USAID/EQUIP1/AED Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development Evaluation of Bids: Criteria The following evaluation should be carried out for each of the four proposals. The criteria contained in the rating scales below are drawn from the Invitation for Bids and the accompanying documents. Research Organization (name or number):_______________________________ General Research organization has fulfilled the following (check yes or no and write a comment with clarifying information if you check no): yes no comment Submitted the proposal by the due date Submitted a proposal of not more than 5 pages of narrative describing how the organization would carry out the study Submitted a proposal of not more than 3 pages describing the capabilities of the organization Submitted CVs of researchers Submitted a budget that does not exceed US$26,000 Technical and financial proposal Please check one, using the following rating scale: 1 = excellent 2 = good 3 = weak 4 = very weak 5 = no evidence/no information Proposal demonstrates that the research organization has the Rating scale following: 1 2 3 4 5 Good understanding of the study in general High-quality and realistic plan for carrying out the study Substantial knowledge of present primary education policies, the critical role of teachers, and programs of teacher professional development Solid understanding of qualitative research, its purposes and methods, and substantial experience in carrying out qualitative research Solid understanding of quantitative research and the ability to administer and analyze a large-scale survey instrument Previous work with regional education bureaus as well as teachers, school heads, students, and others at the school level Well qualified qualitative researchers who will be able to interview teachers to get in-depth information and observe classes in regional languages Ability, personnel, and organizational capacity to carry out the work within the timetable provided Well established and reliable administrative and financial structures Experience in carrying out similar research successfully under contract Good email connections and the ability to work together, consult frequently, and exchange documents with the AED/Washington office Organizational capacity to carry out the study Creativity in approaches to carrying out the study Reasonable, transparent, and realistic budget that ensures good use of resources and timely completion of the study An overall capacity to carry out a high-quality study TOTAL Please write a short comment on the budget presented by the research organization. Overall, how would you rate this proposal in relation to the other proposals (please circle one): 1 - first - strongest 2 - second 3 - third 4 - fourth - least strong Please make additional comments on the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses. 2 AED/USAID/EQUIP1 Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development Evaluation of Bids: Procedure and Outcome A limited tender procedure was carried out with an Invitation to Bid sent to 11 educational research organizations and education consultants on 6 September 2005. The organizations to which the Invitation to Bid was sent were: Jimma University, Education Faculty Mekelle University, Education Faculty Alemaya University, Education Faculty Addis Ababa University, Institute of Educational Research (IER) Bahir Dar University, Faculty of Education Dilla College of Teacher Education, SNNPR Ethio-Education Consultants (ETEC) Addis Education, Training and Development Consultants PLC (ADET) Unity University College Admas College Alpha University College Four bids were received by the deadline of 21 September 2005 from the following organizations: Jimma University, Education Faculty Addis Ababa University, Institute of Educational Research Addis Education, Training and Development Consultants PLC (ADET) Ethio-Education Consultants (ETEC) The following procedure was employed in the evaluation of the bids: • A Selection Committee was formed consisting of Ato Yeshitla, Ato Tebabu, Dr. Ernest and Dr. Elizabeth. • Evaluation criteria were developed and agreed upon (the evaluation form is attached). • The bids were opened at the BESO office in the Ministry of Education in the presence of Ato Yeshitla, Ato Tebabu, Ato Mulatu, and Dr. Ernest on 21 September 2005. • The four bids were photocopied and supplied to each member of the Selection Committee along with four copies of the evaluation form (the bids were faxed and sent by DHL to Dr. Elizabeth in Washington). • A meeting was held of the Selection Committee on 10 October 2005 with Ato Yeshitla, Dr. Ernest, and Dr. Elizabeth present. Ato Tebabu was not able to be present but Ato Mulatu represented him with his completed evaluation form. • On the basis of overall ranking of the four bids, Jima University was ranked fourth and ADET was ranked third. There was a tie between IER and ETEC with two evaluators putting IER first and two putting ETEC first. A discussion was held on the two bids but the meeting could not be continued because of outside commitments of Ato Yeshitla and Dr. Ernest. • The Selection Committee gave Dr. Elizabeth two assignments: o add up the evaluation criteria item by item and see which organization came first and second numerically according to the 15 criteria o call both organizations to clarify gaps in the two proposals (a verbal explanation was accepted from each institution) • Dr. Elizabeth first added up the scores item by item from the Evaluation of Bids format. IER received 98 marks and ETEC received 105 marks, the lowest score winning according to the way the evaluation criteria were constructed. • Dr. Elizabeth called Dr. Daniel at IER and ascertained that the four senior researchers named in the proposal would themselves carry out the interviews in the four regions and do the analysis themselves. Dr. Daniel assured Dr. Elizabeth that this was the case and that time had been set aside in each person’s schedule to complete the work on time. He emphasized the necessity of having experienced data collectors for qualitative research, able to capture “thick description” and have the data collectors carry through with the analysis of the data and write-up of the study. He emphasized that personal contact with the interviewed teachers was particularly important in case study research. • Dr. Elizabeth called Ato Kebede at ETEC to clarify questions about the personnel who would work on the research study and how roles and responsibilities would be allocated between the “centrally based professionals” and the “field researchers”. Ato Kebede suggested that Ato Gabehyeu, Ato Debebe, and Dr. Abiy come briefly to the BESO office in the afternoon, which they did. This conversation confirmed that the centrally based professionals named in the proposal would not be directly involved in data collection in the field, but would train and supervise four regional teams of three field researchers each who would actually carry out the data collection. The centrally based professionals would analyze the data submitted by these teams and write up the study. • Ato Yeshitla and Dr. Elizabeth met on 11 October 2005 in the presence of Ato Mulatu and came to the consensus that the winner of the bid was Addis Ababa University, Institute of Educational Research (IER). The rationale for the selection were the following: o IER won on the numerical score 2 o IER design of data collection, analysis, and study report write-up involving the same team of four senior researchers carrying out the interviews in the field, analyzing data, and writing up the study is more appropriate for qualitative case study research than the ETEC design of using Addis-based researchers to train and conduct long-distance supervision of the relatively inexperienced field-based teams carrying out interviews and analyze data from teachers and school settings that they have not experienced themselves Verification of consensus on selection procedure and outcome: ----------------------------------------------- (signature/date) ----------------------------------------------- (signature/date) ----------------------------------------------- (signature/date) ----------------------------------------------- (signature/date) 3 USAID/EQUIP1/AED Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development INVITATION FOR BIDS The Academy for Educational Development (AED/Washington) hereby invites proposals (technical and financial) from qualified education research organizations to undertake the qualitative research study on teacher learning and teacher professional development described in the attached papers. This study is part of a group of pilot studies on different aspects of quality of education that are being undertaken by a Washington-based USAID-funded program EQUIP1(Education Quality Improvement Program). The two papers attached to this Invitation are the following: • Paper #1 Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development: Conceptual Framework and Study Design This paper describes the purposes of the study, the research questions that guide the study, the conceptual framework, and the overall study design • Paper #2 Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development: Study Activities and Scope of Work This paper outlines the characteristics of the research organization that will be selected to carry out the study and the scope of work outlining the activities that the contract research organization will undertake The proposals submitted should contain the following technical and financial information: • A narrative description of how your organization would carry out the study demonstrating understanding of the conceptual framework and study design described in Paper #1 and the Scope of Work described in Paper #2. This narrative should also contain assurance that your research organization would be able to carry out the study within the timeline contained in Paper #1. This part of the narrative description should be not longer than 5 pages. (Technical) • A narrative description of the capabilities of your research organization in conducting the kind of research described in the two papers. This part of the narrative description should be not longer than 3 pages. CVs of proposed researchers should be attached to the proposal but will not be part of the page count. (Technical) • A budget that corresponds to the accomplishment of all tasks described in the Scope of Work in Paper #2. The budget can be presented in Ethiopian Birr. Proposed budgets that exceed US$26,000 (at an exchange rate of US$1= ETB 8.6 cannot be considered). (Financial) Selection of the winning proposal will be based 80% on the technical part of the proposal and 20% on the financial part. The proposals must be received in the AED/BESO II office at the Ministry of Education in Addis Ababa by close of business on 21 September 2005 in order to be considered. The address is as follows: Dr. Ernest O’Neil Chief of Party AED/BESO II Project P.O. Box 13157 Addis Ababa The proposals will be evaluated and the selected research organization announced by 28 September 2005. The proposals should contain complete contact information for the research organization including the name of the lead researcher, address, telephone number, and email address. The successful research organization will be contracted by AED/Washington to conduct the study. The research organization will work closely with Dr. Elizabeth Leu, Senior Education Advisor, AED/Washington, who has overall responsibility for oversight of the study. Elizabeth Leu, Ph.D. Senior Education Advisor Global Education Center Academy for Educational Development 1825 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20009 USA 2 AED/USAID/EQUIP1 Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development Evaluation of Bids: Procedure and Outcome A limited tender procedure was carried out with an Invitation to Bid sent to 11 educational research organizations on 6 September 2005. The organizations to which the Invitation to Bid was sent were: Jimma University, Education Faculty Mekelle University, Education Faculty Alemaya University, Education Faculty Addis Ababa University, Institute of Educational Research (IER) Bahir Dar University, Faculty of Education Dilla University, Faculty of Education Ethio-Education Consultants (ETEC) Addis Education, Training and Development Consultants PLC (ADET) Unity University College St. Mary’s College Alpha University College Four bids were received by the deadline of 21 September 2005 from the following organizations: Jimma University, Education Faculty Addis Ababa University, Institute of Educational Research Addis Education, Training and Development Consultants PLC (ADET) Ethio-Education Consultants (ETEC) The following procedure was employed in the evaluation of the bids: • A Selection Committee was formed consisting of Ato Yeshitla, Ato Tebabu, Dr. Ernest and Dr. Elizabeth. • Evaluation criteria were developed and agreed upon (the evaluation form is attached). • The bids were opened at the BESO office in the Ministry of Education in the presence of Ato Yeshitla, Ato Tebabu, Ato Mulatu, and Dr. Ernest on 21 September 2005. • The four bids were photocopied and supplied to each member of the Selection Committee along with four copies of the evaluation form (the bids were faxed and sent by DHL to Dr. Elizabeth in Washington). • A meeting was held of the Selection Committee on 10 October 2005 with Ato Yeshitla, Dr. Ernest, and Dr. Elizabeth present. Ato Tebabu was not able to be present but Ato Mulatu represented him with his completed evaluation form. • On the basis of overall ranking of the four bids, Jima University was ranked fourth and ADET was ranked third. There was a tie between IER and ETEC with two evaluators putting IER first and two putting ETEC first. A discussion was held on the two bids but the meeting could not be continued because of outside commitments of Ato Yeshitla and Dr. Ernest. • The Selection Committee gave Dr. Elizabeth two assignments: o add up the evaluation criteria item by item and see which organization came first and second numerically according to the 15 criteria o call both organizations to clarify gaps in the two proposals (a verbal explanation was accepted from each institution) • Dr. Elizabeth first added up the scores item by item from the Evaluation of Bids format. IER received 98 marks and ETEC received 105 marks, the lowest score winning according to the way the evaluation criteria were constructed. • Dr. Elizabeth called Dr. Daniel at IER and ascertained that the four senior researchers named in the proposal would themselves carry out the interviews in the four regions and do the analysis themselves. Dr. Daniel assured Dr. Elizabeth that this was the case and that time had been set aside in each person’s schedule to complete the work on time. He emphasized the necessity of having experienced data collectors for qualitative research, able to capture “thick description” and have the data collectors carry through with the analysis of the data and write-up of the study. He emphasized that personal contact with the interviewed teachers was particularly important in case study research. • Dr. Elizabeth called Ato Kebede at ETEC to clarify questions about the personnel who would work on the research study and how roles and responsibilities would be allocated between the “centrally based professionals” and the “field researchers”. Ato Kebede suggested that Ato Gabehyeu, Ato Debebe, and Dr. Abiy come briefly to the BESO office in the afternoon, which they did. This conversation confirmed that the centrally based professionals named in the proposal would not be directly involved in data collection in the field, but would train and supervise four regional teams of three field researchers each who would actually carry out the data collection. The centrally based professionals would analyze the data submitted by these teams and write up the study. • Ato Yeshitla and Dr. Elizabeth met on 11 October 2005 in the presence of Ato Mulatu and came to the consensus that the winner of the bid was Addis Ababa University, Institute of Educational Research (IER). The rationale for the selection were the following: o IER won on the numerical score 2 o IER design of data collection, analysis, and study report write-up involving the same team of four senior researchers carrying out the interviews in the field, analyzing data, and writing up the study is more appropriate for qualitative case study research than the ETEC design of using Addis-based researchers to train and conduct long-distance supervision of the relatively inexperienced field-based teams carrying out interviews and analyze data from teachers and school settings that they have not experienced themselves Verification of consensus on selection procedure and outcome: ----------------------------------------------- (signature/date) ----------------------------------------------- (signature/date) ----------------------------------------------- (signature/date) ----------------------------------------------- (signature/date) 3 The Institute of Educational Research Addis Ababa University ETHIOPIA PILOT STUDY OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT￾AED/USAID/EQUIP1 Classroom Observation Instructions and Guidelines 1. The following classroom observation form measures school and classroom achievement in areas that affect the curriculum within the Namibian Education Reform. 2. Observations will be entered in a database. The following standardised procedures are necessary to maintain data quality: • Two lower primary teachers in every sample school will be observed once. • Each classroom observation form reflects one complete lesson period. • An observation might stretch over two periods if the observer feels they need more time to find evidence of certain behaviour/lesson components. • Only classroom observations in the following subjects will be entered into the database: English, home language/mother tongue, mathematics, environmental studies. • The school will be informed about the purpose and time of the visit. 3. The observer should try to arrive at school before the classes begin. If possible, the observer should talk to the teachers, in the company of the principal, before the class, and complete Section 1 (Policy and Procedures) prior to the class. If, however, there is not enough time to complete Section 1 before the time, it should be done after the observations or in the afternoon. (Allow about 4 hours for lesson observations). 4. The observation should be for an entire period of the class. For classroom observation entered in the database, the observer should not enter the classroom after the class has started. (In such cases the observer should stay for the next lesson as well). 5. Data from the observations need to be sent to NIED in the pre-paid, marked envelopes. A copy of the completed instrument should stay with the observer, in case something gets lost. 6. Before the lesson, the teacher is informed that the following will be required from her: Syllabuses Lesson plans Assessment record forms Learners’ written work Homework books 7. Monitoring could start by 12 June 2002 and be completed by 07 August 2002. All completed observation forms should be returned to NIED by 16 August 2002. 1 1. Observer ____________________ 2. Region ____________________ 3. School ID ___________________ 4. School code ________________ 5. Teacher ID __________________ 6. Teacher code ________________ 7. Gender (circle) M F 8. Grade (circle) Gr. 1 Gr. 2 Gr. 3 9. Class size _________ learners 10. Subject observed (circle) a) English b) Mother tongue/Home Language c) Mathematics d) Environmental Studies 11. Teacher’s latest, completed qualification (circle) a) TTI Graduate b) Grade 12 c) Grade 10-11 d) Other (indicate qualification) ______________ 12. Years of experience, teaching lower primary (circle) a. 1 – 3 years b. 4 – 6 years c. 7 – 10 years d. more than 10 years 1. Policies and Procedures (This section should be checked before the actual classroom observation. Request the principal to call the two teachers who form part of the sample and administer it separately as an interview). A. The teacher has easy access to all the lower primary syllabi. 1. Yes 2. No B. There is evidence that the teacher uses the syllabus to plan the lesson. 1. Yes 2 2. No C. The teacher has a prepared lesson plan. 1. Yes 2. No D. The lesson is clearly based on the basic competencies/learning objectives from the syllabus (Indicate in the syllabus). 1. Yes 2. No E. The lesson plan includes ways to assess the learning 1. Yes 2. No F. Absenteeism is a problem in this school. 1. Yes 2. No G. The school has a teacher attendance register? 1. Yes 2. No H. The school follows a procedure to make provision for absent teachers? 1. Yes 2. No I. Teachers know what these procedures are. 1. Yes 2. No 3 J. The school has procedures to deal with learners who are absent regularly or for long periods of time. 1. Yes 2. No K. Teachers know what these procedures are? 1. Yes 2. No L. The teachers know which learners in their class come from broken/one parent/parentless homes? 1. Yes 2. No M. The school has a procedure to handle such learners’ needs at the school. 1. Yes 2. No N. The teachers know what these procedures are? 1. Yes 2. No 2. Classroom Management (roles, environment and discipline) A. The physical arrangement in the class supports teaching and learning. 1. Yes 2. No B. The arrangement of the learners/desks supports the different activities. 4 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A C. The teacher assures that all learners have access to resources (textbooks, stationery, writing on board). 1. Yes 2. No D. The classroom has learning material displayed on the wall (Check all that apply). 1. The classroom has no displays 2. Printed material 3. Teacher-made material 4. Learner-made material 5. Real objects (realia) E. The teacher directs questions to all learners? 1. Yes 2. No F. The teacher requests specific learners to answer questions. 1. Yes 2. No G. Learners shout answers out. 1. Yes 2. No H. The atmosphere in the class permits all learners to learn. 1. Yes 2. No 5 I. Teacher attitude (tick which applies). 1. Teacher has a friendly attitude to the learners 2. Teacher shows respect for the learners 3. Teacher models high standard of behaviour 4. Teacher knows the learners’ names 5. Teacher appears to care about them personally 6. Teacher seems to be motivated 7. The teacher praises the learners for good attempts 8. The teacher encourages learners’ less successful attempts 3. Learner Centred Education A. Achievable lesson objectives are stated clearly (at the start of the lesson) or are visually available (in the lesson plan). 1. Yes 2. No B. The teacher manages to adapt the lesson objectives (if necessary)? 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A C. LC Teaching Strategies used (check all that apply). 1. Interactive group work 2. Interactive pair work 3. Individual assignments 4. Teacher monitors group/individual/pair work 5. The teacher asks open ended questions 6. Teacher gives frequent and appropriate feedback 7. Relate lesson to learner experience and knowledge 8. Use multiple examples from learners’ experience 9. Link information/theme/topic to other subjects 6 10. Boys and girls get opportunities to participate in learning activities D. Indications that learners are actively engaged (check all that apply). 1. Learners “talk and act” more than “sit and listen” in class 2. Learners initiate questions and comments 3. Learners are presenting information to others (in group/pair/individually) 4. Questions and activities move around the class (front/back, sides, boys/girls) 5. Learners appear to be animated and interested 6. Learners are playing learning games 7. Learners are manipulating materials 8. Learners are participating in various activities 9. Any other (example in field notes) E. Teacher uses relevant teaching aids (check all that apply). 1. textbooks 2. chalkboard 3. printed materials 4. drawings 5. teacher-made materials 6. learner-made materials 7. materials from the environment (seeds, pebbles, tins, bottles) 8. realia (bread, butter, colours, flowers, frogs!) 7 The Institute of Educational Research Addis Ababa University ETHIOPIA PILOT STUDY OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT￾AED/USAID/EQUIP1 School Demographics 1. Student Enrolment , dropout and repetition from 2001-2005 Year Enrolment Dropout Repetition Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 2001/1993 2002/1994 2003/1995 2004/1996 2005/1997 2. Primary School Teachers’ Qualification by Level (2001-2005) Levels 1-4 5-8 Below TTI TTI Graduates Below Diploma (TTI, 12th , 11th complete Diploma &above Year No. % No. % No % No % 2001/1993 2002/1994 2003/1995 2004/1996 2005/1997 3. Average Pupil-section, pupil-teacher and pupil textbook ratios in core subjects Levels 1-4 5-8 Year PSR PTR Pupil –Textb R PSR PTR Pupil –TextbR 2000/1992 2001/1993 2002/1994 2003/1995 2004/1996 4. Check the Availability and/or the sufficiency of some basic infrastructure and facilities in the school by making your own observation Facilities/infrastructure Available Not Available Sufficient (only if Available) Not Sufficient (if Available) Not Functional Library Laboratory Pedagogical center Recreation services Sport fields Latrines Electricity Telecommunication Water services Furniture 2 The Institute of Educational Research Addis Ababa University ETHIOPIAN PILOT STUDY OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT- AED/USAID/EQUIP1 FGD Guide for Teachers Regional State: ------------------------------------ School name: ------------------------------------ FGD date: ------------------------------------ Chairperson: ------------------------------------ Recorder Time FGD started: ------------------------------------ Time FGD was completed: ------------------------------------ Profile of the participants Teacher’s Name Sex Subject(s) the teacher teaches Grade the teacher teachers Educational Qualificatio n Year s of servi ce Years you have taught in this school 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. How well do you think that the pre-service professional training prepared teachers for the job? What are the major strengths and weaknesses of the pre-service training program? 2. What is good quality education? How can it be observed? What are its indicators? How do you explain good teaching and good learning? 3. How would you evaluate the quality of teaching and learning in the primary schools in general and your own school in particular? 4. What professional development schemes are available for teachers in this school and for teachers in other schools? What is the extent of teachers’ participation in this program? 5. Do you think the teacher professional development program has resulted in better learning and better quality of education in your school and other schools? If yes, in what ways? If not, why? 6. How can a teacher determine or assess that successful learning has taken place? 7. What do you consider the biggest challenges/obstacles in becoming a good teacher in your school and in other schools in the locality? 8. What do you suggest as most critical and top priority measures in connection to the following areas? 8.1. Improving the current teacher professional development programs 8.2. Ensuring teacher’s implementation of the knowledge, skills and experiences gained through Teacher professional development 1 The Institute of educational Research Addis Ababa University ETHIOPIA PILOT STUDY OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT- AED/USAID/EQUIP1 Questionnaire for Primary School Teachers Dear Teacher: The Institute of Educational Research of the Addis Ababa University, in collaboration with the Academy for Educational Development (AED) is conducting a study on teacher Professional Development in Ethiopia. You are kindly requested to spare few minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire. The information you give is valuable and we will keep it confidential. Kindly complete the questionnaire by circling the letter that indicates your responses for questions that have alternative responses and by writing your responses for items that require completion. Thank you in advance. I. Background Information of the school 1. Geographical location: Region _____zone_______ Woreda _______ 2. Name of the School:_____________________________________ 3. Location of the School: a) Rural _____ b) Urban _______ 4. School level: a) 1-4 b) 1-6 c) 1-8 d) 5-8 5. Sex of the respondent: a) male b) Female 6. A) Educational level _________________ b) specialization ___________ 7. Age ______ 8. Work Experience: a) below 5 years b) 6-10 years c) 11-15 years d) 16-20 years e) 21 and above years 9. Your age: (a) 20 – 30 (b) 31- 40 (c) over 40. 10. Marital Status (a) single (b) married (c) divorced (d) widowed 11. How long have you been in this school ________________ 12. Have you ever participated in any teacher professional development program? (a). Yes (b) no 13. How do you define teacher professional development? ------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. What subjects do you teach now in this school (please list them) a-----------------. b.------------------ c-----------------. II. Concept on Quality Teaching 15. Quality teaching means; 2 a. involving students in the class discussion b. giving assignments to students all the time c. improving students achievements d. having good relations with students e. giving good lectures f. teachers mastery of subjects g. any other(specify)--------------------------------------------------------------- 16. How do you ensure successful teaching in your classroom? a. By asking students to repeat what is discussed in the class b. By giving class assignments c. By asking questions d. Any other(specify)---------------------------------- 17. What kind of teaching method (s) do you use in your classroom? a. giving good lectures all the time b. emphasizing student discussions, questions and answers. c. combination of a & b d. any other(specify).------------------------------- 18. Which of the following support your efforts to become to a good quality teacher? a. programs in school b. workshops c. interaction with your colleagues d. support from the principal e. good teaching/learning materials f. Any other(specify)---------------------------------- 19. What does good student learning mean to you? a. Active participation of students in the class b. High score in class tests c. High score in final examination e. Reciting what has been said in the class. f. Any other (please specify)_____________________________ 20. How do you determine or assess that successful learning has taken place in your classroom? a. By asking questions b. By the level of student engagement in the class c. By the type of questions the students ask. d. I use my own judgment e. Any other (please specify)_____________________________ 21 . What makes one a good teacher? a. the educational level of an individual b. the type of training that one gets after graduation c. support from the school community d. personal effort e. any other(specify)---------------------------------------------------------- 3 22. Indicate how often you participated in the following activities in the last seven years by using X mark. Please also write and rate other teacher professional development activities in which you have been engaged. More than five times Five times Four times Three times Twice Only once Never a. Workshops b. Conferences c. Action Research / Class research d.Material preparation e.Participation in cluster activities f.Material preparation g. h. i. j. 23. List the kinds of support you like to get from your school to improve your teaching profession. a.-------------------------------------------------------- b. ------------------------------------------------------- c.-------------------------------------------------------- d--------------------------------------------------------- 24. What are your visions to improve the teaching profession? (be brief and to the point). The Institute of Educational Research Addis Ababa University ETHIOPIA PILOT STUDY OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT￾AED/USAID/EQUIP1 Interview guide for Primary School Teachers Regional State: ------------------------------------ School name: ------------------------------------ Teacher code: ------------------------------------ Interview date: ------------------------------------ Interviewer: ------------------------------------ Time interview started: ------------------------------------ Time interview was completed: ------------------------------------ 1. Background information about the teacher 1.1 Gender M ( ) F ( ) 1.2. Qualification Grade 12 complete ( ) ; 12+1 ( ) ; TTI ( ) ; Certificate ( ) ; Diploma ( ) ; Others (Please specify)________________________________ 1.3 Years of total teaching experience _______________________________ 1.4 Years you have taught in this school _____________________________ 1.5 Age __________________ 1.6 Are you from this area (regional state) _____________________ 2. Pre-service professional training 2.1. Why did you decide to become a teacher? 2.2. Would you explain your pre-service professional training? What was your specialization (if any in your pre-serves training? What was the name of the institution? When was it? What did you like most about the training? Why? What did you like least? Why? How well do you think that the pre-service professional training prepared you for the job? 3. Basic information on the teacher’s present teaching duties 3.1. How many class periods per week do you teach?________________ 3.2. What grades do you teach?_________________________________ 3.3. What subjects do you teach?________________________________ 3.4. What do you consider your main responsibilities as a teacher? Probes:-Main responsibilities in the classroom?-Main responsibilities outside of the classroom, with students outside of the classroom, with other teachers, with community members? 4. The teacher’s construction of concepts of quality of education 4.1How would you define or describe good quality of education in general? Probes: -Give some concrete examples of good quality of education (in the classroom, within the school as a whole, in parents’ involvement with their children’s education, in the success of children in their lives, in students’ academic qualities, in students’ civic and human qualities, etc.)? 4.2 How do these ideas about quality of education affect your practice (e.g. help to guide what you do as a teacher in your classroom, within the school, or within the community?) 5. The teacher’s concepts of quality of teaching 5.1 How would you define or describe quality of teaching? 5.2 Give some concrete examples of good quality of teaching. 5.3 How do you ensure successful teaching in your classroom? 5.4 How do you know when one approach/teaching strategy works better than another? 5.5 What are the main things that support your efforts to become a good quality teacher (programs in the school, workshops, interaction with your colleagues, support from the principal, good teaching/learning materials, etc.)? 6. The teacher’s concepts of quality of student learning 6.1 Give two or three concrete examples of good student learning. 6.2. As a teacher, are you concerned with different kinds of student learning (academic, social, values, civic responsibility, skills, knowledge of the environment, respect for culture, etc.). Please explain and give examples. 6.3 How do you evaluate your own teaching? Is it student cantered or teacher cantered? What are your reasons for choosing the approach you use now? 6.4. How do you determine or assess that successful learning has taken place? 7. Influence of professional development programs on the teacher’s practice 7.1. In what ways has the teacher professional development program influenced or shaped your ideas about education quality? 7.2. Explain the kind of the teacher professional development training program you have had (at this school/at other schools - such as being called to occasional workshops, summer programs, etc). 2 7.3. In what ways has the teacher professional development program influenced or shaped your practice (what you do in the classroom, how you do it)? 7.4. Reflect on individual workshops that you have attended, describe them and explain how they have influenced your practice and your attitudes to your work. 8. Professional development programs available to the teacher at the school or cluster level 8.1. Do you have any professional development programs at the school level or at the cluster level? 8.2 Give some specific examples of how the teacher professional development program activities have changed your classroom practice 9. Influences on the teacher’s changing/improving practice 9.1. Can you remember if there was a time when your classroom practice changed? 9.2 When was this? What happened to change your practice? 9.3 Was this change or practice for the best? How do you know that? 9.4 How did your learners react to it? 9.5 Do your students learn better as a result of your changing practice? How do you know that? 10. Challenges to teacher professional practices and suggestions for Improvement 10.1. What do you consider the biggest challenges in becoming a good teacher? 10.2. At what level do you think the major obstacles to improving the quality of teaching and learning lie? 10.2.1. Teacher level Yes ( ) No ( ) What are the obstacles at this level; what do you suggest as a solution? 10.2.2. School level Yes ( ) No ( ) What are the obstacles at this level; what do you suggest as a solution? 10.2.3. Community level Yes ( ) No ( ) What are the obstacles at this level; what do you suggest as a solution? 10.2.4. Woreda level Yes ( ) No ( ) What are the obstacles at this level; what do you suggest as a solution? 10.2.5. Zonal level Yes ( ) No ( ) What are the obstacles at this level; what do you suggest as a solution? 3 10.2.6. Regional/National level Yes ( ) No ( ) What are the obstacles at this level; what do you suggest as a solution? 10.3. What are your plans/wishes concerning your professional development in the coming five years? 10.4. What do you suggest as most critical and top priority measures in connection to the following areas? 10.4.1. Improving the current teacher professional development programs 10.4.2. Ensuring teacher’s implementation of the knowledge, skills and experiences gained through Teacher professional development 4 The Institute of Educational Research Addis Ababa University ETHIOPIA PILOT STUDY OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT￾AED/USAID/EQUIP1 Interview Guide for collecting data from Principals Date _________ Interviewer:_______________ Time Interview started ______ Time Interview ended _______ Instruction For collecting pertinent information on Teacher Professional Development practices, interview guide is given below. The interview guide begins with major leading questions followed by detailed issues. For both the major and detailed interview questions, the researchers should take their own notes. After asking the major questions (issues), the researchers should proceed by asking the detailed questions to get detailed information from the respondents. I. Background Information 1. Geographical location: Region _________zone__________ Woreda _____________ 2. Name of the School:_____________________________________ 3. Location of the School: a) Rural _____ b) Urban _______ 4. School level: a) 1-4 b) 1-6 c) 1-8 d) 5-8 5. Sex of the respondent: a) male b) Female 6. A) Educational level _________________ b) specialization ___________ c) Age ______ 7. Work Experience: a) below 5 years b) 6-10 years c) 11-15 years d) 16-20 years e) 21 and above years II. The principal's perceptions on quality of education 8. How do you see/judge the quality of education offered in your school? 9. Are you satisfied with the quality of education offered in you school? If Yes or No, why or why not? 10. How would you define or describe good quality of education? 11. Can you give examples of good quality of education? 12. How would you define or describe good quality of teaching 13. Can you give examples of good quality of teaching? 14. What is successful teaching? 15. How would you define or describe good quality of student learning? 16. What is quality of learning in your opinion? Please give an example. 17. How is successful learning determined? III. Principal’s intervention for improving quality of Education by enhancing Teachers’ Professional Development 18. How do you describe Teachers’ professional Development? 19. I would like to know what procedures you follow in to develop teachers’ profession that can lead to quality education. 20. How do you see your role in creating quality of education and quality of teaching in your school? 21. Would you please comment on how you monitor student-learning progress closely in order to improve quality? 22. Please tell me your experience of how you involve parents and community members in supporting the school success to improve quality of education in your school. 23. Name the three most important things you do to encourage good quality of education in your school. 24. Describe how you work with teachers to support the improvement of their practice. IV. Program intervention for enhancing teachers’ professional development which made on quality of education 25. Which programmes or interventionas in your opinion have had the most impact on improving quality of education in your school? (If cluster schooling is mentioned, ask what impact it has in the school) 26. Describe the impact that this programme/intervention has on the way you manage your school. 27. Describe the impact that this programme/intervention on the way teachers teach. 28. Describe the impact that the programme/intervention has on learners learning more successfully? V. Sustainability of the programme/intervention 29. Will the school be able to sustain the changes brought about by the programme? VI. Policy on professional development for teachers 30. Does the school have a policy to promote continuous professional development of teachers at the school level or within the school? 31. If YES, what is this policy? 32. Describe how the professional development activities are implemented? 33. When do the professional development activities happen? 2 34. Describe what happens in a professional development session. 35.Describe how this affects teachers’ practice and morale. 3 AED/USAID/EQUIP1 Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development To: From: Elizabeth Leu, Ph.D. Senior Education Advisor Global Education Center Academy for Educational Development 1825 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington DC 20009 USA Attached is an Invitation to Bid on a qualitative research study entitled “Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development”. We would like to encourage your education research organization to submit a bid to carry out this study as outlined in the attached documents. Paper #1 USAID/EQUIP1/AED Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development: Conceptual Framework and Study Design Introduction Improving the quality of education has become an imperative for most education systems, as rapidly expanding enrolments threaten to overwhelm quality gains and progress made in the introduction of reforms in curriculum and teaching. Education quality depends on a complex combination of factors that come together at the school and classroom levels. The most important of these factors is widely understood to be quality of teachers and teaching. Teacher quality itself is the result of a complex process, with inservice professional development shown to have a strong impact on teacher quality. (ADEA 2004; ADEA forthcoming; Boyle et al. 2003; Craig et al. 1998; UNESCO 2004) This vision guides the small-scale pilot study in Ethiopia which will identify key factors in professional development that lead to improved teacher quality. The recently conducted grade 4 and grade 8 national student assessments in Ethiopia indicate that teacher inservice professional development is correlated with improved student learning at both grade levels.1 Although the student assessments indicate a correlation, they do not explain the complex process through which teachers learn and improve through professional development, nor do they help us understand what kinds of professional development are most effective in improving teacher practice or how good teacher practice translates into student learning. The proposed study will add explanatory power and depth of understanding to the critically important finding of the student assessments by examining how teachers learn and change, with a particular focus on the impact of professional development. The study therefore should be of interest to policy makers, planners and program developers who design and implement programs to improve teacher quality. Contextual Issues The most important contextual issue for this study is the way in which Ethiopian education policy defines quality of education, quality of teaching, and quality of student learning. As outlined in a variety of policy documents, starting with the New Education and Training Policy (NETP) of 1994 and more recently in documents relating to the Ministry of Education’s Teacher Education System Overhaul (TESO) Program, Ethiopian education policies in curriculum and instruction are explicitly based on active-learning, student-centered, and problem-solving approaches 1 Ethiopian Second National Assessment of Grade Four Students (2004); Ethiopian Second National Learning Assessment of Grade Eight Students (2004). associated with constructivism. (Government of Ethiopia 1994; Government of Ethiopia 2002) Within this policy context, teachers are now faced with the complex task of ensuring that their students engage in meaningful learning, learn through various forms of active learning, and learn to use higher-order thinking skills. This requires understanding and skills that go far beyond the traditional teacher-centered approaches of the past based on memorization of facts and information The Ministry of Education (MOE) has created TESO as its main program for addressing this issue through improved teacher education programs at the preservice and inservice levels. TESO works to improve teachers’ understanding of and ability to implement the active-learning approaches which form the policy base for curriculum and instruction in Ethiopia. Several partners work together with the Ministry of Education to implement programs related to TESO. For example, the USAID-funded AED/BESO II Program works with the MOE and the Regional Education Bureaus (REBs) to achieve TESO objectives through the support of teacher inservice professional development in 300 clusters of schools (approximately 1,200 schools) throughout the country. The study proposed here is intended to provide valuable information that may be used to suggest promising future directions for these programs. Study Goals and Guiding Questions The goal of this small pilot study is to analyze and describe the ways in which teachers learn and change, with an emphasis on learning more about the impact of teacher inservice professional development programs. The following questions will guide the study: • What factors of teacher development and teacher learning influence change and improvement of practice? • What is the influence of teacher professional development programs, especially ongoing cluster- and school-based professional development, in promoting teacher learning, change and improvement of practice? • How do teachers construct their concepts of quality of education and what is the relationship between teachers’ constructions of quality and their practice? Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for the study is derived from the literature and research on teacher learning as well as from program experience. It is based on the hypothesis that the dynamic relationships and mediating factors described below influence teacher learning, teacher practice and student learning. (Adger et al. 2004; Craig et al. 1998; Darling-Hammond 1998; Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995; Fenstermacher and Richardson 2000; Garet et al. 2001; Leu 2004; Lieberman 1995; Tatto 2000) This complex process is outlined below: 2 • Teachers’ opportunities to learn are critical but they do not translate directly into good practice. Translating the opportunity to learn into good practice depends on a variety of mediating factors - personal characteristics of the teacher, factors of policy, and conditions at the local level. A teacher’s opportunities to learn, therefore, combine with mediating factors to determine his or her practice. • Practice itself is not static; ideally it will change and improve as teachers gain new knowledge and skills, deeper understanding of their students, and increasing confidence and professionalism throughout the years of their practice. Conversely, if teachers become demoralized or complaisant, practice can deteriorate throughout the career of a teacher. • A teacher’s practice, although critical, does not translate directly into student learning. Even the best teacher practice is filtered through a range of mediating school and student factors to determine student learning. The complex process at the school, classroom and community levels outlined above can be visualized in the following way: Teachers’ opportunities to learn (a continuum of teacher learning) • Combine with mediating factors at the school level associated with teacher effectiveness: teachers’ understanding of new idea teachers’ commitment to change relevance of curriculum enabling policies cultural factors community support school leadership, school climate teacher motivation, status, teacher evaluation systems level of supervision and support at the school level nature of examinations resources available to teachers gender status and relationships power relationships at the school and community level etc. • To create: Teaching practices (dynamic, always changing and maturing) • Combine with mediating factors at the school level associated with student learning: students’ abilities, motivation, and prior school experience students’ and teachers’ time on task students’ and communities’ attitudes to education socio-economic status of students power relationships within the classroom and community 3 gender attitudes students’ health status, cultural factors demands for children’s labor in the family etc. • To create: Student learning (learning as defined within an education system) Despite the range of mediating factors that stand as help or hindrance between teacher learning and student learning, teachers’ opportunities to learn and change are critical and constitute the element in the process that has the strongest impact on quality of student learning. The pilot study described here will focus primarily on the first part of this conceptual framework, attempting to draw relationships between teacher learning and teaching practices. Further inferences will be drawn between teacher practices and successful student learning. Study Design and Methodology Overview The design of the study has been discussed with the Ministry of Education and four regional state education bureaus and has been approved as described below. An Advisory Group will be established at the MOE to advise on the progress of the study and suggest how the results can be used to inform existing professional development programs for teachers. The study will be put to bid by a limited tender to specialized education research organizations in order to identify the best research organization to carry out the study. The following study design is proposed. The study is qualitative, consisting of case studies of 24 grade 4 teachers. (Yin 2003) The study will be carried out in three focus schools in each of four regional states. A male and a female teacher will be interviewed in depth in each school. In addition to the core in-depth study of 24 teachers, an interview will be carried out with the principals of the schools in which they teach and focus-group discussions will be carried out with 6 to 8 teachers in each of the 12 focus schools (approximately 84 additional teachers). A quantitative survey will be carried out with approximately 400 teachers, 100 in each of the regions. The study, therefore, has both depth and breadth from the qualitative (case studies, interviews and focus-group discussions) and quantitative (survey) dimensions. This study is designed to focus on the critically important area of educational process at the school level, providing “thick description” of the perspectives of a small group of 24 individual teachers on how they learn and think and how they put their learning and thinking into practice. This information from these 24 case studies will be compared and triangulated with information from the focus-group discussions with approximately 84 teachers and the quantitative survey of 400 teachers. The study results overall are intended to complement and add an explanatory dimension to the 4 findings of the national student assessments that revealed a correlation between teacher professional development and student learning. The proposed sample of 24 teachers in 12 different primary schools is small, although it is a very large number for case study research. The 24 teachers and schools will be selected purposively (see below), which is a usual sample-selection approach in qualitative research. The results are expected to be valid since they will demonstrate internal consistency, particularly as a result of the triangulation of data. The results will not be representative or statistically significant, as is the case in most qualitative studies, because of the small sample involved. Because of the depth of information to be provided through the teacher case studies, augmented through information from the focus-group discussions and the quantitative survey, the results of the study should have the power to indicate significant trends in teacher learning and influences on their practice, thus giving information not previously available on how teachers learn and improve the quality of their practice. Implementation of the study The study will be implemented by an experienced research organization in Ethiopia contracted by AED to conduct the study. A bidding process through limited tender will be carried out in order to identify the organization that is most capable of conducting high-quality qualitative research. The research organization identified will be experienced in collecting data on process and “thick description” of practice through the use of in-depth open-ended interviews and classroom observations. The research organization will assist in the construction of interview protocols and draft the final report of the study. Sample size and school/teacher selection Schools: • The study will take place in groups of three schools in each of four regions, Oromia, Amhara, SNNPR and Tigrai which include a significant percentage of the Ethiopian population. • Within each regional group of three schools, one school will be in an urban area and two in rural areas that are not far from the regional capital. • The study will include, in each region, two schools that are deemed to be more successful, and one that is less successful, according to the national student assessments and grade 8 leaving examinations. The REBs will select the schools in cooperation with the researchers. • In each region, two of the schools selected will be participating in the BESO cluster program and the other school will not be participating, allowing the influence of the cluster inservice program to emerge through the study. Teachers: • Twenty-four grade 4 teachers will be selected for the case studies, two (a male and a female) in each of the 12 schools. 5 • They will all hold certificates from a Teacher Education Institution (TEI) and will have at least five years of teaching experience in their present school. • In the analysis of the data, similarities and differences in the professional learning experiences of female and male teachers will be identified. Data sources The core of the study will be 24 case studies constructed from in-depth information gathered from the 24 teachers working in 12 school environments, using information from other sources to augment and add depth and context to information gathered directly from the 24 teachers. Data sources for the study are as follows: • Twenty-four core (case study) teachers: Through the use of open-ended interview instruments, the 24 case study teachers in 12 focus schools (a male and a female in each school) will be asked to reflect in depth upon how they have learned and the factors that influence changing and improving practice, the impact of inservice professional development on their practice, and how their concepts of quality relate to their practice. • Classroom observations: Classroom observations of the 24 core teachers will establish a description of each teacher’s practice in order to compare the way they describe their practice with how they actually teach. • School directors/principals: Short interviews with the directors of the 12 focus schools will be conducted to gather further information about issues of quality at the school level, school leadership, the principals’ role in instructional leadership, inservice programs available to teachers in the school, the creation of communities of practice, and positive school climate. • School demographics: Quantitative information will be collected at each of the 12 focus schools on student, school and community demographics. This will include information on student achievement, using the grade 4 and grade 8 national student assessment information as proxies for overall school quality. It will also include information on demographic and socio-economic factors of the school population. • Other teachers in focus schools: A focus-group discussion will be carried out in each of the schools with a group of 6 to 8 teachers, including a total of approximately 84 teachers overall. This will expand the information provided by the case study teachers and indicate similarities and differences between the data collected from the case study teachers and other teachers in the school. • Accompanying survey instrument: An accompanying quantitative survey instrument will be developed to collect data from a wider group of teachers in additional schools on similar issues - how the teachers think about their practice and what influences improvement of practice. This instrument will be distributed 6 to 100 grade 4 teachers in each of the four regions, equaling a total of approximately 400 teachers surveyed. The information on trends in teachers’ thinking and practice obtained from three of the above sources will be compared and triangulated: • In-depth interviews with the 24 core grade 4 teachers • Focus-group discussions with approximately 84 other grade 4 teachers in the 12 schools and interviews with school principals • Survey of 400 grade 4 teachers, 100 in each of the four regions In addition to the above data sources, interviews will be conducted with relevant education officials at the national and regional levels to provide contextual information about education policies in general and teacher professional development programs in particular. Development of instruments Instruments for interviews, protocols for classroom observation, guidelines for focus￾group discussions, and instruments for quantitative data collection will be developed in accordance with the objectives of the study. AED will develop the instruments and work together with the selected research organization to refine and complete the instruments. Collection of data Experienced qualitative researchers will spend two weeks in each of the four regions collecting data in the three focus schools (see the proposed schedule for each region in the attached Scope of Work). The research organization may want to assign two, three or four researchers for the data collection in different regions. In-depth interviews with the case study teachers will be carried out. Two classroom observations of the case study teachers will be completed. A focus-group discussion with a group of 6-8 teachers will be carried out. Interviews with the school director will be completed and school and community demographic data collected. The researcher assigned to each region will have to know the regional language in order to guarantee the best information from the teachers and adequate classroom observations. The research institution will use between two to four researchers to collect the data. The researcher working in each region will be responsible for working with the REB to discuss the organization of the study and to distribute the survey instrument to 100 teachers in the region and ensure that the instruments are completed and collected. According to the design proposed, data collection in the regions will take place in the first semester, ideally between the end of October and the end of November 2005, with data analysis and write-up being completed in the second semester and the final study report submitted by April 2006. 7 Analysis of data An analysis framework will be developed jointly by AED and the research organization selected to carry out the study. Qualitative information from interviews and focus-group discussions will be analyzed to identify teachers’ concepts of quality, teachers’ concepts of their practice and how it changes over time, the influence of different learning opportunities on constructs of quality and practice, and the professional development that has had the greatest impact on teacher change and improvement of practice. Codes will be derived from significant categories of information that emerge from the qualitative data. Issues of importance that emerge across the different interview categories (teachers, school heads, education officials) will be cross-coded for synthesis and comparison. Quantitative information from the survey of 400 teachers will be analyzed and combined with the qualitative interview data. The information collected on school and community demographics will be analyzed and used as context information. Study results and study report The result of the data collection and analysis will be a report which presents the study results and an overall analysis of which the 24 case studies will be the anchor or central part. The report on study findings will be drafted by the contracted research organization and the team that has collected the data. Timetable for the study activities The following matrix outlines the timetable for study activities. It will be important that the timetable be followed and deadlines met so that study results can be available before the end of the upcoming academic year. This will require rapid selection of a research institution to carry out the study. Activity Timing Initiate design approval process with the MOE, USAID, and regions June-August 2005 Select research institution to carry out study September 2005 Develop/modify data collection instruments September 2005 Identify schools for data collection with REBs September/October 2005 Identify and train data collectors September/October 2005 Collect information in schools October – November 2005 Collect information from other sources October – November 2005 Collect background and context information Throughout Analyze data December 2005 – January 2006 Finish draft of study report February - March 2006 Circulate report to Advisory Committee for comment March 2006 Final study report completed April 2006 Initiate discussions on use of study results April-May 2006 8 Relevance and Use of the Study Findings Anticipated results of the study should help to inform policy makers, program designers, implementers and evaluators on programs that are most likely to increase the quality of teaching and learning. The study is expected to provide the following information: • In-depth information on how a group of teachers constructs concepts of quality, how these constructs change over time, what influences change, and how concepts of quality are related to improving practice. • In-depth information on how a group of teachers increases their knowledge and improves their practice through different approaches to teacher development, particularly inservice professional development programs. • In-depth process information on an important variable from the national student assessment, i.e. the kinds of teacher professional development that have an impact on teacher improvement and student learning. • In-depth information on teacher learning and change that can inform the design and implementation of present programs working with TESO policies, such as AED/BESO II. The Ethiopia study will be part of a series of pilot studies of education quality factors being carried out under the USAID-funded EQUIP1 Program. The studies presently are focusing on teacher quality (Namibia - AED), community participation (India – World Education), and curriculum relevance (Nigeria - EDC). These pilot studies will be incorporated into the planned EQUIP1 Cross-national Synthesis of Education Quality, a three-year comparative study of key education quality factors, drawing on the results of the pilot studies. The individual pilot studies and the Cross-national Synthesis are intended to generate in-depth information for policy makers, planners, program implementers, and evaluators on process factors at the school, classroom, and community levels that relate to education quality. The pilot study of teacher professional development in Ethiopia will make a major contribution to the Cross-national Synthesis. 9 References ADEA (Association for the Development of Education in Africa). 2004. ADEA Newsletter 16(1). ADEA (Association for the Development of Education in Africa). Forthcoming. The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris: ADEA. Adger, Carolyn Temple, Susan M. Hoyle, and David K. Dickinson. 2004. “Locating Learning in In-service Education for Preschool Teachers,” American Educational Research Journal, Winter 2004, 41, 4, 867-900. Boyle, Bill, David While, and Trudy Boyle. 2003. “A Longitudinal Study of Teacher Change: What Makes Professional Development Effective?” Working Paper No. 1. Manchester: University of Manchester, Institute for Political and Economic Governance. Craig, Helen, Richard Kraft, and Joy duPlessis. 1998. Teacher Development: Making an Impact. Washington DC: USAID and The World Bank. Darling-Hammond, Linda. 1998. “Teacher Learning That Supports Student Learning,” Educational Leadership, 55, 5, 6-11. Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Milbrey W. McLaughlin. 1995. “Policies That Support Professional Development in Era of Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan (April 1995):597–604. Fenstermacher, Gary D., and Virginia Richardson. 2000. “On Making Determinations of Quality in Teaching.” Paper commissioned by the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education. Washington DC: Board on International Comparative Studies in Education of the National Academies, National Research Council. Garet, M.S., A.C. Porter, L. Desimone, B.F. Birman, and K.S. Yoon. 2001. “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers, American Educational Research Journal, 38, 4, 915-945. Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education. 2002. Report of the Federal Task Force on Teacher Education. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education. Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education. 1994. New Education and Training Policy. Addis Ababa: Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education. 10 Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education, National Organization of Examinations (NOE). 2004. Ethiopian Second National Assessment of Grade Four Students. Addis Ababa: NOE. Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education, National Organization of Examinations (NOE). 2004. Ethiopian Second National Assessment of Grade Eight Students. Addis Ababa: NOE. Leu, Elizabeth. 2004. “The Patterns and Purposes of School-Based and Cluster Teacher Professional Development Programs.” Issues Brief #1. Washington DC: USAID, EQUIP1. Lieberman, Ann. 1995. “Practices That Support Teacher Development: Transforming Conceptions of Professional Learning.” Phi Delta Kappan, April 1995, 591–96. Tatto, Maria Teresa (2000). “Teacher Quality and Development: Empirical Indicators and Methodological Issues in the Comparative Literature.” Paper commissioned by the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education. Washington DC: Board on International Comparative Studies in Education of the National Academies, National Research Council. UNESCO. 2004. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: Education for All—The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO. Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Third Edition). London: Sage. 11 Paper #2 USAID/EQUIP1/AED Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development: Study Activities and Scope of Work An experienced research organization will be selected as a contractor to carry out the Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development in four regional states of Ethiopia (Oromia, SNNPR, Tigrai, Amhara). The conceptual framework and the design of the study are described in the attached paper entitled “Ethiopia Pilot Study of Teacher Professional Development: Conceptual Framework and Study Design”. The scope of work below refers to the design contained in that document. The study is small, but will require very high quality research as described below. The first section below outlines the required characteristics of the contractor research organization that will be selected. The second section contains the scope of work that will be carried out by the contractor research organization. The contractor research organization The selected contractor research organization will have the following characteristics: • A research organization that focuses on education research, knows the present basic education system well, knows the present education policies for basic education, particularly the new approaches to curriculum and instruction and new programs of teacher professional development at the primary level • A research organization that has experience working collaboratively with regional education bureaus, as well as with teachers, school principals, and others at the primary school level • A research organization that has high-quality researchers who have experience in qualitative and case study research – collecting information through in-depth interviews and through structured classroom observations, analyzing qualitative data, and writing draft research reports • A research organization that will also be able to administer a survey instrument and analyze the quantitative data gathered through the survey • A research organization that will be able to field experienced qualitative researchers who can interview teachers and observe classes at the grade 4 level in Amharic, Tigrigna, Afan Oromo, and possibly one of the home languages of SNNPR • A research organization that will be able to work together with an Advisory Committee established by the Ministry of Education to give advice and support to the study • A research organization that has well established administrative and financial structures and experience in carrying out research on a contract basis with international organizations • A research organization that can guarantee data gathering, data analysis, and research report drafting according to the timetable in the attached paper • A research organization that has the capacity to work closely with AED in Washington through very frequent email consultation • A research organization that has the ability to submit a proposal that demonstrates the above characteristics and the ability to carry out a high-quality study within the specified budget parameters Scope of work for the pilot study The following outlines activities to be carried out as part of the study, containing a description of activities that will be the responsibility of the contractor research organization and those that will be the responsibility of AED. This scope of work, as well as the attached paper, should be used by bidding research organizations as a guideline for developing a response and a budget for the bid. Initiation of the study Activities to be carried out by the contractor research organization: • Discuss the study design with AED and the MOE Advisory Committee to ensure thorough understanding of the objectives and implementation of the study • Work with AED to complete the final drafts of interview, observation, and survey instruments (AED will produce the first draft of the instruments) • Select the researchers to work in each region based on qualitative research experience and language ability • Develop a tentative schedule for data collection and travel to the regions • Contact regions to discuss the study, work with the regions in the selection of schools and teachers • Discuss and agree on a schedule for data collection with the regions The following is a summary of the data sources and data collection instruments to be developed (AED will develop drafts the instruments and they will be refined through discussions with the contractor): Data sources Data collection instrument Interviews with case study teachers Interview protocol Interviews with school heads Interview protocol Focus group discussions in schools Discussion guide Classroom observations Classroom observation schedule Survey of 75 teachers in each region Survey instrument/questionnaire Collection of school-level data on student, teacher, and community characteristics Data collection schedule Document analysis and interviews concerning the system’s history and present policies, visions of education quality and quality of teaching/learning, information on the vision and practice of continuing professional development programs Guiding framework but no specific instruments Literature review Guiding framework but no specific 2 instruments Collection of data in four regional states – according to the design in the attached paper Activities to be carried out by the contractor research organization: • Ensure that the researchers who will collect data are understand thoroughly the purposes and design of the study • Conduct training with the researchers who will collect data using the interview and observation instruments as the basis of the training to ensure good quality in-depth interviews, accurate and complete recording of interview information, transcribing of notes, uniformity of approach and quality of data across researchers • The research organization will ensure through the training that the researchers who will collect data are able to establish a relationship of trust with those interviewed, and know how to ask questions and probe beyond the questions per se in order to get rich, meaningful, detailed, and powerful information • The research organization will guarantee confidentiality and anonymity of all information provided in interviews and observations • The research organization will arrange all logistics for the study (travel to the four regions, per diem for researchers, and transportation of researchers within the regions), provision of materials needed (duplicated copies of interview and observation protocols and survey instruments, sufficient writing materials, etc.) The data collection process will take approximately two weeks in each regional state including consultation with the REB, conducting all of the interviews and observations, and administration of the survey instrument. A suggested schedule for data collection in each region follows: Day Activity 1 (Sunday) Travel to the regional state 2 (Monday) Discuss organization of study with REB Organize REB assistance to distribute the survey instrument to 100 grade 4 teachers over a ten day period of time 3 (Tuesday) School #1 (urban): in-depth interview with two focus teachers and with the school head, collect school demographic data 4 (Wednesday) School #1 (urban): focus group interviews with a group of grade 4 teachers, observation of classes of focus teachers 5 (Thursday) School #2 (peri-urban): in-depth interview with two focus teacher and with school head, collect school demographic data 6 (Friday) School #2 (peri-urban): focus group interviews with a group of grade 4 teachers, observation of classes of focus teachers 7 (Saturday) Organize information and transcribe notes 8 (Sunday) Day off /further organization of information 9 (Monday) School #3 (rural, but not far from the capital): in-depth interview with two focus teachers and with the school head, collect school demographic data 10 (Tuesday) School #3 (rural, but not far from the capital): focus group interviews with a group of grade 4 teachers, observation of classes of focus teachers 3 11 (Wednesday) Contingency day – report progress to the REB, complete any interviews or observations not completed at any of the three schools, and ensure that survey instruments will be completed and submitted on time 12 (Thursday) Contingency day – report progress to the REB, complete any interviews or observations not completed at any of the three schools, and ensure that the survey instruments will be completed and submitted on time 13 (Friday) Debrief with REB, collect survey instruments 14 (Saturday) Return to the location of contractor research organization Analysis of data Activities to be carried out by the contractor research organization: • The contractor research organization will be responsible for data analysis, working together with AED to develop the analysis framework and analysis methods (including triangulation of data from the interviews, observations and survey) • Interviewers will submit their interview and observation material in detail in written or electronic form • All interview and observation material must be in typed in electronic form • The research organization and AED will explore the use of both manual and electronic coding systems for the qualitative data, such as NUD*IST/EC2, for coding, sorting and analyzing the qualitative data • The quantitative data from the survey instrument will be recorded electronically and analyzed using standard statistical data analysis procedures • School demographic data will be recorded electronically and used in the analysis Background information on the policy context Document analysis will be carried out to describe the present education policy context of Ethiopia. This will include an examination of policies concerning teacher quality and teacher learning, and the present goals, structures and implementation strategies for teacher education and professional development. This will be carried out primarily by AED with some input from the research organization. Literature review The study will be placed in the context of current international literature, theoretical and practical, on effective teacher learning and influences on practice. The whole study will be situated in the context of a dynamic form of constructivism and learner-centered education which is the general policy that shapes curriculum and instruction in Ethiopia. AED will take the lead on compiling and reviewing the literature with input from the research organization. Study findings, draft of the study report, final report Activities to be carried out by the contractor research organization: • The research organization will write the first draft of the study report 4 • The research organization and AED will work together to produce the final research report The research organization and AED will discuss the research findings and decide jointly how to structure the findings and present them in the final study report. The research organization will write the first draft of the study report. The draft report will be provided to the Advisory Committee for comment and input. The research organization and AED will work together to produce the final research report. AED will undertake the production of the final report. Information dissemination on the study findings The final report will be produced by AED and made available in multiple hard copies and in electronic form to the MOE and the REBs. The final study report will also be published on the USAID/EQUIP website. The Advisory Committee will be responsible for developing strategies for information dissemination within Ethiopia. The research organization will be encouraged to participate in information dissemination activities in order to give their perspectives on the study findings and how they may be used to improve quality of education and teacher quality. 5