Educational Assessment in Tanzania: A Sociocultural Perspective [1st ed.] 9789811599910, 9789811599927

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION

Joyce Kahembe Liz Jackson

Educational Assessment in Tanzania A Sociocultural Perspective 123

SpringerBriefs in Education

We are delighted to announce SpringerBriefs in Education, an innovative product type that combines elements of both journals and books. Briefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications in education. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the SpringerBriefs in Education allow authors to present their ideas and readers to absorb them with a minimal time investment. Briefs are published as part of Springer’s eBook Collection. In addition, Briefs are available for individual print and electronic purchase. SpringerBriefs in Education cover a broad range of educational fields such as: Science Education, Higher Education, Educational Psychology, Assessment & Evaluation, Language Education, Mathematics Education, Educational Technology, Medical Education and Educational Policy. SpringerBriefs typically offer an outlet for: • An introduction to a (sub)field in education summarizing and giving an overview of theories, issues, core concepts and/or key literature in a particular field • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques and instruments in the field of educational research • A presentation of core educational concepts • An overview of a testing and evaluation method • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic or policy change • An in-depth case study • A literature review • A report/review study of a survey • An elaborated thesis Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in the SpringerBriefs in Education series. Potential authors are warmly invited to complete and submit the Briefs Author Proposal form. All projects will be submitted to editorial review by editorial advisors. SpringerBriefs are characterized by expedited production schedules with the aim for publication 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance and fast, global electronic dissemination through our online platform SpringerLink. The standard concise author contracts guarantee that: • an individual ISBN is assigned to each manuscript • each manuscript is copyrighted in the name of the author • the author retains the right to post the pre-publication version on his/her website or that of his/her institution

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914

Joyce Kahembe · Liz Jackson

Educational Assessment in Tanzania A Sociocultural Perspective

Joyce Kahembe Tanzania Institute of Education Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania

Liz Jackson Department of International Education Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, Hong Kong

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Education ISBN 978-981-15-9991-0 ISBN 978-981-15-9992-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9992-7 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

About This Book

In African societies, educational reform is held as a key to economic and political flourishing. In relation, adjusting assessment practices to be more oriented toward cultivating student learning has become a popular tactic and part of educational reform efforts, in African countries and around the world. However, such educational reforms are not always effectively implemented. As teachers are on the frontlines of reform implementation, understanding their views and practices can help illuminate the challenges of educational reform at the ground level. This book examines teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Tanzania. It employs a sociocultural perspective to reveal how Tanzanian teachers understand the role of assessment in relation to their classroom practices, and cultural and other factors. This book shows that teachers in Tanzania, view assessment as useful for evaluating and monitoring learning, improving student performance, and for accountability. Yet teachers’ assessment practices are rarely seen to directly support student learning. In this context, it is not the case that teachers lack knowledge of how to implement mandated assessment reform. Instead, they are reluctant to adopt and embrace reforms as they see them as contradictory to their teaching roles and expectations related to high-stakes testing, and overly burdensome given their material, economic, and cultural reality. This book argues that improving traditional assessment practices, rather than radically transforming them, can be more effective for cultivating practices suiting the material, political, economic, and cultural context of Tanzanian schools. The text will be of value to educators and scholars interested in development and educational reform in African contexts. It highlights the significance of sociocultural factors in educator professional practice, while it illustrates the major challenges in implementing global reform agendas in diverse contexts.

v

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Research Questions and Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.4 Overview of the Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Educational History in Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 The Colonial Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Education Since Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Assessment in Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Assessment Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Assessment Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Past Studies of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 17 19 25 25 27 30 32 32

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Conceptions and Conceptualisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Theoretical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Importance of Context in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 The Importance of National Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The Importance of the Material Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 The Importance of Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 How Conceptions Impact Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 How Conceptions Impact Teacher Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 The Impact of Teacher Practices on Student Experiences . . . . 3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 37 38 40 41 43 44 45 45 48 50 50

vii

viii

Contents

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Assessing and Monitoring Student Understanding, Progress, and Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Assessment for Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Assessment for Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.4 Contradictory Conceptions and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Assessment Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Questioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Influences on Teachers’ Conceptions and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 The National Education Assessment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 The Education Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 The Material Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 55 56 60 64 66 73 73 75 78 78 79 80 81 82

5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Educational Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Theoretical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Implications for Policy Makers and Administrators . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Implications for Teachers as Reform Implementers . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 85 87 89 90 91 92 92 94 94

About the Authors

Joyce Kahembe is presently a Principal Curriculum Coordinator at the Tanzania Institute of Education. Formerly, she worked as the Principal Examination Officer for 12 years at the National Examination Council of Tanzania. She studied Education and Psychology at the University of Dar-es-salaam, Tanzania. Later, she studied Education Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation at the University of Twente, The Netherlands, and Education Policy and Administration in the areas of curriculum and assessment at the University of Hong Kong. Liz Jackson is a Professor in the Department of International Education at the Education University of Hong Kong. She is also the President of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, and the former Director of the Comparative Education Research Centre at the University of Hong Kong. Her past authored books include Muslims and Islam in US Education: Reconsidering Multiculturalism, Questioning Allegiance: Resituating Civic Education, Beyond Virtue: The Politics of Educating Emotions, and Contesting Education and Identity in Hong Kong.

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract This chapter includes background information about the topic of assessment reform and gives a basic account of its importance in Tanzania. It briefly explains the study at the heart of this text, why it is important, how it relates to past work on education assessment reform, and the basic research questions and design. Keywords Tanzania · Curriculum reform · Assessment · Conceptions · Teachers

1.1 Background In 2005, the Ministry of Education in Tanzania through its Institute of Education introduced competency-based curriculum (TIE, 2005). The introduction of this curriculum required a renewed focus on student needs and teacher support of learning processes (Woods, 2007). Moving toward alignment with global standards and the priorities of international donors, each element of the reform emphasised student-centred approaches. Thus, the reform was implemented concurrently with new recommendations for teaching pedagogies and assessment practices. Formative assessment was concurrently mandated, for teachers to better scaffold student learning and engage students in competency development processes, and to enable students to reflect upon and regulate their learning (TIE, 2005). Formative assessment practices were crucial within the curriculum because they assert the importance of using assessment during teaching and learning to elicit information as evidence for diagnosing and improving teaching and learning processes (Black, Harrison Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003). Formative assessment practices were thus held as essential to the implementation of the reform, so that teachers could engage students in learning processes and continuously gather information about classroom and educational processes. Formative assessment also facilitates more dialogic practices and use of assessment evidence for increasing student participation and giving students space for developing their own personal competencies (Woods, 2007). The introduction of formative assessment methods also meant the replacement of old teaching and assessment practices. Teachers in Tanzania, as elsewhere, have traditionally assessed students at the end of teaching, to evaluate achievement of learning © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Kahembe and L. Jackson, Educational Assessment in Tanzania, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9992-7_1

1

2

1 Introduction

and mastery of content knowledge (Osaki, 2007). Teachers also took a dominant role in teaching and learning processes historically, rather than a facilitating role as stipulated in the reform (Mosha, 2005). Thus, the reform was accompanied by restructuring of teachers’ professional and in-service training programs, for capacity building and for teachers to understand the rationale for new assessment principles and constructive teaching practices and assessment methods. These training also meant to empower teachers to effectively use newly recommended methods throughout teaching and learning. The extension of teaching methodologies courses and teaching field practices was also undertaken for teachers to learn and practice the new teaching methods before their formal implementation. The reform in teachers’ professional and in-service training focused on how to use new assessment reforms while teaching and how to support students by using student-centred pedagogy. Teacher networking programs at regional, district, and ward levels were created for teachers to learn, share, and discuss knowledge and techniques related to the reforms. Teachers were also supported in the field through workshops and seminars, and they were provided new teaching guides and related resources. Generally, this teacher capacity building program was aimed at developing teachers professionally and academically in implementing the reform. The program was undertaken for capacitating teachers with new skills and competencies, and for supporting them to understand and use the new education methods, as well as enabling them to move forward and integrate new knowledge in alignment with other changes in curriculum, such as in science education and educational technology. Despite these initiatives, studies have found that the effective implementation of this reform has remained elusive (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2013; Hardman, Abd-Kadir, & Tibuhinda, 2012; Mosha, 2012; Nzima, 2016). Teachers are still using traditional teaching practices and assessment methods (Vavrus, 2009). Their pedagogies remain more teacher-centred and theoretically based than student-centred (Barrett, 2007; Nzima, 2016). Although there are progressive uses of assessment during teaching and learning (Barrett, 2007), summative use of assessment (at the end of teaching) is still the norm, in primary and secondary education (Sumra & Rajan, 2006). Teachers are typically still emphasising testing and formal grades for measuring and reporting student performance, rather than using assessment for scaffolding learning (Hardman et al., 2012). Assessment practices continue to be driven by the desire to improve performance in the national examination, rather than to support broader competency development. Vavrus and Bartlett’s (2012) qualitative study of teachers’ efforts to implement recent educational reform in Tanzania, in which they extensively interviewed and observed 23 teachers in two regions, shows that teachers have largely continued using their traditional teaching practices. Similar findings were reported in Hardman and colleagues’ (2012) study with primary school teachers in 32 primary schools in eight regions in Tanzania. In contrast with methods and approaches of student-centred pedagogy, teachers were observed to take large amounts of class time explaining their subject and asked few interactive questions throughout the teaching and learning

1.1 Background

3

process. Teachers’ assessment and instructional methods do not reflect the new assessment thinking (Vavrus, 2009). Several interpretations have been given for teachers’ reluctance to implement assessment reforms in Tanzania. Firstly, some have noted that the reform was not locally driven. Instead, it was adopted as part of UNESCO’s Education for All (EFA) plan for “improving the quality of education”, advocated for and formally accepted in many African countries, for capacitating people with competencies to better solve their local social, economic, and political problems, and more effectively participate in national and regional development (UNESCO, 2000, 2011). Despite the curriculum reform being feasible as a method for improving students’ skills and knowledge, it also followed a kind of “mechanical objectivity”, by introducing formative assessment and related practices without considering the social and cultural reality and context for implementation (Barrett, 2007; Vavrus, 2009). That is, the reform followed embedded rules of formative assessment and student-centred learning, which were developed in contexts which differ substantially from those in Tanzania. Formative assessment practices and student-centred pedagogies which were developed and found useful in western countries, with different cultures, historical and contemporary education policies, and political-economic realities, were introduced in Tanzania without critical reflection, or context-based considerations or modification. Thus, data show that teachers have faced difficulties implementing the curriculum reform (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2013; Meena, 2009; Nzilano, 2015). Those mandating the reform in Tanzania did not adequately consider the cultural, economic, and political dimensions of local teaching and learning (Nkoma, 2010; Nzima, 2016; Vavrus, 2009). These include societal norms and expectations related to teaching and learning that may go against the grain of the reform. For instance, student teachers in Vavrus’s study expressed worries in relation to the reform that “if we start a lesson by asking students what they already know about the topic, they will think we don’t know about it ourselves” (2009, p. 303). These student teachers understood that asking many questions during teaching would shift control to students, and obscure their competencies and authority as traditionally expected in Tanzanian classroom teaching (see also Mosha, 2012; Stambach, 2000; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). A related problem is that the reform used a diffusion adoption model. In this case, implementors of the reform (teachers) were cast in the reform process as passive receivers of information and “best practices”, and their views and experiences were not recognised or valued in planning processes. By failing to engage teachers in reform planning, reformers were limited in their understanding of what teachers already knew and did not know, and what was and could be challenging for them in implementing the new reform in their teaching environments. Casting out implementors’ voices in the reform process, it thus became difficult for reformers to effectively engage with teachers’ prior understanding about their practices, and work with them for desired changes to occur. Findings, not only in the Tanzanian context, but also in other African and Asian countries, demonstrate how the swift and top-down implementation of internationally

4

1 Introduction

exported education assessment practices, particularly those associated with studentcentred education, can be problematic and ineffective (Carless, 2011; Jackson, 2014; Lewis & Stuart, 2003; Schweisfurth, 2013). Such education assessment reforms have been criticised particularly for not considering the demands of the national assessment system in many contexts, including in Tanzania (Tabulawa, 2003, 2009), alongside other cultural dimensions of education, including societal-level beliefs about teaching, learning, and assessment (Barrett, 2007; Carless, 2011; Jackson, 2014; Schweisfurth, 2013; Vavrus, 2009), as well as the material and economic contexts of local teaching and learning (Mosha, 2012; Sumra & Rajan, 2006). In relation to these challenges, there has been a significant downward trend in students’ performance in the Certificate of Secondary Education Examinations (CSEE) in Tanzania as indicated in Table 1.1. Although these downfalls cannot be attributed directly to specific challenges in implementing education assessment reforms, the downfall in national examination performance in Tanzania started in 2008, when the first cohort of students who had been taught using the new curriculum completed their lower secondary education. Thus, it is likely that this downfall resulted at least partly in this case from teachers’ (and students’) struggles to cope with the new assessment reforms. The CSEE performance in 2012 was also labelled as “disastrous and shocking”, as the majority of students who sat for the national examination failed. The failure rate was 61%, an increase from 46% in 2011. The quality of student grades was also questionable, as further analysis of 2012 student pass rates in grade categories (known as divisions) indicates that the vast majority of students who passed earned a division four pass. Division four is regarded as a marginal pass (not meaningful performance). With this “pass” grade, students cannot proceed to advanced secondary education. Thus, only six percent of all students taking the CSEE received a meaningful pass rate (divisions one to three), as required to be able to join advanced secondary education and professional colleges in Tanzania. 94 percent failed to meet this criterion. The 2012 results prompted the Prime Minister of Tanzania to nullify the 2012 examination exercise and form a commission to investigate what caused such poor results and provide recommendations. The poor performance that occurred in 2012 not only reflected negatively on the students, but also revealed problems related to how students attempted to answer national examination questions. This national educational crisis challenged us as researchers to examine how assessment is used to support teaching and learning in Tanzania, through a systematic study of Tanzanian teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment.

Candidates

125,288

162,855

248,336

352,840

339,330

397, 126

Year

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

156,223

180,216

177,021

173,323

126,617

39.3

53.59

50.40

72.51

83.69

240,903

156,085

174,193

65,708

24,675

11,820

Number

% 89.90

Number

112,631

Failed (Div. O)

Passed (Div. I–IV)

Table 1.1 CSEE candidate performance, 2007–2012

60.6

46.41

49.4

27.49

16.31

9.70

%

21,097

33,577

40,388

42,672

40,435

43,383

Number

Passed (Div. I–III) %

6

9.98

11.50

17.85

26.73

34.86

135,126

146,639

136,633

130,651

86,179

66,666

Number

Passed (Div. 1–V) %

34.00

43.60

38.90

54.66

56.96

54.7

1.1 Background 5

6

1 Introduction

1.2 Research Questions and Significance This book uses a sociocultural perspective to explore teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Tanzania. Specifically, we were guided by the following research questions: (a) (b) (c) (d)

What are teachers’ conceptions of assessment in Tanzania? What are teachers’ assessment practices? What factors influence teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment? What is the relationship between teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment?

Our findings uncover teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Tanzania and the major factors that influence them. At the same time, we also show how teachers translate educational reform from top down into everyday classroom practice. This book does not explicitly indicate the impact of teachers’ assessment conceptions and practices on learning. However, through our investigation of students’ and teachers’ activities and perspectives, we do shed light on likely effects of assessment practices on learning, and on achieving learning goals in the Tanzanian context. This book primarily deals with the views and experiences of teachers in Tanzania. We identified teachers as our key informants because they are the primary implementers of educational reform. Teachers’ involvement here has thus been necessary for understanding how it is that teachers as frontline educators put reforms into practice, and why they think and work as they do. However, we also included other participants in our study, whose views we also regard as crucial to more systematically understanding what influences teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Teachers’ views and practices can also be understood to fit in with beliefs, values, and norms of others within their society (Brown, 2008; Carless, 2011) and with those of others in important institutions in their context, such as schools and higherlevel educational organisations (Tabulawa, 2003; Vavrus, 2009). As we show here, teachers do not just link their thoughts with those of their colleagues, but also with the understandings of educational leaders, parents, and students. Of these groups, educational leaders and students were also consulted in our study. The study focuses on teachers’ conceptions, because teachers’ conceptions about education (such as about curriculum, learning, learners, teaching, and assessment) are among the most valuable psychological constructs informing their professional choices and classroom practices (Calderhead, 1996; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Pintrich, 1990). Furthermore, teachers’ conceptions of assessment are the most direct influences on their assessment practices (Brown, Lake & Matters, 2011; Brown, Kennedy, Fok, Chan, & Yu, 2009; Brown, Chaudhry & Dhamija, 2015; Gebril & Brown, 2013). The study focuses on assessment, because it is a key component in achieving educational objectives (Biggs, 1996; Black & William, 1998). Curriculum, assessment, and instruction are inseparable entities in teaching and learning. The curriculum expresses specific skills and behavioural objectives to be achieved, while assessment

1.2 Research Questions and Significance

7

is used to assess and ensure that each objective is achieved appropriately during and/or after instructional processes. This study is valuable as there have been no previous studies of the influences of teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment at the secondary school level in Tanzania. Previous studies have focused on teachers’ knowledge and skills in implementing curriculum reform and the challenges they face at the primary level (Barrett, 2007; Hardman et al., 2012; Mosha, 2012; Renatus, 2016) and at teachers’ colleges (Meena, 2009; Nzilano, 2015; Nzima, 2016; Vavrus, 2009). Such studies have focused on teachers’ and teacher educators’ (tutors) understandings of curriculum innovation (Meena, 2009; Nzima, 2016), beliefs about curriculum reform (Nzilano, 2015; Renatus, 2016; Vavrus, 2009), knowledge of curriculum reform (Mosha, 2012; Nkoma, 2010), and the influences of their knowledge, beliefs, and understandings on their practices. The findings of these studies indicate that effective implementation of reform has been hindered because teachers lack skills and knowledge (see Mosha, 2012; Nzima, 2016), because of their beliefs about curriculum (Meena, 2009), and due to factors within the socio-cultural environment of teaching and learning (Nzilano, 2015; Renatus, 2016; Vavrus, 2009). Teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills in implementing reform has been regarded in such studies as a result of the inadequacy of pre-service and in-service teachers’ training programs (Mosha, 2012; Nzima, 2016). Teachers also indicate facing challenges in implementing reform related to their working in poor physical and material educational environments, with insufficient teaching and learning resources and overcrowded classrooms (Mosha, 2012; Sumra & Rajan, 2006; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2012). However, previous studies do not explore experiences across teachers in diverse school environments; nor have they considered teachers’ conceptions of assessment as a major factor in their classroom practices. Meanwhile, although the findings in these studies have led to the restructuring of teacher professional and in-services training programs and further provision of teaching and learning materials in schools, as well as the establishment of new professional development programs for teacher capacity building in Tanzania, recent studies still identify teachers’ continued reluctance in effectively implementing assessment reforms (Hardman et al., 2012; Mosha, 2012). Teachers’ reluctance in implementing reform is influenced by things apart from their knowledge of reforms, and their material resources for teaching. In this context, we are particularly mindful that teachers’ conceptions about education practices are not simply uninformed, wrongheaded, or deficient (Jackson, 2013). Rather they are ecologically rational, as responses to broader personal, cultural, and societal priorities (Brown, 2008; Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005). These factors must be considered to understand why teachers are apparently reluctant to implement mandated assessment change. Studies of teachers’ conceptions of assessment have been conducted previously, but they have been mostly conducted in Asia, North America, Europe, Australia, and Egypt (see Brown et al., 2009, 2011; Brown, Chaudhry & Dhamija, 2015; Gebril & Brown, 2013; Segers & Tillema, 2011). These contexts have markedly different social, economic, and political characteristics from Tanzania. Since conceptions are

8

1 Introduction

context-based and specific, this study is significant in revealing the inner world of Tanzanian teachers’ thinking, such as their conceptions and what is influencing their plans, judgements, and decisions about assessment practices in their locale. In this text, we also show how teachers put assessment reform into practice. Thus, these findings can help readers understand what assessment reform planners should further consider in reform planning processes, and where there are opportunities for establishing more context-based and sustainable formative assessment practices in Tanzania. Meanwhile, continuing to overlook teachers’ particular intentions in assessment use can only further hinder implementation of assessment reform in this context. In this book, we show how teachers continuously value and conceive their traditional assessment practices as more effective in solving their most urgent teaching and learning challenges, regardless of the possible negative residual effects they can also have for student learning within a competency-based approach. As we argue here, educational reformers need to consider this broader context, such as the embedded beliefs, norms, and values of assessment and teaching and learning at the individual, school, and national levels, as they aim to improve educational planning and envision further interventions for ensuring best practices in alignment with Tanzania’s education goals.

1.3 Research Design Since we aimed to deeply understand teachers’ conceptions and make a distinction between their conceptions and knowledge, a qualitative research design was used in our study. An ethnographic case study approach was employed in data gathering and analysis, in order for us to be involved in the field and engage in a deeper exploration and understanding of the overall phenomenon. Ethnography is used here as a technique and an account of sociocultural analysis. The use of ethnography as a technique enabled us to inquire about participants’ thoughts and behaviours and observe their practices in the social setting. The use of an ethnographic study approach as part of a sociocultural analysis helped capture and explain the influences of culture and context in shaping teachers’ conceptions and practices. Social phenomena constitute meaning within social practice (Hammersley, 2000). The use of ethnographic study as a technique helped us to question and trace social relationships, interactions, activities, and institutions in a setting, and how they shaped teachers’ conceptions and practices. A case study approach was concurrently used to have close and in-depth exploration of study units and their contextual conditions. A case can be viewed as a phenomenon (Miles & Huberman, 1994), “unity of study” (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009), or process to describe and analyse an entity. In this study, multiple types of cases were included. First, six secondary schools, private and public, were identified as social units, based on their having varying levels of academic performance. Secondly, within the six schools, three teachers were selected in each, for a total of 18 teachers, whose

1.3 Research Design

9

processes and experiences were also treated as cases for study. Teachers as individual cases were explored in depth, through examining their case conceptions and practices. Thereafter, cases within a school were explored altogether to understand whether there were influencing factors within specific school settings. Teacher participants were drawn from different teaching subjects and schools as indicated in Table 1.2. This enabled the researchers to further classify teachers’ conceptions and practices per their subject matters. Pseudonyms have used here to protect the identities of schools and all participants in the study. Education leaders (persons specialized in educational practices) were also included, as they play a role in policy advocacy and planning. Educational leaders work in the Ministry of Education and its affiliated institutions, higher learning institutions, and non-government organisations as education planners, policy advocates, curriculum developers, and the like. Here, our focus was particularly on identifying education leaders who had participated in recent education assessment reforms. We consulted the Ministry of Education and the Tanzania Institute of Education (the key organisation responsible for curriculum development and review) for a list of education leaders who had participated in education assessment reform. We interviewed five such leaders (see Table 1.3). Students were also included in the study, as they are key targets of education output and outcome measurements and achievement. The inclusion of students was not only important for better understanding the factors that influence teachers’ conceptions and practices, but also to identify some of the major impacts of teachers’ practices on student learning approaches, outcomes, experiences, and performance. Students were selected from class lists, which were voluntarily supplied by most of the participating teachers. One or two students were randomly selected from among students identified by their teachers as the best and worst performing. A total of 12 students participated, as shown in Table 1.4. We primarily gathered data using observations and interviews. Nonparticipant observation was used to capture first-hand information about individual behaviours, events, and actions in natural settings (in this case, primarily in the classroom, during lessons). Data gathering was thus conducted in three stages: through pre-lesson interviews, classroom observations, and post-lesson interviews. Pre-classroom observations and interviews were based on the teaching plans and materials used for preparing observed lessons. Interview questions were based on specific aspects of teachers’ lesson plans, teaching guides, syllabuses, textbooks, and other materials used in order to better understand the factors that influenced teachers’ work and how they planned to teach and use assessment. Inside-classroom observations focused on actual teaching practices. The foci were assessment timing and how teachers used assessment and otherwise engaged students. The researcher (Joyce) sat in the back corner of the classroom during lesson observations. An observation protocol questionnaire was used for systematic observation. The protocol had questions related to classroom size, classroom organisation, and the nature of student–teacher (and student–student) interactions. Assessment materials such as tests and assignments were collected from each teacher during lesson observation. A list of classroom activities noted during observation served as a guide for the

10

1 Introduction

Table 1.2 Schools and teachers in the study Schoola

Teachera

Gender

Degrees and experience

Subject

Chanzo

Grace

Female

Diploma in Education 28 years

Swahili

Rossana

Male

Diploma in Education 18 years

Chemistry

Mwidu

Female

B.A.-Education 5 years

English

Mariana

Female

Diploma and B.A.-Education 16 years

Kiswahili

Mercy

Female

Diploma and B.Sc.-Education 15 years

Chemistry

Jenister

Female

B.A.-Education 14 years

Geography

Kwang

Male

B.Sc.-Agriculture Postgrad Diploma in Education 27 years

Biology

Muna

Male

B.A.-Education 4 years

History

Katarina

Female

B.A.-Education 4 years

Geography

Boniface

Male

Diploma and B.Sc.-Education 21 years

Biology

Batila

Male

Diploma and B.A.-Education 22 years

English

Banduka

Male

B.A.-Education 8 years

History

Chacha

Male

B.Sc.-Education 8 Years

Chemistry

Marwa

Male

B.A.-History Postgrad Diploma in Education 19 years

History

Mwita

Male

B.A.-Education 8 Years

Kiswahili

Rukia

Female

Diploma in Education 15 years

English

Charles

Male

Diploma in Education 5 Years

Biology

Silvia

Male

B.A.-Education 12 years

Geography

Mfano

Kombozi

Kuzuri

Nguvu

Ongezeko

a Pseudonyms

are used for schools and teachers throughout the study

1.3 Research Design

11

Table 1.3 Education leaders Pseudonym

Gender

Qualification

Organisation

Experience

Cathy

Female

B.Sc.-Education M.Sc.-Education

TIE

Curriculum Developer Researcher

Timothy

Male

Diploma in Education B.A.-Education M.A.-Education Ph.D.-Curriculum

TIE

Tutor-Teachers’ Training Colleges Activist in Education Director-Curriculum

Veronica

Female

B.A.-Education M.Ed.-Education

TIE

Teacher (Kiswahili) Curriculum Developer

Leonard

Male

Diploma in Education B.A.-Education M.A.-Education Ph.D.-Education

Tutor-University

Tutor-Teachers’ Training Colleges Activist in Education

Micky

Male

Diploma in Education B.A.-Education M.A.-Education Ph.D.-Education

NGOs

Tutor-Teachers’ Training Colleges Retired officer Activist in Education Consultant, UNESCO

Table 1.4 Students

School

Student pseudonym

Year of study

Mfano

Jacqueline

Year 3

Kombozi

Kuzuri

Chanzo

Bahati

Year 3

Julieth

Year 3

Rose

Year 3

Duncan

Year 3

Robert

Year 3

Peter

Year 2

Maria

Year 2

Brayan

Year 2

Ester

Year 2

Jumanne

Year 2

Oswald

Year 2

post-observation interview. The post-lesson interview allowed teachers to describe, elaborate, explain, and otherwise comment on their classroom assessment behaviour and for the researcher to further understand the meaning of observed classroom practices of teachers. Since it is not possible to observe people’s feelings and thoughts, or the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world, the use of interviews was crucial in this study. The interviews helped the researchers to in a sense enter into participants’ thoughts and explore their conceptions, practices, and experiences of assessment.

12

1 Introduction

One or two semi-structured, open-ended interviews with teachers and other participants (education leaders and students) were conducted. The use of semi-structured, open-ended questions allowed for the examination of participants’ thoughts and for them to express themselves authentically. As the study explores the influence of sociocultural factors (context and culture) on participants’ thoughts and behaviours, it was not possible to formulate a strict question guide for every interviewee. Instead, the researcher remained open during interviewing to allow participants to voice their own ideas and thoughts. Generally, the interviews helped us to understand the complexity and embedded meanings and intentions of participants regarding assessment, and participants’ own views. We also had to inquire in-depth about participants’ responses to better illuminate their understanding, and to distinguish their knowledge from their conceptions, particularly in the case of teachers. By engaging in this process, we found in contrast to common views that teachers had knowledge of education assessment reform principles. However, they did not conceive this knowledge as practicable within their teaching and learning repertoire and context. For instance, as one teacher indicated: In this assessment reform, you must ask questions, follow learner’s responses, and use the assessment evidences to support them in learning processes …. but it is difficult to do all these: you cannot finish the syllabus; we have many students in a class with limited time to teach ….

Data were collected via observations and interviews with participants between 2014–2016. The analysis of our data is explored here as they are related to pertinent questions about how to improve education, and particularly educational assessment, in Tanzania.

1.4 Overview of the Text The next chapter focuses in more detail on the topic of assessment in education in Tanzania. The chapter briefly describes the history of education in Tanzania, including its precolonial, colonial, and post-colonial features and challenges, and the processes and impacts of educational reforms, particularly related to assessment, in the post-colonial era. It also breaks down the importance of assessment for learning, considering other forms of assessment, and in relation to the variety of assessment practices that can be used in education. Chapter three focuses on the importance of conceptions. First it discusses the nature of conceptions generally and in the context of education. Then it articulates a sociocultural approach to conceptions, complemented by a complexity theory view, and explores how cultural and environmental contexts play a role in the dynamic processes of teaching and learning, and in the development of impactful conceptions of educators, students, and other stakeholders in schools. Chapter four explores secondary school teachers’ assessment conceptions and practices, illuminating how teachers in Tanzania themselves see and use assessment. As explored in the first section, teachers express that they assess students to monitor

1.4 Overview of the Text

13

student understanding and progress, to diagnose and improve teaching and learning, and for accountability and performative purposes. This account reveals instances where teachers contradict their own views, however, while also illustrating diversity in perspectives and approaches among teachers. The second section of the chapter explores assessment practices favoured by teachers, including various questioning and feedback strategies, and considers how they align (or do not align) with teachers’ expressions about their conceptions. Finally, the chapter discusses various influences on teachers, including policy, cultural, and environmental factors that can be seen to shape their views and choices. The fifth chapter is the conclusion. It discusses theoretical implications of our study, and recommendations for future research and future practice for policy makers, educational administrators, educators, and other stakeholders in education.

References Barrett, A. M. (2007). Beyond the polarization of pedagogy: Models of classroom practice in Tanzanian primary schools. Comparative Education, 43(2), 273–294. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2013). Testing and teaching: The Tanzanian national examinations and their influences on pedagogy. In F. Vavrus & L. Bartlett (Eds.), Teaching in tension: International pedagogies, national policies, and teachers’ practices in Tanzania. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Biggs, J. (1996). Testing: To educate or select? Education in Hong Kong at the crossroads. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Publishing Company. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Oxford Open University Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: NFER Nelson Publishing Co Ltd. Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Integrating teachers’ conceptions: Assessment, teaching, learning, curriculum and efficacy. New York: Nova Science. Brown, G. T. L., Chaudhry, H., & Dhamija, R. (2015). The impact of an assessment policy upon teachers’ self-reported assessment beliefs and practices: A quasi-experimental study of Indian teachers in private schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 50–64. Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16, 347–363. Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2011). Queensland teachers’ conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes, teaching and teacher education. An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27(1), 210–220. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-Heritage settings. New York: Routledge. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan. Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Paradigms and politics. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14

1 Introduction

Gebril, A., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). The effect of high-stakes examination systems on teacher beliefs: Egyptian teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(1), 16–33. Hammersley, M. (2000). Taking sides in research: Essay in bias and partisanship. London: Routledge. Hardman, F., Abd-Kadir, J., & Tibuhinda, A. (2012). Reforming teachers’ education in Tanzania. International Journal of Education Development, 32, 826–834. Jackson, L. (2014). Challenges to the concept of student-centered learning with special reference to the United Arab Emirates: Never fail a Nahayan. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46, 1–14. Jackson, L. (2013). They don’t not want babies: Globalizing philosophy of education and the social imaginary of international development. In C. Mayo (Ed.), Philosophy of education 2013. Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society. Lewis, K. M., & Stuart, S. S. (2003). Researching teachers’ education: New perspective on practice, education and policy. London: Department for Education Development. Meena, E. W. (2009). Curriculum innovation in teachers’ education: Exploring conceptions among Tanzanians teacher educators. Dar es Salaam: Abo Akademi Press. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mosha, H. J. (2012). A case study of learning material used to deliver knowledge, skills on competencies based curriculum in Tanzania. A Paper Presented at the Education and Training Africa Conference in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Mosha, H. J. (2005). New directions in teacher education for quality improvement in Africa. Papers in Education and Development, 24, 45–68. Nkoma, J. P. (2010). The effective use of the participatory approach in teaching primary school in Tanzania. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam. Nzilano, J. L. (2015). The influences and outcome of social constructivists curriculum implementation on tutors’ beliefs and practice in teachers’ education college in Tanzania. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Nzima, I. (2016). Competence based curriculum (CBC) in Tanzania: Tutors’ understanding and their instructional practices. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Linnaeus University, Sweden. Osaki, K. M. (2007). Science education in Tanzania: Past, present, and future trends. In K. Osaki, W. Ottevanger, C. Uiso & J. van den Akker (Eds.), Science educational research and teachers’ development in Tanzania. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Pintrich, P. (1990). Implication of psychological research on student learning and college teaching for teacher education. In W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 826– 857). New York: Macmillan. Renatus, I. M. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and concerns about the implementations of the preschool curriculum in Tanzania. Early Years, 1–15. Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred education in international perspective. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 2(1), 1–8. Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2011). How do Dutch teachers and students conceive the purposes of assessment? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 49–54. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Stambach, A. (2000). Evangelism and consumer culture in Northern Tanzania. Anthropological Quarterly, 73(4), 171–179. Sumra, R., & Rajan, R. (2006). Secondary education in Tanzania: Key policy challenges. Dar es Salaam: HakiElimu. Tabulawa, R. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centered pedagogy and political democratisation: A critique. Comparative Education, 39(1), 7–26. Tabulawa, R. (2009). Education reform in Botswana: Reflections on policy contradictions and paradoxes. Comparative Education, 45(1), 87–107. TIE [Tanzania Institute of Education]. (2005). Curriculum for ordinary level secondary education curriculum. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Institute of Education.

References

15

UNESCO. (2000). Dakar framework for action, Education for All: Meeting our collective commitments. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2011). Tanzania education sector analysis: Beyond primary education, the quest for balanced and efficient policy choice for human development and economic growth. Paris: UNESCO. Vavrus, F. (2009). The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies: Teacher education reform in the United Republic of Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 303–311. Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2012). Comparative pedagogies and epistemological diversity: Social and materials contexts of teaching in Tanzania. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 634–658. Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2013). Teaching in tension: International pedagogies, national policies and teachers’ practices in Tanzania. Rotterdam: Sense. Woods, E. (2007). Education for all by 2015: Will we make it? Tanzania country profile prepared for the education for all global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Chapter 2

Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

Abstract Social and cultural context has an important role in shaping people’s thoughts and behaviours in a society, including their norms and practices in education: for teaching, learning, and assessment. This chapter first describes Tanzania’s education history and its legacy on the contemporary education system and on common teaching, learning, and assessment practices. The history of Tanzania’s education from the precolonial time period (including indigenous and Koranic education), to the colonial era (the British and German) are particularly described in relation to their impacts on contemporary (post-colonial) education policies and practices. Finally, the chapter briefly describes the value and possible purposes of assessment in teaching and learning, generally and within the Tanzanian context. Keywords Tanzania · Education · Educational history · Colonization · Education policy · Assessment

2.1 Educational History in Tanzania 2.1.1 The Colonial Period Before colonisation, education in Tanzania was tribe-based and conducted in alignment with the overall structure of communities. There was no national education system, and no centralised curriculum, assessment, and education structure that existed across tribes. Rather, every group conducted education based on their distinctive culture and particular economic and political needs (Wolhuter, 2014). Although there was a kind of formal education for initiation when children reached puberty, and for Islamic teaching practices in madrassa schools (Nyerere, 1968), most pre-colonial education occurred in a non-formal way (Mushi, 2009). Education at that time was an instrument for shaping and sustaining small-scale societies. The education provided was holistic, developed with an intention to initiate the individual child’s mind, soul, and body, in order for them to be a good member of the group, to value local customs and traditions, and to have the dignity of productive labour (Nyerere, 1968), as well as to help them sustain their own life. Since most communities depended on farming, hunting, gathering, crafting, and trading, the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Kahembe and L. Jackson, Educational Assessment in Tanzania, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9992-7_2

17

18

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

education given was localised, for people to have knowledge and skills to adapt to and make use of the natural environment. Thus, education was given at any time and almost every day throughout life, whenever there was a practical, functional, or cultural need to educate (Mushi, 2009). Teaching and instructional activities were part of regular practice and integrated into the economic and social life of the community, for people to learn by living and doing as they engaged in social activities. In some cases, education was given in the form of storytelling, and questions were asked at the end of such teaching to check the understanding of knowledge taught (Anangisye, 2008). Elders (men and women), based on their varied roles in the society, were responsible for teaching and transmitting knowledge, wisdom, skill, values, and norms to youth (Nyerere, 1968). Youth usually learned from elders because they were broadly regarded to have wisdom and skill in society. Additionally, some specialised teaching was done by specific elders, who were known in the society to have particular educative and societal skills. Literature on the colonial legacy in Tanzania reveals how the introduction of colonial education destroyed the traditional philosophies of education in the country (see Lawuo, 1978; Wolhuter, 2014). Colonial education was first introduced in the mid-nineteenth century by missionary agencies in association with foreign agencies (such as religious missions and traders). Thereafter, education was administered by the German from 1884, and the British from 1919 to Tanzania’s independence in 1961. In general, colonialists had similar philosophies for education in Tanzania, seeing it primarily as a means for training of a few skilled labourers who would serve the colonial regime and economy (Hinzen & Hundsdorfer, 1982; Mushi, 2009). Unlike pre-colonial educational philosophy, which emphasised holistic teachings, colonial education focused on the mind only, and training and preparing of an elite few with specific skills and knowledge to serve the colonial government (Mushi, 2009; Wolhuter, 2014). The education given was not related to the indigenous environment or supportive of local people sustaining their traditional social, economic, and political life (Nyerere, 1968; Wolhuter, 2014). Instead, it was given to prepare locals for their colonial masters’ political, social, and economic situation (Hinzen & Hundsdorfer, 1982; Mushi, 2009; Wolhuter, 2014). Thus, the education mission focused on economically productive areas as seen from colonial perspectives, such as working in agriculture and mining areas, to perpetuate colonialization (Rodney, 1976). The missionaries’ education agendas were a starting point for creating socially structured education inequalities because the education provided was not intended to be accessible to the majority. Missionaries gave education only to people who agreed to be converted to Christianity and/or to serve the colonial administration (Lawuo, 1978; Masudi, 1995). The German colonialists did not interfere with earlier missionary education. Missionaries continued to operate schools in Tanzania (then Tanganyika) alongside German colonial schools (Lawuo, 1978; Masudi, 1995). However, the Germans put more emphasis on practical and health education, to train locals as skilled workers such as clerks, tax collectors, interpreters, artisans, and craftsmen, who could help to

2.1 Educational History in Tanzania

19

serve administration purposes in the colonial economy. Since German education in Tanzania was structured for preparing people for paid work, people started to associate formal education with a job in German colonial society. People went to school with the expectation of being allocated jobs, and not to sustain their own lives and traditional lifestyles as in the precolonial era (Wolhuter, 2014). The British had roughly the same agenda for education in Tanzania as the Germans, of producing skilled labourers to serve the colonial government. However, the British had a more pervasive system of education management and administration. The British used a centralised administration system for managing education activities and for accountability purposes (Hinzen & Hundsdorfer, 1982; Wolhuter, 2014). The British centralised all schools under the Education Ministry, and the Director of Education was given responsibility to supervise all educational activities in the territory. School curriculum and assessment were also centralised. Students were taught the same curriculum and assessed nationally after the completion of their course program for certification purposes. Those who passed the national examination were deemed qualified for working in the colonial administration (Hinzen & Hundsdorfer, 1982; Osaki, 2007). This British colonial education had more of an impact on contemporary education than the German system. Generally British colonial education was given only to the minority, especially people from royal families and colonial collaborators (Hinzen & Hundsdorfer, 1979). Those who received an education were not normally able to attend higher education. Only a few went beyond two years of basic education based on reading, writing, and arithmetic. Nyerere, in his first speech to the League of Nations in 1966, noted that only 30% of children of primary education age were in schools in 1954 under British rule. The situation at the secondary school level was worse (Nyerere, 1968). Education as given could not directly benefit the Tanzanians and their local economic, social, and political development (Rodney, 1976). Regardless of the different education purposes and interests of colonialists and Tanzanians, colonialists opened schools, such as Malangali, Tabora Boys, Tabora Girls, Tanga Technical, and Moshi Technical Secondary, which are still in use for educating Tanzanians today. At the time of independence in 1961, a total of 486,470 pupils were enrolled in 3,238 public primary schools with 9,190 teachers (Mbunda, 1978). Thus, independent Tanzania inherited an elitist educational structure. Few had primary education, and many had no formal education (Mushi, 2009). Soon after independence, the government began to take measures to restructure its education system.

2.1.2 Education Since Independence Although some of the earliest struggles after independence in 1961 were focused on restructuring the colonial education system, the measures taken did not entirely uproot the colonial system and its features. Efforts were made at decolonising the system and changing authority over education from the colonial government to that

20

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

of the new independent country. However, there was not a distinct establishment of a new education system. Furthermore, although various acts were passed to express changes after independence, the education structure and system of administration, and the curriculum, assessment, and management systems largely remained the same (Hinzen & Hundsdorfer, 1979; Osaki, 2007). The education restructuring process focused expressly on enhancing education equity, access, and quality. To increase education equity and access, different education acts and plans were introduced. Chief among these was the Education Act No. 37 of 1962, which was introduced to remove social inequalities and discrimination in education (Mushi, 2009). This act was a replacement of the 1927 education ordinance, which allowed for social inequalities and discrimination. Furthermore, the “First Three Year Development Plan” (1961–1964) of 1961, and “First Five Years Development Plan” (1964–1967) of 1964 were introduced, and the Universal and Compulsory Primary Education Act, the “Musoma Resolution”, was declared in 1974. As results of these acts, school fees were abolished and primary and secondary education were made free to all people (Mushi, 2009). With these attempts, by 1980, Tanzania enrolled 3,361,228 students in primary schools, 67,396 in the secondary education level, and 7,468 students at the university level (UNESCO, 2011). Although many more students had access to education because of these acts, the government could not effectively absorb all students into the existing education system. Furthermore, several educational promises stagnated amidst internal and external political and economic crises in the second half of the 1980s: in particular, the global oil crisis, the decrease in Tanzanian agriculture production, and the Ugandan– Tanzania War in 1978–1979. These upheavals forced the Tanzanian government to adopt western-oriented structural adjustment programs (SAP) toward integration within the market-oriented global economy. The adoption of such policies created space for the private sector to invest in education, and for the reintroduction of school fees (Buchert, 1994; Hinzen & Hundsdorfer, 1979). Following SAP implementation, many students either could no longer afford to go to school, or dropped out of school, as their parents could not afford school fees (Mushi, 2009). The effects of these economic upheavals can still be seen in contemporary education. The government still struggles to establish schools with enough teachers to face the continually increasing student population. Even with the introduction of the Secondary Education Development Program (SEDP) in 2004 and its reinvention in 2010, with a renewed focus on increasing education access and equity, the government continues to struggle with the number of students and available schools and teachers (Mosha, 2012). While the number of secondary school students (Form 1–4) increased from 432,599 in 2004 to 1,282,073 in 2012, capturing 71% of the secondary school population (BEST, 2012), the government has not been able to ensure appropriate teacher-student ratios across schools. Although Ministry of Education data shows the teacher-student ratio average to be 1:29, this ratio is misleading as it has been calculated based on student enrolment by number of teachers, regardless of their teaching assignment and disparities of teachers and students across schools. The teacher-student ratios in remote areas are much worse. A shortage of teachers has required many teachers to work with extremely

2.1 Educational History in Tanzania

21

high numbers of students in overcrowded classrooms (Mosha, 2012; Sumra & Rajan, 2006). In terms of education quality, major reform was undertaken after independence to improve education practice and use of theory. The education philosophy of “Education for Self-Reliance” was introduced in 1967 to recast the education system in consideration of Tanzanian’s needs and objectives (Osaki, 2007; URT, 2005). The goal of ESR philosophy was to develop young people’s inquiring minds and problemsolving and critical thinking skills, to make them self-reliant after the completion of their education. ESR philosophy also attempted to adopt indigenous education philosophies, which oriented education more toward the local ecosystem. ESR aimed at capacitating young people to use education for solving social and economic needs, participating in national development, and creating equal opportunities in life (Nyerere, 1968). This reorienting of the education system was deemed necessary to replace a focus on abstract knowledge and colonialist-oriented philosophy and pedagogy (Mbunda, 1978; Mushi, 2009). Reforms in education practices were necessary for achieving these ends. In line with ESR philosophy, teachers were discouraged from using teaching methods which focused on the memorisation of facts, and instead were encouraged to facilitate the use of problem-solving skills and otherwise engage in participatory teaching pedagogies (Buchert, 1994; Mushi, 2009). Students were required to learn about things in the classroom and practice them outside the classroom in the community. Out-of-class projects, in fields such as agriculture, masonry, and carpentry, were facilitated within the school community for students to practice what they learned in classrooms, to become self-reliant after the completion of their education. In response to ESR, reform was also undertaken in 1967 to diminish and neutralise Eurocentric emphases and features of curricula and integrate ESR policy throughout the curriculum. Subject content knowledge which explored the African economy and local social and political issues was increased (Buchert, 1994; URT, 2005). Thus, this curriculum reform was effectively oriented toward localisation of content, replacing Eurocentric content with African and Tanzanian content. However, there were few changes to the surrounding educational system and curriculum development and management policies (Hinzen & Hundsdorfer, 1979). Education and training policy remained focused on educating and training people as a labour force to serve the government and sustain the society economically (Osaki, 2007). In this context, national assessment remained as a final measure of students’ achievement of learning. Overlooking the importance of overall education and training policy and the national assessment system resulted in teachers continuing to use past teaching approaches, which were based on the memorisation of facts in order to prepare students to pass national examinations, as required for them have a better chance for work and higher learning opportunities, rather than creating substantive skills that would make them more self-reliant (Osaki, 2007). In relation, many educators who had taught in the prior system could not readily absorb ESR intentions. They misinterpreted ESR as agricultural work and broad training projects aligned to SAP international agendas and priorities, rather than as a means of linking theory in classrooms to practices outside them (Mushi, 2009).

22

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

Different education acts were also introduced to restructure education management. However, once again the restructuring process did not change the major characteristics of the system from that established by the colonial administration system per se. Instead, it more superficially changed authorisation from the colonial power to that of the independent country, while largely maintaining the same system and structure. For example, the Education Act of 1969 was introduced to establish the Ministry of Education in Tanzania, and to centralise all educational activities and institutions, such as the inspectorate, the curriculum department, and the assessment body within government authority. As a result of the act, all schools, both public and private, were still required to use the same curriculum, and all students were still required to sit for national examinations after the completion of their learning cycle for certification and placement (NECTA, 2003), as during the British period. The restructuring of the education administration system also increased the extension of government control and the responsibility of local government agents to central authority bodies. This centralised system is now stronger in exercising detailed control and mandating conformity of educational practices at a lower level of organisation than during the British era (Buchert, 1994). The education management and administration system at large has been seen as an obstacle in implementing new education practices, due to its top-down approach in planning and implementing all educational activities (Sumra & Rajan, 2006). Contemporary education continues to follow the colonial education structure. Education starts with 2 years of pre-primary education, then 7 years of primary education (Standard I–VII), 4 years of secondary ordinary-level education (Form 1–4), 2 years of secondary advanced-level education (Form 5 and 6), and 3 or more years of university education. As in the colonial system, there are various national examinations that a student must pass to be placed at the next level. Additionally, there are other examinations, such as the national standard IV (when students are in primary school year-four) and form-two examinations (in secondary school year-two), for monitoring and regulating students’ progress. Changes to the national assessment system after independence were also based on changing assessment authorisation without more fundamentally changing the examinations mechanism. The Education Act No. 23 of 1973 localised the national assessment system, while it maintained the use of large-scale assessment system for certification and placement. The National Examinations Council of Tanzania (NECTA) has a mandate to administer and conduct national examinations all over the country (2003). Students who excel in examination are favoured in higher education and job placement. There is no way a student can continue with advanced secondary education without meeting national examination standards (NECTA, 2003). Students studying outside the country must earn examination results equivalence to qualify for secondary education and higher learning in Tanzania. The national examination certificate thus has a significant impact on a student’s future prosperity (Ndabi, 2005). National assessment in Tanzania is a powerful instrument for determining the fate of students and schools. It evaluates and judges students’ achievement of learning on the one hand, while the results are on the other hand also used to evaluate schools’ performances in relation to national standards (NECTA, 2003). Public examinations

2.1 Educational History in Tanzania

23

are also used to judge the realisation of the achievement of aims and objectives of educational policy in the country as a whole (NECTA, 2003). The use of national examination results for accountability and certification purposes does not only create tensions and struggles among teachers and students to increase performance in high stakes examinations, but it also creates tensions for school administrators, education officials, and politicians (Hardman, Abd-Kadir, & Tibuhinda, 2012; Mosha, 2012; Vavrus, 2009; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). Student performance in national examination is decided using school-based assessment or “Continuous Assessment” (CA) and final national examinations. However, the formal written national examination carries much more weight in the overall evaluation of students’ academic performance. CA carries a weight of 30%, and final written examinations carries a weight of 70%. As per national examination guidelines, teachers are required to assess students continuously at the school level and submit some of students’ grades to the National Examinations’ Board (NECTA, 2003). Thus, examinations in the form of terminal or annual examinations are scheduled in schools; students sit for examinations under intensive supervision and, thereafter, tests are marked and graded for submission to the NECTA. These school assessment records are also used for reporting students’ performance to parents. As will be explored across this book, CA is referred to as school-based assessment but, in practice, it does not follow formative assessment assumptions per se. CA is administered and supervised following national examination guidelines and procedures for conducting national examinations (NECTA, 1984). The practices are also based on standardised tests and measurement techniques for measuring student achievement. Teachers are thus practicing CA as “mini-summative test/examinations” for accountability purposes. Historically, CA was formalised in the school system in 1976, to free schools from the pressure of external written national examinations, and to give teachers’ authority in taking part in assessing students’ ability, but not particularly for formative use purposes of assessment. In sum, the colonial features of education are thus still mirrored in education in Tanzania to date. Table 2.1 summarizes educational changes in Tanzania over time. Towards the turn of the century, the government introduced Education Vision 2025. Although the education vision was established in recognition of the past failures of education policy in meeting Tanzania’s educational needs and development goals, it was also an attempt to ally national and international education policies, such as Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals. Considering these policies, the secondary education curriculum was reformed in 2005 by introducing the competency-based curriculum. This reform put emphasis on developing skills (such as critical thinking, problem solving, and entrepreneurship skills) and attitudes and behaviours that young people would need to achieve and effectively perform in real-world activities, to solve their own challenges, and to participate in national social, political, and economic development and sustenance (Woods, 2007; URT, 2005). Although the curriculum reform required integration of assessment during teaching and learning to support students

24

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

Table 2.1 Features of precolonial, colonial, and contemporary education in Tanzania Aspects

Pre-colonial education

Colonial education (British)

Access

• Accessible to all people

• Colonial collaborators, • Accessible to all people sons and daughters of chiefs, and people converted to Christianity

Equity

• All people got the same education

• Racial segregation; different schools for Asians, Whites, and Africans

• No racial discrimination • Privatisation of schooling leads to socioeconomic inequality

• Provided to safeguard colonial economic, social, and political interests • Preparing elites for serving the colonial regime

• Geared for people to solve social, political, and economic challenges and for national development

Relevance • Geared to solve social and economic challenges • Context-specific, coordinated with ecosystems

Contemporary education

Structure

• Non-formal • Formal education given • Formal structure • No special curriculum, in schools (primary, secondary, • Curriculum for primary, infrastructure, higher) middle, and secondary • Strong centralised professional teachers, or education management system formal structure and • Centralised management (centralised curriculum, management and administration, with assessment, supervision, • Formal education in curriculum and and teaching under the initiation and Madrasa assessment managed Ministry of Education) schools and administered by central colonial authorities

Exams

• Questions at the end to check understanding • For assessing understanding

• Centralised national assessment system • For accountability and certification and placement purposes

Teaching

• Elders with specific skills • Storytelling • Learning by living and doing

• Teachers qualified by a • Teachers qualified by a special board under the special board under the education ministry ministry • Theoretically based with • Theoretically based the use of lecturing

• Centralised national assessment • For accountability and certification purposes

in competency building, the national assessment remained as the major mechanism for judging students’ learning (NECTA, 2003). Despite the Tanzanian government’s work in restructuring the education system over decades, it remains a great challenge for the government to adapt to global changes in science and technology and with inherited social and economic challenges at the same time. Colonial education “hangovers” thus persist in contemporary education in Tanzania, in education training, as well as in administration, curriculum, and

2.1 Educational History in Tanzania

25

assessment. This is because education reforming processes undertaken after independence were oriented primarily toward decolonising the education system at a technical and official level, rather than establishing a new, more indigenous education system. The continued use of a centralised education system in Tanzania also challenges the implementation of locally relevant education policies. The lack of involvement of people at a lower level in policy planning leads to misinterpretations and failures of education reforms (Osaki, 2007). The use of a top-down approach has made it difficult for educational planners to forecast the challenges and opportunities in policy they designed at the lower level. The use of a centralised education system in managing the education sector in such a large country is also highly challenging. It is difficult to manage an educational system across 945,203 km2 and impacting 58 million people from one centre. However, it is the inheritance of formal educational assessment for certification and accountability purposes that has the greatest impact on teachers and students’ teaching and learning practices. Teachers teach and students learn to fulfil accountability purposes of assessment. The legacy of colonial education, as seen in elitism and the association of formal education with “white-collar jobs”, is still ghosting Tanzania’s education system. People go to school to gain jobs after completing education, and not to gain skills, and not for developing and sustaining local society.

2.2 Assessment in Teaching and Learning 2.2.1 Assessment Approaches In education, assessment refers to a wide variety of methods and tools that teachers use to evaluate, measure, and document learning progress, achievement, skill acquisition, and/or the educational needs of students. Assessments can involve formal and informal methods, such as standardised tests, examinations, questions, and observations of student work and other activities, all with an intention to gather information related to learning and teaching (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003). Assessments can be used for different purposes at the school and national level. At the school level, assessments can be used for: (a) stimulating student interest and motivation to be engaged and pursue knowledge on their own (Crooks, 1988; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998), (b) evaluating student understanding (Black & Wiliam, 1998), (c) monitoring student progress in learning (Black et al., 2003; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), (d) reviewing or summarising previous lessons, (e) assessing the achievement of instructional goals and objectives (Crooks, 1988), (f) improving teaching and learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Black et al., 2003), and (g) reporting student performance for parents and placing students at the next grade.

26

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

At the national level, assessment can be used for certification and placement purposes and for evaluating education policies or programs, student achievement of learning, and teachers and administrators’ implementation of education policy. The purposes of assessment can be classified as formative, assessment for learning, and summative (assessment of learning). The distinctions between these purposes do not necessarily indicate different methods of assessment; rather, they relate to such issues as assessment timing, what has been assessed and how, and when and how assessment information is used in teaching and learning processes (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Black et al., 2003). When assessment takes place during teaching and learning and assessment data are used as feedback in improving teaching and learning, the assessment serves as formative (Black et al., 2003). When the data are used further in supporting learners such that learners use assessment evidence for self-evaluation and regulation, the assessment serves for learning (Wiggins, 1998). When the assessment data are not used for improving teaching and learning or in regulating learning, the assessment serves as summative assessment of learning, because the assessment evidence operates to measure what learners have learned for reporting purposes. Assessment is formative when assessment information is used as feedback by teachers during the instructional period to identify students’ needs, or to diagnose the effectiveness of instructions and materials (Black et al., 2003; Black & Wiliam, 2009). The key aspect of formative assessment is the use of assessment for reflective teaching and for scaffolding learning. Thus, for assessment to be formative, assessment evidence should be elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers and/or students to evaluate learning and make decisions about the next step in the teaching and learning process. Wiliam and Thompson (2007) identified four strategies for assessment to be formative: (a) clarify and share learning intentions and criteria for success with learners, (b) engineer classroom discussion and an environment to elicit information about student understanding and allow student self- and peer-assessment, (c) provide feedback that moves learning forward, and (d) activate students as owners of learning. Formative assessment practices are crucial for teachers in identifying ideas and obstacles that could hinder the achievement of learning goals and, henceforth, they set strategies to improve teaching to meet learning demands (Black et al., 2003; Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2003). Since the key criteria for assessment to be formative is the use of assessment evidence for reflecting and improving on teaching and learning, summative assessment evidence can be used for formative assessment. The summative use of assessment data for improving purposes is identified as the Formative Use of Summative Test (FUST) (see Black et al., 2003; Carless, 2011). Summative assessment practices such as marking tests, correcting student work, and providing answers to questions during learning can formatively inform and support students in self-evaluation and regulating learning, as well as inform teachers about learning. In assessment for learning, assessment evidence should not only result in improving teaching and learning, but also must address ways for students to monitor, evaluate, and regulate their own learning (Black et al., 2003; Wiggins, 1998; Schunk

2.2 Assessment in Teaching and Learning

27

& Zimmerman, 1998). There are five key principles for assessment for learning. First, the assessment practices should not only focus on providing feedback to students, but it should be formative, educative, and supportive to allow students to engineer their own learning (Black et al., 2003; Wiggins, 1998). Formative feedback can give students clues for rejecting erroneous strategies and for modifying their learning behaviours (Wood & Bandura, 1989), to acquire standards for learning, and to take ownership in learning (Zimmerman, 2001). Second, evidence should be dialogic for learners to participate in learning processes and reflect upon and analyse their own learning (Nicol, 2010). Dialogic evidence enhances motivation for students to engage in learning tasks, close gaps in learning, and improve their performances (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Third, assessment evidence should consider students’ needs, be consistent, and be given in proper time to maximise their use of feedback (Black et al., 2003; Wiggins, 1998). Fourth, assessment for learning should recognise the influence that assessment has on the motivation and self-esteem of students. Educative feedback is feedback which identifies difficulties and ways to improve, motivating learners to use assessment evidence in learning (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Wood & Bandura, 1989). However, the feedback practice should not be directive, such as telling learners what to do; rather it should be descriptive, for learners to evaluate their learning and strategize for improvement (Wiggins, 1998). Fifth, a supportive environment is important for learners to use feedback in learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Sadler, 1989). The use of assessment for self-evaluation and regulating practices is central to assessment for learning practices (Wiggins, 1998). Unlike formative assessment and assessment for learning, summative assessment occurs at the end of the course. Summative assessment is also referred to as assessment of learning, as it is used for judging and evaluating learning. Summative assessment includes the use of assessment for evaluating lesson achievement, reporting student performance to parents, and judging student performance in a subject. At the national level, summative assessment (national examination results) is used for certification and placement purposes (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). National summative assessment evidence is used also for evaluating achievement in subjects, overall national education policy achievement, and for accounting for the achievement of special education projects funded by international donors. Summative assessment is conducted at the end of learning, and the results of external summative assessment, such as the national examination, greatly influence students’ prospects and opportunities in their future careers and lives, in contrast with formative assessment.

2.2.2 Assessment Practices Two major practices of assessment are questioning and giving feedback. Questioning as an assessment strategy is crucial in creating a dialogic teaching and learning environment and engaging students. It entails assessment practices which are used to elicit information about student understanding or learning (Black et al., 2003; Black

28

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

& Wiliam, 2009). Although there are other strategies for eliciting information about learning, such as the use of examinations, assignments, and exercises, questioning is the most common assessment practice used. In education, questions are used as instructional cues for assessing what students can and cannot do, for instructing, and for developing student understanding. Questioning originates back to the Socratic idea of using questions and answers to challenge assumptions, evoke ideas, and seek knowledge. While questioning is a key method for eliciting information, the quality and quantity of assessment data it yields depends on the form and coverage of questions. There are two main types of questions: objective and subjective. The objective type has one possible answer from predetermined sets or categories. Objective questions are also referred to as closed questions because their format limits responses. Examples of objective questions are yes/no, multiple choice, filling in the blanks, true or false, completion, and matching items. These questions normally require factual knowledge. Objective questions are mainly used for measuring students’ ability to identify the relationship between a set of similar items, define concepts and symbols, or identify dates, events, persons, and the like. Subjective questions enable the respondent to express their own ideas and thoughts. Examples of subjective questions are essay questions, problem solving, and performance questions. The question form determines the quantity and quality of information gathered (MacNaughton & Williams, 2004; Storey, 2004). Objective questions can limit the quality and amount of data gathered because they limit responses (De Rivera, Girolametto, Greenberg, & Weitzman, 2005; MacNaughton & Williams, 2004). However, objective questions can be developed to capture deep information when teachers probe about students’ answers to further explore their reasoning (De Rivera et al., 2005; MacNaughton & Williams, 2004). Subjective questions are likely to increase the quality of information because they give students flexibility in producing longer responses about subject content knowledge (De Rivera et al., 2005; Johnston, Halocha, & Chater, 2007). The amount and quality of information gathered is not only determined by question format but also by its intended coverage of skills. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning is used as a reference point for constructing questions in schools and examinations in Tanzania. Bloom’s Taxonomy presents a hierarchy of question complexity from lower to higher, as questions relate to skills ranging from knowledge, comprehension, and application, to analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1968). The levels of questions in Bloom’s Taxonomy is thought to reflect variance in cognitive process, and how students articulate and think in developing answers (Goodwin, Sharp, Cloutier, & Diamond, 1983; Storey, 2004; Warner & Sower, 2005). Lower-order questions, such as those measuring knowledge, comprehension, and application, are considered simple questions because they capture factual knowledge and do not require much information to attempt (Sanders, 1966). They rather require a discrete piece of information, as needed in recalling, reproducing, or reciting information (De Rivera et al., 2005; MacNaughton & Williams, 2004; Storey, 2004). Higherorder questions, of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, are classified as complex because they encourage or require students to think more deeply and critically in

2.2 Assessment in Teaching and Learning

29

order to answer them (Goodwin et al., 1983; Sanders, 1966; Storey, 2004). Higherorder questions are appropriate when a teacher wants students to know the relationship among elements within a structure wherein elements function together, or when a teacher wants students to develop problem-solving skills and seek solutions of their own (Goodwin et al., 1983; Storey, 2004). Higher-order questions require relational knowledge, such as to compare, contrast, interpret, analyse, relate and apply, and extend knowledge, and to create, criticise, justify, synthesis, design, prove, generalise, and reflect (MacNaughton & Williams, 2004; Massey et al., 2008). Questions at the higher-order level involve and capture more information than those at the lower level. Feedback can be given and used for improving performance (Brophy & Good, 1974), classroom management (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996), or diagnosing and improving teaching and learning (Black et al., 2003). For improvement, it can be used for aiding and supporting students in self-evaluation and regulation (Nicol, 2010; Wiggins, 1998), as knowledge (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996), for rewarding qualities in student work (Brophy, 1981; Dweck, Dawson, Nelson, & Ena, 1978), and for diagnosing and improving teaching and learning (Black et al., 2003). Feedback as assessment evidence informs teachers about what went well or poorly, what students have or have not understood, and what to do next to meet learning goals. For classroom management, feedback can also be used for managing, reinforcing, or correcting behaviours (Blosser, 2000; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Feedback functionality depends on its accuracy, consistency, and specificity (Sadler, 1989; Wiggins, 1998). Feedback provision should consider students’ current knowledge, their desires and needs as understood by instructors, curriculum, and/or students themselves, and how to close the gap (Black et al., 2003; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989). Tunstall and Gipps (1996) and Hattie and Timperley (2007) identify feedback in two categories: descriptive and evaluative. Evaluative feedback captures emotional aspects of behaviour because feedback is not related to tasks or processes of achieving learning. Rather, feedback is judgemental and based on explicit norms and values, rather than cognitive aspects of learning (Blosser, 2000; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Descriptive feedback describes behaviour in relation to the task or goal and considers students’ work in articulating processes for change. It is through such feedback that a learner can draw a comparison between present achievement, previous work, and desired goals (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Tunstall and Gipps (1996) further indicate that feedback is a kind of socialisation that can involve rewarding and punishing, approving or disapproving, specifying attainment or deficiency, and constructing the way (or ways) forward. Feedback categories of rewarding or punishing and approving or disapproving capture the evaluative aspects of feedback, because they relate to affective and emotional aspects of behaviour. These kinds of feedback entail socialisation, as they can be used for improving behaviour and classroom management (Blosser, 2000). The latter categories are descriptive because the information given describes and articulates behaviour in actions, shows strengths and errors, and specifies criteria for achievement and the way (or ways) to improve behaviour (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996).

30

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

For increasing feedback functionality, feedback should be given at the right time and be informative and constructive (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Feedback also should focus on individual needs, link to specific assessment criteria, and be motivating (Black et al., 2003; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Sadler, 1989; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996; Wiggins, 1998). The lack of consistency and specificity of feedback provision can reduce its functionality (Blair & McGinty, 2013; Brophy, 1981; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). For example, the failure to relate feedback to the task at hand can lead to ineffective functioning of feedback (Brophy, 1981; Hattie & Timperley, 2007), and demotivate learners (Carless, 2006; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Nicol, 2010). Although grading is the most typical kind of feedback used, grades have little effect on subsequent performance (Black et al., 2003; Crooks, 1988). Butler’s study on the effects of feedback focused on marks only, comments only, or a combination of marks and comments indicated that the learning gain was greatest for students given comments only (1987). The effects of comments on student learning were also indicated by Black and colleagues’ (2003) findings. Teachers who only used comments had the most learning gains, compared to teachers who used only marking or combinations of marking and giving comments. The use of a combination of marking and comments was seen to inhibit learning, because students tended to focus on comparing grades with peers as their first reaction. The use of comments was regarded as a more effective form of feedback because apart from aiding learning, parents could also use comments in supporting their children’s education (Black et al., 2003). On the other hand, the use of praise without indicating what has been praised may lead students to be overwhelmed and for feedback to lose its value as feedback. Students are likely to see praising as a normal social practice rather than as constructive feedback (Briere et al., 2015; Brophy, 1981). The provision of praise as feedback should be specific and associated with desired academic and behavioural outcomes, and not equated with reinforcement to increase its effectiveness. Feedback becomes effective when a learner can confirm it, add to it, and use it in self-regulating. Thus, feedback should be informative in the sense that it stimulates and motivates a learner to use it in self-assessment and self-regulation (Black et al., 2003; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Teachers should avoid evaluative feedback as it lacks information for improving and is usually incongruent with achievement goals (Brophy, 1981; Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

2.2.3 Past Studies of Assessment Although many studies of teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment have been previously conducted, most have been undertaken in North America, Asia, Europe, and Australia. Only one study was conducted in Africa, in Egypt. Additionally, most studies use quantitative methodologies. They commonly employ Brown’s (2006) Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment (TCoA) as is, or modified (see Brown

2.2 Assessment in Teaching and Learning

31

& Remesal, 2012; Brown, Kennedy, Fok, Chan, & Yu, 2009; Brown, Lake & Matters, 2011; Brown, Harries, & Hartnett, 2012; Brown, Chaudhry, & Dhamija, 2015; Gebril & Brown, 2014; Segers & Tillema, 2011). However, the TCoA can restrict teachers from indicating their own conceptions of assessment if they differ from those provided for in the questionnaire. Therefore, this study uses in-depth qualitative methodologies rather quantitative measures. Furthermore, past studies have focused primarily on teachers’ conceptions of assessment (Aydeniz, 2007; Azis, 2015; Ahmed, 2013; Brown & Gao, 2015; Brown et al., 2009, 2015). Although some show findings related to practices, usually findings have not been directly drawn from classroom observation by a researcher. Furthermore, findings of past studies do not show how specific assessment practices relate to teachers’ assessment conceptions. For example, a case study of teachers’ conceptions of assessment for and of learning conducted in China showed that teachers’ conceptions of assessment were positively related to the development of students’ personal qualities and academic abilities (Brown & Gao, 2015). However, other studies in this context indicate that teachers often also conceive assessment as being for gaining control in schools (Brown et al., 2012). In relation, findings of quantitative studies are not obtained from observation of classroom practices, and do not show how practices relate to teachers’ conceptions (Pajares, 1992). Previous studies that have been conducted in Tanzania have often focused on teachers’ pedagogies, but not specifically on their assessment practices (see Nzima, 2016; Nzilano, 2015; Renatus, 2016). Past studies in Tanzania have also focused on the challenges teachers face in implementing reform (Mosha, 2012) and teachers’ knowledge and conceptions of the curriculum (Meena, 2009; Nzilano, 2015; Nzima, 2016; Renatus, 2016). In particular, teachers’ pedagogies and conceptions of the curriculum are seen to be influenced by the material, political, and social dimensions of their context (Nzilano, 2015; Nzima, 2016; Vavrus, 2009), and by teachers’ lack of knowledge or recognition in relation to implementing education reform (Meena, 2009; Mosha, 2012). However, these findings do not suggest specific instructional and assessment practices which would be more useful in this environment. This study thus adds to knowledge regarding teachers’ assessment conceptions and practices and the factors which influence them in Tanzania. Sociocultural factors, such as the influence of context and culture, can act as constraints to implementation of education reforms in a social setting. There is a need to consider the context (the economic, political, and material environment of teaching and learning) and culture (the embedded norms and values of assessment at the personal, community, school, and national levels) in establishing more effective and sustainable implementation of assessment reform in Tanzania. The use of a sociocultural perspective, complex adaptive theory, and ethnographic-oriented methodologies assist here in specifying teachers’ conceptions of assessment and understanding the influences on them, as well as their complexity and adaptability in the Tanzanian context. Theoretically, this study can also broaden general understanding of teachers’ assessment conceptions and practices and their influencing factors and offer a foundation for further explorations of how assessment reforms are understood and implemented in similar and related low-resource contexts.

32

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

2.3 Conclusion Cultural and historical context play significant roles in shaping people’s thoughts and activities in a society. They also play a critical role in informing norms and practices of education, and in assessment. This chapter explored the educational history of Tanzania and how it has shaped the contemporary education system and contemporary practices in teaching, learning, and assessment. The history of Tanzania’s education from precolonial time to the colonial era were described, in relation to its influence on present-day education policies and practices. Finally, the chapter considered the value and various purposes of assessment in teaching and learning, generally and within the Tanzanian context. The next chapter describes in detail the sociocultural approach taken in this study and how context can be seen to shape schooling and assessment practices.

References Ahmed, D. (2013). Teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment model: The case of Mathematics teachers in Jordan. Education, 34(1), 124–133. Anangisye, W. A. L. (2008). Moral education and character development: Learning from African the African ideology framework. Journal of Adult Education, 16, 1–23. Aydeniz, M. (2007). Understanding the challenges of implementing of assessment reform in science classroom: A case study of science teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Florida State University. Azis, A. (2015). Conceptions and practices of assessment: A case of teachers presenting improvement conception. TEFLI Journal, 26(2), 129–154. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Oxford Open University Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Journal of Educational Assessment and Evaluation, 21, 5–31. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: NFER Nelson Publishing. Blair, A., & McGinty, S. (2013). Feedback dialogues: Exploring the student perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 466–476. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment (UCLA-CSEIP), 1(2), 1–12. Blosser, P. E. (2000). How to ask the right questions. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press. Briere, D. E., Simonsen, B., Sugai, G., & Myers, D. (2015). Increasing new teachers’ specific praise using a within-school consultation intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(1), 50–60. Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 5–32. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teachers-students’ relationships, causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson. Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged version. Psychological Reports, 99(1), 166–170.

References

33

Brown, G. T. L., Chaudhry, H., & Dhamija, R. (2015). The impact of an assessment policy upon teachers’ self-reported assessment beliefs and practices: A quasi-experimental study of Indian teachers in private schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 50–64. Brown, G. T. L., & Gao, L. (2015). Chinese teachers’ conceptions of assessment for and of learning; Six competing and complimentary purposes. Curriculum and Teaching Studies. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–19. Brown, G. T. L., Harries, R. L., & Hartnett, I. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs about feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over students’ wellbeing. Teaching and Teachers Education, 28, 968–978. Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16, 347–363. Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2011). Queensland teachers’ conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes, teaching and teacher education. An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27(1), 210–220. Brown, G. T. L., & Remesal, A. (2012). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A crosscultural comparison. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 75–89. Buchert, L. (1994). Education in the development of Tanzania (1919–1990): Eastern African studies. London: Ohio University Press. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482. Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-Heritage settings. New York: Routledge. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–333. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation on students. Review of Educational Research, 5, 438–481. De Rivera, C., Girolametto, L., Greenberg, J., & Weitzman, E. (2005). Children’s responses to educators’ questions in day care play groups. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 14–26. Dweck, C. S., Dawson, W., Nelson, S., & Ena, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom: An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268–276. Gebril, A., & Brown, G. T. L. (2014). The effect of high-stakes examination systems on teacher beliefs: Egyptian teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(1), 16–33. Goodwin, S., Sharp, G., Cloutier, E., & Diamond, N. (1983). Effective classroom questioning. East Lansing: National Centre for Research on Teacher Learning. Hardman, F., Abd-Kadir, J., & Tibuhinda, A. (2012). Reforming teachers’ education in Tanzania. International Journal of Education Development, 32, 826–834. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Hinzen, H., & Hundsdorfer, V. H. (1982). Tanzanian experience: The education for liberation and development. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Education. Hinzen, H., & Hundsdorfer, V. H. (1979). Education for liberation and development: The Tanzanian experience. London: Evans Brothers. Johnston, J., Halocha, J., & Chater, M. (2007). Developing teaching skills in the primary school. London: Open University Press. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

34

2 Tanzanian Education and the Purposes of Assessment

Lawuo, Z. E. (1978). The beginning and development of western education in Tanganyika-German period. In A. G. M. Ishumi & G. R. V. Mmari (Eds.), The educational processes: Theory and practice with the focus on Tanzania and other countries. Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam. MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2004). Teaching young children choices in theory and practice. Australia: Ligare. Massey, S. L., Pence, K. L., Justice, L. M., & Bowles, R. P. (2008). Educators’ use of cognitively challenging questions in economically disadvantaged preschool classroom contexts. Early Education and Development, 19(2), 340–360. Masudi, A. (1995). The implementation of British colonial education: Policy in Tanganyika, 1919– 1939. Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam Press. Mbunda, F. L. (1978). Development and trends in primary education in mainland Tanzania. In A. G. M. Ishumi & G. R. V. Mmari (Eds.), The educational process: Theory and practices with focus on Tanzania and other countries (pp. 65–85). Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam. Meena, E. W. (2009). Curriculum innovation in teachers’ education: Exploring conceptions among Tanzanians teacher educators. Dar es Salaam: Abo Akademi. Mosha, H. J. (2012). A case study of learning material used to deliver knowledge, skills on competencies based curriculum in Tanzania. A Paper Presented in Triennale of Education and Training Africa Conference in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Mushi, P. A. K. (2009). History and development of education in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Dar es Salaam University Press. Ndabi, D. M. (2005). Learners assessment for improved educational quality: Assessment of students’ achievement in Tanzania secondary schools. A Paper Presented at the Assessment Conference in Livingstone, Zambia. NECTA [National Examinations Council of Tanzania]. (2003). Examinations regulations: Guide for heads of schools, colleges, and institutes. Dar es Salaam: NECTA. NECTA [National Examinations Council of Tanzania]. (1984). Examinations regulations and formats: Certificate of secondary education, advanced certificate of secondary education and teacher education. Dar es Salaam: NECTA. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199– 218. Nyerere, J. K. (1968). Freedom and socialism: A selection from writings and speeches 1965–1967. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nzilano, J. L. (2015). The influences and outcome of social constructivists curriculum implementation on tutors’ beliefs and practice in teachers’ education college in Tanzania. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Nzima, I. (2016). Competence based curriculum (CBC) in Tanzania: Tutors’ understanding and their instructional practices. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Linnaeus University, Sweden. Osaki, K. M. (2007). Science education in Tanzania: Past, present, and future trends. In K. Osaki, W. Ottevanger, C. Uiso & J. van den Akker (Eds.), Science educational research and teachers’ development in Tanzania (pg.1–44) Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Renatus, I. M. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and concerns about the implementations of the preschool curriculum in Tanzania. Early Years, 1–15. Rodney, W. (1976). How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Publishing House. Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Sanders, N. M. (1966). Classroom questions: What kinds. New York: Harper & Row.

References

35

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford. Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2011). How do Dutch teachers and students conceive the purposes of assessment? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 49–54. Storey, S. (2004). Teacher questioning to improve early childhood reasoning. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Arizona University. Sumra, R., & Rajan, R. (2006). Secondary education in Tanzania: Key policy challenges. Dar es Salaam: HakiElimu. Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teachers feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389–404. UNESCO. (2011). Tanzania education sector analysis: Beyond primary education, the quest for balanced and efficient policy choice for human development and economic growth. UNESCO. URT [United Republic of Tanzania]. (2005). National strategies for growth and reduction of poverty. Dar es Salaam: URT. Vavrus, F. (2009). The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies: Teacher education reform in the United Republic of Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 303–311. Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2013). Teaching in tension: International pedagogies, national policies and teachers’ practices in Tanzania. Rotterdam: Sense. Warner, L., & Sower, J. (2005). Educating young children. London: Pearson Education. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wolhuter, C. (2014). Education in East and Central Africa. London: Bloomsbury. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. Woods, E. (2007). Education for all by 2015: Will we make it? Tanzania country case study: Country profile prepared for the education for all global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–38). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Chapter 3

Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

Abstract This chapter focuses on the nature and importance of conceptions in human life and education. First, the chapter discusses the nature of conceptions generally and in the context of education. Then it articulates a sociocultural approach to conceptions. This approach is complemented here by complexity theory, in order to explore how cultural and environmental factors play a role in the dynamic processes of teaching and learning, and in the development of conceptions of education that influence teacher practices and student experiences. Keywords Conceptions · Sociocultural theory · Complexity theory · Culture · Examinations · Testing

3.1 Conceptions and Conceptualisations There is no universally agreed-upon definition of the word “conception”. The word has been defined in education in relation to ideologies and untested assumptions (Calderhead, 1996), perceptions and understandings (Brown, Hui, Yu, & Kennedy, 2011), personal truths (Rokeach, 1968), and preconceptions and implicit theories (Clark, 1988). The variations in definitions have developed either as attempts to conceptualise the word and concept to suit diverse researchers’ agendas, or to make the distinctions between conceptions, knowledge, and beliefs. Conceptions are mental constructs of propositions, images, and convictions of ideas, which are developed as an individual attempts to reason and justify information or knowledge gained in a specific situation (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Conceptions differ from what an individual has learned in schools. They can develop as the result of a person’s experiences in a context, in relation to their struggles to adapt within a situation or as memories, as “apprentices of observation” (Lortie, 1975, p. 62). For teachers, this means their conceptions are often formed in relation to memories of teaching, including memories of how their teachers taught them. Since conceptions are constructed in a person’s world to fit into and help explain situations, conceptions are also referred to as tacit knowledge. Unlike conceptions, beliefs are not mental constructs. They are formed as the result of intense experiences, successions of events, or from fallacies in a setting. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Kahembe and L. Jackson, Educational Assessment in Tanzania, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9992-7_3

37

38

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

A belief is a kind of inference underneath what people say or do, or the personal truths or assumptions an individual holds, which emerge as existential presumptions, alternatives to truth, or because of assumptions stemming from memories (Pajares, 1992). Conceptions and knowledge have much in common, as they are both products of mental constructs. Yet knowledge formulation needs truth conditions, and relies on facts and principles for justification, unlike conceptions. Conceptions do not require justification regarding their validity, appropriateness, or internal consistency. However, conceptions are stronger in influencing an individual’s thought and behaviours than knowledge (Prawat, 1992). Once conceptions are acquired, they act as a conceptual framework to screen and filter new knowledge to fit into situations. People view the world through the lens of their conceptions and in accordance with their understandings of the world (Prawat, 1992). The word “conception” in this text is used to indicate intentions: more specifically, the intentions teachers and other stakeholders in education have in relation to assessment practices. Although many studies of teachers’ conceptions of assessment use a quantitative approach, namely Brown’s Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment (TCoA) (2006), this study used a qualitative approach, as it can better articulate people’s conceptions in their specificity, emergence, and complexity. A quantitative approach cannot effectively differentiate between conceptions and knowledge (Pajares, 1992) or account for distinctions in individuals’ views as they relate to their practices.

3.2 Theoretical Perspectives Since conceptions are anchored in the cultural, social, historical, and personal realm of meanings and understandings, the study used a sociocultural perspective. This approach provides effective means to examine how culture and context impact conceptions: in this case, of teachers’ and other stakeholders’ assessment uses and practices in Tanzania. A sociocultural perspective explains how individuals’ mental functioning and behaviour relate to their culture, institutions, the history of their society, and their personal context (Cole, 1996). According to socioculturalists, individual functioning cannot be understood as independent, as based in purely internal psychological constructs, but is rather dependent on sociocultural factors, such as the organised activities and historical processes that an individual has engaged in. In other words, culture and context are viewed as mediators of an individual’s mental constructs of ideas, images, and concepts (Wertsch, 1991). As a framework, sociocultural theory was put forth by Vygotsky (1986) and later extended in activity theory by Leontiev (1981) and Chaiklin and Lave (1993), and as cultural-historical activity theory by Cole (1996). Central to these theories lies the assumption that human consciousness and thoughts, or what Wertsch (1991) refers to as “collective memory”, cannot be separated from the social organisation of human activity. Rather they should be understood as part of social, political, historical, and cultural activities that an individual engages and interacts with (Cole & Ergestiön, 1994).

3.2 Theoretical Perspectives

39

For socioculturalists, human consciousness and behaviour development occur automatically as part of “acculturation” (Cole, 1996). As people engage and participate in a range of activities in a context, they internalise the effects of social interactions (Rogoff, 1990). As thoughts are acquired, they are inherited within and across a society and, with time, they become part of the culture and norms and values of the community. They can then make a difference for how people do things in the future. Thus, they influence the ways people organise their activities, and think about and see the world. The power of sociocultural theorists in explaining the influences on human thought and behaviour centre on their recognition of the dynamics of interdependence of the society and individuals in mental and intellectual development processes. Vygotsky’s idea of the genetic law of development explains the role of the social and psychological in the development of a child’s behaviours and understanding (1978). The social influence on a child’s behaviour and thought occurs as the child engages with others, while the psychological influence occurs in the child as they internalise things. Socioculturalists thus emphasise the interdependency of individual self and social effects on an individual’s thoughts and behaviours. The individual’s thought development processes are situated in but are not limited to social interactions. In other words, human development is a product of one’s own idiosyncratic values and an individual’s culture. In relation to the current study, the power of a sociocultural perspective lies in how it enables the exploring and explaining of the influences of culture and context on shaping teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. However, it does not clearly give a systematic explanation of how human thoughts and behaviour emerge, evolve, and adapt. Therefore, for understanding the complexities, emergence, and adaptability of teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment, complex adaptive system theory is also relevant here. Complex adaptive system theory is also referred to as complexity theory. This theory originates and is used in natural sciences (in biology, physics, and mathematics) in studying the emergence of complex systems and the functioning of living organism systems in relation to their changing environment, where they aim to increase survivability. This framework has also been used in other fields, such as social organisation studies, to examine the influences of organisational culture on human thought and the emergence of complex behaviour in social organisations (Kelly, 2011; Terra & Passador Joäo, 2015). The key concept of complexity theory is that living beings migrate to a state of dynamic stability at the “edge of chaos” to sustain themselves and develop sufficient creativity to survive. The edge of chaos is the zone where complex systems can be distinguished from rigid ordered systems in terms of their creativity (Waldrop, 1993). Such systems can emerge as (a) self-organising systems that spontaneously unfold without being designed from outside, (b) adaptive systems where changes are based on experiences, (c) dynamic systems which are poised on the edge of chaos as they are stable enough to maintain their structure, but sensitive to external changes, and (d) co-evolved systems that evolve together with the systems with which they are interacting or engaging.

40

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

Although a school organisation differs from a natural system, the idea of a complex system is helpful for explaining how conceptions emerge and are adapted in an educational setting. The complexity system framework has been used before in educational studies in explaining and describing influences on students’ academic performance (Johnson, 2008), and for understanding the evolution of education reforms and changes. The theory of ecological systems (see Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995) also applies the notion of complexity in describing the effects of sub-systems (of microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macro system, and chronosystem) on a person’s thoughts and behaviours. Complex adaptive system theory serves in this study to help explain and describe how teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Tanzania are adapted, co-evolved, and self-organised, as teachers attempt to cope with the demands of assessment in their context. Teachers adapt, co-evolve, and self-organise assessment conceptions and practices as they experience teaching and adapt to the demands of assessment for accountability, through networking with their peers and in engagement in education activities. Conceptions also evolve as memories of past teaching, and from what teachers experienced themselves as classroom learners. Teachers also adapt conceptions of assessment through informal and formal interactions within society. Though there are multiple interactions in a system at different levels, across and within schools, teachers’ conceptions of assessment are also properties of a wider national assessment system. Teachers’ thoughts and behaviours in relation to assessment come not only from an emergence of mind, but also are products of the society and context. Thus, the effects of larger systems, particularly the national assessment system, on teachers’ thoughts and behaviours related to assessment as dynamic processes are elaborated here through the use of an approach that incorporates insights from a sociocultural orientation, as well as complex systems theory.

3.3 The Importance of Context in Education Biggs’ conceptual “3P” model of the classroom, teaching and learning, and the factors involved in them (1996) provides a simplified way to explain the effects of interaction and internalisation, and how context and culture impacts teachers’ conceptions and practices. In Biggs’ model, presage contains both factors in the society, and within the particular educational context, which shape teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Presage factors include societal beliefs (such as norms and values of assessment, learning, and teaching), and teachers’ conceptions of various education topics and issues, such as the national education system, the educational structure and management, and the material environment of teaching and learning. The processes refer to what is occurring within the system, how and when assessment is facilitated and organised, and the influences of presage factors. The product of the system determines what is embraced in the presage and processes. Teachers’ assessment practices, including what, when, and how they assess, influence the nature of the outcome

3.3 The Importance of Context in Education

41

of learning. Presage, processes, and product factors are determinant factors. What occurs in one part of the system impacts other parts of the system. Cultural and contextual factors impact assessment practices and the outcomes of learning. The influence of context on an individual’s thought and behaviours is well-identified by socioculturalists (Cole, 1996). Per socioculturalists, thoughts and behaviours are influenced by the society’s norms, values, and culture. Since conceptions are echoed in expectations within a context, they are influenced by factors within the context, in processes of reasoning and justifying information as knowledge gained to fit within a specific situation. Key contextual factors of interest in this study include the national assessment system, the physical and material environment, and cultural values and norms of the community.

3.3.1 The Importance of National Assessment Past studies in Tanzania indicate the effects of the national assessment system on teachers’ overall classroom practices (Hardman, Abd-Kadir & Tibuhinda, 2012; Mosha, 2012; Nzima, 2016; Renatus, 2016). For instance, as student teachers observed in one study, “students don’t actually read the novels in the syllabus because they only have to memorize the main ideas for the national examinations… Why should we use class time to act out scene from these stories, when we can drill our students on relevant characters, plots and themes?” (Vavrus, 2009, p. 303). This quotation indicates the influence of national assessment use on teaching pedagogy. The influence of national assessment on teachers’ pedagogies is also indicated by Hardman and colleagues’ (2012) study of 32 primary schools in Tanzania. Their findings show that teachers drill students with curriculum content in order for them to perform well in national examinations (Hardman et al., 2012). Teachers use closedended questions and questions which demand single responses, with an intention to monitor students’ mastery of curriculum, indicating the influence of national assessment on teachers’ pedagogies. Although other studies indicate progressive use of assessment during teaching and learning, they still show elements of the summative use of assessment (Bermeo, Kaunda, & Ngarina, 2013; Vavrus, 2009). Teachers’ assessment practices are typically oriented toward achieving the highest possible performance in national examinations (Mosha, 2012; Osaki 2007). Teachers thus choose pedagogies they see as best to suit the demands of national examinations (Vavrus, 2009). They drill students to master the curriculum to achieve the highest performance (Barrett, 2007; Bartlett & Vavrus, 2013; Bermeo et al., 2013; Vavrus, 2009; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). Studies in other African countries also show the influence of national examinations on teachers’ pedagogies and other practices. For example, in a study in 24 Kenyan primary schools, it was found that teachers took most of the time speaking during teaching and learning activities, with teachers’ explanations taking up to 57% of the time of all classroom interactions (Hardman, Abd-Kadir, Agg, Migwi, Ndambuku, & Smith, 2009). Teachers’ preferences for asking certain kinds of questions, such as the

42

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

closed-end type (95% of questions), and questions which demand single responses and the recall of facts also reflect the influence of national examinations on pedagogies (Hardman et al., 2009). Similar challenges caused by the perceived importance of national assessment in relation to implementing education reforms have been observed in other African countries, such as South Africa (Harley et al., 2000), Botswana (Tabulawa, 2009), Egypt (Gebril & Brown, 2014), and Ghana (Akyeampong, Pryor & Ampiah, 2006). Findings indicate teachers are reluctant to adapt education reform, because they perceive the reform to increase their teaching workloads and as not particularly relevant to the learning demands in their contexts. Harley and colleagues’ (2000) study in South African found that teachers’ practices were not related to curriculum demands, but instead were based on supporting students to have higher performances in public examinations, rather than enabling them to acquire discrete curriculum competencies. The influence of the national assessment system on teachers’ assessment practices has also been seen in Egypt, where teachers’ conceptions of assessment are also based on fulfilling an accountability role (Gebril & Brown, 2014). Similarly, the effects of national examination policy on teachers’ assessment practices are indicated in India (Brown, Chaudhry, & Dhamija, 2015), Hong Kong (Brown et al., 2009), and Spain (Remesal, 2012), among other societies where national examinations are relied upon for educational certification and placement. Teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment are thus anchored into the cultural realm of assessment meanings and educational policies and politics (Brown, 2008). Given the challenges of the national examination system for effectively implementing education assessment reforms, such studies suggest the need to reconsider and reform national examination systems, and supplement them with other forms of evaluation of learning, to reduce the power of national assessment in judging and measuring student achievement (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2013). The replacement of national assessment as a main factor in educational practice is difficult, however, as national assessment has been historically used, and has become a major basis for organising norms and values related to assessment and learning over generations. This study thus suggests the need for establishing more context-based assessment practices in Tanzania, rather than trying to simply adapt assessment reforms coming from other contexts. Education reform must consider the realities within which teachers’ work and students learn (O’Sullivan, 2006). In other words, education reform should consider the society’s cultural, economic, material, and political dimensions of assessment and teaching and learning, for the more sustainable establishment of assessment (and other educational) practices. Understanding the teacher’s context and society expectations about educational matters is important in the education reform development process, and for establishing and maintaining sustainable educational practices.

3.3 The Importance of Context in Education

43

3.3.2 The Importance of the Material Environment The material environment of teaching and learning includes such factors as class size, the length of the curriculum and time allocated to teach the syllabus, as well as the availability of teaching and learning materials, such as books, laboratories, and laboratory equipment and chemicals. Studies indicate the presence (and lack thereof) of physical and economic resources significantly influence teachers’ perceptions about teaching and how they approach teaching. For example, Prosser and Trigwell (1997) found that teachers who perceive their class size as too large, and who feel they have insufficient control over classes, tend to use a transmission mode of teaching (“chalk and talk”) more than those teachers who perceive they have control over their classroom and what to teach. Studies on curriculum reform implementation in Tanzania also indicate the effects of the teaching and learning environment (such as class size) on teachers’ pedagogies (Barrett, 2007; Mosha, 2012). Class size does not only impact students’ participation in learning, but also teachers’ attempts of engaging students in various ways during teaching and learning (Barrett, 2007; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). The lack of books in many schools denies students opportunities for referencing learning materials independently in class. Hence, students are glued to and dependent upon teachers’ knowledge as their main source of education (Hardman et al., 2012; Mosha, 2012; Sumra & Rajan, 2006; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). The quality of classrooms, including the availability of varied teaching and learning materials, thus helps determine the outcomes of learning. Lack of teaching materials (such as books) is a long-standing challenge in many schools, especially government schools in Tanzania (Hardman et al., 2012; Mosha, 2012; Sumra & Rajan, 2006; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). Despite government efforts to increase the number of books in schools, there are still not enough. Thus far it has not been possible for Tanzania’s government to achieve a teaching and learning environment equal to that in developed countries. When Education for All (EFA) policy was launched in Tanzania in 2001, it was found that many children in the country were not in school due to factors stemming back to the economic crisis in the country of the 1980s. In response to EFA, more students enrolled in schools, but this led to student overcrowding in classrooms (Sumra & Rajan, 2006). Per Ministry of Education statistics, the total enrolment in forms 1 to 4 increased by 51%. Despite the government initiative to construct at least one new secondary school for each ward across the country, students remain overcrowded in most classrooms. Many classrooms now have over 45 students due to a lack of classrooms and teachers (Mosha, 2012). It is questionable whether teachers’ pedagogies and student learning can be significantly improved in such schools, without greatly improving the material infrastructure. The context of teaching and learning is also related to the language of classroom instruction. The use of English as a medium of instructions has been considered by several researchers as a constraint in Tanzania (Brock-Utne, 2006). Qorro (2009) and Rubagumya (2003) report that students’ lack of language proficiency has led to

44

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

teachers’ frustration, because students are not able to effectively respond to questions teachers ask by understanding or using English. Hence, the use of English in this context reinforces teachers’ use of teacher-centred pedagogies, such as lecturing, to cope with communication challenges (Qorro, 2009). Brock-Utne’s (2006) study indicates that students who are still taught in Swahili are more eager to participate and share knowledge and experiences within a more student-centred approach, in contrast with those taught in English.

3.3.3 The Importance of Culture Methodologies of teaching, instruction, and assessment function in relation to culture (Barrett, 2007; Biggs, 1996; Stambach, 2000; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). In other words, pedagogies are partly a product of the society’s socialisation and cultural values and experiences. Since instruction is related to culture in a context, practices that are effective in some contexts may not be effective in others. For example, hierarchical power relations between youth and elders in most African cultures (including in Tanzanian culture) effect teachers and students’ relationships in the classroom (Barrett, 2007). In Tanzania, a child is not only expected to abide to rule and order as coming from their parents and other family elders. This expectation also extends to youth obedience toward others outside the family (such as teachers and neighbours), with power and authority in relation to them. The effects of power relations between youth and elders was elaborated in Barrett’s study of teachers’ values and practices in using learner-centred pedagogies in Tanzania. Although teachers in the study recognised the need for considering and responding to students’ needs, they still maintained a degree of distance in their relationships with pupils (Barrett, 2007). More generally, teachers understand that they have authority over students during teaching and learning and in schools (and outside of them) and expect students to abide by top-down classroom and school rules (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). Teachers are seen to take the part of parents to children who are their students in schools (Hardman et al., 2012; Bartlett & Vavrus, 2013). Similar experiences are indicated in other collective cultures, such as in the Chinese context, wherein students are more obedient in the classroom setting than in more individualist, less hierarchical contexts (Biggs, 1996; Fuller & Clarke, 1994). In Tanzanian culture, elders are commonly regarded as respectable and knowledgeable; youth are obliged to receive and follow their advice (Anangisye, 2008). This notion is reflected in the Swahili proverb “Kuishi kwingi Ni kuona mengi”. This means “to live long is to know/see much”, or “knowledge is one’s experience”. In relation, it is uncommon for a Tanzanian child to question an older person in front of others. Questioning of elders’ views in front of others is considered an anomaly, deviant, and taboo. Since teachers are seen as people with authority, this impedes students in questioning their teachers as anticipated in student-centred education. In respect to dialogical forms of education, students remain reluctant to ask questions

3.3 The Importance of Context in Education

45

in classrooms (Hardman et al., 2012; Mtitu, 2014; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). This again reminds of the need for education reform to be conceived and produced within a real world of particularly situated cultural and social actors (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013). Shifting cultural practices in such a context is not an easy task. The broader context of society must be considered in describing, understanding, and seeking to improve existing educational practices.

3.4 How Conceptions Impact Education 3.4.1 How Conceptions Impact Teacher Practices Teacher classroom practices can be understood as broadly based in either traditionalist or conceptions of education. Traditionalist or transmissive conceptions are related to behaviourist conceptions of teaching, learner, assessment, and learning. Teachers with traditional views regard learning to be behavioural modification and conditioning that occurs as a result of action from an outside source. Teachers dominate in teaching and learning processes and inculcate knowledge in students according to this view. Teachers are regarded as “tellers of truth” and learners as knowledge receivers, or “passive recipients” of constructed knowledge (Mosha, 2005). Since students are considered as passive recipients of knowledge and have less ability to construct knowledge on their own, teachers take a large part in teaching and learning processes in order for learning to occur. Students are assessed at the end of teaching, for measuring to what extent students have mastered subject content. Constructivists conceive learning more as metacognitive processes. For constructivists, learning does not originate from an outside source, but rather is constructed by learners themselves (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Teachers are thus conceptualised more as facilitators, having the role of guiding and supporting learners to achieve their own individual learning (Candy, 1991). Teachers with constructivist views of teaching, curriculum, and learning integrate assessment during teaching and learning, to identify incomplete understandings, false beliefs, and naive renditions of concepts that learners might have brought with them to a subject, and to use this information for improving teaching and supporting students to continually achieve learning goals (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003). In relation, teachers’ practices are strongly influenced by their conceptions of students, learning, curriculum, and teaching. Here, teachers’ conceptions of students, learning, curriculum and teaching can often be seen to intersect with, or be influenced by, their overall conceptions of education (i.e., traditionalist or constructivist). The effects of conceptions of students on teaching practices was evident in Snow and Lohman’s (1984) study. Teachers used explicit, direct, structured instruction practices, to facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge when they perceived that students possessed low cognitive ability. Meanwhile, they used open, relatively incomplete, unstructured instruction when teaching students they perceived

46

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

as having higher cognitive ability. This indicates the important effects of preconceptions of students on teachers’ practices. Those with perceived high cognitive ability are conceived to be able to exercise procedures and conceptualise knowledge, while those with perceived low ability are thought unable to provide knowledge for themselves. Similar findings are indicated in Karabenick and Noda’s (2004) study on teachers’ attitudes towards students with low English language proficiency. However, preconceptions can be misleading (Taber, 2001, 2006). Preconceptions of learners’ abilities are prejudgments, not always based on accurate appraisals of students’ current or potential abilities. Furthermore, teachers’ refusal to use active teaching practices with students who are categorised as having low ability is likely to hinder students’ future opportunities to learn and construct knowledge and, hence, negatively impact teachers’ attempts to improve learning overall. In such cases, teachers could probe students’ understandings of concepts prior to teaching, rather than rely on perceived cognitive aptitudes, to make teaching more effective and to better support students in conceptual development (Scott, 2000). Assessment of prior knowledge is important for a teacher to identify the gap between where a student is conceptually and where they might help them (Taber, 2006). Hence, teachers can use evidence as feedback for supporting learning to better reach educational goals. Conceptions of learning fall under two competing discourses. As mentioned previously, traditionalists conceive learning as behavioural modification or conditioning. Learning as classical conditioning processes was first introduced by Pavlov in his experiments with dogs, in which he used the “stimulus–response framework” to conceptualise learning. Later, this perspective was developed by Skinner using a concept of learning as an operant conditioning process. Behaviourists believe learning is conditioning, externally oriented, which involves the use of stimuli, and reinforcement and punishment. The use of reinforcement, feedback, and punishment practices is regarded as crucial for stimulating and conditioning or modifying behaviour according to this view. Thus, the instructor should put significant effort into classroom instruction to provide opportunities for practice, reinforcement, and feedback to students, for learning to occur. The behavioural conception of learning has been associated with traditional teaching practices, such as lecturing, repetition, reinforcement, and the use of drilling and practicing of content for learners to master content. This is because in traditionalist teaching, knowledge transmission practices are considered to minimise learners’ differences and perceived deficiencies and gaps in knowledge construction. Learning is regarded as externally oriented and facilitated, and assessment is done at the end of teaching or the course, for measuring how much students have mastered material. Meanwhile, constructivists consider learning more as an “art of knowing” (Piaget, 1955), as metacognitive processes and not as behaviour modification. For constructivists, learning is constructed by students themselves, and not constructed “outside in”. The student as a learner is conceived as constructing knowledge in a process of interacting with and processing and integrating new information with prior knowledge and experiences (Dewey, 1933). Constructivists believe in learners’ autonomy and their abilities to attend to instructions in individual ways, and process and rehearse information as exercises in socially constructing learning (Boud, 1988; Schunk &

3.4 How Conceptions Impact Education

47

Zimmerman, 1998). Constructivists’ ideas of learning shift a teacher from a controller of educational processes to having a more supporting and guiding role (Zimmerman, 2001). For the constructivist, a learner is seen as proactive in making sense of and constructing their own learning, rather than being the passive recipient of constructed knowledge (Driver & Easley, 1978; Kelly, 2011). Constructivist conceptions of learning emerged out of the contributions of different educational psychologists and philosophers such as Piaget, Dewey, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Frobel, Kant, Vygotsky, and Bandura. Piaget (1980) is regarded as a major contributor in the development of constructivist theory, with his concept of genetic epistemology and discrete stages of cognitive development. Piaget’s theory of “cognitive development”, the art of knowing, has had the greatest impact on the development of the constructivist ideology of learning (Beilin & Pufall, 1992; Halford, 1989). Many other constructivist ideas of learning have developed from his foundational understanding. Constructivist assumptions about learning have recently been portrayed in “student-centred pedagogies” and in formative assessment practices (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Black et al., 2003). Although such teaching pedagogies and assessment practices are based on researchers’ own contexts of education, constructivist conceptions of teaching, assessment, and learning are often considered as best teaching and learning practice worldwide (Scott, 2000; Taber, 2006). The constructivist approach to teaching and learning is regarded as best because students are understood in this approach as more actively engaged in teaching and learning processes, which can enable them to achieve high learning outcomes. Teachers’ use of active learning practice in science learning, such as practical work, is considered best practice for learning science, for example, as teachers engage students in processes where they have more opportunities to reflect and construct their own knowledge (Driver et al., 1994). Teachers’ conceptions of curriculum also influence how they teach and use assessments during teaching and learning. Thompson’s (1985) study showed the relationship between individual teachers’ conceptions of the mathematics subject and their classroom practices. A teacher who perceived the curriculum as fixed and static with pre-set means (consisting of certain material to cover), predetermined ends (such as a discrete set of skills and competencies) and convergent ideas, used structured teaching practices for the acquisition of subject content knowledge. In contrast, teachers with a dynamic conception of the mathematics subject, as a matrix of ideas to be explored over time, tended to favour more constructivist approaches. They used active learning to initiate students’ reasoning and engagement in knowledge construction. They also capitalised on students’ unexpected remarks and incorporated them into the mainstream of lessons for clarifying students’ difficulties. Likewise, Lederman (1992) indicates that teachers’ understandings of the science subject and science knowledge influence their approaches in teaching. Finally, teachers’ conceptions of teaching influence their practices, including their use of assessment. Teachers’ conceptions of teaching can be categorised

48

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

into teacher-centred and student-centred. Teacher-centred orientations are associated with knowledge transmission and the acquisition of knowledge pedagogies, wherein teachers regard their students as passive recipients of knowledge. Teachers with student-centred (or learner-centred) pedagogy conceptions typically use constructivist approaches (Kember, 1997). Thus, teacher-centred approaches intersect with traditionalist views, while student-centred orientations are associated with constructivist perspectives. Teachers with teacher-centred conceptions use practices focused on (a) presenting conceptual principles, (b) structuring learning, (c) transferring and shaping knowledge, (d) presenting information (Martin & Balla, 1991), and (e) organising content and procedures (Ramsden, 1991), which capture traditionalists/behaviourists’ instructional practices. Teachers with student-centred pedagogies prefer to use teaching pedagogies that (a) are based on conceptual development and change categories (Trigwell, Prosser, & Lyons, 1997), (b) help students to develop their capacities to explore ways of understanding, (c) help students to cultivate the intellect and facilitate personal agency (Prawat, 1992) and build knowledge, practices which are related to constructivist teaching approaches. Although some researchers assume teachers’ conceptions change with experience from being teacher-centred to student-centred (Martin & Balla, 1991), there is little evidence supporting this claim (Norton, Richardson, Hartley, Newstead, & Mayes, 2005). Instead, evidence exists that teachers’ conceptions are influenced by their professional training (Ho, 2000) and markedly differ in relation to the subject that a teacher has taught (Norton et al., 2005). Considering such research, one might argue that teachers’ conceptions about the subject matter, learners, teaching, and learning can be major impediments to reorienting or reforming classroom instructional and assessment practice at the individual level. There are also other noteworthy influences on teachers’ conceptions about education. As mentioned elsewhere here, teachers’ conceptions about teaching, learning, and assessment are also influenced by policies for assessment (Brown, 2008; Segers & Tillema, 2011) and society’s expectations related to teaching and learning within a context (Brown, 2008).

3.4.2 The Impact of Teacher Practices on Student Experiences Studies identify two major approaches students take to learning: a deep approach and a surface-level approach. A deep approach is related to the qualitative level of processing and understanding of information, in which learning is conceived to occur as a learner engages deeply in interpreting and processing content knowledge. A surface approach to learning is based upon memorisation of course material and acquiring of facts and procedural knowledge, rather than processing them. Students who take a surface-level learning approach are conceived to take in knowledge and reproduce it. In a deep approach to learning, they do not just take in new knowledge,

3.4 How Conceptions Impact Education

49

but integrate new knowledge with their ideas in knowledge construction processes (Boulton-Lewis, Smith, McCrindle, Burnett, & Campbell, 2001). Teachers’ practices influence students’ approaches to learning (Richardson, 2005; Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermont, 1999). In other words, students’ approaches to tasks depend in part on teachers’ practices, such as how a teacher delivers content and assists students and engages them in learning processes (Richardson, 2005). Students taught by teachers who use a transmission mode of teaching or teacher-dominant teaching practices are likely to adopt a surface approach to learning (Kember, 1997; Säljö, 1979). On the other hand, students taught by teachers who used active teaching practices, such as learner-centred pedagogies, are likely to adopt a deep approach to learning. There are also associations of students’ approaches to learning and learning outcomes and quality of learning (Biggs, 1996; Watkins & Biggs, 1996). Student learning outcomes can be defined as specific, observable, and measurable results to be expected after a learning experience (Marton & Säljö, 1976). Measurable learning outcomes provide evidence of what learning has been acquired in relation to a specified programme. Learning outcomes can be measurable and achievable at cognitive, behavioural, or affective levels (Bloom, 1968). However, learning outcome measures at school are often more focused on cognitive outcomes than on affective or psychomotor characteristics (Biggs, 1996; Marton, Watkins, & Tang, 1997). Cognitive outcomes of learning are prescribed quantitatively or qualitatively based on what a student has learned, grasped, or comprehended in a subject (Marton & Säljö, 1976). Qualitative learning outcomes are associated with deep understanding because the measure of learning is focused on how students develop their ability, construct meanings, and understand and relate content within their environment. Quantitative learning outcomes are associated with surface understanding because the measures focus on how students acquire facts and procedural knowledge or master key concepts. Learning outcomes are associated with factors such as teachers’ instructional practices and the nature of the assessment system, students’ background knowledge, and students’ approaches to learning. For example, teachers’ uses of higher cognitive-level questions engage students in deep approaches to learning to answer questions and, henceforth, they can better develop qualitative learning outcomes, for processes such as critical thinking and problem solving (Storey, 2004). Teachers’ uses of instructional practices such as inquiry-based methods, discussions, and laboratory practices are best practices for developing high-quality student knowledge (Lederman, 1992). Teachers’ instructional practices, students’ approaches to learning, and learning outcomes are thus intersecting, reciprocal processes. Interactive approaches such as student-centred pedagogies are associated with qualitative approaches to learning because they give students an opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of concepts than teacher-centred practices (Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). Teachers’ control of teaching and learning undermines student autonomy in constructing learning, and their opportunity to actively process new information, henceforth encouraging a quantitative learning outcome.

50

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

The assessment system also helps shape students’ outcomes. For example, in an institutionalised assessment system, wherein students are assessed nationally, there can be a backwash effect of testing on the quality of learning outcomes. Students in outcome-based education adapt to a surface approach to learning in order to meet testing demands (Watkins & Biggs, 1996). Students’ learning preferences are also influenced by what their teachers mark and value (Biggs, 1996).

3.5 Conclusion This chapter has examined the nature and importance of conceptions in human life and education. It first explored what conceptions are generally and in the context of education. And it elaborated upon a sociocultural approach to conceptions. This approach is complemented here by complexity theory, to explore how cultural and environmental contexts play a role in the processes of teaching and learning, and in the development of impactful conceptions among educators, students, and other stakeholders. The chapter has also illustrated how context, culture, and other factors influence teachers’ conceptions and other aspects of the educational context. The next chapter explores in depth the conceptions and practices of teachers in our study, related to assessment in Tanzania.

References Akyeampong, K., Pryor, J., & Ampiah, J. C. (2006). A vision of successful schooling: Ghanaian teachers’ understanding of learning, teaching and assessment. Comparative Education, 42(2), 155–176. Anangisye, W. A. L. (2008). Moral education and character development: Learning from African the African ideology framework. Journal of Adult Education, 16, 1–23. Barrett, A. M. (2007). Beyond the polarization of pedagogy: Models of classroom practice in Tanzanian primary schools. Comparative Education, 43(2), 273–294. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2013). Testing and teaching: The Tanzanian national examinations and their influences on pedagogy. In F. Vavrus & L. Bartlett (Eds.), Teaching in tension: International pedagogies, national policies, and teachers’ practices in Tanzania. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Beilin, H., & Pufall, P. (1992). Piaget’s theory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Bermeo, M. J., Kaunda, Z., & Ngarina, D. (2013). Learning to teach in Tanzania: Teachers’ perceptions and experiences. In F. Vavrus & L. Bartlett (Eds.), Teaching in tension: International pedagogies, national policies, and teachers’ practices in Tanzania. Rotterdam: Sense. Biggs, J. (1996). Testing: To educate or select? Education in Hong Kong at the crossroads. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Publishing Company. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Oxford Open University Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: Assessment in education. Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 18–21. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment (UCLA-CSEIP), 1(2), 1–12. Boud, D. (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning. New York: Kogan.

References

51

Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Smith, D. J. H., McCrindle, A. R., Burnett, P. C., & Campbell, K. J. (2001). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Learning and Instructions, 11(1), 35–51. Brock-Utne, B. (2006). Whose education for all? Recolonizing the African mind. Daejeon: Homi Publishing. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen & G. H. Elder (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619–647). Washington: American Psychological Association. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Integrating teachers’ conceptions: Assessment, teaching, learning, curriculum and efficacy. New York: Nova Science. Brown, G. T. L., Chaudhry, H., & Dhamija, R. (2015). The impact of an assessment policy upon teachers’ self-reported assessment beliefs and practices: A quasi-experimental study of Indian teachers in private schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 50–64. Brown, G. T. L., Hui, K. F. S., Yu, F. M. W., & Kennedy, K. J. (2011). Teachers’ conceptions in the Chinese context: A tripartite model of accountability, improvement and irrelevant. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 307–320. Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16, 347–363. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. Los Angeles: Jossey-Bass. Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teaching thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5–12. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1994). Introduction: Mind, culture and activity. An International Journal, 1(4), 201. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. Fuller, B., & Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 119–157. Gebril, A., & Brown, G. T. L. (2014). The effect of high-stakes examination systems on teacher beliefs: Egyptian teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(1), 16–33. Halford, G. (1989). Reflections on 25 years of Piagetian cognitive developmental psychology, 1963–1988. Human Development, 32, 325–357. Hardman, F., Abd-Kadir, J., & Tibuhinda, A. (2012). Reforming teachers’ education in Tanzania. International Journal of Education Development, 32, 826–834. Hardman, F., Abd-Kadir, J., Agg, C., Migwi, J., Ndambuku, J., & Smith, F. (2009). Changing pedagogical practice in Kenyan Primary Schools: The impact of school-based training. Comparative Education, 45(1), 65–86. 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, 287–304.

52

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

Ho, A. S. P. (2000). A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model for programme design. International Journal for Academic Development, 5, 30–41. Johnson, E. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model of accountability in education. An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 5(1), 1–10. Karabenick, S. A., & Noda, P. A. (2004). Professional development implications of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 28, 55–75. Kelly, G. (2011). A Theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton & Company. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress Press. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. London: University of Chicago Press. Martin, E., & Balla, M. (1991). Conceptions of teaching and implications for teaching. Research Development in Higher Education, 13, 298–304. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. Marton, F., Watkins, D. A., & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interview study of high school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instructions, 7(1), 21–48. Mosha, H. J. (2012). A case study of learning material used to deliver knowledge, skills on competencies based curriculum in Tanzania. A Paper Presented in Triennale of Education and Training Africa Conference in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Mosha, H. J. (2005). New directions in teacher education for quality improvement in Africa. Papers in Education and Development, 24, 45–68. Mtitu, E. A. (2014). Learner-centred teaching in Tanzania: Geography teachers’ perceptions and experiences. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50, 537–571. Nzima, I. (2016). Competence based curriculum (CBC) in Tanzania: Tutors’ understanding and their instructional practices. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Linnaeus University, Sweden. O’Sullivan, M. (2006). The re-conceptualization of learner-centered approaches: A Namibia case study. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(6), 585–602. Osaki, K. M. (2007). Science education in Tanzania: Past, present, and future trends. In K. Osaki, W. Ottevanger, C. Uiso & J. van den Akker (Eds.), Science educational research and teachers’ development in Tanzania (pg.1–44). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Piaget, J. (1980). The child’s conception of the world. St. Albans: Granada. Piaget, J. (1955). The child’s construction of reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354–395. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Using phenomenography in designing program for teachers in higher education. Higher Education and Development, 16(1), 41–54. Qorro, M. (2009). Parents and policy makers, insistence on foreign languages as media of education in Africa: Restricting access to quality education-for whose benefit? In B. Brock-Utne & I. Skattum (Eds.), Languages and education in Africa: A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford: Symposium Books. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129–150.

References

53

Remesal, A. (2012). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472–482. Renatus, I. M. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and concerns about the implementations of the preschool curriculum in Tanzania. Early Years, 1–15. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673–680. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rubagumya, C. (2003). English medium primary schools in Tanzania: A new linguistic market in education? In B. Brock-Utne, Z. Desai & M. Qorro (Eds.), Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa. Dar es Salaam: E & D Limited. Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective: Some common-sense assumptions (Report no. 76). Göteborg: University of Göteborg. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford. Scott, P. (2000). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A review of studies from a Vygotskian perspective. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80. Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2011). How do Dutch teachers and students conceive the purposes of assessment? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 49–54. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 347–376. Stambach, A. (2000). Evangelism and consumer culture in Northern Tanzania. Anthropological Quarterly, 73(4), 171–179. Storey, S. (2004). Teacher questioning to improve early childhood reasoning. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Arizona University. Sumra, R., & Rajan, R. (2006). Secondary education in Tanzania. Key policy challenges. Dar es Salaam: HakiElimu. Taber, K. S. (2006). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42(1), 125–184. Taber, K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s conceptions: A typology of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27(2), 159–171. Tabulawa, R. (2009). Education reform in Botswana: Reflections on policy contradictions and paradoxes. Comparative Education, 45(1), 87–107. Terra, L. A., & Passador Joäo, L. (2015). Phenomenological approach to the study of social system. System Practice and Action Research, 28(6), 613–627. Thompson, A. G. (1985). Teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and the teaching of problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 281–294). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Lyons, F. (1997). Defining good teaching relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ learning. Paper Presented at the Seventh Conference of European Association for Research in Learning and Institutions in Athens. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70. Vavrus, F. (2009). The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies: Teacher education reform in the United Republic of Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 303–311. Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2013). Teaching in tension: International pedagogies, national policies and teachers’ practices in Tanzania. Rotterdam: Sense. Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermont, J. D. (1999). Consistency and variability of learning strategies in different university courses. Higher Education, 37, 1–21. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. London: MIT Press.

54

3 Conceptions in Education: A Sociocultural Approach

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Waldrop, M. (1993). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of orders and chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–38). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chapter 4

Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

Abstract This chapter presents findings about teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Tanzania’s lower secondary schools. Findings were obtained from interviews with students, teachers, and educational leaders; from school and classroom observations; and from related documents, such as teaching plans, lesson notes, marked test scripts, exercise books, and school timetables. An observation questionnaire was used in coding teachers’ practices during lesson observations. Stimulated recall interviews were also conducted to associate teachers’ conceptions with their practices of assessment. Finally, the chapter explains how teachers’ conceptions and practices were influenced by the social and cultural context, including the national assessment system, the education system, and the material and physical teaching and learning environment. The influence of culture on teachers’ conceptions and practices intersects with local values and norms of teaching, assessment, and learning, which also played a role in shaping teachers’ assessment conceptions and practices. Keywords Teachers · Conceptions · Assessment · Tanzania · Feedback · Culture · Examinations

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment Teachers used assessment with the intentions of: (a) Assessing and monitoring student understanding, progress, and achievement; (b) improving teaching, learning, and performance; and (c) accountability of the school, teachers, and students. The key conceptions of assessment fell under two roles: assessment as a source of information, and for aiding in teaching and learning processes. Conceptions of assessment as a source of information used it for collecting data about student understanding and performance, and to evaluate teaching instructions and materials. Conceptions of assessment for aiding in teaching and learning used assessment data as evidence for improving teaching, learning, and performance and for judging and monitoring teaching, student achievement, and school effectiveness.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Kahembe and L. Jackson, Educational Assessment in Tanzania, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9992-7_4

55

56

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

4.1.1 Assessing and Monitoring Student Understanding, Progress, and Achievement All teachers held a conception of assessment as for evaluating and monitoring student understanding, progress, and achievement. As teachers expressed it: I ask oral questions or give them an exercise as homework after I finish teaching to assess their understanding, to know what the learners have achieved and have not achieved. I ask questions before I teach them to know what they know or don’t know about the topic. I ask questions during teaching to know about students’ weakness and strength in learning, what did they learn and did not learn on the topic.

The intention of assessment for evaluating and monitoring the students’ understanding differed at each stage of teaching as indicated in Table 4.1. Assessing student understanding was not necessarily done at the end of teaching. Teachers also conducted assessment during teaching and learning for this purpose. However, teachers had different conceptualisations of student understanding. They usually meant it to indicate either mastery of subject content knowledge, reproduction of content knowledge, or the ability to use and apply knowledge. Almost all teachers conceived understanding as mastery of knowledge taught. Teachers who conceived student understanding as mastery or the ability to reproduce content thought that reproduction or mastery was the result of learning. As one teacher indicated: Table 4.1 Intentions of assessment at each stage of teaching Teaching stage

Assessment practices used

Assessment intention

Initial stage: • Oral questions (i.e. short-answer, Lesson introduction yes or no, etc.) • Brainstorming questions or quiz • Group work activities and presentations

• Assessing student background knowledge

Mid-stage: • Oral questions (i.e. short-answer Lesson presentation question, yes or no, etc.) • Questioning and probing of Reinforcement student responses • Assigned group activities • Observing and following up student work • Presentation of assigned works • Phrasing words: Is it? Do you get me? Am I clear?

• Assessing student understanding and monitoring progress

Last stage: Lesson evaluation

• Evaluating mastery of content taught

• Oral question (i.e. short-answer, yes or no, etc.) • Assignments, exercises in class, or homework • Marking and commenting on student work • Observing student work

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

57

I assess to check if students have understood the lesson I taught or not; if it happened that they have failed to reproduce it, I know they did not understand.

Students’ responses helped teachers to know what students remembered about content taught. These descriptions denote surface understanding of the subject matter, and memorisation of knowledge or facts for acquiring marks or qualifications. Students’ conceptions about their understandings were also related to their teachers’ conceptions. Students conceived understanding as: Remembering what a teacher has taught us. Remembering the content taught and answering the examination questions correctly.

Only two teachers (Grace and Jenister) described student understanding as the ability to “use and apply the knowledge learned in their environment”, “locate the features they have learned in their context and differentiate concepts”, and “use the knowledge they learned in solving problems in their context”. These descriptions signify a deeper sense of understanding. These teachers recognised students’ abilities to put information together and use it to do things as crucial. Teachers who conceived assessment as for deep understanding discussed how they used questioning strategies. As they explained: I usually inquire more about their responses to capture their understanding and to help them develop their thinking processes […] to discover things in their thinking processes. If I find some problems in their understanding, I inquire more, to capture their in-depth understandings.

However, there were no differences in feedback strategies used among teachers with different conceptions of assessment. Furthermore, there were no differences in the use of questions among teachers with varied conceptions. All teachers used oral questions, such as short-answer and yes-or-no questions, as well as exercises or assignments after teaching. Teachers obtained information about student understanding through their responses, the questions students asked, and observing and marking their work. As teachers explained, During a lesson, you may hear them saying, “Ah! […..] This is what a teacher taught us [….] or it looks like this”. From their questions, you know what students have understood or not. It is through students’ responses, questions they asked, or during marking of their exercises, tests, and examinations, that I understand their understanding.

Teachers were observed to take notes during marking. When one teacher was asked why he was writing notes during marking, he said he “wanted to monitor and understand about students’ understanding of the assessed concept”. During teaching, teachers indicated they would assess “to find out what students have understood or not”. Their questions would capture factual and conceptual knowledge, as they required students to identify, summarise, recall, and remember concepts taught. Teachers either explained how they assessed prior knowledge during interviews or were observed to use assessment for this purpose at the beginning of lessons. When teachers were interrogated about their intentions of assessment they expressed:

58

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices If I found that students lacked knowledge on the topic that I planned to teach, I would have to invest more time to teach it, as compared to when students have some ideas on it. This (assessment data) helps to know where to start teaching, correct, or add to their understanding during teaching. I assess to know about students’ understanding of a lesson I plan to teach.

One teacher was observed to ask questions such as: “what is an active voice?” before he started teaching the topic, “Passive and Active Voice”. When he was asked about his intentions, he said that he wanted “to know if the students had any background knowledge on the concepts”. Similarly, educational leaders also explained the need for teachers to assess student background knowledge and use the evidence for supporting their learning. Cathy indicated that: A teacher may be planning other activities, but the assessment data may change his or her decision. Teachers need to adjust their teaching based on students’ needs.

Assessing students’ prior knowledge was done to find out “what students know and or do not know about the topic to be taught”. Teachers indicated using assessment evidence for planning and organising lessons and developing students’ understanding: I use the assessment evidence in making decisions on what and how to teach. I use the students’ responses to improve their understanding.

Although teachers indicated using assessment evidence for planning and organising teaching and for developing student understanding, they were often observed to correct and clarify student responses and to follow their lesson plans without effectively considering the implications of the assessment evidence they gathered. Thus, there were sometimes missing links between the evidence gained from assessment information and teachers’ practices, as evident from Boniface’s lesson in Table 4.2. Despite students attempting to express knowledge on the topic, Boniface did not use their knowledge to develop their understanding. He did not use assessment evidence as a pathway for developing student understanding. Instead, he taught Table 4.2 Boniface’s history lesson Teacher: What is forced labour? Why do the colonialists prefer the use of forced labour? Student: Because they were cheap? Teacher: What do you mean they were cheap? [pause…] Remember I told you before that you must explain your point, and not just say “they were cheap”. Do you get me? Students: Yes, sir! Teacher: You should have to explain why migrant labour was cheap. Okay? Are we together? Students: Yes, sir! Teacher: Forced labourers reduced the cost of production. Migrant labourers worked for low wages, unequal to the work they did. Forced labourers were also cheaper to maintain. […] they were recruited from long distance and brought to live in the farm areas without their families, so they had no family problem. Do you understand? Students: Yes, sir.

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

59

the lesson following his plan, and ended up repeating concepts raised before. For example, when Boniface asked, “Why do the colonialists preferred using migrant labourers?” and a student replied, “Because they were cheap”, he continued elaborating without making any follow-up on student responses that could further support their understanding. Similarly, when he asked, “What is migrant labour?” and students gave their responses, he did not work clearly to develop students’ further understanding. Instead, he introduced the use of labour ordinances, following his lesson plan. A similar practice was discussed by Silvia during her interview: I used the students’ responses to correct and clarify their responses, and/or add knowledge on it. I must tell them what is wrong or right, to avoid students picking the wrong things.

Similar practices were also observed with many teachers. Many used assessment evidence of prior knowledge to correct and clarify responses or add knowledge to student responses. They also usually proceeded to teach their lessons regardless of responses given. Thus, there was often a missing link. Teachers corrected and clarified students’ responses and continued teaching, without using assessment evidence for supporting and developing learning. Teachers’ uses of assessment evidence at this stage could be associated with their conception of assessment for assessing understanding and for developing background knowledge. In this case, teachers had problems creating a constructivist classroom, integrating assessment evidence of prior knowledge into their instructional practices. Teachers relatedly explained that they assigned textbook readings for students to read in advance for them to have ideas about the topic and increase their participation during teaching: Students should read books to prepare themselves for a lesson […]. It is difficult to use this approach in a place without enough books and library; where do you think students will get the knowledge of the content to share? We usually give them reference books to read before a lesson, for the students to be active during the teaching and learning process.

Teachers referred to the concept of assessment use for understanding student background knowledge. However, that the teachers would at the same time assign students readings before a lesson in order for them to have knowledge of a new topic and participate with that knowledge during class contradicts the concept of assessing student prior knowledge in the context of teaching. Teachers aimed here actually to increase student participation, rather than to assess and use background knowledge to develop understanding. Thus, this behaviour may result in teachers evaluating student understanding of what they have read, rather than assessing their pre-existing knowledge, skills, and beliefs. Assessment was also done to identify students’ needs and progress, such as where they were situated in their learning, and what could need to be done to achieve learning goals. This assessment evidence was also used for diagnosing the effectiveness of teaching instruction and materials used. Assessment for monitoring progress of learning is different from assessment for understanding. Assessment for monitoring student progress typically occurs during lesson presentation. During teaching,

60

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

teachers asked questions such as “Are we together?” “Is it okay?” or “Do you understand?” for monitoring purposes. Furthermore, teachers administered school-based tests and exams. They also integrated assessment during teaching and learning for monitoring students learning and related progress. Assessment for evaluating achievement took place at the end of lessons. Teachers were required to report quantitatively how many students had achieved or had not achieved the learning intentions of their lesson plans. All teachers were observed at the end of lessons to ask oral questions or write questions on the blackboard (mainly, short answers and filling in the blank). Teachers marked students’ work in the classroom or after. Teachers also explained during interviews that they used assessment for the evaluating purposes as follows: We give students assignments or ask oral questions at the end of teaching to evaluate the achievement of the learning goals […]. Poor responses or no response means the learning intention has not yet been achieved: students haven’t understood the content taught. We teach to achieve certain objectives: let say you teach and assess students and you find that more than 70% of students didn’t answer the questions correctly. It means they did not understand the topic taught.

The use of assessment for evaluating learning outcomes and achievement of curriculum goals is the aim of the Tanzania curriculum framework. Teachers were required in this context to assess and use assessment evidence in evaluating the achievement of curriculum intentions. Teachers’ use of assessment for evaluating student achievement is regarded as part of their role. Teachers were also required to write reports in lesson plans about students’ achievement of curriculum goals. Lesson plans were monitored internally by the school academic head and externally by a school supervisor from the Ministry of Education.

4.1.2 Assessment for Improvement Conceptions of assessment for improvement purposes refer to the use of assessment data as evidence for improving teaching, learning, or performance. Teachers indicated that they used assessment data not only for assessing learning, but also for improving purposes. The assessment evidence used for improvement were obtained from classroom assessment, school-based tests, or examination results. For improving teaching, teachers used assessment evidence to diagnose and reflect on their instruction and classroom materials. Teachers relatedly indicated that: Assessment evidence helps me know what to teach, where to put emphasis, and which approach to use to improve students’ understanding. Assessment helps me to know where I need to put emphasis during teaching, or in which areas I needs to concentrate to improve their understanding.

Assessment data informed teachers on what to teach, where to correct or add knowledge, and how to teach: what were the more and less effective teaching practices they used to improve student understanding.

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

61

When teachers saw that students had difficulty understanding a topic, they used alternative instruction and materials, while noting errors, in order to improve students’ understanding. Teachers also re-explained content using different examples. Furthermore, they sometimes arranged teacher-student consultation hours and remedial teaching. As indicated: We normally identify lower-achieving students during marking and arrange them in their own classes for extra teaching. We teach them closely to help them master the content. If it happens that a student has a problem in understanding certain content, I call him or her into the office for extra support. Sometimes I make an individual follow-up for students who did not do well in a test. I request them to bring along their tests to the office. We go through the test together to find out why they did not perform well.

Remedial teaching practices were stronger in Mfano, Kombozi, Kuzuri, and Nguvu Secondary Schools than in other schools. Remedial classes in Kuzuri, Kombozi, and Nguvu were grounded in school initiatives to support students with low performance in school-based examinations. In Mfano, remedial classes were arranged by the parents’ association in order to improve children’s performance. Teachers at Mfano were paid by parents for the extra teaching time. During consultations, teachers indicated using students’ tests, examinations, assignments, or notes to identify difficulties and discuss how to close gaps in understanding. During remedial teaching, teachers used different materials and instructions, or used similar materials while bolstering their usual instruction practices, by giving further explanations, re-explaining content in different ways, or using more examples and diagrams. Decisions on exactly how to improve teaching depended on the teacher. There was no criteria or framework for the teacher’s use of assessment data for improving teaching. However, the assessment data stood as a clue and guide for teachers on what needed to be done to better meet standards. In all schools, students were arranged and taught in classrooms according to their prior achievement in tests and examinations. When asked why she categorised students and taught them differently, one teacher indicated: If you keep repeating the same thing in a class, the higher-achieving students sometimes become bored in the processes, as they may need to learn new things, but for the slower learners, repeating the content helps them in grasping the content taught.

There was an interface of assessment conceptions for improving teaching purposes between teachers and other participants. Education leaders also emphasized the need for teachers to use assessment for diagnosing and improving instructional practices and materials: Assessment should help a teacher to assess themselves: if he or she used effective approaches in teaching or not [….] and to adjust their teaching. Students’ responses (assessment data) may result in a teacher taking a decision in the classroom in either repeating teaching or clarifying the concept, or even reorganizing or changing their teaching plan.

62

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

Assessment for improving learning uses evidence to enhance student understanding of a subject matter or give students feedback and motivation to otherwise aid their learning. Teachers improved learning and students’ understanding by clarifying, correcting, or putting emphasis on areas where students expressed difficulties in understanding. Teachers also explained that they gave students more activities (assignments and exercises) to improve their learning in many cases. Teachers believed that such activities improved student learning. However, they also said that it was difficult to monitor students’ extra activities. Students sometimes copied peers’ work, or did not finish the work on time. Rossana marked students’ activities together with test grades in judging students’ performance. She believed the use of exercises as part of students’ final grades would motivate students to read, as otherwise they might receive lower final grades. Teachers also gave feedback to students to aid and motivate learning. The feedback was given so that they could understood their strengths and weaknesses and begin to think about strategies to close gaps in learning. Teachers felt that this feedback had the potential to enhance students’ learning: Correction done helps student in self-evaluation, knowing their gaps and strengths in understanding. Feedback given to students either verbally or comments on their works help them to know what they have understood or not understood. When students respond to questions, other students are listening. Through hearing, they make self-judgement and peer judgment and improve their understanding.

Students were active in responding to peers, especially when a student gave an incomplete or wrong answer. Students also felt that assessment and feedback given was helpful to them in self-assessment and improving their understanding of a concept. As students indicated: When a teacher asks questions, or corrects our responses, it helps us to assess ourselves: how can I answer a similar question? Teachers’ comments on our responses inform us on where we need to put more emphases during revision to improve our understanding. Questions asked and feedback given to answers to questions help us in assessing ourselves: how can I answer questions in this topic?

Many of the teachers’ strategies for improving learning, such as adding information to and clarifying and summarising student responses, undermined students’ attempts at self-regulating learning, and thus diverged from national curriculum demands. However, it was not that the teachers did not have knowledge of assessment use for student-led improvement as mandated. Instead, teachers explained that: A teacher is there to facilitate, guide, and support students learning and not to dominate learning and learning. In science subjects teaching, teachers are required to engage students in practical activities and not to demonstrate. […] It is difficult to implement. It needs preparation to do all this. A teacher is required to guide students to read a story and support them to identify things, i.e. tenses. […] It is difficult: how can students know tenses without being taught before?

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

63

It’s not possible to do this education assessment practice in our teaching environment, it’s not! (Shakes her head.) I have more than 60 students in classroom. I must teach them and finish the syllabus within the allocated time […], how can you follow each student’s response and finish the syllabus?

Teachers did not see the recommended practices as feasible in their teaching contexts. Poor physical and material resources (such as a lack of books, the syllabus length, and the number of students in the classroom) given the national assessment demands were thus identified as major constraints in the implementation of assessment reform. Teachers expressed here that they struggled to finish the syllabus while preparing students to effectively respond to national examination questions. Teachers also administered school-based tests and examinations. These were used not only for predicting and improving student performance in future examinations. Rather, they were also conducted for diagnosing and improving teaching and learning. Teachers conducted test corrections after each test to improve students’ understanding of subject content knowledge and performance in future examinations. Teachers also used test results as evidence for assessing the quality of educational materials and diagnosing instructions used to improve teaching and learning. Teachers also gave students marked scripts as feedback to aid their learning. It was through this evidence that students were enabled to evaluate their learning and reflect upon strategies for improvement. Students also indicated that test correction helped them in evaluating their learning and improving their performance in future examinations. They indicated that test administrations practices, such as announcements of planned tests, motivated them to study their lesson notes and otherwise improve their understanding of subject content. Students indicated that test administration helped in improving their performance as follows: Internal tests help us to know the types of examination questions in a specific topic and improve our attempts of examination questions in the future. Frequencies of tests help us in revising our notes, and hence, remembering the subject content during tests. Sitting for tests familiarised us with examination questions related to the assessed content, and hence we improve our confidence in attempting questions in the future examination. Marked assignments inform us on which questions we managed and did not manage to answer. The corrections we do with teachers help to improve our understanding of how to attempt similar questions in future examinations.

Test administration was thus used for improvement purposes. Although test administration practices were conceived to provide an element of improvement, these practices can also result in teachers “teaching for the test” and in students “learning for the test”. Teachers’ behaviours of covering the syllabus earlier in order to have time for lesson revision and testing, and their use of past national examination papers and the national examination format to construct school-based tests items, signified how their practices were aimed at preparing students specifically for national examinations. Teachers also arranged science practical lessons close to the time of national examinations, so that students could better remember science practices during examinations.

64

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

In final-year classes, teachers and students were busy with lesson and test revisions. When asked why he did revisions, Banduka said that he “wanted his students to pass their national examinations”. Teachers generally reported that parents, heads of school, school administrators (educational officers), and students all wanted high pass marks in national examinations. In this context, students were also observed to take their own initiative in improving their performance in examinations. Students in Chanzo Secondary School were observed to prepare, administer, and supervise their own tests, intentionally preparing themselves for future examinations. Questions and marking schemes were prepared by students using past national paper examinations, internal tests, subject notes, or reference books. Students were also observed to read and solve examination questions in small study groups while at school. Students with poor performance in internal tests were given extra teaching to improve their performance. Extra teaching was done either as one-on-one consultations or in remedial classes. Additionally, final-year students, especially in private schools, were required to stay in school or on campus longer than others for examination preparation. School vacations were shortened for their revision and preparation time. Teaching and learning for the test in these ways is likely to divert the role and focus of learning from the achievement of learning intentions to improving performance in national examinations. On the other hand, these assessment practices were also partly formative. For instance, extra classes for lower-achieving students were supportive for improving their performance and learning. Assessment use for improving student performance entails an element of formative assessment practice: the formative use of summative testing (FUST). School-based tests and examination results were used for accountability purposes, but also formatively, for improving teaching, learning, and performance. These practices were also a source of information to students in self-evaluation and self-regulation.

4.1.3 Assessment for Accountability Students, schools, teachers, and the nation as a whole are all held accountable for assessment results. Although teachers do not conduct (and were not significantly consulted with regard to the development and continuance of) national examinations, they are still the ones held most directly accountable for results. Teachers are officially requested by the Ministry of Education, through the head of school, to account for students’ performance in national examinations. As Mwidu said: When your students perform poorly in the national examinations, you’re in a trouble; you have to give an explanation of why students did not perform well.

According to reports from teachers in this study, teachers in private schools were demoted when students performed poorly in national examinations. Teachers whose students performed well, on the other hand, were broadly considered as good teachers and rewarded by the school authority. Teachers’ effectiveness and competency in

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

65

teaching was determined by the number of their students who passed the examinations, rather than by any other qualities of their teaching. Teachers were assigned to teach students for their entire schooling period (from year one to four) to monitor their teaching competencies more effectively in this vein. The schools were also held accountable for student performance, with national examination results used to indicate school quality. Schools are judged and evaluated based on their ranking. The highest-ranking schools are perceived to have more competent teachers and to provide higher-quality education than those which are lower in ranking. Parents prefer schools with higher rankings, in anticipation that their children will perform better in national examinations by attending such schools. School ranking practices also increase educational competition because private school authorities use performance rankings to attract parents to their school. Students are held accountable in assessment, as national examination results are chiefly used to certify their academic performance and enable them to receive educational qualifications which are used to determine their eligibility for employment and admission to higher learning. The higher the pass mark a student has, the greater the advantage they have in getting a job and access to future learning opportunities. As students indicated: Higher performance in the national examinations increases our chances to compete for competitive jobs and our chances in higher learning institutions. Students with higher performance in their certificates are considered as more competent and capable than those with lower performance. You cannot get a job if you have a low pass mark. We need to study hard to perform the highest in the national examinations. Good performance in national examinations determines a person’s future prosperity. It is difficult to have a good life if you have poor performance.

The government is also accountable for national examinations. The concept of the nation (the government) being accountable for national examination results signifies the use of examination to judge quality of education provision. International donors such as the World Bank, UNESCO, and DFID use national examination results across countries to gauge educational provisions and determine whether national governments have established sound and sustainable strategies for national education. The use of national examination results for accountability instigates education officers to oversee heads of schools and teachers to ensure the highest possible performance in examinations. One result of the impact of examination for accountability was the government nullifying the 2012 national form four examination results and forming a commission to investigate the cause of poor performance (see Chap. 1). The established commission proposed the introduction of the Big Result Now campaign (BRNEd) in 2013. Despite BRNEd’s stated objective to improve education quality in primary and secondary schools, progress towards the achievement of program objectives was only measured through improved performance of students in national examinations. As a result, teachers’ assessment practices have remained directly and indirectly based on the aim of ensuring the highest performance in national examinations.

66

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

School-based assessment results, like annual examinations and school-based tests results, are also used for accountability purposes at the school level. School-based test results determine students’ eligibility for transition to the next learning grade. Schools, especially private ones such as Kuzuri, Kombozi, and Nguvu, required specific grades from students in order to proceed to the next grade level. Students were forced to repeat classes or leave the school if they did not achieve a pass mark to transition to the next grade. Students were also rewarded, such as by receiving special favours like a holiday or cash, when they performed well in school-based and national examinations. Teachers also give reports about student performance to parents and local school authorities. They are also required to send school-based test results to the National Examinations Board. Although all teachers conceptualised assessment as valuable for accountability, they had different accountability focuses. The most common focus was on teacher accountability. Teachers understood that they were regularly evaluated by parents, school, and educational leaders based on their students’ performances in exams at the school and national levels. The focus on teachers’ accountability led to teachers using assessment practices primarily to ensure the highest possible performance of their students in national examinations. Table 4.3 gives a portrait of each teacher and their expressed and observed conceptions and practices of assessment. Generally, there was no difference in assessment conceptions across teachers with different qualifications, experiences, and subjects. However, teachers with diploma qualifications used more formative assessment strategies than those with degree-only qualifications. Table 4.4 presents a summary of teachers’ similarities, differences, and foci in assessment conceptions. Teachers who saw assessment as a source of feedback to aid learning also tended to view assessment as for improving learning. Furthermore, those who saw assessment as for holding teachers accountable also regarded it as related to improving teaching. Jenister and Grace conceived of student understanding at a deep level. They used more probing and questioning strategies to assess student understanding and developing of critical thinking. Meanwhile, those who conceived student understanding as mastery of knowledge used question types which sought factual knowledge. Findings also indicated differences in assessment conceptions in private versus government schools. Teachers in government schools saw assessment as for accountability purposes more than teachers in private schools, who more often held conceptions of assessment related to improving performance in examinations. There were more tests, consultations, and remedial practices in private schools than in government schools for improving student performance in examinations.

4.1.4 Contradictory Conceptions and Practices Teachers typically had more than adequate knowledge about nationally implemented assessment reform. They explained that assessment reform required them to significantly involve students in processes of teaching and learning, to increase student

Teacher

Education

Teachers’ conceptions

(a) Assessing student understanding as mastering subject content knowledge (b) A source of feedback to aid learning (c) Teacher and student accountability (d) Improving subject knowledge and performance in examinations

• Diploma (a) Assessing student understanding as reproduction of in subject content knowledge Education (b) Teacher and student accountability 1999 (c) Improving teaching and learning (mastering subject • B.Sc. knowledge) and performance Education 2010 • Joined the school in 2010

• Diploma in Education 1998 • B.A. Education 2010 • Joined the school in 2010

Jenister • Diploma (a) Assessing student as assessing the ability to apply and Geography in use knowledge Education (b) Student and teacher accountability for examination results 2001 B.A. (c) Improving learning and teaching Education 2011 • Joined the school in 2001

Mercy Chemistry

Mfano Mariana Secondary Kiswahili Government

School

Table 4.3 Teachers’ characteristics and assessment conceptions and practices Teachers’ practices

(continued)

(a) Used questioning and probing to capture student understanding (b) Constructed, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses for feedback and improvement purposes (c) Insisted on giving student feedback for improving learning (d) Holistic and personalised testing to assess student understanding

(a) Constructed, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses for feedback and improvement purposes (b) Preferred group discussion and presentation to increase student participation (c) Holistic and personalised assessment practices (i.e. tests, assignments) to assess student understanding

(a) Oral questions (short answer), assignments, exercises, and tests (b) Constructed, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses for improvement (c) Tests and exams for accountability and improving performance (d) Feedback to aid learning

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment 67

• Diploma (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge in (b) Improving teaching and performance Education (c) Teachers, students and school accountable for exam 1987 results • Joined the school in 2008

• Diploma (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge in (b) Improving teaching performance Education (c) Teachers, students, and school accountable to results 1989 • B.Sc. Education 2009 • Joined the school in 2009

• Diploma (a) Assessing student ability to apply and use knowledge in and think critically Education, (b) Improve teaching and learning 1988 (c) Teachers accountable for assessment results • Joined the school in 1988

Batila English

Banduka Biology

Chanzo Grace Secondary Kiswahili Government

Teachers’ conceptions

Kuzuri Secondary Private

Education

• B.A. (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge Education (b) Improving teaching and performance 2008 (c) Teachers and school accountable for exam results • Joined the school in 2011

Teacher

Boniface History

School

Table 4.3 (continued) Teachers’ practices

(continued)

(a) Used questioning and probing to elicit student understanding (b) Constructed, acknowledged, approved, and disapproved student responses for improving learning (c) Used tests for accountability and improving performance

(a) Used oral questions, assignments, and exercises to assess student understanding (b) Acknowledged, approved, and disapproved student responses for improving learning and performance (c) Used tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

(a) Used oral questions, assignments, and exercises (b) Approved, disapproved, and acknowledged student responses (c) Used consultation and remedial teaching for improving performance (d) Used tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

(a) Used oral questions, assignments, exercises, and presentations (b) Acknowledged, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses (c) Used tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

68 4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

Private School Kombozi Secondary

School

• B.Sc. (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge Agriculture (b) Improving teaching and performance 1986 (c) Teachers and students accountable for performance • P.G.D. in Education 1995 • Joined the school in 1986

• B.A. (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge Education (b) Improving learning, teaching, and performance 2011 (c) Teachers and school accountable • Joined the school in 2011

Kwang Biology

Muna History

• B.A. (a) Assessing student understanding as reproduction of Education content (b) Improving purposes; performance, learning and 2008 • Joined the teaching school in (c) Teachers, school, and students accountable for performance 2009

Mwidu English

Teachers’ conceptions

Education

• Diploma (a) Assessing student understanding as reproduction of in content Education (b) Teachers, students, and school accountable for results 1997 (c) Improving teaching and performance • Joined the school in 1998

Teacher

Rossana Chemistry

Table 4.3 (continued) Teachers’ practices

(continued)

(a) Used oral questions and personalised assessment (assignments, exercises, tests) for assessing learning (b) Constructed, acknowledged, approved, and disapproved student responses for improving learning and performance (c) Used tests and examination for accountability and improving performance

(a) Used oral questions, assignments, exercises, and tests to assess student understanding (b) Acknowledged, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses for improving learning and performance (c) Used tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

(a) Used oral questions, assignments, exercises, and tests to assess student understanding (b) Constructed, acknowledged, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses for improving learning (c) Uses tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

(a) Used oral questions, assignments, exercises, classroom presentations, and activities to elicit student understanding (b) Constructed, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses to improve learning and performance (c) Uses tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment 69

Nguvu Secondary

School

Education

Teachers’ conceptions

• B.A. Education 1997 • PDE 2001 • Joined the school in 2007

• B.A. (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge Education (b) Improving teaching and performance degree(c) Teachers and school accountable 2011 • Joined the school in 2011

Marwa History

Mwita Kiswahili

(a) Assessing student understanding as reproduction of content (b) Improving teaching and learning (c) Teachers and student accountable (d) A source of feedback to aid learning

• B.Sc. (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge Education (b) Improving teaching and performance 2008 (c) Teachers, students, and school accountable • Joined the school in 2008

Chacha Chemistry

Katarina • Diploma (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge Geography Education (b) Improving teaching and performance 2012 (c) Teachers and school accountable • Joined the school in in 2012

Teacher

Table 4.3 (continued) Teachers’ practices

(continued)

(a) Used oral questions and personalised assessment (exercises, tests) to assess student understanding (b) Constructed, corrected, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses for improving learning and performance (c) Used tests and examinations for improving performance

(a) Used oral questions and personalised assessment (assignments, exercises, tests) to assess understanding (b) Constructed, acknowledged, corrected, approved, and disapproved student responses for improving learning (c) Uses tests and exams for accountability purposes

(a) Used oral questions, assignments, exercises, tests, and discussions for assessing learning (b) Acknowledged, corrected, approved, and disapproved student responses for improving learning and performance (c) Used remedial teaching to improve learning and performance (d) Used tests and exams for improving performance

(a) Used oral questions, assignments, exercises, tests to assess student understanding (b) Constructed, acknowledged, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses for improving learning (c) Used tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

70 4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Assessing as mastering content knowledge A source of feedback to aid learning Improving teaching and performance Teachers and students accountable

Assessing as mastering content knowledge Improving learning, teaching, and performance A source of feedback to aid learning Teachers accountable

Teachers’ conceptions

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Silvia • B.A. (a) Assessing as mastering content knowledge Geography Education (b) Teachers accountable (c) Improving teaching, learning, and performance 2004 • Joined the school in in 2009

• Diploma in Education 2010 • Joined the school in 2010

Charles Biology

Education

• Diploma in Education 2001 • Joined the school in 2008

Teacher

Ongezeko Rukia Government English School

School

Table 4.3 (continued) Teachers’ practices

(a) Used oral questions and personalised assessment (assignments, exercises, tests) to assess student understanding (b) Constructed, acknowledged, corrected, approved, disapproved, and praised student responses for improving learning and performance (c) Used tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

(a) Used oral questions and personalised assessment (assignments, exercises, tests) to assess student understanding (b) Used tests and exams for accountability and improving performance (c) Corrected, clarified, and added knowledge to improve student understanding and performance

(a) Used oral questions and personalised assessment (i.e. assignments, exercises, tests) to assess students’ understanding (b) Constructed, acknowledged, approved, disapproved, and praised students’ responses for improving learning and performance (c) Uses tests and exams for accountability and improving performance

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment 71

72

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

Table 4.4 Conceptions of assessment Conceptions

Variations

Assessing and monitoring student understanding, achievement, and evaluation

Mastering of the concept

Mariana, Chacha, Mercy, Rossana, Boniface, Mwita, Batila, Mwidu, Marwa Rukia, Banduka, Charles, Kwang, Silvia, Muna, Katarina

Grace and Jenister

Accountability

Teachers accountable

School accountable

Students accountable

Boniface, Batila, Banduka, Rossana, Mwidu, Muna, Chacha, Mwita, Rossana, Grace, Mariana, Kwang, Mercy, Jenister, Katarina, Sylvia, Rukia, Mwita

Boniface, Batila, Banduka, Rossana, Mwidu, Muna, Chacha, Mwita, Grace

Mariana, Charles, Kwang, Batila, Chacha, Rossana, Mwidu, Banduka, Jenister, Mercy

Teaching

Performance

Learning

Mercy, Mariana, Jenister, Daria, Grace, Batila, Banduka, Muna, Rossana, Mwidu, Chacha, Charles, Silvia, Boniface, Kwang Katarina, Rukia, Marwa, Mwita

Mariana, Daria, Batila, Banduka, Rossana, Mwidu, Chacha, Charles, Silvia, Boniface, Kwang, Katarina, Rukia, Mwita

Mercy, Mariana, Jenister, Grace, Muna, Grace, Silvia, Rukia, Marwa

Improvement

Reproduction of knowledge

Ability to use and apply knowledge

participation, and to use assessment to support learning. However, teachers did not conceive these best practices as feasible and intelligible in meeting the various teaching, assessment, and learning demands in their context. In particular, they thought their students were continuing to perform well in examinations using traditional teaching approaches. Teachers also perceived difficulties in implementing reform, because of increased workload and the physical and material teaching and learning environment and resources, such as class size, syllabus length, and the time given to teach. Furthermore, there were some contradictions between teachers’ expressed conceptions and observed practices of assessment: (a) Although Mercy, Rossana, and Mariana elaborated on the need to support learners in self-regulating, they insisted on the need to correct and clarify students’ responses to improve learning. (b) Although Jenister and Grace indicated and were observed using probing and questioning assessment strategies for assessing deep learning, they also acknowledged, corrected, and clarified students’ responses to absorb the right responses.

4.1 Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

73

(c) Although Banduka, Katarina, Boniface, Jenister, Grace, and Kwang held a conception of assessment as for assessing prior knowledge, they felt that students could not participate actively without being given references to read before, hence contradicting the constructivist conception of assessing prior knowledge and using evidence for developing student background knowledge for learning. (d) Batila and Mwidu had conceptions that students cannot engage in learning without being taught first, which contradicted their expressed understanding of assessment use as for supporting and guiding learning.

4.2 Assessment Practices Teacher assessment practices consisted mainly of questioning and giving feedback. In relation to questioning, we examined the nature of the questions posed and other aspects of teachers’ questioning skills. Our focus in exploring teachers’ feedback strategies included how feedback was given, when, and why, and how it was used by teachers and students to improve teaching and learning. An analysis of past national examination papers (2014 and 2015) was also undertaken to trace the influences of examinations on teachers’ practices at the school level.

4.2.1 Questioning Teachers used questioning to gather information and feedback for improving teaching, learning, and performance. Their intentions in questioning included assessing student understanding, identifying the extent of their background knowledge, monitoring their understanding and progress, and evaluating their achievement. Although teachers used other forms of questions, such as completion items and yes-or-no questions, they typically preferred short-answer questions. Examples of short-answer questions used: • • • • • •

What is a colonial economy? What is volumetric analysis? What are advantages of preserving oral literature? Name the methods of preserving oral literature. What is forced labour? What are the characteristics of forced labour?

These questions demanded students to produce facts. Teachers’ use of this approach related to their conception of assessment as for evaluating student understanding and learning. Teachers also used phrase questions, such as: “Do you understand?”, “Isn’t it?”, “Are we together?”, “Do you get me?”, “Is it?”, and “Is it okay?” to assess and monitor student understanding, stimulate their attention, and engage them. Teachers’ use of

74

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

phrase questioning was a kind of habitual practice. It is difficult to trace the origins of such questioning phrases. Teachers likely adopted such questioning behaviours automatically, from their previous schooling experiences and past experiences teaching. Teachers also used different questioning strategies, such as: “What do you think about these answers?”, “What is your thought?”, “What can we add to this response?”, “How can we improve this response?”, “Who can add more to it?”, “Can anyone give further elaborations to that?”, and “Why do you think so?”. These questioning practices were used to enrich the quality of assessment information given, interrogate or cross-check information, promote classroom discussion, stimulate student reflection, and increase student participation. As teachers further explained: Questioning helps students reflect on their ideas and think differently. I usually keep on inquiring more about their understanding to allow students to think deeply about their responses.

Questioning strategies were regarded by teachers as not only helpful in enriching the quality and quantity of assessment information and promoting critical thinking, but also useful for promoting positive student behaviours, such as listening to their peers and articulating more systematic responses during teaching and learning processes. Questioning and probing were also used for assessing many students’ understandings at the same time, as teachers indicated: If a student has failed to respond to the question, I pose the same question to other students to find out if the other students had the same problem or not. I can pick like two to three students, to have general class understanding. I don’t accept the students’ response instantly. I ask the same questions to other students to assess their understanding of it.

Teachers also encouraged students to comment on their peers’ responses before they responded. Students were active in commenting and reacting to peers’ responses during lessons. Teachers also used other assessment strategies, such as group discussions and presentations. In these cases, teachers assigned activities in groups and required students to discuss and present their work during lessons. Teachers used group discussions and presentations for assessing and monitoring students’ understanding and progress, engaging and increasing participation in a lesson, stimulating interaction, and creating room for peer tutoring. However, there were not many questions asked by students. Students were more active when teachers asked questions, or when a teacher initiated them to ask questions. There were similarities between questions used in school-based exams and national assessments. In both domains, objective types of questions, multiple-choice, completion items, filling in the blanks, matching items, and short-answer questions were preferred. There were a few subjective types of questions used, such as shortessay questions, and extended-essay questions, in both school and national-level examinations. However, such questions still did not capture high cognitive learning domains. Essay questions were used for inquiring about students’ factual and indepth knowledge. For example, essay questions required students to name, list,

4.2 Assessment Practices

75

state, summarise, or outline information. These are just gauging students’ capacities to reproduce factual and conceptual knowledge, rather than to apply critical and metacognitive learning skills. Teachers thus constructed questions that aligned with their conceptions of assessment for monitoring students’ understanding, progress, and achievement, and for mastering and reproducing content knowledge. They indicated that they preferred objective questions and short answer questions because they were easier to mark and could be administered in the context of many students, in contrast with subjective questions.

4.2.2 Feedback Teachers used different kinds of feedback, including constructing, acknowledging, approving or disapproving, and praising feedback. Constructing feedback practices occur when a teacher clarifies or repeats students’ responses with added words or corrects their responses in order for them to absorb knowledge, rather than giving formative feedback for them to develop their own knowledge. Teachers indicated using such feedback for validating and restructuring learners’ responses into meaningful statements and improving their understanding of assessed concepts. Teachers believed constructing feedback would increase students’ confidence in their answers and validate their responses. However, these practices were likely to instigate students’ intellectual dependency because they hindered students’ attempts in constructing learning and promoted memorisation of subject knowledge. Constructing feedback reflected teachers’ conceptions of assessment for improving learning and performance. This kind of feedback strategies captures behaviourist/traditionalist conceptualisations of teaching and learning, wherein learning is regarded as behavioural modification and conditioning that occurs “outside in” for learners. Acknowledging occurs in non-verbal or verbal forms. Nonverbal acknowledging occurs when a teacher nods their head or smiles for the right responses, while verbally it occurs when a teacher declares directly that a student’s response is right or wrong. Acknowledging and constructing ways sometimes occurred simultaneously, as teachers clarified and corrected students’ responses or repeated their responses with added words, and then wrote the response on the blackboard. Wrong responses were not written, nor repeated; instead, teachers continued encouraging students to produce the correct response. As Mercy indicated: When students produce wrong answers, I keep on inquiring for the right responses. But when a student gives the correct responses, I write the answer on the blackboard and not the wrong response.

When Mercy was interrogated on why she did not write some answers on the blackboard, she said that she did not write the incorrect responses to avoid her students grasping the wrong concepts.

76

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

Acknowledging feedback is a type of conditioning. Teachers believed that students automatically knew when their answers were not repeated or written on the blackboard that their responses were wrong, as Mercy indicated: It is difficult to know if they have changed their thought, but I normally motivate my students for the right answers only, and I don’t for the wrong answers. They may know their strength and weakness of responses in processes.

When students were interrogated about their teachers’ behaviours, students relatedly reported: It is embarrassing when you don’t produce a correct response. […] your peers may think you don’t know. Sometimes when you fail to respond to a question, students laugh at you; they think you don’t know.

The systematic use of acknowledgement, such as acknowledging right answers and denying incorrect answers consistently, led to students’ fear of producing answers when they were not sure about them. Thus, such feedback is likely to demotivate low-achieving students. Fear of giving a wrong answer can inhibit their participation and learning. Students usually do not want to risk the humiliation of being wrong in front of their peers. Their fears of producing wrong responses may make it difficult for teachers to involve them in classroom discussion in the future. Like constructing ways of feedback strategies, in acknowledging students look to their teacher as the authorities, who acknowledge the correct and incorrect responses. Students learn not to take their own initiative, or take the trouble to learn from their peers, unless their teacher has confirmed what is right or wrong. Acknowledging feedback reflects teachers’ conceptions of assessment as for improving learning and mastering subject knowledge. Approving and disapproving occur when a teacher approves or disapproves of student responses. Acknowledging feedback differs from approving and disapproving feedback because it has motivational aspects. Acknowledging recognises students’ attempts in responses to questions, such as in repeating, writing student responses on the blackboard, and using their words in constructing and shaping the right response. Meanwhile, approving and disapproving entails judgmental and evaluative aspects in determining whether something is right or wrong. It also involves an element of negative judgment over students’ failure to do certain tasks, especially when producing incorrect responses, as compared to acknowledgement. This feedback indirectly connotes a student’s lack of effort as the cause of poor performance. These practices can lead to disappointment, demotivation, feeling annoyed, humiliated, and discouraged, and to an ultimate reduction in participation in classroom discussion. These strategies intersect with teachers’ conceptions of assessment as for evaluating students’ mastery and reproduction of knowledge. Praise and punishment are used for recognition of good and bad behaviour. Punishing feedback was rarely used in the classroom. Punishment was more often given outside the classroom, for disciplinary actions. However, Rossana used punishment to reinforce student participation in her lessons and stimulate behaviour in

4.2 Assessment Practices

77

regularly reading lesson notes and other subject reference materials. For example, all students were required to stand up at the beginning of a lesson, and they could only sit down if they produced the right response to her questions. When asked about experiences with this practice, a student indicated, “it was embarrassing to me to be a last person to sit down”. Therefore, “I must revise my notes to answer the questions”. Teachers more often congratulated students by using words like “good try”, “good”, “good boy”, or “good girl”, or clapping their hands in response to correct answers. Praise was a kind of habitual reinforcement used for rewarding good performance. Teachers often used praise without further description. A few teachers were noted to use praise with description. Teachers’ use of praise, punishment, and rewards strategies relate to their conceptions of assessment for assessing students’ understanding (mastery and reproduction of subject knowledge) and evaluating and monitoring learning. Teachers also marked and graded student work (i.e. exercises books, tests, and examinations). Grading in a letter form or quantile or percentage was done by summing marks. Teachers used these strategies for informing students about what they did right or wrong and for motivating students. Teachers’ use of marking and grading only notified students of what was right or wrong, rather than describing the task and processes that could be used for improving future work. As a result, it was difficult for students to identify their difficulties in learning using marks and grades, as students indicated in interviews. Teachers rarely gave written feedback on student work as a kind of directive description of what a student should do to meet learning standards. Instead, teachers used other kinds of evaluative comments, such as “good work”, “poor work”, “good”, “good try”, “fair”, or “excellent” as feedback. Such comments do not give a detailed explanation or information about specific achievement. Teachers also used test correction practices for feedback. Test correction practices include identification of tasks, strengths and weaknesses made in attempting tasks, causes of errors, and discussions on how questions could be correctly attempted. Teachers saw test correction as effective for students in detecting and identifying errors they made in attempting questions, and for learning how to integrate material to improve their attempts. As Chacha indicated: Students don’t repeat the same mistake in their future examinations. […] they improved their performance.

Students also indicated that test correction was helpful in improving their understanding of the subject matter and their performance in future examinations. Although test corrections were done for improving, these practices could also result in learning gains. As students are engaged in corrective practices, they can identify and confirm their strengths and weaknesses in learning.

78

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

4.3 Influences on Teachers’ Conceptions and Practices 4.3.1 The National Education Assessment System Teachers’ conceptions of assessment for assessing and monitoring understanding, progress and achievement; improving teaching, learning and performance; and accountability reflect the influence of the national assessment system. The national examination has been used for regulating access to professions and higher education since the British colonial era (see Chap. 2). Admission to higher learning and job entrance interviews in Tanzania are based explicitly on exam results. People with the highest performance in the exams are considered first. These practices create demand for the highest marks in examinations. As teachers indicated: Students want to pass the national examinations to proceed with higher learning and later be employed. Parents also need their child to pass the national examinations, and education officers insist on the highest pass mark.

Students also wanted to receive the highest pass marks in national examinations as they explained: It is difficult to have jobs if you have poor performance in the national examinations. Poor performance hinders our expectations […] people works in jobs they don’t want because they can’t compete for a better job in the market. I must study hard to have good performance in my examination. I want to become a doctor, becoming a doctor will make my life good.

Consequently, students with a good record in national examinations are viewed as successful. Given this context, students want to attend schools with the best performance in national examinations. As a teacher indicated: The higher performance in the national examination increases the school reputation. People want a school with higher performance in the national examinations, expecting that their children will perform higher.

Thus, teachers work to ensure their school has good examination results to attract students. Teachers in this context also feel the need to finish teaching the syllabus earlier in order to conduct systematic lesson revision and otherwise work to directly improve students’ attempts in answering national examinations questions. As previously mentioned, test administration practices were done for improving student performance in the exams. Science practical lessons were taught closest to the national examination period so that students would remember them and perform their best as Rossana indicated: We teach science practical topics near the examinations and focus more on the topics which are highly examined in examinations, for students to have some ideas during their practical examinations.

4.3 Influences on Teachers’ Conceptions and Practices

79

The school authority also encourages teachers to administer many tests to prepare students for national examinations. Students and teachers are rewarded for students’ performance as motivational practices. Although teaching and learning practices were used to fulfil national assessment demands, teachers knew the implications of their practices on learning. As Mwidu indicated: It is difficult to build competencies as required, but when students do not perform well in examinations, we must account for it. Students’ performance in the national examination has become our priority.

The introduction of the Big Results Now Campaign in Education in 2013 was also an instigating factor for teachers to focus on improving students’ performance in national examinations by any means. The Ministry of Education mechanism of school ranking (ranking schools basing on their national examination performance) and holding teachers accountable for students’ performance have at the same time increased competition between schools to maintain their reputation and attract parents. Consequently, teachers most often used assessment to improve performance in the national examination, rather than for supporting and building competencies.

4.3.2 The Education Management System The government policy of requiring students to pass the national examination at a lower stage of learning in order to proceed to the next stage has created an examination culture amongst students and teachers. Both struggle for students to pass the national examination at one stage to proceed to the higher stage. The Ministry of Education’s methods of monitoring teaching through using school supervisors and centralised teaching and learning guides, such as syllabi and set books, have caused rigidity and standardisation of assessment conceptions and practices in this context. Teachers are monitored by educational leaders (supervisors) twice a year, and by the head of academics in their school to ensure they are following set teaching guides, books, and procedures throughout teaching. Moreover, teachers are required to follow lesson plans and be monitored externally by educational inspectors and internally by school academic heads. These mechanisms effect teachers’ personal initiatives in using assessment in their teaching, as they must follow teaching guides and lesson plans as required. As Muna indicated: It is difficult to introduce any practice that is different from the lesson plan. School inspectors will question it; they feel as if we are doing a wrong thing, something different from what they have instructed us to do.

As such, the level of dependency of teachers on education management system is strong. Teachers’ assessment conceptions are evolving and coevolving from the core functions of national assessment in the processes of adapting and seeking survival

80

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

within a heavily top-down education assessment system. In this context, assessment for monitoring student understanding, progress, and achievement as well as for improving purposes are used directly and indirectly to largely fulfil the accountability purposes of assessment. The mechanisms in use for accountability purposes result in teachers’ reluctance to implement education reforms. It is not that teachers lack knowledge of assessment reform, as they could clearly and accurately explain and describe what the reforms. For example: Education assessment reform requires teachers to involve learners in teaching and learning processes. Teaching shouldn’t be from one side, “teachers talk and students listen”. A teacher has to support students in learning, to discover things for themselves through learning, and not pouring knowledge onto them and students to absorb it. Previously, it was a kind of spoon feeding, telling student everything. But now we are required to engage and support students in learning process and not to show the students what to do. Teaching and learning should be originated from students’ understanding; teachers should use students’ understanding in developing learning.

Yet teachers could not perceive the education reform as intelligible given the demands faced, and saw it as challenging to their teaching roles and other significant learning demands: Students are still doing well in their examinations even when we use the old teaching and assessment approach. What matters most to them is the highest performance in the national examination and nothing else. Do students not pass their national examinations? Learners may acquire some skill during teaching processes, but the focus of teaching is passing national examinations.

Teachers perceive education assessment reform to be unintelligible to their teaching role, as parents, students, heads of school, and education leaders hold them accountable more for performance in national examinations than for developing competencies described in the curriculum. Teachers also perceive the reform to increase their teaching workload as compared to the previous approach. As Mercy indicated: There is much to do with this approach as compared to the old one. One needs to prepare many activities to teach, involve learners in teaching, and follow learners’ responses. It takes time to finish the syllabus. Previously, the teacher taught and assessed at the end.

4.3.3 The Material Environment Teachers regarded the material resources of the school and the overall physical schooling environment as challenging in relation to effectively implementing assessment reform. In terms of resourcing of time, educational policies, curriculum length, syllabus content, time allocated to teach, and the demands of the educational assessment reform were identified as key inhibiting factors. At the material level, the

4.3 Influences on Teachers’ Conceptions and Practices

81

number of students in classrooms, teacher workload, and the availability of teaching and learning materials (such as books, lab equipment, and chemicals) were also identified as challenges. Teachers perceived difficulties in using education reform in the context of large class sizes, lengthy curriculum, and the constrained time allotted. Teachers indicated it was difficult to engage and support students as required in the curriculum due to time constraints. Some also said it was difficult to follow the responses of each student and support them, because they had many students in their classroom, and had to finish each topic in a specified time. As teachers indicated: It is time consuming to use this approach; you need to ask questions, wait for the students’ responses, interrogate students’ responses and build students’ understanding from their own responses. How can it be done in a classroom of 60 students and finish the syllabus in 80 min? If you consider these practices, you cannot finish the syllabus. Time allocated isn’t enough to make follow up to all students. The topic that I taught for 4 periods only, you can end up teaching it for 6 periods with this approach. It is better to cover the syllabus than not teaching at all. Covering of the syllabus helps students to have ideas on all topics and prepare themselves for their national examination.

Teachers normally teach in more than one classroom and have additional educational responsibilities, such as lesson preparation, marking of student work, and supervising extra-curricular activities, as allocated by their head of school. Teachers in public schools had a greater teaching workload as compared to those in private schools, because of larger class sizes. Public school teachers had an average of 50– 60 students in their classrooms, while in private schools there were 30–40 students in a classroom. However, there was no difference in terms of expected assessment practices among schools with different class sizes. Teachers also indicated a lack of books in the school, denying students opportunities to read for themselves. Hence, teachers were forced to lecture and facilitate most of the time in teaching, as the students did not have books for referencing and learning.

4.3.4 Culture Teachers’ conceptions are also shaped by traditional values and norms of teaching, assessment, and learning. Teachers explained, for example, that: A teacher should tell them what is wrong or right and add knowledge from their responses to improve their understanding. She or he knows the knowledge of a subject. When you ask them questions, they feel like you don’t know the topic. Students like a teacher who teaches them. Students come to school to learn. They don’t know the subject knowledge. A teacher knows the topic.

These comments demonstrate the influences of traditional teaching philosophies and practices on teachers’ practices. Similarly, assessment feedback practices,

82

4 Teachers’ Assessment Conceptions and Practices

such as constructing ways, approving and disapproving, and acknowledging signify teachers’ common preconceptions of teaching, assessment, and learning. In traditional teaching, teachers transmit knowledge to ensure students have mastered and can reproduce what is taught. Teachers felt that the teaching practices they had learned in professional teaching colleges were not useful in this context. As Mwidu explained: It is true that we have trained differently from what we have been taught, but it is difficult to implement what I have been taught. Even when I looked at other teachers, I found that they were teaching the way I have been taught and not like how I have trained. How can you give students a book to read and identify the past tense before you have taught them? We must teach them first the form and rules of a language, i.e., what make the past tense, and then they can identify tenses by themselves.

Teachers also indicated that it was rare for students to ask questions during teaching without teacher initiative, which encouraged teachers to spend most of the time guiding and leading the class. Few students had the initiative to answer questions, either. As teachers indicated: Students don’t raise their hands when you require them to respond to questions. But surprisingly, when you pick a student, she or he gives a response. If you don’t pick them, you will end up teaching them. Students might know the answers to questions, but they don’t respond to them. You may be surprised that he or she managed to answer the question when you pick them to answer it. They like a teacher who tells them everything. A teacher who talks throughout a lesson is viewed as knowledgeable, competent; if you ask many questions, students tend not to like your subject.

In relation, when students were asked about why they did not respond to teachers’ questions, one student replied that: A teacher who asks questions before he or she teaches is so causal for me. How can a teacher ask questions on things he or she did not teach us? She or he should teach us first and then ask questions.

Similarly, other students also thought that teachers were obliged to teach and assess them on what they had been taught. Teachers’ assessment conceptions were also influenced by their professional training programs and their peer networks of subject teachers. The interface of assessment conceptions among the participants signifies the complexity of their assessment conceptions and the influences of various participants on teachers’ conceptions of assessment.

4.4 Conclusion This chapter presented the findings of this study, focusing on teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Tanzania. Findings were shared as gained from interviews with students, teachers, and educational leaders, from observations, and from

4.4 Conclusion

83

related documents. The chapter explored teachers’ conceptions and assessments of assessment, exploring some contradictions in some cases between the two. Then it identified how teachers’ conceptions and practices are influenced by the social and cultural context, including the national assessment system, the education system, and the material environment of the school. As shown here, the influence of culture on teachers’ conceptions and practices intersects with local values and norms, while the national assessment system played a strongly role in expectations held of teachers across stakeholders in this context.

Chapter 5

Conclusion

Abstract This chapter summarises the key points of this book and discusses the theoretical implications of the research. Next, it gives recommendations for future practice for policy makers, educational administrators, educators, and other stakeholders. Finally, it considers the limitations of this study, and possible topics for future research. Keywords Education reform · Reform implementation · Tanzania · Education · Assessment · Cultural context

5.1 Summary Teachers’ conceptions of assessment fall under three categories: assessing and monitoring student understanding, progress, and achievement; improving teaching, learning, and performance; and accountability purposes. Although there was some commonality of assessment conceptions among teachers, there were differences as well. The resemblances of assessment conceptions among teachers were influenced by a centralised governance system in monitoring, administering, supervising, and managing education activities and the attendance of teachers in professional training programmes. As revealed here, the education management system reduced teachers’ autonomy in educational practice and in assessment. Teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment partly resembled core functions of assessment valued at the national (and international) level in this context. That is, teachers were directly or indirectly conducting assessment to fulfil accountability purposes in the larger context of Tanzanian education. The prominence of teachers’ assessment conceptions and practices for accountability purposes does not mean that their assessment practices were entirely summative in nature, however. It would be naïve to not consider teachers’ assessment practices as formative just because their practices are focused on achieving the highest performance in the national examinations. Despite manifesting accountability conceptions of assessment, teachers also worked to adjust their assessment

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Kahembe and L. Jackson, Educational Assessment in Tanzania, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9992-7_5

85

86

5 Conclusion

practices to fulfil goals of formative assessment. Teachers used summative assessment evidence not only for judging and reporting performance, but also for improving teaching, learning, and performance. However, teachers’ assessment practices were typically not for learning. Teachers’ dominant practices in using feedback undermined student autonomy in constructing their own learning. Based on the constructivist perspective on assessment for learning, teachers were not required to construct knowledge for learners, or judge what was right or wrong throughout the teaching and learning process; rather, they were required to give learners descriptive and constructive feedback and support them in self-regulating learning. Teachers’ dominance in teaching pedagogies thus undermined students’ intellectual independence in learning, and enabled their dependency on teachers instead, throughout educational processes. Conceptions and practices of educational assessment are not only the domain of educators, however. Teachers’ conceptions are strongly influenced by factors within the teaching and learning context. Particularly, they are shaped by the nature and structure of national assessment mechanisms for accounting for teaching and learning more broadly in Tanzania. In this context, teachers evolved and self-organised their assessment conceptions to meet the larger societal demands relating to assessment. Thus, the challenges of effectively implementing education reform in Tanzania are not caused by teachers’ lack of skills in using the new teaching pedagogies, as previously suggested (see Meena, 2009; Mosha, 2012), but they are associated with various other factors impacting teachers within the educational context and cultural milieu. As seen here, teachers experienced significant demands in relation to educational assessment reform. In this context, they could hardly conceive newly recommended assessment practices as intelligible and practical. Teachers aimed more at being responsible for enabling students to perform well in national examinations in this case, as they saw themselves as chiefly accountable for performance in examinations, rather than for building student competence as also demanded in the reform. Teachers also expressed facing difficulty in implementing assessment reform given the social, political, and material environment of teaching and learning. Here, they felt it was difficult to use new assessment practices in the context of large class sizes and a lengthy curriculum, with limited time to effectively implement constructivist pedagogy. Consequently, teachers co-evolved and self-organised assessment practices that they thought had advantages for students and would work best in their environment to fulfil the all-important accountability purposes of assessment. As seen in this study, teachers are unlikely to adopt practices that will disadvantage their pupils, or their teaching status. Teachers develop rational beliefs, opinions, perceptions, and attitudes regarding educational issues and processes ecologically, in response to their society’s priorities (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2013; Brown, 2008). Teachers working against societal norms are effectively creating conflict, even if they follow top-down mandates, as past research has also shown (Clark, 1988; Tabulawa, 1998). Teachers’ reluctance in adapting new assessment practices should be examined based on this context and cultural environment, and not only regarded as caused by material constraints, or a lack of knowledge or skills for implementing reform.

5.1 Summary

87

Changes in teachers’ conceptions and practices cannot be achieved here by merely improving their teaching, learning materials, and skills, or by boosting their knowledge of using assessment practices. Teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment are social constructs. Teachers shape norms and value assessment as they engage and network with peers, participate with other people (students, parents, educational leaders, and more) in society, abide to rules and orders of their institutions and other education policies, and experience teaching and learning in their social settings. Effectively implementing such organisational and cultural change thus requires that educational leaders and reformers critically take stock of a variety of factors across and within local teaching and learning milieus (Jackson, 2013). Creating contextspecific education assessment reform is necessary for the establishment of sustainable assessment practices in this context.

5.2 Educational Implications Accountability purposes of assessment in developing countries create pressure through national examinations, as people (students, teachers, and schools) are competing for limited resources and the government is accountable to donors for education funds (Jackson, 2014). Consequently, there has been a need for the adoption of formative assessment practices which aim to respond to national assessment demands. Yet top-down control in reforming processes continually causes difficulty for planners who do not understand what implementers (teachers) know or do not know, or what is influencing them in their existing practices in their social and cultural context. It is also difficult for planners who are not on the front lines or knowledgeable about the particular contexts of local schools to effectively work with and make use of teachers’ prior understanding of their practices, and collaborate with them meaningfully, as needed for mutually beneficial change to occur. No matter the potential of a reform, lack of engagement of implementers in planning processes can increase conflicts of interest, misinterpretation, and reluctance in adapting reforms, hence rendering reforms less effective or ineffective. It is difficult for implementers to accept and practice reform if they do not conceive benefits to the changes, and if they do not recognise the reform as intelligible and practical in solving important existing challenges in their milieu. People are likely to reject reforms because they do not believe in them in such contexts. Thus, the use of a mechanical objectivity mode of adapting reform, without modification and without considering the social and contextual reality of implementation, should be avoided. As seen here, educational planners need to consider context and culture in engaging in meaningful reform processes. Furthermore, change of assessment thought needs to not only focus on the views and approaches of teachers, but should also consider the importance on other stakeholders in education as well. Teachers’ conceptions and practices, and the impact they make in schools, are influenced by students, parents, education leaders, and society at large. Thus,

88

5 Conclusion

rather than focusing only or primarily on teachers, a change encouraged in conceptions more broadly across society will result in more sustainable development and implementation of assessment and other educational reform. In this context, existing formative assessment practices in Tanzania can be regarded as opportunities for the establishment and enhancement of further contextbased formative assessment practices. The findings in this study are thus contrary to Brown, Lake, and Matters (2011) argument, which suggests the impossibility of establishing formative assessment practices in the context of high-stakes examinations. At the same time, other studies in the context of high-stakes examinations in Africa suggest the need for at least reducing the power of national examinations for the establishment of formative education assessment reforms (see Akyeampong, Pryor & Ampiah, 2006; Harley et al., 2000; O’Sullivan, 2006; Tabulawa, 2009). For instance, Tabulawa (2009) suggests supplementing examination practices with other forms of evaluation of student performance as part of formative assessment. These researchers consider the implementation of education reform difficult if national examinations remain as the real and only system of measuring quality in teaching and learning outcomes. It should also be noted that the abrupt shifting of assessment practices, which were historically established and adopted over generations, and making a major change in people’s beliefs about assessment norms and values are not easy tasks. Alternatively, there is a need for establishing and enhancing context-based formative assessment practices. Improving traditional practices rather than transforming them is a more appropriate developmental goal (Barrett, 2007). Improvement of context-based formative assessment can better suit the political, social, and economic demands of teaching and learning in Tanzania. On the other hand, implementing formative assessment practices as originally formulated in individualistic contexts cannot function ideally in collectivist contexts as such approaches may not adequately accommodate local people’s views about teaching, assessment, learning, and social relations (Jackson, 2013). The relevance and applicability of individualistic assessment practices in collectivist cultures has been challenged by many researchers (see Barrett, 2007; Carless, 2011; Schweisfurth, 2013, 2015; Tabulawa, 2003). In this context, there is a need to cross-check sociocultural factors, such as cultural differences in how people relate and engage with each other, and other basic underlying ways that peoples’ thoughts and behaviour relate to their existing practices, for the establishment of meaningful contextual and cultural responses (Jackson, 2013). Overlooking sociocultural factors in developing reforms will continue to lead to reluctance in embracing internationally exported reforms. Teachers’ assessment practices in Tanzania entailed both formative and summative uses of assessment. However, teachers’ assessment practices were unlikely to capture assessment for learning purposes. Teachers’ dominance in determining what students should “take in” or “not take in” undermined student autonomy in knowledge construction practices. Teachers’ challenges implementing formative assessment should be examined not just at the level of the individual, however. They should also be considered at policy and practical levels. The implementation of education assessment reform in a country with large class sizes, lengthy syllabuses, and limited time for student-centred learning is an incredibly difficult task. The

5.2 Educational Implications

89

political, economic, physical, and social environment thus significantly effects, and impedes, the implementation of education reforms for competency development in Tanzania. Teachers’ use of assessment during teaching and learning was a progressive move toward the use of formative assessment. Teachers attempted to use “holistic assessment”, group discussions and presentations, and other assessment practices, such as questioning and probing, that created room for peer-assessment, peer tutoring, and student self-evaluation, and which allowed teachers to gather assessment evidence for diagnosing and improving teaching and learning processes. Teachers’ use of personalised summative assessment and summative evidence for improving learning and performance were also supportive of student improvement. Although these practices may require refinement, they can be considered as progressive practices and opportunities for further developing culturally and context-based assessment practices.

5.2.1 Theoretical Implications The use of sociocultural and complex adaptive system theories in studying assessment conceptions and practices can be useful in examining and explaining the influences, emergence, and adaptation of teachers’ assessment conceptions and practices. Sociocultural theory was used for examining and interpreting the effects of culture and context on shaping teachers’ conceptions and practice of assessment. Teachers’ conceptions and practices, as shown here, are not only products of the mind, but also shaped by sociocultural factors within the teaching milieu. The notion of system connectivity and system interactions with core systems in complex adaptive system theory is also helpful in explaining the emergence, connectivity, and adaptability of assessment conceptions, and how assessment conceptions continually change and evolve to fulfil core functions of assessment. The use of complex adaptive system theory can also be helpful in explaining the emergence and complexity of instructional practices, and how they are related to the core functions of education demanded in the context. The use of ethnographic-oriented methodologies was also useful in inquiring about and sensitively interpreting participants’ conceptions of assessment and in observing their practices in their social setting. The use of inquiry (such as interviews) as a research methodology is particularly helpful in capturing conceptions from participants’ own understandings and in establishing differences between their conceptions and their knowledge, which is poorly understood with the use of quantitative methodologies. People might have knowledge about a phenomenon, but not conceive it as intelligible and practical in solving their challenges. Thus, the use of an ethnographic approach to exploring assessment was key here to better understand the difficulties in implementing reform alongside professional training and development of front-line teachers.

90

5 Conclusion

5.2.2 Implications for Policy Makers and Administrators Teachers’ reliance on assessment conceptions and practices for accountability purposes implies the need to take into consideration the cultural and political dimensions of assessment use in education reform in this context. The cultural contradictions and complexities regarding teachers and students’ relationships inside and outside the classroom imply the need for education planners and policy makers to address and consider the culture of specific contexts in education reform. Teaching and learning practices are belief-driven within a context (Pajares, 1992). A change of belief may be difficult when individuals are not ready for or do not want change, and when they still see their current practices as useful in meeting their needs and those of others in society (Posner et al., 1982). Consideration of cultural factors in education reform can lead to the establishment of more sustainable and meaningful reforms. Teachers’ recognition in this study of the importance of (a) understanding how students conceptualise subject matter, (b) using student understanding as evidence in building their further understanding, and (c) providing feedback for improving teaching, learning, and performance can be considered as progressive moves toward the use of formative assessment. Furthermore, teachers’ use of holistic assessment practices and other assessment techniques, such as probing and questioning, as well as using summative assessment data for improving teaching, learning, and performance are opportunities for developing more context-based responsive practices. These practices of teachers were helpful in building an interactive learning environment, stimulating students’ participation and engagement in learning processes, and helping teachers gather assessment data during teaching and learning. However, there is an observed need for improving teachers’ questioning skills in order to meet assessment for learning standards, and for teachers to gather more quality data for improving teaching and learning. Specifically, more effort is needed in helping teachers in their work to improve question constructs to capture and stimulate higher learning, analytical, and problem-solving skills. Improvement of questions can also allow students to develop analytical, entrepreneurship, and problem-solving skills, target skills of the Tanzania 2025 Education Vision. Teachers also need to be encouraged to use group work activities, presentations, questioning, and probing assessment strategies, as these practices create a culture of student participation, collaboration, and engagement in learning processes. Student engagement in learning is vital in promoting their critical, independent thinking and problem-solving skills, skills the government is prioritising in Tanzania. Students’ engagement and empowerment in learning processes will also assist in their selfreflecting and self-regulating practices. These are practices valued by educators, yet they are not given sufficient class time in overcrowded syllabuses and timetables to engage in such student-centred activities on a regular basis. Relatedly, the use of personalised assessment practices, such as classroom exercises, tests, and examinations, was a progressive move of many teachers, as evidence from these practices was used by them for improving teaching, learning, and

5.2 Educational Implications

91

student performance. However, introduced formative assessment and related instructional and assessment practices for constructivist learning remain couched within a western perspective, primarily based in Anglophone countries’ cultural, political, and economic environments (Barrett, 2007; Jackson, 2014). There is a need to consider existing formative assessment practices within the context for the establishment of more sustainable reforms, so that stakeholders in education (students and parents as well as teachers) can recognise such pedagogies as meaningful in the quest for Tanzanian education to benefit Tanzanian life and society, rather than simply be oriented toward national examination.

5.2.3 Implications for Teachers as Reform Implementers As previously mentioned, there is a need for teachers to improve their practices for assessing prior knowledge and using evidence for improving teaching and learning, because they rarely reflected constructivist views of assessment for understanding students’ prior knowledge and supporting them to construct their own knowledge. Teachers’ misunderstandings or misinterpretations of these assessment practices and their possible uses can be detrimental to learning in some cases. Teachers’ use of assessment evidences should not focus on (only) ensuring the mastery and reproduction of knowledge but, instead, focus (more) on the cultivation of deep understanding. Teachers’ use of constructing, acknowledging, and approving and disapproving can be detrimental because these practices do not give enough room for students to construct their own learning. Assessment for learning requires students to be given constructive and descriptive feedback. Meanwhile, the former feedback strategies hinder students’ initiatives in constructing their own knowledge and, hence, students remain positioned as passive recipients of teachers’ constructed knowledge. There is thus a need for teachers to engage students in knowledge construction processes. Students’ engagement in self-regulating learning practices can result in more effective critical and problem-solving skills development. There is also a need for teachers to improve question constructs and avoid using questions which only require short-term memory to answer. Additionally, questions should not be based on students gaining information directly from their notes or requiring them to reproduce learned information. A change of questions should shift students to using deep learning strategies, to discover and appreciate that they cannot answer all questions with information retrieval only. The improvement of questions can be achieved through the reduction of the number of question items and content to be covered in examinations. Such improvements will also help teachers gather better qualitative assessment data for improving teaching and learning. The improvement of questions is important in meeting learning demands, and the critical and problemsolving skills prescribed in the new curriculum (TIE, 2005) and National Education 2025 Vision (URT, 2005). Again, resources need to reflect what matters here.

92

5 Conclusion

Finally, we observed in this study a missing link between what teachers continue to teach and how students responded. Meaningful intervention is needed to extend students’ understanding and development of their learning, rather than teachers sticking to their lesson plans. Teachers’ use of feedback practices, such as marking only and praising without specifying the behaviour and performance being rewarded are ineffective assessment strategies. Teachers need to improve their skills in giving feedback to motivate and improve student performance.

5.2.4 Implications for Future Research The present study highlights teachers’ conceptions and assessment practices, their influencing factors, and how they likely effect learning. However, further studies on the effects of teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment may be required in establishing their impact on student learning. The use of ethnographic-oriented methodologies and sociocultural perspectives alongside complexity theory in this study was not only useful in exploring the influences and emergence of assessment conceptions and practices, but also in establishing their complexities and the differences of assessment conceptions from the knowledge participants held. Consequently, due to conception constructs and their relation to knowledge, we recommend the use of more in-depth qualitative studies on teachers’ conceptions of assessment in order to further distinguish conceptions and knowledge. Inquiry-based research methods are likely to be most effective in capturing teachers’ assessment conceptions in their specificities and complexities, in comparison with quantitative methods.

5.3 Recommendations This study concludes with the following recommendations: (a) Assessment reformers in Tanzania need to consider the teaching context in establishing context-responsive formative assessment practices. Overlooking the context of teaching and learning may continue to obstruct education reform efforts in assessment, as in other areas. (b) Since a competency-based curriculum requires the use of formative assessment practices, reformers need to consider a change of curriculum length and the time required to teach for adequate implementation. This can be achieved by shortening and removing redundant and outdated content in the curriculum. Otherwise, it will be difficult for teachers to implement reforms due to excessive curriculum length, class size, and related teaching time constraints. (c) The enhancement of context-based assessment practices such as holistic assessment practices, questioning and probing strategies, group discussions and presentations, remedial teaching, and consultation services can be helpful in

5.3 Recommendations

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

93

establishing formative assessment practices in the context of large class sizes. The use of personalised assessment practices, such as classroom exercises, tests, and examinations, can be enhanced for formative use in this context. Education reforms need to consider teachers, students, parents, and the community at large in changing processes. Empowerment of different education stakeholders will help to establish a community that can discuss, share, and understand what is involved with and meant by education reforms generally and in particular instances, and to uncover the implied cultural transformation required for the establishment of sustainable and meaningful assessment and teaching practices in a setting. Education reformers should avoid using mechanical objectivity thinking. Rather, they need to consider the social and contextual reality of implementation, in order to make reform meaningful and responsive to cultural and social contexts. The centralisation of education should be scrutinised, as it does not engage people in lower levels in planning processes, nor give them autonomy in improving instructional practices through implementation. Teachers are critically aware of the reality they face and the often-conflicting demands they must grapple with. These are issues that central-level reformers and planners often do not recognise or appreciate. Ignoring front-line stakeholders in reforming processes will continue causing misinterpretation and other out-of-the-box implementation strategies, and hence render education reform less effective or ineffective. The mechanisms in operation for assessment use for accountability should be scrutinised. Government use of national assessment for accounting for the performance of teachers, schools, and students, and donors’ use of student achievement for accounting for the work of the government and its institutions jeopardise the implementation of meaningful education assessment reform. Teachers’ use of lesson plans should be scrutinised. Teachers should not be expected or encouraged to regard a lesson plan as the means-and-ends guideline for teaching and learning. In contrast, students’ prior knowledge and experience should form the basis for learning and teaching practices to accommodate student experience in educational processes.

As Freire (1972) insists, teachers can and indeed must be agents of positive economic, cultural, and political change. Teachers can transform their practices by being more dialogic and engaging, instead of being authoritarian and dominant. Whatever the social, political, and economic environments are, teaching should use constructivist-oriented teaching and assessment methodologies for the development of learners’ critical and problem-solving skills. This is notably envisaged in Tanzanian curriculum reform and in particular in the National Education Vision 2025. Recognition of the work teachers do and their authority and expertise is essential in order for educational reforms to be intelligible to them as front-line reformers, and so that reforms can actually make the positive difference sought in the society.

94

5 Conclusion

5.4 Conclusion This study gave a glimpse into factors and influences involved in teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Tanzania. The findings contribute to the body of knowledge on teachers’ conceptions and practices, and the influences of teachers’ conceptions on their assessment practices. Theoretically, the findings highlight the effects of culture and context on conceptions and practices of assessment. Practically, this study uncovered context-specific formative assessment practices which can be used as opportunities for the establishment and enhancement of further formative assessment practices in Tanzania. As seen here, developing context-based and culturally responsive formative assessment practices is vital for the improved functioning of education reforms in Tanzania.

References Akyeampong, K., Pryor, J., & Ampiah, J. C. (2006). A vision of successful schooling: Ghanaian teachers’ understanding of learning, teaching and assessment. Comparative Education, 42(2), 155–176. Barrett, A. M. (2007). Beyond the polarization of pedagogy: Models of classroom practice in Tanzanian primary schools. Comparative Education, 43(2), 273–294. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2013). Testing and teaching: The Tanzanian national examinations and their influences on pedagogy. In F. Vavrus, & L. Bartlett (Eds.), Teaching in tension: International pedagogies, national policies, and teachers’ practices in Tanzania. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Integrating teachers’ conceptions: Assessment, teaching, learning, curriculum and efficacy. New York: Nova Science. Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2011). Queensland teachers’ conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes, teaching and teacher education. An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27(1), 210–220. Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-Heritage settings. New York: Routledge. Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teaching thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5–12. 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, 287–304. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin. Jackson, L. (2014). Challenges to the concept of student-centered learning with special reference to the United Arab Emirates: Never fail a Nahayan. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46, 1–14. Jackson, L. (2013). They don’t not want babies: Globalizing philosophy of education and the social imaginary of international development. In C. Mayo (Ed.), Philosophy of education 2013 (pp. 353–361). Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society. Meena, E. W. (2009). Curriculum innovation in teachers’ education: Exploring conceptions among Tanzanians teacher educators. Dar es Salaam: Abo Akademi. Mosha, H. J. (2012). A case study of learning material used to deliver knowledge, skills on competencies based curriculum in Tanzania. A Paper Presented in Triennale of Education and Training Africa Conference in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. O’Sullivan, M. (2006). The re-conceptualization of learner-centered approaches: A Namibia case study. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(6), 585–602.

References

95

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred education in international perspective. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 2(1), 1–8. Schweisfurth, M. (2015). Learner-centred pedagogies: Towards a post 2015 agenda for teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 259–266. Tabulawa, R. (2009). Education reform in Botswana: Reflections on policy contradictions and paradoxes. Comparative Education, 45(1), 87–107. Tabulawa, R. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centered pedagogy and political democratisation: A critique. Comparative Education, 39(1), 7–26. Tabulawa, R. (1998). Teachers’ perspectives on classroom practice in Botswana: Implications for pedagogical change. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(2), 249–268. TIE [Tanzania Institute of Education]. (2005). Curriculum for ordinary level secondary education curriculum. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Institute of Education. URT [United Republic of Tanzania]. (2005). National strategies for growth and reduction of poverty. Dar es Salaam: URT.