre there are extra-curricular activities that support student learning per the improvement plan and curriculum. 4.3 I work with the school community to support student learning. 4.1 I supervise the teaching-learning practices of teachers in their classrooms. 4.4 I ensure the positive development of students' attitudes and behaviors. 4.5 I support the continuous professional development of teachers. 4.8 I make available resources that enable teachers to implement curricular and extra-curricular activities. 23 Figure 6. Results for Support for Indicator 5 ranked by % change Indicator 6: Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning Overall, the principals reported a very substantive 23% improvement in their effective use of assessment data and methods to improve teaching and learning (Table 12). As seen in Figure 7, Principals reported big improvements in their capacity to ensure the use of effective summative assessment (27%); and to encourage and monitor the teachers’ use of formative assessment (26%) to inform decisions about instructional practices to improve student learning (23%). Furthermore, principals reported large improvement in their capacity to use results of teacher performance evaluations (23%) to improve instructional practices; and, to provide constructive feedback that supports reflective practice among teachers (22%). Table 12. Results for Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning Competency Pre Post % Change 6.1 I notify parents of their children's assessment results in order to help them improve. 3.19 3.69 16% 6.2 I ensure the use of a variety of methods in the evaluation of students' performance. 2.85 3.62 27% 6.3 I monitor the variety of learning assessments used in helping students improve their learning. 2.84 3.57 26% 6.4 I provide feedback to teachers about their teaching practices with a view to continuous improvement. 2.99 3.66 22% 6.5 I document the results of performance evaluations of teachers with the aim of development and improvement. 2.93 3.59 23% 6.6 I engage teachers in decision-making based on the results of student learning assessments. 2.93 3.61 23% Grand mean 2.95 3.62 23% 27% 26% 23% 22% 22% 20% 17% 17% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 5.2 I involve teachers in decision making related to the school and its community. 5.1 I delegate tasks to staff that are commensurate with their capacity. 5.5 I develop policies that provide a safe and child-friendly school environment. 5.3 I encourage students to engage in volunteer and cooperative work. 5.4 I build a learning environment that promotes respect and self-esteem. 5.8 I seek ways to reward and incentivise teachers in their work. 5.6 I set clear standards for the cleanliness of the school buildings and property. 5.7 I fully support the work of the school guidance counselor. 5.9 I show appreciation for the efforts of the school staff. 24 Figure 7. Results for Indicator 6 ranked by % of change Indicator 7: Technology for Teaching & School Administration Overall, the principals reported a solid 21% improvement in their effective deployment of technology for teaching and school administration. of assessment data and methods to improve teaching and learning (Table 13). LTD prioritized the use of technology in teaching and learning. Each principal received a laptop and every LTD school of Cohort III was provisioned with Internet connectivity, LCD projectors, and laptops for teachers. Not surprisingly, as seen in Figure 8, principals reported big increases in their ability to advance their own professional development using technology (28%), as well as to improve electronic communications with staff (24%). Furthermore, they reported being empowered to encourage teachers to use technology in their teaching (22%) and for their continuous professional development (20%). The principals also reported a 19% increase in their use of technology to facilitate their administrative responsibilities. Table 13. Results for Technology and School Administration Competency Pre Post % Change qH.1 I increase the teachers' use technology in their teaching. 3.12 3.79 22% qH.2 I encourage teachers to develop their competency in using technology in teaching and learning. 3.12 3.74 20% qH.3 I use technology to facilitate administrative functions. 3.15 3.74 19% qH.4 I follow up on the technical maintenance and repairs of all IT used in the school. 3.37 3.81 13% qH.5 I use technology to communicate with teachers and school staff and stakeholders. 2.84 3.53 24% qH.6 I use technology to search for resources on teaching and learning. 2.85 3.49 22% qH.7 I use technology in professional development. 2.78 3.54 28% Grand mean 3.03 3.66 21% 27% 26% 23% 23% 22% 16% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 6.2 I ensure the use of a variety of methods in the evaluation of students' performance. 6.3 I monitor the variety of learning assessments used in helping students improve their learning. 6.6 I engage teachers in decision-making based on the results of student learning assessments. 6.5 I document the results of performance evaluations of teachers with the aim of development and improvement. 6.4 I provide feedback to teachers about their teaching practices with a view to continuous improvement. 6.1 I notify parents of their children's assessment results in order to help them improve. 25 Figure 8. Results for Indicator 7 ranked by % change Teacher Survey of Leadership Effectiveness In addition to having the principals self-evaluate their own teaching competencies, we asked a random sample of 3 LTD and 3 non-LTD teachers from all 72 schools of Cohort III to evaluate the leadership competencies of their principals. Table 14 shows the general demographic traits of the sample. By comparing the teachers’ and principals’ scores on the same leadership competencies, LTD is able offset the possibility that the principals overestimated their skills, and thus offer a more objective measure of the principal leadership. Additionally, LTD used the weighted average of the principals’ and teachers’ endline scores to calculate a benchmark score that was used to determine the percentage of principals who demonstrated effective leadership (see the next section, PPR Indicator 2.1 Results) Table 14. Demographic information for the sample of teachers Count Valid N % Sex Male 184 45% Female 229 55% Teacher Type LTD 206 49% Non-LTD 214 51% District North Hebron 89 21% South Nablus 75 18% Tubas 71 17% Tulkarm 78 19% Nablus 106 25% Years in Education Less than 5 years 46 11% 5 to 10 years 126 31% 11 to 15 years 109 27% More than 15 years 122 30% 28% 24% 22% 22% 20% 19% 13% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% qH.7 I use technology in professional development. qH.5 I use technology to communicate with teachers and school staff and stakeholders. qH.6 I use technology to search for resources on teaching and learning. qH.1 I increase the teachers' use technology in their teaching. qH.2 I encourage teachers to develop their competeny in using technology in teaching and learning. qH.3 I use technology to facilitate administrative functions. qH.4 I follow up on the technical maintenance and repairs of all IT used in the school. 26 Overall Results In general, the teachers indicated, on average, a solid 17% improvement across all seven major domains (“indicator”) of effective leadership for their principals. The biggest change was seen in the principal’s capacity to effectively lead school improvement planning (Table 15). Compared to the principals’ own self-assessment, the teachers were more conservative, however. Recalling that the principals reported an overall change of 24% (see Table 6, above), the 17% change reported by the teachers is 7 percentage points smaller than the change reported by the principals. Table 15. Change in baseline and endline means for Principal Effectiveness as reported by teachers (n = 390) Indicator Pre Post % Change 1. School Improvement Planning 2.58 3.22 25% 2. School/Community Relations 2.90 3.37 16% 3. Management of Human and Material Resources 3.00 3.46 15% 4. Support for Teaching and Learning 2.91 3.40 17% 5. Child-Friendly School Environment 2.88 3.34 16% 6. Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning 2.92 3.36 15% 7. Technology for teaching/Administration 2.92 3.38 16% Grand mean 2.87 3.36 17% In general, however, the difference between the two groups is not unreasonable. A side-by-side comparison of the endline means of the seven indicators for principals and teachers (Table 16) indicates that the actual percentage difference between the two groups averages a modest 8%. In other words, even though the principals tended to overestimate their competencies—as one might expect—the difference was not excessive. Table 16. Comparison endline means for Effective Leadership as reported by both principals and teachers Indicator Principals Teachers % Difference 1. School Improvement Planning 3.48 3.22 8% 2. School/Community Relations 3.64 3.37 8% 3. Management of Human and Material Resources 3.77 3.46 9% 4. Support for Teaching and Learning 3.67 3.40 8% 5. Child-Friendly School Environment 3.68 3.34 10% 6. Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning 3.62 3.36 7% 7. Technology for teaching/Administration 3.66 3.38 8% Post grand mean 3.64 3.36 8% Leadership Competencies Ranked Lowest by Teachers Based on the teachers’ assessment of effective leadership, which competencies might principals want to prioritize in planning their continuing professional development? We examined this question by identifying those specific competencies within each of the seven composite indicators that ranked lowest in the results of the teachers’ data. Table 17 shows the results. The column on the far right shows whether the same competency was score lowest by both groups, principals and teachers. Interestingly, both groups agreed on 5 out of the 7 lowest scoring competencies. 27 Table 17. Endline Scores, Principal effectiveness survey (Teachers Questionnaire) Indicator Lowest scoring competency Mean score of competency % Differenc e Same competency for both groups Teachers Principals 1. School Improvement Planning 1.3 Involves parents in the school improvement planning. 3.04 3.17 4% Yes 2. School/Community Relations 2.7 Treats school staff fairly (without bias). 3.28 3.78 15% No 3. Management of Human and Material Resources 3.1 Invests in developing the skills and expertise of school staff. 3.31 3.56 8% Yes 4. Support for Teaching and Learning 4.2 Is familiar with theories of teaching and learning and use this knowledge to help teachers improve their teaching. 3.29 3.47 5% Yes 5. Child-Friendly School Environment 5.2 Involves teachers in decision making related to the school and its community. 3.24 3.57 10% Yes 6. Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning 6.3 Monitors the variety of learning assessments used in helping students improve their learning. 3.26 3.57 10% Yes 7. Technology for teaching/Administration 7.5 Uses technology to communicate with teachers and school staff and stakeholders. 3.17 3.53 11% No Looking at the far right column in Table 17, the five competencies that both principals and teachers rated identically as lowest suggest specific skills that principals might want to prioritize for future professional development. Based on the teachers’ results—since these tended to be more critical—we can prioritize the five competencies in ascending order (from smallest to largest score):  Involving parents in the school improvement planning (3.04)  Involving teachers in decision making related to the school and its community (3.24)  Monitoring the variety of learning assessments used in helping students improve their learning (3.26)  Using theories of teaching and learning to help teachers improve their teaching (3.29)  Investing in developing the skills and expertise of school staff (3.31) Results for PPR Indicator 2.1 One of LTD’s key “Performance Plan and Report” (PPR) indicators that must be reported to USAID is PPR Indicator 2.1, which reads as follows in LTD’s Program Monitoring Plan (PMP): The percentage of participating principals (per cohort at post measurement) demonstrating effective school leadership according to principals and teachers based on MoEHE’s Effective School Standards and Competencies LTD’s annual target (per cohort) for this indicator is 80%. That is, it is expected that at least 80% of the principals will be judged by themselves and their teachers to be exercising effective school leadership at the end of their Leadership Diploma training. It was found that 74% of the principals scored 3.40 or better on the endline results (Table 18). In other words, the actual result deviated by 7.8% from the target value. However, USAID allows for as much as a 28 ± 10% deviation between the target and the actual values without having to provide a ‘deviation narrative’ to explain. Table 18. Results for PMP Indicator 2.1 Indicator 2.1 Target Actual Percentage of participating principals (per cohort; at post measurement) demonstrating effective school leadership according to principals and teachers based on MoEHE’s Effective School Standards and Competencies 80% 74% 2 How was the actual value arrived at? LTD first calculated a benchmark score (based on a 4-point Likert scale) by taking the weighted average of the combined endline scores (means) from the principals' survey (n = 70) and the teachers' survey (n = 414) (Table 19). In sum, although the actual value was slightly below the hoped for target value, the results, nonetheless, are acceptable and, moreover, showed a solid 18% improvement in the overall leadership performance of principals. Table 19. Baseline/endline scores and weighted averages for combined principal and teacher scores Principal's Self-Evaluation N Mean Std. Deviation Pre 70 2.94 0.39 Post 70 3.64 0.30 Valid N (listwise) 70 Teacher's Evaluation of Principal N Mean Std. Deviation Pre 415 2.87 0.53 Post 418 3.36 0.51 Valid N (listwise) 414 Combined Weighted Averages of Principals plus Teachers Pre 2.88 Post* 3.40 Percentage change 18% *This value is the mean score for "Effective Leadership” 2 The percent difference between the actual the target value is 7.8%, which is within the 10% margin of difference allowable by USAID standards. 29 Recommendations The study provides strong evidence that LTD principals made solid progress across all seven domains of the MoEHE Standards for Effective School Leadership. At the same time, however, the study points to a number of competencies that principals, with the support of the District Directorate and fellow school principals, should consider for ongoing professional development. LTD, therefore, suggests the following actions: 1. School improvement planning would likely benefit if principals redoubled their efforts to involve parents in improvement planning through their participation on the School Improvement Team (SIT) and their representatives on the school Parent Council. 2. School/community relations would likely benefit if principals explored innovative ways to engage the local community—families, community groups, business, and local government—in activities that support the teaching and learning processes by, among other things, developing an asset map of local community resources; connecting the curriculum to real world experiences; and, giving students voice in finding solutions to local problems. 3. Management of human and material resources would likely benefit if principals, in the role of “instructional leaders, increased their direct involvement in the design, delivery, and content of professional development aimed at enhancing the teaching and learning environment, and, with support of Supervision, took measures to monitor and evaluate the outcomes of professional development. 4. Support for teaching and learning would benefit if principals—independently and in communities of practice with other principals—continued to expand and deepen their understanding and application of not only of theories of teaching/learning, but also about the theory and practice of educational leadership. 5. Child-Friendly school environment will benefit if principals created opportunities for teachers to become directly involved in decision making related to the school community in general and to the classroom in particular, with an emphasis on supporting teachers to plan lessons and strategies that reflect core principles of child-friendly schools in their own classrooms. 6. Assessment for improving teaching and learning would likely benefit if principals ensure there is a robust system of structures and procedures in place to monitor student progress at both the classroom and school wide levels, and to use assessment data for strategic instructional decision-making aimed at improving the quality of student learning. 7. Technology for teaching/administration would likely benefit if principals not only use technology to search for resources on teaching and learning, but also demonstrate “technology” leadership by modeling the use of technology in school management/administration, and by creating professional development opportunities for teachers and staff that emphasize the use of technology to enhance learning for all students. 30 Section 2: Empowering the School Improvement Team (SIT) Introduction The primary purpose this report is to present findings from research to assess the quality of the performance of SITs of Cohort II schools in implementing their school improvement plan (SIP). A mixed methods design was used in which quantitative data were first collected and then complemented with qualitative data from focus groups. Planning and implementing an SIP is a two year process. This is because there is typically as much as a six-month lag time from the time an SIP is finalized and submitted for procurement—usually at the start of the spring semester—and when a school actually receives resources needed for implementation. SIP Planning Phase: In the first phase, survey and focus group data were collected at the end of the spring 2015 semester from members of SITs (mainly principals, teachers, parents, and some students and other school staff) of Cohort 2 schools. As reported in the Annual Impact Evaluation Report for Cohort II, the aim was assess their attitudes and opinions about teamwork and decision-making related to shared￾leadership, a key goal of LTD’s approach to school-based reform. Both the survey and focus group research was framed by the following questions: 1. Task performance: What was the overall quality of the SIT's role and tasks in developing the school’s vision and mission, establishing strategic goals, and preparing an implementation plan? 2. Teamwork: To what extent did the SIT members agree they exercised cooperation and collaboration in developing in the school improvement team (SIP)? 3. Principal leadership: How effective was the principal in supporting and managing collaborative work among SIT members in developing the SIP? Key findings from the survey and focus groups for the SIP planning phase among Cohort II SIPs strongly suggest that LTD—through its support for the Leadership Diploma Program—has contributed substantively to creating a culture of shared leadership among the key stakeholders of a school community: leadership, teachers, and parents. Task performance: In responding to questions about the overall quality of the SIT's role and tasks in developing the school’s vision and mission, establishing strategic goals, and preparing an implementation plan, some 88% of SIT members surveyed rated as high the quality of their team’s performance. These same stakeholders in focus groups described very positive impressions about the level of collaboration among members. They also welcomed the greater freedom to share and exchange ideas and opinions, a strong indicator of fruitful communication and trust between the school principal and teachers, and better communication and networking between the school and parents and with the local community more broadly. Teamwork: Findings point to very positive levels of teamwork, cooperation and collaboration among the SIT members in developing in the school improvement team (SIP). A full 90% of SIT members surveyed agreed that team members exercised cooperation and collaboration in developing in the school improvement team. A further benefit of the cooperative nature of the planning process was that it brought the administration and teachers closer together and this, too, was reflected in the greater inclusion of community members in the planning process, a change that was much appreciated by parents who are often viewed mainly as sources of financial assistance to meet school needs but given little voice in planning and decision-making. 31 Principal leadership: 94% of SIT members surveyed agreed that the principal was effective in leading and managing an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration among SIT members in developing the SIP. Principals emphasized their role in facilitating discussions with team members to collectively identify and prioritize key ideas and issues for discussion. Teachers and parents alike approved of the principal’s efforts to foster an open sharing of viewpoints and ideas and his/her approach to delegating tasks and responsibilities that took advantage of individuals’ areas of expertise. SIP Implementation Phase: A year later in April/May 2016, after the schools had received in-kind assistance from LTD and had implemented their SIPs, a second round of survey and focus groups were conducted. The aim here was to understand the successes and challenges that SITs faced in implementing their SIPs. As with the research for the planning phase, both the survey and focus group research was framed by the following questions: 1. Monitoring SIP implementation: What was the overall quality of the SIT's role and tasks in monitoring the implementation of the SIP? 2. Deploying and managing resources: How effectively did the SIT deploy and manage material and human resources for effective implementation of the SIP? 3. Practicing teamwork and collaboration: How effectively did the members of the SIP exercise cooperation and teamwork during implementation of the plan? 4. Modeling shared leadership: How effective was the principal in supporting and managing collaborative work among SIT members? 5. Support from the local DLT: To what extent did the DLT support the successful planning and implementation of the SIP?3 The sections that follow present the findings of the research conducted on the implementation phase of school improvement plans for schools of Cohort II. Methods LTD adopted a mixed methods design for its study of School Improvement Teams. This involved a combination of qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative (survey) data collection and analysis.4 This method enhanced the capacity of LTD to triangulate the rich variety of data sources, primarily principals, teachers, parents, but also students and other stakeholders of the broader school community, all of whom participated either directly or indirectly in the school improvement planning process. (See Annex B for the SIT Survey Questionnaire.) Population and Sample Survey: The target population for the survey were members of SITs from Cohort II schools. In April 2016, each of the 144 schools of the cohort received a packet of questionnaires: 1 for the principal, and 2 copies each for teachers and parents; extra copies were supplied in case the SIT included other individuals, such 3 This research question was not included in the survey questions about SIP planning that were completed by Cohort I in 2014 and Cohort II in 2015. It was added to the Cohort II in April 2016 and only filled out by principals as they are the official liaison with their local DLT. 4 Creswell, John W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (pp. 14- 15). SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition. 32 as administrative staff or community members. In all, some 809 questionnaires were returned. Table 20 shows the demographic breakdown of the study population. Table 20. Demographic breakdown of survey population Principal (n=112) Teacher (n=391) Parent (n=238) Other (n=68) % % % % Gender Female 64% 63% 62% 52% Male 36% 37% 38% 48% Years working at this school 0-5 years 55% 28% n/a n/a 6-10 years 26% 37% n/a n/a 11-15 years 7% 18% n/a n/a 16-20 years 9% 12% n/a n/a More than 20 years 4% 6% n/a n/a Directorate Ramallah 17% 14% 12% 13% Jerusalem Suburbs 20% 17% 10% 19% Bethlehem 16% 19% 26% 9% Hebron 15% 16% 18% 18% Salfeet 15% 16% 14% 18% Qalqilya 17% 18% 20% 24% Focus Groups: A representative sample of SITs from sixteen Cohort II schools was selected randomly from each of the six districts. Focus groups representing 4 schools from each of the 4 districts of Cohort I schools (16 schools total; (Principals, teachers and parents); 1 principal x 18 schools; 1 teacher x 18 schools; 1 parent x 18 schools; 12 cohort 1 schools; 6 cohort 2 schools. The focus groups were conducted at NIET on May 5, 2016. Survey Results Results across the Five Main Indicators Across the five major indicators of the effectiveness of implementing an SIP (Figure 9), three of the five indicators garnered the most positive assessment by SIT members—principals, teachers, and parents. A strong majority agreed that the SIT effectively deployed and managed material and human resources during the implementation of the SIP (92%); practiced teamwork and collaboration (91%); and, the principal exercised shared leadership (93%). On two of the five indicators, a more modest majority of respondents indicated agreement. Some 75% agreed that the SIT’s effectively monitored the progress of the implementation of the SIP. Roughly three quarters of the principals (77%) agreed that their local DLT effectively supported the planning and implementation of their school’s SIP. 33 Figure 9. Agreement on the five indices of SIP implementation A detailed presentation and analysis of the findings for each of these five indicators are discussed in the sections that follow. Monitoring SIP implementation As seen in Figure 10, a good majority of members of SITs agreed that the level of effectiveness in monitoring the progress of SIP implementation was of high quality. What the results suggest, however, is that there is less agreement on the quality of monitoring and collecting data to gauge progress of the goals and targets of an SIP. Why this is so should be the focus of inquiry by principals and their respective DLTs. Figure 10. Agreement on the level of effectiveness in monitoring the progress of SIP implementation 77% 93% 91% 92% 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Role of the DLT during the planning and implementation of the SIT Modeling shared leadership by the principal Practicing teamwork and collaboration Deploying and managing resources Monitoring SIP implementation Major Domains of SIT Performance in the implementation of the SIP Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree 69% 76% 82% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% qA.3 Preparing reports about the progress and successes of the plan qA.2 Monitoring the progress of the plan qA.1 Supervising the implementation of the school improvement plan Effectiveness in Monitoring SIP Implementation High Medium Low 34 Table 21 shows that of the three monitoring tasks—supervising, assessing, and reporting—the latter task was rated lowest by the groups, with 69% agreeing that the team was effective in writing of progress reports. The principals were the most critical of this aspect (64% in agreement), and this strongly suggests that this is an area needing development. Table 21. Results for items comprising the indicator, "Monitoring SIP Implemenation" Monitoring SIP implementation Principal Teacher Parent Other N % N % N % N % qA.1 Supervising the implementation of the school improvement plan Agree 85% 81% 80% 84% Neutral 15% 17% 18% 16% Disagree 0% 2% 2% 0% qA.2 Monitoring the progress of the plan Agree 78% 77% 71% 82% Neutral 22% 21% 27% 15% Disagree 0% 2% 3% 3% qA.3 Preparing reports about the progress and successes of the plan Agree 64% 70% 68% 75% Neutral 34% 25% 26% 21% Disagree 3% 4% 6% 4% Total average percentage of “Agree” 76% 76% 73% 80% Deploying and Managing Resources On average, 93% of all the respondents agreed that the SIT performed effectively in deploying and managing material and human resources during the implementation of the SIP (Figure 11). Strong levels of agreement on all 10 items comprising the composite indicator are seen across all members of SITs (Table 22). Figure 11. Aggregate results for questions relating to the deployment and management of resources 35 A more nuanced analysis is possible based on comparing the mean of each item comprising the composite indicator, “Deploying and Managing Resources,” against the grand mean of the indicator: 4.22 (on a 5- point Likert Scale). As seen in Table 23, five of the ten items comprising the composite indicator had means of 4.22 or higher. Table 23. Aggregate results from largest to smallest for questions about deploying and managing resources Questions N Mean qB.6 Improving the school environment 800 4.34 qB.9 Mobilizing technology for school management 802 4.33 qB.8 Mobilizing technology in teaching and learning 804 4.33 qB.4 Improving internal relations at the school 804 4.25 qB.5 Improving the external relations of the school 797 4.22 qB.10 Mobilizing human and material resources of the school 803 4.19 qB.2 Effectively managing resources to ensure the quality of teaching and learning 807 4.15 qB.7 Encouraging community participation 805 4.14 qB.3 Effectively managing teaching and learning with a high level of performance 802 4.02 qB.1 Managing the process of implementing the school plan 806 4.02 Grand mean 4.22 Table 22. Disaggregated results for questions about deploying and managing resources Principal Teacher Parent Other N % N % N % N % Agree 95% 92% 89% 90% Neutral 4% 7% 11% 9% Disagree 2% 2% 1% 1% Agree 94% 94% 92% 91% Neutral 6% 5% 6% 6% Disagree 1% 1% 2% 3% Agree 94% 91% 86% 88% Neutral 5% 7% 14% 10% Disagree 2% 2% 1% 1% Agree 97% 93% 91% 97% Neutral 2% 6% 8% 3% Disagree 1% 1% 1% 0% Agree 93% 90% 91% 97% Neutral 6% 8% 8% 3% Disagree 1% 2% 0% 0% Agree 96% 95% 94% 97% Neutral 3% 4% 3% 1% Disagree 1% 1% 3% 1% Agree 91% 88% 87% 91% Neutral 8% 10% 11% 9% Disagree 1% 2% 2% 0% Agree 95% 93% 93% 91% Neutral 3% 7% 4% 7% Disagree 2% 1% 3% 1% Agree 96% 95% 93% 96% Neutral 3% 4% 6% 3% Disagree 1% 1% 1% 1% Agree 97% 92% 92% 91% Neutral 2% 6% 7% 9% Disagree 1% 2% 1% 0% Total average percentage of “Agree” 95% 92% 91% 93% qB.6 Improving the school environment qB.7 Encouraging community participation qB.8 Mobilizing technology in teaching and learning qB.9 Mobilizing technology for school management qB.10 Mobilizing human and material resources of the school Deploying and Managing Resources qB.1 Managing the process of implementing the school plan qB.2 Effectively managing resources to ensure the quality of teaching and learning qB.3 Effectively managing teaching and learning with a high level of performance qB.4 Improving internal relations at the school qB.5 Improving the external relations of the schhool 36 These five items point to the influence of LTD’s robust provision of technology resources (i.e., laptops, LCDs, and Internet connectivity) to support effective teaching and school management, plus its practical, school-based approach to professional development of the Leadership Diploma Program. Likewise, these results point to the effectiveness of the SIT’s capacity to mobilize the human and material resources of the school-community to improve the overall school environment, both internally and externally. It bears noting that of the five items that had means below 4.22 (but which are still relatively positive levels of agreement, as shown in Table 23 above ), the two items with the lowest means (4.02 each) may suggest areas that principals and DLTs may want to develop and improve. These relate to the capacity of the SIT to keep the SIP process focused on effectively managing teaching and learning with a high level of performance, and their capacity to effectively manage the process of implementing the school plan, a finding that is consistent with the results shown in the previous indicator, “Monitoring SIP implementation” (Table 21, above). Practicing Teamwork and Collaboration LTD’s model of shared leadership puts a premium on teamwork among the members of the school improvement team. As with the development of an SIP, the implementation of school improvement of put a premium on cooperation and teamwork among the principal, teachers, parents and others from the school community who serve as members of an SIT. An impressive 90% of the respondents agreed overall that effective collaboration and teamwork characterized the work of the SIP members during implementation of the plan (Figure 12). The percentages of agreement are both high and consistent across the four groups of SIT members (Table 25). Figure 12. Agreement on the level of teamwork and collaboration 37 Table 24. Aggregate results from largest to smallest for questions relating to teamwork and collaboration Questions N Mean qC.5 The existence of a cooperative atmosphere and mutual trust between team members 803 4.27 qC.2 The commitment of team members to participate in meetings 803 4.19 qC.6 The existence of positive attitudes by team members to work in the school and with outside institutions 804 4.17 qC.7 Acceptance by team members team of outside comments and opinions 806 4.17 qC.3 The commitment of team members to carry out tasks entrusted to them during meetings 808 4.13 q.C.4 The existence of a common vision and methodology among the team members 807 4.13 qC.8 The effective completion by team members of tasks and requirements during implementation. 807 4.04 qC.1 The leadership of the team achieved the desired goals during the implementation of the plan 806 3.98 Grand mean 4.13 As seen in Table 25, two of the eight items—Question C8 and C1—fall below the grand mean of 4.13 for this composite indicator and these point to areas that the SITs and their local DLT may want to examine more closely: the completion of tasks and requirements for implementation, and the achievement of the desired goals of the SIP implementation. While there are many plausible explanations for why these two items measured lowest, they may be associated with the fact that the SITs appeared to struggle with documenting and reporting progress of the implementation of the SIP, as noted in Table 21 above. Modeling Shared Leadership by the Principal A key objective of LTD, through its Leadership Diploma Program, is the transformation of the principalship from a traditional command-and-control model to one that values and practices shared leadership. The school improvement team (SIT) creates a space where the principal shares leadership and cooperative decision-making with teachers, parents, staff members and members of the local community in collaborative process of school self-assessment, strategic planning, and ongoing school improvement. As seen in Figure 13, the respondents, as a group, appear to strongly agree that the SIT is succeeding as a structure of shared leadership. Overall, 93% of the respondents agreed that the principal was effective in supporting and managing collaborative work among SIT members (Table 26). 38 Figure 13. Aggregate results for questions relating to shared leadership by the principal Table 25. Disaggregated results for questions relating to shared leadership by the principal Agreement that the principal practiced shared leadership Principal Teacher Parent Other N % N % N % N % QD1. The principal helped the rest of the members in the completion of tasks in a timely manner Agree 98% 93% 94% 96% Neutral 2% 6% 4% 4% Disagree 0% 1% 2% 0% QD2. The principal's commitment was consistent with the regulations and codes of the school Agree 99% 95% 94% 100% Neutral 1% 5% 5% 0% Disagree 0% 1% 1% 0% QD3. The principal shared information associated with the implementation process with the other members of the team Agree 98% 95% 89% 92% Neutral 2% 5% 10% 6% Disagree 0% 0% 1% 2% QD4. The principal encouraged the team members to express their views Agree 97% 94% 94% 91% Neutral 3% 5% 5% 9% Disagree 0% 1% 1% 0% QD5. The principal provided technical and administrative support to the team members Agree 98% 93% 92% 97% Neutral 2% 6% 7% 3% Disagree 0% 1% 1% 0% QD6. The principal provided clear and specific feedback to team members Agree 96% 90% 87% 94% Neutral 4% 8% 12% 6% Disagree 0% 2% 1% 0% QD7. The principal helped the team members to resolve disagreements Agree 94% 89% 86% 84% Neutral 6% 10% 12% 16% Disagree 0% 1% 2% 0% Total average percentage of “Agree” 97% 93% 91% 93% 88% 90% 94% 94% 94% 96% 94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% qD.7 The principal helped the team members to overcome the sources of conflict qD.6 The principal provided clear and specific feedback to team members qD.5 The principal provided technical and administrative support to the team members qD.4 The principal encouraged the team members to express their views qD.3 The principal shared information associated with the implementation process with the other members of the team qD.2 The principal's commitment was consistent with the regulations and codes of the school qD.1 The principal helped the rest of the members in the completion of tasks in a timely manner Modeling Shared Leadership by the Principal Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree 39 Using the means obtained for each item for a more nuanced interpretation (Table 27), if we look at the items that scored above the grand mean, we see that respondents agreed most strongly that the principal:  Encouraged the team members to express their views  Provided technical and administrative support to the team members  Remained committed to consistently applying the regulations and codes of the school  Shared information associated with the implementation process with the other members of the team Three of the eight items, though still reflecting good agreement, obtained means that were below the grand mean of 4.24. These items point to specific leadership skills that the Leadership Diploma Program may wish to strengthen:  Helping team members complete tasks in a timely manner  Clear and specific feedback to team members  Helping team members to manage or resolve sources of disagreement (i.e., differing opinions) Table 26. Results from largest to smallest relating to shared leadership by the principal Questions N Mean qD.4 The principal encouraged the team members to express their views 806 4.33 qD.5 The principal provided technical and administrative support to the team members 804 4.30 qD.2 The principal's commitment was consistent with the regulations and codes of the school 806 4.27 qD.3 The principal shared information associated with the implementation process with the other members of the team 803 4.26 qD.1 The principal helped the rest of the members in the completion of tasks in a timely manner 807 4.21 qD.6 The principal provided clear and specific feedback to team members 805 4.17 qD.7 The principal helped the team members to resolve sources of disagreement 806 4.10 Grand mean 4.24 40 Support from the Local DLT during SIT Planning and Implementation While the principals gave a generally positive assessment of the support their schools received from their local DLTs (in both the planning and implementation of the SIPs), the results showed less agreement overall compared to four of the five other indicators (Figure 14). The range of variation for agreement among the individual items comprising the indicator are seen in Figure 15. Figure 14. Agreement among principals across the five indicators 76% 95% 92% 97% 77% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Monitoring SIP implementation Deploying and managing resources Practicing teamwork and collaboration Principal's leadership Support from the local DLT during SIT planning and implementation % Agreement among Principals Figure 15. Percentage of agreement across the seven items comprising the indicator for DLT 41 By using the means obtained for each item for a more nuanced interpretation (Table 28), and if we look at the items that scored above the grand mean of 3.84, we see that principals agreed most strongly that the DLT:  Responded promptly whenever he/she contacted them for questions or consultation.  Strengthened the relationship between the school and the district directorate.  Helped to prioritize technical and administrative needs outlined in the draft SIP.  Helped to clarify technical and administrative needs outlined in the draft SIP. Table 27. Results fo assessment of support from the local DLT, ranked from largest to smallest relating Questions N Mean QE.2 The DLT responded promptly whenever I contacted them for questions or consultation. 111 3.99 QE.1 The DLT strengthened the relationship between my school and the district directorate. 110 3.93 QE.5 The DLT helped me to prioritize my school’s technical and administrative needs for my school’s draft improvement plan. 111 3.91 QE.4 The DLT helped me to clarify my school’s technical and administrative needs for my school’s draft improvement plan. 111 3.88 QE.3 The DLT offered feedback and comments about the draft of my school’s school improvement plan (SIP). 108 3.75 QE.7 The DLT supported my efforts to coordinate with local community organizations to support my school’s improvement plan. 111 3.72 QE.6 The DLT followed-up on the progress of my school’s improvement plan during its implementation. 111 3.69 Grand mean 3.84 Three of the eight items scored below the grand mean and suggest areas of support that the DLT may wish to investigate and strengthen:  Offering feedback and comments about the draft of the school’s SIP.  Supporting the principal’s efforts to coordinate with local community organizations to support the school’s improvement plan.  Following-up on the progress of the school’s SIP during its implementation. Summary of Open-Ended Questions on the Survey LTD conducted a content analysis of responses to eight open-ended questions from over 800 survey forms and summarized the top three most recurring responses to each question. 1) Three most important achievements of the SIT:  Using technology in development the learning process  Strengthening internal and external school relations  Improving school environment 2) Lessons learned from having implemented the SIP  Engaging teachers and keeping them informed of decisions  Cultivating teamwork and cooperation among members of faculty  Strengthening a sense of belonging to the school by teachers and students 42 3) Major challenges faced by the SIT during implementation of the SIP.  Lack of time available connect with teachers and local community  Lack of financial resources available  Complications related to labor strikes 4) What assistance did the school provide that increased the effectiveness of the SIT?  Strengthening relations with local community by engaging them in difference school activities  Discussions among team members and respecting diverse opinions  Providing financial and material resources 5) What assistance can the school provide next year to improve the effectiveness of the SIT?  Including parents/students on a larger scale in development process  Cooperate with local community organizations  Manage time in a more effective way to suit the learning process 6) How did the DLT contribute to the success of the SIP planning process?  Reviewing plan and offering constructive feedback  Assisting the assessment of school needs  Providing moral and technical support 7) How did the DLT contribute to the success of the SIP implementation process?  Setting meetings and discussions  Providing financial support to the school  Help the SIT to identify needs and address challenges 8) What actions ought to be taken to strengthen the cooperation between the school and DLT towards school improvement?  Hold regular meetings between the DLTs and schools  Facilitate exchange visits between schools  Disseminate success stories of school achievements and lessons learned Focus Group Results Introduction With technical support from its sister project, the School Support Program (SSP), and logistical support from NIET, LTD’s M&E Department conducted focus groups with a purposive sample of members of SITS from 16 Cohort II schools at NIET on May 5, 2016. As with the survey research, the main purpose of the focus groups was to understand the processes and practices of shared leadership that members of an SIT exercised while implementing their school improvement plans (SIP). Likewise, we also wanted to understand more precisely the factors that enabled or constrained members of an SIT from achieving the goals and targets of their SIP. 43 In all, 48 participants participated: 16 principals, 16 teachers, and 16 parents/community members. Each category was divided into two separate focus groups for six focus groups: two groups of 8 each for principals, two groups of 8 each for teachers, and two groups of 8 each for parents. Each session lasted 90 minutes and was audio recorded. Each audio file was transcribed, coded, and analyzed using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Key findings are summarized below. (See Annex C for the SIT Focus Group Moderator’s Guide.) Monitoring SIP implementation Task Delegation: From the focus groups, the perception is that the task of monitoring the implementation of the SIP seems to fall mostly on the shoulders of the school principal. While teachers may get delegated some responsibility, the principals described the monitoring of the SIP implementation as a routine part of their job. “Whenever the development team had its work, I used to follow up,” said one principal. “For example on financial and administrative matters, I had to follow up with him/her and supervise them. We had to occasionally change the plan sometimes according to the conditions present.” The principals readily acknowledged in the focus groups that the principal—working alone—cannot accomplish everything: “If it is only the principal who follows up all details, no matter how trivial, then that means dictatorship,” said one principal. “The principal’s role is to delegate tasks so that each person carries out his/her responsibilities, while the principal should act as an observer, facilitator, implementer, and supervisor.” The reason for this, explained the principals, is that their teachers have little spare time outside of their heavy workload of teaching. As one principal noted, “Teachers are loaded with work. For example, they have 24 to 25 classes. Consequently, we might make decisions and go back to them later, not because we don’t depend on them, but because we have more time. Because they are burdened with school work, we take advantage of our time and carry out what is needed, and at the end we inform them that about our decision and what was accomplished.” Documentation of Progress: There was little evidence from the focus group discussions of any systematic process of documenting progress towards achieving targets on the SIP, a finding consistent with results from the survey analysis. Whenever follow up did take place, it appeared to be combined with the day-to-day administrative work of the principal. Principals, again, attributed the heavy workload of teachers as an obstacle, particularly with regard to holding meetings to discuss progress of the SIP implementation. The idea of calling meetings after school or on Saturdays was unpopular, although some found this to be the only viable alternative, particularly where parents were concerned. “We had biweekly meetings with the parents,” said a teacher at one school. “The parents were active. Our meetings were held on Saturdays where they were updated with the situation and we would ask for support.” However, even when follow up meetings were called by the school principal, there was no evidence from the focus groups—from either teachers or principals—that SIT members were expected to document or report on progress towards achieving goals or targets. On the contrary, teachers commented that it was “We had biweekly meetings with the parents,” said a teacher at one school. “The parents were active. Our meetings were held on Saturdays where they were updated with the situation and we would ask for support.” 44 only when a school staff meeting was called that they were expected to update the principal about progress. Deploying and managing resources Background: Framed by the seven standards of effective schools of the MoEHE5 , the implementation of an SIP requires the mobilization of both material and human resources. Although LTD provides in-kind assistance for each participating school, the amount cannot realistically cover all the material needs that most schools specify in their SIP. Consequently, a school will typically supplement LTD’s support by tapping into sources both inside the school and in the local community. Material Resources: In the focus group discussions, principals, teachers, and parents spoke about the deployment of material resources procured not only from LTD and but also from outside sources. In particular, they emphasized the need for resources directly related to teaching and learning. These included items such as laptops and LCD projectors for teachers; IT and books for school libraries; equipment to refurbish science labs; desktops for computer labs; networking of computers throughout the school; interactive whiteboards; and at one school, iPads donated by the local community to reward top performing students. “There are some items in the plan that need support beyond the school,” said a principal. “For example, if you want to buy an LCD and the budget cannot afford the purchase, then the role of the principal is to contact people in the community who might be able to help.” Human Resources: In the focus groups, the principals, teachers, and parents also described how schools made creative use of available human resources—from both inside and outside the school community— to support teaching and learning. In some schools, parents and college students from the local community were invited to volunteer to mentor struggling students. “The [SIP] revealed that we needed supportive [remedial] education,” said one principal. “Our teachers were not able to provide it by themselves, so we involved some parents to [support] students who were weak in first to fourth grades and [at risk] of not advancing to grades five or six. They couldn’t read or write, so they were assigned to the library where they were taught the alphabet and how to read and write. The project succeeded and the weak students improved.” Parent Council: The principal, as head of his/her SIT, often depended on the school parent council to help secure donations from families, businesses, and organizations from the local community. For example, the parent council at one school won the support of a telecommunications company to network their school’s computers. The council also secured donations for computers and art supplies, and it managed to persuade a local NGO to provide remedial lessons for students weak in math, Arabic, and English. Donations from prominent individuals, families or organizations in the local community helped schools to acquire hardware used for improving the physical condition of school facilities. Parents or local businesses volunteered labor and resources to help repair or beautify the school grounds as well as the interiors of 5 (1) School Improvement Planning; (2) School/Community Relations; (3) Technology for teaching/Administration; (4) Support for Teaching and Learning; (5) Child-Friendly School Environment; (6) Assessment for Improving Teaching and Learning; (7) Managing Human and Material Resources “There are some items in the plan that need support beyond the school,” said a principal. “For example, if you want to buy an LCD and the budget cannot afford the purchase, then the role of the principal is to contact people in the community who might be able to help.” 45 offices and classrooms; others helped to upgrade a school’s water and electrical systems. In many of these cases, the school principal relied heavily on the cooperation of influential individuals on a school’s parent council to help negotiate contributions from the local community. At times, a school principal might also take advantage of the influential status of one or more members of the school’s parent council to win the cooperation of a local village council, municipality, or school directorate in obtaining resources needed to implement school improvement. In one example, a principal said, “The walls were dirty and messy so I fixed and plastered the walls and then painted them and drew educational drawings… [And] now the school has four sun shades. However, this was not from the school budget but from the local community and organizations.” Another principal added, “We didn’t have three-phase electric power, so we had to install it and it cost about 12000 shekels, which was all from the local community.” Practicing teamwork and collaboration Functional but fragmented: Compared to the planning phase that entailed defining a school’s mission and vision and conducting a school self-assessment to identify needs and to set goals, objectives and targets, the implementation phase of the SIP process appeared to be characterized by a fragmented, yet functional, form of teamwork. As described in the focus group discussions by the different members of SITS, it is the principal who sets the agenda. He/she assesses the availability of resources to implement the SIP, and then prioritizes which goals to start with. Next, the principal coordinates with members of the school parent council to conduct fund raising in the local community. At the same time, he/she delegates teachers to take responsibility for implementing goals specifically related to teaching and learning. “I see that the principal is the one who performs most of the plan after defining all priorities and based on consultation,” said one principal. “The coordination with parents, the community, and the education institutions begins and is followed by implementation of the plan in detail, and the principal is the one who starts coordination and follow-up.” The same principal summed up by saying, “The nature of the principal’s work and his time in the school makes us play the crucial role in implementing [the SIP].” Another principal clarified this description of the principal’s role by saying, “The principal’s role is to distribute the roles so that each person carries out his/her role and the principal’s role remains as an observer, facilitator, implementer and supervisor.” And another principal added, “The role of the principal is based on three things; namely, to provide support, follow-up and removal of any obstacles.” Strategic role of parent council: Since schools often depend on the generosity of the local community to supplement budget gaps, LTD principals said they are mindful of cultivating cooperative relationships with the parent council. As one principal noted, “There are some items in the plan that need somebody other than a teacher such as the local community. For example, if you want to buy an LCD and the budget does not allow for any purchase, so the role of the principal is to contact people who might be able to help out in the community. So the principal is a link.” The parents concurred with this characterization of the principal’s role. They noted that it was rare to have regular SIT meetings. Instead, their cooperation would be activated by the need to locate financial “The coordination with parents, the community, and the education institutions begins and is followed by implementation of the plan in detail, and the principal is the one who starts coordination and follow-up.” 46 or in-kind support to achieve a particular goal or objective for school improvement. As one parent said, “At our school the SIT is present, but I can’t say its 100% active…We are not only listeners but we have a big role in the SIT.” More typically, however, it is the parent council meeting—not the SIT itself—that becomes the venue for the principal to seek parent collaboration. “As soon as the principal knows that we have a meeting she does not share with us the [SIP] plan. She only tells us the needs and that they need our help in them,” said a parent. Another parent concurred, saying, “[Principals] only ask for the council when there is an activity and they need money, or if they have a problem with the behavior of a teacher that they want to resolve, or if teachers have internal problems in the school itself.” A noteworthy finding is that some of the parents who were invited to the focus groups had no knowledge of the SIT; instead, their sole frame of reference was as members of their school’s parent council. In other words, their collaboration with the principal and teachers—the core members of a school’s SIT—was solely in the context of their membership on the parent council. “I cannot seem to understand what you mean by SIT. You want to appoint people besides the [parent] council? The term SIT is not known. The parent’s council is known. As a council we do everything, all the members focused on collecting donations.” The upshot of this finding is that, at least in some cases, there was no perceived need by principals to have parents as regular members of the SIT because of the presence of the parent council as a separate body. In other cases, parents who were members of a school’s parent council were invited specifically to represent the parent council at SIT meetings, a point that one parent emphasized: “To clarify something, our parent council is part of the SIT. In the SIT there are 3 or 4 members who are from the parent council, in addition to 3 teachers and the principal.” Teacher as mediator: As for the role of teachers on the SIT during implementation, the focus group discussions revealed that they play a critical role as mediators between school faculty and students on the one hand and parents and community on the other. For example, one teacher described her engagement in the process to implement the SIP’s technology goals at her school: “We wrote down the goals, the target and plan. From the goals we set off to integrating technology, strengthening it and activating it in the school. I was in the group that encouraged teachers to use technology and activate it, and I helped teachers…in downloading videos related to their subjects. There was interaction with the technology teacher.” Another teacher described the resistance he faced from some teachers. “The introduction of technology in education caused conflict, at times, with colleagues who thought that matters could just go on without technology and that it might be a burden. My role was to convince some of our colleagues to give a session or class in the LCD hall where they could explain their lesson in a modern way.” Teamwork made the difference. Other teachers were tasked to get parents engaged in the implementation plan. “We had biweekly meetings with the parents,” said a teacher. “The parents were active. Our meetings were held on Saturdays where they were updated with the situation and we would ask for support.” “The reasons for “The introduction of technology in education caused conflict, at times, with colleagues who thought that matters could just go on without technology and that it might be a burden. My role was to convince some of our colleagues to give a session or class in the LCD hall where they could explain their lesson in a modern way.” 47 success,” explained one teacher, “lie with knowing the weaknesses in the school, and by working within a team we were able to work properly to achieve success.” An excellent case of how the SIT could provide a powerfully collaborative mechanism among a school’s stakeholders toward school improvement was exemplified by one school’s efforts to limit the impact of early marriage on girls’ academic performance. A teacher narrated the following: “Teamwork is always faster with less effort and better achievement than individual work. For example in our school there is a bad habit of early marriage. Because girl students usually think they will end up working in the kitchen [because of the pressure] to get married, their academic achievement is low. I focused on this problem during my work by conducting sessions implemented by the SIT with the school administration and parents Council. The sessions highlighted that education is the weapon for girls. We also introduced technology in education. These meetings helped to change the mindset of students and parents about early marriage. In fact, after the sessions, academic performance improved and there was an increase in the number of girls who were willing to continue studying.” Modeling shared leadership Flexible but firm leadership: The summary findings presented in the previous indicators suggest that the attitudes and behaviors of the LTD principal, in his/her role as head of an SIT, reflect some elements of what is called shared leadership—leadership that derives from collaboration and teamwork rather than exclusively from the directives of a single leader. Although the formal structure of an SIT gives it the appearance of a change-management team, decision-making remains the exclusive prerogative of the school principal, instead of being distributed among all members of the SIT, which includes teachers and parents. A principal succinctly described this role: “I believe that the principal is the main actor and main dynamic person at school and on the school improvement team. He forms the team based on specific criteria. He sets a plan for meetings, school self￾assessment, and scope of work. The principal plays a very important and effective role in preparing the development plan and in carrying it out. He is the main coordinator between all bodies; therefore, his role is crucial.” What is shared, however, with fellow SIT team members, and in a relatively transparent way, are data, information, ideas, opinions, and recommendations for setting goals and finding resources to accomplish targets. “Before the principal would be afraid to tell anyone about problems at the school,” commented a parent. “But now [talking about problems] is normal. Anything that happens the principal calls on parents to suggest solutions…Today there is greater transparency.” This perspective from a parent about the improved leadership attitudes and style of her principal was echoed by a teacher: “The development team [SIT] was present in the school a year prior to LTD, but the principals improved after the program. We used to consider them principals, but now we consider them leaders after the [Leadership Diploma] course. The principal is closer to the teachers. Previously the principal would be “Before the principal would be afraid to tell anyone about problems at the school,” commented a parent. “But now [talking about problems] is normal. Anything that happens the principal calls on parents to suggest solutions…Today there is greater transparency.” 48 skeptical of anything the teacher asked for, but now he is more open-minded. All he wants is that the teachers work hard. The principal’s attitudes have changed. Now there is more participation and sharing.” Directive leadership style: During both the planning and implementation phases of the SIP process, evidence from the focus groups indicates that the principal exhibits different leadership behaviors—from a directive, command-and-control style to a more distributive, transformational style—depending on the context and audience with whom he or she is working with to achieve specific goals of an SIP. Sometimes the style is directive, where the principal issues instructions or commands to teachers to carry out particular goals. One principal summed up this perspective perfectly: “I see that the principal is the one who develops most of the plan after defining all priorities and based on consultation and coordination with parents, the community…which is followed by implementation of the plan in detail, and [again] the principal is the one who initiates coordination and follow-up. The nature of the principal’s work and time in the school makes us play the crucial role of implementation.” Transformational leadership style: At other times, the principal exhibits a more transformational style of leadership, where he/she will use his/her charisma to motivate and inspire SIT members with high expectations for achieving the goals of the SIP for the good of the school and its students. “The role of the principal,” said one of the principals, “is to display friendship and communicate with teachers, which is the biggest role in the implementation of the SIP.” She added, “It is important to have a common language of communication between the principal and the [members] on the SIT and the faculty…Everyone has a different way of thinking, but the principal is able to connect all ideas and unite them in order to reach the desired goal.” What we can conclude from the above discussion is that the SIT, as activated through LTD’s Leadership Diploma program, seems to be creating a more democratic, participatory space for school stakeholders to cooperate in planning for school improvement. While still exhibiting some elements of a more traditional directive style of leadership, the behavior and attitudes on an LTD principal also reflects aspects of transformative leadership that favors transparency, communication, and collaboration in mobilizing both material and human resources—inside and outside the immediate school community— to achieve the goals and targets of a school’s SIP. Support from the local DLT As explained in the introduction to the report, LTD added questions to the SIT survey and focus group research to allow principals the opportunity to assess, from their perspective as the head contact person with their district directorate, the quality of interaction and support they received from the District Leadership Teams during the planning and implementation of the SIP. “The role of the principal,” said one of the principals, “is to display friendship and communicate with teachers, which is the biggest role in the implementation of the SIP.” She added, “It is important to have a common language of communication between the principal and the [members] on the SIT and the faculty…Everyone has a different way of thinking, but the principal is able to connect all ideas and unite them in order to reach the desired goal.” 49 Contribution of the DLT in supporting the planning process to develop the SIP The participants’ opinions on the role of the DLTs were divided into two opinions. One group of principals viewed the DLT as not playing any substantive role throughout the process of developing the SIP, for example, in helping to identify school priorities and needs based on the school’s self-assessment results and draft SIP. Many principals pointed out that the lack of a role for the DLTs was because their local DLT was formed only after the SIP was developed. “Honestly, when was it formed?,” commented one principal. “Let us be realistic. We had already finished the plan and started to implemented it.” Another principal added, “The SIT developed the plan and prepared everything without any help or assistance from the DLT.” A second group of principals held the opinion that the DLT, with the support of the SIT, helped to identify goals and priorities, and to offer advice, during discussion sessions with the SIT. For the most part, however, the role of the DLT was limited to giving instructions and some advice. “The DLT attended more than one meeting with us at the NIET,” noted one principal. “We both identified needs, and held meetings more than once. During the first and second times we discussed priorities and school needs.” DLT support for the implementation of the SIP The role of the DLT during the implementation phase of the SIP appeared largely limited to coordinating on technical matters. As one principal observed: “Our relationship with the DLT was basically one of coordination in which they would look over our plans and respond if there was any feedback.” What can be done to strengthen cooperation between the school and the DLT to better support school improvement? The principals highlighted three areas where the functional operation of the DLTs should be strengthened. First, they said it was vital that the members of a DLT attend some of the leadership trainings, especially the representative from the Department of Field Follow Up. Attendance at the trainings would make them aware of the important differences in how the LTD-based SIP is developed in comparison to the district-based model currently demanded of principals. One principal summed up this position: “When we developed the (LTD) plan, we developed it with seven domains. When the Ministry’s plan arrived, we had to develop yet another plan, which we presented it to Department of Field Follow Up. They asked us about the environmental assessment and the mission and the vision for the school. These are things we never used to do before; so, we had to develop another plan twice and merge the SIP with the Ministry’s plan. Field Follow Up should have attended the training courses with us.” Secondly, they recommended increasing the level of networking between DLT members and principals through holding regular meetings to exchange opinions and suggestions. “There should be a meeting or two with the DLT,” remarked one principal. Another principal added, “It would be nice if there were joint projects that would create more cooperation between the principal and the teachers on the SIT with the members of the DLT.” Thirdly, the principals admitted that they and the members of the SIT had no clear understanding of the scope of work of their local DLT. For this reason, the local school directorate needs to clarify the role and responsibilities of the DLT to the schools. “I believe that the role of the DLT is not clear,” commented one “The DLT attended more than one meeting with us at the NIET,” noted one principal. “We both identified needs, and held meetings more than once. During the first and second times we discussed priorities and school needs.” 50 principal. “For me, I only see their role as coordinating for us to meet during the district conferences. I am not aware of their role. Are they supposed to engage with the plan? Evaluating the plan?” A second principal added, “There ought to be a meeting for the members of the DLT to explain and clarify their roles, and for the DLT to learn about what my role is.” Conclusions Monitoring SIP implementation: Overall, the level of quality of the SIT's role and tasks in monitoring the implementation of the SIP was adequate, but with room for improvement. Some 75% agreed that the SIT effectively monitored the progress of the implementation of the SIT, but there was less agreement on the quality of monitoring and collecting data used in gauging progress of the goals and targets of an SIP. Of the three monitoring tasks—supervising, assessing, and reporting—the latter task was rated lowest by members of SITs, with 69% agreeing that the team was effective in writing of progress reports. The principals, compared to teachers and parents, were the most critical of this aspect (64% in agreement), a finding that strongly suggests that this is an area needing development. From the focus groups, there was little evidence that SIPs followed a systematic process of documenting progress of targets in the SIP. Whenever follow up was done, it appeared to be done single handedly by the principal on top of his/her other day-to-day administrative work. There was some acknowledgement that the principal were not delegating the task of monitoring and documenting to others. “If a principal (alone) follows up all details no matter how trivial, then that means dictatorship,” commented one principal, “The principal’s role is to distribute the roles so that each person carries out his/her role while the principal’s role is to act as an observer, facilitator, implementer and supervisor.” Another impediment mentioned by both principals and teachers was the heavy workload of teachers. As one principal noted, “Teachers are loaded with work. For example, they have 24/25 classes. So we might make decisions and go back to them later not because we cannot depend on them, but because we [principals] have more time.” Yet, it would appear they are not devoting sufficient time to monitoring and documenting the implementation process. The teachers seem to agree. “The problem is time,” said one teacher. “There has to be [sufficient] time for the SIT team to accomplish tasks. Reducing the workload of the teachers and other time constraints [would help].” Deploying and managing resources: Overall, results indicate that SITs effectively deployed and managed material and human resources during implementation of the SIP. Collectively, 93% of the SIT members agreed that the SIT effectively deployed and managed material and human resources. Strong levels of agreement on all 10 items comprising the composite indicator are seen across all members of SITs; in particular, SITs were effective in utilizing LTD’s robust provision of technology resources (i.e., laptops, LCDs, and Internet connectivity) to support effective teaching and school management. Likewise, the SITs were effective pooling and mobilizing human and material resources both inside and outside the school community towards improving the overall school environment. The results also pointed to two areas that principals and DLTs may want to develop and improve. These relate to the capacity of the SIT to keep the SIP process focused on effectively managing teaching and learning with a high level of performance, and their capacity to effectively manage and monitor the process of implementing the school plan, a finding that is consistent with the results in other indicators. Findings from the focus group discussions indicated that LTD schools were effective in securing and deploying both human and material resources not only through LTD’s support, but also from outside sources. They highlighted in particular resources that had direct impact on teaching and learning. For example, in some schools, parents and college students from the local community were invited to 51 volunteer to provide mentoring and remediation to help struggling students. The principal, as head of his/her SIT, often tapped the membership of a school’s parent council to help secure donations from families, businesses, and organizations from the local community. Furthermore, donations from prominent individuals and families or from successful organizations in the local community helped schools to acquire hardware supplies—for example building materials, paint, windows, and so on—that were used for improving the physical condition of school facilities. Practicing teamwork and collaboration: An impressive 90% of the respondents agreed that, as a team, the members of SITs exercised a high degree of cooperation and teamwork during implementation of their SIPs. The highest levels of agreement point to strongly held values and attitudes associated with teamwork and cooperation, including: mutual trust; cooperation with individuals and groups inside and outside the school; openness to multiple perspectives and opinions; commitment to completing tasks in meetings; and sharing a common vision and methodology. At the same time, results also pointed to two related aspects that SITs and their local DLT may want to examine more closely: the completion of tasks and requirements for implementation, and the achievement of the desired goals of the SIP implementation. These two aspects appear to be consistent with data elsewhere that suggest that some SITs may have struggled with documenting and reporting progress of the implementation of the SIP. Findings from the focus groups lend some evidence as to why some SITs may struggle to complete tasks of specific SIP goals and targets. Teamwork during the implementation phase, in contrast to the planning phase, appeared to be characterized by a fragmented, yet functional, form of teamwork. When a principal is effective in monitoring task achievement and provides timely feedback, chances for success are more likely, but sustained attention on following up on task performance and progress appears to have been sporadic and unsystematic. It was not at all clear what structures or mechanisms that school principals set up in order to delegate tasks, monitor progress, and make informed decisions on removing obstacles. If anything, the process seemed somewhat random and mostly focused on the capacity of the principal alone to manage the process and troubleshoot obstacles—with community support—when they occurred. Modeling shared leadership: A strong majority (93%) of the respondents SIT membership agreed that the principal exercised shared leadership in supporting and managing collaborative work among SIT members. In particular, principals appeared to have been most effective in encouraging open dialogue and multiple perspectives and in providing both technical and administrative support to facilitate the work of the team members. The data also implied three specific leadership skills that the Leadership Diploma Program may wish to strengthen. These included: helping team members to complete tasks in a timely manner; providing clear and specific feedback to team members; and, applying more constructive methods for managing or resolving differences of opinion. All of these points tie back to the challenge, already discussed at length, regarding the apparent lack of a systematic structure and process by which the progress of implementing targeted goals can be monitored and documented in order to provide timely and actionable feedback. Despite this area of needed improvement in leadership, the focus groups corroborate the survey findings and support the conclusion that the SIT, as activated through LTD’s Leadership Diploma program, seems to be creating a more democratic, participatory space for school stakeholders to cooperate in planning for school improvement. In the Palestinian context, the SIT seems to be creating a hybrid form of leadership that combines elements of the more traditional directive style of leadership (“command-and￾control”) with behavior and attitudes characteristic of transformative leadership that favors transparency, 52 communication, and collaboration in mobilizing both material and human resources—inside and outside the immediate school community—to achieve the goals and targets of a school’s SIP. Support from the local DLT: Roughly three quarters of the principals (77%) agreed that their local DLT effectively supported the planning and implementation of their school’s SIP, which, consequently, helped to strengthen relations between the school and the district directorate. Likewise, DLTs were seen as responsive when principals sought technical information or clarification regarding goals or targets in the drafting of the SIP document. At the same time, however, the data suggest three areas of support that the district office may wish to strengthen: Offering feedback and comments about the draft of the school’s SIP; supporting the principal’s efforts to coordinate with local community organizations to support the school’s improvement plan; and, following-up on the progress of the school’s SIP during its implementation. Recommendations Results of LTD’s evaluation study of School Improvement Teams (SIT) provides strong evidence of the essential role that this structure plays in engaging all key stakeholders in a school community in the systematic design and implementation of school improvement. At the same time, findings from the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data also suggest the performance of SITs will be enhanced if schools and their respective DLTs work cooperatively to build the capacity of SIT membership to:  Collect and use data to systematically monitor, report progress, share feedback, and take action to improve the implementation of goals and targets outlined in the SIP.  Establish a structured, systematic process for monitoring and evaluation of the SIP implementation.  Formalize the role, representation, and active participation of the parent council on the SIT in both the planning and implantation phases of school improvement.  Strengthen the focus the SIP implementation process on the effective management and monitoring of teaching and learning towards improving students’ academic performance.  Manage resources—including time—more strategically to increase the successful completion of goals, objectives, and targets during the implementation of the SIP.  Adopt strategies of conflict management and transformation to more effectively resolve and/or make constructive use of differing opinions. The performance of SITs and their capacity to develop and implement effective school improvement plans will be enhanced if the heads of the district directorates take measures to build the capacity of the DLT to:  Cooperate more closely with the SIT to offer systematic, constructive, and timely comments and feedback during the development and implementation of a school’s SIP.  Offer strategic backing for the principal’s efforts to identify individuals, groups, or organizations in the local community, or the broader school district, who may have access to supplementary resources to support the successful implementation of the SIP. 53 Section 3A: Fostering Quality Teaching and Learning Introduction: Teacher Effectiveness Survey A key goal of LTD is to promote the development of high quality teaching and learning, of which there is no greater factor than the performance of a qualified teacher. LTD is contributing to this effort by supporting the ongoing professional development of the members of the National Cadre of Teacher Educators at NIET (the National Institute for Educational Training) who deliver a 9-module in-service teaching education program, co-developed with LTD, leading to the award of a nationally accredited teacher qualification certificate. The process of the program includes monthly school-based face-to-face trainings and reflective practice through recurring cycles of action research in bi-monthly learning circles. To evaluate the change in teachers’ attitudes and behaviors resulting from their participation in the teacher education, LTD uses a survey instrument designed by NIET (Annex D) to collect data to assess the change in teachers’ attitudes and behaviors about their performance . The survey is framed by the MoEHE standards for effective teaching (Figure 16), and data are collected from both teachers and principals. Instrumentation The teacher effectiveness survey used a 4-point Likert scale that measures the extent that teachers met the set of competencies comprising each of the seven domains of teacher performance (Figure 16, above). On the scale, the value of 1 equals “below expected level;” 2 is “approaching expected level; 3 is “achieved expected level;” and, 4 is “exceeded expected level.” When interpreting the results, the mean value of 2.5 to 3 indicates a satisfactory level competency, while a 3.5 or higher indicates the competency level was met or surpassed. For the purpose of analysis, a composite indicator for each of the seven means was produced by taking the average of the means the individual competences. The inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the seven indicators was above the minimum acceptable value of .7, ranging from .851 to .925. Sample In all, 205 teachers comprised a random, stratified selection of teachers across the five subject areas and five districts comprising Cohort III schools (Table 28). To mitigate the effects of bias in self-reporting among teachers, principals—72 in all—from the same schools as the teachers evaluated the teachers’ competencies based on an identical set of questions. 1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning 2. Designing educational materials and resources 3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment 4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process 5. Providing guidance and direction for learners 6. Seeking continuous professional development 7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community Figure 16. Seven domains of MoEHE’s standards for effective teaching 54 Table 28. Demographics of sample of teachers Teachers Principals Count6 N % Count N % Sex Male 84 42% 38 53% Female 115 58% 34 47% Age Under 30 43 22% 30-39 88 44% 40-49 50 25% Over 50 18 9% Years Teaching Less than 5 years 22 11% 5-10 years 73 37% 10-15 years 53 27% Over 15 years 52 26% Subject Taught Math 44 22% Science 50 25% Arabic 44 22% English 33 17% Technology 29 15% Other 0 0% District North Hebron 41 20% 16 22% South Nablus 38 19% 13 18% Tubas 35 17% 12 17% Tulkarm 39 19% 14 19% Nablus 52 25% 17 24% Data Collection LTD recruited four qualified individuals—two women and two men—to conduct the distribution and collection of surveys, and key data entry. An intern who was working for LTD at the time also joined the team as the fifth researcher. Data collection and data entry took place from April 1 to May 31, 2016. Upon arrival at each school, the researcher gave a copy of the survey to the teachers and the school principal, who then filled out the forms on the spot and returned them to the researcher when completed. To avoid the potential for interference in how respondents might answer the questions, the teachers and principals were not together in the same room when filling out the survey. Results of the Teacher Effectiveness Survey Overall Results The overall results across the seven indicators point to substantive change in teachers’ self-reported assessment of their teaching competencies (Table 29). On average, teachers’ competencies improved by nearly 20%. 6 The totals for some of the counts are smaller than the N of 205 for the sample because of missing data. 55 Table 29. Results for seven domains of teaching competencies as reported by teachers Teacher Competency Domains Baseline Endline % Change 1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning 2.94 3.48 18% 2. Designing educational materials and resources 2.72 3.32 22% 3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment 2.93 3.45 18% 4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process 2.77 3.32 20% 5. Providing guidance and direction for learners 3.02 3.46 15% 6. Seeking continuous professional development 2.78 3.42 23% 7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community 2.82 3.29 17% Grand Mean 2.84 3.39 19% Figure 17 shows the percentage change across the seven indicators, ranked from smallest to largest. Predictably, the three indicators that showed the biggest growth reflect the emphasis in the Teacher Qualification training on school-based professional development framed by reflective practice and action research (#6), creative lesson planning (#2), and the use of alternative/authentic assessment strategies (#4). Figure 17.Change in teacher competencies by end of LTD training 56 Indicator 1: Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning Results for Indicator 1 (Table 30)—ranked from largest to smallest—suggest that LTD teachers improved by 18% their capacity to apply principles and strategies associated with learner-centered teaching and learning, strategies that offer opportunities for students to engage more actively in meaningful learning and assessment activities. Although there was substantive change (21%) in the teachers’ capacity to involve students and others in discussing desired learning outcomes, this competency scored lowest (3.38) compared to the other competencies. This might be an area that teachers—with support from principals or fellow teachers—may want to develop further. Table 30. Means and percentage of change for Indicator 1 Indicator 1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning Pre Post % Change 1.7 I implement learning activities that are relevant to lesson content, and ask questions to assess students' understanding. 3.01 3.55 18% 1.3 I consider students' prior knowledge 3.09 3.53 14% 1.2 I consider individual differences among students. 3.15 3.52 12% 1.6 I implement activities that engage students in collaborative learning. 2.87 3.52 23% 1.1 I plan monthly and daily lesson plans that consider the different learning styles of students. 2.9 3.44 19% 1.4 I write learning outcomes that aligned with outcomes of the national curriculum. 2.77 3.4 23% 1.5 I involve students and other stakeholders to discuss the desired learning outcomes 2.79 3.38 21% Grand Mean 2.94 3.48 18% Indicator 2: Designing educational materials and resources Results for Indictor 2 (Table 31) show that LTD teachers improved markedly in designing and teaching lessons and units that utilize a variety of learning tools and resources to enhance the learning of students. Among the biggest self-reported changes is in the use of ICT, which improved by 21%. This change is probably associated with the strong emphasis given to the use of technology in the teacher-training curriculum. Of the six skills, teachers appear to need some additional support in using community resources (material and human) to improve the learning process. Although this competency improved by 24%, almost 1 in 4 of the teachers had not achieved the expected proficiency level (Table 32). Table 31. Means and percentage of change for Indicator 2 2. Designing educational materials and resources Pre Post % Change 2.2 I use ICT in teaching and learning. 2.81 3.41 21% 2.4 I use teaching and learning that meet students' needs. 2.81 3.41 21% 2.7 I use a variety of teaching and learning approaches to achieve the goals of the curriculum. 2.87 3.4 18% 2.5 I improve the creative learning and abilities by using a variety of teaching and learning resources. 2.79 3.39 22% 2.6 I involve students in developing different learning resources. 2.78 3.37 21% 57 2.1 I design my annual plan to develop teaching and learning materials and reference their sources 2.63 3.26 24% 2.3 I use community resources (material and human) to improve the learning process. 2.41 2.997 24% Grand Mean 2.72 3.32 22% Table 32. Effective use of community resources to improve learning 2.3 I use community resources (material and human) to improve the learning process. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Below expected level 3 1.5 1.5 Approaching expected level 43 21.6 23.1 Achieved expected level 105 52.8 75.9 Exceeded expected level 48 24.1 100.0 Total 199 100.0 Missing 6 Total 205 Indicator 3: Creating a safe and effective learning environment Results for Indicator 3 (Table 33) indicate that LTD teachers improved their capacity by 18% to create a child-friendly classroom environment, where students have opportunities to develop into confident and independent learners, to engage in active learning, and to use critical thinking and creativity. Table 33. Means and percentage of change for Indicator 3 3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment Pre Post % Change 3.7 I assign tasks to students that enhance their self-confidence in taking responsibility for their learning. 2.9 3.54 22% 3.1 I encourage student participation in different classroom activities. 2.97 3.49 18% 3.5 I create a safe and healthy learning environment for students. 3.11 3.48 12% 3.6 I create a learning environment that promotes creative and critical thinking. 2.92 3.47 19% 3.4 I provide equal learning opportunities for all students. 3.03 3.45 14% 3.2 I create a learning environment that encourages students to learn through trial and error. 2.86 3.44 20% 3.3 I involve students in the drafting school and classroom regulations. 2.71 3.29 21% Grand Mean 2.93 3.45 18% Indicator 4: Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process Results of Indicator 4 (Table 34) show that LTD teachers strengthened their capacity to use a variety of methods for formative and summative assessments of student learning. The skills that got the two highest ratings—reflecting on teaching practices to inform professional development (3.55), and giving 7 58 students feedback (3.47)—are important because they point to the teachers’ recognition of the critical importance that feedback plays in the teaching and learning process.8 In other words, teachers recognize the value to student learning by the use of assessment “as” and “for” learning, and not merely “of” learning. The results also point to two skill areas in need of continuing improvement: using assessment results to design more effective lesson plans (3.16), and, sharing results of assessments with parents (3.05). Table 34. Means and percentage of change for Indictor 4 4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process Pre Post % Change 4.7 I reflect on my practices to guide my professional development. 2.97 3.55 20% 4.10 I give constructive feedback to students based on assessment results. 2.96 3.47 17% 4.8 I select assessment strategies appropriate to the learning needs of students. 2.86 3.42 20% 4.11 I use the monitoring and evaluation as a strategy in teaching and learning. 2.96 3.37 14% 4.6 I develop different assessment tools that fit the individual differences of students. 2.84 3.35 18% 4.9 I document assessment results to follow up on the progress of students. 2.83 3.35 18% 4.5 I use the results of monitoring and evaluation to improve teaching and learning. 2.88 3.34 16% 4.12 I encourage students to use self-assessment. 2.73 3.29 21% 4.2 I use the results of self-reflection to improve the process of teaching and learning. 2.56 3.28 28% 4.3 I implement remedial learning programs to meet the specific needs of students based on assessment results. 2.65 3.26 23% 4.1 I design lesson plans to improve students' learning based on assessment results. 2.46 3.16 28% 4.4 I provide parents with reports about their children's academic achievement. 2.57 3.05 19% Grand Mean 2.77 3.32 20% Although teachers reported substantive improvement across all 12 competences that comprise the indicator, the two lowest ranked competencies point to areas where teachers would benefit from additional support. Both are related to the use of assessment data to support student learning: (1) taking account of assessment data (formative/summative) when designing lesson plans (skill 4.1); and, (2) providing parents with reports (based on assessment data) about their children’s academic progress (skill 4.4). 8 John Hattie examined the results of 12 meta-analyses (comprising 196 studies) that looked specifically at the effect-size of feedback. He found that the average effect-size was .79, which was twice the average effect of all other schooling effects in the 196 studies. Hattie concludes that feedback is among the top 10 influences on achievement. See: Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. 59 Indicator 5: Providing guidance and direction for learners This indicator measures the teacher’s capacity to provide basic counselling skills to help students manage emotional and behavioral problems and help them plan for future careers. The results (Table 35) show that the overall percentage of change across the six competencies is the smallest of the seven indicators, averaging a 15% change. But this is not a bad thing, and the reason for this is fairly obvious when one realizes that the baseline scores for the six competencies were already relatively developed prior to their LTD training. The results indicate, to the contrary, that LTD teachers are in fact making continued improvement in their capacity to support their students’ emotional, behavioral, and social well-being. Table 35. Means and percentage of change for Indicator 5 5. Providing guidance and direction for learners Pre Post % Change 5.1 I provide students with proper guidance about their everyday well-being (e.g., health, hygiene and public safety and self￾discipline). 3.28 3.66 12% 5.3 I cultivate positive values and attitudes in students. 3.3 3.66 11% 5.2 I follow the appropriate procedures to improve student behavior. 3.07 3.52 15% 5.4 I give student tasks and assignments connected to their daily lives in the real world. 3 3.47 16% 5.5 I provide appropriate guidance in helping student to think about suitable career choices. 2.94 3.35 14% 5.6 I consult with experts to find appropriate solutions to students with learning difficulties. 2.5 3.08 23% Grand Mean 3.02 3.46 15% Interestingly, the competency that deals with consulting with experts to find appropriate solutions to students with learning difficulties (#5.6) registered the biggest percent change—23%--while also earning the smallest mean at the end of the training (3.08). This finding is not necessarily the fault of teachers. In the West Bank context, teacher education programs in general and school resources in particular, leave most teachers ill-equipped to deal effectively with children with physical or cognitive disabilities. On the bright side, the results for Indicator 1, “Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning” (Table 30, above), show that teachers have improved the use of differentiated instruction, which is known to make classrooms more inclusive for students with learning difficulties. Still, 1 in 4 teachers report they have not reached the expected level (24.1%) for this competency (Table 36). This finding suggests a need for a systemic effort to provide teachers with additional support to help them improve the learning opportunities for students with learning difficulties. 60 Table 36. Getting support to help improve learning for students with learning difficulties 5.6 I consult with experts to find appropriate solutions to students with learning difficulties. Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Below expected level Approaching expected level Achieved expected level Exceeded expected level Total 5 2.5 2.5 38 19.1 21.6 92 46.2 67.8 64 32.2 100 199 100 Missing 6 Total 205 Indicator 6: Seeking continuous professional development Overall, the results for Indicator 6 (Table 37) registered the largest percent change—23%--compared to the other six indicators. The teachers made substantial improvements in their capacity to self-direct their own professional learning through reflective practice and inquiry, and to participate in communities of practice at their schools to share and cooperate with colleagues. Of the eight competencies comprising this indicator, the teachers’ use of action research grew by an impressive 38%, a finding that reflects the centrality given to action research and reflective practice in the LTD Teacher Qualification program. Table 37. Means and percentage of change for Standard 6 6. Seeking continuous professional development Pre Post % Change 6.8 Participate in trainings and study days to develop my performance. 3.22 3.59 11% 6.2 I apply what I learn in training to promote active learning in the classroom. 2.87 3.56 24% 6.3 I share experiences with colleagues to do collaborative teaching and projects. 2.96 3.52 19% 6.4 I search the Internet for relevant teaching resources. 2.84 3.46 22% 6.5 I take advantage of appropriate methods to achieve students' learning outcomes. 2.71 3.4 25% 6.7 I keep a portfolio to document events and activities to aid my professional development. 2.64 3.35 27% 6.6 I use action research to improve the teaching and learning process. 2.39 3.29 38% 6.1 I use evaluation results to identify training needs. 2.61 3.21 23% Grand Mean 2.78 3.42 23% Indicator 7: Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community Results for Indicator 7 (Table 38) indicate that LTD teachers improved their capacity by 17% on average to develop supportive relationships with peers, families, and others in the local community so that students have opportunities to transfer their learning to authentic contexts and to receive extra assistance from multiple sources to address their learning needs. 61 The competency that produced the smallest mean score of the six competencies (3.20)—communicating with parents about the performance of their children (item 7.3)—is consistent with the low score for the same competency found in Indicator 4, “Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process” (Table 34, above). This evidence points suggests that teachers—with the support of the school principal— need help in developing effective strategies for collaborating with parents to enhance the learning support they can give to their children at home. Table 38. Means and percentage of change for Standard 7 7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community Pre Post % Change 7.5 I engage experienced colleagues to support learning activities and collaborative projects. 3.05 3.48 14% 7.6 I use community-based resources to improve the teaching and learning process. 2.84 3.35 18% 7.1 I encourage students to engage in local community-service learning. 2.78 3.3 19% 7.4 I cooperate with parents to resolve problems facing their children (i.e., behavioral, learning and health). 2.8 3.26 16% 7.2 I participate in finding appropriate solutions to community problems. 2.74 3.21 17% 7.3 I provide parents with reports on the results of their students' academic performance. 2.7 3.13 16% Grand Mean 2.82 3.29 17% Results of Statistical Analysis between Dependent and Independent Variables To investigate whether there were any statistically significant relationships (correlations) between the seven indicators of teacher effectiveness (dependent variables) and any of the demographic variables (independent variables) on the survey, our study used both the Pearson r method and one-way ANOVA analysis. The independent variables tested included the following: sex, age, marital status, years teaching, subject taught, hours of effort related to teaching tasks, highest degree, skill level using a computer, availability of Internet at home, searching the Internet for teaching resources, or, for professional development. We found no statistically significant correlations between the independent variables and the seven indicators. Principal’s Questionnaire Results As with the Principal Effectiveness Survey, in addition to having teachers’ self-evaluate their teaching competencies, we asked LTD principals to evaluate the teachers. The rationale for doing this was to compensate for the possibility of teachers overestimating the level of their teaching competencies. The results indicate that the principals observed very dramatic improvement in the competences of teachers. In Table 39, the percentage of change in all seven domains of teaching competencies averaged 29%, some 10 percentage points bigger than the overall average reported by teachers (19%)—a difference of 41%. 62 Table 39. Change in teaching competencies as reported by principals Principals’ Assessment of Teacher Competency Domains Baseline Endline % Change 1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning 2.48 3.23 30% 2. Designing educational materials and resources 2.42 3.17 31% 3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment 2.54 3.23 27% 4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process 2.43 3.13 29% 5. Providing guidance and direction for learners 2.56 3.22 26% 6. Seeking continuous professional development 2.45 3.21 31% 7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community 2.5 3.16 26% Grand Mean 2.48 3.19 29% As seen in Table 40, the percentage difference between the two groups across the seven indicators are relatively modest, 6% overall. As a result, we are reasonably confident that the teachers’ self-evaluations, despite being slightly elevated, represent a relatively accurate self-assessment. Table 40. Comparison of results for teachers’ and principals’ assessment of teachers’ performance Standard Teachers Principal % Difference 1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning 3.48 3.23 7% 2. Designing educational materials and resources 3.32 3.17 5% 3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment 3.45 3.23 7% 4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process 3.32 3.13 6% 5. Providing guidance and direction for learners 3.46 3.22 7% 6. Seeking continuous professional development 3.42 3.21 6% 7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community 3.29 3.16 4% Grand Mean 3.39 3.19 6% Teaching Competencies Ranked Lowest by Principals What competencies might principals want to prioritize in supporting the professional development of their teachers based on the results? We investigated this question by identifying those specific competencies within each of the seven composite indicators that ranked lowest in the results of the principals’ data. Table 41 shows the results. The column on the far right shows whether the same competency was score lowest by both groups, principals and teachers. Table 41. Competencies ranked lowest in each of the seven indicators (endline scores) according to principals. Indicator Lowest scoring competency Mean score of competency Same competency for both groups Principals Teachers 1. Facilitating student￾centered teaching and learning 1.4. Writing learning outcomes that align with outcomes of the national curriculum. 3.12 3.4 NO 63 2. Designing educational materials and resources 2.3. Utilizing community resources (material and human) to improve the learning process. 2.96 3.41 YES 3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment 3.3. Involving students in the drafting school and classroom regulations. 3.08 3.41 YES 4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process 4.12. Encouraging students to use self-assessment. 3 3.4 NO 5. Providing guidance and direction for learners 5.6. Consulting with experts to find appropriate solutions to students with learning difficulties. 2.98 3.39 YES 6. Seeking continuous professional development 6.6. Using action research to improve the teaching and learning process. 2.89 3.37 NO 7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community 7.2. Participating in finding appropriate solutions to community problems. 3.07 3.26 NO These results point to potential areas for improvement in teaching, but they do not provide an explanation as to why the principals scored these competencies the lowest in each indicator. The only way to accurately understand the reasons why the principals responded as they did would be to conduct qualitative research, for example through interviews or focus groups. What we can say, however, is that the three indicators that were rated lowest by both principals and teachers—competencies 2.3, 3.3, and 5.6—suggest a high probability that these are areas that schools and districts ought to prioritize for planning in-service professional development. Results for PPR Indicator 3.2 One of LTD’s key “Performance Plan and Report” (PPR) indicators that must be reported to USAID is the percentage of participating teachers applying effective teaching methods in their classroom. LTD’s annual target (per cohort) for this indicator is 60% (Table 42). That is, it is expected that at least 60% of the teachers will, by the end of their training, report that they are teaching effectively based on MoEHE standards. LTD calculated a benchmark (based on a 4-point Likert scale) by taking the weighted average of the combined endline scores (means) on the teachers' forms (n = 202) and principal's forms (n = 198) of the Teacher Effectiveness survey, which was determined to be 3.29 out of 4. Compared to the baseline mean of 2.66 (Table 43), there was a 24% improvement in effective teaching of the teachers. It was found that 60% (rounded up from 59.7%) of the teachers scored 3.29 or better on the endline results. Thus, LTD met its target of 60% for Indicator 3.2; that is, 60% of participating teachers reported that they are applying effective teaching methods in their classrooms. Table 42. Results for PMP Indicator 3.2 PPR Indicator Target Actual 3.2: Percentage of participating teachers applying effective teaching methods in their classroom 60% (all cohorts) 60% 64 Table 43. Calculation of benchmark score for teacher effectiveness Teacher's Self-Evaluation N Mean Std. Deviation TOT_PR 202 2.84 0.465 TOT_PST 201 3.39 0.393 Principal's Evaluation of Teacher N Mean Std. Deviation TOT_PR 198 2.48 0.491 TOT_PST 198 3.19 0.473 Combined Weighted Averages of Principals plus Teachers Pre 2.66 Post 3.291 Percentage change 23.65 Furthermore, it bears mentioning that the principals of Cohort III schools observed marked improvement the performance of LTD teachers in their schools at the completion of NIET’s Teacher Qualification training (Figure 18). Figure 18. Change in teaching competencies at reported by principals and teachers Recommendations The study provides clear evidence that LTD teachers are making progress across all seven domains of the Standards for Effective Teaching. At the same time, however, the study points to a number of competencies that teachers, with the support of their principals and district leadership teams (DLT), ought to work on continuing to improve. 19% 29% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Reported by Teacher Reported by Principal Percent Change in Teaching Competencies at the End of LTD Training 65 1. Facilitating student-centered teaching and learning will advance if teachers work on involving students and other key stakeholders—fellow teachers, principals, and parents—in discussing and clarifying desired learning outcomes of the curriculum. 2. Designing educational materials and resources will advance if teachers improve their writing of learning outcomes that align assessment with subject-specific learning standards and outcomes linked to the national curriculum. 3. Creating a safe and effective learning environment will advance if teachers receive additional support in identifying and maximizing the utilization of community resources (material and human) to improve the learning process. 4. Monitoring and evaluation of the teaching and learning process (i.e., assessment) will advance if teachers empower and motivate students to contribute to a positive learning environment by giving them a say in drafting rules and regulations of expected school and classroom behavior. 5. Providing guidance and direction for learners will advance if teachers make regular and frequent use of student assessment data (formative/summative) to inform decisions on teaching/learning strategies in lesson plans and units of instruction, as well as to provide parents with useful, actionable information on how they can support their children’s learning at home. 6. Seeking continuous professional development will advance if teachers build their capacity—with the support of experts in counseling and inclusive education—to diagnose and provide appropriate strategies to enhance learning opportunities for students with learning difficulties (i.e., cognitive and/or physical disabilities). 7. Encouraging cooperation with stakeholders in the community will advance if teachers continue to utilize action research and reflective practice to improve methods and techniques for effective teaching and learning, and share results in communities of practice with fellow teachers in the same school and/or in local school clusters. 66 Section 3B: Classroom Engagement Survey Introduction: Classroom Engagement Survey A key goal of LTD is to promote the development of high quality teaching and learning. To achieve this, LTD continued to support the ongoing professional development of teacher trainers of the National Institute for Educational Training (NIET) towards the delivery of high quality in-service training to underqualified (non-certified) teachers leading to the equivalent of a teaching diploma. A major goal of the 9-module Teacher Qualification Program that NIET delivers, which was co-developed with LTD, is to equip teachers with knowledge, skills, and attitudes to create a learner-centered classroom. This is a classroom where students are actively engaged in their own learning and are given opportunities to develop 21st century learning skills—critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. To assess the impact that LTD had on enabling teachers of Cohort III to enact learner-centered approaches to teaching and learning, LTD conducted a quasi-experimental survey of classroom engagement involving a random selection of teachers, students, and a control group of non-LTD teachers and students for comparison. (See Annex F for the survey questionnaire for students.) Sample As shown in Table 44 and Table 45, a stratified random sample of 100 LTD teachers was selected across the five academic subjects of LTD trainings and across the five districts of Cohort III schools. The selection resulted a sizeable sample of 2028 students. For comparison, a purposive-sample of 32 teachers was selected, which resulted in a total of 939 students across grades 5-10 and the five subjects. Table 44. Data collection sample and methods for evaluating the impact of teacher training on teachers’ competences Data Collection Method Frequency of Data Collection Sample Classroom Engagement Survey Endline Students Teachers LTD Controls LTD Controls 2028 939 100 32 Table 45. Cohort III Students Teachers LTD Control LTD Control N % N % N % N % Sex Female 66% 68% 64% 66% Male 34% 32% 36% 34% District North Hebron 25% 35% 22% 38% South Nablus 23% 36% 24% 34% Tubas 8% 29% 8% 28% Tulkarm 19% 0% 20% 0% Nablus 26% 0% 26% 0% Grade 5th Grade 6% 3% 2% 3% 6th Grade 15% 10% 8% 9% 7th Grade 19% 16% 19% 16% 67 8th Grade 22% 16% 22% 16% 9th Grade 20% 30% 22% 31% 10th Grade 18% 25% 27% 25% Subject Math 17% 27% 28% 28% Science 23% 26% 25% 25% Arabic 20% 10% 16% 16% English 18% 21% 16% 16% Technology Ed 21% 16% 16% 16% Mother's Education Elementary 32% 26% Secondary 41% 59% Post-Secondary 27% 15% Father's Education Elementary 27% 24% Secondary 41% 54% Post-Secondary 31% 22% Data Collection LTD recruited four qualified individuals—two women and two men—to conduct the distribution and collection of surveys, and key data entry. An intern who was working for LTD at the time also joined the team as the fifth researcher. To limit the influence of teacher bias on students, the classroom engagement survey for students was administered in each classroom by a researcher in the absence of the teacher. Data collection and data entry took place from April 1 to May 31, 2016. Variables and Method of Analysis School Satisfaction Scale Three questions asked students to assess their satisfaction with their school’s overall learning environment. The questions inquire whether students think their school is preparing them for future learning; if they are a happy at their school; and, they are enthusiastic about coming to school (each day). For added comparison, teachers responded to a parallel set of questions to give their perception of their students’ attitudes about their school. The means of these three items, when averaged together, produces a composite indicator of school satisfaction. The indicators on both the student’s and teacher’s questionnaires were tested for inter-item reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha. A score of .7 is considered the minimum for reliability in most cases. The scale measured .779 on the teacher’s questionnaire, and .692 on the student’s questionnaire, which is reasonably close to the acceptable minimum. Learner-Centered Scale To measure the extent that classrooms were, from the perspective of students and teachers, characterized as learner-centered, a 20-item composite indicator was used (based on a five-point Likert scale). The indicators on both the student’s and teacher’s questionnaires were tested for inter-item reliability, and the indicator for teachers measured .812 and .883 for students. 68 21st Century Skills The 20 items of the Learner-Centered Scale were sub-divided into four subscales, each subscale representing one of the four 21st century learning skills: Critical Thinking, Creativity, Communication, and Collaboration. For the teacher questionnaire, the four sub-scales measured slightly lower than desired: .684, .590, .637, and .661 respectively. For students, the sub-scales met or exceeded the minimum: .759, .697, .756, and .757. Tests of statistical significance In conducting the analysis, an independent-samples t-test was used to compare the mean scores for “Learner-Centered Classroom” between LTD and non-LTD schools. We wanted to know if there was a significant difference (statistically speaking) in the mean for Learner-Centered Classroom scores between students from LTD and non-LTD schools and for LTD teachers and non-LTD teachers. It was found that there is a significant difference between the two groups of students, but not for the two groups of teachers. What this means, then, is that we are confident that the findings based on students’ scores are in fact valid and robust.9 See Annex E for the statistical tables for the independent-samples t-tests. Results School Satisfaction The three questions comprising the School Satisfaction Scale asked students to assess their satisfaction with their school’s overall learning environment. Results in Table 46 indicate that LTD students are slightly more satisfied by 3.4% compared to their non-LTD counterparts. LTD teachers rate their students’ satisfaction with school 5.73% higher than their non-LTD counterparts. Table 46. Cohort III Students Teachers LTD Control % difference LTD Control % difference Satisfaction with school learning environment 3.88 3.75 3.40% 3.77 3.56 5.73% When examining the individual items on the School Satisfaction Scale (Figure 19), we see that large majorities of students in the study from both LTD and non-LTD schools feel nearly equally confident they are being well-prepared for success in their future education, and they are happy to be at school. Interestingly, however, only about half of both groups feel enthusiastic about coming to school each day. 9 An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the learner-centered classroom scores for LTD students and non-LTD students. There was a significant difference in scores for LTD students (M = 3.84, SD = .608) and non-LTD students (M = 3.68, SD = .630; t (1588.813) = 7.162, p = .000, two-tailed). An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the learner-centered classroom scores for LTD teachers and non-LTD teachers. There was no significant difference in scores for LTD teachers (M = 4.179, SD = .344) and non-LTD teachers (M =4.150, SD = .306; t (130) = .420, p = .676, two-tailed). 69 Learner-Centered Classroom The scores in Table 47 show that LTD students rated their classroom environments as more learner￾centered than their non-LTD peers by 4.26%, a difference that is statistically significant. There was relatively little difference in the means between LTD teachers and non-LTD teachers (the differences were not statistically significant, however.) Table 47. Means for composite indicator for the Learner-Centered Classroom scale Students Teachers LTD Control % difference LTD Control % difference Learner-centered classroom 3.84 3.68 4.26% 4.18 4.15 0.72% On average, as seen in Table 48, LTD students were more likely to agree/strongly agree (70%) that their classrooms reflect a learner-centered environment compared to their non-LTD peers (65%). Figure 19. Percentage of students who strongly agree/agree they are satisfied with their schools 83% 75% 55% 80% 74% 52% QA.1. I FEEL THAT MY SCHOOL IS PREPARING ME TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN MY FUTURE LEARNING. QA.2. I AM HAPPY TO BE A STUDENT AT THIS SCHOOL. QA.3. I FEEL ENTHUSIASTIC WHEN I COME TO SCHOOL. Student Satisfiaction with School Learning Environment LTD Control 70 Table 48. Percentage of students who strongly agree/agree on learner-centered indicators, Cohort III Questions LTD Control QB1. My teacher encourages me to think and find answers and solutions. 83% 78% QB2. I Participate in small cooperative groups in the classroom. 71% 63% QB3. I express my opinion freely in the class. 70% 63% QB4. My teacher's style makes the learning process interesting. 72% 66% QB5. I participate in a variety of classroom activities. 67% 58% QB6. My teacher helps me when I find some difficulty to understand the lesson. 85% 80% QB7. My teacher cares about my suggested ideas. 66% 60% QB8. My teacher encourages me to ask questions in classroom. 76% 73% QB9. My teacher helps me stay actively engaged. 58% 50% QB10. I spend more time actively learning than simply copying information. 65% 56% QB11. In most lessons, the teacher checks my knowledge and understanding. 69% 67% QB12. My teacher gives me time to debate what I have learned in the classroom. 69% 68% QB13. My teacher encourages students to discuss and debate. 73% 70% QB14. My teacher's style of teaching helps me to understand easily. 74% 68% QB15. I participate in implementing projects. 77% 65% QB16. My teacher gives me feedback about my performance on tests and assignments. 69% 66% QB17. My teacher gives me feedback about my performance during lessons. 67% 58% QB 18. I participate in interesting activities. 61% 56% QB19. My teacher use technology in the class. 60% 56% QB20. My teacher makes real-world connections to what we learn in class. 76% 71% Grand Average 70% 65% To better understand which learner-centered practices were most prevalent and which one least practiced, Table 49 ranks the means for each item of the composite indicator from largest to smallest. We get a more nuanced understanding of what teachers are doing well and where they could be doing better in creating a learner-centered classroom environment by examining the four items in the highest quintile and four in the lowest quintile. The four items in the highest quintile indicate that LTD teachers, according to their students, are mindful of teaching for understanding and not merely teaching to cover content, which is seen by the fact that students are encouraged to think and find answers rather than waiting passively for the teacher to provide answers or information. The use of project-based learning—a key pedagogical emphasis in the LTD Teacher Qualification training modules—engages student in learning and assessment activities that foster understanding by creating opportunities for students to develop their 21st century learning skills: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity. These findings are consistent with the teachers’ data, where, as seen in Table 50, three of the four items in the top quintile for teachers are the same as the students’. 71 Table 49. LTD student results: Means for learner-centered practices ranked from largest to smallest Questions LTD Mean B6. My teacher helps me when I find some difficulty to understand the lesson. 4.26 B1. My teacher encourages me to think and find answers and solutions. 4.15 B15. I participate in implementing projects. 4.02 B20. My teacher make real-world connections to what we learn in class. 4.02 B14. My teacher's style of teaching helps me to understand easily. 3.96 B4. My teacher's style makes the learning process interesting. 3.95 B8. My teacher encourages me to ask questions in classroom. 3.94 B3. I express my opinion freely in the class. 3.89 B13. My teacher encourages students to discuss and debate. 3.85 B2. I Participate in small cooperative groups in the classroom. 3.84 B12. My teacher gives me time to debate what I have learned in the classroom. 3.79 B5. I participate in a variety of classroom activities. 3.78 B16. My teacher gives me feedback about my performance on tests and assignments. 3.78 B11. In most lessons, the teacher checks my knowledge and understanding. 3.77 B7. My teacher cares about my suggested ideas. 3.74 B17. My teacher gives me feedback about my performance during lessons. 3.72 B10. I spend more time actively learning than simply copying information. 3.70 B18. I participate in interesting activities. 3.65 B19. My teacher uses technology in the class. 3.61 B9. My teacher helps me stay actively engaged. 3.51 Grand Mean 3.84 The four items in the lowest quintile point to areas that teachers may want to develop further. That students may be finding some lessons less engaging and boring points to the need for lesson planning that incorporates a variety of active learning and assessment methods (e.g., think-pair-share; puzzles; games; brainstorming; concept mapping; role-playing; case studies; group projects; peer teaching; debates; or, short demonstrations followed by class discussion). Once again, these findings are consistent with the results for teachers, seen in Table 50, where three of the four items are the same as the students’. Table 50. LTD teachers' results: Means for learner-centered practices ranked from largest to smallest Questions LTD QB6. I help students when they find any difficulties in understand the lesson. 4.62 QB8. I encourage students to ask questions in class. 4.54 QB1. I encourage students to think to find answers and solutions. 4.45 QB20. I link between what the students learning and the daily life. 4.39 QB3. Students express their opinions freely within the class. 4.32 QB4. My teaching style makes the learning process interesting. 4.28 QB7. I care a lot of suggested ideas by the students. 4.28 QB14. My teaching style helps students to understand easily. 4.2 QB16. I give students feedback about their performance on tests and assignments. 4.19 QB11. In most lessons, I check my students' understanding of what they're learning. 4.17 QB12. I give students time to discuss what they have learned in the classroom. 4.16 QB13. I minimize my talking so as to allow students to discuss what they're learning. 4.12 QB15. Students participate in projects. 4.12 Top Quintile Quintil Lowest e Top Quintile 72 QB5. Students participate in a variety of classroom activities. 4.1 QB17. I give students feedback about their performance during the lesson. 4.08 QB10. My students spend a minimal amount of time simply copying notes. 4.06 QB19. I use technology in the classroom. 4 QB2. Students participate in small cooperative groups in the classroom. 3.99 QB18. Students participate in interesting activities. 3.77 QB9. I spend a minimal amount of time simply lecturing and writing notes (for students to copy) 3.66 Grand Mean 4.18 It bears mentioning that the rating for the use of technology in the classroom—which is a major goal of LTD’s large procurement of IT resources for teachers and schools—fell in the lowest quintile for both students and teachers. The question about the teacher’s use of technology in the classroom ranked 19th out of 20 among students and 17th out of 20 among teachers. It was not surprising, then, that when asked how often they use a computer either to do homework or to search for more information about what they are learning in the classroom, nearly three quarters of both groups of students—LTD and non-LTD— indicated that they rarely or sometimes used a computer (Table 51). In sum, this finding points to the need for further in-service training to help teachers enhance their pedagogical knowledge and skills for the effective infusion of technology in teaching and learning. Table 51. Use of a computer outside of class Questions LTD Control C3. I use a computer to do homework Often 27% 26% Sometimes 52% 50% Rarely 21% 24% C4. I use a computer to search for more information about what I learn in class Often 27% 26% Sometimes 46% 43% Rarely 27% 31% 21st Century Learning Skills Results for the analysis of 21st century leaning skills show that LTD students are more likely than their non￾LTD counterparts to engage in learning activities that allow them to use and develop their critical thinking, creativity, communication skills, and collaboration (Table 52). The differences in the means between the two groups is statistically significant. By comparison, there is little difference between the means for the two groups of teachers (nor is the difference in the means statistically significant). What the means appear to suggest, however, is that both groups of teachers are attempting to develop students’ 21st century learning skills, which certainly does reflect the curricular and instructional priorities of the MoEHE. The differences in the means between LTD and non-LTD students suggests, on the other hand, that LTD teachers are having more success than their non-LTD counterparts in helping students develop 21st century learning skills (Table 53). Quintil Lowest e 73 Table 52. Student rating of indicators of 21st century skills in their classrooms Student results: 21th Century Learning Skills LTD Control % Difference Critical Thinking 4.06 3.92 4% Creativity 3.88 3.63 7% Communication 3.78 3.65 4% Collaboration 3.82 3.53 8% Table 53. Teacher rating of indicators of 21st century skills in their classrooms Teacher results: 21th Century Learning Skills LTD Control % Difference Critical thinking 4.46 4.35 2% Creativity 4.11 4.08 1% Communication 4.21 4.23 1% Collaboration 4.00 3.89 3% Student Behavior and Child-Friendly Environment A key assumption of LTD’s theory of change is that if teachers and principals enact the methods and techniques for effective schools and learner-centered classrooms they learn from their leadership and teacher trainings, a more child-friendly learning environment will be reflected in the behavior of students. To measure student behavior, the Classroom Engagement Survey asked students to respond to five questions and indicate how often, over the course of one school year, they had:  Hit a fellow student  Been hit by a fellow student  Been hit by a teacher  Skipped school  Misbehaved in a way that resulted in a parent being called to school Each indicator was measure by a four-point scale of frequency: never (not once); rarely (1-5 times); sometimes (6-10 times); and often (more than 10 times). To determine the likelihood of misbehavior for each indicator, the score for “never” was subtracted from the combined scores for “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “often.” For example, 74% of LTD students reported they had never hit another student deliberately; thus, there is a 26% likelihood that LTD students hit another student (Figure 20). As seen in Figure 20, on all but one of the indicators—skipping school—LTD students were about as likely as non-LTD students to report indicators of misbehavior. However, one result deserves special attention: LTD students were more likely (35%) to have been hit by a teacher than their non-LTD counterparts (29%); however, in the case of LTD schools, boys account for 68% of the likelihood of being hit by a teacher (Figure 21); however, LTD boys are less likely (68%) compared to non-LTD boys (55%) to be hit by a teacher. 74 12% 12% 18% 4% 7% 53% 28% 68% 22% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% D1. I hit a student deliberately D2. I was hit by a student deliberately D3. I was hit by a teacher D4. I skipped school D5. My parents were called to school because of my misbehavior Liklihood of misbehavior by sex Female Male Figure 21. Likelihood of misbehavior by sex (LTD students only) 26% 18% 35% 11% 11% 25% 16% 29% 12% 10% I HIT A STUDENT DELIBERATELY I WAS HIT BY A STUDENT DELIBERATELY I WAS HIT BY A TEACHER I SKIPPED SCHOOL MY PARENTS WERE CALLED TO SCHOOL BECAUSE OF MY MISBEHAVIOR Liklihood of misbehavior as reported by students LTD Control Figure 20. Indicators of misbehavior as reported by students 75 A final word: Because an LTD school includes both LTD and non-LTD teachers, we cannot determine whether any of the teachers who are alleged to have hit students were also LTD teachers. Nonetheless, the allegation of the use of physical violence by teachers, for whatever reason, should warrant further study and appropriate action by districts and principals to reduce its occurrence. Conclusions The findings of this research lend solid evidence that LTD, primarily through the efforts of its partner, NIET, is promoting the effective professional development of in-service teachers who are implementing knowledge, skills, and attitudes to create learner-centered classrooms. Specifically, the research indicates that students of LTD teachers, compared to their non-LTD counterparts, are more actively engaged in their own learning and are given greater opportunities to develop 21st century learning skills—critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. At the same time, however, some of the key indicators associated with the general learning environment—satisfaction with the school learning environment and student misbehavior—point to areas for improvement. Satisfaction with School Learning Environment Based statistical evidence, it is possible to conclude that LTD is contributing just slightly to students’ feelings of satisfaction with the general learning environment of their schools. Overall, feelings of being satisfied with the learning environment are modestly higher (and statistically significant) for LTD students (3.4%) and teachers (5.73%) compared to their non-LTD counterparts in the study. To the credit of Palestinian schooling in general, large majorities of students in the study from both LTD and non-LTD schools agree/strongly agree that their schools are doing a good job of preparing them for future learning (83% vs. 80% respectively). This is a finding that all principals and teachers should be glad to hear. Learner-Centered Classroom Based on statistically significant evidence from student results in the study, we can conclude unequivocally that LTD-trained teachers are creating a more learner-centered classroom environment than their non-LTD peers. LTD students are more likely to agree/strongly agree (70%) that their classrooms reflect a learner-centered environment compared to their non-LTD peers (65%). Of the many discreet learner-centered practices and approaches that teachers can use, LTD teachers appear to be more mindful of teaching for understanding through the use of questions and feedback, and not merely teaching to cover content and expecting students to memorize facts only. In particular, LTD classrooms, according to student results, offer 12% more opportunities than their non-LTD counterparts to engage in project-based learning—a key policy priority of the MoEHE that is given pedagogical emphasis in the LTD Teacher Qualification training modules. The results of the study also suggest that teacher training curriculum that may need improvement in the areas of using technology in the classroom and in applying more active-learning strategies. Some 40% of LTD students indicated that their teachers are not using enough technology in the classroom. This is a significant finding given LTD’s large procurement of IT resources for teachers and schools. One reason for this result, however, is that laptops for Cohort III teachers were not delivered to school until the very end of the school year. Regarding active learning, results from student data suggest that about 40% of LTD students may be finding some lessons less engaging and boring. This finding points to the need for lesson planning that incorporates more of a variety of active learning and assessment methods (e.g., think-pair- 76 share; puzzles; games; brainstorming; concept mapping; role-playing; case studies; group projects; peer teaching; debates; or, short demonstrations followed by class discussion). 21st Century Learning Skills LTD classrooms appear to be creating more opportunities for students to develop their 21st century learning skills—communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity—than those in non-LTD schools. For example, the greater involvement of LTD students in project-based learning is a likely a key reason why LTD students are more likely by 4% to practice critical thinking, creativity by 7%, communication by 4%, and collaboration by 8%. While the data suggests that both groups of teachers in the study—LTD and non-LTD—are making about equal efforts to develop students’ 21st century learning skills, the LTD teachers—based on student results—appear to be having more success. Behavior and Child-Friendly Environment Based on the assumption that LTD-trained teachers are working to create more student-friendly and learner-centered classrooms, we would predict that measures of student “misbehavior” would be lower in LTD schools compared to non-LTD schools. Evidence from the study, however, does not support this prediction. For all intents and purposes, and based on self-reported instances of student misbehavior, LTD schools were, with one exception, no better or no worse than non-LTD schools. The lone exception is corporal punishment by a teacher. Of the five measures of misbehavior, LTD students (girls and boys) reported they were more likely (35%) to have been hit by a teacher than their non-LTD counterparts (29%). However, when disaggregated by sex, boys account for 68% of the likelihood of being hit by a teacher; on the bright side, however, LTD boys were 13% less likely than their non-LTD counterparts to be hit by a teacher (68% versus 55% respectively). Recommendations Results of LTD’s evaluation study of classroom engagement provides solid evidence that LTD is promoting the effective professional development of in-service teachers who are implementing knowledge, skills, and attitudes to create learner-centered classrooms. At the same time, however, a number of the key indicators that measure the quality of both classroom instruction and the broader social contexts inside the school point to areas where actions are needed to improve both the learning and child-friendly conditions for students. Improvements in these areas will occur if: 1. Schools and districts provide in-service support to help teachers to strategize and integrate active learning and assessment methods into the planning for units of instruction. These may include methods such as: think-pair-share; puzzles; games; brainstorming; concept mapping; role-playing; case studies; group projects; peer teaching; debates; or, short demonstrations followed by class discussion. 2. Schools and districts provide regular and ongoing in-service support to help teachers enhance their pedagogical knowledge and skills for the effective infusion of technology in teaching and learning. Useful frameworks may include Technology Standards for Teachers and Students developed by ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), as well as models of technology integration based on TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge). 77 3. The MoEHE convenes a national dialogue at both local and district levels on all forms of school-based violence aimed at developing policies, strategies, indicators, and programs to raise awareness and prevention of all forms of school-based violence.  School-based violence in all its forms—corporal and degrading punishment, physical violence, psychological violence, and bullying—denies all students their rights to a safe, child-friendly learning environment. The national dialogue should, therefore, bring to the table a cross-section of key stakeholders, including policymakers, administrators, teachers, parents, community leaders, and students.  Under the auspices of the Minister of Education, the national dialogue will produce a strategic plan with goals, time-bound targets, and a system for monitoring and evaluation, and reporting.  At the school and district levels, DLTs will take responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the implementation and impact of the Ministry’s school-based anti-violence plan, with emphasis on providing principals, teachers, students, and parents with tools to help create greater tolerance and respect among all members of the school community. 78 Section 4: Promoting the Integration of Technology in Pre-Service Teacher Education in Gaza Introduction The aim of this section is to present findings of a summative evaluation of a pilot initiative to promote a sustainable model of technology integration and support in pre-service teacher education courses in the Faculty of Education, Al-Azhar University—Gaza. The study presents recommendations for scaling up the sustainable and institutionalized integration of technology in courses taught in the Faculty of Education and throughout the university. Technology and Teacher Education Task Force With in-kind assistance from AMIDEAST/LTD, the Faculty of Education converted three lecture halls into “smart” classroom. This effort supported the Strategic Plan’s goal of upgrading the technology infrastructure in lecture halls. In order to pave the way toward the successful implementation of the two sub-goals highlighted above, the Dean of the Faculty of Education formed a special committee to pilot a system for the effective technical and pedagogical integration of technology in the university classroom. The Technology and Teacher Education Task Force was formed in November 2015 by the Dean of the Faculty of Education and approved by the Vice President of Academic Affairs. The Task Force completed its work in May 2016. The purpose of the Task Force was to pilot a model of capacity building designed to enable a number of faculty members to integrate technology in their pre-service teacher education courses. To achieve this goal the following objectives were identified:  Provide technical training for the use of audio visual systems installed in lecture halls.  Build the knowledge base of the Task Force in the theory and application of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) to teaching and learning in higher education.  Develop and pilot a design-based research model for redesigning lecture courses based on TPACK and related conceptual frameworks for integrating technology in education.  Provide continuous professional development and technical support for at least two instructors to teach courses in spring 2016 using Moodle, a digital learning management system. The membership of the team included Mr. Montaser Al-Halabi, technology specialist for the Faculty of Education, and two full-time instructors from the Department of Curriculum and Teaching appointed by the Dean, Dr. Atta Darwish and Dr. Ali Naser. These faculty members were responsible for learning how to apply the TPACK framework toward integrating technology into their courses in pedagogically sound ways. This capacity building experience was expected to enable them afterwards to mentor other instructors wishing to infuse technology into their courses. Representing LTD, Ms. Rana Sager, LTD program manager/Gaza, and Dr. Louis Cristillo, Director of LTD’s Teacher Education component, served as technical advisors. Moodle Evaluation Study Purpose and Methods: To investigate the perspectives of both students and instructors on the impact of using Moodle on teaching and learning, the Task Force used a mixed-methods approach to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were collected using an online survey (Annex G), and a comparison of students’ semester grades was examined for three courses that utilized Moodle in spring 2016 but not in the previous semester, 2015. The comparison courses included those taught by the two members of the Task Force, Dr. Naser (Methods of Teaching Geometry) and Dr. Atta (Methods of Teaching 79 Science), and by Dr. Mazen Saqqa (Pharmacology). Additionally, three focus groups with students and instructors (Annex H) generated qualitative data that provided in-depth narrative explanations about the perspectives of the students and instructions on using Moodle for the first time in their courses. Survey and Focus Group Questions: The survey questions were grouped into three sections. The first section assesses the user’s previous familiarity or exposure to Moodle. The second section asks the users to evaluate the ease with which they were able to use and navigate course tools and functions. The third section asks the users to evaluate the extent that Moodle enhanced their learning experiences and allowed them to achieve the goals of the course. These questions were ostensibly the same for both students and instructors, with each group responding from the particular perspective of their user experience. The focus group questions primarily explored the users’ perceptions of the value that Moodle added to the teaching and learning experiences in the courses, particularly with regard to the extent they believed that Moodle enhanced students’ engagement with course content both inside and outside the classroom context. Research Population: In all, there were 755 students enrolled in six courses taught by five teachers using Moodle. As seen in Table 54, 355 students completed the survey, a return rate of 47%. Each of the professors completed a survey for the course he/she taught using Moodle. The focus group interviews comprised two focus groups of 10 students total—four males and six females—and a group interview with the three instructors, two of whom were members of the Task Force—Dr. Ali Nasser and Dr. Atta Darwish, and the third was from the Faculty of Pharmacology, Dr. Mazen Saqqa . Table 54. Online Survey of Students Course Student Enrollment Completed Survey Methods of Teaching English 120 64 53% Principles of Statistics 314 93 30% Pharmacology 1 107 56 52% Pharmacology 3 92 45 49% Methods of Teaching Science 22 21 95% Methods of Teaching Math 2 100 76 76% Totals 755 355 47% Results and Discussion Part 1: Previous experience with Moodle From both the survey and interview results, nearly all of the students (92.7%, Table 55) had never used Moodle before. Two of the five instructors had some past experience, but this was more than eight years prior and at a different university. Most students (83.4%) received an orientation about using Moodle at the start of the spring 2016 semester (delivered by Mr. Montaser), and of these 71.6% found the orientation helpful. The five instructors all agree that the orientation was sufficient to get them started. 80 Table 55. Prior Use of Moodle among students Questions Count N % QA1: Is this your first time using Moodle in a course? No 26 7.3% Yes 329 92.7% QA2: Did you receive an orientation to Moodle either before or at the start of your course? No 59 16.6% Yes 296 83.4% QA3: If you received an orientation to Moodle, do you feel it was adequate? No 84 28.4% Yes 212 71.6% In the focus groups most of the students reported that they had never had a course before at Al-Azhar University—Gaza that incorporated online or blended learning methods. A few said they had taken a physics course from an instructor who “flipped” the classroom by having students watch content-related videos outside of class. Some noted that a few instructors had tried to incorporate online tools such as Google Hangout, but discontinued their use mainly due to electricity outages. In sum, for both the students and instructors alike, this was their first experience with blended learning in a course for the full duration of a semester. Part 2: Ease of using and navigating Moodle’s course tools and functions The survey asked the students and instructors to assess how easy or difficult it was for them to use or navigate eight of Moodle’s most commonly used tools and activities. Figure 22 ranks the students’ responses from easy to difficult. Most of the students (82%) found six of the eight items easy to use. The two that seemed difficult included “uploading of files” (31% of students) and the “discussion forum” (39% of students). The instructors (Table 56) found few difficulties using the tools; however, two of the five found using the discussion forum somewhat difficult, and two had some difficulty grading of open-ended questions. In the focus groups, the students said they found the Moodle’s affordance of multiple-attempt quizzes, access to extra materials and learning resources, and questionnaires (for feedback) to be easy to use and, more importantly, extremely beneficial to their learning experiences in the courses. The instructors credited the tech support they received from Mr. Montaser in making their use of Moodle’s basic functions so easy. They expressed the desire for the university to make available additional workshops in the near future to help them learn advanced features of the software. Even though Moodle workshops provided the instructors with just the basics, one of the instructors, Dr. Atta Darwish, went beyond the basics and, with coaching from Mr. Montaser, used Moodle to create an advanced assessment activity in which students videoed a micro-teaching lesson that they and their classmates then annotated with comments and feedback. This activity, explained Dr. Atta, created a collaborative learning experience like none they had experienced before. This is a good example of what the SAMR approach would call task “modification,” whereby digital tools allow educators to redesign an otherwise conventional task (in this case, peer-observation) and increase students’ collaboration in the construction of knowledge. 81 Figure 22. Ease of use by students Table 56. Ease of use by instructors Questions Yes No QA1: Is this your first time using Moodle to teach a course? 3 2 QA3: Did you receive an orientation to Moodle before starting your course? 5 0 QA4: If you received an orientation to Moodle, do you feel it was adequate for your needs? 5 0 Agree Disagree QC1: I had no problem using Moodle technology in my course. 4 1 QC2: I can easily organize and arrange the order of content and activities for each week. 5 0 Part 3: The extent that Moodle enhanced teaching/learning experiences and outcomes The questions in this part of the survey are divided in four themes: (1) the extent that Moodle facilitated completing assignments; (2) the extent that Moodle enhanced communication for learning among students and instructor; (3) the extent that Moodle improved students’ learning experiences; and, (4) the extent that students/instructors value Moodle as a learning tool. These same four questions framed the core questions in the focus group interviews (Appendix C). 88% 85% 81% 81% 79% 78% 69% 61% 13% 15% 19% 20% 22% 22% 31% 39% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% QB8: Student surveys QB7: Gradebook viewing QB1: Course navigation QB4: Submitting of assignments QB2: Upcoming events block QB6: Completing quizzes QB3: Uploading of files QB5: Discussion forum Ease in Using Moodle's Tools by Students Easy Difficult 82 (1) The extent that Moodle facilitated completing assignments Well over two-thirds of the students surveyed (68%) agreed they found it easy to use Moodle technology (68%) to complete assignments (67%) and follow up on (69%) their work and learning activities (Figure 23). In the focus groups, the students explained that compared to other courses, Moodle kept them more engaged with the course content outside of class. They explained that this was because Moodle made it easy for them to access and review lectures and quizzes throughout the week. As one student commented: “It has become part of our habit to open Moodle on a daily basis, and this has made learning more fun because we become engaged with the content.” Another student added: “Even though our subject is difficult, Moodle has made it easier because we are more engaged in the content and in understanding the content.” In the group interview, the teachers observed that Moodle made it easier for them to follow up with students’ weekly progress and to identify areas that students needed extra help in. They credited Moodle for allowing them use quizzes frequently as a formative assessment strategy that encouraged students to reflect more critically on their learning and understanding. One instructor, Dr. Atta Darwish, commented: “Moodle improved my teaching methodology and allowed me to become more aware of how to prepare quizzes and used new teaching methodologies that I didn’t use before. For the first time since I started teaching, I have never prepared 12 quizzes in one semester as I did this semester!” In sum, Moodle created a blended learning environment that did more than help students to simply “complete” assignments. On the contrary, the data indicate that Moodle dramatically shifted the attention of both teachers and students from focusing narrowly on episodic lecturing and note taking, to paying more attention to both the accessibility and quality of how course content is delivered, learned, and assessed. Figure 23. Ease of using Moodle in doing assignments 68% 67% 69% 32% 33% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% QC1: I have no problem using Moodle technology in this course. QC2: I can complete my class assignments and learning activities easily. QC3: I can follow-up on my class assignments and learning activities easily. Doing Assignments Agree Disagree 83 (2) The extent that Moodle enhanced communication for learning among students and instructor One of the major reasons that higher education institutions adopt online learning management systems like Moodle is to increase students’ communication and collaboration. Figure 24 shows that although students were split in their opinion about Moodle improving communication among their classmates (48% agree vs. 52% disagree), two-thirds (65%) agreed that communication with their instructor improved and, importantly, nearly three-quarters agreed (73%) that Moodle made them feel part of a learning community. In the focus group, students explained that Moodle boosted their learning performance by allowing them to exchange ideas and information and to ask questions and compare answers, and even help one another troubleshoot technical problems. In particular, the students commented that Moodle enabled them to deepen their learning and understanding by facilitating communication with their instructors. In particular, the students credited the instant feedback function of Moodle quizzes for increasing their self-confidence in taking more responsibility for their own learning. As one student observed: “Moodle helped us to ask our instructors more questions about difficult questions we faced in the quizzes, which helped in learning the content more deeply.” Another student spoke of her increased willingness to communicate with the instructor: “It helped me to become more confident in asking my instructor. In the classroom, I used to be shy about asking questions, but after using Moodle and looking at the content and questions, I became more confident to ask my instructor.” These same sentiments were echoed in the survey results among the instructors. All five of the instructors agreed that Moodle improved their communication with their students as well as among their students; furthermore, they agreed that as instructors Moodle made them feel part of a learning community with their students. In the focus group interviews, the instructors commented that compared to other courses, Moodle increased the quality of interaction and collaboration among their students, noting in particular that they observed students were exchanging ideas and feedback more than ever before. Moreover, they credited Moodle with increasing their interaction with their students; as one instructor commented: “Moodle encouraged them to ask more questions and learn more [instead of waiting until the last minute at] the end of semester.” Importantly, the instructors attributed Moodle’s communication tools in helping them overcome the perennial problem of low teacher-student interaction in classes with large enrollment: “[Despite] the large classroom size, Moodle helped my students to interact more with me and to follow up on their progress through Moodle and give them immediate feedback.” 84 Figure 24. Enhancement of communication in the learning process In sum, the data strongly indicate that Moodle was a catalyst for an increase in students’ communication and collaboration not only with their instructors, but also among themselves. This finding validates the perception by both teachers and students that they were part of a community of learning, where instructors relied more on facilitating active learning than simply lecturing to “transfer” knowledge to students, and where students engaged more frequently and interactively in learning experiences that helped them think more deeply about the knowledge and skills they were learning. This conclusion is valid despite the fact that the survey results showed roughly half the students (48%) agreed that Moodle improved communication with their classmates (Figure 24, above). We say this because even though there was no baseline to compare past levels of communication, the interviews with both students and teachers strongly suggests that 48% likely represents a big improvement from previous levels of student interaction and communication in the same courses. Furthermore, the instructors admitted that they did not use the discussion forum tool in Moodle as much as they would have liked, which is reflected in the results shown in Figure 1, where 38% of the students said using the tool as “difficult.” A more plausible explanation for this, which in fact the Task Force members themselves agreed on, is not that using the discussion tool was “difficult” technically speaking; rather, the instructors themselves did not have the pedagogical knowledge or experience needed for utilizing the discussion forum effectively. This is a skill that needs further development among the instructors in future workshops on the advanced uses of Moodle. (3) The extent that Moodle improved students’ learning experiences Figure 25 shows the overwhelming agreement among nearly three-quarters of the students (71%) who report that Moodle enhanced their learning experiences, resulting in improved study habits (68%) and more time spent on studying (61%) which, they report, has improved their learning (75%). Impressively, some 85% of the students agreed that doing multiple attempts for a quiz—a special feature in Moodle’s quiz settings—improved their understanding of course content. 48% 65% 73% 52% 35% 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% QC4: I feel Moodle improves communication with my classmates. QC5: I feel Moodle improves communication with my instructor. QC10: Using Moodle makes me feel I am part of a community of learners in the course. Enhanced Communication and Community of Learning Agree Disagree 85 Figure 25. Quality of learning experiences These results are validated by students’ opinions voiced in the focus groups. Asked whether spending more time studying worth it, one student summed up the opinion of others in the interview: “Moodle helped us to study continuously throughout the semester and not just before the mid-term and final exams.” Furthermore, the students described how Moodle encouraged them to take more responsibility for their own learning, saying that the easy access to course resources and information allowed them to monitor their own progress and even look ahead and explore upcoming topics or issues in advance of a lesson. Of all the Moodle features they used, the students unanimously said that they valued Moodle’s quizzes that permit immediate feedback and multiple attempts. This feature was, in fact, the most commonly used tool that the instructors used. The main benefit is that rather than being used as a one-time summative activity for a grade, the multiple-attempt setting for the quiz allows students to identify misconceptions or mistakes and then take action to correct them, as one student explained: “In the first attempt, I didn’t understand the questions of the quiz. Before I took the second attempt, I went back to the textbook and reviewed the lesson and I challenged myself to do better in the second attempt and I succeeded. We now search for information and other sources to discuss without instructor.” All five of the instructors reported on the survey that they agreed that Moodle improved their students’ study habits and helped them learn more in their courses compared to courses without Moodle. One instructor attributed these improvements to the fact that Moodle enabled him to create a larger number of learning activities by which to engage students outside of class time on a weekly basis. At the time when the survey was administered, it was still too early in the semester to make any judgments on whether Moodle was contributing to improvements in students’ academic achievement. Even so, the instructors said in the focus group that they heard students commenting that their academic performance was better. This perception was validated by students who remarked in focus groups that they expected to see improvement in their academic performance, as one student explained: 68% 85% 61% 75% 67% 32% 15% 39% 25% 34% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% QC6: I feel Moodle improves my study habits. QC7: I feel that doing multiple attempts for a quiz improves my understanding of the content. QC8: I feel Moodle makes me spend more time studying. QC9: I feel the time I spend on Moodle improves my learning in the course. QC11: I feel I am learning more in the course using Moodle than if the course was taught without Moodle. Quality of Learning Experiences Agree Disagree 86 “We felt more comfortable and confident going into the mid-term exam.” Coincidentally, just shortly after the mid-term exams—when the focus groups were conducted—Dr. Mazen Saqqa validated this student’s confidence by reporting that he saw a robust improvement in his students’ mid-term scores in pharmacology: “The failing percentage decreased and the percentage of passing increased, and I believe this is due to Moodle since students have been engaged with course content on a weekly basis.” Dr. Mazen’s statement was proven at the end of the semester when final course grades in several courses, including his, showed marked improvements in student achievement compared to the previous semester when the same courses were taught without Moodle. (See page 18 for details). In sum, the evidence from both students and instructors leads to the irrefutable conclusion that the introduction of Moodle, even at the basic level of productivity, contributed to improvements in students’ learning experiences. Instead of relying solely on rote memorization of lecture notes, students’ study habits improved. We see evidence of less cramming at the last minute before a test and more frequent and regular reviewing and thinking about what is being learned, and less passivity towards assignments and more personal responsibility for actively monitoring one’s own progress. These changes are indicative of the positive changes in the entire learning environment of the classroom, and not limited to just study habits, as the next section will demonstrate. (4) The extent that students/instructors value Moodle as a learning tool The vast majority of students (85%) agreed that using Moodle in their coursework made them see the importance of using technology in teaching and learning, even though they were split evenly (50%) on whether they would like to see Moodle used in all of their courses (Figure 26). Figure 26. Moodle as a learning tool In the focus groups, students welcomed the differences they saw in the teaching practices of their instructors as a result of Moodle. They observed that unlike other instructors who mainly lecture from a textbook, Moodle enhanced their instructors’ capacity to make a lecture course more interesting and engaging, for example, through the addition of videos linked to online discussions, multiple-attempt 50% 85% 50% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% QC12: I would like to see Moodle used in all of my courses. QC13: Using Moodle in this course makes me see the importance of using technology in teaching and learning. Moodle as a Learning Tool Agree Disagree 87 quizzes, and the use of a Smartboard. Some students found this blended learning environment to be inspiring, as one student explained: “Now we feel we can use the blended learning approach in our future teaching methods when we become teachers one day. We feel that we are now more confident in integrating technology in our own teaching.” Another student remarked: “The instructor became a role model for us and now we feel that we have learned new ways of teaching methods that we can use in writing quizzes, asking questions, and other uses of technology.” These sentiments are validated by the views offered by the instructors on the survey and in the focus group. Four of the five instructors on the survey indicated that using Moodle changed how they approach the planning of their lessons and contributed to their professional development in the use of technology in teaching and learning. All agreed they would like to use Moodle in other courses they teach. During the focus group interview, they explained that using Moodle helped them put the learning needs of students more at the center of how they design a syllabus and plan learning and assessment activities to get students more engaged with the content. Dr. Atta Darwish summed up the view of his colleagues: “I am now more systematic in the way I prepare for this course. I am more aware of the desired outcomes of the students and use Moodle to select the appropriate input to help students to reach the outputs. Moodle helped me to become more organized and prepared in advance in my course design.” His colleague, Dr. Ali Naser added: “In the past, we only prepared for our course using the textbook, and relied on lecturing and few videos; but now we vary in our teaching resources, methods and assessments. Our follow-up and student monitoring has increased due to Moodle.” In sum, both instructors and students found Moodle to be more than a novel learning tool. For instructors, Moodle compelled them to think more creatively about how to blend conventional lecturing with digital￾based interactive activities, resulting in a more dynamic and learner-centered environment in the classroom. For students, the new experience of learning in a blended learning environment exposed them to active learning activities—both inside and outside the classroom—that are typically absent in a conventional lecture course. Furthermore, as per-service teachers, the students were exposed to a sampling of tools and methods that teachers in the 21st century are expected to practice in classrooms so that learners are prepared to participate and succeed in the global knowledge economy. Part 4: Student Achievement Student achievement in three Moodle-enhanced courses that ended in May 2016 were compared with results from the same courses offered in the previous spring semester in May 2015. The results shown in Figure 27, Figure 28, and Figure 29 indicate marked improvement in academic achievement in all three cases. Impressively, the percentage of failing or passing students in the Pharmacology course (Figure 27) declined dramatically from 34% to just 14%, in Teaching Geometry (Figure 28) from 38% to 29%, and in Teaching Science (Figure 29) from 8% to 0%. 88 Figure 27. Student achievement results, Pharmacology 3 Figure 28. Student achievement results, Teaching Geometry 9% 25% 32% 28% 6% 23% 33% 32% 10% 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Excellent Very Good Good Passing Failing Final Grades for Pharmacology 3 Before Moodle After Moodle 5% 21% 35% 30% 8% 5% 27% 39% 26% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Excellent Very Good Good Passing Failing Final Grades: Teaching Geometry Before Moodle After Moodle 89 Figure 29. Student achievement results, Teaching Science Based on the other evidence presented in this report, an important conclusion we can draw from these results is that the addition of Moodle helped good students do better and struggling students to improve. Notably, in each course the percentage of either “failing” or “passing” students declined, and this is important for two reasons. Firstly, Moodle’s assignment tools allow students to monitor and instantly obtain information— feedback—about their progress at any point during a course, enabling them to identify and correct misconceptions or weaknesses and take action to improve. Secondly, instructors can use Moodle’s reporting features to instantly collect data on the progress of the entire class or about specific students and quickly diagnose problem areas, and then fine tune their teaching practices to improve student leaning. And this can be easily done for any course regardless of the number of students enrolled, whether it’s just 20 students or 200 or more. In sum, Moodle powerfully enhances the capacity of instructors to address the collective or individual needs of students, particularly for those who need extra learning support. Conclusions and Recommendations The evidence of improved student achievement is but one of the many indicators shared in this report that demonstrate the benefits of integrating technology in classrooms and curriculum at Al-Azhar University—Gaza. The deployment of Moodle served as a catalyst for the emergence of communities of learning among students and faculty members, something that was nearly impossible to achieve previously due to large class sizes and the heavy reliance on lecturing and rote memorization. Instructors found that using a blended learning approach with Moodle helped them to question their assumptions about course design and to move away from a teacher-centered model of classical lecturing to a learner-centered approach characterized by active learning rather than passive memorization. Students benefited on multiple levels. Individually, they were able monitor and reflect on their learning progress more routinely than ever before. By using Moodle to work cooperatively outside of class meeting 14% 56% 22% 8% 0% 23% 68% 9% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Excellent Very Good Good Passing Failing Final Grades: Teaching Science Before Moodle After Moodle 90 times, students were also able to share and exchange information and knowledge more easily and independently than before. In order to build on this success and scale up the systematic integration of technology in teaching and learning at Al-Azhar University—Gaza, the Task Force urges the university leadership to consider adopting the following recommendations: 1. Establish a permanent Office for Teaching, Learning, and Technology. This unit would be comprised of a team of highly creative educators, instructional designers, and educational technologists who would work collaboratively with faculty members and students to design and implement courses that integrate technology to support active pedagogies and meaningful, learner-centered experiences in both onsite and blended instructional environments. 2. Develop an implementation plan that harmonizes and aligns the technology goals of the mission and vision of the Faculty of Education’s Three-Year Strategic Plan. The plan would identify the stages, required resources and marketing strategies for the implementation of the scope of work of the Office for Teaching, Learning, and Technology. 3. Recognize and support the use of technology in both onsite and virtual forms of classroom assessment by allowing faculty members flexibility in the points they may award for mid-term and final exams. 4. Upgrade classroom and lecture halls with instructional technology such as computers, projectors, Wi￾Fi access, and interactive whiteboards. 5. Provide advanced training in educational technology and instructional design for the members of the Technology and Teacher Education Task Force. 6. Authorize and provide resources for the development and implementation of basic and intermediate Moodle training courses for all interested faculty members and students across the university. 7. Develop online training manuals and resources for faculty members and students on the use of Moodle and other educational technology tools. 91 Section 5: Advancing Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Introduction LTD’s gender strategy aligns with the core principles underlying the Gender Equality and Female Empowerment policy of USAID. Even though LTD’s cooperative agreement with USAID contains no gender-specific deliverables or funding specifically allocated to promote gender equality and female empowerment, gender sensitivity is prioritized and integrated into the program’s strategic goals. This integration is achieved through LTD’s support of training opportunities for equal numbers of male and female principals and teachers and in policy discussions and capacity building with the MoEHE intended to empower female teachers and administrators in the system. In light of these commitments, LTD’s gender strategy focuses on two key pillars of gender equality: female empowerment and equal access.  Female empowerment: This pillar of gender equality refers to the extent that the program increases women’s capacity (i.e., self-efficacy) to realize their professional goals in the context of LTD’s mission to improve the quality of leadership and teaching in public schools. LTD has carefully designed its training modules and capacity building activities to serve both genders equally, and for women this is doubly important.  Equal access: In the West Bank and Gaza contexts of LTD programming, equal access is the degree to which women and men have equal opportunities to benefit from resources and services offered by LTD, such as training, capacity-building, and in-kind assistance. For example, LTD schedules its trainings for days and times that do not prevent married or pregnant women, who typically have additional domestic responsibilities, from attending and completing their assignments for graduation. Likewise, LTD’s strategy of localized, school-based professional development reduces the burdens that women might otherwise face when traveling to and from trainings, such as limited public transportation after sunset or long delays at military checkpoints. Targets for Measuring Self-Efficacy and Equal Access: Per LTD’s Program Monitoring Plan (PMP), two gender-specific indicators (OP-Custom Indicators) set the targets for measuring equal access and female empowerment, as seen in Table 57: Table 57. LTD's gender equality indicators, targets, and results Indicator Target Results for FY 2016 Self-Efficacy: Average self￾efficacy reported by women and men at the conclusion of USG-supported training/programming (PMP Indicator 2.2d). 60% of women and men score above the baseline median for self-efficacy. Overall, 69% of the female and male respondents scored higher than the baseline median score of 10 Equal Access: Percentage female and male beneficiaries reporting equal access to opportunities, resources and services provided by LTD (PMP Indicator 2.2c). 85% of female and male beneficiaries reporting equal access to opportunities, resources and services provided by LTD. 79% of a representative sample of its beneficiaries—females and males—reported that LTD provided them with equal access to opportunities, resources and services regardless of gender10 10 Although this figure is 7% below LTD’s target of 85%, it is comfortably within the deviation margin of +/- 10% allowed by USAID. 92 Research Design and Methods Research Design The purpose of the research was to measure the opinion of LTD beneficiaries about the dimensions of gender equality and female empowerment reflected in the program’s training interventions. For this reason, LTD adopted a non-experimental research design as the best approach to satisfy this goal. The nature of the survey was cross-sectional in that it collected data at one point in time towards the end of the 2015-2016 school year. Instrumentation LTD developed a survey that incorporated two scales, one to measure gender equality and the other for gender empowerment (i.e., self-efficacy). Self-Efficacy Scale: To measure empowerment, LTD used the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale recommended by USAID.11 This is a validated tool consisting of an 8-item psychometric scale designed to assess self-beliefs about one’s agency in coping with a variety of demands in life (Table 58). A limitation, however, is that the items are context neutral; that is, they are written to measure beliefs about self￾efficacy towards life’s demands in general rather than the workplace specifically. For this reason, LTD modified the wording of the items to make them relevant to the professional development experiences of teachers and principals. Table 58. Items comprising the Self-Efficacy Scale Q1 I'm strong enough to overcome difficulties in my workplace Q2 At root, I am basically a weak person when it comes to my professional life. Q3 I know how to handle different situations in the workplace. Q4 Usually I feel I am unsuccessful in my work. Q5 I often feel there is nothing I can do well in my job. Q6 I feel competent to deal effectively with the environment and people in my workplace. Q7 I often feel like a failure in my work. Q8 I usually feel I can handle the typical problems that come up in my workplace. Gender Equality Scale: To measure gender equality, LTD had to create its own items because neither USAID nor the research literature offered a scale suitable to the context of LTD, which, as previously mentioned, was not designed to deliver direct interventions aimed at women’s empowerment. Following a thorough review of the literature and internal discussions with key stakeholders, LTD developed and piloted a 10-item scale focusing on major opportunities, resources, and services provided by LTD for professional development in leadership and teaching (Table 59).12 Table 59. Questions on gender equality reflected in LTD trainings Q1 LTD's trainings helped me to gain new skills that benefited my work. Q2 I had the opportunity to apply my new skills thanks to LTD's gender sensitivity towards program participants. Q3 LTD's provision of technology resources in my workplace enabled me to apply the technology skills I learned. Q4 LTD's provision of Internet service in schools increased the effectiveness of teaching and learning. 11 The measure required by USAID is the Generalized Self-Efficacy or GSE as discussed in Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: the role of core evaluations. Journal of applied psychology, 83(1), 17. 12 The items were shown to have inter-item reliability with a Cronbach's Alpha of .835. 93 Q5 Gender sensitive factors were taken into account during the development of training methods. Q6 Gender sensitive factors were taken into account when determining the appropriateness of training locations. Q7 Gender sensitive factors were taken into account when planning the timetable for the trainings. Q8 LTD provided opportunities for professional networking beyond regular trainings, for example via conferences, online discussions or groups. Q9 During the program, my opinions and suggestions concerning my professional development needs were welcomed. Q10 During the program my capacity to exercise educational leadership as an administrator or teacher was enhanced. Gender Equality in the Workplace Scale: LTD developed a second scale as a check against the chance that responses by LTD beneficiaries’ might reflect a favorable bias because of AMIDEAST’s well-regarded reputation in West Bank. The nine items comprising the Gender Equality in the Workplace Scale asks the respondents to consider the climate of gender equality in their regular workplaces (Table 60). We emphasize, however, that the purpose of this scale is not to draw comparisons between LTD and the MoEHE; rather it is intended solely to contextualize the LTD-specific responses to the Gender Equality Scale. Table 60. Questions on gender equality in the workplace In the context of our job as an employee of the MoEHE, to what extent do you agree that females and males are treated equally in regards to: 3B.1 Opportunities for training to meet your professional development needs. 3B.2 Hiring and appointment. 3B.3 Evaluation of job performance. 3B.4 Freedom of expression in the workplace. 3B.5 Resolving differences or disputes in the workplace equitably. 3B.6 Strengthening your capacity in the workplace 3B.7 Distribution of workload. 3B.8 Access to technology/ICT. 3B.9 Leave of absence. Study Population As the primary beneficiaries of LTD’s interventions in schools and districts, principals and teachers from the 72 schools of Cohort III districts of North Hebron, South Nablus, Nablus, Tubas, and Tulkarm comprised the study population. Whereas the relatively small number of principals allowed LTD to distribute surveys to the entire group, the larger number of teachers required the use of a stratified random sample by subject and district. As seen in Table 61, of the 274 surveys that were returned, 55% are from females (n=150) and 45% from males (n=124). Three quarters of the surveys come from teachers and one-quarter from principals. The average age among females is 37 and for males 36, while the average age among principals is 46, and 37 for teachers. 94 Table 61. Sample for Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Survey Teacher Principal13 District Female Male Female Male Count Count Count Count Total District North Hebron 24 16 9 7 56 South Nablus 28 10 6 7 51 Tubas 13 22 4 8 47 Tulkarm 24 15 6 7 52 Nablus 27 26 9 6 68 Total Count 116 89 34 35 274 Findings Female Empowerment (Self-Efficacy) LTD used the data calculation method recommended by USAID, which entailed establishing a baseline median score of Self-Efficacy for both women and men. The sum of responses for all items can range from -16 to +16. Change in self-efficacy is the difference between the baseline score (i.e., before the start of LTD training) and the score obtained at the end of the training period (“endline score”). For a number of technical reasons, LTD was unable to conduct a “true” baseline prior to the start of interventions with Cohort II participants; consequently, LTD “reconstructed” the baseline by having the respondents recall their beliefs about the own self-efficacy before they started LTD.)14 The baseline median result for females and males together was 10 and the endline median was 12, a 20% increase (Table 62). Overall, 69% of the female and male respondents scored higher than the baseline median score of 10 (Table 63), which is good news since LTD’s target percentage is set as 60%. Table 62. Before and after self-efficacy scores (median) Median Self-Efficacy Score Before LTD After LTD % Change All (n=270) 10 12 20% Female (n=147) 11 12 9% Male (n=123) 10 12 20% When disaggregated by sex, the median score for women as a group was 11 before LTD and 12 after LTD, which, as seen in Table 63, means that 63% of the females scored above the baseline median. For males as a group, the median score rose from 10 to 12, among whom 70% scored higher than the baseline median score. 13 Three survey forms were not returned 14 For more on using recall to reconstruct a baseline, see: Bamberger, M. (2010). Reconstructing baseline data for impact evaluation and results measurement. No. 4. The Nuts and Bolts of M&E Series. Poverty Reduction and Equity Department. The World Bank 95 Table 63. Percentage of participants scoring above the "Pre-LTD" median Score for Self-Efficacy We can conclude that LTD appears to have contributed to more positive feelings of empowerment among both women and men. Interestingly, women, as a group, seemed to have had a higher sense of self￾efficacy compared to their male counterparts before LTD. The bigger increase in self-efficacy scores for males, as a group, would suggest that LTD’s trainings for teachers and principals had a more positive impact on males overall. Gender Equality To represent the measure of gender equality, a composite variable was created by taking the combined average of the means (“grand mean”) for all 10 items comprising the Gender Equality Scale. The scale used a 5-point agreement scale, where a grand mean from 3 to 5 would indicate increasingly positive perceptions of gender equality. The data indicate that females and males together rated LTD’s approach to gender equality both positively and almost identically (Table 64). Table 64. Grand mean by sex for LTD Gender Equality Scale N Mean Std. Deviation Female 150 3.98 0.543 Male 124 3.99 0.597 Survey Results and LTD’s Indicator for Gender Equality: 79% of a representative sample of its beneficiaries—females and males—reported that LTD provided them with equal access to opportunities, (n= 270) (n = 147) (n=123) 16 15.6% 17.7% 13.1% 15 12.2% 13.6% 13.1% 14 11.9% 11.6% 12.3% 13 11.1% 10.2% 12.3% 12 11.1% 9.5% 10.7% 11 7.0% 7.5% (Before LTD = 11) 8.2% 10 7.0% (Before LTD = 10) 6.1% 6.6% (Before LTD = 10) 9 6.3% 6.1% 6.6% 8 4.4% 4.8% 4.9% 7 3.0% 4.1% 2.5% 6 1.9% 2.7% 1.6% 5 1.5% 2.0% 1.6% 4 1.5% 1.4% 0.0% 3 1.1% 0.7% 0.0% 2 0.7% 0.7% 1.6% 1 0.7% 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.7% 0.0% 0.8% -1 0.7% 0.0% 0.8% Self-Efficacy Scores All Female Male Percentage Scoring above the "Pre-LTD" Median Score for Self-Efficacy 69% 63% 70% 96 resources and services regardless of gender (Table 65).15 Although this figure is 7% below LTD’s target of 85%, it is comfortably within the deviation margin of +/- 10% allowed by USAID. Overall, the results indicate that both women and men who participated in LTD trainings believe that LTD treated them equally and fairly on the basis of gender. Table 65. Percentage of women and men in agreement with LTD's approach to gender equality Areas of Strength: In general, 90% of both women and men felt empowered by the participation in LTD. The program helped both groups to: gain and apply new skills that benefited their work, particularly in the areas of educational leadership (91%), meeting their professional development needs (88%), and the use of ICT in teaching and learning (92%). Areas to Strengthen: While there is much to laud in the results, the findings also suggest areas where NIET may want to give attention for improvement. Of the 10 items in the Gender Equality Scale, responses to four items that scored 70% or less agreement. Both groups, but especially men (30%), want to see more opportunities for professional networking beyond regular trainings, for example via conferences, online discussions or groups. One third of both groups did not agree that gender sensitive factors were taken into account during the development of training methods or when determining the appropriateness of training locations. Most of all, nearly half of both groups did not agree that Gender sensitive factors were taken into account when planning the timetable for the trainings. 15 See: U.S. Department of State, Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources (F): Guidance for Performance and Plan Report, FY2014 (p.4). All Female Male Difference 3A.1 LTD's trainings helped me to gain new skills that benefited my work. 96% 96% 96% 0 3A.2 I had the opportunity to apply my new skills thanks to LTD's gender sensitivity towards program participants. 88% 91% 88% 3.1 3A.3 LTD's provision of technology resources in my workplace enabled me to apply the technology skills I learned. 80% 77% 80% 3 3A.4 LTD's provision of Internet service in schools increased the effectiveness of teaching and learning. 92% 91% 92% 1 3A.5 Gender sensitive factors were taken into account during the development of training methods. 67% 65% 67% 2.1 3A.6 Gender sensitive factors were taken into account when determining the appropriateness of training locations. 65% 61% 65% 4.3 3A.7 Gender sensitive factors were taken into account when planning the timetable for the trainings. 54% 50% 54% 4.4 3A.8 LTD provided opportunities for professional networking beyond regular trainings, for example via conferences, online discussions or groups. 70% 80% 70% 9.7 3A.9 During the program, my opinions and suggestions concerning my professional development needs were welcomed. 88% 91% 88% 3.1 3A.10 During the program my capacity to exercise educational leadership as an administrator or teacher was enhanced. 91% 93% 91% 1.7 Avg. Agreement 79% 79% 79% Question Percentage Agreement 97 General Perceptions of Gender Equality in the Workplace Could the respondents’ assessments of LTD reflect bias because of AMIDEAST’ well-regarded reputation in the West Bank? We ask this question with a big caveat. The items on the two scales reflect very different contexts—donor-funded training and capacity-building vs. the daily workplace. Given this cautionary note, we asked the teachers and principals to consider the climate of gender equality in their workplaces. We found that the means for the composite variable, “Gender Equality in the Workplace,” are nearly identical for both women and men: 3.86 and 3.80. Based on our 5-point scale, these numbers reflect a generally positive assessment of gender equality in the workplace (Table 66). Table 66. Perceptions of Gender Equality in the Workplace N Mean Std. Deviation Female 146 3.86 0.627 Male 120 3.80 0.645 Similarly, when we look at the results as a percentage of respondents who agreed with the items on the scale (Table 67), we find that on average 79% of the females agreed that their workplace conditions reflected gender equality compared to 78% for males. Interestingly, these results are nearly identical those for the LTD context (Table 65, above). There was widespread agreement by both women and men on three cross-cutting issues of gender equality that overlap with LTD’s interventions. Some 90% of women and men agreed that their workplaces offered opportunities for training to meet their professional development needs; 86% agreed there is equality regarding access to technology and ICT; and, 83% agreed there is equal treatment in terms of strengthening their capacity in the workplace. Table 67. Percentage of agreement regarding measures of gender equality in the workplace All Female Male Difference 3B.1 Opportunities for training to meet your professional development needs. 90% 90% 88% 2.1 3B.2 Hiring and appointment. 77% 83% 69% 13.6 3B.3 Evaluation of job performance. 78% 79% 77% 1.5 3B.4 Freedom of expression in the workplace. 82% 81% 82% 1.1 3B.5 Resolving differences or disputes in the workplace equitably. 77% 77% 77% 0.1 3B.6 Strengthening your capacity in the workplace 83% 85% 81% 4 3B.7 Distribution of workload. 65% 62% 69% 6.8 3B.8 Access to technology/ICT. 86% 86% 87% 1.1 3B.9 Leave of absence. 71% 68% 75% 6.9 Avg. Agreement 79% 79% 78% Percentage in Agreement 98 Conclusions Given both the robust size and representativeness of the survey sample, the findings indicate that LTD is contributing positively to women’s beliefs in their empowerment; furthermore, the findings show that both female and male beneficiaries perceive LTD’s activities as reflecting USAID’s Gender Equality and Empowerment Policy, the goal of which is to “improve the lives of citizens around the world by advancing equality between females and males, and empowering women and girls to participate fully in and benefit from the development of their societies.”16 Do the findings point to a favorability bias because LTD is an AMIDEAST-run donor-funded project? The evidence we collected does not indicate this a problem. In sum, LTD’s approach to school-based and systemic education reform is advancing equality between females and males by ensuring that opportunities and resources for professional development are accessible and shared equally among all its beneficiaries. Recommendations It is recommended that LTD’s COP and senior management, in consultation with LTD’s partners in the MoEHE, should: 1. Continue to support LTD’s partners in the MoEHE and district directorates to provide opportunities for trainings that meet the professional development needs of leadership and teachers consistent with the principles of gender equality and female empowerment. 2. Investigate how to expand opportunities for professional networking beyond regular trainings through online communities of practice. 3. Identify and address gaps in gender sensitivity with regard to the development of training methods, the selection of training locations, and the scheduling of trainings. 16 USAID (2012). USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment. (p. 1). 99 Annex A: Survey of Leadership Effectiveness ب هللا الرحمن الرحيم الكفايات القيادية عند مديري المدارس الفلسطينية في الضفة الغربية استبانة المدير عزيزي المشارك يسعى المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي إلى تطوير وبناء مقدرات موظفي وزارة التربية والتعليم بمختلف مستوياتهم ومسمياتهم الوظيفية من خالل برامجه المختلفة، وبرنامج القيادة المدرسية واحد من أهم البرامج التي ينفذها المعهد لتمكين مديري المدارس من تحسين مدارسهم بناء على المعايير الفلسطينية للمدرسة الفاعلة. وبعد أن شارف البرنامج على االنتهاء يعمل قسم الدراسات في المعهد الوطني على معرفة على ً فاعلية البرنامج في رفع كفايات المديرين وأدائهم في تطوير مدارسهم بناء معايير التحسين المدرسي. فإنه؛ يؤمل منك التعاون في تحديد مستوى معرفتك وتقدير مستوى كفاياتك في المحاور والمجاالت الوارده في الصفحات اآلتية قبل التحاقك بالبرنامج وبعده، وذلك باالستعانة بمقياس األداء المتدرج. معلومات عامة -القسم االول: الجنس ذكر أنثى سنوات الخبرة في التعليم أقل من 5 سنوات من 5 إلى أقل من عشرة من 10 إلى أقل من 15 أكثر من 15 سنة سنوات الخبرة في اإلدارة أقل من 5 سنوات من 5 إلى أقل من عشرة من 10 إلى أقل من 15 أكثر من 15 سنة المؤهل العلمي دبلوم بكالوريوس ماجستير دكتوراة المؤهل التربوي دبلوم تربية بكالوريوس تربية ماجستير تربية دكتوراة تربية المحافظة دولة فلسطين وزارة التربيـة والتعلـيم المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي State Of Palestine Ministry of Education National Institute for Educational Training 100 القسم الثاني: المعرفة ياق المدرسي( قبل التحاقك بالبرنامج وبعده بتقدير ّ قدر درجة معرفتك وفهمك في الموضوعات اآلتية )ضمن الس يترواح من 5-1 حيث-: .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. درجة المعرفة بالموضوع قبل البرنامج الموضوع درجة المعرفة بالموضوع بعد البرنامج 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 الة. ّ المعايير الفلسطينية للمدرسة الفع الرؤية والرسالة. التقويم الذاتي. بناء الفرق المدرسية. التخطيط المدرسي. العالقات ودورها في تحسين العملية التعليمية التعلمية. صناعة قرارات مبنية على البيانات. إدارة الموارد البشرية. إدارة الموارد المادية. البيئة المدرسية الداعمة للتعلم. ال. ّ مباديء التعليم والتعلم الفع متابعة تحسين التعليم والتعلم وتقويمه. دور المجتمع المحلي في التحسين المدرسي. دور التكنولوجيا في العملية التعليمية. األبحاث اإلجرائية. 101 الثالثالقسم : الكفايات القيادية عند مدير المدرسة فيما يأتي مجموعة من مؤشرات تقيس كفايات المديرين القيادية يرجى قراءتها ومن ثم ضع التقدير من -1 4 الذي ترى نفسك فيه بناء على مقياس األداء المتدرج، حيث: 1 ال يحقق مستوى ألداء المطلوب، 2يقترب من تحقيق المستوى المطلوب، :3 يحقق مستوى ألداء المجال المطلوب، :4 يتجاوز مستوى األ ّ داء المطلوب ويتميز مستوى الممارسة قبل البرنامج التدريبي الممارسات مستوى الممارسة اآلن 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 التخطيط .1 أشرك المعلمين في بناء رؤية المدرسة ورسالتها. .2 أشرك المعلمين في بناء خطة المدرسة. .3 أشرك أولياء األمور في بناء خطة المدرسة. .4 أوضح رؤية المدرسة ورسالتها للمجتمع المحلي. .5 أبني الخطة المدرسية بناء على نتائج عملية تقويم ذاتي لواقعها. .6 أجري بأبحاث إجرائية لتطور عملي في المدرسة. العالقات .1 أشجع العمل الجماعي في المدرسة و أنمذجه. .2 أشرك المعنيين في صناعة قررات تتعلق بتحسين المدرسة مستندة الى .3 أتواصل بفاعلية مع الطاقم في المدرسة. بيانات نتائج التقويم الذاتي .4 أشرك المجتمع المحلي في نشاطات تدعم عمليتي التعليم والتعلم .5 أعزز أخالقيات المهنة و أنمذجها )أنمذج السلوكيات التي يتوقعها من .6 أظهر االحترام والتقدير ألفراد مجتمع المدرسة على اختالفهم. اآلخرين(. .7 يعامل طاقم المدرسة بعدالة ) دون تحيز ( .8 أدعو أولياء األمور لزيارة المدرسة ومناقشة أوضاع أبنائهم التعليمية .9 أستثمر المؤسسات المحلية في دعم عمليتي التعليم والتعلم. وتحسينها. 10 أحل الصراعات بين العاملين بمهنية. المجال مستوى الممارسة قبل البرنامج التدريبي الممارسات مستوى الممارسة اآلن 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 الموارد 1 أستثمر خبرات طاقم المدرسة في دعم أهدافها. 2 أحدد احتياجات الطاقم المدرسي التي تدعم العملية التعليمية التعلمية. 3 أسهل التحاق المعلمين ببرامج تطور مهني لسد احتياجاتهم وتحسين 4 أصرف م ممارساتهم التعليمية. يزانية المدرسة حسب احتياجاتها و أولوياتها. 5 أؤكد على استخدام مصادر التعلم في المدرسة ومراكزها التطويرية 6 أ)المكتبة، حافظ على دقة المعلومات المالية للمدرسة و غرف الرياضة......،( وصيانتها بإستمرار. أحرص على توثيقها. 7 أتواصل مع المجتمع المحلي لزيادة موارد المدرسة وتفعيلها. 102 التعليم والتعلم .1 أشرف على الممارسات التعليمية التعلمية للمعلمين في صفوفهم. .2 أثري معرفته بنظريات التعلم والتطور بهدف تحسين عمليتي التعليم والتعلم في مدرستي. .3 أتعاون مع المجتمع المدرسي لدعم تعلم الطلبة .4 أؤكد على تعزيز )بناء( شخصية الطالب بشكل متكامل .5 أدعم التطور المهني للمعلمين .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 المعلمو ن من تنفيذ االستراتيجيات التعليمية .9 أتبنى سياسة تعزيز النجاح والتعلم لجميع الطلبة ) بمن فيهم ذوي الصعوبات والتفوق االكاديمي( 10 أؤكد على تشارك )تعاون( معلمي المادة للعمل التعاوني نحو تحقيق األهداف التعلمية المقصوده. مستوى الممارسة قبل البرنامج التدريبي الممارسات مستوى الممارسة اآلن 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 البيئة المدرسية .1 أفوض العاملين في المدرسة بصالحيات تتناسب و 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 آمنه تعزز تعلم الطالب وراحته. .6 أضع قواعد واضحه للحفاظ على نظافة المدرسة وممتلكاتها. .7 أعزز دور المرشد التربوي في المدرسة .8 أبحث عن األمور المحفزة للمعلمين على العمل و أعززها. .9 أقدر جهود العاملين في المدرسة. التقويم .1 أعلم أولياء األمور بنتائج تقويم ابنائهم بهدف التحسين. .2 أؤكد على استخدام اساليب متنوعة في تقويم أداء الطلبة. .3 أتبع اجراءات مختلفة في تقويم الطلبة لتحسين تعلمهم. .4 أقدم للمعلمين تغذية راجعه عن ممارساتهم التعليمية بهدف التحسين انجازاتهم )بهدف التطوير والتحسين(. .5 أوثق نت المستمر.ائج تقويم المعلمين و .6 أشرك المدير المعلمين في صناعة قرارات تستند الي نتائج تقويم الطلبة. التكنولوجيا .1 أعزز استخدام المعلمين للتكنولوجيا في انشطتهم التعليمية. .2 أشجع المعلمين على تطوير مقدراتهم في استخدام التكنولوجيا في 3 أستخدم التعليم )بالذات الحاسوب( التكنولوجيا في تيسير العمليات اإلداريه. 103 4 أتابع صيانة األجهزه التكنولوجيه في المدرسه وتحديثها. 5 أستخدم التكنولوجيا في التواصل مع المعلمين والطاقم المدرسي و ذوي 6 أ العالقة ستخدم التكنولوجيا في البحث عن مصادر التعليم والتعلم 7 أستخدم التكنولوجيا في التنمية المهنية 104 Annex B: SIT Survey Questionnaire المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي برنامج تطوير القيادة و المعلمين نموذج تقييم فريق التطوير المدرسي الل مرحلة تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة المقدمة والتعليمات: من اجل تعزيز التطوير القائم على المدرسة باعتب ارها قائدة التغيير المبني على التقييم الذاتي وعلى معايير المدرسة الفاعلة،قامت المدارس بانشاء فريق التطوير المدرسي )مكون من مدير المدرسة و معلمين و اولياء امور( في المدارس الحكومية المشاركة في برنامج تطوير القيادة و المعلمين 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 خالل مرحلة الخطة تنفيذ ، حيث سيكون آلرائك مس اه مة م همة في تحسين اداء الفريق و بالتالي المساهمة في تطوير المدرسة . الحظة : سيتماالحتفاظ بردودكم وبكل ما تقدموه من معلومات بسرية تامة وألغراض البرنامج فقط. اسم المديرية : __________________________ اسم المدرسة : __________________________ الرقم الوطني للمدرسة: ___________________________ الجنس: انثى ذكر هل أنت/ي: مدير/ة مدرسة معلم/ة ولي أمر طالب/ة غير ذلك )الرجاء التوضيح(______________ اذا كنت معلماً أو مديراً فما عدد سنوات العمل في المدرسة الحالية؟ ________ سنة القسم االول: تقييم مهام ودور الفريق في تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة: الرجاء تحديد مستوى أداء الفريقفي المجاالت التالية: الرقم المجال منخفض جدا منخفض متوسط عال عال جدا 1.1 االشراف على تنفيذ خطةتطوير المدرسة 1.2 تقويم سير الخطة 1.3 اعداد التقارير الخاصة حولسيرالخطةونجاحات المدرسة تقييم الثاني: القسم ا مستوى مساهمة الفريق في تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة: الرجاء تحديد مستوى الفريق مس اهمة في تنفيذ المجاالت التالية: الرقم المجال ال اوافق بشدة ال اوافق محايد اوافق اوافق بشدة 2.1 ادارة عمليةتنفيذالخطة المدرسية 2.2 ادارة الموارد بفعالية بما يخدم جودة التعليم و التعلم 2.3 ادارة عمليتي التعليم و التعلم بمستوى عال من االداء 2.4 تحسين لعالقات الداخلية للمدرسة 2.5 تحسين لعالقات الخارجية للمدرسة 2.6 تحسين البيئة المدرسية 2.7 تشجيع المشاركة المجتمعية 2.8 تفعيل التكنولوجيا في التعليم و التعلم 2.9 تفعيل التكنولوجيافي االدارة المدرسية 2.10 تفعيل المصادر المادية والبشريةللمدرسة 105 القسم الثالث: التقييم الداخلي لممارسات اعضاء الفريق الل مرحلة تنفيذ الخطة : الرجاء تحديد إلى أي درجة تتفق مع ما يلي : الرقم الممارسات ال اوافق بشدة ال اوافق محايد اوافق اوافق بشدة 3.1 حققت قيادة فريق التطوير المدرسي االهداف المرجوة من تنفيذ الخطة 3.2 التزام اعضء الفريق بالمشاركة في االجتماعات 3.3 التزام اعضء الفريق بتنفيذ المهام الموكلة اليه خالل االجتماعات 3.4 وجود رؤية و منهجية مشتركة بين اعضاء الفريق 3.5 وجود مناخ تعاوني و ثقة متبادلة بين اعضء الفريق 3.6 وجود اتجاهات ايجابية العضاء الفريق نحو العمل في المدرسة ومع المؤسسات 3.7 تقبل اعضاء الفريق لل الحظات و الآلراء الخارجية 3.8 انجاز اعضء الفريق المهام المرتبطة بالتخطيط و متطلباتها بكفاءة الرابع القسم : تقييم اداء مدير الفريق الل مرحلة تنفيذ الخطة : الرجاء تحديد إلى أي درجة تتفق مع ما يلي : الرقم الممارسات ال اوافق بشدة ال اوافق محايد اوافق اوافق بشدة 4.1 ساعد مدير الفريق بقية االعضاء في انجاز ال مهام في مواعي دها 4.2 التزم مدير الفريق بما يتفق مع لوائح و مواثيق العمل في المدرسة 4.3 شارك مدير الفريق المعلومات المرتبطة بعملية تنفيذ الخطة مع بقية الفريق 4.4 شجع مدير الفريق بقية أعضاء الفريق على ابداء ارائهم 4.5 قدم مدير الفريق الدعم )الفن واالداري( لألعضء الفريق 4.6 قدم مديرالفريق تغذية راجعة واضحة ومحددة ألعضء الفريق 4.7 ساعد مدير الفريق بقية االعضاء في التغلب على مصادر الصراع 8 4. من وج هةنظرك ما أهم الثانجازاتلفريق التطوير المدرسي خالل مرحلةتنفيذالخطة .1 .2 .3 4.9 ما هي الدروس المستفادة / النجاحات اثناء عملية تنفيذ الخطة .1 .2 .3 4.10 من وج هة نظرك ما أهم التحديات التي واجهت فريق التطوير المدرسي الل مرحلة التفيذ الخطة .1 .2 .3 4.11 ما األمور التي قامت بها المدرسة لزيادة فعالية الفريق أثناء تنفيذ الخطة: .1 .2 .3 4.12 ما األمور التي يمكن للمدرسةالقيام بها لزيادة فعالية الفريق ولكنها ستقوم بها في العام القادم ألنها لم تقم بها هذه السنة: .1 .2 .3 106 4.13بشكل عام هل تنصح المدارس األخرى في تكوين فريق ليقوم ببناء خطة تطوير المدرسة،نعم ال ، الرجاءااليضاح ؟ القسم الخامس:يعبئ القسم التالي منقبل مدير المدرسةفقط القيادة فريق دور في ل المديرية وتنفيذ تخطيط خال خطة المدرسة تحسين الى أي مدى تتفق مع لقيادةفريق ا دور حول ما يلي في المديرية خطة وتنفيذ تخطيط الل المدرسة تحسين الرقم الممارسات ال اوافق بشدة ال اوافق محايد اوافق اوافق بشدة 5.1 قام فريقالقيادةفيالمديريةبتعزيزالالقةبين مدرستي والمديرية. 5.2 استجابفريقالقيادةفيالمديرية على وجه السرعةلكافة التساؤالت واالستشارات عند الطلب. 5.3 قدمفريقالقيادةفيالمديريةالتغذية الراجعة والتعليقات حول اعداد خطة تطويرالمدرسة )SIP). 5.4 ساعدنيفريقالقيادةفيالمديرية ن خالل توضيح االحتياجاتالفنية اإلداريةلمدرستي الل اعداد خطةتطويرالمدرسة. 5.5 ساعدنيفريقالقيادةفيالمديرية ن خاللتحديدأولويات االحتياجات التقنية اإلداريةلمدرستي الل اعداد خطةتطويرالمدرسة. 5.6 قام فريق القيادة في المديرية بمتابعة جميع مراحل اعداد خطة تطوير المدرسة. 5.7 دعمفريقالقيادةفيالمديرية جهوديللتنسيق مع منظماتالمجتمع المحليلدعم خطةتطوير المدرسة. تم اإلجابة عن األسئلة التالية من قبل المدير فقط: 5.8 ما المس اهمة الرئيسية التيقدمهافريق القيادة في المديرية للمساعدتك في إتمام عملية اعداد خطة تطوير مدرستك بنجاح؟ .1 .2 .3 5.9 ما المس اهمة الرئيسية التيقدمهافريق القيادة في المديرية للمسادتك في اتمام تنفيذ خطة تطوير مدرستك بنجاح ؟ .1 .2 .3 5.10برأيك، ما األمور التي يجب القيام بها من اجل توطيد التعاونبين المدرسةوفريق القيادة في المديرية بنحو يخدم عملية تطوير المدرسة؟ -1 -2 -3 نشكر لكم تعاونكم 107 Annex C: SIT Focus Group Moderator’s Guide المبادئ التوجيهية للميسر المجموعة البؤرية : فريق التطوير المدرسي المقدمة ) 5-3 دقائق ( .1 استقبال المشاركين .2 المشرف يعر ف عن نفسه و عن مساعده .3 شرح باختصار طبيعة المجموعة البؤرية والهدف منها النص التعريفي الموصى به : األمديست والمعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي يرحبان بكم في المجموعة البؤرية حول فريق التطوير المدرسي . هدفنا هو معر فة النجاحات والتحديات التي واجهها فرق التطوير المدارسي في المدارس المشاركة في برنامج تطوير القيادة و المعلمين . حيث أن النتائج من هذه المجموعة البؤرية ستساعد األمديست والمعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي في تحسين أداء فرق التطوير المدارسي في المستقبل. في الدقائق 90 المقبلة ، سوف نطرح سلسلة من األسئلة خاصة بمرحلة تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة. أطلب منكم أن تفكر و تخبرنا بصدق وبصراحة عن دورك كعضو في فريق التطوير المدرسي في مدرستك . بطبيعة الحال ، ردودكم ستكون مختلفة، ألنه ال يوجد مدرستين على متماثالت حد 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 وجهات النظر. دوري كميسر هو وسيط لتسهيل المناقشة. عملي هو الحفاظ على المناقشة حول الموضوع. لن أشارك في المناقشة أو اقدم رأيي الشخصي في أي وقت. للتأكد من جميع المالحظات الدقيقة ، لدينا جهاز التسجيل الصوتي لتسجيل المناقشة. كما نعدكم أنه لن يستمع الى التسجيل اي شخ ص خارج فريق البحث لدينا. أيضا نود ان نؤكد لكم أن اي شيئا تقوله في أي وقت لن يتم نشره بأي شكل من األشكال بحيث يمكن التعرف عليك كمتحدث. طريقة طرح االسئلة الجزء A : ( 10-5 دقائق) االسئلة االفتتاحية : يرجى التعريف بنفسك اسمك و اسم مدرستك ، و صلتك بالمدرسة ) مدير ، مدرس، ولي أمر ، وغيرها( االسئلة التمهيدية: الرجاء التفكير في دورك أثناء عملية التخطيط خطة تطوير المدرسة. باختصار ما المهام أو المسؤوليات المحددة التي انجزتها بالنسبة لك شخصيا ؟ االسئلة االنتقالية: 108 الرجاء التفكير في دورك .المدرسة تطوير خطة تنفيذأثناء باختصار ما المهام أو المسؤوليات المحددة التي انجزتها بالنسبة لك شخصيا ؟ الجزء B : االسئلة الجوهرية ) 70-60 دقيقة( .1 الرجاء التفكير في جودة العمل الجماعي بين أعضاء فريق التطوير المدرسي أثناء تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة. من وجهة نظرك كعضو في الفريق )مدير/معلم/ ولي أمر(، الى اي مدى ساهمت مشاركتكم في التنفيذ الناجح لخطة تطوير المدرسة ؟ اشرح . .2 الرجاء التفكير في تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة. ما االمور التي تغيرت لالفضل في مدرستك كنتيجه لجهود فريق التطوير المدرسي ؟ وما الذي ساهم في هذا النجاح ؟ ما الذي تغير ما األمور التي ساهمت في النجاح البند a. البيئة المدرسية b. التعليم والتعلم c. ادارة الموارد المادية والبشرية لتحسين التعليم والتعلم d. استخدام التكنولوجيا في التعليم والتعلم e. العالقات الداخلية والخارجية f. انتماء الطلبة والمعلمين للمدرسة g. أمور أخرى .3 الرجاء التفكير في جودة العمل الجماعي بين أعضاء فريق التطوير المدرسي. من وجهة نظرك كعضو في الفريق،الى اي مدى ساهمت العالقات الداخلية بين أعضاء الفريق ) التعاون والتواصل بين اعضاء الفريق( في تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة ؟ اشرح. .4 ما العوائق التي واجهها الفريق كمجموعة خالل تنفيذ خطة تطوير المدرسة ؟ ) العوامل الداخلية للفريق وكذلك العوامل الخارجية( .5 [ للمدراء فقط] الرجاء التفكير في دور فريق القيادة في المديرية (DLT (خالل تخطيط وتنفيذ خطة تحسين المدرسة. a. ما المساهمة الرئيسية التي قدمها فريق القيادة في المديرية للمساعدتك في إتمام عملية اعداد خطة تطوير مدرستك بنجاح؟ b. ما المساهمة الرئيسية التي قدمها فريق القيادة في المديرية للمساعدتك في اتمام تنفيذ خطة تطوير مدرستك بنجاح ؟ c. برأيك، ما األمور التي يجب القيام بها من اجل توطيد التعاون بين المدرسة وفريق القيادة في المديرية بنحو يخدم عملية تطوير المدرسة؟ جزء C : االسئلة الختامية ) 15-10 دقيقة) .1 هل هناك أي قضية أو سؤال مهم تود مناقشته 109 Annex D: Teacher Effectiveness Survey Questionnaire (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 كفاياتك التعليمية اآلن وقبل البدء في البرنامج في المحاور والمجاالت الوارده في الصفحات اآلتية، باالستناد إلى مقياس األداء المتدرج المرفق. 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 110 القسم األول: الكفايات التعليمية للمعلم فيما يأتي مجموعة من المؤشرات التي تقيس كفايات المعلمي ن التعليمية يرجى قراءتها ومن ثم ضع تقدير ك لمستوى أدائك بناء على مقياس األ حيث أن: داء المتدرج :1 ال يحقق مستوى الكفاية المطلوب، :2 يقترب من تحقيق مستوى الكفاية المطلوب، :3 يحقق مستوى الكفاية المطلوب، :4 يتجاوز تحقيق الكفاية ويتميز. مستوى الكفاية قبل البرنامج التدريبي الكفاية االولى: تسهيل التعليم والتعلم المتمركز حول الطالب مستوى الكفاية بعد البرنامج التدريبي ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( الكفاية الفرعية ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( 1.1 أبني خططا يومية وفصلية تنسجم و أنماط تعلم الطلبة المختلفة. 1.2 أراعي الفروق الفردية بين الطلبة. 1.3 أراعي الخبرات السابقة الطلبة. 1.4 أبني مخرجات تعلم محددة تنسجم و مخرجات التعلم العامة لمنهاج المرحلة األساسية. 1.5 أشرك الطلبة وذوي العالقة في مناقشة مخرجات التعلم المرجوة. 1.6 أنفذ أنشطة مصاحبة للمنهاج تعزز التعلم التشاركي بين الطلبة. 1.7 أطبق أنشطة صفية مرتبطة بمحتوى الدرس، و أطرح اسئلة من مستوى مهارات التفكير المتنوعة للتأكد من تعميق الفهم. مستوى الكفاية قبل البرنامج التدريبي الكفاية الثانية: تصميم المصادر والمواد التعليمية والتعلمية مستوى الكفاية بعد البرنامج التدريبي ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( الكفاية الفرعية ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( 2.1 أضع خطة سنوية لتطوير مواد التعليم والتعلم ومصادرهما ) من، وكيف، ومتى، وأين، ولماذا؟(. ُم الطلبة. 2.2 أوظف تكنولوجيا المعلومات واالتصاالت في تعليم وتعل 2.3 أستعمل المصادر المجتمعية )كالرحالت والزيارات والمصادر البشرية( في تحسين عملية التعلم. 2.4 أوظف مصادر التعليم والتعلم التي تتناسب مع احتياجات الطلبة. ّ 2.5 أ ة اإلبداعية باستخدام مصادر التعليم والتعلم المختلفة. ّن من القدرات والمهارات التعلمي حس ّم متنوعة. 2.6 أشرك الطلبة في تطوير مصادر تعل 2.7 أوظف مصادر تعليم وتعلم متنوعة لتحقيق عناصر المنهاج. ّ مستوى الكفاية قبل البرنامج التدريبي الكفاية الثالثة: المشاركة في توفير بيئة ه تعلمي فاعلة وآمنة مستوى الكفاية بعد البرنامج التدريبي ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( الكفاية الفرعية ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ّ 3.1 أ ة عزز مشاركة الطلبة في األنشطة الصفي المختلفة. 111 ُم من خالل المحاولة والتجريب. ّم تشجع الطالب على التعل 3.2 أستخدم بيئة تعل ّ 3.3 أ ة والمدرسية. شرك الطلبة في عمليات صياغة القواعد الصفي 3.4 أوفر فرص تعلم متساوية لجميع الطلبة. 3.5 أوفر بيئة تعلم صحية وآمنة تشجع الطلبة في عملية تعلمهم. 3.6 أوفر بيئة تعلمية جاذبة للطلبة تحفزهم على التفكير االبداعي والناقد. ًمهم. ّهم لمسؤولية جودة تعل 3.7 أكلف الطلبة بمهام تعزز ثقتهم بأنفسهم وتحمل مستوى الكفاية قبل البرنامج التدريبي الكفاية الرابعة: المتابعة والتقويم لعملية التعليم والتعلم مستوى الكفاية بعد البرنامج التدريبي ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( الكفاية الفرعية ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ً 4.1 أصمم خططاً فردية لتحسين التعليم على عملية التقويم. بناء 4.2 أستخدم نتائج التأمل الذاتي لتحسين عمليات التعليم والتعلم. 4.3 أنفذ برامج تعلم عالجية تتالءم مع احتياجات الطلبة الخاصة باالستناد إلى نتائج التقويم. 4.4 أزود أولياء األمور بالتقارير حول النتائج الدراسية الخاصة بأبنائهم. ُم. 4.5 أستخدم نتائج المتابعة والتقويم لتحسين التعليم والتعل 4.6 أبني أدوات تقويم مختلفة تناسب الفروق الفردية عند الطلبة. 4.7 أقيم ذاتي من أجل التطور المهني. ُ 4.8 أ ة. ختار إستراتيجيات التقويم التي تتالءم مع حاجات الطلبة التعلمي 4.9 أوثق نتائج التقويم الستخدامها في ُ متابعة تقدم الطلبة. 4.10 أقدم التغذية الراجعة المناسبة للطلبة بناء على نتائج التقويم. 4.11 أستخدم المتابعة والتقويم كإستراتيجية تعليم وتعلم. 4.12 أشجع الطلبة على إستخدام التقويم الذاتي. مستوى الكفاية قبل البرنامج التدريبي الكفاية الخامسة: اإلرشاد والتوجيه للمتعلمين مستوى الكفاية بعد البرنامج التدريبي ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( الكفاية الفرعية ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ّ 5.1 أ ه الطلبة نحو السلوكيات اليومية ) مثل الصحة والنظافة الشخصية والسالمة العامة واالنضباط وج الذاتي...(. ّبع اإلجراءات المناسبة لتحسين سلوك الطلبة اليومي. 5.2 أت 5.3 أرفع من شأن القيم واالتجاهات االيجابية لدى الطلبة. 112 5.4 أكلف الطلبة بمهام أداء وواجبات ترتبط بواقع حياتهم. 5.5 أستخدم اإلرشاد والتوجيه المناسبين الختيار مسارهم المهني المالئم المكانياتهم. 5.6 أتواصل مع المختصين إليجاد أفضل الحلول لمعالجة صعوبات التعلم. مستوى الكفاية قبل البرنامج التدريبي الكفاية السادسة: السعي للتطور المهني مستوى الكفاية بعد البرنامج التدريبي ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( الكفاية الفرعية ) 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( 6.1 أستخدم نتائج التقييم في تحديد احتياجاته التدريبية. 6.2 أطبق الخبرات التدريبية التي أكتسبها في تفعيل األنشطة الصفية. 6.3 أتبادل الخبرات مع الزمالء الستخدام األساليب المشتركة في التعليم والمشاريع. 6.4 أجمع المصادر ذات الصلة بعمله بواسطة وسائل تكنولوجيا المعلومات واالتصاالت. 6.5 أستفيد من المنهجيات المالئمة للوصول الى مخرجات تعلم الطلبة. 6.6 أستخدم البحث اإلجرائي في تحسين عملية التعليم والتعلم. 6.7 أحتفظ بملف يحتوي الفعاليات واألنشطة المختلفة لمتابعة تطور ي المهني. 6.8 أشارك في الدورات واأليام الدراسية لتطوير أدائي. مستوى الكفاية قبل البرنامج التدريبي الكفاية السابعة: تفعيل الشراكة داخل المجتمع مستوى الكفاية بعد البرنامج التدريبي 7.1 أشجع الطلبة على االنخراط بالتجارب المجتمعية المحلية التي تدعم تعلمهم. 7.2 أشارك في وضع الحلول المناسبة للمشكالت المجتمعية. 7.3 أزود أولياء األمور بتقارير حول نتائج تحصيل أبنائهم. ُمية والصحية(. 7.4 أتعاون مع أولياء األمور لحل مشكالت الطلبة المختلفة )السلوكية والتعل 7.5 أشارك الزمالء بالخبرات التي تدعم عمليات التعلم والمشاريع المشتركة 7.6 أوظف المصادر المجتمعية في تحسين عملية التعليم والتعلم 113 القسم الثاني-: معلومات عامة .1 الجنس .1 ذكر .2 أنثى .2 العمر .1 أقل من 30 سنة .2 من 30 – 39 سنة .3 من 40 - 49 سنة .4 أكثر من 50 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 10 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 حالياً 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 .10 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 114 Annex E: Independent-samples t-tests Students Group Statistics: Students School Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean B_Tot LTD 2686 3.84 .608 .012 Control 939 3.68 .630 .021 Independent Samples Test: Students Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper B_Tot Equal variances assumed 2.108 .147 7.287 3623 .000 .170 .023 .124 .215 Equal variances not assumed 7.162 1588.813 .000 .170 .024 .123 .216 Teachers Group Statistics School Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean B_Tot LTD 100 4.1785 .34412 .03441 Control 32 4.1499 .30591 .05408 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper B_Tot Equal variances assumed .383 .537 .420 130 .676 .02858 .06812 -.10619 .16335 Equal variances not assumed .446 58.201 .657 .02858 .06410 -.09972 .15688 115 Annex F: Classroom Engagement Survey (Student Questionnaire) 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 الخامس .2 الصف السادس .3الصف السابع .4 الصف الثامن .5 الصف التاسع .6 الصف العاشر في أي حصة تم تعبئة االستبانة ؟ .1الرياضيات .2 العلوم .3 اللغة العربية .4 اللغة االنجليزية .5 التكنولوجيا A الجزء األول: انطباعك عن مدرستك: الرجاء التفكير فقط في مدرستك أثناء اإلجابة عن األسئلة التالية: ما درجة اتفاقك مع العبارات التالية: ضع دائرة حول اإلجابة التي تراها مناسبة لكل جملة. .1 أشعر بأن مدرستي تقوم بإعدادي الكون ناجحا في تعلمي المستقبلي دولة فلسطين وزارة التربيـة والتعلـيم المعهد الوطني للتدريب التربوي State Of Palestine Ministry of Education National Institute for Educational Training 116 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .2 أنا سعيد لكوني طالب في هذه المدرسة 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .3 اكون متحمسا عند القدوم الى المدرسة 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( 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: ضع دائرة حول اإلجابة التي تراها مناسبة لكل جملة. .1 يشجعني معلمي على التفكير اليجاد االجابات و الحلول 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .2 أشارك في مجموعات تعاونية صغيرة داخل الصف 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .3 أعبر عن رأيي بحرية داخل الحصة 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .4 يستخدم معلمي اسلوب يجعل عملية التعليم ممتعة 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .5 أشارك في أنشطة صفية متنوعة 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .6 يساعدني معلمي عندما اجد صعوبة في فهم الدرس 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .7 يهتم معلمي كثيرا بافكاري المطروحة 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .8 يشجعني معلمي على طرح األسئلة في الصف 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .9 يقضي معلمي معظم وقت الحصة في قراءة المعلومات وكتابتها 117 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .10 أقضي معظم وقت الحصة في نسخ المعلومات 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .11 في معظم الحصص، معلمي يطلب مني حفظ الحقائق واالرقام دون التحقق من درجة معرفتي و فهمي لها 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .12 يعطيني معلمي وقتاً لنقاش ما تعلمته في الصف 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .13 يتحدث معلمي اكثر من الطلبة في الحصة دون السماح للطالب بالنقاش 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .14 أسلوب معلمي يساعدني على الفهم بسهولة 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .15 أشارك في المشاريع 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .16 يعطيني معلمي مالحظات حول ادائي في اإلختبارات والواجبات 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .17 يعطيني معلمي مالحظات حول ادائي أثناء الدرس 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .18 أشارك في انشطة مثيرة لإلهتمام 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .19 يستخدم معلمي ادوات ووسائل تكنولوجية في الحصة 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة .20 يربط معلمي بين ما ما نتعلمه وبين الحياة اليومية 1( ال أوافق بشدة 2( ال أوافق 3( الى حد ما 4( أوافق 5( أوافق بشدة 118 C الجزء الثالث: استخدام الحاسوب 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( نادرا 2( احيانا 3( غالبا .4 أستخدم جهاز الحاسوب لزيادة المعرفة التي اكتسبتها داخل الصف 1( نادرا 2( احيانا 3( غالبا D الجزء الرابع: السلوك )خالل العام الدراسي 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 )5-1 مرات c )10-6 مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات .2 تعرضت للضرب المتعمد من قبل احد الطالب: a )وال مرة b )5-1 مرات c )10-6 مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات .3 تعرضت للضرب من قبل المعلم : 119 a )وال مرة b )5-1 مرات c )10-6 مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات .4 غادرت المدرسة بدون اذن : a )وال مرة b )5-1 مرات c )10-6 مرات d )اكثر من 10 مرات .5 احضرت ولي أمري الى المدرسة بسبب قيامي بأمر خاطئ : a )وال مرة b )5-1 مرات c )10-6 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 السنة الحالية؟ )أكتب عدد السنوات في المستطيل( _________ ضع دائرة حول االجابة التي تناسبك. .3 ما هي أعلى درجة علمية حصلت عليها والدتك/ولية أمرك؟ .1 أقل من ثانوي .2 الدراسة الثانوية .2 جامعي )بكالوريوس أو أكثر ( .4 ما هي أعلى درجة علمية حصل عليها والدك/ولي امرك؟ .1 أقل من ثانوي .2 الدراسة الثانوية .2 جامعي )بكالوريوس أو أكثر ( نشكر لكم تعاونكم 120 Annex G: Technology Survey Questions/Gaza Section 1 Q1: Is this your first time using Moodle in a course? Q2: Did you receive an orientation to Moodle either before or at the start of your course? Q3: If you received an orientation to Moodle, do you feel it was adequate? Section 2 Q4: How would you rate the ease of use for each of the following items based on your experience with Moodle? 1) Course navigation 2) Upcoming events block 3) Uploading of files 4) Submitting of assignments 5) Discussion forum 6) Completing quizzes 7) Gradebook viewing 8) Student surveys (questionnaires) Section 3 Q5: Think about your overall experience using Moodle in this course. How would you rate your agreement with the following statements based on your Moodle experience in general? 1) I have no problem using Moodle technology in this course. 2) I can complete my class assignments and learning activities easily. [Instructor: I can easily organize and arrange the order of content and activities for each week.] 3) I can follow-up on my class assignments and learning activities easily. 4) I feel Moodle improves communication with my classmates. [Instructor: I feel Moodle improves communication among my students.] 5) I feel Moodle improves communication with my instructor. 6) I feel Moodle improves my study habits. 7) I feel that doing multiple attempts for a quiz improves my understanding of the content. 8) I feel Moodle makes me spend more time studying. [Instructor: I feel Moodle encourages my students to submit assignments on time.] 9) I feel the time I spend on Moodle improves my learning in the course. 10) Using Moodle makes me feel I am part of a community of learners in the course. 11) I feel I am learning more in the course using Moodle than if the course was taught without Moodle. 12) I would like to see Moodle used in all of my courses. 121 13) Using Moodle in this course makes me see the importance of using technology in teaching and learning. [Instructor: Using Moodle enhanced how I approach the planning of my lessons.] [Instructor: I feel using Moodle advanced my professional development in the use of technology in teaching and learning. 122 Annex H: Technology Focus Group Questions/Gaza Students: 1. Compared to your other courses, did Moodle increase your engagement with the content of the course, or was it about the same? Please explain. 2. What tools or features of Moodle benefited your learning the most (e.g., quizzes; discussion forums; chats; wikis; etc.)? 3. Compared to other courses, did Moodle increase your interaction with your classmates? What tools or features in Moodle created the most interaction with classmates (e.g., discussion forums, chats, comments, etc.)? 4. In general, how did using Moodle impact your study habits outside the classroom (off campus)? Tell us how (e.g., studying, revising, researching, correcting mistakes, or self-reflection). 5. Did Moodle make you feel you were more responsible for your own learning (e.g., feedback for self￾assessment and self-improvement; multiple attempt quizzes for self-correction; etc.)? (Did you see an improvement in your grades?) 6. Did Moodle change the quality of your interaction with the instructor? How (asking questions, getting feedback, receiving information, materials, and so on)? 7. Have you seen evidence that your academic achievement has been improving because of Moodle? Please explain. 8. All-things considered, were you satisfied using Moodle as a learning tool? What would improve the experience on the part of the instructor and the university? Teachers 1. Compared to your other courses, has Moodle has helped you improve your teaching (pedagogical aspects)? How? (For example: giving feedback; using quizzes; posting handouts, notes, resources, news, videos, articles, or databases; updating course; keeping students motivated and on track)? 2. How has Moodle changed the way your students engage with the content of the course? How? Which Moodle tools benefited their learning the most (e.g., quizzes with instant feedback; discussion forums; chats; wikis; etc.)? 3. Compared to other courses, has Moodle increased the quality of interaction/collaboration among your students? What tools in Moodle have encouraged more interaction (e.g., discussion forums, chats, comments, etc.)? 4. Has Moodle changed the quality of your interaction with your students? How (feel more connected to them; asking questions, giving feedback, sharing information, posting lecture notes/PPTs, supplementary materials, and so on)? 5. Has the level of participation using Moodle been consistent for all students, or has it varied? Why do you think so? 6. Have you seen evidence that Moodle is improving your students’ academic achievement? Please explain. 123 7. Has using Moodle helped you to think differently about your teaching and course design? Please say how. 8. All-things considered, how confident do you feel now in using Moodle? What should the university do to improve the experience for you and your students? (What support do you and your students need?)