|
School effectiveness in developing countries - A summary of the research
evidence - Education Research Paper [Previous Page] [Table of Contents] [Next Page] Section 6: Evidence from developed countriesA recent summary of research findings from industrialized countries is given in Riddell & Brown (1991). At the primary level, Peter Mortimore reports that it is important to take account of differences in student intake. Even when differences in intake have been taken into account, some schools are more likely than others to lead to good outcomes. Whilst attainment is influenced heavily by home background, progress is more likely to be influenced by schooling. Schools may be effective at different things, but schools effective for one group of pupils are also likely to be effective for others. Mortimore lists specific factors noted in a number of different studies which make primary schools effective:
a) Leadership The research shows that having a headteacher who is purposeful but neither too authoritarian or too democratic and who is able to share ownership of the school with colleagues is important. The quality of leadership, however, includes the ability to delegate to a deputy without feeling threatened, and to involve members of the staff in the planning and the management of the school. At secondary level, David Reynolds reports that it is clear that schools can have substantial positive effects upon young people's development if they can become more effective. Schools may be differentially effective upon different areas of pupil development, and recent findings suggest that schools can have somewhat different effects upon pupils of different backgrounds or abilities. We know much more about what generates academic effectiveness than what generates social effectiveness. Reynolds (in Riddell & Brown, 1991, pp 24-25) summarises the findings of Rutter et al (1979) as follows:
'Irrelevant' factors were On the other hand, research carried out in Wales (Reynolds et al, 1989) found that more effective schools did have smaller class sizes, more favourable pupil/teacher ratios and were of smaller pupil numbers overall. But other findings were similar to those reported above, and Reynolds (in Riddell & Brown, 1991) stresses the importance of an 'incorporative approach', involving pupils and parents. Generally the secondary school studies are in line with those for primary schools. Reynolds notes also that it is not necessarily easy to bring school effectiveness knowledge into ineffective schools. The research findings reported in this section are based on empirical studies of primary and secondary schools in Britain and other industrialized countries. Of course there are many differences between these schools and typical schools in developing countries, such as resourcing levels, socio-cultural factors, educational background of the teachers, and patterns of organisation. Nevertheless, there may be lessons to be learnt. One striking feature is that the findings relate much more to process than to input, and it may be that research in developing countries should pay much more attention to the former. Fuller (1987) is among those who make this point. He argues that we should not just focus on the effects of material inputs, such as textbook availability or overall school expenditure levels, but ask how material ingredients actually are mobilized and organized within schools and classrooms. It could be that significant progress would be made in Third World school effectiveness by greater attention to some or all of the process variables such as classroom management, school climate, and institutional leadership. The cost of improvements in these areas would be low in comparison with large scale material inputs, and the key would appear to be in-service training for teachers, school principals and inspectors. It is true that there is relatively little research evidence on the effects of process variables on schools in developing countries, and it could be argued that school effectiveness research findings from industrialized countries are invalid in a Third World context. The opposing view is that there are enough similarities among schools worldwide to suggest that researchers, planners and policy-makers in developing countries should at the very least be aware of these findings. The meta-analysis is particularly useful for this purpose, and there is an increasing volume of published work at this level (see Kulik & Kulik, 1989). It is not the purpose of this report to review this research but it is worth giving an example of the type of findings which might have applications in developing countries as well as in developed countries. This example is from research on the effectiveness of mastery learning strategies.
A meta-analysis of findings from 108 controlled evaluations showed that mastery learning programs have positive effects on the examination performance of students in colleges, high schools and the upper grades in elementary schools. The effects appear to be stronger on the weaker students in a class..... Mastery programs have positive effects on student attitudes toward course content and instruction but may increase student time on instructional tasks. (Kulik et al, 1990, p265) The meta-analysis found that, on the average, such programs raise final examination scores by about 0.5 standard deviations, which compares very favourably with effects from other innovatory learning strategies. For example, peer and cross-age tutoring programs give average improvements of 0.4 standard deviations. The effects reported here are so large that there is a strong case for further projects in these areas. However, the introduction of a mastery learning program in a developing country would be likely to require significant material inputs in addition to in-service training for the teachers. As with many promising innovations, a necessary first step would be small scale experimentation.
|
|
dfidpubs@dfid.gov.uk |