DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT OF CONTENT BASED AND

PEDAGOGICAL TRAINING ON TEACHERS’

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

AHMAD BILAL Dr/2005-12

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB LAHORE

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT OF CONTENT BASED AND

PEDAGOGICAL TRAINING ON TEACHERS’

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

AHMAD BILAL Dr/2005-12

SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION

AT THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB,

LAHORE

September, 2012

DECLARATION

It is certified that this Ph.D dissertation titled “Differential Effect of Content

Based and Pedagogical Training on Teachers’ Professional Development” is an

original research. Its content was not already submitted as a whole or in parts for the

requirement of any other degree and is not currently being submitted for any other

degree or qualification. To the best of my knowledge, the thesis does not contain any

material published or written previously by another author, except where due

references were made to the source in the text of the thesis.

It is further certified that help received in developing the thesis, and all

resources used for the purpose, have been duly acknowledged at the appropriate

places.

September 26, 2012

________________________ Ahmad Bilal Dr/2005-12, Institute of Education and Research University of the Punjab, Lahore,

CERTIFICATE

It is to certify that the research work described in the Ph.D dissertation is an

original work of the author. It has been carried out under my direct supervision. I have

personally gone through all its data, contents and results reported in the manuscript

and certify its correctness and authenticity.

I further certify that the material included in the thesis has not been used

partially or fully, in any manuscript already submitted or is in the process of

submission in partial or complete fulfillment of the award of any other degree from

any other institution. I also certify that the thesis has been developed under my

supervision according to the prescribed format. I, therefore, endorse its worth for the

award of Ph.D degree in accordance with the prescribed procedure of the university.

____________________________________ Supervisor Dr. Nasir Mahmood Associate Professor & Chairman Department of Research and Evaluation, IER, University of the Punjab, Lahore

APPROVAL SHEET

The thesis titled, “Differential Effect of Content Based and Pedagogical

Training on Teachers’ Professional Development” is accepted in the fulfillment for

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education at the Institute of Education and

Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore.

_______________________________ Supervisor Dr. Nasir Mahmood Associate Professor& Chairman Department of Research and Evaluation, IER, University of the Punjab, Lahore

DEDICATED

To

My Father,

Mother,

Wife,

And Children

ABSTRACT

Professional development is the key to improving the instructional quality of teachers.

There are different practices in teachers’ training throughout the world. In Pakistan a

number of training programmes have been introduced to increase the quality of in-

service teachers, but the impact of these programmes is considered marginal.

The purpose of this study was to assess “the differential effect of content-

based and pedagogical training on teachers’ professional development”. This study

provides empirical evidence of how “content-based training” enhances the

pedagogical knowledge of teachers and how pedagogical training gives teachers the

confidence to deliver the content. This content-based and pedagogical training leaves

a positive effect on teachers’ performance, and consequently improves students’

learning.

The sample of the study was composed of 30 grade 3 – 5 English, math and

science teachers. Customized training modules were developed for training sessions

in content areas, i.e, English, math and science and in pedagogical areas, i.e, teaching

methodologies, lesson planning and classroom management. The participants of this

study were observed three times. There were 90 observations in total. The participants

attended six training sessions both in content and pedagogical areas.

The collected data was analyzed by SPSS 15 version. According to the nature

of data and to address research questions, non-parametric test was applied to

achievement tests of content and pedagogy and observational schedule based on

content and pedagogy separately. Mixed model analysis was applied to observational

schedules based on content and pedagogy to find out the effect of training on

teachers’ professional development.

The major findings of the study are:

The notion that academic qualifications alone are sufficient for hiring new

teachers should be reconsidered. These teachers lacked in quality instructions because

of the limitations of their natural pedagogies. A better understanding of new methods

of teaching and the expanding range of pedagogies is only through training

Training in content not only contributes to improve the content knowledge of

teachers but also expands their natural pedagogies. The reason behind the limited

success of exiting in-service teacher training programmes is that training activity for

teachers content and pedagogical areas planned separately with long intervals. This

gap in execution is the main cause of the ineffectiveness of training in these areas.

Eliminating the gaps and sequencing the training in content and then pedagogy

provides significant results in this research. The most important finding of this

research is that training sessions must be conducted in sequence.

Teachers benefited from training in content, which consequently resulted in

efficient use of pedagogy already known to them. Therefore, academic qualifications

in the relevant subject alone cannot be assumed as an alternative to content training.

Training in specific content from the textbooks to be taught in the classroom is a

desired element of training of in service teachers.

In the changing scenario of education policies and curriculum change, training

in content is necessary for novice and in-service teachers, especially in our context a

teacher has to teach almost all subjects at primary level irrespective of his or her own

subject specialization.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am so grateful to Almighty Allah, Who blessed me with the ability,

knowledge and courage to set and achieve the goal of completion of my PhD

dissertation, and Who sent his last messenger Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) with

the message to seek knowledge and serve humanity for success in this world and the

hereafter.

I am very thankful to Dr. Nasir Mehmood whose expert guidance, dedication,

consistent support and valuable feedback throughout this research enabled me to

complete my study. His initiative to establish “Research Group” helped me a lot to

present and refine my working.

I am so grateful to Dr. Mumtaz Akhtar for her encouragement, guidance,

cooperation and prayers, Dr. Mehr Muhammad Saeed Akhtar and Dr. Rizwan Akram Rana

for their guidance, follow-ups and motivation throughout this study at IER.

Very special thanks to Professor Dr. Sally J. Zepeda (UGA) for her valuable

time, consistent guidance, facilitation and mentoring during my six-month stay as a

visiting scholar at University of Georgia, USA. She provided me with the opportunity

to get maximum exposure to professional development practices in USA. She

motivated me to attend conferences, seminars and workshops for self improvement.

She encouraged me to share my work regarding professional development, training

needs assessment, teacher evaluation and improvement with Clark County Officials,

Athens, GA, USA.

During my stay at University of Georgia, I got impressive support and

feedback on my research from the renowned faculty of College of Education, UGA. I

am so thankful to Dr. Steve Cramer (Deputy Director, Georgia Assessment Center,

GA) for his always welcoming attitude with a smiling face, Dr. Templin for feedback

on data analysis, Dr. Diane M. Samdahl (Professor, Deptt. of Counseling & Human

Development Services), Dr. Jori Hall (Associate Professor, UGA), Dr. Khalil Dirrani

(Assistant Professor, LEAP, UGA), for discussion and guidance on research design

and associated aspects. Sharing and feedback sessions with Cristy Wagnor PhD

scholar, Dr. Lilly Cao visiting scholar from China and other colleagues at UGA were

also worthwhile. I thank all of them. The cooperation and outstanding facilitation by

Muhammad Akram (PhD Scholar at UGA) was a great blessing. He guided me a lot

to get maximum benefit from UGA educational resources to improve my research. I

am so obliged.

I am so thankful to Dr. Zafar Iqbal for mentoring at the write-up stage. His

guidance, motivation and strong follow-up played a vital role in completion of this

dissertation.

I am also indebted to Dr. Zubair Ahmad Shah for his generous guidance,

openness to sharing knowledge and ever-welcoming attitude and feedback to improve

the quality of this research.

I am so grateful to the Higher Education Commission for providing me with

the opportunity to get the Indigenous Scholarship for my PhD study. Special thanks to

Jehanzeb Khan (Director, IRSIP) and his most efficient team for providing the unique

opportunity to avail the scholarship under the International Research Support

Initiative Program (IRSIP). This is a marvelous initiative by HEC to provide exposure

to novice researchers during PhD research work.

Special thanks to the higher management of The Punjab School, Lahore for

allowing me to conduct my experiment at their school. This study was not possible

without the outstanding cooperation of Col. (R) Sabir Khan in allowing me to

interfere in their established system with extensive teaching observations and

teachers’ training sessions. Cooperation in planning, implementation and follow-up

by the principals of girls, boys and junior wings (Township Campus) was also so

outstanding. I am also thankful to them. During my experiment, I found such distinct

features of the Punjab School as an established management system, unique

instructional practices, management’s focus on holistic development of students and

continuous staff development.

Special thanks to the management of Association for Academic Quality for

providing me with the facilitation to achieve this goal. I always found motivation from

the clear vision and commitment of Abrar Ahmad (CEO) and the exploration of new

areas in education by Shahid Warsi (ED). The dedication of other AFAQ family

members to bringing about positive change in society is also a source of inspiration for

me.

Thanks to all my session fellows at IER, especially Muhammad Saeed,

Dr. Zaheer Ahmad, Mudassar Altaf and others for their feedback and sharing.

Throughout this study, the cooperation and facilitation provided by Sarfraz

Ahmad and Basharat Ali was extremely helpful in achieving my target. I always

found them so cooperative and welcoming.

Thanks to Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Naz Gondal, Prof. Zafar Hijazi and Madam

Nasra Gardezi, (Senior Trainer, Intel Teach to the Future Program) for their support

and motivation to achieve my target.

Also thanks to my colleagues at CMS, Lahore, Iqbal Chand, Kalim Siddiquee,

Tausif Shehzad, Naveed Ikram, Abdul Ghafoor Butt and so many others who

remembered me in their prayers.

A. B.

LIST OF CONTENTS

Chapter Topics Page

I Introduction 01

Statement of the Problem 04

Objectives of the Study 05

Research Questions 05

Significance of the Study 06

Operational Definitions

06

II Review of the Related Literature 08

Professional Development 08

Contemporary Models of Professional Development 09

Traditional Professional Development Model 09

Inquiry and Professional Development Models 10

Learn-teach-assess- inquiry model (LTAI) 11

Models of Collaborative Action Research (CAR) 11

Participatory Models of Collaborative Action Research (CAR)

13

Impact of Professional Development 14

Effectiveness of Professional Development 15

Teacher’s Choice for Professional Development 18

Elements of Successful Professional Development 19

Challenges in Optimal Utilization of Professional Development 20

Elements of Professional Development that Can Address the Challenges to Change

21

Major Categories of Professional Development 23

National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan 24

Professional Development in Pakistan 28

Concluding Remarks

31

III Methodology of the Study 32

Conceptual framework 32

Research Design 36

Setting / Context of the Study 38

Chapter Topics Page

Planning the Study 39

Population 40

Sample 40

Sampling 40

Development of Research Tools 41

Validation of the Research Tool 44

Training in Content and Pedagogy 44

Procedure of Data Collection 45

Experiment Timeline

48

IV Analysis of Data

49

V Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Discussion and Recommendations

62

Summary 62

Findings 64

Conclusions 69

Discussion 71

Recommendations 74

References 75

Annexures 83

LIST OF TABLES

Table No Title Page

2.1 Selective Areas within the Scope of this Study from National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan

25

2.2 Number of Teaching Staff by Level and Urban/ Rural 29

2.3 Competency Level of In-service Teachers in Pakistan 30

3.1 Components of Teaching Observation Scale 43

4.1 Details of Sampled Teachers with Different Demographic Characteristics

50

4.2 Difference of Practices Applied by Teachers during Classroom Teaching at Different Phases of Teaching Observation

52

4.3 Difference of Conceptual Understanding of Teachers after Getting Training on Content

55

4.4 Difference of Conceptual Understanding of Teachers after Getting Training on Pedagogy

57

4.5 Type III Tests of Fixed Effects on Observation Phase of Content 59

4.6 Description of Observations of Content 59

4.7 Comparison of Observational Phases of Content 60

4.8 Type III Tests of Fixed Effects on Observation Phase of pedagogy2.1

60

4.9 Description of Observations of Pedagogy 61

4.10 Comparison of Observational Phases of Pedagogy 61

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No Title Page

2.1 Representation of knowledge transmission model in which a university researcher or teacher educator transmits knowledge to “Pre-service” and in-service teachers.

10

2.2 Representation of collaboration action research in which a university research and/or teacher educator facilitates “Pre-service” and/or in-service teachers

11

2.3 Representation of collaboration of “Pre-service” and in-service teachers in dyads in large-scale action research project facilitated by a university researcher

12

2.4 Representation of equal participation of CAR members in curriculum development

13

3.1 Design of the study 38

3.2 Sampling 41

3.3 Procedure of data collection 47

3.4 Timeline of the study 48

4.1 Details of selected teachers with different demographic characteristics

51

Key Terms and Abbreviations

AEPAM Academy for Education Planning and Management

CAR Models of collaborative action research

CPD Continuous Development Programmes

DSD Directorate of Staff Development

DTEs District Training Educators

LTAI Learn-teach-assess- inquiry model

NPSTP National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan

PCK Pedagogical Content Knowledge

PD Professional Development

PITE Provincial Institute of Teacher Education

TEs Teacher Educators

TPD Teacher Professional Development

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

The quality of teachers has been consistently used as a measure of the quality

of education across the world. It is evident in our National Education Policy 2009 that

the quality of education in Pakistan is continuously decreasing and has become a great

challenge for our country. A number of in-service teacher training programs have

been introduced since Pakistan’s independence, but it is generally perceived that they

have failed to bring about measurable change in the quality of teaching (UNESCO,

2006). There are some key elements which can be considered for teacher education,

and consequently for improving the teaching learning process. In the first step, it is

required to take measures to attract capable personnel towards teaching. Secondly,

teachers should get adequate opportunities for professional development, retention

level will decrease and they will be attracted towards some other jobs and leave the

teaching profession. Thirdly, training should be tailored to their needs to enable them

to be good teachers.

Training has been under criticism for bringing negligible change in teacher

competencies, especially in in-service teaching. This is due to a lack of coordination

between needs assessment and the duration of teaching. Training design is also needed

to be modified and made more suitable to the teachers’ requirement. The training

process can be strengthened through rigorous follow-ups which are not sufficient at

present and may be helpful in internalizing the input of training to the teachers in real

sense. The current recruitment policy lays stress on academic qualifications of teachers.

It gives little credit to training, which is unjustified. The solution does not lie in

denying the fact, but in improving teacher training with rigorous follow-ups.

2

There are different factors that lead towards the quality of education and

teachers are one of them. They should not only be competent in content but also in

pedagogy. A teacher, once inducted into service, usually does not find opportunities

for his or her growth in content knowledge. Although in-service education plays a

vital role in teachers’ professional development (Elmore, 2003), they do not get any

pedagogical training from their respective institution. The institution that arranges

professional development workshops usually lacks many aspects. It is globally

perceived that the quality of in-service teachers’ training is not up to the mark. The

major reason is that their training is only pedagogically focused and a rage of new

teaching tactics and strategies are missing from these professional development

workshop modules. The themes of these professional development workshops are

also very limited.

Professional development, in a broad sense, refers to the development of a

person in his or her professional role. More specifically, “Teacher development is the

professional growth a teacher achieves as a result of gaining increased experience and

examining his or her teaching systematically” (Glatthorn, 1995, p. 41). Professional

development includes formal experiences (such as attending workshops and

professional meetings, mentoring, etc.) and informal experiences (such as reading

professional publications, watching television documentaries related to an academic

discipline, etc.) (Ganser, 2000). This concept of professional development is, therefore,

broader than career development, which is defined as “the growth that occurs as the

teacher moves through the professional career cycle” (Glatthorn, 1995, p. 41). It is also

broader than staff development, which is “the provision of organized in-service

programmes designed to foster the growth of groups of teachers. It is only one of the

systematic interventions that can be used for teacher development” (Glatthorn, 1995,

3

p.42). When looking at professional development, one must examine the content of the

experiences, the processes by which the professional development will occur, and the

contexts in which it will take place (Fielding & Schalock, 1985; Ganser, 2000).

In Pakistan, like most of the world, teacher education is categorized into two

parts; pre-service and in-service. There are 270 teacher education institutions in

Pakistan that provide pre-service training (National Education Census, 2005). Some

government and of private sector institutions provide in-service teacher training at

different grades. The Directorate of Staff Development (DSD) is a leading institution

in Punjab that provides professional development for in-service teachers in the

government sector. However, there are always concerns from educationists regarding

the efficiency of these professional development programmes (Government of

Pakistan, 1995)

There was no extensive programme for newly inducted teachers. Now DSD

has started professional development workshops for new inducted teachers. These

workshops are at an initial stage so no research is available regarding the

effectiveness of these workshops.

For in-service teachers, there is no mechanism in place for their professional

development. At elementary level, however, under DSD portage district training

educators (DTEs) and teacher educators (TEs) are providing continuous feedback for

elementary teachers but still there is growing concern about the quality of training by

DTEs and TEs.

In Punjab recently, it has been decided by the higher authorities that for

schools the academic qualification of the newly inducted teachers should be BA/BSc

or MA/ MSc. These teachers may get their professional degree of B.Ed from any

recognized university within the stipulated timeframe. The teachers inducted through

4

this procedure are usually well equipped with content but most of them lack

pedagogical concepts and skills. Again, they have to teach different subjects such as

math, English, science and social studies simultaneously to different classes. They are

not competent in every subject and this affects their performance as well as student

leaning. So this new policy itself ignores various aspects that affect the quality of

education. These teachers often face difficulties in class management, selection of

methodologies, lesson planning skills and other associated aspects of professional

education. In this scenario, professional development training becomes inevitable.

There is some controversy regarding the importance of content and

pedagogical training for teachers. One school of thought is of the view that content

training is more important than pedagogical training. This argument is based on the

assumption that content is a pre requisite for pedagogical training. On the other hand,

it is evident from the studies that content and pedagogy are mutually beneficial to

each other. If any aspect of training is ignored, it may ultimately lesson the

effectiveness of other aspects of training.

Statement of the Problem

Professional development is a continuous process, especially in this

technically advanced era in-service teachers need findings of educational studies to

enhance both their content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Existing teacher

training programmes lack the quality to keep content and pedagogy training side by

side. The teaching-learning process is always enriched by the infusion of content and

teaching method and both have equal importance. This study explores the effect of

“content-based training” on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and vice versa. It also

focuses on the effect of “content-based training” and pedagogy-based training on

teachers’ professional development.

5

Objectives of the Study

1. To investigate the contributions made by “content-based training” to the

professional development of teachers.

2. To explore the role of pedagogical training in the professional development of

teachers.

3. To determine the relationship between content-based and pedagogical training

in the professional development of teachers.

Research Questions

1.1. How does training in content affect the content knowledge of teachers?

1.2. To what extent do the teachers apply the learned content-related aspects in

the classroom?

2.1. Does training in pedagogy affect the pedagogical content knowledge of

teachers?

2.2. To what extent do the teachers apply the learned pedagogical content-related

aspects in the classroom?

3.1. What is the differential effect of content and pedagogical training on the

professional development of teachers?

Significance of the Study

This research study explored the relative contribution of content and

pedagogical training to the professional development of teachers. A desired level of

synergy is essential in content and pedagogical training to attain professional

development leading to effective teaching.

It is clear that content and pedagogy are not alternatives to each other. Despite

the fact that “content-based training” improves the clarity of concepts and also

contributes to making pedagogy more effective, the scope of pedagogical training is

6

limited to an expanded range of instructions, which do not help to enrich the concepts

of content under discussion. However, both are inevitable for quality teaching and

learning.

This study also provides the empirical evidence of how “content based

training” enhances the pedagogical knowledge of teachers and how pedagogical

training gives teachers the confidence to deliver the content. It leaves a positive effect

on teachers’ performance, and consequently improves students’ performance.

Results of this study would also help to address the real issues of teachers’

professional development in order of priority. We can save and use a lot of financial

resources effectively by addressing the actual needs of teachers. This would lead to

improve quality of education in public schools.

This research sees the teachers professionally and provides a way to their

professional development. Since two aspects of training, i.e., content-based and

pedagogical training, play a vital role in enhancing teachers’ competencies, they

deserve continuous research-based attention.

Operational Definitions

The operational definitions of the terms used in this research are as follows:

Content

The concepts and text which is taught to the students in the classroom by the

teacher is referred to as content in our study.

Pedagogy

The range of teaching methods, exposures, and experiences including lesson

planning, time management, and classroom management are referred to as pedagogy.

7

Professional Development

Professional development in the teaching profession is mainly based on the

professional growth of a teacher, which he or she achieves as a result of gaining

increased experience and examining his or her teaching systematically. Professional

development and staff development have the same meaning in this research and are

used simultaneously.

8

Chapter 2

Review of the Related Literature

This section reviews literature review on professional development. This review of

literature encompasses a wide range of concepts associated with professional

development, components of effective professional development, approaches to

professional development, models of staff development, National Professional

Standards for Teachers in Pakistan (NPSTP) and current practices of teachers’

professional development in Pakistan.

Professional Development

Professional development has been defined by different experts. Guskey

(2000) maintains it encompasses all those activities and processes that contribute to

expand professional knowledge of teachers, improve their skills and bring about

positive change in their attitudes so that student learning can be improved.

Professional development plays a vital role in improving the quality of

teaching. Scheerens (1992) characterized high quality teaching as effective time

management, result-oriented instructional strategies and a wide range of activities to

expedite the cognitive abilities of learners.

To get mastery over teaching, it is very importance to gain professional

development. Bransford and Schwartz, (1999) stated, “Novice and veteran teachers

need effective professional development to provide them with experiences and

examples of effective practices to move them on "the trajectory toward expertise".

Professional development can be achieved by different ways. Teacher training

sessions are the one mode of professional development. The research conducted by

Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman and Yoon, (2001) described some other ways of

9

professional development such as conferences, study groups, professional networks

and peer coaching. In addition to these, peer and teaching observation, reading

journals or magazines and watching videos or documentaries are also effective

sources of professional development (Ganser, 2000).

The comprehensive concept of professional development caters to the aspects

of outcomes, content of the training, procedure of delivery and the trainers. Hill

(2007) expressed the components of professional development as a mixture of the

trainers, formats used for training purpose, basic philosophies and the content of

professional development.

Contemporary Models of Professional Development

Professional development has many features that demand focus of the

researchers. Bredeson (2000) argue for new approaches in professional development

because the old notion “one size fits all” is not applicable in the new scenario.

Desimon (2009) has given five “critical features” that make the foundation of

effective professional development; (1) a focus on content, (2) active learning, (3)

coherence, (4) a specified duration of time, and (5) collaborative participation.

Traditional professional development model

The traditional professional development model stresses only one-way

communication between a university researcher/teacher educator and in-service or

pre-service teachers. There is no feedback in this model.

10

Single headed Arrows = Transmission of knowledge

Figure 2.1: Representation of knowledge transmission model in which a university researcher or teacher educator transmits knowledge to “Pre-service”

and “In-service” teachers. Source: Kasi, (2010)

In traditional models training, impact is normally gauged by participants’

feedback or achievement scores gained in pre and post-test scores. The missing element

that is normally ignored is putting gained knowledge into practice during classroom

teaching in a real life situation. In Kasi’s stated model, one-way communication occurs

from the trainer to teachers. His was a yearlong regular programme for novice and

veteran teachers. The short-term training component was missing to see the effect of

instructions. The follow-up also did not form part of that model.

Inquiry and professional development models

Various professional development (PD) models on inquiry teaching have been

reported in literature. Professional development programmes must focus on teaching

of inquiry knowledge, and should also clear teachers’ basic concepts about teaching

(Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007). Schroeder, Scott, Tolsom, Huang and Lee,

(2007) after having a meta-analysis of 61 studies reported that the teaching strategies

can be enhanced and made effective through collaborative learning, enhanced context,

11

and inquiry. In the context of the study the model of collaborative learning looks so

difficult due to a lack of competent human resource and the need to design the

intervention for the participant teachers.

Learn-teach-assess- inquiry model (LTAI)

The LTAI model focuses on developing and reinforcing science concepts

among students. This model enables teachers to understand and engage their students

in inquiry to meet the set standards at national level. This model demands high-level

of involvement from all personnel concerned including teachers and project personnel

in workshops. A rigorous follow-up is included in this model.

Models of collaborative action research (CAR)

Double headed Arrows: Collaboration and interaction

Figure 2.2: Representation of collaboration action research in which a university research and/or teacher educator facilitates “Pre-service” and/or “In-service” teachers Source: Kasi, (2010)

In this model, teachers use various action research strategies to collect data in

classrooms. These strategies include video recording, observing, and writing

reflective journals, diaries, reports, and field notes.

12

A number of studies have reported the effects of collaborative action research

(CAR) on effective English teaching (Atay, 2006, 2008; Burns, 1996, 1999, 2005;

Farrell, 1999; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Gebhard, 2005; Mahboob & Talaat, 2008;

McDonough, 2006; Richards, 2008; Richards & Farrell, 2005; Zeichner, 2003). The

research studies on general teacher education (Burbank & Kauchak, 2003; Ponte, Ax,

Beijaard & Wubbels, 2004) and language teacher education (Atay, 2006, 2008; Burns,

1996; Miller, 2003) have reported that teachers have better opportunities of systematic

reflection on their own practices in CAR.

Dotted-lines = Less frequent interaction Double-headed arrows = More frequent interaction

Figure 2.3: Representation of collaboration of “Pre-service” and “In-service” teachers in dyads in a large-scale action research project facilitated

by a university researcher Source: Kasi, (2010)

Although it is an effective model, it has some limitations. The teacher has a

very active role in this model. Mastery over content and pedagogy is required to

implement this strategy. A range of resources mentioned by Kasi are a mandatory part

of the collaborative action research model. Provision of all these resources and

focused attention is generally a constraint at mass level.

13

Participatory models of collaborative action research (CAR)

Burns (1996) and Miller (2003) have proposed this model. In fact, it is an

extension of the basic CAR model. In this model, the researcher not only acts as the

facilitator but also involves himself in the actual research with teachers.

Dotted-lines = Less frequent interaction Double-headed arrows = More frequent interaction

Figure 2.4: Representation of equal participation of CAR members in curriculum development

Source: Kasi, (2010)

Other models reported in literature but used on a small scale were Professional

Learning Communities (Nelson, 2009); Guided Instruction (Kirschner, Sweller, &

Clark, 2006); Modelling Instruction Based on Conceptual Models of Physical

Phenomena (Jackson, Dukerich, & Hestenes, 2008); Content-Based Collaborative

Inquiry Model (Zech, Gause-Vega, Bray, Secules, & Goldman, 2000).

All these models were used on a small scale because of the extensive nature of

the models and the role of the teachers in the research. In view of these restrictions

implementation of this model at mass level is difficult.

All above stated models have some limitations in terms of well equipped

human and material resources and limitations of generalization and execution at mass

level. These models were designed and executed for research purpose in a controlled

14

environment. The focus of these models was to testify the intervention designed for

the experiment. In Pakistan, short-term training in both content and pedagogy was

missing. There was a dire need to address this area with experimentation so that the

results could be applied to implement this model at mass level and the policy makers

are able to plan future training programmes accordingly.

Impact of Professional Development

There were a number of studies conducted on the impact of professional

development in different subjects on pedagogy. To measure the impact of

professional development on a teacher’s science pedagogy, Falvo (2003), Garet et al.

(2001) and Harris (2001) conducted studies in varied context and reported similar

findings that professional development should be focused on in-depth understanding

of content knowledge and the strategies to deliver them effectively. This sort of

intervention improves student learning, and consequently has a great impact on

student achievement.

Professional development is a great source of getting knowledge and

comprehension of different concepts for teachers. Educators proved that participation

in professional development activities can enhances the knowledge of content,

pedagogy and curriculum (Shulman, 1986).

Active participation of teachers in professional development activities

influences the students’ learning positively. After participation in professional

development activities, these participant teachers try to incorporate new knowledge

and acquired skills during their teaching in the classroom. In this way, students get the

opportunity to have clear, in-depth knowledge and better understanding of different

concepts taught by these teachers.

15

Professional development has a strong impact on teachers by providing the

opportunity to share their experiences with one another. It also enables the

participants to build content and pedagogy. The participants of professional

development activities are also able to observe the existing practices and improve

their own capabilities to become an effective teacher.

A lot of research work has been done to study the effects of professional

development on the quality of teaching and its impact on students. Studies show a

strong connection between high quality instructions and student learning (American

Education Research Association, 2005; Au, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Guskey

2000; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Rosemary, 2005; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, &

Rodriguez, 2005). The teachers who underwent content-oriented professional

development programmes reported that it ultimately enhanced their pedagogical

experiences (Joyce & Showers, 2002).

Effectiveness of Professional Development

Sorcinelli (2006) has addressed the issue of finding out when effective

teaching occurs. He claimed that effective teaching happens when a person takes

teaching as an enjoyable activity and makes it also interesting and exciting for

learners. The most important thing is making connections of the content or concepts

of the course with real life and presenting the content in an organized manner. He also

highlighted two more aspects of high quality teaching. One is continuous feedback on

student performance and the second is student encouragement for involvement in

classroom activities.

From these studies it appears that the most important thing for effective

teaching is the teacher’s knowledge of content and pedagogy. Comprehension of

classroom management strategies, knowhow of the lesson planning process and

16

in-depth knowledge of teaching strategies are the core pedagogical areas in which a

teacher should have a better level of competency. A number of researchers consider

the knowledge of content and pedagogy as the key areas for effective professional

development of teachers. Askew et al. (1997) and Campbell et al. (2004) also focused

on the subject knowledge and the knowledge of pedagogy for effective teaching.

Craig, Kraft and du Plessis (1998) characterized effective teacher professional

development programme that addresses the needs of the participant teachers by

conducting systematic training needs assessment. They stressed including different

stakeholders, especially participant teachers, at each stage of planning and

implementation. They also advocated that the curriculum for teachers’ professional

development should be more comprehensive by combining the areas of content and

pedagogy. They also stated that both areas of content and pedagogy have equal

importance in the professional development of teachers. They negated the idea to

overemphasize content on pedagogy or pedagogy on content. They also focused on

the continuous improvement of professional skills of teachers by providing them with

guidance, mentoring, reflection on performance and provision of technical support.

Positive change in instruction and improvement in student learning is the key

indicator to measure the effectiveness of professional development. Guskey, (2000)

states that “the ultimate goal of professional development is to deepen teachers'

knowledge and pedagogy. Deeper understanding will lead to more effective

instruction and ultimately lead to improved student learning.”

Several studies identified some core indicators for effective professional

development. These indicators are: on the job training, training based on needs

assessment and the occurrence of training with planned intervals (Zepeda, 2008;

American Educational Research Association, 2005; Bean, Swan, & Morris, 2002;

17

Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; International Reading Association,

2000; National Staff Development Council, 2001; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole,

2000).

In professional development, a number of researchers challenged the

preference accorded to pedagogy over content knowledge. These prevails an opinion

that pedagogy without sound content knowledge have limited contribution towards

professional development of teachers (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997; Cochran,

1997; van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998).

Shulman (1986) advocated that effective teaching happens when the teacher

acquires in-depth knowledge of the concept and selects the most appropriate method

to teach. The most important aspect in this process is the transformation of conceptual

knowledge into comprehensive explanation that represents effective teaching.

In general, pedagogical knowledge is very important. Shulman worked on it

extensively. His study titled “Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)” is related to

comprehension of the subject matter. Doubek and Cooper (2007) reported that

effective teaching is mainly based on teachers’ deep knowledge of content, pedagogy

and also curriculum. All these strengthen and improve the instructional quality. The

in-depth knowledge of content, pedagogy and curriculum have a positive impact on

student learning.

Educational corporations, state government universities, and even local school

systems offer professional development workshops and the focus of these workshops

is to make sure that teachers become effective in their instructions in the classrooms

(No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). The effect of professional development

workshops usually does not last long because teachers are unable to sustain the

required classroom behavior and practices in their classes after these workshops

18

(Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Guskey, 2000; Hiebert, 1999; Lieberman,

1996; Little, 1993; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989).

Teacher’s Choice for Professional Development

The effectiveness of professional development can be increased by the

involvement of teachers. Studies indicate that teachers find their professional

development to be directly linked to student improvement, so they become actively

involved in such professional development training. The main reason behind it is that

they find practical solutions to their problems and are able to remove deficiencies in

securing good grades for their students (Commeyras & DeGroff, 1998; Doubek &

Cooper, 2007). The identification of teachers’ needs for professional development is a

very important factor in making an activity result-oriented. It is also a source of inner

satisfaction and ownership by the participant teachers (American Educational

Research Association, 2005; Bean et al., 2002; Desimone et al., 2002; NSDC, 2001;

Taylor et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2000). Morewood and Bean (2009) stated that

student achievement is the ultimate goal of a teacher’s professional development.

When a teacher aligns this goal with personal professional development needs, he or

she can have better results regarding student achievement. Moreover, it is a fact that

teachers vary in content and pedagogy with one another. If they get the opportunity to

chose an appropriate professional development option for themselves, they may

become more productive and result-oriented. Their in-depth knowledge in content and

pedagogy motivates them to gain more expertise in their relevant field. This also

affects their attitude to learn new concepts and ultimately they become life-long

learners (Bransford & Schwartz 1999).

19

Elements of successful Professional Development

In literature, we find a number of elements of successful professional

development stated by different researchers. The most common areas are content and

the methods to deliver the content. Some other elements are also given in studies.

Guskey (2000) in his own context is not satisfied with the outcomes of professional

development activities. He stated that teachers’ professional development must be

linked with the subject matter, methodologies to deliver the content and classroom

experiences, so that student learning can be made effective.

Guskey (1994) also suggested the guidelines for effective professional

development. He recommended that a broader perspective should be kept in mind to

plan and implement professional development activities, but the start should be from a

small component. Working in teams and a systematic feedback system is also an

integral part of effective professional development. On the basis of feedback,

continuous improvement is the last component as suggested by Guskey (1994).

Clewell et al. (2005) has discussed the focus of professional development. He

gave more importance to the professional development that focuses on the specific

content or subject matter rather than the focused area of teacher behavior. He proved

that content-specific professional development activities have a great impact on

student achievement.

Some researchers give more importance to teaching methods in teacher

education. They claim that a teacher can perform better in the classroom only when he

or she has more training, knowledge and command of teaching methods (Darling-

Hammond, 1998). They prefer pedagogy-focused professional development,

maintaining that in most of the cases, knowing how to teach may be more important

than knowing what to teach. A number of practicing teachers believe that if a person

20

knows how to teach, he or she can teach anything (Shulman, 1986).

Grouws and Schultz (1996) define pedagogical content knowledge as “a

subset of content knowledge that has particular utility for planning and conducting

lessons that facilitate student learning” (p. 444).

An increase in content knowledge has a sound effect on pedagogical skills.

Garet et al. (2001) studied and identified the positive impact of mathematics content

knowledge on instructional strategies of teachers. The teachers who were well

equipped with content knowledge were also in a better position to understand

students’ misconceptions about mathematical concepts. This also helped them to

select an appropriate teaching approach to deliver the lesson and get pre-determined

objectives. They also found that a little knowledge of concepts and less understanding

of mathematics on their part had a negative impact on student learning.

Challenges in Optimal Utilization of Professional Development

The most prominent barrier to instructional change is the habit (Greenberg &

Baron, 2000). The majority of teachers feel it comfortable and simply easier to

continue with their existing teaching strategies and avoid or fear using new teaching

methods (Fullan, 2001; Greenberg & Baron, 2000). This habit is a teacher’s personal

practice based on his or her theory, experience and philosophy (Gess-Newsome,

Southerland, Johnston, &Woodbury, 2003). Aikenhead (1984) & Duffee and

Aikenhead (1992) called it “The construct of teachers’ practical knowledge”. Even

sometimes any attempt to bring instructional change is considered a threat to a

teacher’s expertise and ability that he or she uses to keep students busy with

meaningful learning (Fullan, 2001; Greenberg & Baron, 2000).

The second important element that can hinder instructional change is the

school environment. If a teacher perceives that the school environment is not

21

supportive and unsafe for change, he or she hesitates to adopt that instructional

change (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Lack of required administrative

support at a local or district level is another significant barrier to instructional change

(Johnson, 2006). In fact, the focus on student achievement by educational

administrators have forced the teachers to focus only on “what works” and, in this

way, they became reluctant to use new ideas for teaching the learning process

(Johnson, 2006).

Elements of Professional Development that Can Address the Challenges to Change

Different barriers to instructional change can be overcome by focusing on

different elements of professional development. Birman, Desimone, Porter, and Garet

(2000) were of the view that if professional development workshops had appropriate

duration, subject-matter content, active learning, and coherence, then they could be

very effective. It means whichever way you conduct a professional development

workshop, i.e., traditional or more innovative reform-based activities, the essential

thing is that they must. The P D workshops that intruded introduce new strategies and

methods of teaching in classrooms based on the context of teachers’ existing

environment (Cook et al., 2003; Kinnucan-Welch, Rosemary, & Grogan, 2006;

Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998). Borko (2004) & Desimone, et al.

(2002) were of the view that only these professional development workshops are

effective that engaged teachers in active learning. The active learning practices help

teachers to realize and develop an in-depth understanding of both the content and

strategies introduced through these professional development programmes (Birman et

al., 2000; Desimone et al., 2002).

Similarly, effective professional development programmes also the replica of

new strategies, and in this way teachers in small groups discuss to apply, to analyze,

22

and synthesize novel instructional strategies through purposeful interaction (Borko,

2004; Dempwolf, 1993; Desimone et al., 2002; Galbo, 1998; Kinnucan-Welch et al.,

2006; Speck, 1996). The teachers work in collaborative groups to get meaningful

results out of their professional development experience based on their particular

classroom contexts (Birman et al., 2000). Joyce and Showers (1988) reported that up

to 90% of teachers put a new skill or strategy into daily practice if they get an

opportunity to share their teaching experiences.

Astor-Jack, McCallie, and Balcerzak (2007) also reported that if new

instructional strategies are introduced with theoretical and pedagogical backgrounds

to teachers, and they get reflective sections on it, then it will be effective professional

development. Teachers’, in fact, use opportunities to understand and utilize the new

strategies in the context of their own classrooms (Gess-Newsome, 2001; Loucks-

Horsley et al., 1998; Sindelar & Rownell, 2001). The very important thing is that

there is a need for professional development as on-going instructional support (Abbot,

Walton, Tapia, & Greenwood, 1999; Boudah et al., 2001; Cook et al., 2003; Fuchs &

Fuchs, 2001; Gersten & Dimino, 2001; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997;

Guskey, 2000).

Many researchers have reported a strong positive correlation between the

quantity of time a teacher spends on professional development of new skills and

strategies and the use of those skills and strategies in instructional practice (Birman et

al., 2000; Cohen & Hill, 1998; Supovitz & Turner, 2000; Supovitz, Mayer, & Kahle,

2000). Feedback is also an important aspect of the professional development

workshops as it helps teachers to put new skills into daily practice in their classrooms

(Galbo, 1998; Speck, 1996; DePaepe, Shores, Jack, & Denny, 1996; Goleman et al.,

2002; Stichter, Lewis, Richter, Johnson, & Bradley, 2006). Similarly Marshall,

23

Pritchard, and Gunderson (2001) concluded that effective follow-ups make

professional development more useful. There is a need to develop plans that can help

teachers to deal with their problems regarding meaningful change in instructional

practice (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Grimes & Tilly, 1996).

Major Categories of professional Development

Guskey (2000) has explored seven categories of professional development.

Training—This includes large group presentation and discussion, workshops, and seminars that include theory, modeling of skills, simulated practice, feedback, and workplace feedback. This is most efficient and cost effective, but leaves little time for choice or individualization. Observation/Assessment—This method of peer observation provides feedback on teaching that includes coaching and clinical supervision, and can focus on lesson plans, instructional practices, and class management. This should be followed by careful analysis, explanation, and reflection to lead to real improvement for both participants. This method takes a great deal of time and coordination, and observation must be evaluated. Involvement in a Development/Improvement Process—This includes curriculum committees, designing new programmes to improve instruction, or problem solving. This allows committee members to gain in-depth knowledge of a specific issue and work together, but typically only a small number of people are involved in the process. Study Groups—This method involves the entire school staff in solving a common problem. Members are placed into groups of 4-6 and continue for the year with each group focusing on a specific aspect of the problem. Effective groups are well organized and focused, and have sufficient time to complete their work. If not carefully structured, groups can be dominated by one member with others not involved and groups may become opinion based, not fact based. Inquiry/Action Research—This method is based on the belief that teachers are thoughtful, inquiring, and inclined to solve problems and search for answers to pressing questions. It usually involves six steps: selecting a problem, collecting information related to the problem, studying professional research on the problem, determining possible actions to achieve goals, taking action, and documenting results. This helps narrow the gap between practice and research, but takes a great deal of time. Individually Guided Activities—Teachers develop their own individual professional goals and activities that will achieve those goals. The process starts with identifying a need or interest, developing a plan to meet that need or interest, learning activities, and assessing to determine if learning has met the goals or interests stated. This provides choice, flexibility, and individualization, but goals must be challenging, worthwhile, and relate to specific improvements in classroom practice. Mentoring—This method pairs an experienced educator with a less experienced educator. Time is spent developing professional goals, practices, and strategies, and reflecting on teaching and learning. This is highly individualized and provides professional opportunities for both individuals. Mentors must be skilled in ways of adult learning and this should also be combined with other forms of professional development to broaden the experience. Source: Guskey's (2000) seven major categories of professional development.

24

National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan

Government of Pakistan has introduced the National Standards for Teachers.

These standards provide guidelines not only to teachers but also teaching departments

of teachers. On the basis of these established standards, policy makers develop

different training programmes for in service teachers. Training workshops arranged

for in-service teachers should focus on inculcating these standards among the

participants. Some of these major standards are: Subject Matter Knowledge (Standard

1), Instructional Planning and Strategies (Standard 4), Learning Environment

(Standard 6) and most importantly Continuous Professional Development and Code of

Conduct (Standard 9). Every standard is categorized into three aspects; a) Knowledge

and Understanding; b) Dispositions; and c) Performance and Skills.

25

Table 2.1

Selective Areas within the scope of this Study from National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan

Standards Description Knowledge and understanding Dispositions Performances and skills

1: Subject Matter Knowledge

Teachers understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, structures of the discipline, especially as they relate to the National Curriculum/ Content Standards, and design developmentally appropriate learning experiences making the subject matter accessible and meaningful to all students.

Teachers know and understand:

i) The national curriculum framework.

ii) The domain basic concepts, theories, history, structure and process of acquiring knowledge of the subject they are going to teach.

iii) The evolving nature of discipline or subject matter knowledge and the need for keeping abreast of new ideas and understanding of teaching the discipline.

iv) The new emerging concepts, theories, results of researches and latest trend at national and international levels.

v) In-depth knowledge of the subject matter and the relationship of that discipline to other content areas.

vi) The relationship of the subject to other disciplines and usability in practice life.

vii) The relationship of reading, writing and arithmetic principles to the domain.

Teachers value and are committed to:

i) helping in multiple ways in construction and acquisition of knowledge to learners.

ii) making knowledge applicable to real world situation.

iii) the diverse talents of all students and helping them to develop self-confidence and subject matter competence.

iv) the belief that all children and adolescents can learn at high levels and achieve success.

Teachers demonstrate their knowledge and understanding by:

i) Effectively explaining the content in multiple perspectives and relating all required structural component of the discipline.

ii) Use of appropriate tools of inquiry according to the nature of the subject and content, considering students’ prior knowledge.

iii) Giving examples of application of the content from practical life.

26

Standards Description Knowledge and understanding Dispositions Performances and skills

4: Instructional Planning and Strategies

Teachers understand instructional planning, design long-term and short-term plans based upon knowledge of subject matter, students. Community, curriculum goals, and employ a variety of developmentally appropriate strategies in order to promote critical thinking, problem solving and performance skills of all learners.

Teachers know and understand:

i) The aims, goals and objectives of education as well as of curriculum for specific subject and their importance in instructional planning.

ii) Principles of acquisitions of reading, writing and arithmetic skills at different stages of development.

iii) Availability of appropriate resources and materials for instructional planning including the use of instructional technology to promote students’ attention and thinking.

iv) To plan instructional strategies based on students’ needs, development progress and prior knowledge.

v) Techniques for developing/ modifying instructional method, materials and the environment to help all students learn.

vi) A variety of instructional approaches and the use of various technologies, to promote thinking and understanding.

vii) The effect of out of school activities including homework.

viii) General methods of teaching and

Teachers value and are committed to:

i) Attain goals and objectives of the curriculum they are going to teach.

ii) The development of students’ critical thinking, independent problem-solving and performance capabilities.

iii) Pedagogy of care, collaboration and cooperation.

iv) Team-work and cooperative learning.

v) Multiple ways to solve problems.

Teachers engage in activities to:

i) Identify and design instruction appropriate to students’ stage of development, learning styles, strengths and needs.

ii) Plan instruction based on knowledge of classroom, school and community culture.

iii) Evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for their comprehensiveness, accuracy and usefulness for representing particular ideas and concepts.

iv) Plan homework and out of the class activities to accelerate, extend and consolidate students learning.

v) Identify strategies to create learning experiences that make subject matter meaningful for students, address a variety of learning styles, encourage students to pursue their interests and inquiries and help students connect their learning to personal goals.

vi) Plan and develop effective lessons by organizing instructional activities and materials, incorporating a wide range of community and technology resources, to promote achievement of lesson objectives.

27

Standards Description Knowledge and understanding Dispositions Performances and skills

classroom management.

ix) Special methods of teaching different discipline of knowledge.

vii) Use formal and informal methods of assessment, information about students, pedagogical knowledge, and research as sources for active reflection, evaluation and revision of practice.

viii) Create interdisciplinary learning experiences that allow students to integrate knowledge, skills and methods of inquiry from several subject areas.

9- Continuous Professional Development and Code of Conduct

Teachers participate as active, responsible members of the professional community, engage in reflective practices, pursuing opportunities to grow professionally and establish collegial relationship to enhance the teaching and learning process. They subscribe to a professional code of conduct.

Teachers know and understand:

i) The demands of a professional code of conduct.

ii) How educational research and other methods of inquiry can be used as a means for continuous learning, self assessment and development.

iii) How to be inventive and innovative about teaching practice.

iv) How to develop and maintain a personal professional portfolio.

Teachers value and are committed to:

i) Refining practices that address the needs of all students and the school / community.

ii) Professional reflection, assessment and learning as an ongoing process.

iii) Collaborate with colleagues.

iv) Share successful professional experiences with others.

v) Demonstrate professional ethics.

Teachers engage in activities to:

i) Use reflective practice and the professional development standards to set goals for their professional development plans.

ii) Learn through professional development organizations.

iii) Make the entire school a productive learning climate through participation in collegial activities.

iv) Seek advice of others and draw on action research to improve teaching practice.

v) Uphold ethical behaviors in teaching, learning and assessment.

Source: National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan (2009)

28

The standards set for content and pedagogy are an essential part of

professional development workshops organized by different teachers’ training

institutions for in-service teachers in Pakistan.

Professional Development in Pakistan

It is believed that Pakistan can only compete with the world in education by

focusing on teachers and their professional growth. The quality of education greatly

depends on teachers and their competencies. Education quality can be enhanced by

continuous professional development of teachers in all grades. There are four major

areas that need to be considered for the professional development of teachers, i.e.,

1. Acquisition of current and recent content knowledge of subjects they teach

2. Use of broad knowledge of instructional tools, strategies and pedagogical

skills

3. Ethical monitoring and assessing of student learning outcomes; and

4. Cultivating in students the ethical scholarly dispositions

(National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan, 2009)

New standards for teachers were set to ensure the quality of teacher education.

Pre-service and in-service were targets of this professional development. Now, there

are hundreds of quality teachers with years of service in all grades. All can benefit

from this type of professional development.

29

Table 2.2

Number of Teaching Staff by Level and Urban/ Rural

Level of Instructions

Total

Rural Urban

Numbers %age Numbers %ages

Total 1356802 687613 50.7 669189 49.3

Pre-primary 3807 921 24.1 2886 75.9

Mosque School 22603 19304 85.4 3299 14.6

Primary 399517 276115 69.1 123402 30.9

Middle 313797 176546 56.3 137251 43.7

Secondary 418376 163051 38.9 255325 61.1

British System 12371 1114 15.7 11257 84.3

Inter, and Degree Colleges 59097 9253 15.7 49844 84.3

General Universities 11434 3448 30.2 7986 69.8

Technical/ Professional 30334 4013 13.2 26321 86.8

Vocational/ Poly Technique 15339 2642 17.2 12697 82.8

NFBE (Non-Formal Basic Education) 5262 3962 75.3 1300 24.7

Deeni Madaris 58391 24627 42.1 33764 54.8

Others 6474 2617 40.4 3857 59.6

Source: National Education Census 2005, AEPAM, 2006

The rapid change in content and introduction of teaching methodologies, skills

and strategies has attracted the attention of educational authorities in Pakistan.

Although these changes are being incorporated in pre-service teachers training

programmes, in-service teachers are also of the same importance. In-service teachers

are much lacking in professional standards and even the pre-service institutions are

not producing quality teachers (National Education Census, 2005). The table 2.3

shows the competency level of in-service teachers in Pakistan.

30

Table 2.3

Competency Level of “In-service” Teachers in Pakistan

Sr. # State of Competency/ Training Proportion

1. Untrained Teachers 26%

2. Rudimentary Training at PTC and CT Level 37%

3. Having No Undergraduate Degree Beyond 12 Years of Basic Education

44%

4. Professional Qualification of Teachers at Primary Level (Having B.Ed and M.Ed Degree)

21%

Source: National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan (2005)

Provincial governments have established many teacher training institutions for

in-service professional development, e.g. PITE (Provincial Institute of Teacher

Education). Elementary teaching institutions have been established for pre-service

teachers.

The government of Punjab is focusing on the quality of education. For this

purpose, highly qualified teachers are being recruited. The Directorate of Staff

Development (DSD) is playing its due role in the professional development of in-

service teachers. DSD was established as a leading institute offering professional

development programmes for pre-service and in-service teachers. Punjab, like other

provinces, has a centralized administrative system of teacher professional

development (TPD).

Despite all this effort, in-service programmes for professional development

have produced negligible effects on teachers’ competencies and practices (AKU-IED,

2004). The situation demands some changes in continuous professional development

programmes against a backdrop of our existing school scenario.

31

Concluding Remarks

Effective professional development among teachers is one of the indicators of

quality education. Different models of professional development are being used today.

Pakistan, being a developing country is faced with an uphill task of achieving quality

education through professional development of teachers. Effective professional

development programmes need content and pedagogical training simultaneously.

Ignoring any one of these may not help to achieve the required goals. This study

focuses on both aspects of professional development, i.e., content-based and

pedagogy-based training and their differential effect.

32

Chapter 3

Methodology of the Study

This chapter includes the methodology of the research. It covers the research design

of this study and the setting or context in which the experiment was done. It also

includes extensive planning of the study, population and sample selection.

Development and validation of research instruments which were used to collect data

is also discussed in this chapter. A brief description of the treatment, i.e., teachers’

training sessions covering both content and pedagogy is also given. The chapter

concludes with a description of data collection procedure and experiment timeline.

Conceptual Framework

In view of the context factors and current practices of the professional

development of teachers in Pakistan, the conceptual framework was derived from the

proposed model of evaluating the impact of professional development by Guskey

(2000). Guskey’s model of Professional Development is comprised of five levels.

Participants’ ReactionLevel 1

Participants’ LearningLevel 2

Organization Support and ChangeLevel 3

Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and SkillsLevel 4

Student Learning OutcomesLevel 5

Figure 2.3: Model of evaluating impact of professional development by Guskey (2000)

33

Guskey named level 1 as Participants’ Reaction. This level includes initial

satisfaction of participants with a professional development programme. This stage

also helps to design activities and develop procedures of professional development

intervention. This initial response by the participants improves the design of

professional development programme as well as delivery. In our study, participants’

willingness to participate as a sample and their expectation to the proposed training

sessions after review of the scheme of study, syllabus breakup and time table provided

by the school. In Pakistan, teachers are usually reluctant to talk about their

professional development needs. To cope with this possible drawback, baseline data

was gathered from three sources, i.e., management interview, professional

development practices in the institution and the scheme of study developed by the

school. Participants’ expectations of the training session formed an integral part of

each training session on content and pedagogy.

At level 2, Guskey focused on participants’ learning. He suggested developing

the desired criteria and indicators of a successful professional development

programme. In the review of studies examining the effect of teachers’ professional

development, it was observed that professional development became most effective

when teachers were engaged directly in provision of knowledge that students were

learning (Kennedy 1998as cited in Guskey, 2000). The other important thing along

with a content knowledge is teachers’ ability to teach effectively. It also comprises

teachers’ knowledge and confidence in pedagogy. In this study, the aspects of

developing the criteria and indicators of successful professional development were

pre-identified to evaluate the effect of treatment on the sampled teachers. While

designing professional development activities, it was carefully planned that training

activities should be focused on the content as well as pedagogy.

34

At the third level of his model, Guskey (2000) placed organization support and

change. He stated that professional development is highly influenced by the

organization itself. His argument was based on the previous studies done by Fullan,

1993; Sparks, 1996; Spark & Hirsh, 1997. The components of an organization that

impact the professional development programme are organizational policies,

resources, cooperative environment, visionary leadership and its support in allocation

of time and finally the recognition of success (Guskey, 2000). In making criteria for

selection of the institution for this experimental research study, the above mentioned

components were carefully examined. The selected institution was found the best to

meet the stated criteria. The institution has established its own professional

development center equipped with all associated facilities. The teacher resource

center has a rich collection of books, magazines and periodicals in soft and hard form.

Its management has a clear vision to empower its teaching faculty with latest trends in

education for the improvement of the teaching learning process. The institution has

also developed an annual professional development plan. The important thing is that

professional development has due weightage in annual teacher evaluation criteria.

Overall the management always welcomes change. After an extensive survey, the

institution was selected for this study.

The 4th level of Guskey’s proposed model for evaluating the impact of

professional development is most extensive and important in nature. It is named

Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and Skills. The most critical measure to

evaluate the effectiveness of a professional development activity is the degree to

which teachers are confident and motivated to apply new knowledge and adopt new

instructional strategies competently. A number of research studies were conducted to

see the impact of teachers’ training on the enrichment of content competency and its

35

application in a real situation. These studies highlighted that acceptance of new

knowledge of content as well as pedagogy and adoption of appropriate/aligned

teaching techniques by avoiding previous practices is very hard. Even in this situation

teachers normally focus on the surface expression rather than getting the insight of

pedagogical principles (Coburn, 2002; Spillane, 2000; Spillane & Callahan, 2000;

Spillane & Zeuli, 1999). Coburn (2002) and Cuban (1993) thought that alteration or

the conversion process in pedagogical techniques may not disturb/upset the pre-

determined class norms and routines. Joyce & Showers (1995) thought that an extra

time and effort is required for incorporating new practices and techniques rather than

the traditional ones. This can be ensured by doing extensive planning, strong

implementation and a systematic/comprehensive evaluation of high quality teachers’

professional development. In this research study, the main focus is on the learning of

new knowledge and skills; knowledge related to content and pedagogy while skills

focusing on teaching strategies and implementation of learned pedagogical

knowledge. The framework for this study was derived mainly from this level of

professional development model by Guskey (2000). To find out the achievement level

in content competency of teachers, pre and post-tests were conducted before and after

the treatments of training in content and pedagogical areas. To find out the difference

in application of pedagogical concepts, teaching observations were carried out before

and after the treatments.

In view of the scope of this study, we focused on four levels of the said model.

These levels are limited to the teachers’ professional development of our model. It is

assumed that the change in concepts and their application in the classroom will result

in improvement of students’ results. Level five requires a long period of time to

experiment and find out the students’ achievement as in the previous study (i.e., 4

36

years). In the previous studies, empirical evidence of the impact of the teachers’

professional development on student achievement supports the findings of the

previous research done by the Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997and Sanders & Rivers,

1996. In view of the above constraints and time limit of this research, level 5 of

Guskey’s model was excluded. But due to its importance, it should be conducted and

experimented as longitudinal study separately comprising all five levels including the

last one which is Student Learning Outcomes.

The above model involves a vast range of literature review. Our major concern

in this study is the application of this model in the Pakistani context. The real

challenge in the Pakistani context is the change in teaching practices at classroom

level that has a direct impact on student learning.

Research Design

In this experimental study, the research design was “one group pre-test post-

test design”. This design involves a single group that is pretested (O), exposed to a

treatment (X), and then tested again (O). The success of the treatment is determined

by comparing pre-test and post-test scores (Gay, L.R., 2012). In view of the extensive

nature of this study and alignment of predetermined research questions, teaching

observations of the participants before and after the treatment were also conducted

additionally. The first observation was carried out at the start of the experiment to

determine the existing teaching practices of the participant teachers on the basis of

baseline data. Second and third observations were conducted after the treatments. The

purpose of these observations was to get factual data regarding application/

implementation of the concepts acquired by the teachers during training. In this

research, the design requirement was fulfilled by pre and post-test scores but to

37

address other research questions and to study the impact of the training in terms of

application of concepts at classroom level, teaching observations were added.

This design controls some threats to validity that is not controlled by the one-

shot case study. Some threats to validity are also associated with this design. To

address/minimize these issues/threats of validity of this design certain measures were

taken. The duration of the experiment of this study was kept short i.e. only three and a

half months. To keep expected threat of maturation under control. Pre and post-tests

were same in this study. There was a gap of one week between both tests to minimize

the risk of retention. In this research, test items were mixed in nature, i.e., short

answers, MCQs and extended response items. With a wide range/variety of questions,

the chance of guessing was also minimized.

In most of the experimental designs, control group exists. The process of

random assignment of individuals to groups is assumed as “establishing equality in

experimental and control group”. This assumption is correct for studies involving

tangible variables. In case of this study, random assignment on the basis of

qualification, age, gender, experience, etc. was not sufficiently good to establish

equality. Two teachers with the same background qualification, age, gender or

experience may not be assumed as equal. Therefore it was preferred to rely on intra-

group differences to gauge the effect of the intervention.

There were two independent variables (content-based training and pedagogical

training) and one dependent variable (professional development of teachers).

38

Pre-Test

Baseline Observation

Content Based Training

Intermediate Content Focused Observation

Final Content & Pedagogical Focused Observation

Post-Test

Post-Test

Pre-Test

Pedagogical Training

O3

O2

O1

O: Observation

Figure 3.1: Design of the study

Setting / Context of the Study

This study was conducted at a private sector school in Lahore. The school has

an outstanding infrastructure comprising of three campuses. Each campus has four

wings. The selected campus is one of the best among the three campuses in Lahore.

With a strength of more than11,000 students and more than 590 teachers, the school not

only has distinction in academics but is also playing a leading role in co-curricular

activities and sports for the holistic development of students. The school has established

a mature system for staff hiring. Minimum criteria for teacher selection are a graduation

degree but most of the teachers have a master’s degree in the subject in which they are

teaching. The teacher selection procedure consists of four stages (short listing,

comprehensive test catering for content and pedagogy, teaching observation of model

39

lesson and interview). By this process, the school gets best available teachers. From

class three to onward, English, math and science are taught by subject teachers who

have graduated with relevant subjects in the bachelor/master degree.

Planning the Study

A request was made to school management to get permission for conducting

the study at their facility. After a detailed briefing and written undertaking to use the

data only for study purpose, school management gave permission to conduct the study

in three wings of the main campus. Active involvement and cooperation was needed

by the wings’ heads to plan and execute the experiment. For this purpose, an

orientation session was organized for them. After this session, three types of data was

collected from the wings’ heads, i.e., i) School Syllabus (the school called it

Curriculum Breakup), ii) School Calendar (in order to plan the observation schedule),

and iii) Class & Teacher Timetable. The school syllabus was required for planning

and designing the “content-based training” material. As agreed earlier with school

management, the concepts were selected for “content-based training” according to the

planned syllabus distribution of the school. School syllabus distribution enabled the

teachers of each subject to get one week training in content on the topics which were

taught during the observation period after getting the treatment of “content-based

training”. The school calendar was used to plan the whole study. Observation

schedule, execution of training sessions and follow-ups to the training were planned

accordingly. On the basis of class and teacher wise timetable from each wing, an

observation plan was devised. This activity was done separately in each phase of the

three phases of observation. While making observation schedule, it was decided that

a gap of at least one period would be maintained between two observations.

40

Population

Population of the study was comprised of primary school teachers.

Sample

The sample of the study consisted of thirty teachers of English, math and

science from class three to five. The sampled teachers were selected from three wings

(junior, boys and girls). These wings are separate and independent identities of a

leading school chain. The curriculum breakup, scheme of study and its

implementation plan was uniform in all aspects under one management and

centralized system. Necessary arrangements and decisions related to training were

only possible with the organization having such background and limitations.

Due to many constraints/ restrictions, the sample was selected from private

sector schools. Management permission, availability of staff, staff willingness and

motivation to participate in training sessions were some of the impediments to sample

selection from the public sector. This is a fact that in private sector schools in Pakistan

there is no centralized curriculum implementation mechanism in place. Schools are

free to select textbooks of any publisher. The same curriculum is not followed by

schools at each grade level. Each school has its own syllabus breakup and

implementation plan. Uniformity of the curriculum, textbooks selection, syllabus

breakup and its implementation is only possible under one management. Therefore, a

centralized system is required for private schools. In view of this primary

requirement/limitation, the chain of schools was selected for this study.

Sampling

Due to the extensive nature of the study, it was not possible for the researcher

to provide six-week training to the participants in content and pedagogy, and conduct

three phases of teaching observation in various schools and settings. Moreover,

41

permission from various school authorities, teachers’ traveling to the training center

and other logistics for combined training arrangements were not possible due to time

and resource constraints. Besides, the teachers from different contexts and

backgrounds were not homogeneous in terms of educational qualifications, and

experience, and neither did they teach the same curriculum and have uniform access

to teaching support materials.

Keeping in view the above mentioned factors, the researcher used convenient

sampling and selected all teachers in the sample from the same school, but from

different wings.

Figure 3.2: Sampling

Development of Research Tools

There were two types of instruments used in this study. Pre-test and post-test

procedure was used to see the effect of content and pedagogical training on teachers’

conceptual improvement. The application of these learned experiences through

training was observed through an observation checklist. The detail of pre-test and

42

post-test procedure and observation checklist is given in the following paragraphs.

Pre and post-tests of English content were same. Each test carried 25 marks

and the test duration was 15 minutes for both tests. There were 05 questions in each

test. The questions were of restricted response (comprehension and application level)

in nature.

Pre and post tests of math content were also same. Each test carried 25 marks

and the test duration was 15 minutes for both tests. There were 05 questions in each

test. The questions were of restricted response (comprehension and application level)

in nature.

Pre and post tests of science content were also same. Each test carried 25 marks

and the test duration was 15 minutes for both tests. There were 10 questions in each test.

The questions were of restricted response in nature.

There were three pedagogical training sessions in the second phase of the

treatment. The pedagogical training areas covered in this phase were: classroom

management, lesson planning and teaching methodologies. Pre-test and post-tests

were administered in this training. The detail of these pre and post-tests is given in the

following paragraphs.

Pre and post-tests in the pedagogical area of classroom management were

same. Each test carried 25 marks and the test duration was 15 minutes for both tests.

There were 05 questions in each test. All five questions were objective type

(understanding and application level).

Pre and post-tests in the pedagogical area of lesson planning were same. Each

test carried 25 marks and the test duration was 15 minutes for both tests. There were

03 questions in each test. The questions were restricted response (knowledge and

understanding level) in nature.

43

Pre and post-tests in the pedagogical area of teaching methodologies were also

same. Each test carried 25 marks and the test duration was 15 minutes for both tests.

There were 05 questions in each test. These questions were objective type (knowledge

and understanding level).

All the participants of the study attempted these tests at the start and at end of

the training.

The second data collection tool was the observation checklist. This

observation checklist was based on two types of items, i.e., content and pedagogy.

There were 34 items in the observation checklist in which 10 items were related to

content and 24 items were related to pedagogy. All these items were in the sequence

of occurrence of the activities during classroom teaching.

Table 3.1

Components of Teaching Observation Scale

Sr.# Areas Scope No. of items

Example α

1. Content Area Teacher’s competency in content. Understanding of concepts.

10 Explains the basic concept clearly

uses examples from everyday life

0.875

2. Pedagogical Area

Selection of appropriate pedagogical technique by focusing on Classroom Management, Lesson Planning and Teaching Methodologies

24 encourages students to participate in classroom activities

uses instructional support material effectively

0.925

N= 481

In this research, data related to pre and post-tests of all training sessions (three

on content and three on pedagogy) addressed research questions No. 1 & 3. They

covered conceptual understanding of the content. While the second instrument for

data collection was the Teaching Observation Checklist. This was related to research

44

questions No. 2, 4 & 5. They addressed the application of learned concepts in a

classroom situation.

Validation of the Research Tool

For observational data collection there are numerous observation instruments and

methods described in the literature (Hoge, 1985; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). In this study,

classroom observation instrument developed by Zafar and Nasir, (2008), with slight

modification was used to collect quantitative data. This instrument was on the five-point

Likert scale, consisting of 34 items. These items covered both content-based and

pedagogical variables (i.e., lesson planning, teaching methodology, support material,

professional teaching skills, communication, classroom management, class participation

and time management). Cronbach’s alpha of the Observation Scale was 0.947. That

represents a very strong reliability of the research instrument (Hogan, 2003). To ensure

the content validity of the teacher achievement tests, experts’ opinion was taken to

validate the instruments.

Training on Content and Pedagogy

The participants of this study went through two treatments of teacher training.

These were trainings in content and pedagogy. Three subjects: English, math and

science were covered in content training whereas pedagogical areas consisted of

teaching methodologies, lesson planning and classroom management. Training was

conducted by experienced trainers of a leading, not-for-profit, ISO-certified and

nationwide organization. In the private sector, it is one of the biggest organizations in

the country who has trained more than 150,000 (one hundred fifty thousand) teachers

and school principals in the last five years. The organization has developed a standard

quality procedure to develop different courses for teachers on content, pedagogy and

management. An independent quality assurance department for teacher training

45

programmes is working to achieve the quality objectives of courses developed by

Association for Academic Quality (AFAQ). This organization has a rich full-time

trainers’ faculty to conduct training sessions throughout the country. AFAQ is a major

partner of the Punjab Education Foundation (PEF) (a semi government body that

organizes training programs for school teachers and principals in private sector). In

collaboration with PEF, AFAQ conducts training sessions throughout the province of

the Punjab, Pakistan. Besides, its full-time faculty of teacher trainers, AFAQ has also

a pool of master trainers. These master trainers are faculty members of different

universities, colleges and schools, having sound experience of teaching relevant

subjects. The trainers selected for this study had strong academic backgrounds and

vast experience of conducting training sessions in their respective areas throughout

the country. These trainers were also certified trainers of PEF. Customized training

content was developed for this study focusing on the needs of the study according to

the syllabus distribution of the school in content areas. Training in pedagogical areas

was also customized for this study after having sessions with school management and

teachers concerned.

Procedure of Data Collection

At the start of the data collection phase, an orientation session was planned for

the participants of the study to get them familiarized with the activity. An introductory

handout was distributed among the participants of the study.

In order to know the ongoing teaching practices of the sampled teachers, each

teacher was observed for a 45-minute lesson on the basis of observation checklist.

After conducting baseline observation of the participants of this study, teachers’

training sessions on content were planned. Three separate sessions on content were

conducted (English, math, science). Training duration of each subject was one week,

46

including one-day regular face-to-face training session in groups and four-days

follow-up assistance (mentoring) on the topics discussed during the training. To plan

the training sessions, it was ensured that school routine must not be disturbed. The

topics during training sessions were according to the school scheme of study. The

participants discussed these topics and got feedback by the trainers in the remaining

days. Pre and post-tests were administered before and after each “content-based

training” on English, math and science. The comparison of pre and post-test scores

determined the improvement of content knowledge of the participants of the study. In

order to know the improvement in practice and application of the teachers,

Intermediate Content-Focused Observation was conducted. A comparison of the

scores in the second phase of observation with those in the first phase determined the

improvement of practice or implementation of the concepts of related subjects of the

sampled teachers.

After completion of the second phase of observation, second treatment

(pedagogical training on teaching methodologies, lesson planning and classroom

management) was given to all the 30 teachers. The duration of each training was one

week. So the participants went through these three-week training sessions on

pedagogy. The format of these pedagogical training sessions was the same as in the

first phase of “content-based training”. Pre and post-tests of each pedagogical training

area (teaching methodologies, lesson planning and classroom management) was also

administered to know the change or improvement in concepts of the participants.

After completion of the second phase of training or treatment, the third phase of

observation was executed. The same instrument was used to observe classroom

teaching of the participants. With the consent and mutual understanding of school

management, observation schedule was finalized and the third phase of observation

47

was started. Thirty teachers, who were trained in the second phase, were observed in

this final phase. The observation of this phase was necessary in order to see the

difference in practices of the participant teachers.

Figure 3.3: Procedure of data collection

48

Experiment Timeline

Experiment Timeline

Week 1

Baseline ObservationWeek 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 7

Week 6

Week 8

Week 10

Week 9

Week 12

Week 11

Final Observation

Intermediate Observation

Con

ten

t B

ased

T

rain

ing

Subject: English

Subject: Math

Subject: Science

Ped

agog

ical

T

rain

ing

Teaching Methodologies

Lesson Planning

Classroom Management

Figure 3.4: Timeline of the study

49

Chapter 4

Analysis of Data

To find out the effect of content and pedagogy on teachers’ professional

development, treatment was given in two phases to 30 teachers. Data was collected on

two research instruments, a) achievement test of content and pedagogy, b) observational

schedule based on content and pedagogy. Achievement tests were related to “content-

based training” in English, math, science; and pedagogical training in teaching

methodologies, lesson planning and classroom management. Achievement tests of

“content-based training” were administered at the start and end of Treatment 1.

Similarly, achievement tests of pedagogical training were administered at the start and

end of the Treatment 2.

Observational schedule based on content and pedagogy was administered

before Treatment 1, after Treatment 1 and finally after Treatment 2. Later, data was

analyzed by applying SPSS 15 version. Wilcoxon test (non parametric test) of mean

difference was applied to achievement tests of content and pedagogy and

observational schedule based on content and pedagogy separately. Mixed model

analysis was applied to observational schedules based contents and pedagogy to

elaborate its effect on teachers’ professional development.

50

Table 4.1

Details of Sampled Teachers with Different Demographic Characteristics

Demographic Characteristics

Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 7 23.3 Female 23 76.6 Academic Qualification

M.A./M.Sc. 20 66.6 B.A/ B.Sc 10 33.3 F.A/F.Sc - -

Professional Qualification

M.Ed. 9 30 B.Ed. 10 35.3 Diploma 6 20 No Professional Qualification 5 16.6

Experience 1 – 10 years 10 33.3 11 – 20 years 19 63.3 Above 20 years 1 3.3 No experience The table above shows different demographic variables regarding the teachers

who participated in this research study. Out of 30 teachers who were teaching English,

mathematics and science at primary level, 76.6% were females and 23.3% were males.

When academic qualifications were analyzed, out of 30 teachers, 66.6% were M.A/

M.Sc and 33.3% had a graduation degree. When professional education was analyzed,

it was found that out of 30 teachers, 30% had an M.Ed as professional education,

33.3% had a B.Ed as professional qualification, 20% had diplomas and other

equivalent professional qualification, whereas, 16.6% teachers did not have any

professional qualification. On the basis of experience, the sampled teachers were

divided into two categories, i.e., teachers with experience ranging from 1-10 years and

the second category consisted of teachers who had teaching experience of 11-20 years.

The following figure shows the graphical representation of demographic

characteristics of the participant teachers.

51

23.3

76.6

0

20

40

60

80

Male Female

Gender in %age 66.6

33.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

M.A/M.Sc B.A/B.Sc

Academic Qualification in %age

30

33.3

2016.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

M.Ed. B.Ed. Diploma No Prof.Qual.

Professional Qualification in %age

33.3

63.3

3.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1-10 Years 11-20 Years Above 20Years

Teaching Experience in %age

Figure 4.1: Details of selected teachers with different demographic characteristics

52

Table 4.2

Difference of Practices Applied by Teachers during Classroom Teaching at Different Phases of Teaching Observation

Descriptive Phase I Obs. 1- Obs. 2

Phase II Phase III Obs. 2- Obs. 3 Obs. 1- Obs. 3

Obs. 1 Obs. 2 N Obs. 2 Obs. 3 N Obs. 1 Obs. 3 N

Content Mean 27.06 37.03 30 37.03 41.76 30 27.06 41.76 30

SD 4.84 4.81 4.81 3.82 4.84 3.82 30 Negative Ranks

.00 0 12.50 2 .00 0

Positive Ranks

15.50 30 15.71 28 15.50 30

Z-value -4.79 -4.28 -4.79 P .000 .000 .000

Pedagogy Mean 69.56 82.60 30 82.60 98.56 30 69.56 98.56 30

SD 9.70 9.03 9.03 6.80 9.70 6.80

Negative Ranks

1.50 2 1.50 2 .00 0

Positive Ranks

16.00 27 16.50 28 15.50 30

Z-value -4.64 -4.72 -4.78 P .000 .000 .000

Obs. 1 = Baseline Observation (phase I) Obs. 2 = Intermediate Observation (phase II) Obs. 3 = Final Observation (phase III)

Table 4.2 shows the non-parametric descriptive statistics about the changes in

the practices of the teachers while teaching in the classroom. Classroom teaching

observation data of various phases was analyzed and compared. This data was related

to both areas of content and pedagogy. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to

find the significance of mean difference in teaching practices in different phases

during this study.

Table 4.2 reflects change in content application of English, math and science

teachers during a comparison of their scores of teaching observation of Baseline

Observation (Phase I) and Intermediate Observation (Phase II). When the teaching

observation scores of Baseline Observation (Phase I) and Intermediate Observation

were compared, it was found that the z value (-4.79) was significant at p< 0.001. The

mean score (M=37.03, SD=4.81) of respondents’ Intermediate Observation (Phase II)

53

in content application was significantly higher than the mean score (M=27.06,

SD=4.84) of respondents’ Baseline Observation (Phase I).

Table 4.2 also reflects change in content application of English, math and

science teachers during a comparison of their scores of Intermediate Observation

(Phase II) and Final Observation (Phase III). When the teaching observation scores of

Intermediate Observation (Phase II) and Final Observation (Phase III) were compared,

it was found that the z value (-4.28) was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score

(M=41.76, SD=3.82) of respondents’ Final Observation (Phase III) in content

application improvement was higher than the mean score (M=37.03, SD= 4.81) of

respondents’ Intermediate Observation (Phase II) in content application.

Table 4.2 also reflects change in content application of English, math and

science teachers during a comparison of their scores of Baseline Observation (Phase I)

and Final Observation (Phase III). When the scores of Intermediate Observation

(Phase II) and Final Observation (Phase III) were compared, it was found that the z

value (-4.79) was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score (M=41.76, SD=3.82) of

respondents’ observation Phase III on content application was higher than the mean

score (M=27.06, SD= 4.84) of respondents’ Baseline Observation (Phase I).

Table 4.2 reflects change in pedagogical application of participants in the

teaching observation scores of Baseline Observation (Phase I) and Intermediate

Observation (Phase II). When the Baseline Observation (Phase I) and Intermediate

Observation (Phase II) were compared, it was found that the z value (-4.64) was

significant at p< 0.001. The mean score (M=82.60, SD=9.03) of respondents’

Intermediate Observation (Phase II) in pedagogical application improvement was

higher than the mean score (M=69.56, SD=9.70) of respondents’ Baseline

Observation (Phase I).

54

Similarly, change in pedagogical application of participants in the teaching

observation scores of Intermediate Observation (Phase II) and Final Observation

(Phase III) shows the following results. When the scores of Intermediate Observation

(Phase II) and Final Observation (Phase III) were compared, it was found that the z

value (-4.72) was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score (M=98.56, SD=6.80) of

respondents’ Final Observation (Phase III) in pedagogical application improvement

was higher than the mean score (M=82.60, SD=9.03) of respondents’ Intermediate

Observation (Phase II).

Table 4.2 also reflects change in pedagogical application of participants in the

teaching observation of teachers. When the Intermediate Observation (Phase II) and

Final Observation (Phase III) scores were compared, it was found that the z value (-

4.78) was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score (M=41.76, SD=3.82) of

respondents’ Final Observation (Phase III) in content application improvement was

higher than the mean score (M=27.06, SD= 4.84) of respondents’ Baseline

Observation (Phase I).

In this study, data was collected after the pre-test and post-test in content and

pedagogical areas to find out the achievement in understanding of the concepts by

teachers. Pre and post-tests used in this study were same. Each pre-test was conducted

at the start of the training and the post-test was administered at the end of one-week

training program for each area/subject. Possible rang score of all these pre and post-

tests was zero – 25.

55

Table 4.3

Difference of Conceptual Understanding of Teachers after Getting Training on Content

Descriptive English Math Science

Pre Test

Post Test

N Pre Test

Post Test

N Pre Test

Post Test

N

Content Mean 9.90 14.54 11 12.30 18.35 10 14.66 20.88 9

SD 2.11 2.80 4.17 4.03 3.53 2.52

Negative Ranks

0.00 0 1.00 1 0.00 0

Positive Ranks

6.00 11 5.50 8 5.00 9

Z-value -2.95 -2.54 -2.67

P .003 .011 .008

Table 4.3 shows a non-parametric descriptive statistics about the changes in

teachers’ conceptual understanding of the content of English, math and science after

attending the training sessions on content. Each teacher participated in subject training

in his or her area. Their pre-test and post-test scores were analyzed and compared.

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used during this study to find the significance of

the mean difference in teachers’ understanding of concepts of their subjects.

Table 4.3 reflects the change in conceptual understanding of contents taught to

teachers in English, math and science during the treatment in phase I. Subject-wise

analysis shows that when pre and post test scores of English were compared, it was

found that the z value (-2.95) was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score of

respondents in the post-test of English content was (M= 14.54, SD= 2.80) higher than

the respondents’ mean score (M= 9.90, SD= 2.11) in the pre-test of English content.

When pre and post-test scores of math were compared, it was found that the z

value (-2.54) was also significant at p<0.001. The mean score of respondents in in the

math post-test was (M= 18.35, SD= 4.03) higher than the respondents’ mean score

(M= 12.30, SD= 4.17) in the pre-test of math content.

56

When the pre and post-test scores in science were compared, it was found that

the z value (-2.67) was also significant at p<0.001. The mean score of respondents in

the post-test of science content was (M= 20.88, SD= 2.52) higher than the

respondents’ mean score (M= 14.66, SD= 3.53) in the pre-test of science content.

Table 4.3 also shows non-parametric descriptive statistics about the changes in

teachers’ conceptual understanding after attending the training sessions in

pedagogical areas, i.e., teaching methodologies, lesson planning and classroom

management. Teachers’ pre-test and post-test scores were analyzed. The Wilcoxon

signed-rank test was used during this study to find the significance of mean difference

in teachers’ understanding of pedagogical concepts.

57

Table 4.4

Difference of Conceptual Understanding of Teachers after Getting Training on Pedagogy

Descriptive Teaching Methodologies

Lesson Planning Classroom Management

Pre Test

Post Test

N Pre Test

Post Test

N Pre Test

Post Test

N

Pedagogy Mean 11.03 17.83 30 7.70 12.75 30 11.53 18.06 30

SD 2.83 2.73 3.00 3.02 2.69 1.95

Negative Ranks

1.00 1 1.00 1 .00 0

Positive Ranks

16.00 29 15.50 28 15.50 30

Z-value -4.77 -4.69 -4.79

P .000 .000 .000

Table 4.4 reflects change in conceptual understanding of pedagogy taught to

the participants in the areas of teaching methodologies, lesson planning and classroom

management during the treatment in Phase II. Area-wise analysis shows that when pre

and post-test of teaching methodologies (Pedagogy) were compared, it was found that

the z value (-4.77) was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score of respondents in post-

test of teaching methodologies was (M= 17.83, SD= 2.73) higher than the

respondents’ mean score (M= 11.03, SD= 2.83) in pre-test of teaching methodologies.

When pre and post-test of lesson planning were compared, it was found that

the z value (-4.69) was also significant at p<0.001. The mean score of respondents in

the post-test of lesson planning (Pedagogy) was (M= 12.75, SD= 3.02) higher than the

respondents’ mean score (M= 7.70, SD= 3.00) on pre-test of lesson planning.

When pre and post-test of classroom management (Pedagogy) were compared,

it was found that the z value (-4.79) was also significant at p<0.001. The mean score

of respondents in the post-test of classroom management was (M= 18.06, SD= 1.94)

58

higher than the respondents’ mean score (M= 11.53, SD= 2.68) in the pre-test of

classroom management.

Mixed Model Analysis on observational phases of content and pedagogy

In this section of analysis, mixed model analysis was used to find out the

differential effect of content and pedagogy on teachers’ professional development.

Mixed model analysis is a statistical model that uses both fixed and random effects in

the same analysis. These effects correspond to the hierarchy of levels with repeated,

correlated measurements occurring among all of the lower level units for each

particular upper level unit. Correlated data arise frequently in statistical analysis. This

may be due to grouping of subjects or to repeated measurements on each subject over

time or space, or due to multiple related outcome measures at one point. Mixed model

analysis provides a general, flexible approach in these situations, because it allows a

wide variety of correlation patterns (or variance-covariance structures) to be explicitly

modeled. Mixed models are applied to many disciplines where multiple correlated

measurements are made on each unit of interest. Due to the nature of the data and to

find out the differential effect of each treatment (“content based training” and

Pedagogical Training) from the baseline observation data, mixed model analysis

technique was used in this study.

Mixed model analysis on observational phases of content

Mixed model analysis technique was used to find out the effect of content on

the professional development of teachers. For this purpose, observation scores of

three phases were compared with one another.

59

Table 4.5

Type III Tests of Fixed Effects on Observation Phase of Content

Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig.

Observation Phases of contents

2 87 83.486 .000

Table 4.5 shows that when scores of three observational phases of content

were compared, it was found that f value (83.486) was significant at p<0.001. It

reflects that scores of three phases differ significantly from one another.

Table 4.6

Description of Observations of Content

Observation Phase Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2.664 1.980 3.348

2 3.686 3.002 4.370

3 4.189 3.505 4.873 Table 4.6 shows that observations of content were taken in three different

phases. The mean score (4.189) of phase 3 was the highest among three observation

phases. While the mean score (2.664) was the lowest among three observation phases.

Pair-wise comparisons of three observational phases of contents are elaborated in the

table.

60

Table 4.7

Comparison of Observational Phases of Content

(I) Observation Phase

(J) Observation Phase

Mean Difference (I-J)

df Sig.a

1.00 2.00 -1.022* 87 .000

3.00 -1.525* 87 .000

2.00 3.00 -.503* 87 .000

Table 4.7 shows that when observational Phase I of content was compared

with observational Phase II and III separately, it was found that the mean difference

(-1.022) between observation Phase I of content and Phase2 of content was significant,

similarly the mean difference (-1.525) between observation Phase I of content and

Phase III of content; and the mean difference (-0.503) between observation Phase II of

content and observation Phase III of content were significant at p<0.001.

Mixed model analysis on observational phases of pedagogy

Similarly, mixed model analysis technique was used to find out the effect of

pedagogy on the professional development of teachers. For this purpose, scores of

observations of three phases were compared with one another.

Table 4.8

Type III Tests of Fixed Effects on Observation Phase of pedagogy

Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig.

Observation Phases of pedagogy

2 87.000 84.078 .000

Table 4.8 shows that, when scores of three observational phases of pedagogy

were compared, it was found that f value (84.078) was significant at p<0.001. It

reflects that scores of three phases of observations in pedagogy differ significantly

from one another.

61

Table 4.9

Description of Observations of Pedagogy

Observation Phase Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 3.029 2.894 3.164

2 3.588 3.453 3.724

3 4.277 4.141 4.412

Table 4.9 shows that observations of pedagogy were taken in three different

phases. The mean score (4.277) of Phase III was the highest among the three

observation phases. While the mean score (3.029) was the lowest the among three

observation phases. Pair-wise comparison of three observational phases of pedagogy

are elaborated in the table.

Table 4.10

Comparison of Observational Phases of Pedagogy

Observation Phase (I)

Observation Phase (J)

Mean Difference (I-J)

df Sig.a

1.00 2.00 -.559* 87.000 .000

3.00 -1.248* 87.000 .000

2.00 3.00 -.688* 87.000 .000 Table 4.10 shows that when observational Phase I of pedagogy was compared

with observational Phase II and III separately, the mean difference of (-0.559) was

found between observation Phase I and Phase II of pedagogy. The mean difference

(-1.248) between observation Phase I and Phase III of pedagogy was significant; and

the mean difference (-0.688) between observation Phase II and Phase III of pedagogy

were significant at p<0.001.

62

Chapter 5

Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Discussion and Recommendations

Summary

Teachers’ professional development is the key to achieving the goals of

educational system. The purpose of this study was to see the differential effect of

content-based and pedagogical training on teachers’ professional development. Major

objectives of the study were to; (i) investigate the role played by “content based

training” in the professional development of teachers, (ii) explore the role of

pedagogical training in the professional development of teachers and (iii) determine

the relationship between content-based and pedagogical training which contributes to

the professional development of teachers. To achieve these objectives, five research

questions were drawn; (i) Does training in content affect the content knowledge of the

teachers? (ii) To what extent do teachers apply the learned content related aspects

while teaching in the classroom? (iii) Does training in pedagogy affect the

pedagogical content knowledge of the teachers? (iv) To what extent do teachers apply

the learned pedagogical content related aspects while teaching in the classroom?

(v) What is the differential effect of content and pedagogical training on professional

development of teachers? The study was delimited to the teachers of a private set-up

at Lahore. The sample of the study consisted of 30 English, math and science teachers

at grades 3-5. Two type of research tools were used in this study to find out

differential effects of content-based and pedagogical training on teachers’

professional development, i.e., (i) Observation Checklist [Schedule] which consisted

of 34 items related to content and pedagogy and, (ii) Achievement tests of content

63

(English, math and science) and pedagogy (classroom management, lesson planning

and teaching methodologies). Observation schedule was administered three times

during the experiment, at the beginning of the experiment in order to know the current

practices of teachers before giving them a treatment, after the first treatment to see the

effect of “content-based training” on teachers’ classroom practices and finally after

the second treatment to observe the impact of pedagogical training on application of

teachers during classroom teaching. To ensure the validity and reliability of the

observation schedule, it was piloted. Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the

reliability of the instrument. Achievement tests were validated through peer review

and expert opinion. Experiment was conducted for a period of three months. The

experiment was started with teaching observation. The purpose of this baseline

observation was to get data regarding teachers’ practices in the areas of content and

pedagogy during teaching in the classroom. After baseline observation, first treatment

of “content-based training” English, math and science was given. In each training

session of the relevant subject pre and post-tests were conducted. These tests were

administered to measure the change in the participant teachers’ understanding of

concepts. After this treatment, intermediate observation was taken to know the impact

of training on teachers’ practices in classroom teaching. Then second treatment was

given. It was pedagogical training in classroom management, lesson planning and

teaching methodologies. Pre and post-tests of each training were also administered.

Final observation was taken after these training sessions on pedagogy. So collectively,

during this study, six pre and post-tests were conducted and three observations of each

participant were taken. Wilcoxon Test (non parametric test) and mixed model

analysis was applied to analyze the data and findings and conclusions were drawn.

64

Findings

In this section, findings of the research study are drawn from the data analysis.

Findings are further divided into three sections based on observation schedule,

achievements tests and differential effects.

Findings regarding observational schedule based on content and pedagogy

1. The observational schedule based on content showed change in content

application of participants in the teaching observation of English, math and

science teachers during a comparison of their scores of Baseline Observation

(Phase I) and Intermediate Observation (Phase II). When the teaching

observation scores of Baseline Observation (Phase I) and Intermediate

Observation (Phase II) were compared, it was found that the z value (-4.79)

was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score (M=37.03, SD=4.81) of

respondents’ Intermediate Observation (Phase II) in content application

improvement was significantly higher than the mean score (M=27.06,

SD=4.84) of respondents’ Baseline Observation (Phase I).

2. Similarly change in content application of participants in the teaching

observation of teachers of the subject of English, math and science during a

comparison of their scores of Intermediate Observation (Phase II) and Final

Observation (Phase III) was also observed. When the scores of Intermediate

Observation (Phase II) and Final Observation (Phase III) were compared, it

was found that the z value (-4.28) was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score

(M=41.76, SD=3.82) of respondents’ Final Observation (Phase III) in content

application improvement was higher than the mean score (M=37.03,

SD= 4.81) of respondents’ Intermediate Observation (Phase II).

65

3. When Baseline Observation (Phase I) and Final Observation (Phase III) were

compared, it was found that there was a significant change in content

application of participants in the teaching observation of English, math and

science teachers. When the scores of Baseline Observation (phase I) and Final

Observation (Phase III) were compared, it was found that the z value (-4.79)

was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score (M=41.76, SD=3.82) of

respondents’ Final observation (Phase III) in content application was higher

than the mean score (M=27.06, SD= 4.84) of respondents’ Baseline

Observation (Phase I).

4. The change in pedagogical application of participants in Baseline Observation

(Phase I) and Intermediate Observation (Phase II) was also observed. When

the scores of Baseline Observation (Phase I) and Intermediate Observation

(Phase II) were compared, it was found that the z value (-4.64) was significant

at p< 0.001. The mean score (M=82.60, SD=9.03) of respondents’

Intermediate Observation (Phase II) in pedagogical application was higher

than the mean score (M=69.56, SD=9.70) of respondents’ Baseline

Observation (Phase I).

5. Similarly, the change in pedagogical application of the participants in

Intermediate Observation (Phase II) and Final Observation (Phase III) was also

observed. When the scores of Intermediate Observation (Phase II) and Final

Observation (Phase III) were compared, it was found that the z value (-4.72)

was significant at p< 0.001. The mean score (M=98.56, SD=6.80) of

respondents’ Final Observation (Phase III) in pedagogical application was

higher than the mean score (M=82.60, SD=9.03) of respondents’ Intermediate

Observation (Phase II).

66

6. When Baseline Observation (Phase I) and Final Observation (Phase III) were

compared, it was found that there is a significant change in pedagogical

application of participants in the teaching observation of teachers. When

Baseline Observation (Phase I) and Final Observation (Phase III) were

compared, it was found that the z value (-4.78) was significant at p< 0.001.

The mean score (M=41.76, SD=3.82) of respondents’ Final Observation

(Phase III) in content application was higher than the mean score (M=27.06,

SD= 4.84) of respondents’ Baseline Observation (Phase I).

Findings of achievement tests based on content and pedagogy

1. When pre-test and post test scores of achievement tests based on conceptual

understanding of content were compared in the subjects of English, math and

science, it was found that the z value (-2.95) was significant at p< 0.001. The

mean score of respondents in the post-test of English content was (M= 14.54,

SD= 2.80) higher than the respondents’ mean score (M= 9.90, SD= 2.11) in

the pre-test of English content. Similarly when the pre and post-test of math

were compared, it was found that the z value (-2.54) was also significant at

p<0.001. The mean score of respondents in the post-test of math content was

(M= 18.35, SD= 4.03) higher than the respondents’ mean score (M= 12.30,

SD= 4.17) in the pre-test of math content. When the pre and post-tests of

science were compared, it was found that the z value (-2.67) was also

significant at p<0.001. The mean score of respondents in the post-test of

science content was (M= 20.88, SD= 2.52) higher than the respondents’ mean

score (M= 14.66, SD= 3.53) in the pre-test of science content.

2. Conceptual understanding of the teachers after attending the training sessions

in pedagogical areas, i.e., teaching methodologies, lesson planning and

67

classroom management was compared on the basis of their scores in pre and

post-tests. When the pre and post-test scores in teaching methodologies

(Pedagogy) were compared, it was found that the z value (-4.77) was

significant at p< 0.001. The mean score of respondents in the post-test of

teaching methodologies (M= 17.83, SD= 2.73) was higher than the

respondents’ mean score (M= 11.03, SD= 2.83) in the pre-test. When the pre

and post-test scores in lesson planning (Pedagogy) were compared, it was

found that the z value (-4.69) was also significant at p<0.001. The mean score

of respondents in the post-test of lesson planning (M= 12.75, SD= 3.02) was

higher than the respondents’ mean score (M= 7.70, SD= 3.00) in the pre-test.

When the pre and post-test scores in classroom management (Pedagogy) were

compared, it was found that the z value (-4.79) was also significant at p<0.001.

The mean score of respondents in the post-test of classroom management

(M= 18.06, SD= 1.94) was higher than the respondents’ mean score

(M= 11.53, SD= 2.68) in the pre-test of classroom management.

Differential effect of content and pedagogy on teachers’ professional development

1. Mixed model analysis technique was used to find out the effect of content on

the professional development of teachers. For this purpose, mean scores of

observation of three phases were compared. It was found that F value (83.486)

was significant at p<0.001. It reflects that scores of three phases differ

significantly from one another. The mean score (4.189) of Phase III was the

highest among three observation phases. While the mean score (2.664) was the

lowest among three observation phases. Pair-wise comparison of three

observational phases of contents shows that when Baseline Observation

(Phase I) scores of content was compared with Intermediate Observation

68

(Phase II and Final Observation (Phase III) separately, it was found that a

mean difference (-1.022) existed between observation Phase I of content and

observation Phase II of content, similarly the mean difference (-1.525)

between observation Phase I of content and Observation Phase III of content

was observed; and a mean difference (-0.503) between observation Phase II of

content and observation Phase III of content was found. All these were

significant at p<0.001.

2. When observational phases of pedagogy (baseline observation, intermediate

observation and final observation) were compared by using mixed model

analysis, it was noted that F value (84.078) was significant at p<0.001. It

reflects that scores of three phases of observations on pedagogy differ

significantly from one another. The mean score (4.277) in the Phase III was

the highest among three observation phases. While the mean score (3.029) was

the lowest among three observation phases. Pair-wise comparison of three

observational phases of pedagogy shows that when observational Phase I of

pedagogy was compared with observational Phase II and III separately, it was

found that there was a mean difference (-0.559) between observation Phase I

and observation Phase II of pedagogy. Similarly, a mean difference (-1.248)

between observation Phase I of pedagogy and observation Phase III was

observed; and a mean difference (-0.688) between observation phase II and

phase III of pedagogy was also observed. All three were significant at p<0.001.

69

Conclusions

In this part of research report, conclusions are drawn on the basis of findings

of the study. This part is further divided into three parts.

Conclusion regarding observational schedule based on content and pedagogy

1. Observation of content and pedagogy was recorded in three phases, i.e.,

baseline observation (Phase I), intermediate observation (Phase II) and final

observation (Phase III). Along with that, between Phase I and Phase II,

“content based training” was given to the teachers. When content application

of the participants was compared in Phase I and Phase II observational

schedule, it showed that there was a significant increase in respondents/

teachers/ participants’ content application.

2. Between observation Phase II and III, only pedagogical training was included.

When observational scores in Phase II and Phase III were compared on the

basis of content and pedagogy, it was found that pedagogical application of

participants increased two times more than their content application.

Conclusions regarding achievement tests based on content and pedagogy

1. Before Treatment I (i.e. content-based training) content-based pre-tests of

English, math, science were conducted. After “content-based training”

(Treatment I) post-test of each subject was conducted. The findings reflect that

the participants’ conceptual understanding of the content of English, math and

science increased significantly.

2. Before Treatment II, pre-test of the concepts of pedagogy was administered.

At the end of pedagogical training (treatment II), post-tests were administered.

The findings of the study reflect that there was a significant increase in

conceptual understanding of teachers after Treatment II.

70

Conclusions regarding Differential Effect of Content and Pedagogy on teachers’ Professional Development

1. When three phases of observational schedule based on content and

pedagogical application of the participants were compared by using mixed

model analysis, the findings reflected that the application of the contents of

participants increased significantly during three phases. It is interesting to note

that the increase in content application between Phase I and Phase II was

much higher than between Phase II and Phase III.

Similarly, the application of pedagogy of participants during three phases was

compared; the findings showed a gradual increase in the pedagogical application of

the participants during three phases.

71

Discussion

In this section, research questions of the study are addressed by reasoning and

supporting studies.

“In-service” professional development training is based on the assumption that

the participants have requisite academic qualifications and need to focus on

pedagogical skill development alone to become competent teachers. The findings of

this research suggest that teachers have benefited from training in content which

consequently resulted in efficient use of pedagogy already known to teachers. Joyce

& Showers, (2002) also reported the finding supportive to this. Therefore, academic

qualification in the relevant subject alone cannot be assumed as an alternative to

content training. Training in specific content from the textbooks to be taught in the

classroom is a desired element of “In-service” training of teachers.

An increase in content application of the participants shows that despite

having requisite qualifications (even higher than requisite), it cannot be assumed that

teachers become experts in content to be taught in class automatically. The main shift

of their focus is on qualifying for a degree. So they focus on paper-solving techniques

rather than conceptual understanding of content and concepts. This reflects the poor

assessment process in teacher education institutions. The study for the purpose of

teaching is an entirely different thing. This includes conscious effort to grasp in-depth

understanding of the ideas and concepts. Teachers’ training in content fulfills this

need by addressing the details of content-related information. This finding is also

supported by Cochran, (1997); Abd-El-Khalick and BouJaoude, (1997); van Driel,

Verloop, & de Vos, (1998); Clewell et al. (2005); Desimon (2009).

It is a fact that training in content plays a significant role in improving the

understanding of concepts among teachers. Despite the fact that teachers have the

72

desired academic qualifications, they need to go through the concepts given in their

textbooks at certain grades.

Training in content is necessary for novice and “In-service” teachers, because

in our context a teacher has to teach almost all subjects at primary level irrespective of

his or her own subject specialization.

In the changing scenario of education policies and curriculum change, it is

needed to put more focus on “content-based training”. Professional development

based on new concepts and relevancy to their difficulty level is the main thing that

must be addressed.

Training in pedagogy accelerates teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy and its

application in classroom teaching. It also expands the range of pedagogy. It also

proves that the notion content alone is sufficient is an incomplete assumption.

Pedagogical training is very necessary to enhance teachers’ knowledge of

different pedagogies. Training in pedagogy for “In-service” teachers enables them to

use their natural pedagogy in an efficient way. It also provides them with exposure to

other pedagogical options and they expand their range of pedagogies. Darling-

Hammond, (1998); Shulman, (1986); Grouws and Schultz (1996) paid attention to the

pedagogy as the most important segment in the professional development of teachers.

An increase in pedagogical application in classroom teaching after the first

treatment of “content-based training” also shows that already possessed teaching

methodologies do improve even if pedagogy is not specifically addressed. This

happened because with the passage of time, improvement in quality of teaching

occurs and teachers make their instructions more effective with experience.

73

Each individual teacher has its own natural pedagogies. To teach different

subjects a diversity of pedagogies is needed, which is possible only through

pedagogical training.

There are different levels in school education (“i.e.” Pre-primary, Primary,

Elementary and Secondary). Pedagogies are different according with each level. In

pedagogical training, we can equip the teachers to adopt different pedagogies

according to the needs of the subject and level.

In teachers’ professional development, sequence of training in content and

pedagogy and vice versa has always been a topic of discussion and research for

researchers. This study suggests that at the time of decision-making, training should

be in order of “content based training” and then pedagogical training. This sequence is

more effective in achieving a high level of understanding of concepts in content as

well as pedagogy. By this way teachers get opportunity to make their teaching more

effective because they improve their pedagogy during content training and expand

their range and quality of pedagogy while participating in the pedagogical training

session later. Askew et al. (1997) and Campbell et al. (2004) also recommended more

attention to both content and pedagogy.

74

Recommendations

Following recommendations were made in the light of findings and

conclusions of the study:

1. Professional development is a dynamic concept. Training for this purpose

hardly meet the needs of the teachers. Teachers should be empowered to take

responsibility of their professional development by the process of mentoring.

The concept of mentoring is already used by DSD through their CPD

programme which needs to be strengthened and used in its true sense.

2. Training in content and pedagogy to be made sequential as pedagogy without

content expertise is of very limited use. School based on-the-job trainings

followed by support in applying the learned experiences in classes, can be

better model of training than currently used Cascade model.

3. Constructive timely feedback on what teachers do in their actual classrooms is

more valuable than training itself. It again supports the notion of on-the–job

training.

Recommendation for further research:

In this study, the sample was consisting of in-service teachers but the same

study should be conducted for pre-service teachers also to find out the effect of

content and pedagogical training on each other.

75

References

Abbott, M., Walton, C., Tapia, Y., & Greenwood, C. R. (1999). Research to practice: A "blueprint" for closing the gap in local schools. Exceptional Children, 65, 339-352.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Boujaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 673-699.

AEPAM (2006). Pakistan Educational Statistics, 2005-06. Islamabad: Academy of Educational Planning and Management.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1984). Teacher decision making: The case of Prairie High. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 167-186.

AKU – IED (2004). Effectiveness on In-Service Teacher Education Programmes Offered by the University of Education, Lahore.

American Educational Research Association. (2005). Research Points. Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve student achievement (Vol. 3, Issue i) Brochure. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Askew, M., Rhodes, V., Brown, M., William, D., & Johnson, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy: Report of a study carried out for the Teacher Training Agency. London: King’s College London, School of Education.

Astor-Jack, T., McCallie, E., & Balcerzak, P. (2007). Academic and informal science education practitioner views about professional development in science education. Science Education, 91, 604-628.

Atay, D. (2006). Teachers' professional development: Partnerships in research. TESL-EJ 10 (2), 1-15.

Atay, D. (2008). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62, 139- 47.

Au, K.H. (2002). Elementary Programs: Guiding Change in a Time of Standards. In S.B. Wepner, D.S. StrickJand, & }.T. Fceley (Eds.), TJw Administration and Supervision of Reading Programs 3 (pp.42-58). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bean, R., Swan, A., & Morris, G.A. (2002). Tinkering and transforming: A new paradigm for professional development for teachers of beginning teachers. New Orleans, LA; Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465983).

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 3(8), 3-15.

76

Boudah, D. J., Logan, K. R., & Greenwood, C. R. (2001). The research to practice projects: Lessons learned about changing teacher practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 290-303.

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education: Vol. 24 (pp. 61-100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Bredeson, P. (2000). Teacher learning as work and at work: Exploring the content and contexts of teacher professional development. Journal of In-service Education, 26, 63-72

Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 499-514.

Burns, A. (1996). Collaborative research and curriculum change in the Australian adult migrant English program. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 591-598.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching, 38, 57-74.

Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teacher effectiveness: Developing a differentiated model. London: Routledge Falmer.

Clewell, B. C., Cosentino de Cohen, C., Deterding, N., Manes, S., Tsui, L., & Campbell, P. B. (2005). What do we know? Seeking effective math and science instruction. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Cochran, K. F. (1997). Pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers’ integration of subject matter, pedagogy, students, and learning environments. Research Matters-To the Science Teacher, No. 9702. Retrieved November 21, 2001, from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/research/pck.htm

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California. Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Commeyras, M., & DeGroff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals' perspectives on professional development and pedagogy: A United States survey. Reading Research Quarterly 33(4). 434-472

Cook, B. G., Landrum, T. J., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2003). Bringing research to bear on practice: affecting evidence based instruction for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of children, 26, 345-361.

77

Corcoran, T. C. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association, Center for Policy Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED384600)

Craig, H., Kraft, R.J., & du Plessis, J. (1998). Teacher Development: Making an Impact. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for International Development and World Bank.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Changing conceptions of teaching and teacher development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22, 9-26.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Analysis Archive

Dempwolf, D. H. (1993). The utilization of principles of adult learning in California staff development programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, California.

DePaepe, P. A., Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., & Denny, R. K. (1996). Effects of task difficulty on disruptive and on-task behavior of students with severe behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 216-225.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S.,Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F., (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(2), 81-112

Doubek, M. B. & Cooper, E. J. (2007). Closing the gap through professional development: Implications for reading research. Reading Research Quarterly 42(2), 411-415.

Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76, 493-506.

Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Elmore, R. F. (2003). Change and Improvement in Educational Reform, in Gordon, D.T. (Eds.) A Nation Reformed?: American Education 20 Years After a Nation at Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Falvo, D. (2003). Developing professionalism in teaching through technology skill development among rural teachers. TechTrends, 47(3), 21-25.

78

Farrell, T.S.C. (1999). Teachers talking about teaching: Creating conditions for reflection. TESL-EJ, 4, 2

Fielding, G. D. & Schalock, H. D. (1985). Promoting the professional development of teachers and administrators. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. (Eds.) (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2001). One blueprint for bridging the gap: Project Promise: (Practitioners and researchers orchestrating model innovations to strengthen education). Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 304-314.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Galbo, C. (1998). Helping adults learn. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 27, 13-15.

Ganser, T. (2000). An ambitious vision of professional development for teachers. In: NASSP Bulletin, 84(618), 6-12.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

Gay, L.R, Mills, G.E, & Airasian, P. (2012) Educational Research; competencies for Analysis and Applications (10th Ed). Pearson Education, Inc.

Gebhard, G. J. (2005). Teacher development through exploration: Principles, ways, and examples. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1-15.

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2001). Realities of translating research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 120-130.

Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466-476.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2001). The professional development of science teachers for science education reform: A review of the research. In. J. R. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Professional development planning and design (pp. 91-100). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 731-767.

Glatthorn, A. (1995). Teacher development. In: Anderson, L. (Ed), International Encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (Second Edition). London: Pergamon Press

79

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Government of Pakistan (1995). ADB Secondary Science Education Project. The British Council, Development and Training Services

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2000). Behavior in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Grimes J. & Tilly, D. J. (1996). Policy and process: Means to lasting educational change. School Psychology Review, 25, 465-476.

Grouws, D. A., & Schultz, K. A. (1996). Mathematics teacher education. In J. Sikula(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 442-458).

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Guskey, T. R. (1994). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED369181)

Harris, M. M. (2001). Lessons from prairie teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 23, 19-26.

Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3- 19.

Hill, H. C. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. The Future of Children, 17, 111–127.

Hogan, P. T. (2003). Psychological Testing: a practical introduction. USA: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.

Hoge, R.D. (1985). The validity of direct observation measures of pupil classroom behavior. Review of Educ. Research, 55, 469-483

International Reading Association. (2000). Excellent reading teachers: A position statement of the international Reading Association. [Brochure]. Newark, DE: Author

Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling Instruction: An Effective Model for Science Education, Science Educator, 17(1). http://www.nsela.org

Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 150-61.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd Ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

80

Kasi, F., (2010). Collaborative action research: an alternative model for EFL teacher professional development in Pakistan. Asian EFL Journal, 12 (3), 98–117.

Kinnucan-Welch, K., Rosemary, C., & Grogan, P. (2006). Accountability by design in literacy professional development. The Reading Teacher 59, 426-435.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 185-201). New York: Teachers College Press.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129-151.

Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The Influence of Core Teaching Conceptions on Teachers’ Use of Inquiry Teaching Practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1318-1347

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998) Designing professional development for teachers of mathematics and science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mahboob, A., & Talaat, M. (2008). English language teachers and teacher education in Pakistan. In S. Dogancay-Aktuna and J. Hardman (Eds.), Global English Language Teacher Education (pp. 3-26). Washington, D.C.: TESOL Publications.

Marshall, J., Pritchard, R., & Gunderson, B. (2001). Professional development: What works and what doesn‘t. Principal Leadership (High School Ed.), 1, 64-68.

McDonough, K. (2006). Action research and the professional development of graduate teaching assistants. The Modern Language Journal 9, 33-47.

Miller, K. I. (2003). Researching teacher-consultancy via exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 7, 201-219.

Morewood, A.L. & Bean, R. M. (2009). Teachers' perceptions of professional development activities in a case study school. In E. Ealk-Ross, 5. Szabo, M. B. Sampson, &M. Foote, (Eds) Literacy Issues During Changing Times: A Call to Action, (pp-248-263). Commercer, TX: College Reading Association.

National Education Census (2005). AEPAM. Islamabad: Ministry of Education.

81

National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan (2009). Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan. Islamabad: Policy and planning wing. Retrieved on August 01, 2009 from http://www.teachereducation.net.pk/files/ National%20Professional%20 Standards%20for%20Teachers.pdf

National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC Standards for Staff Development Retrieved Feb. 01, 2006, from http://wvi'w.nsdc.org/staiidards/index.cfTn.

Nelson, T. H. (2009). Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and professional growth: Should we be optimistic? Science Education, 93, 548-580.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (Supp. I 2001).

Ponte, P., Ax, J., Beijaard, D. & Wubbels, T. (2004). Teachers’ development of professional knowledge through action research and the facilitation of this by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 571-588.

Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39, 158-177.

Richards, J. C., & Farrell, C. S. T. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosemary, CA. (2005). Teacher learning instrument: A metacognitive tool for improving literacy teaching. In S.E. Israel, C.C. Block. K.L. Baiiserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (F^s.), Metacognition in literacy learninglpp. 351-369). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling: Research, theory and practice. London: Cassell.

Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of National Research: Effects of Teaching Strategies on Student Achievement in Science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436-1460.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Sindelar, P. T., & Brownell, M. T. (2001). Research to practice dissemination, scale, and context: We can do it, but can we afford it? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 348- 355.

Sorcinelli, M. D. (2006). Dimensions associated with effective teaching. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Center for Teaching.

Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10, 40-57.

Speck, M. (1996). Best practice in professional development for sustained educational change. ERS Spectrum, 14, 33-41.

82

Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Richter, M., Johnson, N. W., & Bradley, L. (2006). Assessing antecedent variables: The effects of instructional variables on student outcomes through in-service and peer coaching professional development models. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 665-692.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-980.

Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14, 331-357.

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instructions in low-income schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 121-165.

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, PD., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, MC. (2005). Tbe CIERA scbool change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly. 4(X), 40-69

UNESCO (2006). Strong foundations: early childhood care and education. EFA global monitoring report 2007. Paris: UNESCO.

van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.

Zafar, I. & Nasir, M. (2008). Compatibility of Peer Assessment and Teacher Assessment and Observation Situations: An emerging Assessment Tool in Higher Education. Bulletin of Education and Research, 31 (2) 61-67.

Zech, L.K., Gause-Vega, C.L., Bray, M.H., Secules, T., & Goldman, S.R. (2000). Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35 (3), 207-217.

Zeichner, K. N. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P-12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11, 301-325.

Zepeda J. S. (2008). Professional Development: What Works. Eye On Education, Inc. Larchmount, NY 10538.

83

Annexure ‘I’

Classroom Observation Checklist

Teacher Name:________________________ Class Observed: ______Section: _____

Total No. of Students: __________ Date: ________________

Start Time: _______ End Time: _______ Subject: __________________________

Topic: _______________________________________________________________

Observation Phase: 1st 2nd 3rd

Ratting Scale: (0=Not Available, 1=Very Poor, 2=Weak, 3=Average, 4=Good, 5=Excellent)

Sr. # Observation Areas Scale

The teacher:

1 speaks audibly and clearly 2 uses understandable language 3 selects teaching aids relevant to content 4 selects appropriate teaching methods for the content 5 encourages mutual respect among students 6 uses material apart from textbook 7 relates ideas to prior knowledge 8 varies intonation patterns to keep students alert 9 knows the students by their names 10 encourages students to participate in classroom activities 11 maintains eye contact with students 12 asks the questions to the whole class 13 incorporates student’s responses 14 explains basic concept clearly

15 allows pupils raising their hands when they want to answer the questions

16 does not pass deprecatory remarks on students’ ignorance or

misunderstanding

17 uses examples from everyday life 18 uses instructional support material effectively 19 integrates other curriculum subjects into the lesson 20 ensures active students’ involvement in discussion 21 uses different activities in teaching lesson

84

Sr. # Observation Areas Scale

22 responds positively to student opinion 23 uses effective body language 24 uses chalkboard effectively 25 uses questions to enhance understanding of core theme of lesson 26 exhibits absence of verbalized pauses (er, ah, atc.) 27 gives enough time to respond to the questions 28 provides appropriate time to different concepts of lesson 29 sequences the main components of introduction, development and

conclusion

30 restates questions and answers when necessary 31 delivers planned lesson in allotted time completely 32 summarizes the lesson 33 responds to wrong answers constructively 34 moves purposefully in the classroom

Observer Name _______________________Signature ________________________

85

Annexure ‘II’

Subject: English

Total Time: 15 min Marks: 25

1. Identify the types of noun. (3)

a. Army ________________________________

b. Pigeon _______________________________

c. Sugar ________________________________

2. Which is the correct order of adjective? (3) i.

____________________ a carving steel new knife ____________________ a new steel carving knife ____________________ a steel new carving knife ____________________ a new carving steel knife ii ____________________ an old wooden square table ____________________ a square wooden old table ____________________ an old square wooden table ____________________ a wooden square old table

iii ____________________ a beautiful blue sailing boat ____________________ a blue beautiful sailing boat ____________________ a blue sailing beautiful boat

3. Insert these adverbs into the sentences and rewrite them (3)

I like this just. (very much) _____________________________________________________________________

We will go to the garden tonight. (probably) _____________________________________________________________________

I lost my temper. (nearly) _____________________________________________________________________ 4. Define the following terms (6)

Skimming _____________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

86

Scanning ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Inferring ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Write the antonyms and synonyms of the following words (10)

Word Synonyms Antonym Abandon Adversity Avoid Competent Accord Name: ____________________________ Qualification: _______________________

Teaching Experience: _______ (years) Class/ Level: (teaching) _______________

Signature: __________________________ Date: _____________________________

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

87

Annexure ‘III’

Subject: Math

Total Marks: 25 Total Time: 15 minutes INSTRUCTION: Use the calculator and/or cell phone is not allowed.

Q.1 Fill in the blanks

1. 9L 533ml- 5= ________________

2. Clock face is divided into _______________ equal units called hours.

3. Fraction 2/9 is ______________ than the fraction 3/7.

Q.2 Suppose time is 8:20. Choose the best answer and explain your choice. (2+2 marks)

A. 40 minutes to 9

B. 20 minutes past 8

Explanation of my choice

Q.3 Represent pictorially following fractions: (5 marks) 5/2

2 1/4

Q.4 Why we use average in our daily life. (2 marks) Ans:

88

Q. 5 A car travels from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m and covers the following distances: (3 marks) Hours 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Distance Covered

23.4 Km 15.7 Km 10.3 Km 20.6 Km 18.5 Km

Find the average speed of the car? Ans: Q6: Develop “World Problem” whose answer is “Profit is 20%” (5 marks) Solution: Ahmed ______________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Name: ____________________________ Qualification: _______________________

Teaching Experience: _______ (years) Class/ Level: (teaching) _______________

Signature: __________________________ Date: _____________________________

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

89

Annexure ‘IV’

Subject: Science

Tick () the correct answer. Marks ( 2 x 5 = 10) 1. How is a battery represented in a circuit diagram? (a) By a circle with a cross in it (b) By a circle with and B inside it (c) By a long line and short line 2. Cricket bat is the example of? (a) 1st class lever (b) 2nd class lever (c) 3rd class lever 3. An Astronaut picks up a stone from the moon and throws it hard against

another stone. He doesn’t hear any sound. Why not? (a) Because your ears doesn’t work on the moon (b) Because there is no air (c) Because rocks are soft and squashy on the moon 4. Sound can travel through? (a) Only air (b) Air, water and solids (c) Vacuum 5. Air resistance is? (a) Pushing force (b) Frictional force (c) Elastic force Write a short answer in given space. Marks (3 x 5 = 15)

1. Does a reflective strip shine brightly in a dark cupboard? 2. Imran makes a complete simple circuit with one bulb and three batteries. The

bulb lights for an instant and then goes out. Why? 3. In your new built house what type of circuit (series or parallel) you would

prefer and a why?

90

4. See the diagram and explain which lever would required minimum effort to balance it. Write also one reason.

A: B: 5. If gravity pulls you towards the center of the earth, why don’t you fall through

the pavements? Name: ____________________________ Qualification: _______________________

Teaching Experience: _______ (years) Class/ Level: (teaching) _______________

Signature: __________________________ Date: _____________________________

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

91

Annexure ‘V’

Teaching Methodologies

Total Time: 15 mins. Marks: 25

Write the answers of all questions.

Q1: Define teaching methodology. (05)

Q2: Write major components of a teaching method. (03)

Q3: Enlist teaching methods which can be used at primary level for teaching different subjects. (05)

92

Q4: Differentiate teaching methods by stating their merits and demerits (one for each). (06)

Sr.# Teaching Method Merit Demerit 1.

2.

3.

Q5: You are teaching (subject) ______________ at primary level. What is the

most appropriate teaching method to teach your subject at this level?

Please give rationale to prefer above mentioned method.

Name: ____________________________ Qualification: _______________________

Teaching Experience: _______ (years) Class/ Level: (teaching) _______________

Signature: __________________________ Date: _____________________________

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

93

Annexure ‘VI’

Lesson Planning

Total Time: 15 min Marks: 25 Q.1 Define “lesson”. Q.2 Define “lesson plan”. Q.3 Write a lesson plan on the topic of your choice. Name: ____________________________ Qualification: _______________________

Teaching Experience: _______ (years) Class/ Level: (teaching) _______________

Signature: __________________________ Date: _____________________________

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

94

Annexure ‘VII’

Classroom Management

Total Time: 15 min Marks: 25

Write the answers of all questions Q.1 What is the aim of classroom management?

Q.2 Write five major classroom routines.

Q.3 Write five reasons of students misbehavior?

Q.4 What are your strategies to remove disciplinary problems in classroom?

95

Q.5 Write five motivational techniques which you can use in classroom.

Name: ____________________________ Qualification: _______________________

Teaching Experience: _______ (years) Class/ Level: (teaching) _______________

Signature: __________________________ Date: _____________________________

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

96

Annexure ‘VIII’

97

98

99