Previous Page  95 / 253 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 95 / 253 Next Page
Page Background

83

Other evidence in support of Jordan’s successful reform agenda during 1999 and 2007 related

to in the large size of the returns to total hours teaching. Analysis showed no real difference in

the amount of hours devoted to 12 teaching. But there was a significant positive change in the

returns to hours teaching. This alone accounted for 16 percent of the improvement in test scores

over time. This shows that Jordanian teachers had become more effective at conveying the

material in the classroom (Abdul-Hamid, Abu-Lebdeh and Patrinos (2011).

However it is unclear how Jordan’s advantage in TIMSS was lost. If the same level of resources

compared to other countries from MENA produced more output (i.e. student test scores) in

Jordan during 2000s. Why are teachers in Jordan unable to add more value with the same level

of resources as they apparently succeeded in doing in earlier rounds of TIMSS? What explains

the decline in value-added of Jordan’s teachers? Clear answer to these questions are absent in

the academic and policy literature.

Lastly, evaluation of recently developed school-based pilot intervention programs designed to

improve the reading and math skills also generated important insights into what works in

improving student learning. The Ministry of Education implemented the National Early Grade

Literacy and Numeracy Survey during 2013/2014 school year (Mulcahy-Dunn, Dick, Crouch,

and Newton, 2016). As many as 400 teachers in 347 classrooms across 43 schools were studies

covering approximately 12,000 students. As part of this, an intervention was designed to

provide teachers with structured, and developmentally appropriate daily practice in

foundational skills for reading and mathematics. Special training materials were developed for

students and teachers. In addition, to provide feedback to teachers on their teaching practices,

coaches were trained to visit and observe classrooms. The uniqueness of this study is that a

group of schools were not given an intervention and hence serve as a “control population”.

Student performance was measured using the EGRA/EGMA assessments. EGRA and EGMA test

scores were collected before the intervention for both groups through a baseline survey.

The main findings are as follows. Students from control schools showed no learning gains

between 2012 and 2014. In contrast, there were significant gains across intervention schools in

a number of aspects: (a) reduction of the proportion of the lowest performers (b) increase in the

proportion of the highest performers (c) increase in the proportion of readers (from 13% to

24%) (d) increase in the proportion of mathematicians (from 14% to 24%). The study also

identified teacher behavior and actions as the key underlying driver of these positive changes in

student performance. Three findings are noteworthy: (i) In 69%of the classes, teachers followed

the notes and routines of the intervention with diligently; these were in top-performing

classrooms for mathematics performance. (ii) In 80%of the classes, teachers monitored student

understanding by asking for further explanations; these were in top-performing classrooms for

mathematics (iii) In 84% of the classes, teachers marked all of the work in the student

workbooks sessions; these classes were in top performing category for mathematics (Mulcahy-

Dunn, Dick, Crouch, and Newton, 2016).

There are two key lessons from the pilot study. First, the provision of direct and frequent in-

classroom support to teachers, in the form of in classroom coaching or supervisors visits, is

critical. The frequency of visits by a supervisor or coach was found to significantly improve

student performance -- 93% of teachers with frequent supervisor visits had top-performing

classrooms (Mulcahy-Dunn, Dick, Crouch, and Newton, 2016). Second, in-service teacher

training matters for student learning. Teachers who attended more of the available training

sessions had a higher proportion of readers and mathematicians in their classes compared to

those who attended less training (Mulcahy-Dunn, Dick, Crouch, and Newton, 2016).