Lesson observation and quality in primary education as contextual teaching and learning processes

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0738-0593/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ije

E-mail addr

International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Lesson observation and quality in primary education ascontextual teaching and learning processes

Margo O’Sullivan

Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, South Circular Road, Limerick, Ireland

Abstract

Quality in primary education is currently high on the education agenda in developing countries. What is quality?

How can we effectively measure it? How can we achieve it? How can we improve it? The author considers two

suggestions to be critical to answering these above questions and engages with them in this article:

�
place what is happening in the school and classroom, specifically teaching and learning processes, at the top of the
quality agenda; and

�
use lesson observation to answer the questions.
The engagement in the article with the term ‘‘quality’’ highlights that six conceptualisations are used in the literature.

However, the author argues that only two subsections of one of the conceptualisations are influencing policy, i.e. the

input and output definitions of quality. An exploration of the common indicators of quality supports this and the

author uses a political economy perspective to consider the reasons for it. This leads to the main section of the paper

which seeks to explore the two suggestions bulleted above.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Quality; Primary education; Lesson observation

1. Introduction

Quality in primary education is high on theeducation agenda in developing countries. Theprovision of a good-quality education to childrenin developing countries is critical to their future.

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserve

dudev.2005.07.016

ess: [email protected].

However, efforts to engage with quality arefraught with difficulties, not least of which is aconsideration of what quality is. Also problematicare efforts to effectively achieve, improve andmeasure quality. Numerous reform programmesand projects, many of them donor supported havebeen introduced since the early 1990s. Yet, qualityis still poor in many countries. Engaging with thereasons for this highlights the complexity of the

d.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260 247

problem. In this paper, the author explores oneperspective on the reasons for the continuing poorquality of Education in developing countries. Thisperspective, albeit somewhat simplified, is high-lighted in these anecdotes: When one visits adoctor, two basic steps are involved—at first one isasked what the problem is and then one isexamined to enable the doctor to address it.Similarly, when a road needs to be built in anarea to ease traffic congestion, engineers will visitthe area and assess the viability of building theroad on a specific route. Yet, when primaryeducation in developing countries has problemswith quality, the literature indicates that profes-sionals involved in addressing them too often donot begin the process by examining the location ofthe illness, the classroom, specifically what ishappening in the classroom, the teaching andlearning that takes place in it, in an effort to makea diagnosis and recommend a cure that will work.Effectively, what is happening in the school andclassroom, specifically teaching and learning pro-cesses, must be placed at the top of the qualityagenda. In this article, the author engages with thisand explores the potential of lesson observation asone approach to support the improvement ofquality.

The paper begins with an examination of theterm ‘‘quality’’ and will explore various definitionsand conceptualisations of it. This leads to anexploration of the indicators of quality (within apolitical economy perspective), and an examina-tion of the extent to which they indicate it. Thenext section argues that quality is ultimately aboutteaching and learning processes, and highlights thecritical role of context in this notion of quality.The article then considers the usefulness of lessonobservation within this notion of quality and theextent to which lesson observation is used in theresearch and the literature concerning quality.This section also raises questions about theinternational glorification of specific pedagogicalpractices as being more effective than others. Itwill briefly explore indicators for lesson observa-tion and consider how one would constructindicators from lesson observations. Finally, thepaper concludes with an overview of the mainarguments.

2. Quality of education in developing countries

In the 1970s, research on primary education indeveloping countries was concerned with studyingthe justifications for investment in primary educa-tion (Motola, 1995). In the 1980s the concernshifted to exploring ways of expanding andreducing unit costs, i.e. efficiency. This wasaccompanied by a major thrust on qualityimprovements, which continues to the presentday. For example, since the 1990s, there havebeen many declarations and conferences heldaround the globe associated with the developmentand improvement of quality in education. It wasthe theme at the conference of the Ministers ofEducation of the Commonwealth held in Barba-dos in 1990. It was also highlighted as a significantconcern at the Jomtien conference in the same yearand at the follow-up Dakar conference 10 yearslater. It is one of the six goals of Education for All(EFA, 2005). Currently, the World Bank, bilateralagencies, NGOs, and developing country Minis-tries of Education, all now consider quality issuesas critical. However, the rhetoric has not yet beentranslated into practice. The quality of educationin many developing countries remains poor. Sam-off (1999) laments the fact that ‘‘there has beenprogress and, in some countries, very substantialachievements. Still, in much of Africa, manychildren get little or no schooling, illiteracy rateshave ceased to decline (or begun to rise), schoollibraries have few books, laboratories have out-dated or malfunctioning equipment and insuffi-cient supplies, and learners lack chairs, exercisebooks, even pencils’’. The literature highlights thatpoor quality is not confined to African countries;for example, Duraisamy et al.’s (1998) study inTamil Nadu found that teachers had to work indifficult conditions, such as teaching large classesunder trees. Numerous research studies use exam-ination statistics to highlight poor-quality educa-tion, for example, in Ghana, 10 years of‘‘successful’’ education reform is seen in a newlight when 85% of sixth-grade students scored lessthan 40% in English on a national test of languageproficiency and 500 million dollars had beenspent’’ (Improving Educational Quality Project,1999, p. 6). Similarly, in South Africa, only 53%

ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260248

passed the matriculation examination in 1995 andonly 15% passed the university entrance exam in1996 (Department of Education, 1997, cited inMotola, 2001).

3. What is education quality?

A lot has been written about quality. However,a reading of the literature can be confusing asnumerous and conflicting definitions of quality arepresented, depending on how the term is con-ceptualised. The normative nature of the conceptprovides an explanation for this. Motola (2001,p. 66) points out that ‘‘debates in the internationalliterature noted the difficulty in finding a definitionof quality that would apply to all situations’’. Inan effort to make sense of the various definitions inthe literature, the author has divided them into sixbroad conceptualisations:

–
the deficit notion; – the competency approach; – the value-added and fitness for purpose view; – Bergman’s (1996) four types of quality—value,input, process and output;
–
quality as teaching and learning processes; and – the contextual understanding of quality.
Firstly, the studies noted in the previous sectionhighlight a common notion of quality in thedeveloping country literature—the deficit notion.This focuses on what poor quality is. For example,the literature refers to a variety of factors such asovercrowding and lack of resources, which in-dicate poor quality and also hamper the delivery ofhigh quality. Riddell’s (1999) complex hierarchy offactors that hinder quality also include non-schoolfactors, for example, the health and well-being ofthe child, the culture of the community, andparental involvement. However, the paucity ofvarious factors and conditions should not be usedto completely excuse poor quality. The deficitdefinition has for too long acted as a noose aroundthe neck of those making efforts to improve it. Weneed to move away from the deficit explanationand focus on what can be achieved within theavailable contexts that are currently considered to

hamper quality. This is not suggesting that we nolonger strive to improve and provide variousfactors, such as reducing the pupil–teacher ratio.The laudable efforts of ministries of education invarious developing countries to put these in place,often supported by donors, should continue.However, this process takes time and in themeantime a generation of children are the losersas they are not receiving a good-quality education.Are we to sacrifice these children at the altar ofquality factors, as we wait for the conditionsdeemed necessary for quality to be made available?This paper explores an approach which may untiethe noose. It also considers why specific conditionsare currently considered critical to improvingquality.Secondly, there are educators whose conceptua-

lisation of quality is grounded in a competencyapproach—quality is the effectiveness of thedegree to which objectives are met or describedlevels of competence are achieved (Adams, 1993).This definition is useful, but what is crucial to itseffectiveness are the actual competencies that areused and how their achievement is measured.This leads to the third definition—Webbstock’s(1994, p. 7, in Motola) conception that a workablenotion should include ‘‘fitness for purpose’’ and‘‘value-added’’ approaches. Tymms (1999) workwith the latter provides a useful understanding ofit. Value-added takes the starting and end pointsof children’s learning in school into account.Baseline assessments provide the latter data—theyare used to measure children’s learning whenthey begin school. The notion of progress iscentral to it. Value-added uses national data toprovide an expectation of what level the averagechild should be at various stages, particularly uponentry and exit from school. It uses these data tohighlight what inputs tend to lead to specificoutputs. It then looks within a school in order tocompare pupils’ attainment with other pupils intheir school and class with the same startingpoints. This approach highlights the critical role ofthe teacher in quality as it essentially looks at theimpact that a teacher is having on children’slearning. Harvey and Green (1993) also supportthe value-added notion and suggest that quality issomething exceptional, something that provides

ARTICLE IN PRESS


value for money, something that is transformativeor empowering.

A fourth definition of quality evident in theliterature is proposed by Bergman (1996) andsubscribed to by Chapman and Adams (2002),who argue that there are different types of quality.Bergman (1996) used three studies to show howparents use different types of quality whendemanding education or when children drop out.Four types of inter-related educational quality arepostulated—value quality, input quality, processquality and output quality. He suggests that valuequality is about how values shape what isconsidered as quality, for example, when aClassical Education is more valued than a ScienceEducation or when parents choose religiousschools; input quality includes resources, thecurriculum, and the stage of development of thechild upon entry to a class; ‘‘process quality is thequality of the teacher–pupil interaction in theteaching–learning process’’ (p. 587); and outputquality is the quality of student achievement—‘‘Aminimum level of [output] quality is full functionalliteracy and a fair mastery of basic mathematicaloperations’’ (p. 587).

The final definition is that quality is contextual.A contextual definition/conceptualisation of qual-ity education can address the problems associatedwith the normative nature of the concept. Qualityis grounded in cultural traditions, social relations,and economic and political life, and is thereforeunique to each nation and culture. Angula (2000,cited in Ipinge, undated, p. 2), the notable Ministerof Higher Education, Training, and EmploymentCreation in Namibia, aptly describes this notion:‘‘quality and standards should be measured inrelation to the context and environment in whicheducation is located’’. Critical to a contextualdefinition is the type of teaching and learningthat is feasible within the micro-contexts ofeducation, i.e. the realities at school level withinwhich teachers work, such as available resources,professional capacity of the teachers, and so on.One cannot effectively judge the quality ofeducation in a school without reference tocontextual factors. Contextual factors, macro-,meso-, and micro, should guide the articulation ofquality.

4. Indicators of quality

The numerous conceptualisations of qualitypresented above highlight the extent to whichquality is engaged with in the literature. However,to what extent do the debates in the literatureimpact upon policy, specifically, which of theconceptualisations underpin the decisions concern-ing quality taken by policy-makers? In an effort toanswer these questions, it is useful to examine theconsiderable number of quality indicators that arecurrently used and which tend to have implicationsfor policy. The author draws from three sources tohighlight the common indicators used. Firstly,there are the internationally recognised indicatorsof quality that are highlighted in the substantialbody of literature which attempts to determine theappropriate school quality inputs required toboost student achievement. Torres (2003, p. 303)highlights the World Bank’s reliance on nineindicators of quality in primary education, andhighlights that ‘‘in the WB perspective, qualityeducation results from the presence of specific‘inputs’’’. Her review prioritises the indicators inthe following order: (1) libraries; (2) instructionaltime; (3) homework; (4) textbooks; (5) teachersubject knowledge; (6) teacher experience; (7)laboratories; (8) teacher salaries; (9) class size.Other commonly used indicators are: pupil–tea-cher ratios; teacher qualifications; grade repetition;literacy rates; enrolment data; dropout rate;student and public attitudes about education;and examination achievement data. The latterleads into the second set of indicators—those usedin national examinations and international leaguetables, which use standardised tests in reading,mathematics and other subjects. N’tchougan-Sonou (2001, p. 161) provides an example:‘‘Ghanaian education is currently confronted withthe massive problem of poor quality, as attested byabysmal national criterion referenced test scoresfrom 1992 through to 1996’’. Similarly, the resultsof the Ugandan 1999 National Assessment ofProgress in Education (NAPE, 1999) study in-dicated that only 14% of pupils performed aboveminimum standards in English literacy. In SouthAfrica, Motola (2001) laments the fact that theonly performance indicator is the matriculation

ARTICLE IN PRESS


examination. Torres’ (2003, p. 303) review of thestrategies of the World Bank in improving thequality of Basic Education suggests that it equateseducational quality with ‘‘learning outcomes mea-sured by achievement tests vis-a-via the goals andobjectives set by the school system (learning whatis taught, being promoted to the next grade,completing the primary school cycle, etc.).’’ Thethird set of indicators are those espoused byinternational donors. Currently, for example, thefollowing are high on their agendas and areconsidered critical to improving education indeveloping countries: net enrolment ratio (EFA,2005); female enrolment; private sector involve-ment in education provision; and communityinvolvement.

The three sets of indicators above subscribe toonly two subsections of one of the six definitionsof quality which emerge in the literature andwhich were discussed in the previous section, i.e.Bergman’s (1996) type of education definition(value, input, process and output). The first setof indicators subscribes to the input conceptuali-sation of quality and the other two subscribe toboth the input and output definitions. It seems thatthe other definitions/conceptualisations of qualitydescribed in the previous section are not influen-cing quality policy decisions. A political economicperspective on educational reform and aid pro-vides a theoretical framework within which tousefully analyse and explain the reliance on thisinput/output conceptualisation of quality. Cur-rently, the economic aspects of globalisation leadto an emphasis on efficiency in education, onproper resource allocation, on competencies, andon measurable inputs and outputs and ‘‘driveseducation into a closer relationship with markets’’(McGrath, 2001, p. 392; Motola, 2001). Indicatorinformation is considered to enable the achieve-ment of higher quality education at lower cost andcan allow for greater accountability. Riddell (1998,p. 284) highlights the relationship between this andthe considerable influence of donors on developingcountries: ‘‘However, due to the relative depen-dence on international donors for financingeducational reform, economists’ notions of qualityhave been more evident than in industrialisedcountries, and thus, quality as inputs in preference

to processes, as well as rather narrowly definedoutputs, such as years of education or examinationpasses, have generally been utilised’’. The threesets of indicators discussed above, subscribing tothe input and output conceptualisations of quality,are considered to be economically effective. Also,they can be relatively easily accessed and pub-licised.There have been some challenges to the extent to

which input indicators actually indicate quality.Over a decade ago, Harbison and Hanushek(1992) concluded that there is little evidence thatspecific inputs have an impact on student achieve-ment. It needs to be pointed out that Hedges et al.(1994a, b) re-analysed Hanushek’s data using moresophisticated methods and challenged some of thefindings. Other evidence subsequently emerged,which further supports Harbison and Hanushek(1992) input argument. Hanushek’S (1997) reviewof 400 studies of student achievement found nostrong or consistent relationship between studentperformance and school resources. He notes, ‘‘theclearest message of existing research is thatuniform resource policies will not work asintended y simply providing more funding or adifferent distribution of funding is unlikely toimprove student achievement’’. Similarly, Chapmanand Adams (2002) use research conducted bythe World Bank on teacher characteristics (1997,cited in Chapman and Adams, 2002, p. 19) tosupport this: ‘‘Indian experience confirms thatproxies for teacher quality—such as type ofcertification, pre-service education, or salary—typically are not related to student learningachievement’’. Similarly, Heyneman’s (1997) studyon the quality of education in the Middle East andNorth Africa indicated that 13 year olds in Jordanhad acquired less information in Mathematics andScience than in other countries which allocatesimilar levels of expenditure per student.A closer examination of all the input oriented

indicators used to measure quality provides anexplanation for the failure of inputs in improvingquality. It suggests that most of the inputindicators, with their underlying efficiency ratio-nale, are more quantitative than qualitative innature; for example, numbers of trained teachersdoes not provide any indication of the quality of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


teaching and learning that those teachers ulti-mately provide for their pupils. Similarly, pupil:textbook ratio and enrolment data do not indicatethe extent to which they lead to an improvement inthe teaching and learning taking place in aparticular context. They do not indicate the useof the inputs, which is the key to their bringingabout an improvement in quality. They do notprovide any understanding of what happens to theinputs, to how they are used, in other words, to theteaching and learning processes they can facilitateif used effectively. The extent to which inputs canimprove quality is directly related to the extent towhich teachers effectively use them to improve theteaching and learning process. The reliance oninput indicators has led to the ignoring of thiscritical aspect of inputs. ‘‘This paradigm presup-poses that social systems, such as education, canbe engineered as can a product such as a house ora bridge’’ (DeStefano et al., 1999, p. 1). A focus onoutputs and on the donor influenced internationaltrends also ignores this. In developing countries, afocus on examination results can be detrimental tothe quality of teaching and learning as teacherstend to rely on rote teaching and learning toprepare children for the tests. Children are onlydeveloping one skill, that of memorisation. Theindicators of quality used by donors are also notconcerned with processes. For example, a study ofthe District Primary Education Programme(DPEP) in India raises questions about theeffectiveness of the community participation para-digm and the extent to which it will lead to animprovement in quality (James, 2002). James(2002, p. 10) found examples of how villageofficials had an effect on teacher attendance but‘‘found no evidence that their actions had had anyeffect on classroom learning’’. The main messagehere is that it is time to move forward and begin touse indicators which are more qualitative in natureand which reflect what is happening in the class-rooms, i.e. how the inputs are being used.

5. Quality as teaching and learning processes

The literature suggests that the reliance on aninput conceptualisation of quality is beginning to

be questioned and as Riddell (1998) points out,narrower input notions of quality have expandedto include what goes on in schools and classrooms,i.e. processes, and one of the definitions of qualityhighlighted earlier in the ‘‘What is quality’’section. This conceptualisation of teaching andlearning processes as quality is currently gainingincreasing attention (Alexander, 1997 [quality in aBritish context]; Riddell, 1999; Motola, 2001;EFA, 2005). Chapman and Adams (2002, p. 9)argue that ‘‘improvements in the quality and, tosome extent, the efficiency and equity of educationdepend on the nexus of teaching and learning’’.More recently, Clarke (2003, p. 27) points out ‘‘Asthe quality of education reflected in classroomsbecomes more important in influencing studentperformance many countries are embarking onlarge-scale reforms in teaching and learning’’.It is not, however, a new concern. Lockheed and

Verspoor’s (1991) review of in-school strategies forimproving the quality of primary education indeveloping countries identifies five major subsec-tors: improving curriculum; increasing learningmaterials; increasing instructional time; improvingteaching; and increasing the learning capacity ofstudents. Even Jomtien called for the focus ofbasic education to be on ‘‘actual learning acquisi-tion and outcome rather than exclusively onenrolment’’ (Chesterfield, undated, p. 2). Similarly,a number of research studies in the early 1990s alsoargued for a stronger school and classroom focusand for research into process factors such asteaching, learning, school leadership and commu-nity involvement (Grisay and Mahlck, 1991; Levinand Lockheed, 1993; Heneveld, 1994). However,the literature indicates that the latter two havereceived more attention from donors and policy-makers, though donors are beginning to focus onteaching and learning (see paragraph below). Thisis the key, the translation of the attention in theliterature to policy, a key that one notable projecthad some success in opening.The project is the USAID funded 10-year

Improving Education Quality (IEQ) project,which began in 1991. The project supportedresearch initiatives in a number of countries,including Ghana, Mali, Uganda, South Africaand Guatemala, which sought ‘‘to strengthen

ARTICLE IN PRESS


countries’ capacities to systematically access thelocal conditions for teaching and learning—and touse the knowledge as a basis for reformingnational policy and local practice’’ (Schubert,2001, p. 5). It sought to bring the classroomexperience of teachers and learners to the policy-makers and others: ‘‘If policy makers were able toenter the classroom and have the experience oflearners and teachers, how might their debatesand decisions about quality be transformed’’(Schubert, 2001, p. 6). The project was based ona working definition of quality as being relative,not absolute, and of it being rooted in teachingand learning processes. The project involved anumber of successful initiatives and some, thoughthe author would argue, limited, success in respectto its impact on policy. For example, in Ghana,IEQ worked with a project funded by USAID todevelop textbooks. When IEQ researchers visitedclassrooms they found that pupils were not usingthe books and this led to policy-makers to monitorand encourage textbook use (Chesterfield, un-dated, p. 3). This project’s influence on policy isexceptional. A contextual and teaching and learn-ing process conceptualisation of quality does notgenerally influence policy-makers. One explana-tion for this is the extent to which teaching andlearning processes are not among the manyindicators of quality highlighted in the literatureand in international league tables. Why is this?One reason may be that identifying and measuringteaching and learning indicators requires time tobe spent in classrooms and is seen to be expensive.In comparison, input indicators are considered tobe relatively easy to measure and make digestiblefor policy-makers and others. They are consideredefficiency friendly.

Critical to a pedagogically oriented conceptua-lisation of quality is the ‘‘what’’ that is to belearned, and the author feels that it is appropriateat this stage to summarise briefly her views on the‘‘what’’. An exploration of this merits its ownpaper. However, the scope of this paper onlyallows a brief illumination of the author’s views. Ifwe define quality as involving learning, one mustdefine learning—it is more than being able tomemorise and produce for tests. It must also createcapacity for further learning. She subscribes

particularly to Heneveld’s (2002) views on con-tent—that schooling should develop literacy,numeracy and essential life skills. These are thefoundation stones upon which other skills can bebuilt. Developing countries must strive at least toensure that teaching and learning processes areeffectively enabling students to acquire thesebuilding blocks.

6. Lesson observation and indicators of quality

Currently, students’ achievements on paper andpencil tests seem to be the main measure of thequality of teaching and learning (Bedi, 1997). Thisprovides some indication of the learning takingplace, but does not highlight the quality of theteaching and only offers some insight into thequality of the learning. Neither do tests illuminatesuggestions for improving quality. If teaching andlearning is considered critical to improving quality,we must consider how it can be measured. Theauthor feels that classroom-based methods, in-cluding lesson observations, learner interviews,and teacher interviews, are critical methods in theeffective measurement of quality in teaching andlearning. They provide insights critical to assessingand improving quality, which are otherwiseinaccessible. She finds the use of lesson observa-tion particularly useful, and this will be explored inthis section. It is beyond the scope of the article toexplore the use of the other methods cited above,i.e. interviewing, that can enable an understandingof classroom processes that can ultimately improvequality. At first, let us consider descriptions of twolessons.The following observations are taken from field

notes of lesson observations in grade III (8–9 yearolds) Namibian classrooms.

Teacher AThe classroom was a newly built brick

built classroom and the desks were ar-ranged in six groups, each seating ap-proximately six children in mixed gendergroups. The classroom walls displayed afew commercially made posters. It wasan English reading lesson. The teacher

ARTICLE IN PRESS


asked the children to open their Englishtextbooks; each child had his/her owntextbook. Then she spent the lesson veryslowly writing sentences from the text-book on the board while the childrenwatched. When she had written eachsentence, she read it and asked thechildren to repeat it in unison numeroustimes. She repeated this procedure for 10sentences. Then she asked the childrento repeat the whole text approximately 10times. She asked individual children torepeat it. The lesson lasted 50 min.

Teacher BThe class was observed under a tree.

The children were seated on woodenbenches, with approximately eight chil-dren on each bench. There were fivebenches. Three children shared one text-book. The teacher began the lesson byplaying ‘I spy’, using the picture of thetext in the textbook. She then asked thechildren a lot of questions on the picture,including some higher order questions,for example, ‘where do you think she willgo next?’ Children raised their hands andshe asked individuals to answer andpraised their efforts. She had a veryencouraging style. She then asked themto point out various words in the text.Then she wrote each of the new wordson the blackboard and encouraged thechildren’s use of phonics to decipherthem. She explained the meaning of eachword, using the picture in the text, mimeor verbal explanations. She used choraland individual repetition to allow thechildren to practise saying the newwords. She put them into sentences andasked the children to try to do this. Only afew volunteered to do this. Then sheasked the children to find the new wordsin the text. Then she read the text andasked the children to repeat the linesafter her, as a class, in groups and

individually. Then she asked individualchildren to read the text. She asked a lotof questions on the text, again using bothlower order and higher order questions.She concluded the lesson by asking thechildren to copy any new words from thetext into their exercise books. The lessonlasted 40 min.

The observation notes above illustrate howlesson observations can illuminate teaching andlearning processes and indicate the quality ofeducation taking place at the chalk face. They canalso highlight the realities within which teacherswork and which practices can be effective in theserealities. Even though it is unlikely that all readerswill agree on the quality of each lesson, the authorassumes that most will agree that the second lessonis of higher quality, in the light of contextualfactors. It is likely, the author boldly assumes, thatif faced with a choice of teacher for your ownchild, readers would choose teacher B. Teacher Bmakes an effort to ensure that the children arelearning (though not all aspects bring abouteffective learning), whereas teacher A makes noeffort to do this. The observation also supports theauthor’s earlier argument about the failure ofinput indicators to improve quality. Teacher Ahad more resources and better working conditionsthan teacher B, which according to the inputconceptualisation of quality should lead to im-proved quality. However, the lesson observationquestions this. It highlights the potentially criticalrole of lesson observation in the quality arena, onethat is beginning to gain some, though as of yet,limited, attention.The use of lesson observation is not an

innovative approach, yet, the literature suggeststhat it is rarely used in research and evaluationstudies which seek to improve and assess quality indeveloping countries, and even more rarely, ashighlighted in the previous section, to informpolicy or in implementation efforts. For example,a trawl through the five main journals in the fieldof Comparative Education and other journals forthe previous 10 years (1993–2005) highlights thedearth of studies which use lesson observation to

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss this. Teacher

thinking explores how teachers structure their actions in the

classrooms and the related frameworks and worldviews that

underlie these actions. Barrett (2002) highlights the wealth of


access data in developing countries.1 There aresome notable exceptions and the author finds thatthese studies are particularly illuminating andprovide some indication of the way forward inbringing about improvements in quality (forexample, Bergman, 1996; Kanu, 1996; Harleyet al., 2000; Ven der Werf et al., 2000; Clarke,2003; Pontefract and Hardman, 2005). Develop-ment Co-operation Ireland (DCI, formerly knownas Ireland Aid), USAID and other bilateral donorsare using lesson observation data more often now.However, these uses of it do not tend to bepublished in journals or books. They can be foundin donor reports, for example, Schubert (2001) andMinistry of Education documents. These docu-ments can usefully inform the quality debate and,in particular, policy decisions, and ought to bemade more easily accessible. Currently, it isdifficult to access Ministry of Education reportsfrom various countries, unless they are online, assome are, or unless one has access to a library,such as the IDS (Institute of Development Studies)library at Sussex University, which houses manycountry specific reports.

The use of lesson observation data in the fewstudies published in journals was critical tounderstanding the quality aspects. For example,Clarke’s (2003) recent evaluative study of theDPEP (District Primary Education Project) whichcovers almost half of the districts in India,involved the observation of 243 teachers in orderto understand the extent to which the project wassuccessful. The programme attempted to ‘‘trans-form instructional practices in primary schoolclassrooms integrally through a holistic pro-gramme of pedagogical reform’’ (Clarke, 2003,p. 27). Lesson observation data indicated that eventhough teachers increased their use of instructionalaids, activities and demonstrations during instruc-tion, it had not ‘‘integrally transformed theirteaching and learning in the classroom. They haveskillfully integrated ‘activity and joyful learning’into their traditional rote method of instruction

1The journals include: Compare, Comparative Education,

Comparative Education Review, International Journal of

Educational Development, Journal of Education for Teaching,

Prospects, and Teaching and Teacher Education.

where it is transferred en bloc and memorisedy.During instruction, though transformed withactivity and demonstration, teachers remain pri-mary players in the classroom’’ (Clarke, 2003,p. 38). These data were only accessible through theuse of lesson observation.

6.1. Why use lesson observation to improve quality?

Lesson observation can answer the ‘‘what’’questions and illuminates the ‘‘how’’ questions,i.e. what is the current state of educational qualityin schools and how can it be realistically improvedwith the available resources. It can also providesome insights into the ‘‘why’’ questions—why isthe quality of education poor? The ‘‘why’’ ques-tions have to be supported with other data, mostnotably teacher interview data, in order to morefully understand the teaching and learning pro-cesses currently being used and the extent to whichparticular processes are likely to be implemented.This leads to the area of teacher thinking, which isalso critical to improving quality.2

There are a number of reasons to justify the useof lesson observation studies. These are exploredhere. Such studies take context into account, theyaddress transfer, they raise questions aboutaccepted ‘‘good’’ pedagogical practices, and theyaccess effective indigeneous practices. Let us beginwith an exploration of context. Lesson observationenables the contextual nature of quality to emergeand be used in efforts to improve it (O’Sullivan,2003). The author’s work on an in-service teachertraining project in Namibia found that lessonobservations highlighted the realities within whichteachers worked and indicated the potential orotherwise of specific teaching and learningapproaches. For example, lesson observations

research on teacher thinking in the West and points out that

‘‘while research in the West was gaining insight into teachers as

thinking, feeling, doing, believing human beings (e.g. Nias,

1989; Broadfoot et al., 1993; Hargreaves, 1994), in developing

country literature this view was often obscured by the

immediacy and magnitude of financial difficulties’’ (p. 5).

ARTICLE IN PRESS


indicated that teachers in the Namibian context werehaving considerable problems implementing com-municative approaches to teaching English, whichwere introduced in the early 1990s (O’Sullivan,2001). The communicative approach is complex—it is dependent on teachers being effectively trainedand on the availability of adequate resources, bothof which were absent at the time of the study[1995–1997]. The lesson observations indicatedthat the in-service training programme’s capacitywould only enable teachers to implement asimplified version of communicative approachesand one dependent on adequate resources, forexample, textbooks.3

The strength of using lesson observations is thatit enables a focus on what can be done withavailable resources and professional capacity at aparticular time. Lesson observations take intoaccount the micro-context, the realities in whichteachers work, thus drawing from a contextualconceptualisation of quality. Such observationsplace the teacher centre-stage, which is too oftenneglected (O’Sullivan, 2002). Ultimately, reformsare implemented by teachers and must be withintheir capacity to implement. Otherwise, teachersbecome overwhelmed by reforms, fail to imple-ment them, and become disillusioned, as illu-strated aptly by a comment from a multi-grade(grade I–III) teacher in Southern Africa: ‘‘Some-times I think we are being asked to performmiracles. Well, I am not a miracle worker soperhaps I should not teach any more’’ (Prouty,2000, p. 1). Other aspects critical to the imple-mentation of reforms are teachers’ salaries and themotivation of the teacher: lesson observation atleast can highlight the extent to which reforms arelikely to be implemented within various contexts,including contexts in which teachers are poorlypaid. Quality is complex, and the extent to which itinvolves human action, particularly on the part ofteachers, needs to be borne in mind. A contextual

3This leads onto a consideration of how one would construct

indicators of quality teaching and learning processes. In light of

the current pervading influence of political economics, this has

to take place. A consideration of this is, however, beyond the

scope of this article.

perspective of quality and the use lesson observa-tion enables this to happen.Taking context into account also enables one to

address transfer issues. Educational reform modelstend to be explored en mass, and they ofteninclude decontextualised ‘‘best practice’’ ap-proaches. These approaches, considered effectivepractices in Western contexts (generally), tend tobe exported to developing countries. They include:group and pair work; learner-centred approaches;communicative approaches; and continuous as-sessment. These have been found to be inappropri-ate in some developing country contexts.Tabulawa (2003) and O’Sullivan (2004) raisesquestions in the literature about the effectivenessof learner-centred education in developing coun-tries: learner-centred approaches presuppose avail-ability of a specially designed environment withspace, resources and small classes, which are oftenabsent in developing countries; students andteachers may have considerable difficulty inmaking the leap from learning within traditionalapproaches to learner-centred approaches, whichrequire the acquisition of great skill and under-lying assumptions, that may be beyond theprofessional capacity of teachers in the light oftheir training; and learner-centred approaches arenot culturally appropriate in some developingcountries. Findings from Alexander’s (2000) no-table study, which involved extensive lessonobservations, also raises questions about learner-centred approaches. He argues that learner-centred approaches are not adequately supportedby research, demonstrating the extent to whichthey effectively bring about learning in classrooms.This also leads him to question the tendency todismiss other approaches, such as whole classdirect instruction approaches and rote learning.He found examples of lessons in Russia andFrance, which used direct instruction approachesand whole class teaching to effectively bring aboutlearning. Stevenson and Lee’s (1997) researchstudy, involving the observation of 480 mathe-matics lessons in primary schools in the US, Chinaand Japan, supports this. Their study highlightsmany positive aspects of whole class teachingmethods, which they found were used much moreeffectively in the Japanese schools. Similarly,

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Alexander’s (2000) study of Indian classroomsinvolved the observation of teachers, who, withinthe constraints of small and overcrowded class-rooms, were able to secure dialogue and scaffoldunderstanding, using what in the US and Britain,would be considered rote learning and conse-quently, frowned upon. In Indian classrooms,Alexander (2000) also found that an apprentice-ship approach to teaching [Bruner’s first model]successfully brought about learning in some musicand dance lessons in India. He termed this the truealternative to rote. His study also raised questionsabout the effectiveness of group work andindependent research. This led him to questionthe accepted wisdom that certain pedagogicalpractices are more effective than others.

When and how did specific approaches, forexample, learner-centred, group work, and so on,become immortalised as the best practices? TheWorld Bank attempt to get economies of scale ineducational reform across different countriesundoubtedly has some part to play in theemergence of universally accepted good practices.Alexander (2000) uses Bruner’s four dominantmodels of learners’ minds to provide anotherexplanation. The models are: (1) seeing childrenas imitative learners [basis of apprenticeship]; (2)seeing children as learning from didactic exposure[informs transmission model of teaching]; (3)seeing children as thinkers; (4) seeing children asknowledgeable (Bruner, 1996). Alexander arguesthat there is value in all four types of learning, butthat the first two have tended to be rejected. Hesuggests that this came about as an unintendedresult of efforts to move teachers away from areliance on the first two models of teaching. Forexample, Watkins and Mortimore (1999) referonly to the third and fourth models ‘‘for a goodreason—to encourage teachers to abandon meredidactism—but in doing so, overstate, I think, thehierarchy implied by Bruner, seeing apprenticeshipas ‘primitive’, transmission as ‘traditional’ and onthe third and fourth models as appropriate toWestern schooling in the twenty-first century’’(Alexander, 2000, p. 560). They use Bruner’sconclusion that achieving skill and accumulatingknowledge are not enough (his first and secondmodel) to reject these models, ‘‘But again, have

they overstated the objections to skill apprentice-ship and the acquisition of prepositional knowl-edge?’’ (Alexander, 2000, p. 561). Alexanderargues for the virtue of Bruner’s framework inthat it allows ‘‘for the possibility that all [fourmodels—contrasting stances on learning andknowledge] may have some part to play’’ (p.561). This is ‘‘an unfashionable standpoint’’ (p.561), however, worth considering.The glorification of specific practices has had

vast implications for educational reform in devel-oping countries. It is time to question the wisdomof all universally accepted ‘‘best’’ practices. Whatmatters ultimately is whatever methods best bringabout teaching and learning in specific contexts.Lesson observation can help to highlight andaccess these. It can also enable the accessing ofindigenous ‘‘best practices’’, i.e. approaches thatwork well within local contexts that can beidentified and passed on to other teachers withinthese contexts. Some work is beginning to be donein this area (see: O’Sullivan, 2003).Ministries of Education in developing countries

are serious about their commitment to improve thequality of education—they want to provide thebest possible education for their country’s chil-dren. If they accept that ultimately, quality isabout the teaching and learning that takes place inclassrooms, it might be time to look more closelyat practices that are effective and feasible in theircontext and that bring about learning. Forexample, in the Indian context, Alexander (2000)asks the question: Why does India make so littleuse of the culture’s other indigenous pedagogictradition, which he found to be so effective? TheMinistries of Education need to start askingquestions about various practices—for example,in Clarke’s (2003) study described earlier, one ofthe reasons for the failure of the project, accordingto Clarke, was that teachers still remained‘‘primary players’’ in the classroom, rather thantaking on other roles, such as the role offacilitator. However, the study did not explorethe extent to which their ‘‘primary player’’ rolecould contribute to bringing about learning. Whatis wrong with teachers being the key players,perhaps the focus should be on how to make the‘‘primary player’’ role more effective in bringing

ARTICLE IN PRESS


about quality learning? Ministries need to startusing local contexts to devise effective practicesthat will work in the reality of their schools.Lesson observation will facilitate this.

It is important at this stage to flag aspects oflesson observation necessary to its effective use, asit is beyond the scope of this article to explorethem. Firstly, lesson observation should be rootedin a contextual understanding of quality. Forexample, in the UK, lesson observation is cur-rently used extensively by the inspectorate. Theinspectors have tended to use it rigidly (Shawet al., 2003). They use specific indicators to guidetheir observations and to indicate the extent towhich lessons are effective. These indicators tendto be grounded in the ‘‘performativity culture’’(Crossley and Watson, 2003, p. 72). Consequently,the observation of lessons is assessment andperformance management driven, and teachingand learning becomes instrumental, rather thanthe focus. Teaching and learning processes whichdo not appear in the indicator checklist are notconsidered. Context is not adequately taken intoaccount when making judgements of qualityteaching and learning. There is a valuable lessonto be learnt here—it is important that in an effortto highlight the useful role of lesson observationthat context remain high on the agenda. Secondly,the cost implications of adopting a system in whichlesson observation is used to support the develop-ment of quality may be a deterrent. However, ifthe finance needed to place teaching and learningprocesses at the top of the quality agenda leads toan improvement in quality its cost-effectivenesscould be validated. Consider the savings, forexample, of fewer dropouts and repeating studentsin education systems. The critical question is howto make policy-makers, stakeholders, and govern-ments consider this. Currently, they view educa-tion reform as ultimately being about improvingchildren’s achievements, and it is assessment andperformance management driven.

7. Conclusion

The paper began on a positive note, highlightingthat quality is at the top of education agendas in

developing countries. What is important is toensure that this attention to quality is not onlyrhetorical, but that it ensures that all children notonly attend school, but benefit from their atten-dance, i.e. that they leave school at least havingachieved basic literacy, numeracy and life skills.Currently, this is not happening. The evidence isoverwhelming that a considerable number ofchildren are failing to learn in school. Thus, theirfuture and the future development of theircountries continue to be deprived of their fullhuman resource. This article considered how toaddress this by engaging with the term quality andexploring how to achieve, improve, and measure it.Four main findings emerged from this.Firstly, the article considered the complex

nature of the concept of quality and the variousdefinitions of it and highlighted that policy-makersrely on only two subsections of the six definitionspresented, i.e. an input and output conceptualisa-tion of quality. It considered the reasons for this,one of which used a political economic perspectiveof education to explain it. However, the articleargued that this input/output conceptualisation isnot working—quality remains poor. This led tothe second main message—a context-focusedteaching and learning processes conceptualisationof quality is critical to improving educationalquality in developing countries. This conceptuali-sation takes into account the normative nature ofthe concept and the extent to which it involveshuman action. It also focuses on how inputs arebeing used, which is critical to improvements inquality. Effectively, what is happening in theschool and classroom, specifically teaching andlearning processes, must be placed at the top of thequality agenda. The doctor and civil engineeranecdotes in the paper’s opening paragraphillustrate the rationale for this. Ultimately, educa-tion is about bringing about learning and qualityhas to focus on how to achieve this. The inputs areimportant, but the considerable efforts expendedon putting them in place are not improvingquality. What is particularly important here, isachieving quality within the contextual realities ofschools, often closely related to available inputs.The author suggests a definition of quality—theeffective use of teaching and learning processes by

ARTICLE IN PRESS


teachers, which can be implemented within therealities in which they work, and which lead tochildren acquiring basic numeracy, literacy and lifeskills. Expecting teachers to implement teachingstrategies that are not context-friendly is a waste oftime and resources, as is the reliance on the use ofindicators that only seek to measure inputs.A context-focused teaching and learning processesconceptualisation of quality also enables a moveaway from the deficit explanations for poorquality, which tend to excuse it in the light ofinadequate inputs, such as large numbers ofunqualified teachers, lack of resources, and soon. It enables a focus on what realistically can beachieved within available inputs, specifically theviable teaching and learning processes. The lessonvignettes highlight a difference in the teaching andlearning taking place in classrooms A and B.Teacher B was more effective, yet she did not haveas many resources.

Thirdly, if it is accepted that teaching andlearning is critical to improving quality, we mustconsider how we will measure this. The articlesuggests lesson observation as a critical methodhere. It can be used to highlight processes that willwork in available realities, to support teachers’implementation of these processes, and to indicatethe extent to which they are being implemented.This section identifies four main uses of lessonobservation—the extent to which it takes context,the teachers’ realities, into account; the addressingof transfer; the questioning of the uncriticalacceptance of international ‘‘best practices’’; andthe accessing of indigenous practices.

This leads to the final message—the need tomove policy-makers away from a reliance on inputand output conceptualisations of quality towards acommitment to a context-focused teaching andlearning process perspective. The article exploredthe extent to which the former perspectives onquality can be explained in light of globalisa-tion, the efficiency and ‘‘performativity culture’’(Crossley and Watson, 2003, p. 72), and neo-liberal agendas. One way forward would be towork within these agendas and the political econo-mic perspectives of educational reform to highlighthow teaching and learning processes can fit withthese agendas. If improving teaching and learning

ultimately brings about an improvement inquality, it is likely that it will be seen to becost-effective and efficient, even if only in thelong-term. An acceptance of this will require achange of understanding and attitude of manystakeholders. This is a difficult task, but notimpossible. In conclusion, it is necessary to high-light to policy-makers, governments and stake-holders, the link between a contextual teachingand learning processes conceptualisation of qual-ity, lesson observation, and efficiency. Teachingand learning need to be seen as the focus, ratherthan the instrument of quality. Context-focusedteaching and learning processes must move to thetop of the quality agenda. Convincing policy-makers is critical to and will institute a majorchallenge, but a challenge well worth accepting ifwe are to move away from the discourse of qualityto action—action that could have a considerableimpact on all our futures.

References

Adams, D., 1993. Defining Education Quality. Institute for

International Research, University of Pittsburg.

Alexander, R.J., 1997. Policy and Practice in Primary Educa-

tion: Local Initiative, National Agenda. Routledge, Lon-

don.

Alexander, R.J., 2000. Culture and Pedagogy. International

Comparisons in Primary Education. Blackwell, Oxford.

Barrett, A., 2002. Bringing literature to life and life to learning:

students in the north and teachers in the south. Paper

presented at the BAICE conference, 2002, University of

Nottingham, 6–8 September.

Bedi, A.S., 1997. The importance of school quality as a

determinant of earnings in a developing country: evidence

from Honduras. International Journal of Educational

Development 17 (4), 427–437.

Bergman, H., 1996. Quality of education and the demand for

education: evidence from developing countries. Interna-

tional Review of Education 46 (6), 581–604.

Broadfoot, P., Osborn, M., Osborne, M., 1993. Perceptions of

Teaching: Primary School Teachers in England and France.

Cassell Education.

Bruner, J.S., 1996. The Culture of Education. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Chapman, D., Adams, D., 2002. The Quality of Education:

Dimensions and Strategies. The Asian Development Bank/

Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre, The

University of Hong Kong, Manila.

Chesterfield, R., undated. Classroom Observation Tools. The

Improving Educational Quality Project, funded by USAID.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Clarke, P., 2003. Culture and classroom reform: the case of the

primary education project, India. Comparative Education

39 (10), 27–44.

Crossley, M., Watson, K., 2003. Comparative and Interna-

tional Research in Education. Globalisation, Context and

Difference. Routledge Falmer, London.

DeStefano, J., Hartwell, A., Schubert, J., Vargas-Baron, E.,

1999. Pupils, learning, and educational quality. The Quality

Link 2.

Duraisamy, P., James, E., Lane, J., Tan, J.P., 1998. Is there

a quantity-quality trade-off as pupil–teacher ratios

increase? Evidence from Tamil Nadu, India. Inter-

national Journal of Educational Development 18 (5),

367–383.

Education for All, 2005. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005.

UNESCO, Paris.

Grisay, A., Mahlck, L., 1991. The Quality of Education in

Developing Countries: A Review of Some Research Studies

and Policy Documents. IIEP, Paris.

Hanushek, E.A., 1997. Assessing the effects of school resources

on student performance: an update. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis 19 (2).

Harbison, R.W., Hanushek, E.A., 1992. Educational Perfor-

mance of the Poor: Lessons from Rural Northeast Brazil.

Oxford University Press, New York.

Hargreaves, A., 1994. Changing Teachers, Changing Times:

Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age.

Teachers’ College Press, New York.

Harley, K., Barasa, F., Bertram, C., Mattson, E., Pillay, S.,

2000. The real and the ideal: teacher roles and competences

in South African policy and practice. International Journal

of Educational Development 20 (4), 287–304.

Harvey, L., Green, D., 1993. Defining quality. Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (1).

Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., Greenwald, R., 1994a. Does money

matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of

differential school inputs on student outcomes. Somewhere:

a reply to Hanushek. Educational Researcher 23 (4), 9–10;

23 (3), 5–14.

Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., Greenwald, R., 1994b. Money does

matter somewhere: a reply to Hanushek. Educational

Researcher 23 (4), 9–10.

Heneveld, W., 1994. Planning and Monitoring the Quality of

Primary Education in SubSaharan Africa. AFTHER

Technical Note No. 14, Human Resources and Poverty

Division, Technical Department, Africa Region, World

Bank, Washington, DC.

Heneveld, W., 2002. The Challenge of Quality Education for

All. Paper presented at the Ireland Aid Education Forum—

Quality Education for All: Issues and Challenges, Dublin,

October 4th.

Heyneman, S.P., 1997. The quality of education in the Middle

East and North Africa (MENA). International Journal of

Educational Development 17 (4), 449–466.

Improving Educational Quality Project, 1999. Educational

Quality Framework. American Institutes for Research,

Report prepared for USAID.

Ipinge, S.M., undated. Quality in education and access to

education in Namibia: goals of education after years.

www.nied.edu.na/nied/publications/journals/journals13, ac-

cessed on Jan 13 2003.

James, M., 2002. But what do you mean successful? The role

evaluatory activities play in creating and maintaining

teacher quality. A case study of the Indian District Primary

Education Programme. Paper presented at the BAICE

conference at Nottingham University.

Kanu, Y., 1996. Educating teachers for the improvement of the

quality of basic education in developing countries. Interna-

tional Journal of Educational Development 16 (2), 173–184.

Levin, H.M., Lockheed, M.E. (Eds.), 1993. Effective Schools in

Developing Countries. Falmer Press, London.

Lockheed, M., Verspoor, A., 1991. Improving Primary Educa-

tion in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press,

World Bank.

McGrath, S., 2001. Research in a cold climate: towards a

political economy of British international and comparative

education. International Journal of Educational Develop-

ment 21 (5), 391–400.

Motola, S., 1995. Surviving the system—a critical appraisal of

some conventional wisdoms in primary education in South

Africa. Comparative Education 31 (2), 161–179.

Motola, S., 2001. Quality and indicators of quality in South

African education: a critical appraisal. International Jour-

nal of Educational Development 21, 61–78.

National Assessment of Progress in Education, 1999. Executive

Summary on the Achievements of Primary School Pupils in

Uganda in English and Mathematics. Uganda National

Examinations Board.

Nias, J., 1989. Primary Teachers Talking: A Study of Teaching

as Work. Routledge, London.

N’tchougan-Sonou, C.H., 2001. Automatic promotion or large-

scale repetition—which path to quality? International

Journal of Educational Development 21, 149–162.

O’Sullivan, M.C., 2001. Communicative approaches to teaching

English in Namibia: the issue of transfer of Western

approaches to developing countries. International Journal

of Early Years Education 9 (1), 51–61.

O’Sullivan, M.C., 2002. Reform implementation and the

realities within which teachers work: a Namibian case

study. Compare 32 (2), 219–237.

O’Sullivan, M.C., 2003. What is happening in the classroom? A

common-sense approach to improving the quality of

primary education in developing countries. Paper presented

at the 47th International Comparative and International

Education Society conference in New Orleans, March

12–16th.

O’Sullivan, M.C., 2004. The reconceptualisation of learner-

centred approaches: a Namibian case study. International

Journal of Educational Development 24 (6), 585–602.

Pontefract, C., Hardman, F., 2005. The discourse of classroom

interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative

Education 41 (1), 87–106.

Prouty, D., 2000. Teachers as miracle workers—stepping stones

to success. The Quality Link 2.

http://www.nied.edu.na/nied/publications/journals/journals13

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Riddell, A., 1998. Reforms of educational efficiency and quality in

developing countries: an overview. Compare 28 (3), 277–291.

Riddell, A., 1999. Evaluations of educational reform pro-

grammes in developing countries: whose life is it anyway?

International Journal of Educational Development 19,

383–394.

Samoff, J., 1999. No teacher guide, no textbooks, no chairs:

contending with crisis in African education. In: Arnove,

R.F., Torres, C.A. (Eds.), Comparative Education—the

Dialectic of the Global and the Local. Rowan and Littlefield

Publishers Inc., Boston.

Schubert, J., 2001. The Path to Quality. Report Prepared for

the Improving Educational Quality Project.

Shaw, I., Newton, D.P., Aitkin, M., Darnell, R., 2003. Do

OFSTED inspections of secondary schools make a differ-

ence to GCSE results? British Educational Research Journal

29 (1), 63–75.

Stevenson, H.W., Lee, S., 1997. The East Asian version of

whole-class teaching. In: Cummings, K., Altbach, G. (Eds.),

The Challenge of Eastern Asian Education. Implications for

America. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Tabulawa, R., 2003. International aid agencies, learner-centred

pedagogy and political democratisation: a critique. Com-

parative Education 39 (1), 7–26.

Torres, R.M., 2003. Improving the quality of basic education?

The strategies of the World Bank. In: Beauchamp, E.R.

(Ed.), Comparative Education Reader. Routledge Falmer,

New York.

Tymms, P., 1999. Baseline assessment, value-added and the

prediction of reading. Journal of Research in Reading 22

(1), 27–36.

Ven der Werf, G., Creemers, B., de Jong, R., Klaver, E., 2000.

Evaluation of school improvement through educational

effectiveness model: the case of Indonenisia’s PEQIP

project. Comparative Education Review 44 (3).

Watkins, C., Mortimore, P., 1999. Pedagogy: what do we

know? In: Mortimore, P. (Ed.), Pedagogy and its Impact on

Learning. Paul Chapman, London, pp. 1–19.