Vol 15 no 8 july 2016 by ijlter.org

IJLTER.ORG

p-ISSN: 1694-2493 e-ISSN: 1694-2116

International Journal of Learning, Teaching And Educational Research

Vol.15 No.8

PUBLISHER London Consulting Ltd District of Flacq Republic of Mauritius www.ijlter.org

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research is an open-access journal which has been established for the disChief Editor Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER welcomes research articles from academics, edEditorial Board ucators, teachers, trainers and other practitionProf. Cecilia Junio Sabio ers on all aspects of education to publish high Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publiProf. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola Dr Jonathan Glazzard cation in the International Journal of Learning, Dr Marius Costel Esi Teaching and Educational Research are selected Dr Katarzyna Peoples through precise peer-review to ensure quality, Dr Christopher David Thompson originality, appropriateness, significance and Dr Arif Sikander readability. Authors are solicited to contribute Dr Jelena Zascerinska to this journal by submitting articles that illusDr Gabor Kiss trate research results, projects, original surveys Dr Trish Julie Rooney Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano and case studies that describe significant adDr Barry Chametzky vances in the fields of education, training, eDr Giorgio Poletti learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit paDr Chi Man Tsui pers to this journal through the ONLINE submisDr Alexander Franco sion system. Submissions must be original and Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak should not have been published previously or Dr Afsaneh Sharif be under consideration for publication while Dr Ronel Callaghan Dr Haim Shaked being evaluated by IJLTER. Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry Dr Gail Dianna Caruth Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez Dr Özcan Özyurt Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya

VOLUME 15

NUMBER 8

July 2016

Table of Contents A Primer about Mixed Methods Research in an Educational Context ........................................................................... 1 Elizabeth G. Creamer The Pursuit of „Balance‟ by a Greenhorn Supervisor ...................................................................................................... 14 Mark Prendergast Language Barriers in Statistics Education: Some Findings From Fiji ............................................................................. 23 Sashi Sharma The Conundrum of Handling Multiple Grouped Statistics Class at a Tertiary Education and the Impact on Student Performance ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 Victor Katoma, Innocent Maposa and Errol Tyobeka Exploring Estonian Students‟ Ability to Handle Chemistry-Related Everyday Problem Solving ........................... 49 Klaara Kask The Importance of Educational Technology to Pedagogy: The Relevance of Dewey ................................................. 58 Jamie Costley Bridging Research and Practice: Investigating the Impact of Universally Designed STEM Curriculum on the Concept Acquisition of At-Risk Preschoolers .................................................................................................................. 65 Michelle R. Gonzalez, PhD An Education Leadership Program‘s Continuous Improvement Journey Toward a StandardsBased System ...... 79 Peters, R., Grundmeyer, T. and Buckmiller, T. A Survey on Assessment of the Prevailing School Fees for Private Secondary Schools in Tanzania ....................... 97 Veronica R. Nyahende & Benedicto C. Cosmas

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 1-13, July 2016

A Primer about Mixed Methods Research in an Educational Context Elizabeth G. Creamer Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Abstract. Changes in the academic enterprise, including the growth of large-scale team-based research, likely account for the growing presence of projects that are framed to involve mixed methods. This methodological essay provides a non-technical introduction to mixed method approaches. It is directed toward an audience motivated primarily by content area, rather than methodological, interests. Different methodological constructs are illustrated by using a single mixed methods study about promoting active play in school playground. A distinction is made between mixed and multi-method research, with the recommendation that the mixed method label is most appropriate when there is the intent to communicate that the interface between qualitative and quantitative strands is key to understanding the way the research was executed and the conclusions that are drawn. Keywords: mixed method; visual methods

Changes in the academic enterprise likely account for the growing presence of projects that are framed in a way that involve mixed methods. Part of this may be related to the gradual reconfiguration of long-standing disciplinary boundaries and to an increase in interdisciplinary research that incorporates expertise from multiple content areas. It is also related to the ever-expanding role of external funding sources in shaping the agendas of research scientists. The growth in team-based research and the use of large data sets also can be linked to increasing interest in mixed methods research, as can be the higher expectation for repeated experiments and ever greater competition to secure access to publication space in the most the highly ranked journals. Technological innovations, such software that allows for the analysis of data generated from social media or that pinpoints geographical location, has also opened the door for the investigation of more multi-layered and innovative research questions about social phenomenon. The purpose of this methodological essay is to provide a nontechnical introduction to mixed methods approaches to research that is directed toward a broad cross-disciplinary audience motivated by content

area interests rather than methodological ones. My intent is to address an audience unfamiliar with mixed methods. I will provide a broad overview that distinguishes mixed method from multi-method research without itemizing the traditional set of mixed method data collection and sampling procedures and incorporating a lot of specialized jargon. The kind of overview provided by the article will make it useful as a reading assignment in a survey course designed to introduce a variety of methods or as background reading for a general audience interested in learning some of the basic methodological assumptions of mixed methods research. After first considering evidence about the prevalence of mixed methods research across a variety of academic fields, the paper identifies different ways that mixed methods research has been defined and how it is distinguished from multi-method research. We then move to consider different ways that both qualitative and quantitative approaches can be used to create a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of a phenomenon. Next, I offer the architectural arch and keystone as a metaphor for mixed methods research and the types of inferences that are drawn from the integration of the qualitative and quantitative strands. Different ways that integration across phases can be accomplished are explored next. Throughout, different methodological constructs are illustrated by using a single mixed methods study about promoting active play in school playgrounds in Australia (Willenberg et al., 2010). These authors used multiple methods that integrated data from observational methods and a photo ordering technique to identify characteristics of school environments that promote physical activity. Prevalence of Mixed Methods Research Across Disciplines Available evidence does not entirely confirm the alarm that is occasionally voiced that mixed methods has become the "gold standard" or "best practice" in social and applied research. Content analyses of the characteristics of the mixed methods literature conducted in a variety of disciplinary contexts do not support the idea that there has been an explosive growth in articles reporting research in ways that are indicative of a mixed methods approach. What these analyses support, however, is that it is an approach more likely to be utilized in applied disciplines, like education and the health fields, that value the perceptions of patients or clients, than in "pure" fields that are more theoretically driven (Alise & Teddlie, 2010). Accumulated knowledge from an ever-growing number of reviews of the literature provides conclusive evidence that while the label is used in many different ways, research bearing the mixed methods label appears in an astonishingly diverse array of academic fields. Multiple content analyses about the prevalence of the approach provide evidence

that is being used in academic fields as diverse as library science, business, marketing, education, health sciences, family science, school psychology, library science, counseling, construction engineering, and sports management. A seminal piece by Alise and Teddlie (2010) convincingly documents that the dominant approach remains quantitative. Based on Alise's ambitious content analysis of 600 publications from 20 prestigious journals in applied (i.e. education and nursing) and non-applied disciplines (i.e. psychology and sociology), their analyses demonstrate that quantitative approaches retain the hold as the research approach used in the majority of publications (69.5%). Qualitative research is used second most frequently (19.5%), followed by mixed methods approaches (11%). Figure 1 uses a pie chart to summarize the prevalence of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches reported by Alise and Teddlie.

Research Methods Pie Chart

20%

Quantitative Mixed Methods

11%

Qualitative 69%

Figure 1: Research methods used by pure and applied disciplines as reported by Alise and Teddlie (2014)

Definitional Issues Experts define mixed methods research in many different ways (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). The label was originally conceived to apply almost entirely to studies undertaken to enhance validity by triangulating results from more than one source of data for purposes of confirmation. In variations that might be used to study children's activities on school playgrounds, triangulating data collected

through self-reports of preferred activities and observational methods to confirm the types of equipment used would reflect the long-standing use of multiple sources of data to enhance validity. A second common way to define mixed methods research is in terms of analytical procedures. This definition envisions mixed methods research as a combination of a qualitative or inductive approach to analysis with a quantitative, hypothesis testing or deductive approach. Yet others simplify the definition by focusing on the types of data collected. From this perspective, qualitative research is delimited to the collection of textual data or symbols, such as might be found in transcripts from individual or group interviews or by accessing entries in social media. A quantitative approach is simplified to the collection of data in the form of numbers. In terms of definition, one can be sure that the term mixed methods is used to mean many different things. Where there is agreement, however, is that it involves a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection and/or analysis. Distinguishing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches There are both qualitative and quantitative approaches to making sense of most phenomena that involve people. In research about playground equipment, for example, a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis is more likely than a quantitative one to yield information about contextual factors that mediate how and when children use equipment. Variations in weather, type of surface, presence or absence of other children, and supervision or participation of adults might all emerge as unexpected results with this type of approach. A quantitative approach, on the other hand, might pinpoint that the most active children are using loose equipment, like soccer balls, and that they almost always are using them in concert with other children. Different strategies for coding photographs of children on playgrounds can be used to illustrate qualitative and quantitative approaches with visual methods. Figure 2 is a photograph that can be coded using both a qualitative and quantitative approach.

Figure 2: Photograph to illustrate qualitative and quantitative ways to code (Used with permission from Cherie Edwards, Doctoral Student)

Using the quantitative schema applied by Willengberg et al. (2010) to capture behavior at carefully timed intervals, the two boys in the photograph would be coded as active. In their schema, behaviors like sitting, lying, and standing but not moving, were coded as sedentary; walking or climbing were coded as moderately active; and children that were running, jumping, skipping, or hopping were coded as active. A qualitative approach to coding the photograph showing the two boys with a soccer ball could consider both what is present and what is

missing, but might be expected, in the photograph. For example, codes might be developed to single out elements of the environment that might influence activity levels. For example, the presence of another child as well as the soft surface might encourage active play. Fitting with a qualitative mindset, our imaginary researcher coding this photograph might also take note of what is not present, but might be expected. This could include consideration of the absence of near-by adults in the photograph. Our imaginary researcher now has both qualitatively and quantitatively derived data that are linked because one answers a descriptive "what" question and the other addresses the conceptual or "why" question. Linking of conclusions from the different strands of a study to create an explanatory framework is one way to integrate the qualitative and quantitative strands of a study. The same example can illustrate other ways that mixing is accomplished in mixed methods research. Integrating the Qualitative and Quantitative Strands A principal characteristic that distinguishes mixed method from multi-method research is the extent that a conviction about the comingling of the different strands of the study is embedded in the methodological assumptions. The multi-method label is the more apt description when a study has more than one strand but the strands are only loosely linked. This is referred to in the literature as the concurrent or parallel design (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2009). One ready way to distinguish this type of research is that different individuals often execute the different strands of the study and analysis is conducted separately. Another way to distinguish this type of research is that it is readily parsed into separate publications without any loss of explanatory power. This could occur, for example, when a team is divided up in to one group that is responsible for the qualitative phase of a project and a second that is taking the lead on quantitative data collection and analysis. Mixing at sampling. The example of research about playground can also be used to envision classic ways that linkages occur between the qualitative and quantitative phases in mixed methods research. One of these is mixing through sampling. In this scenario, researchers often use quantitative markers to identify a sample for a second phase of analysis. In the example of the playground information, research might use quantitative data collection to identify the children that were consistently active and those that were consistently inactive across the time intervals studied to organize focus groups to interview the two groups of children. In this example, the two phases of data collection are quite distinct. It is a minimal type of mixing because while sampling strategy has a direct role

in the claims that can be made about generalizability, it does not have a direct impact on the explanatory framework that is produced. Mixing during analysis. A second strategy that might be applied to the study of playgrounds is to mix during analysis. This is done by linking qualitatively and quantitatively derived variables in the analysis. This is the most instrumental type of mixing (Greene, 2007). Willenberg et al. (2010) mixed during analysis by using a statistical procedure to test for the relationship between looses and fixed equipment and activity levels. This generated the conclusion that the most active children were playing with loose equipment, like soccer balls, and that they preferred soft surfaces. Results derived from mixing during analysis are often displayed visually in manuscript through tables or figures (Plano-Clark, 2015). Because it plays such an instrumental role in constructing the final conclusions, this is the type of mixing that maximizes the value added of a mixed method approach. Mixing during the process of drawing conclusions. Mixing most often occurs at the inference level (O'Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2008) where conclusions from the qualitative and quantitative strand are compared or linked. While common, this approach does not take advantage of the explanatory power that can be gained from a more creative interchange between the qualitative and quantitative strands of a study. The interplay between the qualitative and quantitative strands has been depicted in a number of creative ways (Bazeley & Kemp, 2012). In a recently completed textbook (self cites omitted), I have found it useful to use the metaphor of an architectural arch to represent key features of a mixed methods approach. Mixed Methods and the Metaphor of the Architectural Arch There are multiple parallels between the way an arch is constructed and the execution of a mixed methods study with one qualitative and one quantitative strand. In a perfect arch, each of the building blocks is wedge shaped and added one at a time, working from a base toward the apex where the final wedge is dropped into place. This is like the systematic, step-by-step process of executing a research procedure, such as occurs by using the constant comparative method to develop a grounded theory. The metaphor is probably most effective in capturing the end product of a research study as it is represented in published form than the actual process of conducting research about complex questions, which is inevitably far messier and more unpredictable than textbooks communicate. Another direct connection between an ideal architectural arch and the essence of a fully integrated approach to mixed methods research where mixing occurs through multiple stages of the research process, lies with the keystone. In the metaphor, the keystone represents the meta-

inferences that are drawn by considering the results from the qualitative and quantitative analysis together. Camouflaged by artistic embellishments or visible to the naked eye, a keystone is the apex of an ideal arch. Figure 3 is a photograph of an arch with a keystone taken at the site of Roman ruins in Lyon, France.

Figure 3: Roman arch in Lyon, France (photograph by author)

Once the keystone is set in place, vertical and horizontal forces keep the structure erect. Each wedge shaped piece shares the load equally, which makes it a highly efficient structure. This is like "pure" mixed methods, where the qualitative and quantitative strands are given

equal priority (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). There are a myriad of examples of arches dating back thousand of years where the tension is so well distributed that it remains standing while the building it supported deteriorated over time. Acknowledging Paradigmatic Challenges Mixed method researchers are most decidedly members of the community who are committed to the idea that empirical qualitative and quantitative approaches have distinct qualities, but share much in common. Unlike purists, members of this group take the position that qualitative and quantitative approaches are not driven by different paradigms that are inherently incompatible. Researchers who proclaim pragmatism as their paradigmatic grounding account for much of the mixed methods research that is published. As a group, pragmatists are inclined to be interested first and foremost with what works for the setting and intended audience. Pragmatists argue that purpose always drives the selection of methods. They tend to be eclectic in the palette of methods they chose for different projects. They are driven to finds methods that match the purpose and context of their research project and inclined to leave arguments about the incompatibility of qualitative and quantitative approaches to those with a more philosophical bent. Sidestepping the argument that qualitative and quantitative approaches are incompatible, Greene (2007) coined the expression "a mixed method way of thinking" to refer to a philosophical mindset that deliberately sets outs to acknowledge complexity and to engage multiple viewpoints. In contrast to positivist who view reality as singular, a mixed method way of thinking reflects view of reality as inherently multiple. This is a perspective implicitly shared by researchers who pull together members of a team in order to integrate knowledge that emerges from diverse disciplinary approaches. An axiological or value-driven commitment to respecting diverse viewpoints is evident in Greene's position that: "A mixed methods way of thinking aspires to better understand complex social phenomenon by intentionally include multiple ways of knowing and valuing and by respectfully valuing differences" (2007, p. 17). Greene's mixed method way thinking is highly compatible with a paradigmatic stance referred to as dialectical pluralism. The most important feature of this paradigmatic position is its de-emphasis on consensus and convergence and its emphasis on the knowledge and insight that can be gained by thinking dialectically and engaging multiple paradigms and mental models (Greene & Hall, 2010; Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2016). This can be achieved through negative and

extreme case sampling or by the intentional pursuit of what at first appears to be contradictory, unexpected, or inconsistent. A dialectical approach readily could be mirrored in initial plan for sampling employed in a study of children's behavior on school playgrounds. For example, a study could be designed that purposefully set out to compare the behaviors and attitudes of the most and least active children in order to identify the type of equipment and environmental conditions that promote the highest activity levels. Expectations for Methodological Transparency The choice to label one's research as mixed methods comes with an expectation for methodological transparency that is not applied to work that is satisfied with a multi-method label. This reflects the mandate to communicate the results of a study with enough precision and clarity to allow for reproducibility that is one of the defining features of science (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Methodological transparency promotes replication by reporting details about the steps taken to complete data collection and data analysis, as well as in specifying which results came from the qualitative analysis and which came from the quantitative analysis. The central role the documentation of methodological procedures plays in the ability to have confidence in the results of a study is evident in the most widely used evaluation framework for mixed methods research publications. That is a six-item set of evaluation criteria proposed by O'Cathain, Murphy, and Nicholl (2008) and referred to as the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS). The criteria identified in the GRAMMS specify dimensions of the methodological procedures that should be addressed. The GRAMMS framework defines quality by stipulating explicit references in a publication to criteria related to different phases in the design and execution of a mixed method study. Two criteria are related to how a study is designed, one is related to sampling, one to an acknowledgment of limitations, and two to the process and product of mixing. The criteria in GRAMMS framework are paraphrased in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of the Criteria in the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) Developed by O'Cathain, Murphy, and Nicholls (2008)

Phase of the Research Process Design

GRAMMS Criterion

Procedures

Describes the qualitative and quantitative methods for sampling, data collection, and analysis. Explains when and how mixing occurred. Explains the value-added of mixing. Describes the limitations of each method.

Mixing Limitations

Provides a justification or rationale for using a mixed methods approach. Specifies a mixed method design and identifies the timing of the qualitative and quantitative data collection and their priority.

The GRAMMS offers a helpful set of guidelines for anyone trying to write up the results of a mixed methods study in a way that helps its readers understand how the results were derived and why they are significant. Its limitation is that the type of methodological transparency prescribed offers no assurance of the overall quality of the research and its results. It does not account, for example, for the very items that lead to why an article is cited by others. Most importantly, these include the innovative use of methods, the originality of the insight gained, or the potential of the results to make a significant contribution to what is known about a theory or phenomenon. It is difficult to find a publication that simultaneously meets standards for transparency put forward by methodologists specializing in mixed methods research designs while demonstrating the type of innovation and originality that signals out the authors of a publication for unusual attention. The Willenberg et al. (2010) article about increasing physical activity on school playgrounds, for example, is innovative in its reporting about a mixed methods approach to visual methods and in providing research with such direct implications for practice. It would, however, score poorly on a rubric derived from an evaluation rubric, like the GRAMMS, that rests entirely on methodological transparency. The discrepancy between the originality evident in the Willenberg et al. (2010) article and how poorly it would fare under an evaluation system that rests on mixed methods reporting standard can be attributed to its purposes and intended audience. Authors of the playground study had a content-oriented, rather than methodological purpose. All of the 29 items in the reference list are about playgrounds and children's activity

levels. They referenced no literature to support their methodological expertise, but nevertheless managed to demonstrate a a creative and useful way to use a mixed methods approach that is well worth replicating. The criteria in the GRAMMS mirror the authors' guidelines for the specialized, methodologically oriented Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Like the shared terminology, the guidelines provide a short hand for methodologically oriented readers to quickly pinpoint the contribution of an article. Manuscript writers targeting methodologically oriented journals or those writing with the purpose of highlighting innovative approaches using mixed methods, will extend the breadth of their audience by incorporating the expectations for methodological transparency evident in the GRAMMS. Applying the Mixed Method Label The logic of mixing methods and types of data is inherent in many research approaches (Sandelowski, 2014) and, consequently, not a characteristic that is useful to identify them. Rather than to use it to signal the combination of multiple types of data when the multi-method label is most apt, affixing a mixed methods label to a publication is a way to declare that the logic of mixing is central to the purpose of the study and for understanding its conclusions. The mixed method label is helpful with the playground study because it communicates that mixing occurred through multiple stages of data collection and analysis and is essential to understanding the conclusions. The intent to engage diverse viewpoints is consistent with Greene's (2007) mixed methods way of thinking and the paradigmatic assumptions of dialectical pluralism (Greene & Hall, 2010; Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2016). As noted above, dialectical pluralism is characterized by the belief that reality is multiple, constructed, and ever changing; a respect for diverse viewpoints and ways of knowing, and the motivation to pursue contradictory or unexpected results that is similar to an engagement with multiple, competing hypothesis that is so central to the scientific method. This affiliation negates the argument that a mixed methods approach involves a type of paradigm mixing that is intellectually dishonest. It also challenges the long standing framing of mixed methods as best understood simply as the combination of qualitative and quantitative approach. Research methods and practice are ever changing (Hesse-Biber, 2010). Adopting the logic that mixed methods produces a synergy or a quality that is unique beyond its qualitative and quantitative components makes it possible to be open to new and innovative approaches to defining it. It creates an openness to the possibility of mixing two types of qualitative data, that is different from a mindset that, as Creswell (2011)

has suggested, a method like content analysis cannot be mixed methods because it begins with data that is entirely in the form of words. It also downplays the binary logic that questions the appropriateness of applying a mixed methods label to a report of a set of results that emerged unexpectedly. This kind of definitional adaptability is consistent with Guest's (2012) proposal that a mixed methods label may be a helpful way to understand a series of inter-linked publications from a larger research project, even when it is not reflected in an individual publication. References Bazeley, P., & Kemp, L. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6 (1), 5572. DOI: 10.1177/1558689811419514. Creswell, J. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 269-283). Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Plano, C. V. (2007, 2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA.: Wiley Publishers. Greene, J. C., & Hall, J. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (Second Edition) (pp. 119-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Guest, G. (2012). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141-151. Hesse-Biber, S. (2010b). Emerging methodologies and methods practices in the field of mixed method research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 415-418. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112-133. Johnson, R. B., & Schoonenboom, J. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26 (5), 587-602. O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Health Services Research and Policy, 13 (2), 92-98. Open Science Collaboration, Science 349, aac4716 (2015. 10.1126/science.aac4716. Plano Clark, V. L., & Sanders, K. (2015). The use of visual displays in mixed methods research: Strategies for effectively integrating quantitative and qualitative components of a study. In M. T. McCrudden, G. Schraw, and C. Buckendahl (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 177-206). Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing. Sandelowski, M. (2014). Guest editorial: Unmixing mixed-methods research. Research in Nursing and Health, 37, 3-8. Willenberg, L. J., Ashbolt, R., Holland, D., Gibbs, L., MacDougall, C., Garrard, J., Green, J. B., & Waters, E. (2010). Increasing school playground physical activity: A mixed methods study combining environmental measures and children's perspectives. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13, 210-216. DOI:10.1016./jsams.2009.02.011

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 14-22, July 2016

The Pursuit of „Balance‟ by a Greenhorn Supervisor Mark Prendergast The University of Dublin Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Abstract. This article explores the transition process from being a research supervisee to being a first time doctoral research supervisor. This is a difficult and trying endeavour. The lack of previous supervision experience at this level results in many supervisors referring to their own time as doctoral students and supervising in the same manner as they experienced. It is important to break this cycle and realise that just like teaching, there are many different models of supervision. Much of the research conducted in the area draws conclusions about the type of characteristics or traits that make a good supervisor. This article takes a different point of departure and gives a personal account of the author‟s thoughts and experiences in attempting to make the transition from supervisee to supervisor. These experiences are explored with reference to existing literature with the intention of unearthing and documenting key issues for first-time supervisors to consider and develop their own understanding of effective supervision practice. The author hopes that documenting these issues through a personal, reflective account will help others who decide to continue the journey and make the transition from supervisee to supervisor. Keywords: Research Supervision; Higher Education; Reflective Practice; Research Experiences

Introduction Insufficient attention has been given to research supervision as a topic requiring scholarly investigation (Armstrong, 2004; Halse, 2011). This is best summed up by Park (2007) who described supervision as a secret garden where student and supervisor engage with limited outside interference or responsibility. This is regardless of the argument that effective supervision is one of the most important reasons for the successful completion of research theses (Jonck, & Swanepoel, 2016; Lee, 2008; Sambrook, Stewart & Roberts, 2008). Given such importance, the supervision of PhD students‟ needs to be enhanced to reduce withdrawal rates and improve the quality of research (Maor, Ensor, & Fraser, 2016; Bastalich, 2015). Without doubt I wouldn‟t have been awarded a doctorate five years ago without the help, support and guidance of my supervisor. Since then the wheel has turned full circle and I am now at the stage of my academic

career where I am supervising a PhD student. However despite the complexities and challenges of such a role (Stephens, 2013; Hockey, 1997), advice for new supervisors is scant in the literature (Gordan, 2003). The doctorate is a learning process for students but also for doctoral supervisors (Halse, 2011). There is a growing body of research around PhD supervision (Berry & Batty, 2016). However much of this research draws conclusions about the type of characteristics or traits that make a good supervisor. This article takes a different point of departure and aims to give a first-hand account of my personal thoughts and experiences in attempting to make the transition from supervisee to supervisor. These experiences will be explored with reference to existing literature with the aim of unearthing and documenting key issues for first time supervisors to consider and develop their own understanding of good supervision practice.

Background My progress onto the rungs of the supervision ladder have been slow and unhurried. It began with the supervision of undergraduate students‟ theses, Masters students and then onto a single Ph.D. student. Each of these steps has given an insight into the processes involved in thesis completion and the role the supervisor is expected to play in such processes. Perhaps the most helpful step of all was my enrolment in a Research Supervision in Higher Education training course provided in the university where I work. This six week professional development course broadened my thinking and encouraged me to reflect upon many alternative aspects to supervision. Up until that point I had considered my own personal supervision experiences to be the norm. It was enlightening to hear others recall their own paths, both positive and negative. Everyone has their own individual journey of research and it is important to learn from each other (Dash & Ponce, 2005). During the training course the literature around Ph.D. supervision and the different models of supervision which have been developed were considered. If I could sum up in three words the most important thing I learned regarding research supervision thus far, it would be to “find a balance”. There are an indefinite number of aspects to supervision. However finding a balance between the key aspects is vital. In this article I aim to outline and discuss five important aspects to PhD supervision which I have encountered and which I hope to draw upon to help me become the type of supervisor that I aspire to be. Each of these aspects will be addressed through the lens of finding a balance.

Balance of Supervisory Styles There are many different styles of research supervision (Boche, 2016). At their broadest these can be referred to as direct (hands-on) and indirect (hands-off) styles of supervision (Gurr, 2001). A balance in the selection and appropriate use of these styles is important and should be appropriate to the students overall level of development. Gurr (2001) argues that at the beginning of the supervision period a more hands on style is needed. For example at the beginning of my PhD, my supervisor would organise regular meetings in which he would offer support and feedback. However in the latter years my supervisor had adapted a much more hands off approach and it was up to me to organise a meeting if, and

only if, I needed some advice. At this stage it was my responsibility to make the everyday, run of the mill decisions regarding my research. Although supervisory styles can be further broken down into more detail, the need for balance is just as important. For example, supervisors need to find a balance between supporting and challenging and between guiding and critiquing their students work. In one instance the role of a supervisor is to offer direction to students on their research. However supervisors are also the primary critic and are obliged to ensure the student produces work which meets the requirements of a PhD thesis. This is a difficult balance to strike and highlights the complexity of the relationship that exists between the supervisor and the student. Supervisors need to become aware of how to limit the help they give to their students while at the same time balancing this with support and constructive critique of their students work (Hockey, 1997). Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Lowe (2002) acknowledge that there is a fine line between providing feedback, which highlights flaws, and providing praise and encouragement to try harder. The way in which everyone engages with such critique and feedback, whether it is the student or the supervisor, is important and will often depend on the existing relationship between them.

Balance of Relationship between the Supervisor and the Student This relationship between supervisee and supervisor has been described as one of the most essential components of successful doctoral completion (Orellana et al., 2016; Bastalich, 2015; Ives & Rowley, 2005). The development and maintenance of a helpful, and constructive relationship over time is central in producing a good quality thesis (Wisker, 2001; de Kleijna et al., 2015). I was fortunate to have such a relationship with my supervisor. We had very good rapport, communication and mutual respect. However this seemed to happen naturally and I had not considered the situation if this was not the case. Listening to other‟s recall some of their negative experiences of PhD supervision has led me to believe that very careful consideration must be given to this relationship. There are two sides to the coin. It is essential that you develop a good interpersonal working relationship but also ensure that there is a balance between the professional and social aspects. Perhaps one the most important aspects here is the selection and allocation of supervisors and students. Supervisors and students should have a choice of whether they wish to work together and should not just be matched because they share the same research topic. In an Australian study carried out by Ives and Rowley (2005) supervisors and students noted that when it comes to supervisor allocation, it is much more important to get the interpersonal aspects aligned rather than assigning on the basis of expertise in the content area. This is backed up by Phillips and Pugh (1994) who state that the selection of supervisor and student is probably the most important step that each will take.

Balance of Control Many supervisors struggle to find a balanced equilibrium in the freedom and control they express towards the progress and development of their students work (Hockey, 1997). This is difficult for any supervisor. ‘It is a hard balance to strike because different students respond so differently’ (Supervisor interviewed in

Hockey, 1997). On the one hand it is important that supervisors enable students to take sufficient control of their own research. This allows them to develop intellectually and to produce innovative and original research. On the other hand many students struggle, at least initially, with such freedom. For example students coming directly from undergraduate programmes often struggle with the apparent lack of structure within PhD programmes (Gurr, 2001). It is important to help the students to develop from an initial state of dependency to relative independence over time (Gurr, 2001). This is where the balance of control has to be achieved between giving well-timed help in some instances, and not interfering in others. This balance of control varies from supervisor to supervisor. Some supervisors have rigid regimes - „we see them monthly and they produce 500 words before each meeting’ (Supervisor interviewed in Lee, 2008). In my own experience as a PhD student, there was much a freer rein. Work was submitted to my supervisor when I had it complete but there were very rarely any deadlines. While this particular model worked well for me I can see issues where student motivation begins to falter. Perhaps the findings of Hockey (1997) are advisable in which supervisors initially impose a strict degree of control over their student‟s work. The can be relaxed through positive student performance, with a more balanced input from all parties driving the research forward (Hockey, 1997).

Balance of Expectations Similar to any form of teaching and learning, it is important for supervisors to set high expectations for their students. Research has found that such expectations can become self-fulfilling prophecies (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). However it is also important that such expectations are realistic and achievable. These expectations might be regarding the standards of academic writing, critical thinking or even dissemination skills. While I was doing my PhD, my supervisor also had four other doctoral students at the same stage. He was aware that we all had our individual strengths and weaknesses and so set individual, realistic, yet challenging expectations for each of us. For example at the start of the PhD process the supervisor said he expected each of us to start presenting our work at conferences as soon as possible. This is a challenging expectation to some, but perhaps not to others depending on life experience. However the supervisor, using an array of institutional, regional, national and international conferences, tactfully pointed us in different directions ensuring that each of us were challenged sufficiently, without being entirely outside of our comfort zones. This balance of expectations proved an invaluable experience for each of us in building confidence while sharing our research and gradually opening the gates to the academic community.

Balance of Workload Undoubtedly, the central aim of both the supervisor and the student is thesis completion and this requires a huge workload. One of the main responsibilities of the supervisor is to ensure a balance to this workload. There are many milestones to be met throughout the process and a well-planned and thoughtout workplan can ensure that each of these milestones are reached in a timely and balanced manner. As a novice researcher, this is an area of concern. More

experienced supervisors are more likely to predict the time required for literature reviews and the collection and analysis of data (Hockey, 1997). However it is difficult starting out to foresee how much time and output is needed in each case. The student often looks to their supervisor for guidance in such matters. In the first year of my PhD, I can recall constantly asking my supervisor „am I doing enough?‟, „how long should I spend on this section?‟, „how many words are needed here?‟ Novice supervisors need help and guidance themselves in answering these queries. This is where the importance of mentoring and collegial support comes to the fore. It is important that there are opportunities for informal interactions where novice supervisors can access the tacit knowledge of their peers on an on-going basis (Stephens, 2012). This will ensure that there is a balance provided for students not just in workload, but also in many other aspects of the supervision process. This balance of workload does not only apply to the students. It is just as important that supervisors strike a work balance. Many supervisors fall into the trap of taking on too many PhD students („I know of places where there is a PhD factory’ - Supervisor interviewed in Lee, 2008). This is not fair to the supervisor who has an unsustainable workload or to the students as they vie for individual time and attention.

Discussion and Going Forward Finding a balance in each of these five aspects to PhD supervision is a complex endeavour and highlights the difficulties and challenges that lie throughout the doctoral supervision process. Guthrie (2007) puts forward the notion of a PhD student embarking on a journey. However I would argue that this journey does not necessarily end when their PhD has been awarded. For many, this is the first cycle as they continue into the supervision process. When I completed my PhD I had no intention of continuing on such a journey. It‟s not that I was against the idea, simply the thought had not crossed my mind. In my opinion it is impractical to think you can become an effective PhD supervisor the moment you make it through your own Viva examination. As mentioned previously I have worked my way slowly onto the rungs of the supervision ladder. I agree with Hockey‟s (1997, p.47) assentation that “you cannot learn to be a supervisor without actually doing it” and in this sense my experience in supervising undergraduate and Master students theses has been invaluable. It has given me confidence. Confidence in imparting domain specific knowledge and methodological guidance, but more importantly confidence in guiding students through the research process, from the development of a proposal to thesis submission. There were a plethora of different emotions present when these students graduated in their respective programmes. Having worked closely with the students over a number of months, there was obvious joy that the hard work and endeavour had been rewarded. However as a „greenhorn‟ supervisor my overarching feeling was one of relief. Relief that the guidance, direction and feedback I had given students had not been wide of the mark. Relief that an examiner and external examiner had deemed the work to be satisfactory. Nevertheless, through these experiences I learned a number of important supervisory lessons.

Perhaps the most important lesson was that I had been overly involved in the supervision process. I had yet to find a balance in my hands-on supervisory style and my control in the management of students‟ progress. As mentioned previously, supervisors need to find a balance between supporting and challenging and between guiding and critiquing their students work. I must admit that in the early stages of my supervision journey I found this difficult. I had an attitude and ethos that is best summed up in a statement from Anderson (1988) “No that is not the way to do it. Do it this way”. This attitude resulted in my students developing little autonomy or creativity in their work through my over involvement. It goes against the advice of Philips (1992) who stated that supervision is about helping the student to be their own supervisor. Ultimately a student‟s research thesis is their own work and it is their responsibility for arriving at the destination (Lee, 2008). Research supervision is a facilitative process (Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004) and in many cases supervisors need to curb the assistance they provide and ensure they act as first line examiner of their student‟s work (Hockey, 1997). This highlights the importance between striking a balance between intellectual involvement and supervisory styles and control and is a valuable lesson as I take the next steps in my supervisory journey. The key for me in recognising this lesson was reflecting on my experiences as a supervisor. Such reflection was facilitated through my enrolment in a Research Supervision in Higher Education course. This was a voluntary training course offered free to charge to staff members by the university. My only issue with the course is that it was voluntary. It is unnerving to think that I could have begun doctoral supervision without receiving some kind of formalised training and broadening my thinking regarding the supervision process. I signed up to the course with some very clear objectives in mind. I wanted to know the university supervision policy, its plagiarism policy, and its preferred referencing style. I wanted sample timeframes that I could share with students and examples of successful ethical approval applications. Thankfully the six week course did not provide any of those nuggets of information. Such information can easily be accessed online. Instead the course encouraged me to reflect upon my own understanding of supervision and what alternate understandings were possible. I have since realised that reflection is one of the key processes of developing an underlying understanding of supervision. This reflection can take place individually or collectively through discussion with colleagues (Wright, Murray & Geale, 2007). The support of experienced colleagues is crucial for the greenhorn supervisor. Traditionally a supervisor‟s learning process was a solo journey (Hockey, 1997) and was essentially trail by error (Becher, 1996). Learning from making mistakes was the norm (Halse, 2011). In recent years there has been considerable effort to enhance the quality assurance of research supervision (Maor, Ensor, & Fraser, 2016). Training courses such as the one I attended are one facet of this effort. Mentorship between experienced and less experienced colleagues is another. Many issues and concerns be critically analysed through mentorship (Hockey, 1997). Perhaps the most extreme form of mentorship is joint supervision with an experienced colleague. I am currently in the initial few months of supervising my first PhD student. However again I am doing this taking small steps as I am co-

supervising the student with an experienced member of staff in our faculty. This has provided huge support for me personally. As the focus of the PhD is in my research area, I have been designated as the „main‟ supervisor. However it is reassuring to know that there is someone to discuss key decisions with and seek assistance, when and if required. Co-supervision is becoming more and more common (Guerin & Green, 2015) and there are lots of advantages, not only for inexperienced supervisors, but also for the students (Ives & Rowley, 2005). An Australian study conducted by Pearson (1996) found that students who were receiving regular supervision from more than one supervisor had higher levels of satisfaction. The concept of a "developmental niche" for researchers (Dash, 2015) extends mentorship and joint supervision even further and recommends several people and processes to be involved. Such collaboration would dispel the myth of supervision as a solo journey and would further lend to the pursuit of balance in each of the five areas that have been outlined in this article.

Conclusion Until recently, few researchers have studied the transition from supervisee to supervisor (Rapisarda, Desmond, & Nelson, 2011). This is an important transition and many testing and important decisions have to be made by the supervisor throughout this process. Hockey (1997) determines that the ability to make many right decisions in PhD supervision is often acquired by previous experience. Unfortunately for novice researchers such as myself, the main experience we have is to refer to our own time as a doctoral student. This may be one of the main reasons why, similar to teachers teaching the way they were taught (Lortie, 1975), many supervisors tend to supervise in the same manner as they experienced (Lee, 2008; Doloriert, Sambrook & Stewart, 2012). It is important to break this cycle and realise that just like teaching, there are many different models of supervision. These models and decisions relate to each of the aspects outlined in this article and will vary depending on each individual supervisor, student and situation. Thus far, I feel my transition from supervisee to supervisor has gone relatively smooth. However I am in no doubt that challenges lie ahead. Whether or not I am equipped to deal with these challenges, only time will tell. Through completing the training course and reviewing literature for this article I have acquired valuable knowledge on many aspects of the supervision process. However I have also learned that perhaps the most valuable and meaningful knowledge can only be generated through continuing and reflecting on my own journey of doctoral supervision. There is no perfect model of supervision which can be applied in all situations (Beddoe & Egan, 2009). However ensuring that there is a balance of styles, relationships, control, expectations and workload will go a long way to improving a greenhorn supervisor‟s experience of supervision, and that of their students as well. It is my hope that by documenting some of my own thoughts and experiences, this article will help others who decide to continue the journey and make the transition from supervisee to supervisor.

References Anderson, J. (1988). The supervisory process in speech language pathology and audiology. Boston: College Hill Press and Little Brown. Armstrong, S.J. (2004). The impact of supervisors‟ cognitive styles on the quality of research supervision in management education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 599-617. Bastalich, W. (2015). Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Studies in Higher Education, 1-13. Becher, T. (1996). The learning professions, Studies in Higher Education, 21, 43-45. Beddoe, E. & Egan, R. (2009). Field education content and practice. In M. Connolly and L. Harms (Eds.), Social Work Supervision in Social Work: Contexts and Practice. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Berry, M., & Batty, C. (2016). The stories of supervision: creative writing in a critical space. New Writing, 13(2), 247-260. Boehe, D. M. (2016). Supervisory styles: A contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 399-414. Dash, D.P. (2015). Enacting a developmental niche for researchers: Lessons from research education initiatives in India and Malaysia. International Journal for Researcher Development, 6(2), 144-164. Dash, D. P., & Ponce, H. R. (2005). Journey of research practice. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1). de Kleijna, R.A.M., Meijera, P.C., Brekelmansa, M., & Pilota, A. (2015). Adaptive research supervision: exploring expert thesis supervisors' practical knowledge. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 117-130. Doloriert,C., Sambrook, S. and Stewart, J. (2012). Power and emotion in doctoral supervision: implications for HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(7), 732-750. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction. Sage Publications .Ltd. Gordan, P.J. (2003). Advising to avoid or to cope with dissertation hang-ups. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(2): 181-187. Guerin, C. & Green, I. (2015). They‟re the bosses‟: feedback in team supervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(3), 320-335. Gurr, G.M. (2001). Negotiating the “Rackety Bridge” – a Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research Student Development. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 81-92. Guthrie, C. (2007). On Learning the Research Craft: Memoirs of a Journeyman Researcher, Journal of Research Practice, 3(1). Halse, C. (2011). „Becoming a supervisor‟: the impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557-570. Hockey, J. (1997). A Complex Craft: United Kingdom PhD supervision in the social science. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 2(1). Ives, G. & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students‟ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535-555. Jonck, P. & Swanepoel, E. (2016). Quality of Postgraduate Research Supervision and Training: A Mixed-Method Student Perspective, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 259-270. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281. Lortie D. (1975). Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maor, D., Ensor, J. D. & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Doctoral supervision in virtual spaces: A review of research of web-based tools to develop collaborative supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 172-188. Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective Teaching – Evidence and Practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Orellana, M. L., Darder, A., Pérez, A. & Salinas, J. (2016). Improving doctoral success by matching PhD students with supervisors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 87-103. Park, C. (2007). Refining the doctorate. York: Higher Education Authority. Pearson, M. (1996) Professionalising Ph.D. education to enhance the quality of the student experience. Higher Education, 32(3), 303–320. Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99–116. Philips, E. (1992). Interview in video recording of the Postgraduate supervision for women residential workshop held at Twin Waters Resort, Gold Coast, Queensland. Produced by O. Zuber Skerritt. Phillips, E., & Pugh, D.S. (1994). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. Buckingham: Open University Press. Rapisarda, C. A., Desmond, K. J., & Nelson, J. R. (2011). Student reflections on the journey to being a supervisor. The Clinical Supervisor, 30, 109–113. Sambrook, S., Stewart, J. and Roberts, C. (2008). Doctoral supervision…. a view from above, below and the middle! Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1), 71-84. Stephens, S. (2013). The supervised as the supervisor. Education + Training, 56(6), 537-550. Wisker, G. (2001). The postgraduate research handbook. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Wright, A., Murray, J.P., & Geale, P. (2007). A Phenomenographic Study of what it means to Supervise Doctoral students. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(4): 458-474.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 23-34, July 2016

Language Barriers in Statistics Education: Some Findings From Fiji Sashi Sharma The University of Waikato Hamilton, New Zealand Abstract. Despite the fact that language plays a crucial role in mathematics education, not much research has been carried out in documenting the problems of learning statistics in a second language. This paper reports on findings from a larger qualitative study that investigated high school students‟ understanding of statistical ideas. Data were gathered from individual interviews. The interviews were audio recorded and complemented by written notes. Two major themes that evolved from the analysis of data were the confusion among registers and the interpretation of the tasks. Moreover, students lacked verbal skills to explain their thinking and interpreted the tasks in ways not intended by myself. The findings are compared and contrasted with relevant literature. The paper ends with some suggestions for practice and further inquiry. Keywords: English language learners; high school students; implications; language barriers; mathematical language; socio-cultural perspective.

Introduction Imagine a teacher running her fingers across the pages of the textbook and telling her students, “When numbers or objects are chosen at random they are chosen freely without any rule or any obvious bias.” The whole class listens in silence, but one of the shy students is thinking, “I thought it was something that was rare like the possibility of an earthquake.” A common view about mathematics is that it is a „universal language‟ and is „culture free‟ (Barwell, 2012; Bishop, 2002; Borgioli, 2008; Brown, Cady, & Taylor, 2009; Hoffert, 2009; Meaney, 2006). It uses a variety of symbols that are common across cultures and therefore easily accessible to language learners. From this perspective, mathematics learners anywhere in the world can access mathematical concepts using any language (Barwell, 2012; Bishop, 2002). However, as the text above illustrates, the language of statistics can sometimes be challenging for students (Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Boero, Douek, & Ferrari, 2008; Borgioli, 2008; Campbell, Adams, & Davis, 2007; Lavy & MashiachEizenberg, 2009). Many statistical words are unusual, some terms such as „random‟ and „normal‟ have a range of interpretations in everyday communication, and some have more than one meaning in mathematics and

statistics (Kaplan, Fisher, & Rogness, 2009; Lesser & Winsor, 2009; Rubenstein & Thompson, 2002; Watson, 2006; Winsor, 2007). According to a number of authors (Goldenberg, 2008; Halliday, 1978; Moschkovich, 2005), mathematics is strongly connected with language and culture. To be able to do well in mathematics, students must be proficient in the language of instruction and use language effectively in diverse contexts (Borgioli, 2008; Kotsopoulos, 2007; Morgan, Craig, & Wagner, 2014; Nacarato & Grando, 2014; Xi & Yeping, 2008). This situation may present some unique challenges for students as they must simultaneously learn ordinary English and mathematical English, and be able to differentiate between the types of English (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Adler, 1998; Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Kaplan et al., 2009; Moschkovich, 2005; Winsor, 2007). Students must be able to move between everyday and academic ways of communicating ideas and relate these expressions to mathematical symbols and text (Goldenberg, 2008; Kotsopoulos, 2007; Morgan et al., 2014; Salehmohamed & Rowland, 2014). Students in an English medium classroom may undergo more processing than native English speakers (Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Clarkson, 2007; Latu, 2005; Meaney, 2006; Nacarato, & Grando, 2014; Salehmohamed & Rowland, 2014). These students can miss out on mathematical learning because they may be spending too much time trying to understand the problem. Furthermore, to be able to perform competently, students must understand the highly technical language used specifically in mathematics (Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Brown, Cady, & Taylor, 2009; Goldenberg, 2008; Xi & Yeping, 2008). This language is not used in everyday English, and therefore is less likely to be familiar or understood by English language learners. The technical language and vocabulary mathematics has is not only essential for students to be able to understand and access the mathematics they are learning now, but has a significant influence on their future mathematical development and careers (Borgioli, 2008; Hoffert, 2009; Morgan et al., 2014; Neville-Barton & Barton, 2005; Xi & Yeping, 2008). Teachers need to be aware of issues surrounding mathematical language acquisition and develop pedagogical strategies to address students‟ difficulties in making sense of mathematical language (Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Campbell et al., 2007; Salehmohamed & Rowland, 2014). The vital role that language plays in mathematics education is evident in a number of studies (Barwell, 2012; Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Goldenberg, 2008; Halliday, 1978; Pimm, 1987; Planas & Civil, 2013; Salehmohamed & Rowland, 2014). However, according to Lesser, Wagler, Esquinca and Valenzuela (2013, p. 7) “there have been a few research studies about language issues in statistics education but these did not involve students learning in a second language”. The conclusions are consistent with the conclusions reached by Kaplan et al. (2009) and Lavy and Mashiach-Eizenberg (2009). It is important to gain insights into how English second language students learn statistics and probability (Kazima, 2007; Lesser & Winsor, 2009). Moreover, probability context is “regarded as the biggest challenge for teachers since it has previously belonged only in the high school curriculum (15-17 years old)” (Nacarato & Grando, 2014, p. 13). In addition, most of the studies in statistics have been done in western countries with elementary students rather than secondary students. Like

Shaughnessy (2007), Sharma (2012, p. 33) noticed “a lack of research in statistics education outside of western countries”. Given the lack of research on English language students learning statistics, Sharma (1997) study addressed these gaps in literature. It provided an awareness of how other countries and cultures teach statistical concepts. This paper has four sections. The first section reviews mathematics and statistics education research literature to discuss the challenges faced by English Language Learners. The next section reports on data gathered from a larger qualitative study that investigated high school students‟ ideas about statistics. It discusses examples from a Fijian study to explain the impact of language issues in statistics education. The findings are compared and contrasted with relevant literature. The final section provides directions for instruction and future studies.

Problems faced by English Language Learners in Mathematics Language plays an important role in any learning area in the classroom. It is a tool that can develop student understanding and helps them communicate their thinking to others. Language also provides a medium by which teachers can assess student learning (Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Kaplan et al. 2009; Mady & Garbati, 2014; Rubenstein & Thompson, 2002). Indeed there is a growing demand on students' linguistic skills in mathematics lessons (Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Cobb & McClain, 2004; National Council of Teachers of English, 2008). Pupils at all levels are not only expected to listen, talk and to read, but also to write about their work using mathematical language (Franke, Kazemi & Battey, 2007; NCTM, 2000). However, research shows that communicating mathematically poses many challenges for students due to interference from everyday language and within the mathematical register (Barwell, 2012; Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Boero, Douek, & Ferrari, 2008; Borgioli, 2008; Cobb & McClain, 2004; Ferrari, 2004; Kotsopoulos, 2007; Rubenstein & Thompson, 2002). Cruz (2009, p. 1) argues that “one of the goals of mathematics instruction for bilingual students should be to support the participation of all students, regardless of their proficiency in English, in discussions about mathematical ideas poses many challenges for students”. Some of the challenges of language learning and mathematical understanding with particular reference to English language learners is explored below.

Language Syntax and Translation Language is a vehicle through which students learn and communicate mathematical concepts (Barwell, 2012; Boero et al., 2008; Kaplan et al., 2009; Moschkovich, 2005). However, English is a complex language with a complex syntax (sentence structure) and semantic properties (process of making meaning from the language). Sometimes, the structure of natural English is at odds with the conventions of mathematical language structures. Students need to be able to make an appropriate translation from the words of the problem into the symbolic representation of the solution. Latu (2005) claims that difficulties arise when the mother tongue does not have the vocabulary to express the idea being studied. The same points were made by Fasi (1999) and Sharma (1997) in their studies with Tongan and Fijian-Indian students respectively. Some students in Sharma‟s study translated the term “sample” into Pasifika Hindi equivalence.

Mathematical Register According to a number of authors (Barwell, 2012; Boero et al., 2008; Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Goldenberg, 2008) multiple registers are used in mathematics classrooms. For a student to succeed in a mathematics classroom, they not only need to be familiar with and competent in their ordinary English register, so they can communicate with their classmates, but must also have fluency in what can be multiple mathematical registers (Barwell, 2012; Boero et al., 2008; Halliday, 1978; Setai & Adler, 2001). The mastery of the mathematical registers, and the strong ability to switch between them, requires strong linguistic and metalinguistic skills. This is necessary for students to be able to cope with more advanced mathematics (Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Boero et al., 2008; Kaplan et al., 2009; Meaney, 2006; Moschkovich, 2005). For a student from an English speaking background, mathematical registers can pose a significant challenge, as a new form of language must be learned and mastered (Bay-Williams & Herrera, 2007; Meaney, 2006). Not only must an English language learner try to learn in English whilst concurrently learning to speak English, they must also be working within the English mathematical registers without yet having mastery of ordinary English. Furthermore, it is common for a lot of processing to occur so an English language learner can work within English and their home language (Moschkovich, 2005; Parvanehnezhad & Clarkson, 2008; Setai & Adler, 2001). They must be able to understand the mathematical register, translate it into ordinary English, then translate that into their own language, before translating it into one of the mathematical registers used in their home language, before going through the process again in reverse to enable the student to express their thinking or answer in the appropriate English mathematical register (Lager, 2006). Therefore, even if an English language learner is competent in using the ordinary English register, the use of the mathematical register provides extra difficulties for English language learners.

Reading Mathematics The language of mathematics is expressed in mathematical words, graphic representations and symbols (Kenney, 2005). Reading mathematical texts provides the learner with an extra challenge over reading English (Latu, 2005). The learner must simultaneously comprehend and process in both English language and the discipline language (mathematics) (Kester-Phillips, Bardsley, Bach, & Gibb-Brown, 2009). Redundancy is one characteristic of ordinary English that has a significant influence on how students (mis-) read mathematical English. Ordinary English has a high degree of redundancy; consequently students learn to skim read, sampling key words to get the key point, e.g. when reading a novel. In comparison, mathematical English is concise, each word has purpose with little redundancy, and a large amount of information is contained in each sentence (Padula, Lam, & Schmidtke, 2001). Students who transfer their reading skills from ordinary English to mathematical English texts may be disadvantaged by a tendency to overlook key information. Cultures with less redundant natural languages are more likely to pay attention to every word and therefore

understand better some forms of mathematical English despite this being their second language (Mady & Garbati, 2014; Padula et al., 2001).

Code Switching Code switching involves the movement between languages in a single speech act and may involve switching a word, a phrase, a sentence or several sentences (Adler, 1998; Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Salehmohamed & Rowland, 2014; Setati & Adler, 2001). English language learners may code switch for various reasons, including to seek clarification and to provide an explanation (Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Moschkovich, 2005). Code switching promotes both student-student and student-teacher interactions in classrooms involving English language learners (Salehmohamed & Rowland, 2014; Setati & Adler, 2001). In the mathematics classroom, English language learners often employ code switching to clarify their understanding and as a way to express their arguments and ideas (Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Clarkson, 2007; Moschkovich, 2005; Parvanehnezhad & Clarkson, 2008; Salehmohamed & Rowland, 2014). Moreover, in mathematics code switching not only occurs between languages but also between registers. This can add an extra layer of challenge to the English language learner, as they may find themselves working between a multitude of registers in both English and their home language (Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Lager, 2006). In a study of Australian Vietnamese learning mathematics, in Australia, Clarkson (2007) found that some of these students switched between their languages, when solving mathematics problems, individually, because solving problems in their first language “gave them more confidence” (p. 211). Sometimes these students switched their languages because they found the problem difficult to solve in English. This linguistic complexity English language learners face further demonstrates the need for mathematics teachers to have the tools and training to effectively work with English language learners.

The Study The study (Sharma, 1997) took place in Fiji. As mentioned in Sharma (2014, p. 107) “it was designed to explore what ideas form five (Year-11) students have about statistics and probability, and how they construct these ideas. Twenty nine students aged 14 to 16 years of which 19 were girls and 10 were boys participated in the study”. Data was collected using individual interviews. Students could use both English or vernacular to explain their thinking.

Tasks As stated in Sharma (2012, p. 36) “the advertisement regarding the sex of a baby (Item 1) explored students‟ understanding of the bi-directional relationship between theoretical and experimental probability in an everyday life context”. Item 1: Advertisement involving sex of a baby “Expecting a baby? Wondering whether to buy pink or blue? I can GUARANTEE to predict the sex of your baby correctly. Just send $20 and a sample of your recent handwriting. Money-back guarantee if wrong! Write to…............................................... What is your opinion about this advertisement?” Sharma (2012, p. 36)

Understanding that a sample from a population can be used to make estimates of the characteristics of the entire population is key to statistical inference. Item 2, buying a car (Sharma, 2003) was used to explore students' understanding of sample size and sampling methods within a meaningful context. Item 2: Buying a car “Mr Singh wants to buy a new car, either a Honda or a Toyota. He wants whichever car will break down the least. First he read in Consumer Reports that for 400 cars of each type, the Toyota had more break-downs than the Honda. Then he talked to three friends. Two were Toyota owners, who had no major break-downs. The other friend used to own a Honda but it had lots of break-downs, so he sold it. He said he would never buy another Honda. Which car should Mr Singh buy? “(Sharma, 2003, p. 3)

Results and Discussion This section discusses student responses to the two items mentioned above. The main focus is on the language challenges faced by these students. Extracts from individual interviews are used to explain student thinking. As mentioned in Sharma (2006, p. 48) ”one student explained that Item 1 was really to do with a doctor charging a $20 consulting fee to inform the parents of the sex of their unborn baby”. Even when asked to explain how those involved in putting the advertisement could benefit, the student could not articulate on the relationship between theoretical and experimental probability. Three students thought that the advertisement was placed to make money. When asked to explain their reasoning, “students talked about businesses putting advertisements to sell their products. There was no evidence of students integrating theoretical and experimental views of probability”(Sharma, 2014). It appears that for these English language learners working in different contexts and registers posed challenges, students were not able to shift between informal and formal ways of expressing their thinking. The findings resonate with the conclusions of (Bishton, 2009; Boero et al., 2008). For the students to succeed in the problem they needed to not only be familiar with both ordinary English and mathematical registers, but they also needed strong ability to switch between them in order to cope with different interpretations of probability (Parvanehnezhad & Clarkson, 2008; Padula et al., 2001). Additionally, not having the necessary technical, mathematical vocabulary may have hindered students‟ mathematical communication. To buy a car based on a report of 800 cases (Item 2) represents the statistically appropriate response because it represents the population more reliably. According to Sharma (1996, p. 5) “nine students did not use sample size information on the car problem (Item 2), they based their responses on their cultural beliefs and experiences”. Rather than referring to 800 cases in a consumer report, three students in this study said that Mr Singh could buy either car because the life of a car depends on how one keeps it (Sharma, 1996). They did not apply the idea that a larger sample will produce more accurate estimates of population characteristics. For example, one student explained: “He should buy any of the cars Honda or Toyota; it depends on him how he keeps and uses the car … Ah … Because it depends

on the person, how he follows instructions then uses it. My father used to own a car and he kept it for ten years. He sold it but it is still going and it hasn‟t had any major breakdowns.” (Sharma, 1996, p. 6) As stated in Sharma (2003, p. 4) four students based their thinking on their everyday experiences with consumer reports. Students thought that Mr Singh should take advice from a consumer report because they were the right people to consult or they felt that Mr Singh should not take advice from the consumer reports because consumer people often give misleading information. Two students thought that Mr Singh should buy a Toyota. They drew upon information given in the consumer report as reflected in the following transcript; “S; Mr Singh should buy Toyota. I: Why do you think Mr Singh should buy Toyota? S: Consumer people did the survey with 400 cars. They used a big sample. I: But here it says … Toyota had more break-downs. S: Sorry, Madame did not read the question properly. He should buy Honda … Toyota more break-downs.” The student quote above reinforces to us that students can struggle with thinking of the sample size in relation to the population, rather than in relation to the representativeness of the sample. It appears that everyday reading strategies of skimming and using the context or knowledge of the world to support comprehension are insufficient for reading statistical English. As a result, students constructed responses based on these unintended strategies. The above findings concur with the findings of Padula et al. (2001) and Kester-Phillips et al. (2009). The authors stated that reading mathematical texts provides the learner with an extra challenge over reading English “because they have to simultaneously comprehend and process in both the language of English and the language of mathematics.” When asked to define the word sample, five students based their ideas on previous everyday experiences. They thought that a sample is any small quantity, or an example of something. For instance, a student explained, “Eh … sample. Sample is like … in the body you take a small amount of blood to test whether a person has some disease or not. If a person wants to give blood to other person, they take out a sample and test in the lab.” When asked whether he thought a blood sample is different from a sample that is selected for research, he said, “In the maths text book taking a sample means taking small amount. If you are doing a research like the one you asked me in the last interview, so you ask each and every student.” The particular problem here is that the two meanings are not far apart; the differences are quite subtle. The word sample has a wide general interpretation, being met in such contexts as a sample survey, free samples of consumer goods, and samples of blood and urine in medical investigations. A small number of students used their prior school experiences in constructing a meaning for range. The students used an algebraic context and thought of the range as the set of second elements in an ordered pair. They

appeared to relate their relations and functions knowledge to this statistics question. When asked to find the range from a data set (nine weights recorded in grams), two students said, “that the range was the second element in the data set. This is evident in the following interchange” (Sharma, p. 2003, p. 5): I: What is the range for this data set? S: 6.0 I: Why do you think so? S: There are two numbers. First is 6.3 and second is 6.0 and the first number is domain, the second number is the range. In the supporting documents, special names are given to the set of first elements used in a relation and to the set of second elements. The domain is the set of first elements, and the range is the set of second elements. It seems that the above student tried to use her previous knowledge about relations and functions to find the statistical range. The findings resonate with the findings of a number of authors (Barwell, 2012; Boero et al., 2008; Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Goldenberg, 2008). These researchers claim that for students to succeed in a mathematics classroom, they must have fluency in what can be multiple mathematical registers. The mastery of the mathematical and statistical registers, and the ability to switch between them, requires strong linguistic and metalinguistic skills. The vocabulary and syntactical structure used in statistics can present unique challenges to all learners, due to the frequent use of familiar English words and phrases that are assigned different meanings (Kostopolos, 2007). This again is something that all learners need to learn to understand and work with, but gives added challenge to English language learners as they must simultaneously learn and work within both ordinary and mathematical and statistical English (Winsor, 2007). According to a number of researchers (Bose & Choudhury, 2010; Clarkson, 2007; Moschkovich, 2005; Parvanehnezhad & Clarkson, 2008; Salehmohamed & Rowland, 2014), English language learners often employ code switching to clarify their understanding and as a way to express their arguments and ideas. None of the students in my study used this strategy although they were told during the individual interviews that they could explain their thinking using their home language (Hindi) or English language. One reason for this discrepancy could be the “political role of language and the complexity of the context in which mathematics is taught and learned”(Planas, 2012, p. 337) in Fiji. Students are not allowed to use their first language in their mathematics classes as teachers may think that fluency in English has an impact on students‟ access to higher education and qualified employment. Hence, any behavior contrary to the classroom norm may have been seen as a sign of disrespect to the teacher. Indeed the socio-cultural context can have an impact on students‟ mathematics learning.

Reflections When planning a unit in statistics, it is vital for teachers to be aware of the prior knowledge and linguistic ability of their students. Once this information has been collected, teachers could build on this understanding. Teachers could use questions such as Item 2 as a starter for discussion of sample size, method

and potential bias. It is likely to generate stories from students‟ family experiences of buying cars, for example, asking a friend. In statistics, students need language and statistical skills to relate their thinking to the real life context and to communicate their ideas both verbally and in writing. However, teachers may not have the skills to help students develop communication skills and sound statistical arguments due to a lack of opportunities to develop their own statistical skills. This has implications for mathematics teacher educators. As well as statistical and mathematical knowledge, contextual and statistical language and English literacy knowledge and skills are important for making sense of statistical tasks. Students need to have reading, comprehension and communication skills if they are to achieve statistical literacy. The integration of these skills can occur in everyday life contexts although a careful choosing of tasks to accommodate reading abilities is required. Text comprehension support may be important for helping English learners interpret meaning from the often unfamiliar, out-of-school contexts and writing styles different to that found in text books. Although the range can help provide a more complete picture of a data set, it has received very little research attention. The findings of this study add to the research literature. Difficulties may also be caused by students not differentiating between the meaning of statistics range and function range. It is evident that students do not properly understand the meaning of the term range even though they can calculate it using "highest minus lowest". According to a number of authors (Shaughnessy, 2007; Watson, 2006), context plays a crucial role in the development of statistical thinking. However, providing students with an unfamiliar context can make their cognitive loads more difficult. A child's cognitive load increases when they are exposed to unfamiliar context whilst also grappling with an unfamiliar language (Goldenberg, 2008). This has implications in an assessment context, as it further works to advantage students from English speaking backgrounds who belong to the dominant culture over English language learners, therefore undermining the validity of the assessment. In Sharma study, audiotapes were used to record interview data. However, this approach did not capture student facial expressions and gestures. In future research, video recordings could help address these shortcomings.

References Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219-234. Adler, J. (1998). A language of teaching dilemmas unlocking the complex multilingual secondary mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 24-33. Barwell, R. (2012). Heteroglossia in multilingual mathematics classroom. In H. Forgasz & F. Rivera (Eds.), Towards equity in mathematics education: Gender, culture and diversity (pp. 315-332). Heideberg, Germany: Springer. Bay-Williams, J., & Herrera, S. (2007). Is “Just good teaching” Enough to support the learning of English language learners? Insights from sociocultural. Learning theory. In W. G. Martin, M. E. Strutchens, & P.C. Elliott (Eds.), The learning of Mathematics. Sixty-ninth yearbook (pp. 43-63). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Bishop, A. J. (2002). Critical challenges in researching cultural issues in mathematics education. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23(2), 119-131. doi:10.1080/07256860220151041 Bishton, S. (2009). The mathematics teacher as a teacher of language. In R. Averill & R. Harvey (Eds.), Teaching Secondary School Mathematics and Statistics: Evidence-based. Practice (pp. 159-171, Volume One). Wellington: NZCER Press. Boero, P., Douek, N., & Ferrari, J. L. (2008). Developing mastery of natural language: Approaches to some theoretical aspects of mathematics. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 262-297). New York, NY: Routledge. Borgioli, G. (2008). Equity for English language learners in mathematics classrooms. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(3), 185–191. Bose, A., & Choudhury, M. (2010). Language negotiation in a multilingual mathematics classroom: An analysis. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education (pp. 93-100). Perth, WA, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Brown, C. L., Cady, J. A., & Taylor, P. M. (2009). Problem solving and the English language learner. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(9), 532-539. Campbell, A. E., Adams, V. M., & Davis, G. E. (2007). Cognitive demands and secondlanguage learners: A framework for analyzing mathematics instructional contexts. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 3-30. doi: 10.1080/10986060709336603 Clarkson, P. C. (2007). Australian Vietnamese students learning mathematics: High ability bilinguals and their use of their languages. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 195-215. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2004). Principles of instructional design for supporting the development of students‟ statistical reasoning. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. B. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking (pp. 375-395). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Cruz , S. (2009). Giving voice to English language learners in mathematics. NCTM News Bulletin, (January/February). Retrieved from https://salkeizcia.orvsd.org/sites/salkeizcia.orvsd.org/files/VoiceEnglishLLs_MathSpeakingTemplate.pdf Fasi, U.M.L. (1999). Bilingualism and learning mathematics in English as a second language in Tonga (Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Reading, England). Ferrari, P. L. (2004). Mathematical language and advanced mathematics thinking. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol 2 , pp 383-390). Bergen (NO). Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225-256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does-and does not say. American Educator, 33(2), 8-19. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London, England: Edward Arnold. Hoffert, S. B. (2009). Mathematics: The universal language? A teacher enumerates the challenges, strategies, and rewards of teaching mathematics to English language learners. Mathematics Teacher, 4(2), 130-139. Kaplan, J. J., Fisher, D., & Rogness, N. (2009). Lexical ambiguity in statistics: What do students know about the words: association, average, confidence, random and spread? Journal of Statistics Education. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v17n3/kaplan.html Kazima, M. (2007). Malawian students meaning for probability vocabulary. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 169-189. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284627

Kenney, J. M. (2005). Mathematics as language. In J. M. Kenney (Ed.), Literacy strategies for improving mathematics instruction (pp. 1-8). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kester-Phillips, D. C., Bardsley, M., Bach, T., & Gibb-Brown, K. (2009). “But I teach Math!”: The journey of middle school mathematics teachers and literacy coaches learning to integrate literacy strategies into the math instruction. Education, 129(3), 467-472. Kotsopoulos, D. (2007). Mathematics discourse: “It‟s like hearing a foreign language”. Mathematics Teacher, 101(4), 301-305. Lager, C. (2006). Types of mathematics-language reading interactions that unnecessarily hinder algebra learning and assessment. Reading Psychology, 27(2/3), 165-204. doi:10.1080/02702710600642475 Latu, V. F. (2005). Language factors that affect mathematics teaching and learning of Pasifika student. In P. Clarkson, A. Downtown, D. Gronn, M. Horne, & G. A. McDonough (Eds.), Building connections: Theory, research and practice: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (vol 2, pp. 483-490). Sydney, NSW, Australia: MERGA. Lavy, I., & Mashiach-Eizenberg, M. (2009). The interplay between spoken language and informal definitions of statistical concepts. Journal of Statistics Education, 17(1), Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v17n1/lavy.html Lesser, L., Wagler, A., Esquinca, A., & Valenzuela, M. (2013). Survey of native English speakers and Spanish English language learners in tertiary introductory statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 12(2), 6-31. Retrieved from http://iaseweb.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ12(2)_Lesser.pdf Lesser, L., & Winsor, M. (2009). English language learners in introductory statistics: Lessons learned from an exploratory case study of two-pre service teachers. Statistics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 5-32. Retrieved from http://iaseweb.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ8(2)_Lesser_Winsor.pdf Mady, C., & Garbati, J. (2014). Calling upon other language skills to enhance second language learning: Talking taboo about first languages in a second language classroom. Research Monogram, 51, 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_otherLan guages.pdf Meaney, T. (2006). Acquiring the mathematics register in classrooms. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 39-43. Morgan, C., Craig, T., Schuette, M., & Wagner, D. (2014). Language and communication in mathematics education: An overview of research in the field. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(6), 843-853. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0624-9 Moschkovich, J. (2005). Using two languages when learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 121-144. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-9005-1 Nacarato, A. M., & Grando, R. C. (2014). The role of language in building probabilistic thinking. Statistics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 93-103. National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: A policy research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLResearch Brief.pdf

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. Neville-Barton, P., & Barton, B. (2005). The relationship between English language and mathematics learning for non-native speakers (Final Report). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9211_summaryreport.pdf

Padula, J., Lam, S., & Schmidtke, M. (2001). Syntax and word order: important aspects of mathematical English. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 57(4), 31-35. Parvanehnezhad, Z., & Clarkson, P. (2008). Iranian bilingual students reported use of language switching when doing mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 52-81. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London, England: Routledge Kegan and Paul. Planas, N. (2012). Commentary on the chapter by Richard Barwell, “Heteroglossia in Multilingual mathematics classroom. In H. Forgasz & F. Rivera (Eds.), Towards equity in mathematics education: Gender, culture and diversity (pp. 333-338) Heideberg: Springer. Planas, N., & Civil, M. (2013). Language-as-resource and language-as-political: tensions in the bilingual mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25, 361-378. doi:10.1007/s13394-013-0075-6 Planas, N., & Setati-Phakeng (2014). On the process of gaining language as resource in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 883-893. doi:10.1007/s11858014-0610-2 Rubenstein, R., & Thompson, D. R. (2002). Understanding and supporting children‟s mathematical vocabulary development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(2), 107-112. Salehmohamed, A., & Rowland, T. (2014). Whole-class interactions and code-switching in secondary mathematics teaching in Mauritius. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(3), 555-577. doi:10.1007/s13394-013-0103-6 Setai, M., &, Adler, J. (2001). Code switching in a senior primary class of secondarylanguage mathematics learners. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 34-42. Sharma, S. (1996, June 30–July 3). Statistical concepts of high school students: Some findings from Fiji. Paper presented at the Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, University of Melbourne, Australia. Sharma, S. (1997). Statistical ideas of high school students: Some findings from Fiji (Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand). Sharma, S. (2003). An exploration of high school students‟ understanding of sample size and sampling variability: Implications for research. Directions, 25(1), 68-83. Retrieved from http://www.directions.usp.ac.fj/collect/direct/index/assoc/D1175030.dir/doc.pdf Sharma, S. (2006). Personal experiences and beliefs in probabilistic reasoning: Implications for research. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 1(10), 33-54. Sharma, S. (2012). Role of culture in probabilistic thinking. Journal of Mathematics Research, 4(5). 53-74. Sharma, S. (2014). Influence of culture on high school students‟ understanding of statistics: A Fijian perspective. Statistics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 102-117. Retrieved from http://iase-web.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ13(2)_Sharma.pdf Shaughnessy, J. M. (2007). Research on statistics learning and reasoning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 957-1009). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Watson, J. M. (2006). Statistical literacy at school: Growth and goals. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Winsor, M. S. (2007). Bridging the language barrier in mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 101, 372-378. Xi, C., & Yeping, L. (2008). Language proficiency and mathematics learning. School Science & Mathematics, 108(3), 90-93.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 35-48, July 2016

The Conundrum of Handling Multiple Grouped Statistics Class at a Tertiary Education and the Impact on Student Performance Victor Katoma, Innocent Maposa and Errol Tyobeka Namibia University of Science and Technology

Abstract. A learning organization is capable of renewing itself. It consistently reflects and vigorously seeks improvement. This research focused on course management of a basic statistics course at a university in Namibia in which multiple groups were taught by different lecturers, a setting also known as parallel teaching. The total number of students was 460 split into five groups. Using multiple comparison tests, results revealed significant variances in assessment marks within and between four out of the five groups. This can be attributed to a lack of concrete coordination among lecturers and a possible deficiency in academic peer interaction between students in the separate groups. However, when marks were aggregated according to mode of study, results showed that part-time students were more likely to pass compared to their full-time counterparts who took the same course (t = 2.7391). This was in spite of full-time students having more peer interaction and probably less family responsibilities. This finding could be an indication that full-time students needed different levels of motivation or study strategy that resonated with the predominant class management styles. It is suggested that research should pay more attention to the qualitative aspects of the problems facing multiple grouped classes, especially in statistics in order to optimally leverage learning outcomes. Keywords: multiple groups; learning; comparison; students

Introduction A seemingly bad policy if well managed is better than an inconsistent one when it comes to managing multiple grouped classes(parallel teaching), especially in a rapidly changing environment such as the under researched university. All students, but especially beginning ones, need sustained consistency in course delivery. It helps them to manage anxiety that university or college-level learning experiences bring. While motivated lecturers are likely to consistently achieve course improvement individually, many course offerings with multiple student groups and several lecturers pose numerous discrepancies in course management. First, the level of coordination between lecturers of these groups largely determines the learning outcomes across the whole course. With diminished lecturer coordination, individual groups are likely to drift from the common points and intensity of focus which ultimately affects collective comprehension of course content by students. The drift stems largely from two (2) secondary-learning experiences: individual lecturer actors, and delivery methods (Herbert, Joyce, & Hassall, 2008). Such learning challenges have also been noted at course level in business schools (Nordberg, 2008) and are not unusual in virtual learning environments (Burridge & Oztel, 2008). Second, the challenges emerging at the course level can easily accrue to programme level when multiple lecturers attempt to deliver curriculum courses. Third, persistent course management inconsistencies within and across groups can lead students to sense a lack of preparation and of unstiffened course intensity. Subsequently, students would passively disengage from certain topics (Kerr, 2011), the course and worse still the entire programme. Strong indication of student indignation would manifest in high failure rates and sometimes surprise quits or change of study programmes. In general, the challenges associated with parallel teaching are immense and can easily be compounded by lacklustre coordination efforts among teaching staff. However, in this regard, we are motivated primarily by the â&#x20AC;&#x153;activist approachâ&#x20AC;? which affirms that organizational members often institute intentional change effort (Astin, 2001). We believe that at least the career propriety of the lecturing staff bring along basic class management skills and control mechanisms to build from. With this in mind this research set out to explore factors affecting teaching and class management in basic statistics (BBS11S) at a university in Namibia. The main reason for researching BBS11S was prompted by high failure rates and the context in which parallel teaching was conducted.

Quality in teaching multiple statistics classes In statistics, like other mathematically intensive courses, a quality-focused lecturer is expected to continually improve course content delivery methods (Beidatsch, 2007). This include re-aligning course content with possible references to industrial application and providing opportunities for students to

assimilate and absorb content in appropriate time. This is however, hard to achieve, especially with large classes that are subdivided into smaller groups and managed by different lecturers. Lecturers usually bring to such classes different experiences and hence influence these groups in their own rights. Initial indication of group differences can be noted easily from student’s sentiments and speculations about which group they would want to associate themselves with. These may be expressed in different ways, including suspicions that certain lecturers teach with an examination in mind. One natural adage of a multiple group system, however, is that students benefit from individual lecturer expertise due to student-teacher proximity and easy peer learning because of reduced social distance. Smaller groups are also less resource intensive and if well managed are likely to easily fulfil intended learning outcomes. With smaller groups, Beidatsch (2007) further noted the ability in developing high order thinking through evaluation and reflection as the locus of learning easily shifts to interaction.

Quality in teaching large “solo” classes Huge “solo” classes are common in Sub-Saharan Africa mostly because of the rapid growth in tertiary education enrolment without an equivalent expansion of institutional capacities (UNESCO, 2010; Yizengaw, 2008). Australian academics are increasingly faced with similar challenges of managing large classes (Bradley, Noonan & Scales, 2008). Particularly, large classes are a common practice for students in first- year in Science, Business and Arts discipline, as well as courses that are inter-discipline. Managing such classes effectively require recourses such as high capacity lecture venues and teaching assistants or co-teachers. In the absence of these mechanisms, solo classes tend to affirm an overwhelming focus on lectures and terminal examinations (Rayner, 2012; Tessema, 2009) and less on teaching facilitation. Additionally, large classes pose obvious challenges such as high numbers of assessment scripts to mark, and other qualitative problems such as complexities in continuous assessment and examination management. Furthermore, the time involved in addressing large numbers of individual student challenges is significant and if left to course coordinators, can be overwhelming. However, departments can do much more by supporting their staff through the provision of administrative support in form of class management training, sufficient funding for tutors, recognition of the work involved in workload allocation, credit in performance appraisal and the like. Large classes, if well managed do have advantages over multiple small classes, especially through standardisation of the learning experiences (McLeod, 1998).

This paper does not exclusively aim to compare solo and small classes. It seeks to explore strategies that may be helpful in strengthening the teaching and learning in multiple grouped classes in statistics. For institutions with limited resources, the paper attempts to provide ground upon which other appropriate class management methods can be selected. While some existing literature, for

example indicate nonsignificant relationship between class size and the effect on learning outcomes (Hancook, 1996; Kennedy & Siegfried, 1997; Hanusheks, 1997a); others support small class size setup (Borden & Burton, 1999; Arias & Walker, 2004). We are of the view point that course management should be independently assessed and solutions designed in context to the environment.

In general, all forms of class settings require some specific management styles although overlaps are inevitable. However, not paying due attention to critical class management strategies can lead to misapplication of resources or not committing enough of the same to areas of exceptional importance. Initial evidence of inappropriate management styles include: the lack of systematic organisation of course materials, demotivated students, failure to maintain quality of learning and discrepancies in developing authentic assessment tasks. Many of these challenges appear to be magnified quickly within large solo groups. This is largely because large classes lead to increased diversity complexities, promotes social distance and subsequent reduced frequency of feedback (Sax, 2002). Bligh (1972) found that students who interacted in class with the instructor and peers reported higher levels of learning satisfaction. This view was supported by Kulik & Kulik (1979) and Keup & Sax (2002). With reduced personal contact between staff and students, intervention in form of compensational lectures or tutorials is inevitable. It is hence not sufficient to simply increase what we do for smaller classes. Although there is indication that students are less likely to achieve higher-order learning goals in larger classes (McKeachie, 1999); this challenge may be remedied through innovative modification of teaching strategies to actively engage students. In terms of costing, there is a concern that university faculties often devote less money per head to students in large first-year courses than in smaller later-year courses. This is commonly reflected in the intentional unwillingness by universities to support casual or sessional staff (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Husbands and Davies, 2000; Langenberg, 1998). In Australian universities, there is an increasing recognition that sessional staff members interact with students more often and therefore need to be supported (May, 2013). A knowledge economy and a changing labour market demand that universities provide appropriate education and ensure that graduates emerge with enhanced skills and abilities. As such, innovative approach to classroom management and strategies of knowledge impartation is critical.

Background of the Problem We premised this research on a first-year basic business statistics course at a tertiary institution in Namibia and analysed the seminal approaches of course management opted. The course had 460 students which were subdivided into five groups. The main reason for subdividing was that the institution did not have enough high capacity lecture theatres to readily accommodate everyone. To a certain extent, alternative teaching was also practised in which one teacher

took responsibility of one large group while the other teachers worked with smaller groups, depending on the venues for that day. Each group had a lecturer with relatively the same qualifications and all lecture rooms had similar settings in terms of facilities and teaching aids such as projectors and white boards.

In aiming to reach for a consistent and high-quality course management, the lecturers addressed each of the primary causes of course quality in common: time, exercise-and assessment styles. Other, secondary and more personal causes of course quality such as individual actors, content delivery methods were addressed adrift. This is expected especially in tertiary institutions with fairly advanced approaches of promoting academic autonomy as also purported by Herbert, Joyce, & Hassall (2008). Because of the many class groups of five, employing â&#x20AC;&#x153;station teachingâ&#x20AC;? in which a lecturer is required to teach specific components of course material to different groups seemed not sustainable for BBS111S.

Controversies over the quality and hence the learning outcomes in BBS111S have been increasing due to high student failure rates. Students normally take BBS111S because it is an institutional core courses. This, and typically like any first-year introductory course result in large student enrolment. The same problem was experienced in other departments where students were allowed to take optional courses from. Consequently, that cannot be fitted in one or two lecture theatres. To manage this scenario, the department of mathematics and statistics split the class into smaller groups which are subsequently allocated to different lecturers. This seems to be an application of a good concept to a wrong situation because multiple lecturers in a course are usually utilized within the same course in the context of alternate or station teaching which aims at delivering expert knowledge in different sections of the course. There were also thousands of students who apparently could not graduate due to failing some of the courses which were managed in this manner. Regardless of the opinions of proponents and opponents of the grouping strategy, managing basic statistics in this way has been daunting probably because it is a statistics course in which learning efforts need to be complimented by practice and well guided numerical instructions across the groups. Without this, students are likely to experience hopelessness as they deal with numerous concepts and a combination of logic as well as inference. This is exactly what begs the question: how can lecturers in multiple-groups statistics course achieve greater programme consistency without increasing their preparation time but still ensure that each of the groups are motivating and challenging? Graham & Donaldson (1999) noted that younger students interacted primarily with peers and in peer-related activities, which older students were less involved in. Despite this trend, older students demonstrated equal or greater intellectual growth than younger students. This was also observed by CarneyCrompton & Tan (2002). It implies that despite the extra curricula activities older

students get engaged with such as caring for their families, they are more motivated compared to younger students. This raises a question that: do younger students need a higher threshold of motivation to pass Mathematical and Statistics courses?

Activities surrounding basic statistics courses In business statistics courses, students often and correctly approach learning in the context of life application. While this is generally the intention of service courses, statistical courses on the other hand require deepened theoretical understanding prior to any experiential learning or meaningful application. Premising such a course on assumptions of immediate easy applications delineates students from a correct path of learning and would lead to frustration when application cannot be easily found. In any case, a firm grounding in Mathematical or Statistical principles is a precursor to deepened logic construction and subsequent intellectual growth. By making connections to existing broad-based knowledge schemas, students can integrate new learning with various life roles in a more multidimensional way (Donaldson, 1999). We believe that the vast knowledge students are expected to assimilate and readily apply to solve real world problems poses a big challenge. Besides, Namibia is one country with high secondary mathematics and science deficiencies, ranking 126 out of 144 countries under the global competitiveness report of 2014 to 2015 (5th Economical Pillar).

Method A case study of basic business statistics course was used in the research of parallel teaching at the university understudy. During the study, instructors shared the student marks with the researchers. One of the researchers was in fact the coordinator of the course. This research employed a mixture of qualitative and quantitative analyses. Initial qualitative analyses were conducted using Atlas Ti, which uses grounded theory techniques (Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 1999). For this part, primary documents were created from which textual content was conducted and tabulated in Table1. By synthesising data in themes, an abstraction level of second order was achieved (super codes). This was to explore the main factors characterising the teaching and learning strategies at the University. It was also used to identify possible structural problems to course delivery. For the quantitative part, the assessment marks were first captured in Excel and later exported to SPSS for analysis. The main objective for the quantitative analyses was to provide facts about the differences in assessment results. A two way ANOVA was conducted to explain for possible differences between class groups (Montgomery (2001) with respect to assessments.

Qualitative Results Teaching and Learning Captured in table 1 below are the super code frequencies of how lecturers responded to obstacles in teaching and learning.

Table 1: Teaching and learning TL1 Super Codes

TL2

Occurrences

Frequency

Demonstration

Facilitation

20%

Interaction

22%

Teaching

32%

TL3

Occurrences

Frequency

Class size

12%

Tools

26%

Level of students is low

18%

Infrastructure

14%

Lack of Feedback

10%

Occurrences

Frequency

Materials are shared

58%

Shared Experiences

37%

TL4 Super Codes

TL5

Occurrences

Frequency

Group Discussions

61%

Interactions

23%

Scenarios

13%

Occurrences

Frequency

Language Barrier

29%

Level of Student is Low

18%

Infrastructure

24%

TL1 (What class approach are you using) revealed that teaching as opposed to facilitation was still the most predominant way of conducting classes at the institution (32%). However, there was a tremendous shift as lecturers were rapidly moving towards student centeredness â&#x20AC;&#x153;interactionâ&#x20AC;? (23%) and facilitation (20%) as a mode of conducting classes. This can be explained partly by the emphasis on student centeredness by top management at the university. A large number of lecturers were however, caught in between facilitation and

teaching (interaction) which can be partly explained by lack of facilities or methodology, and other factors important to implementing full flagged student centeredness mode. TL2 (What are the impediments in your delivery of cause material) revealed that the lack of tools to use in lecturer delivery was a major impediment (26%). This included projectors and access to internet. Level of students {prior knowledge} (18%) was also perceived to be low, meaning that students who were admitted in some courses would not comprehend or understand lecture materials due to their educational background. It could also mean that the courses were not paged at the right level and therefore the content was too much for the students. This may have led to the other factors (lack of feedback from students (10%) which underscored, in general, the lack of response from students. Infrastructure (14%) was also a strong indicator of the impediments faced by lecturers in course delivery. Some classes were far-spaced and students walked from one campus to another resulting in loss of time. Smaller classes with large number of students (12%) are also major impediments because students run out of sitting space. When students are divided into smaller groups and taught by different lecturers, it can again cause problems as coordination is very hard to archive, in terms of fair setting of tests and exams as well as consistency in content delivery. An arguably better approach is for students to be taught by one lecturer and the rest can be tutors/makers. TL3 (What methods do you employ to manage bigger classes that are shared) revealed that lecturers shared materials (58%) and also shared experiences (37%). This is however very difficult if they (lecturers) have huge workloads. From Table 2 below: under TL4 (The best ways to handle large classes) revealed that lecturers, mostly relied on group discussions (61%). They also somehow interacted with students (23%) and further used scenarios (13%) for discussion. This may imply that group assignment was predominant. However, this needs to be investigated further. Table 2 under TL5 (Some of the major problems lecturers faced in their classes) revealed that language was the major barrier to knowledge delivery (29%). This means that a lot of students had difficulties in writing constructive English and hence they were unable to express themselves accurately. Infrastructure (24%) and the level of students (prior knowledge) (18%) were still predominant on this construct.

Quantitative results Average mark of students under each lecturer: A, B, C, D and E. Table 2: Average marks Lecturer Lecturer A Lecturer B Lecturer C Lecturer D Lecturer E Total

Summary of test_mark Mean Std. Dev. 60.557692 17.868159 38.607143 16.749437 46.611765 12.870318 56.782609 16.757513 49.822222 14.044395 50.140436 15.54791

Freq. 52 28 85 23 225 413

Table 2 above indicates that the average marks of students were affected in some way by the group in which they belonged to and that included the lecturer who was instructing them as well as marking their work. The interesting part in this regard is that the test was standardised and included all the topics that each of the lecturers had covered in their respective classes. An average mark of 60.56 compared to 38.61 seems too large only to be explained by the difference in intellectual capacity of students in the different groups thus there must be other reasons for such vast discrepancies amongst the groups who were enrolled on the bases of the same qualifications. To further determine some of the possible causes of variation in the marks, a two-way analysis of variance was carried out and the results are shown below.

Table 3: TWO-way ANOVA for student marks Source F Prob> F Model 0.0000 modecode 22.54 0.0000 Lecturer 0.0000 Residual Total

Partial SS 11463.3591

4867.97372

2865.83976 1

13.27

4867.97372

9677.89607

3225.96536

88132.4957 99595.8547

408 412

216.011019 241.737511

14.93

Table 3 above indicates that there was a significant difference in the marks lecturers awarded to their students. Furthermore, the effect of mode (modecode) of study different students were using for their study was also significant. This result highlights the complex nature of the problem and calls for a holistic look

into these multi-faceted challenges that students were encountering in taking up this and other courses which were offered in the same way. To further analyse the differences between lecturersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; effect on the mark of their group of students, some post-hoc comparisons were done and results are shown below.

Table 4: Multiple Comparisons for lecturer differences Dependent Variable: test_mark LSD Mean (I) Difference (ILecturer (J) Lecturer J) Std. Error Lecturer A B 21.951* 3.445 C 13.946* 2.588 D 3.775 3.680 E 10.735* 2.261 Lecturer B A -21.951* 3.445 C -8.005* 3.202 D -18.175* 4.136 E -11.215* 2.945 Lecturer C A -13.946* 2.588 * B 8.005 3.202 * D -10.171 3.454 E -3.210 1.871 Lecturer D A -3.775 3.680 * B 18.175 4.136 * C 10.171 3.454 * E 6.960 3.217 * Lecturer E A -10.735 2.261 * B 11.215 2.945 C 3.210 1.871 * D -6.960 3.217 *. The mean difference is significant at 0.05 level.

Sig. .000 .000 .306 .000 .000 .013 .000 .000 .000 .013 .003 .087

95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound 15.18 28.72 8.86 19.03 -3.46 11.01 6.29 15.18 -28.72 -15.18 -14.30 -1.71 -26.31 -10.04 -17.00 -5.43 -19.03 -8.86 1.71 14.30 -16.96 -3.38 -6.89 .47

.306 .000 .003 .031 .000 .000 .087 .031

-11.01 10.04 3.38 .64 -15.18 5.43 -.47 -13.29

3.46 26.31 16.96 13.29 -6.29 17.00 6.89 -.64

The table above shows comparisons between lecturersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; marks for their groups of students. There is a significant difference between lecturers (A, B; 21.951*), (A, C; 13.946*), (A, E; 10.735*), (B, C; 8005*), (B, D; 18.175*), (B, E; 11.215*), (C, D; 10171*) whilst there is no significant difference between lecturers (A, D; 3.775), (C, E; 3.210). A moderate different result was however recorded between (D,E; 6.960*).

Comparison between performance of part-time and full-time students Table 5: Comparison based on mode of study two-sample t test with equal variances Group Part time Full time Combined diff

Obs 103 310 413

Mean 53.74757 48.94194 50.14044 4.805637

Std. Err. 1.92861 .7830344 .7650626 1.754475

diff = mean(Part_tim) - mean(Full_tim) Ho: diff = 0 Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Pr(T < t) = 0.9968 Pr(T > t) = 0.0064

Std. Dev. 19.57325 13.78674 15.54791

[95% Conf. Interval] 49.92218 57.57296 47.40118 50.48269 48.63652 51.64435 1.356774 8.254501

t = 2.7391 degrees of freedom = Ha: diff > 0 Pr(T > t) = 0.0032

411

Table 5 above indicates that there was a significant difference (t = 2.7391) in performance between part-time and full-time students. This result shows that, in spite the notion that full-time students have more peer interaction on campus and probably more time to study; they lack seriousness in doing their school work. It further highlights an assumption that part-time students have certain life experiences that make them serious with studies despite the many responsibilities they face at work and home, including caring for their families.

Discussion Although the problems of handling large classes can be daunting, the difficulties in running multiple groups with multiple lecturers can even be worse especially were autonomy supersedes basic control. While smaller groups notion is not a problem on its own (Borden & Burton, 1999; Arias & Walker, 2004), concrete planning and superior coordination is prologue to success. Coordination may include increased consultation, while planning would underpin resource allocation, effective use of technology, engaging senior lecturers who have prior knowledge and experience in managing complex course delivery in multiple groups. It was interesting to note from the qualitative finding that 58% claimed to share teaching material and only 37% agreed to shared experiences which clearly shows a lack of the actual experiential learning between staff members. This may mean that lecturers in these multiple groups actually did not share much as interaction with students was also very low (23%) and yet the essence of having smaller groups is to encourage interaction which is the main facet of student centeredness. Such lapses could have led to significant differences in average

marks between groups. Worse still, differences in individual paper mark reveals a much more structural problem in running multiple groups at the institution. Such differences may boarder on lecturer attitudes which may pose even a deeper problem. A more rational approach would to specifically train lecturers running such groups on a combination of topics such as academic ethics, class psychology, interpersonal and even communication skills. However, more research can be conducted in this area. A shift from multi groups to large classes is much less complex in terms of standardised lecture delivery, but effective course management would require well organized tutoring system as well as coordinated marking schemes. Research, however provides evidence that reduced class sizes, especially in introductory courses improves student achievement to, for example, minority students (Finn, Achilles & Molnar et al, 1999). In the case of Namibia, this contextual dimension may be a critical component to the success of any mode of class management style. This is largely because Namibia has one of the largest Gini coefficient in the world, at .74 in 2014 (Inequality index, 2014). With qualitative analysis indicating that prior knowledge was lacking among students, experiential learning is one context that cannot be neglected. The differences in average mark between full-time and part-time highlight the importance of career guidance. Full time students are likely to be more serious with school work if they are given comprehensive career guidance and some form of work experience through student-internship. Differences in average marks between on campus and distance students can to some extent be caused by allowing the two groups siting for the same examination as they do not get the same exposure throughout the semester. This is an indication of another a serious problem.

Recommendations Discrepancies in course management should always be identified and resolved quickly and effectively. Lapses will always occur but a learning institution should be in a better position to come out of these problems and adapt without disadvantaging or taking out a hope of quality education from the students in the process. Knowing the advantages and cost of implementing any of the strategies is a precursor to success. At present, the institution would do much better to run large classes if the course coordination and teacher training in class management proves to be unattainable, especially with less resources. Where multiple groups are unavoidable, station teaching should be encouraged.

References Achilles, C. M (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A state wide experiment. American Education Research Journal, 27, 557-577. Astin, A.W. (2001). The Kellogg Forum on Institutional Transformation in Higher Education: What have we learned? Monograph. Washington, DC: American Council on Education Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management and information Technology, 9(1), 1-23. Beidatsch, C (2007) Alternatives to the traditional tutorials: a report on workshop based experiential learning in the History Discipline at the University of Western Australia, in Student Engagement: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum, 30-31 January 2007. Perth: University of Western Australia, http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2007/refereed/beidatsch.html. Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? (1st U.S. edition ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Burridge, M and Oztel, H (2008), investigating the relationship between student achievement and e-learning: The case of an undergraduate strategic management model. International journal of management education, 7(1),3-11 Bradley, D, Noonan, P, Nugent, H and Scales, B (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education, Final Report Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Carney-Crompton, S. and Tan, J. (2002).Support systems, psychological functioning, and academic performance of non-traditional female students. Adult education quarterly, 52(2)140-154. Economical Pillar (www.aigroup.com.au) Graham, J. and Donald, S. (1999) “Adult undergraduate students: How do they define success? American Education Research Association Herbert, W., Joyce, J and Hassall, T (2008), “Business performance measures and management”, 73(1)pp 404-446 Kerr, A. (2011). Teaching and learning in large class at Ontario Universities: An exploratory study. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario Keup, J.R., & Sax, L.J. (2002). Findings frpm the 2002 Your First College Year (YCY) report. [http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/yfcy] Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.L.C(1979). College teaching. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walkberg(Eds), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and implications. Berkeley, Califonia: McCutcheon Nordberg, D (2008), “ Assessment and evaluation in higher education” 33(5),481-492. http://www.indexmundi.com/namibia/economy-

profile.html(17.2.2014) McKeachies, W (1999) Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research and Theory For College And University Teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co

McLeod, N. (1998). What teachers cannot do in large classes (Research Rep. No 7). Leads, UK: Leeds University. Montgomery, D.C (2001). Design and analysis) of Experiments (5th Ed.) John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York Tessema, K. A. (2009). The unfolding trends and consequences of expanding higher education in Ethiopia: Massive universities, massive challenges. Higher Education Quarterly, 63, 29-45. UNESCO. (2010). Trends in tertiary education: Sub-Saharan Africa. UIS Fact Sheet, December 2010, No. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/FactSheets/Documents/fs10-2010-en.pdf. Yizengaw, T. (2008). Challenges of higher education in Africa and lessons of experience for the Africa-US. higher education collaboration initiative: A synthesis report for the Africa-U.S. higher education initiative. Retrieved July 21, 2013, from http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1183.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 49-57, July 2016

Exploring Estonian Students‟ Ability to Handle Chemistry-Related Everyday Problem Solving Klaara Kask University of Tartu Estonia Abstract. In today‟s scientific world, it is important to solve sciencerelated problems, because each person during his/her studies, needs these skills both at workplace and in every day. Research has shown that in order to solve everyday science-related problems, it is necessary to develop an ability to transfer skills acquired in science class. The aim of this study is to analyse students‟ ability to transfer science-related skills and factors that affect this ability. A 7-item instrument, related to an everyday situation and based on chemistry, but including interdisciplinary elements related to physics and biology, is developed, validated and administered to 10th grade gymnasium students (N=1129) at the beginning of their studies in gymnasium and to 11th grade students (N=953), having completed four compulsory chemistry courses at the gymnasium level during two academic years. The findings show that (1) progress in the transfer of problem solving skills after completing the compulsory chemistry courses involved only a few science-related skills in addition to academic knowledge and (2) the transfer of knowledge and skills was most successful in items limited to one subject – chemistry, rather than in an interdisciplinary context. This suggests the need to review the national curriculum and teaching methods that are in use in gymnasium chemistry lessons. It can also be concluded that the ability to apply transfer skills is most successful in items limited to one subject – chemistry, while in an interdisciplinary context, the transfer of skills in chemistry and physics contexts are transferred better than a chemistry and biology context. Keywords: science-related skills; everyday science-related problems; transfer of skills; interdisciplinary.

Introduction Students, in order to become successful citizens, need to possess expertise in a range of competences. The European Commission (2004; 2007) has adopted this by broadening its definition of educational goals to being expressed in terms of competences. Although a range of competences are stipulated in curricula, the actual selection of competences developed for study, is carried out by the teacher at school level. Among these competences is the need to achieve the transfer (or transferability), which, according to the National Research Council © 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

(2000), is the generalization of the learning outcomes including knowledge and skills gained in school to practical environments such as the home, community and workplace. However, a lack of ability to transfer skills to new situations is seen as one of the main problems in the teaching –learning situation (van Gog et al., 2004). Unfortunately, the literature points to a multitude of different treatments with different emphases to describe transfer (Johnson, 1995). In this article, transferability, as applied to problem solving, is defined as the ability to transfer acquired problem solving skills learned in chemistry class, to everyday scientific context which has interdisciplinary and everyday dimensions. The main objective of the current study was to analyse the transfer of problem solving skills, acquired in science class, to solving everyday scientific problems. The following research questions were posed: 1. What differences in the ability of students to transfer acquired problem solving skills to new everyday situation occurs after two academic years of gymnasium study? 2. Is the transfer of problem solving skills to everyday situations contextrelated?

Literature review In today‟s world, it is important to solve science-related and everyday problems. Students‟ problem-solving and decision-making skills play an important role in development of students' scientific literacy (Rannikmäe, 2016), as well as help to generate cognitive interest in the lessons (Cēdere, Jurgena, Helmane, TiltiņaKapele & Praulīte, 2015). Research has shown that in order to solve everyday science-related problems, it is necessary to transfer skills acquired in science class into new contexts (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2001). Contemporary science teaching is expected to stress the development of skills, which constitute the core of the problem solving process and also their transfer (Solomon & Perkins, 1987). Some authors conclude that such skills and their transfer improve (Molnár, Greiff & Csapó, 2013) across grades. Problem solving. The scientific literature identifies problem solving using different approaches. For example, in psychology, Lovett (2002) defined problem solving through three key sub processes each involving analysis and transformation of knowledge and skills. Bransford and Stein (1984) described the problem solving process as a “cyclic higher-order cognitive process”. This approach (this is indicated later) describes 5-7 problem solving stages, including fundamental skills such as explanation and reasoning. This approach can be called „general‟ or „analytical‟ and has found support in a number of studies (Montague, Warger & Morgan, 2000; Scherera & Tiemann, 2014). However, Bassok and Novick (2012) reported, that the level of domain knowledge determines students‟ problem-solving success, especially in knowledge-rich

academic disciplines. Applying knowledge via explanation plays an important part in solving problems (von Aufschneider, Erduran, Osborne & Simon, 2008). However, the success of the problem solving depended on the type of the problem. Surif and co-authors (2014) reported that students were more successful in solving algorithmic problems, but have difficulties in solving openended problems. This statement was supported by the results from international PISA tests (OECD, 2013). To solve problem, the problem solving skills need to be transferred. These skills considered to be transferrable based on the literature (Montague et al., 2000). Transfer. According to Ausubel and co-authors (1978), meaningful learning necessarily involves the ability to transfer. In the literature, different treatments with different emphases are used to describe transfer. In this article, transferability, as applied to problem solving, is defined as a process where problem solving skills learned in the chemistry class, can be transferred into new, science related or everyday contexts. Everyday context is rich in nonroutine, ill-defined problems, which may have multiple solutions (Gilbert, 2006; Chang & Chiub, 2008). Based on the literature, the success of any transfer depends on the difference between the contexts of learning and that in which it is used. Johnson (1995) uses the terms - near and far transfer, referring to students applying their knowledge and skills to contexts very similar or to contexts where the performance is very different from the context in which the knowledge and skills are acquired. Far transfer was more demanding, because it also required greater modification to the original knowledge and skills (Hung, 2013). Nevertheless, there is little understanding about the relationship between the context and transfer that is accepted by all researchers, although most claim that transfer is context-related.

Methodology This study examined student outcomes from a grade 10 and 11 chemistry course include three sub-sections (two on organic chemistry, one on inorganic and one on general chemistry). Sample. The total number of students in the sample was 2,072, of which 1,129 were 10th grade and 953, 11th grade students. As the sample comprised 10th grade students who had just started gymnasium, their chemistry knowledge was deemed to have been acquired in basic school. (Data were collected in 10th grade in autumn at the beginning of the academic year and in 11th grade in spring at the end of the academic year, after completing the obligatory courses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; this is data collection). Instrument to collect data. The transfer of problem solving skills was measured by results of solving tasks, needed particular skill. The 7-item a paper-and-pencil test was used as an instrument. It was considered that the best context to

measure students‟ problem solving skills is everyday context. The instrument was created, based on solving an everyday problem, related to a sprained ankle and the use of a cold bag to reduce pain and oedema. In answer to the questions posed, students were required to transfer their problem solving skills gained in science lessons to this new context. The 7 item test comprised: (a) Three items measured the transfer of applying knowledge from chemistry to a chemistry context (seen as near transfer) to interdisciplinary context (seen as far transfer). (b) Two additional items measured experimental problem solving skills i.e. posing a research question and planning experimentation (in this case, choosing relevant equipment for the investigation). (c) Two further items focused on measuring scientific explanation skill, one in a chemistry-physics context and the others in a biology-physics context. Validity and reliability. Validity of the instrument was determined by using expert opinions. The reliability of the instrument was proved using Cronbach alpha (0.734) which value considered to be acceptable. Procedure. The developed instrument was validated and administered to 10th grade gymnasium students (N=1129) at the beginning of their studies in gymnasium and to 11th grade students having completed four compulsory chemistry courses at the gymnasium level during two academic years. Data analysis. The first part of the analysis was qualitative. All students‟ responses were coded and rated analogically on scale 1-3. I - missing answer, student do not have relevant skill for transfer, II - partial skill to transfer, III- maximal transfer The second part of the data analysis was quantitative. Data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for frequency distribution, Spearman‟s rho for correlation and Mann-Whitney U-test to analyse nonparametric data, because data do not conform to a normal distribution.

Results and analysis Table 1 shows results from the test and analyses indicating frequency distributions and differences in transfer, measured by the Mann-Whitney U-test.

Table 1. Grade 10 and 11 frequency distribution and differences in transfer Skill

Items and context

Grade 10 (n = 1128)

Grade 11 (n = 953)

Responses on Marking %

I1 Interd

47.0

3.9

III

4.5

53.9

486746.000

0.019

I6 Chem

12.7 57.8 29.5 10.0 52.9 37.1

452538.000

0.000

I2 Interd

73.4

28.4

451698.000

0.174

Posing RQ

I4 Interd

42.7 33.1 24.2 42.0 32.3 25.7

368045.000

0.262

Plan exp

I5 Interd

46.2 11.3 42.5 42.8 15.1 42.1

492768,000

0.363

Explanation I3 (Interd 65.2 19.9 14.9 65.0 17.1 17.9 ch-ph)

245924.500

0.230

336645.500

0.003

Applying knowledge

0.3

I7 (Interd 76.4 18.8 bio-ph)

III

Difference and significance

49.1 41.6

26.3 71.1

4.8

0.5

69.5 23.1

7.4

Interdisciplinary – interd; ch-chemistry; bio – biology; ph –physics Data in table 1 showed that the transfer of problem solving skills in current case is influenced by two factors. First, the weakness of explanation skill – more than 60 % of students is lacking the corresponding skill. The number of missing and wrong answers clearly showed, that most difficult for students were items (3 and 7), where the need to use explanation skills was expected. Thus, the data suggests that an important skill for successful problem solving in this case is explanation skill and its transfer. Unfortunately, the data in table 1 show that the improvement of explanation skill is minimal: in a chemistry-physics context (item 3) about 65% of 10th and 11th grade students‟ did not exhibit mastery of explanation skill. Responses to task 7 (in a biology-physics context) showed a slightly weaker outcome. The data shows that 76,5 % of 10th grade students and 69,5% of 11th grade students did not have mastery of explanation skill in the contexts given. As data showed, in this case by explanation the use of the combination of chemical, biological and physical knowledge is more difficult than combination of knowledge chemistry and physics. Secondly, the inquiry skills. Answering item 4 was problematic. This item requires skill to pose research question in the context given. Only 24.2% of students in 10th grade and 25, 7% of students in grade 11th indicated mastery level of this skill (in this context). A small improvement may be caused by gymnasium science teachers who do not use open inquiry, through which the corresponding skill would be developed.

Table 2. Results of the correlation analysis (only statistically significant correlations)

Grade

Correlation between

Spearman‟s rho 0.451**

posing research question explanation(ch-ph, I3) (I4) explanation (ch-bio-ph, explanation(ch-ph, I3) 0.326* I7) 11 applying knowledge, explanation(ch-bio-ph, 0.252* acquired in gymnasium I7) (I6) posing research question explanation(ch-ph, I3) 0.475** (I4) posing research question planning investigation 0.481** (I4) Significance on level p=0,05 was noted as *, significance on level 0,001 was noted as ** As indicated above, explanation skill involved applying knowledge. Table 2 showed the difference in explanation: in responses of 10th grade students the relationship between explanation and applying knowledge did not exist. Where comparing with data of PISA tests (Estonian students at a similar development stage as grade 10) what results showed that Estonian students have a good knowledge, but results of current study suggest that they do not apply knowledge by explanation. In responses by11th grade students there was a stronger correlation between applying knowledge and explanation. The body of students‟ knowledge has grown through two academic years and students in 11th grade can use by explanation more knowledge. That may be one reason for the improved explanation skill and its transfer by grade 11 students.

Discussion Transfer is only possible in cases where knowledge or skills exist for the transfer. The first finding is related to assessment of students‟ problem solving skills. Surif and co-authors (2014) reported in their study, that solving open-ended problems in chemistry is less successful than solving algorithmic problems. Such a conclusion can also be reached by analysing the results of the Estonian students‟ outcomes on the PISA test in 2006 and 2009 (OECD, 2007; 2010). It seems that the level of students‟ problem solving ability mays not have changed over the last 10 years. In this study, statistically significant progress was noticeable in the transfer of three skills: applying knowledge (items 1 and 6) and explanation (item 7). The improvement in transfer of these skills might simply be caused by additional academic knowledge e.g. Le Chatelier‟s principle and its application were taught after testing the grade 10 students, and therefore better understood by 11th grade students. Transference in other problem solving skills did not show significant improvement. The results support the conclusion made by Molnár

and co-authors (2013) that improving skills and their transferring depended on the academic knowledge. Table 1 clearly showed that there were little gains in applying skills of posing research questions and planning investigations (items 4 and 5). This could suggest that little teaching was included in science lessons in these areas and could point to a lack of student involvement in determining experimental work and in gaining problem solving skills. Results showed that near transfer (into a similar context item 6) was more successful than far transfer item 2, thus agreeing with conclusions made by Johnson (1995) and Hung (2013). The analysis suggested that far transfer is more demanding, because it requires greater modification to the original knowledge. The transfer of explanation skills through the use of a combination of biological and physical contexts (item 7) was shown to be more difficult than the combination for chemistry and physics in the item 3. This indicated that the skill to use knowledge could be dependent on the context. The inclusion of ethics in the applying knowledge item 2 suggested that decision making skills were not strongly promoted in chemistry teaching.

Conclusions Students learn chemistry, biology and physics at the basic and gymnasium level. However, the test outcomes indicate that if students dislocate joints during a situation, such as a workout, and use a cold bag to reduce pain and swelling, they do not know which ingredients are needed, how to explain the way the bag “work,” etc. The results of current study showed that there is a gap between knowledge and skills needed in this single example of an everyday chemistry problem solving situation, the knowledge and skills, produced and developed through formal education are insufficient. The developing of problem solving skills and its transfer to everyday scientific situations needs more attention in science education. This study investigated students‟ progress in the transfer of problem solving skills to an everyday context. Conclusions were: 

 

progress in the ability to transfer problem solving skills occurred in only three skills which directly associated with the increase of academic knowledge, the development of transfer skills is seen as context-related, transfer of the skill into contexts very similar is more successful, according to literature, transfer should be involved in the meaningful learning. As showed tables 1 and 2 transfer of problem solving skills and its transfer is poor and their level change may be related to with the addition of one academic year.

The results of this study exposed the need for further investigation, especially related to the effects of the combination of knowledge from different subjects.

Limitation The students tested in grades 10 and 11 were not the same, although they were from the same schools and taught by the same teachers. The number of test items, per transfer types, were small and may not fully reflect student achievements when tested on a wider scale.

Acknowledgements This study has been supported by European Social Fund programme EDUKO grant LoTeGüm and Estonian Science Foundation grant GLOLO8219.

References Ausubel D.P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, London. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). Learning and transfer (Chapter 3). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bransford, J. & Stein, B. (1984). The IDEAL Problem Solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York: W.H. Freeman. Cēdere, D., Jurgena, I., Helmane, I., Tiltiņa-Kapele, I. & Praulīte, G. (2015). Cognitive interest: problems and solutions in the acquisition of science and mathematics in schools of Latvia. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(4), 424–434. Chang, S.-N. & Chiub, M.-H. (2008). Lakatos‟ Scientific Research Programmes as a Framework for Analysing Informal Argumentation about Socio-scientific Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773. Estonian Curriculum. (2011). National Curriculum for basic schools and upper secondary schools). Regulation of the Government of the Republic of Estonia, RT I, 14.01.2011, 2. (Accessed 2011-06-27). European Commission [EC]. (2004). Europe needs more scientists. Report by the High Level Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. Brussels: EC. European Commission [EC]. (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Directorate-general for Research Science, Economy and Society. Brussels: EC. Hung, W.(2013). Problem-based learning: A learning environment for enhancing learning transfer. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 137, 27–38. Johnson, S. D. (1995). Transfer of learning. The Technology Teacher, 54(7), 33-35 Molnár, G., Greiff, S. & Csapó, B. (2013). Inductive reasoning, domain specific and complex problem solving: Relations and development. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 35–45. National Academy of Sciences (2010). Education for life and work. Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Retrieved from (January 20, 2015): http://www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/EdOp/Education%20for%20Life%20and%20 Work-%20National%20Academy%20of%20Sciences.pdf

OECD (2013). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do (Vol. 1). OECD Publication. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa2012-results-volume-I.pdf Rannikmäe, M. (2016). Some crucial areas in science education research corresponding to the needs of the contemporary society. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(1), 1-6. Salomon, G. S. & Perkins D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: when and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3 (2), 149–169. Surif, J., Ibrahim, N. H. & Dalim, S.F. (2014). Problem Solving: Algorithms and Conceptual and Open-Ended Problems in Chemistry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4955 – 4963. von Aufschneider, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to Learn and Learning to Argue: Case Studies of How Students Argumentation Relates to Their Scientific Knowledge. Journal of research in science teaching, 45(1), 101-131. van Gog, T., Paas, F. & van Merriënboer J. J. G. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 83-98.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 58-64, July 2016

The Importance of Educational Technology to Pedagogy: The Relevance of Dewey Jamie Costley Kongju National University Gongju, South Korea Abstract.It is commonly said that instructors must be in control of technology, and that technology needs experienced skilled educators with well-developed theories and ideas about its application. However, it seems that technology itself can be used as a driver of educational ideas and classroom practice, not vice versa. This idea can be generally applied to many situations. As educators we tend to feel that the use of technology must be subsumed within current educational practice, or that it is a supplement to already existing classroom techniques, however, technology is a powerful tool to not only improve education around the margins, but to drive real meaningful change. Keywords: Dewey; education; motivation; pedagogy; technology

Introduction Since the early 90s the use of computers among the general population has climbed at a massive rate. This interconnectivity allows individuals from any part of the world to interact with individuals from any other part of the world. It allows amalgamations and conglomerations of like-minded people to engage in a worldwide conversation on topics ranging from sports to international geopolitical landscapes. This system has been developed through two main forces, the push from technology developers, and the pull from end users. The push from technology developers has been large. A multitude of companies producing a wide variety of versatile, cheap, and easy to use pieces of technology have transformed most adults in the western worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pockets from a jingle of coins and keys, to the soft vibration of a device that can access more information than that which existed at the library of Alexandria. This development is unlikely to end or slow down soon. Technology companies are consistently trying to further their customerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s abilities to interact and use the technology that they create. The pull from end users has also been a powerful force in bringing the varied and powerful types of technology that we have into the public sphere. People are demanding faster and simpler access to online services from companies, and any glitch or issue is seen as a major problem for

end users of technology. We were once happy to send a 100-character text message cross-country, now we demand HD copies of all new release movies to be instantly available on our phones. With this development in the use of technology and the Internet in particular in society, there has been a somewhat parallel develop in the application of these technologies to the practice of education. While many educational systems are somewhat conservative in nature, and the fact that they are large hard to move bureaucracies, there has been more and more technology put into educational practice. The application of technology follows a similar process to the process seen with the technology in the general population, in that, there is a push from the top, and a pull from the bottom. From the top down, many large-scale national education systems at many levels (but especially tertiary) have added more technology into their curriculums, and/or have used online learning to supplement already existing syllabi. This introduction of technology has come in many forms, from general encouragement of teachers to use more technology to technology based lessons as a formal part of the base curriculum. Furthermore, the distribution of actual pieces of technology has been varied, with some schools having smart screens and tablets in every classroom, with others lacking what may be considered basic in a modern educational institution (wi-fi for example). From the bottom many teachers and students are taking it upon themselves to enrich their students’ and their own learning experiences. Some teachers are simply pointing learners to resources that might support whatever is being taught in class, while other teachers are developing complex lesson plans, or modes of internet based interaction that can further expand their learners’ understanding of the class contents and the world at large. From the point of view of the learners, they too are driving the boom in education technology. Like the population at large they are demanding high-tech solutions to problems that they face learning complex topics. Further to this, more and more learners are searching for contents online that are outside the explicit parameters of the lesson or curriculum they are a part of. While there are many and varied ways that technology has influenced and impacted education, it is certainly true that the Internet especially has changed our relationship to knowledge and information. This is important in terms of education especially as formal places and institutions of learning are no longer considered fonts of knowledge, more varied forms of questioning and skepticism are considered relevant and there has been a growth in the value of individual opinion. This has changed the place of the learner in education and their relationship with their school and their teachers. While informal learning has always been an important, the availability of complex developed ideas online has furthered learners’ academic development outside formal centers of education. Formal and informal learning are different from one and other in ways that are sometimes hard to distinguish, with the most obvious and common point of

distinction being the institutional setting or framework they occur in. Formal learning tends to take place in places that are more familiar to us as centers of education like kindergartens, schools and universities. The education that occurs in these settings is purpose driven, clearly structured and generally conducted in a location specifically for the purpose of learning. Informal learning on the other hand occurs outside of schools and is generally less structured (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Schugurensky, 2000). This can often relate indirectly with motivation as learners in formal settings tend to be extrinsically motivated, while informal learning tends to be self-directed and intrinsic motivation tends to dominate. It is important to recognize the context that learning is taking place in so that instructors can develop and administer effective learning practices. This is particularly true when students will be engaging online, where the lines between knowledge types and distribution channels can become blurred. As more and more learners are getting their information from alternative sources instructors need to be aware of differing learning contexts to benefit from the Internet as a learning tool (Lange & Costley, 2015).

Dewey and the lack of change One of the issues in education generally is the lack of change over time. This has been mentioned by many, but deserves repeating. While, it is often thought that the field of education in general is progressive, and educators specifically are a progressive group of people, this for some reason has not led to dramatic changes in the delivery of the education over time. What this means is that opportunities to change education systems are few and far between, and further to that, when given the opportunity to manipulate or improve stagnant systems, those opportunities should be taken. As a classic example of this we can look at the most famous of education theorists John Dewey. In 1897, Dewey wrote My Pedagogic Creed, as excellent and succinct a treatise on education as one is likely to find. In My Pedagogic Creed, it is noted that education is in and of itself a social practice, and that practice is not something we have much individual control over and is unconscious and begins at birth and ends at death. We can imagine ourselves as a construction of an individual, generated from social values and social consciousness. This process while not under our direct control is fundamentally a positive process as it allows us to become part of human civilization and “inherit” its knowledge. This view of education ties in with Dewey’s views on morality, which can be summed clumsily into a human quest for a higher spirit and a greater good, as expressed as part of a society of a greater whole. A human being can only achieve moral, and educational completeness as part of a society. This empowers society and also human beings who are a part of it to continuously strive to generate knowledge and behave in such a way that the “race’s” welfare will be enhanced, which in turn enhances the individual. While the sociological side of the equation cannot be overstated, there is a second side to Dewey’s conceptualization of education, which is the

psychological process that underpins it. According to Dewey, society is the context where education will occur and psychology explains and defines the processes that cause learning to happen. Specifically, Dewey notes that ignoring either of these features may result in “evil” occurring and that we must apply education in a way that is designed to be related to and improve students’ lives. We must, according the Dewey avoid focusing on purely academic results as these are not representative of meaningful or authentic learning. We must use our knowledge of the whole of a student’s world and the whole of the student’s mind to formulate an effective educational situation that will result in true meaningful success for the learner. So while, the whole of society is important, and our values and knowledge are generated from society, we must look at each learner individually, at what they want, what they need, and what their future will be to develop meaningful education for that learner. This is empowering the learner and giving them a real education. For this reason, education should be practical and hands on, and use demonstration of a skill as the marker for underlying psychological success (Dewey, 1902; Dewey, 1907). In terms of school, it should according to Dewey be a simple extension of the child’s life as a whole and be used to build a child’s self worth and self-belief. He criticized schools as they were then (and are largely now) as simple “banks” of knowledge, where information is given to the students without meaningful education occurring. He believed that in its current form it was impossible for schools to give students real lessons on anything of substance. He views were critical in regards to assessment as well, feeling that using exams for social ordering was not appropriate, and that assessment should be used as a guide of the student’s individual progress. Looking at, or thinking about Dewey’s ideas makes one think that he would not be so unfamiliar with a modern school. It would look very familiar to him, and the things he criticized about schools in his day: testing as social ordering, inappropriate contents, and lack of meaningful engagement with materials are the problems that still plague education today. To say that education systems are conservative then, is an understatement, if the most famous of education theorists can have his central messages ignored for more than a 100 years. This shows that to try and change education for the better, other strategies beyond theorizing should be used to try and improve learning and teaching.

Technology as a means to change pedagogy For the reasons mentioned above one requires a more aggressive or tangential strategy to implement more progressive educational ideas or concepts into the classroom. Technology can serve as a kind of Trojan Horse whereby technology serves as a means to introduce more dynamic modern pedagogical principles into the classroom. As was written above, educational systems and teachers are often loath to change their ways, so we must find methods to introduce new concepts indirectly.

Motivating learners We have always at least suspected that children learn best through exploring and playing, but it seems to be true for tertiary students as well. This type of

learning helps develop individuals’ cognitive, social, emotional and physical wellbeing. While traditional classroom methods can work, they often do not give learners a great deal of enjoyment or fun. Technology can provide a solution to this, with methods of dealing with new content and information both inside and outside the classroom. Research has shown that there are many advantages to using technology in the classroom in terms of developing learners’ critical thinking and social development (Costley, 2015; Costley & Han, 2014). This means that learning can be meaningfully enhanced with modern interactive learning technology. Most learners will do better if they can apply what they have learned in a handson way. This type of learning is generally more stimulating, engaging and attractive to students and allows a greater amount of interaction with others and learning materials. Technology, if well designed can give students something to master that they are intrinsically interested in that may make them more excited to attend class. Much research has shown that more technology in the classroom motivates students to learn. Students can take control of their learning through the use of hardware like computers, laptops, tablets and so on, but also through applying their skills to games, storytelling apps and online media that may interest them more than the same information being delivered in a traditional way. This learning can also be personalized and allows students to study at their own pace. Also, technology can free up the teacher to help students who are struggling, or give advanced students extra material. The ease that video and animations can be applied to lessons, also gives teachers a greater ability to increase the entertainment value of their class. While, there is certainly some decay in the interest students will have in new pieces of technology, overall the base variety of instructional media the students will encounter should give them a more motivating education experience even after the glow of the shiny new piece of hardware rubs off.

Applying social networks and the Internet in the classroom One of the main advantages of the Internet in the classroom is that allows students and teachers more time to work on things that are important. The Internet and social networks allows students and teachers to interact and collaborate on any topic, anytime or anywhere. This interaction has many benefits, for example some software or apps can provide social networking that allows the sending and sharing of documents, calendars, and grades, and also homework among student, caregivers and other teachers. This type of sharing of information is obviously useful and a great time saving device, what might not be so obvious are the pedagogical benefits beyond efficiency. This type of sharing has two great benefits to students. First, it allows them to see the interconnectivity of their teacher’s world, their world and the world outside the classroom. It will give the learner a meaningful appreciation of what others in the same situation are doing and allow a deeper reflection on their place in the learning process. Secondly, it brings the learner face-to-face with the power of the Internet to regulate their lives and bring meaningful change through interconnectivity. Related to this second point, it is important that students are international online citizens in the 21st century, and having a high amount of

online interconnectivity will support that goal. It is true to say that technology has changed society a lot and will continue to do so, students must able to navigate the future, which will include a heavy dose of technology. Most homes these days have the Internet and some type of desktop, laptop, or mobile device. They provide an almost limitless supply of information and knowledge including: online lesson plans, education apps, interactive education games, online education videos and infographics, and PDFs. For these reasons, we must be aware of research into online learning and the use of technology in learning.

Conclusion It is commonly said that instructors must be in control of technology, and that technology needs experienced skilled educators with well-developed theories and ideas about its application. However, it seems that technology itself can be used as a driver of educational ideas and classroom practice, not vice versa. This idea can be generally applied to many situations. As educators we tend to feel that the use of technology must be subsumed within current educational practice, or that it is a supplement to already existing classroom techniques, however, technology is a powerful tool to not only improve education around the margins but to drive real meaningful change.

Regardless of whether or not educators want to deal with developments in technology, that technology is entering classrooms at an increasing and ever more pervasive rate. This technology has come in many forms, and not only this, students are exposed to even more technology outside the classroom than they are inside it. Students engage with each other on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter and it is fair to say that this is a type of technology and interaction that students find engaging (Davis, 2012). This is a particularly poignant point when many claim that one of the greatest challenges facing teachers is trying to get students to engage with learning contents (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003). As many formal places of learning in the developed world are becoming more standardized and banal, the only world that gives young learners a place where they can freely interact with a wide variety of materials and people is the online one. This contrast likely drives more learners away from traditional face-to-face modes of interaction and instruction and towards freer and more interesting online mediums (Davis, 2003). As has been discussed in this paper, there has been limited change in the more than 100 years since Dewey wrote My Pedagogic Creed (1897), and as this paper has argued, if these changes are to come, they need to be driven from outside the centers of traditional learning. There has been a limited amount of effort and effects from progressive educators to adapt the schooling environment to the new methods of schooling have been piecemeal and largely ineffective (Collins & Halverson, 2009).

A humanistic curriculum as proposed by Dewey, is the most effective way to develop learners for the 21st century. Learners of all ages need to be able to engage with a variety of types and levels of knowledge and create their own meaning of the world in which they live. Further to this point, learners themselves are different. This is the way in which education should seek to change learners. On the flip side, in a world of digital natives, education itself must not only change learners, it must also adapt to them. The learners of today require a more diverse nuanced and dynamic method of education than they are currently getting (Prensky, 2001).

References Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press. Costley, J. (2015). The effects of three types of instructor posting on critical thinking and social presence: No posting, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 26-47. Costley, J. & Han, S. (2014). Mapping changes over time on an asynchronous forum: Interaction and critical thinking. Information: An International Interdisciplinary Journal (Education). 6-10. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education, 15(1), 3-8. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54 (3) p. 77-80. Dewey, J. (1902/2009). The child and the curriculum. USA: Readaclassic.com. Dewey, J. (1907/2009). The school and society. USA: Readaclassic.com. Davis, Heather E. (2012) "Technology in the Classroom: A Deweyan Perspective," Kentucky Journal of Higher Education Policy and Practice: Vol. 1: Iss. 2, Article 2. Available at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjhepp/vol1/iss2/2 Lange, C., Costley, J. (2015). Opportunities and lessons from informal and non-formal learning: Applications to online environments. American Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 3, No. 10, pp 1330-1336. http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/3/10/20 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives,Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning. Towards a conceptualization of the field. Working Paper 19-2000. Presented at the New Approaches for Lifelong Learning (NALL) Fourth Annual Conference, October 6-8. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/2733. Retrieved September 15, 2015 Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. http://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 65-78, July 2016

Bridging Research and Practice: Investigating the Impact of Universally Designed STEM Curriculum on the Concept Acquisition of At-Risk Preschoolers

Michelle R. Gonzalez, PhD William Paterson University Wayne, NJ, USA

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of universally designed STEM curricular units on the concept and vocabulary acquisition of at-risk preschoolers attending a Head Start preschool program. A quasi-experimental control group design was utilized with the experimental group being exposed to the universally designed STEM curricular unit and the control group taking part in nonuniversally designed STEM unit. The control group and experimental group were randomly assigned to the morning and afternoon class of the Head Start center for the first unit STEM unit (plants) and then alternated for the second unit (insects). Participants were administered researcher created assessments to measure concept and vocabulary acquisition for each unit. Results of the first independent t-test (plants) indicated that there was no significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental group and the control group (p = .08). Results of the second independent t-test (insects) also indicated that there was no significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental group) and the control group (p = .29). Multiple factors may have contributed to these results, such as the complexity of collecting UDL efficacy data and measuring UDL, participant differences, and unit implementation. Though no significance was found, early childhood educators should be encouraged to still apply the framework to their curricular planning. Infusing UDL through centers, the use of teacher created eBooks, and student choice are recommended. Keywords: Universal Design for learning; UDL; STEM; Early Childhood; At-risk.

Introduction The diversity of students attending preschools today is ever growing. These students come to school with diverse learning abilities in the areas of cognitive, social, emotional, language, and motor development. At the same ÂŠ 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

time early childhood centers are serving an increasing numbers of English language learners, and students with disabilities. The growing diversity in today’s early childhood classrooms poses a challenge for the preschool teacher. Though a challenge exists, educators still strive to set and meet rigorous goals. One goal of the preschool teacher is to create and implement a curriculum that promotes the growth and development of all children (Stockall, Dennis, & Miller, 2012). Likewise, early childhood educators note an essential goal is to create inclusive programs for all students and to begin to move away from specialized programs (Conn-Powers, Cross, Traub, & Hutter-Pishgahi, 2006). A framework that can help meet these goals and support all learners is universal design for learning (UDL). UDL is a set of principles for curriculum development, instructional design, and assessment for PreK-12 settings that gives all individuals equal access to learning (Cast, 2011). Based on research in educational practices, cognitive science, developmental psychology, and neuroscience, UDL helps teachers respond to and address the diverse learning needs and differences of students present in today’s classroom (Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL takes a different approach to curricular planning. Educators using the framework for curricular and lesson planning consider the diversity of the students up front rather than as an afterthought that often happens with traditional planning. In other words, when designing curriculum and daily plans, the teacher thinks first how she can meet the needs of all of her students rather than making modifications and adaptations for students after the planning phase, which is often called “retrofitting.” The framework of UDL is guided by three main principles: (1) To support recognition learning, provide multiple means of presentation, (2) To support strategic learning, providing multiple means of expression and action, and (3) To support affective learning, provide multiple means for engagement. Instructional, material, curriculum, and assessment design that shadows these three principles can help increase the learning opportunities for all children who struggle to learn (Edyburn, 2005; Rose & Meyer, 2000). UDL can easily be applied to the preschool setting. Often an early childhood educator is implementing ideas aligned with the UDL framework; however, with additional careful and purposeful planning and thought, more strategies can be applied resulting in greater access to the curriculum for all young students. The following examples highlight a few concrete application ideas of how a preschool teacher can implement the principles of UDL within her classroom. For example, an early childhood educator can apply the first principle, provide multiple means of representation, by using eBooks in centers or during shared reading, using multiple representations of a topic (book/eBook, poem, song, dramatic representation, stuffed animal/puppet, illustrations/photos, etc.), and the use of age-appropriate graphic organizers. Application ideas for the second principle, provide multiple means of expression, can include providing students choice for how they want to share their acquisition of concepts (clay, drawing/painting, creating a story using an eBook, dramatic representation, etc.), the use of partial participation, or providing multiple opportunities for children to practice skills throughout the day (centers, small groups, shared reading, circle time, etc.) In the third © 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

principle, provide multiple means of engagement, the preschool teacher can offer various creation mediums in centers, use flexible and varied sized groups, provide multiple levels of challenges (puzzles, traditional games, technology games, etc.) or design an area in the classroom that limits distractions. Further application examples can be found on the Center for Applied Technology (CAST) website (www.cast.org.) Though the UDL framework can be easily implemented using low-tech methods, the framework still depends on flexible digital media. The use of digital media increases the ease of the implementation of the UDL principles (Rose & Meyer, 2000). For instance, an early childhood teacher can easily use technology to enhance a lesson using the book Five Little Monkeys Jumping on the Bed. The teacher can use an eBook version of this book that allows for enlargement of the text and pictures, which can result in all students having access to the book. Sound effects and music is often embedded in these eBooks, which can help keep the attention of students. The teacher than can make the eBook available later in the Reading center where students can independently listen to the book because of built in text-to-speech. Students may then decide to dramatize the book using monkey puppets and with the help of the teacher they record the play using the camera imbedded in the class iPad. The movie is then shared with the class during closing circle and emailed to parents. Though these are just a few examples, it is clearly evident that the use of technology can help increase access for all students and help improve engagement in comparison to only using traditional teaching methods. There is a lack of empirical research concerning UDL in all educational settings. Few empirical studies can be located that directly measure the impact of universally designed curriculum on the outcomes of students. For instance, contributions to literature regarding UDL include only basic descriptions and principles of UDL (Brand, Favazza, & Dalton, 2012; Edyburn, 2005; Jimenez, Graf, & Rose, 2007; Spencer, 2011; Wehmeyer, 2006), Other literature centers on the application of the UDL framework to teacher practices in the elementary, middle, and secondary settings with few articles focused on the early childhood population. Specifically, the framework has been applied to literacy (Hall, Cohen, Vue, & Ganley, 2015; Kennedy, Thomas, & Meyer, 2014; Meo, 2008; Metcalf, Evans, & Flynn, 2009; Narkon & Wells, 2013) and math instruction (Hunt & Andreasen, 2011; Selmer & Floyd, 2012; Thomas, Van Garderen, & Scheuemann, 2015; Zydney & Hasselbring, 2014). The content areas of science (King-Sears & Johnson, 2015; Kurtts, Matthews, & Smallwood, 2009; Marino, Gotch, & Israel, 2014; McPherson, 2009; Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, & Lim, 2013) and social studies (Bouck, Courtad, & Heutsche, 2009) also are a focus in the literature. Other focus areas are STEM education (Basham & Marino, 2013), the Arts (Darrow, 2015; Glass, Meyer, & Rose, 2013), and culturally diverse students (Chita-Tegmark, Gravel, & Serpa, 2012; Kavita, 2015; Rice, 2015). Like in the areas of elementary, middle, and secondary education, there is little empirical research in the setting of early childhood classrooms. Specifically, no research could be located that directly investigated the effect of universally designed preschool curriculum on the learning outcomes of students. Likewise as in other educational settings, the literature in the early childhood domain primarily focuses on the application of the framework. For ÂŠ 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

instance, one contribution discusses in general how the UDL principles can be applied to preschool curriculum development and the classroom environment (Stockall et al., 2012). Suggestions are provided in how to select appropriate classroom materials, write goals, set up centers, and integrate technology. Another author applies the principles to outdoor play and gives examples as to how early childhood educators can make outside play more accessible by applying the UDL framework (Harte, 2013). The UDL principles have also been applied to assessment in early childhood settings (Dalton & Brand, 2012). Specifically, using a variation of assessment methods, formats, and teacher feedback can lead to more authentic and accurate assessment results in young children. On the other hand, a final contribution takes more of a theoretical approach and discusses how early childhood, inclusive education, and UDL should be merged to form Universal Design for Early Childhood Education (UDECE; Darragh, 2007). Overall, the application of UDL principles to the early childhood settings has the potential to enhance the environment and student development, but little empirical evidence is available to support this claim. The UDL framework can be applied to any subject area in the preschool; however, one area of interest is science. Science is one content area found in the well-known acronym STEM. The other content areas include technology, engineering, and mathematics. As a nation-wide initiative, teachers are encouraged to incorporate STEM into their curriculum in order to increase the necssary awareness and knowledge to benefit students in everyday situations as well as studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; potential in obtaining jobs in STEM-related settings in the future. The United States hopes that increasing student performance in STEM will result in more students entering these STEM related professions (Lacey & Wright, 2009). Therefore, including STEM in the curriculum is beneficial for students of all ages, especially young children (Katz, Chard, & Kogan, 2013). There is also a growing needed to incorporate STEM into school curricula due to recent international assessment data. Internationally, 8th grade students in the United States rank 10th and 4th grade students rank 7th in Science achievement (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). Though this is an increase in ranking from 2007 there is still concern that students in the United States are not ranking higher. Likewise, because of these recent trends in international data, there is an ever growing need to design early childhood environments that address STEM (Aronin & Flyod, 2013). Some educators hold the fallacy that STEM curriculum is too difficult to use in preschool settings; however, STEM encourages many key skills, such as helping children focus, increasing vocabulary, encouraging collaboration, and creating scientific relationships (Moomaw & Davis, 2010). Skills in STEM are a fundamental element of a balanced education and essential to effective citizenship (STEM Education Coalition, 2016). Preschool environments can easily incorporate STEM concepts throughout the school day. For instance, in the block center, students can build bridges, ramps, and houses (engineering and math) and research these structures in the computer center (technology). Outside, a water center can be set up where children experiment with various containers to fill and compare (science and math). Simply, a nature walk where students can collect almost anything, such as rocks, leaves, insects, seeds, etc. can encourage the development of STEM concepts. With these collections, students can ÂŠ 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

practice counting, exploring differences/similarities, and possibly making hypotheses (math and science). The design of STEM curricula using the framework of UDL could result in powerful outcomes. Increasing access to STEM concepts for all students is important and could lead to increased interest and achievement in this field, ultimately resulting in more students entering STEM related fields. However, after the examination of the literature, it is clear that further investigation of the efficacy of the application of the UDL framework in the early childhood classroom is needed, especially in Science. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to determine the impact of a universally designed science curricular units on the concept and vocabulary acquisition of at-risk preschoolers attending a Head Start preschool program.

Methods Setting and Participants The selected site for the study was a Head Start center in the North Eastern section of the United States. Traditionally, the goal of Head Start centers is to promote school readiness skills in low-income young children of the ages 35. Head Starts are family based programs that not only support the social and emotional support of the students, but also provides services and programs to families to help promote these key areas in a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development. The Head Start center was located in a diverse and impoverished urban area with a high English language learner and transient population. The center consisted of two classrooms; however, the scope of the study was limited to only one classroom. The classroom was selected because the classroom teacher implementing the units was previously trained in the implementation of UDL; thus, enabling her to have a good working knowledge of the framework. The selected classroom consisted of AM and PM sessions with approximately 17 students in each session. The needs of the students in each classroom were diverse with few meeting expected grade/age level targets. Thus, the researcher felt these students would benefit from universally designed STEM curricular units. Each class sized varied through out the entire study due to the transient nature of the area. The varying sample sizes for each curricular unit are identified in the results section. Assent was obtained by all participants included in the study along with parental permission.

Design and Implementation A quasi-experimental control group design was utilized with the experimental group being exposed to the universally designed science curricular unit and the control group taking part in non-universally designed science unit. The control group and experimental group were randomly assigned to the morning and afternoon class of the Head Start center for the first unit. After the first unit, assignment of the control and experimental group was alternated. At the conclusion of the project, each class participated in one universally designed unit. The topic of unit one was plants with insects as the second topic. The duration of each unit was ten school days. Table 1 illustrates the class assignment for each unit and the total number of children who participated in the study for each unit. ÂŠ 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Table 1: Group Assignment Class Plants AM Control (n = 9) PM Experimental (n = 8)

Insects Experimental (n = 8) Control (n = 14)

Both the experimental and control group units were researcher created with some input from the classroom teacher. The control group units were designed using developmental appropriate practices that promoted the main domains of learning (cognitive, language, motor, self-help/adaptive language, and social development). The control group units reflected best practices in early-childhood education. In the creation of the universally designed units, in addition to the consideration of developmentally appropriate practice and the major domains of learning, the researcher used the framework and principles of UDL as a guide. Typical lessons for both the control and universally designed units consisted of a short teacher lead shared reading, demonstration, discussion and/or a teacher lead activity. Guided and Independent practice of the unit concepts occurred in the classroomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Science center. Though the researcher created the bulk of the units, the teacher was still consulted concerning different aspects of the units. For instance, the researcher gathered feedback regarding the appropriateness of specific strategies, such as the use of graphic organizers (KWL Chart, webbing, etc.) and the length and complexity of the shared reading, demonstration, discussion, or teacher lead activity. In order to promote consistency between both universally designed Science units, the researcher selected key strategies and materials that would be integrated throughout each unit. Both high-tech and low-tech materials and strategies were utilized. High-tech strategies and materials were defined as anything that was electronic, battery and/or Internet based. Conversely, low-tech was defined as strategies and materials that could be operated without the dependence on electricity, batteries, and/or the Internet. A summary of the key low-tech and high-tech materials and strategies utilized in the study can be found in Table 2. Detailed unit timelines and plans were given to the classroom teacher for both the experimental and control group units. In the experimental units, the UDL components were highlighted to help the classroom teacher differentiate between the control and experimental units. The researcher maintained an openline of communication with the classroom teacher throughout the study, but to encourage implementation fidelity the researcher checked in with the classroom teacher mid-way through each unit. The check-in consisted of a discussion of the implementation of the unit and the answering of any relevant questions. The researcher also re-demonstrated any high-tech strategies or materials as needed at the check-ins. All units were reviewed and explained to the classroom teacher prior to implementation. Technology was also demonstrated prior to unit implementation. Table 3 provides an overview of each unit.

Table 2: UDL High-Tech and Low-Tech Examples High Tech Examples  Researcher and student made eBooks using Book Creator  iPad apps such as Book Creator, Parts of a Plant, Life Cycles for Kids, Ladybug, Learn Fruit & Vegetables, Butterfly, Noisy Bug  Internet-based videos such as Time Lapse Growing Plant, Song: “Head, Thorax, and Abdomen,” Butterfly Life Cycle (Monarch)  iPad camera to document growth cycle of student plants and choice of expression Low Tech Examples  Graphic organizers such as a KWL for each unit, Life Cycle organizers, and webbing to organize concepts  The use of researcher made games that included multiple levels of play  Use of picture vocabulary cards to highlight key terms for each unit in students’ native language (Spanish) and English  Ability grouping and choice of working independently or cooperatively during learning centers  Choice of expression in each unit where students could select how they wanted to demonstrate their learning. E.g. Life Cycle of Insect Extension: Students had the choice of making a book (print or eBook), illustrating a picture, utilizing a graphic organizer, acting out the life cycle (record using iPad), or using modeling clay  Multiple opportunities to practice skills occurred across the unit primarily during the learning centers where students could review information using the selected iPad applications, eBooks, and learning games  Ability grouping and choice of working independently or cooperatively during learning centers

Table 3: Overview of Units Day Plant Unit Insect Unit 1 What is a plant? Types of Plants Introduction to the Unit: Insects 2 Types of Plants What makes an insect an insect? 3 Parts of a Plant Overview Insects All Around Us 4 Parts of a Plant: Roots & Stems Life Cycle of an Insect/Butterfly 5 Parts of a Plant: Leaves & Flowers Ladybugs Researcher Check-In 6 Seeds Ants 7 Where do seeds come from? Grasshoppers (Fruit) 8 Life Cycle of Plant Bumblebees 9 Life Cycle of Plant Fireflies 10 Life Cycle of a Plant & Closure Closure & Review

Instruments Data were collected using researcher created instruments that measured the concept and vocabulary acquisition of each participant. The concept acquisition of the instruments consisted of the participants demonstrating their understanding of the life cycle of plants and insects. In addition, the researcher defined vocabulary acquisition as the participants’’ ability to use key unit vocabulary in their oral responses to questions. A list of key vocabulary terms was generated for each unit, such as parts of plants and insects and types of insects and plants. An early childhood science curricular expert reviewed each instrument for content validity. Each instrument was designed and administered using developmental appropriate practices. Each instrument relied on the use of pictures. Some questions required participants to point to an appropriate picture, while other questions participants verbally gave their responses. For instance, in the plant unit pretest and posttest, participants were asked to talk about what a life cycle is (concept acquisition) and a plant that has a life cycle (vocabulary). Participants were also asked to point to each stage of the plant life cycle and talk about what they knew about it (vocabulary and concept acquisition). In the insect unit pretest and posttest, the participants, where asked to name an insect they knew (vocabulary), as well as what makes an insect an insect (vocabulary and concept acquisition). After being presented with various insect pictures, the participants were asked to name them. All pretests and posttests were administered individually, in English, and in a quiet area of the classroom. The researcher used a data collection sheet to record the participants’ responses during the administration of the tests. Participants’ responses were manually recorded onto the data collection sheets for later analysis. Identical pretest and posttest were administered. The early childhood science curricular expert scored all tests.

Results Participation in the units varied for each class. Parental consent was not given for all children. A number of children were not present for both the pretest and the posttest. The researcher made numerous attempts to collect data without success. At the conclusion of the first unit (plants), the control group had nine viable data sets and the experimental group had eight. The second curricular unit (insects) resulted in 14 viable data sets for the control group and eight data sets for the experimental group. In order to control for differences between the control and experimental groups, caliper matching was utilized with a caliper width equal to the pretest score 1. For the first curricular unit (plants) five of the eight possible pairs of data (62.5%) remained after matching. For the second curricular unit (insects), Five of the eight possible pairs of data (62.5%) remained after matching. After caliper matching, an independent one tailed t-test was conducted for each unit to determine if any significance difference existed between the control group and experimental groups posttest scores. An independent t-test can be deemed appropriate with a sample size as small as two (de Winter, 2013). However, generalizability of results decreases as sample size decreases. Thus, it © 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

can be concluded that a t-test is appropriate in the current study, but results should be reviewed with caution. Results of the first independent t-test (plants) indicated that there was no significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental group (M = 2.6, SD = 2.42) and the control group (M = .6, SD = .80), t(8) = 1.57, p = .08. Results of the second independent t-test (insects) indicated that there was no significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental group (M = 7.6, SD = 3.24) and the control group (M = 8.8, SD = 2.79), t(8) = 0.57, p = .29. It can be concluded that the universally designed units did not significantly change the posttest scores of the experimental group. Multiple factors may have contributed to these results and will be analyzed in the following discussion.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of universally designed STEM curricular units on the concept and vocabulary acquisition of atrisk preschoolers attending a Head Start Preschool Program. Overall, the results indicate that the universally designed STEM units did not significantly affect posttest scores of the experimental group. However, a slight increase of posttest scores was reported for the experimental group in the insect unit. Though, no significance differences were found in each unit, the value of this study comes from the additional questions that arose about the implementation of UDL and how to measure its effectiveness. UDL is a complex and multifaceted framework (Basham & Gardner, 2010) that is subjective in nature. The framework is made up of three principles and under each principle there are three main guidelines. Each guideline then has anywhere from three to five checkpoints. These principles, guidelines, and checkpoints provide guidance in the development of universally designed curricula, assessments, and materials; however, there is no standard that states how much of each component should be incorporated within a lesson, curriculum, etc. Essentially, student interests, strengths, and needs and the content that is being taught drive the implementation of UDL. Thus, UDL operates on a continuum based on these factors with implementation occurring in varying degrees across various settings resulting in the difficulty of narrowing down the focus as to what elements are the most beneficial. In the present study, it is difficult to determine if the most appropriate UDL elements were selected. Other selected elements may have resulted in different outcomes. Another important point that arises concerns the use of student measures. Simply the use of only pretest and posttest scores may not give researchers enough data to determine the effectiveness of UDL. Besides test scores, other areas of assessment should include improved fluency, expression, problem solving, and collaboration (CAST, 2008). Though test scores of vocabulary and concept acquisition did not improve, it cannot be discounted that other areas may have improved, such as engagement in the STEM subject area or greater access to the material. Besides the complexity of UDL, other factors may have contributed to the results of the current study, such as participant characteristics and the study implementation. Even though caliper matching was utilized to help control for differences between the control and experimental group, all differences could ÂŠ 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

not be controlled for. For instance, the PM class had greater cognitive ability, as reported by the classroom teacher. In other words, students in the PM class had more potential in learning, applying, and generalizing the concepts being introduced in the plant and insect units. Posttest scores were higher in both the insect (control group) and plant (experimental group) units for the PM class. The PM class also had fewer English Language Learners, fewer absences during the units and a lower subject mortality rate, which all possibly influenced the results. Moreover, the high subject mortality and absentee rates resulted in a smaller sample size limiting the generalization of the results. The parameters put in place at the Head Start center may have influenced results. Other programs needed to be implemented at the same time due to the nature of the Head Start program, such as a unit on Dental Awareness. This unit took place at the same time as one of the UDL units, which resulted in time taken away from the unit. Participants also self-selected centers and were not required to take part in the Science center, which is a common practice in early childhood classrooms. The classroom teacher could only encourage students to visit the Science center. Much of the practice and application of the unit concepts occurred in this center. Thus, some students may have frequently visited the center and others may have never chosen it. Data was not collected on the student frequency or use of the center, though this data may have been useful in explaining results. At the conclusion of the study, the researcher gathered informal data from the classroom teacher in relation to the unit design. The classroom teacher remarked that some of the activities were too lengthy and complex for her studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attention spans and abilities. The researcher did consult with the teacher regarding the appropriateness of the unit lesson, activities, etc. prior to implementation. However, it may have been beneficial to encourage flexible unit implementation. In other words, the daily unit lessons may have been changed based on the effectiveness and appropriateness of previous lessons. This flexibility more closely mirrors daily instructional practices of classroom teachers, as well as the framework of UDL. The rigidity of the unit implementation may have skewed the study results. Future research should allow for more flexibility of teacher unit implementation. Finally, the units were not researcher implemented, which may have also impacted the results of the study. The researcher provided detailed lesson plans for each topic of the unit and explained each lesson thoroughly to the classroom teacher. However, implementation of these units was dependent on the integrity of the teacher. Even though mid-unit checkpoints were put in place, researcher fidelity checks did not occur. Because fidelity checks did not occur, it is unknown to what extent the units were implemented as planned. Furthermore, the classroom teacher was versed in the UDL framework due to taking a graduate level course on this topic; however, additional researcher feedback may have been beneficial in regards to how the teacher was implementing the UDL principles. Ideally, researcher implemented units would have been the most effective and would have reduced threats to internal validity.

Implications for Early Childhood Educators Though significant results were not found at the conclusion of the study, there are still implications for early childhood educators. Early childhood educators should continue to design early childhood environments and curricula using the UDL framework. Benefits of using the UDL framework other than improved test scores are apparent, such as the possibility of improved engagement and increased access to the curriculum and classroom environment. Early childhood educators may consider implementing the following ideas drawn from the implementation and results of the current study, as well as UDL best practices in the literature. Implications should be viewed with caution being that no significance was found in the current study. Further research should be conducted before these suggestions can be considered evidence-based practices in the early childhood classroom. First, classroom centers are the ideal place to implement UDL principles. Centers are the best place to encourage persistence with students on a concept across time. Centers also allow for multiple exposures on a concept and give students multiple opportunities to practice a skill. Student needs can easily be met in centers by using flexible grouping and changing or adapting materials. At the same time, STEM concepts can seamlessly be integrated into centers. The use of eBooks, especially teacher made, is recommended. The use of teacher created eBooks allow for educators to explain any topic in the manner that they decide. The use of eBooks is appropriate for various student abilities. Books can be shortened or adapted for those students with shorter attention spans, lower cognitive ability or for those learning English and easily made more complex for those students more advanced. Videos and engaging photos can be incorporated into the eBooks. Likewise, the classroom teacher can provide the audio recording of the text being read. The eBooks can be placed in a center where students can independently review the topic. Recommended book creation Apps are Book Creator, Book Writer, and Scribble My Story. Finally, it is recommended that teachers implement student choice. Students should be given a choice in how they want to show their knowledge, which benefits various ability levels and student interests. In the current study, students were given the choice in how they wanted to demonstrate their knowledge of the plant life cycle by either drawing, making an eBook, completing a graphic organizer, using clay, or dramatizing the cycle. These choices can be placed in a Science Center. Some students may be overwhelmed with the number of choices; therefore, the teacher should make modifications where needed. Two choices may be appropriate for some students, while other students may be able to handle five. Choice is both powerful and engaging for students.

Recommendations for Future Research It is recommended that researchers collect additional data besides student outcomes when investigating the efficacy of UDL. This additional data may yield useful information regarding the best implementation practices of UDL. Specifically, it is recommended that classroom level data should be collected. For instance, researchers should collect observational data on the actual implementation of UDL and to what extent UDL is being implemented in ÂŠ 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

the classroom. Researchers can observe classrooms and rate the level of UDL using tools such as The Universal Design for Learning Measurement Tool 1.0 (Basham & Gardner, 2010). This information can then be correlated with student outcomes and level of engagement. Classroom level data may give greater insight into what level of UDL is most effective. At the same time, classroom observations may yield richer student outcome data. Observational data may allow researchers to determine more closely if proposed student outcomes were effectively reached in comparison to solely using closed and open-ended instrument formats. The collection of teacher level data is also recommended. For instance, collecting perceptual data regarding how teachers implement UDL and how they change their instruction and classroom environments based off of student strengths, needs, interests and lesson content would be useful in uncovering information about what elements of UDL are the most feasible and appropriate to implement in the early child classroom. Nevertheless, results of the current study indicate more research needs to be conducted to determine the efficacy of UDL in early childhood environments. This research can only occur with a strong partnership between early childhood educators and researchers.

References Aronin, S. & Floyd, K. K. (2013). Using an iPad in inclusive preschool classrooms to introduce STEM concepts. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(4), 34-39. Basham, J. D. & Gardner, J. E. (2010). Measuring universal design for learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 15-19. Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8-15. Bouck, E. C., Courtad, C. A., Heutsche, A., Okolo, C. M., & Englert, C. S. (2009). The virtual history museum: A universally designed approach to social studies Instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(2-), 14-20. Brand, S. T., Favazza, A. E., & Dalton, E. M. (2012). Universal design for learning: A blueprint for success for all learners. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(3), 134-139. Chita-Tegmark, M., Gravel, J. W., Serpa, M. B., Domings, Y., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Using the universal design for learning framework to support culturally diverse learners. Journal Of Education, 192(1), 17-22. Conn-Powers, M., Cross, A. F., Traub, E. K., & Hutter-Pishgahi, L. (2006). The universal design of early education: Moving forward for all children. Beyond the Journal: Young Children on the Web. Retrieved from http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200609/ConnPowersBTJ.pdf Dalton, E. M., & Brand, S. T. (2012). The assessment of young children through the lens of universal design for learning (UDL). Forum On Public Policy Online, 2012(1), Darrow, A. (2015). Differentiated instruction for students with disabilities: Using DI in the music classroom. General Music Today, 28(2), 29-32. DEC (Division for Early Childhood) & NAEYC. 2009. “Early Childhood Inclusion: A Joint Position Statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).” Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. www.naeyc.org/fi les/naeyc/fi le/ positions/DEC_NAEYC_updatedKS.pdf Edyburn, D. L. (2005). Universal design for learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 7(5), 16-22.

Glass, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2013). Universal design for learning and the Arts. Harvard Educational Review, 83(1), 98-119. Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and technology: Strategic Reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 72-83. Harte, H. A. (2013). Universal design and outdoor learning. Dimensions Of Early Childhood, 41(3), 18-22. Horn, E., & Banerjee, R. (2009). Understanding curriculum modifications and embedded learning opportunities in the context of supporting all children's success. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 406-415. Hunt, J. H., & Andreasen, J. B. (2011). Making the most of universal design for learning. Mathematics Teaching In The Middle School, 17(3), 166-172. Katz, L., Chard, S., & Kogan, Y. (2013). Engaging childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s minds: The project approach. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Kennedy, M. J., Thomas, C. N., Meyer, J. P., Alves, K. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 71-86. King-Sears, M. E., Johnson, T. M., Berkeley, S., Weiss, M. P., Peters-Burton, E. E., Evmenova, A. S., & ... Hursh, J. C. (2015). An exploratory study of universal design for teaching chemistry to students with and without disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 84-96. Kurtts, S. A., Matthews, C. E., & Smallwood, T. (2009). (Dis)Solving the differences: A physical science lesson using universal design. Intervention In School And Clinic, 44(3), 151-159. Lacey, T. A., & Wright, B. (2009). Occupational employment projections to 2018. Monthly Labor Review, 132(11), 82-123. Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez, E. I., Basham, J. D., & Becht, K. (2014). UDL in the middle school science classroom: Can video games and alternative text heighten engagement and learning for students with learning disabilities?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87-99. McGuire, J., Scott, S., & Shaw, S. (2006). Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial & Special Education, 27(3), 166-175. McPherson, S. (2009). "A dance with the butterflies:" A metamorphosis of teaching and learning through technology. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(3), 229-236. Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 21-30. Metcalf, D., Evans, C., Flynn, H. K., & Williams, J. B. (2009). Direct instruction + UDL = access for diverse learners: How to plan and implement an effective multisensory spelling lesson. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(6), Moomaw, S. & Davis, A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. Young Children, 65(5), 12-18. Narkon, D. E., & Wells, J. C. (2013). Improving reading comprehension for elementary students with learning disabilities: UDL enhanced story mapping. Preventing School Failure, 57(4), 231-239. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Rao, K. (2015). Universal design for learning and multimedia technology: Supporting culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal Of Educational Multimedia And Hypermedia, 24(2), 121-137. Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial And Special Education, 35(3), 153-166. Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K. H., & Johnson, M. (2013). Universal design for learning and elementary school science: ÂŠ 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Exploring the efficacy, use, and perceptions of a web-based science notebook. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1210-1225. Rice Doran, P. (2015). Language accessibility in the classroom: How UDL can promote success for linguistically diverse learners. Exceptionality Education International, 25(3), 1-12. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: ACSD Publishing. Selmer, S. J., & Floyd, K. (2012). UDL for geometric length measurement. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(3), 146-151. Spencer, S. A. (2011). Universal design for learning: Assistance for teachers in today's inclusive classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Teaching And Learning, 1(1), 1022. STEM Education Coalition (2016). Retrieved from http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/One-pager-on-STEM-Ed-Coalition.pdf Stockall, N. S., Dennis, L., & Miller, M. (2012). Right from the start: Universal design for preschool. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(1), 10-17. Thomas, C. N., Van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., & Lee, E. J. (2015). Applying a universal design for learning framework to mediate the language demands of Mathematics. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 207-234. Winter, J. C. F. (2013). Using the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(10), 1-12. Zydney, J. M., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2014). Mini anchors: A universal design for learning approach. Techtrends: Linking Research And Practice To Improve Learning, 58(6), 2128.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 79-96, July 2016

An Education Leadership Program‘s Continuous Improvement Journey Toward a StandardsBased System Peters, R., Grundmeyer, T. and Buckmiller, T. Drake University Des Moines, IA. U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to evaluate the perceptions of graduate students enrolled in an education leadership program that used standards-based grading (SBG), about their perceptions of the effectiveness of SBG and their inclination to use it later in their own classrooms. Data and conclusions from this study will help the authors refine the ways they are using SBG in their courses and programmatically. Results indicated that SBG facilitated ownership of learning and deep levels of thinking and engagement. Students observed that they benefitted from the ongoing and substantive formative feedback, which they report is often neglected, even in their professional evaluation processes. Further, they reported the ability to better track their progress toward standards. In spite of these benefits, students were mixed in their predictions as to whether they would ultimately incorporate SBG in their own classrooms. As such, the authors have committed to a more comprehensive transition to a standards-based learning, assessment, and grading model in their educational leadership program. They have expanded their inquiry of SBG‘s effects, and have advanced discussion about its appropriateness in other areas of the university. Ultimately, they encourage others in higher education to become more conversant in SBG principles and to conduct classes in a manner consistent with preparing educators for standards-based environments. Keywords: Standards-based grading (SBG); higher education; education leadership

Introduction With the emergence of the Common Core State Standards and a heightened emphasis on 21st century skills, what PK-12 schools and districts want their students to know and be accountable for has perhaps become clearer than it has ever been. However, in our roles as professors of education leadership, working with teachers and administrators from across our state, it is evident that, while much work has been done to align local curricula and instruction with the standards, the methods of assessing, grading, and reporting students‘ progress

toward these learning targets often remain mired in outdated, highly subjective practices devoid of any research base. Further, it has become obvious, the more we examine the literature and engage with students, teachers, and administrators, that these practices are not just benign vestiges of past models, but are actually counterproductive to students‘ intrinsic motivation to learn and even, perhaps, to efforts to diminish the achievement gap. As such, we set out to study exemplars of grading and assessment that were tied to progress toward standards, and thus were more conducive to student ownership of learning and consistent with Dweck‘s (2006) concept of growth mindset. One of our articles based on case studies of these early adopters, Our Grades Were Broken: Overcoming Barriers and Challenges to Implementing StandardsBased Grading (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014), revealed a couple of key issues that were particularly relevant to our work: 1) Schools and districts attempting to innovate with standards-based models viewed institutions of higher education as potential obstacles to such efforts, based on a perception that college and university admissions offices and learning environments were generally averse or disadvantageous to students coming from these schools; and 2) School administrators were finding a dearth of educators and leadership candidates with prior training or background in standards-based practice.

In our subsequent work with K-12 school leaders who are adopting standardsbased grading initiatives, we have consistently had this reinforced for us by these practitioners—simply put, they and their stakeholders tend to view institutions of higher education more as hindrances to implementation rather than facilitators or partners. As a result of this feedback, our education leadership faculty felt compelled to explore the relative merits of utilizing standards-based assessment and grading strategies as part of our own continuous improvement efforts. It has been a gradual process, influenced by emerging reform initiatives, a critical literature base, and our own research on the topic. As our program continues its transition to effective formative and summative assessment and grading methods that are conducive to learning, we have had success with such exploratory practices in our individual classrooms. The purpose of this paper is to describe the empirical research data gathered thus far and discuss its implications. Review of the literature It stands to reason that, as learning and professional standards are increasingly being developed and promoted in content areas and professional realms—and as curricula and instructional methods are increasingly being aligned with these standards—that assessment, grading, and reporting of student proficiency should similarly be aligned. Without this alignment to standards, what grades signify is blurred by the many purposes they serve. This conveys the basic problem inherent in a single letter grade: It must communicate such a range and mélange of information—about achievement, effort, and behavior—that it is often impossible to discern its real meaning (O‘Connor, 2009).

Reeves (2013) asserts that our underlying purpose in assessment and grading should be the improvement of teaching and learning and that, to achieve this, educators at all levels must provide information that is precise and relevant to student success. By using standards as a conduit for assessing and reporting student achievement, instructors are able to provide students with more accurate and actionable information about what their grades signify and how to improve. This practice of providing more actionable feedback is also an issue of fairness, which Reeves identifies as the foundational quality upon which educational decisions should be established. He goes on to note that student achievement in a fair system should be associated with proficiency in identifiable standards versus ―wading through mysterious, changing expectations (p. xiv).‖ While acknowledging the right of academic freedom for teachers, Reeves (2013) warns that this does not include the freedom to ignore standards that have been established as explicit targets for student learning. He also adds that higher order thinking and intellectual growth are best advanced via clear objectives, frequent formative feedback, and an expectation for students to edit and revise work that is less than proficient. While still in the minority, ever-increasing numbers of progressive secondary schools have begun to adopt such standards-based assessment and grading models. In spite of this growing popularity in the K-12 ranks, this research suggests a dearth of evidence for corresponding efforts in institutions of higher education. As Beattie (2013) notes, grading practices at the post-secondary level continue to vary widely from instructor to instructor and often obscure academic achievement by incorporating components like class attendance and participation, or by norming practices that compare students to each other rather than to a standard (O‘Connor & Wormeli, 2011). Guskey and Bailey (2009) found such practices unreliable and lacking in clarity about student skill attainment or understanding. This variance between levels and instructors‘ practices is also problematic in that it holds the potential to complicate the transition of students from standards-based high schools into college, and may thus provide a deterrent to the broader propagation of SBG principles (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014). Certainly, it at least presents a discontinuity for high school graduates who have learned to self-assess and been acculturated to direct, actionable feedback on their performance relative to learning standards. Such students, upon entering college, are often confronted with a system in which grades are again meted out in a variety of subjective, non-standardized formats—a developmental step back toward an inordinate sense of dependence on the teacher. Further, by perpetuating the practice of blending assessment of content knowledge and skill with unrelated behavioral components, professors may be exacerbating the systemic problem of grade inflation (Johnson, 2003). And the absence of SBG in colleges of education may ultimately have the effect of limiting the prospects of aspiring teachers and administrators when they enter the job candidate pool. Rundquist (2012) presented a rare exception to this lack of reported standardsbased grading efforts in higher education, noting positive results after implementing SBG design in an upper-level physics course. All assessments

incorporated student voice and choice, allowing students to demonstrate proficiency of their learning standards by means of oral exams, face-to-face discussions with the professor, or submission of videos in which they narrated proofs or problem solutions. Beattie (2013), too, reported on the implementation and subsequent positive effects of SBG during the course of an introductory, calculus-based university physics sequence. He described his standards-based design and the students‘ reactions, as well as successes and challenges of the process, in an effort to generate conversation about the prospective benefits and drawbacks of such initiatives in higher education, and to aid professors who might be inclined to attempt a standards-based model. In a similar vein, the current study was designed to examine student perspectives and lived experiences with regard to standards-based grading principles introduced in a university graduate level education leadership course on research, measurement, evaluation, and planning. It sought qualitative responses from students as they engaged with a standards-based classroom. The employment of student voice is critical; as Mitra (2004) pointed out, students— particularly those at the graduate level—should have meaningful input in reform efforts. If the intent is to understand a process and its prospects, it defies logic to ignore those who will soon be directly responsible for decisions concerning its application in the field. Further, research shows that such efforts can empower students, as well as enhance classroom practice and student/teacher relationships (Cushman, 2000; Daniels, Kalkman, & McCombs, 2001; Kincheloe, 2007). The origins of, and rationale for, standards-based grading Students have the right to a clear understanding of their level of progress. Grades are not only the primary source of that understanding, but a sacred tradition in education that has largely gone unchallenged and is highly resistant to change (Olson, 1995; Marzano, 2000). Yet, traditional grades issued in most university classes do not offer enough specificity regarding student performance. Unfortunately, according to Bailey and McTighe (1996), without this, grading‘s other purposes cannot be effectively carried out. Marzano (2000) has observed that our current grading system is over a century old and has evolved without a meaningful body of research to support it. He notes that fundamental problems associated with grading‘s traditional use by instructors include merging behavioral factors with academic knowledge and skills, arbitrarily weighting assessments, and blending a wide range of divergent elements into single assessment scores. And due to a lack of professional learning and development concerning the grading process in higher education, most of what faculty members do in this regard likely reflects what they themselves experienced as students or as new faculty, thus perpetuating what is arguably a broken system. This dysfunctional and outdated model of assessment and grading seems difficult to justify, given its residence in academic institutions that are founded on empirical principles, statistical data, and a charge to explore, describe, and explain existing ideas and practices. O‘Connor (2009) concurs, advocating for a general examination of grading practices and challenge of longheld beliefs. Without such scrutiny, grades will likely continue to serve as

―inadequate reports of inaccurate judgments by biased judges of the extent to which students have attained undefined levels of mastery of unknown proportions of indefinite amounts of material‖ (Dressel, cited in Kohn, 1999, p. 201). Marzano (2000) echoes this, asserting that traditional grades are so imprecise as to be practically meaningless. This challenge to the relevance or defensibility of traditional grading is reiterated by Guskey (1996), who has criticized assigning zeros to late or missed work, which is a reflection of student effort and organization, as opposed to learning. He notes the disproportionally negative effect this practice can have when averaging, since outlier scores can significantly skew final grades. Further, penalties for late work create disincentives for students to complete work and often cause them to miss opportunities to learn. Such practices deter the most important purpose of grades—providing timely, accurate formative feedback to students. O‘Connor (2009) cites the inclusion of more formative assessment relative to standards as another best grading practice, since making all assignments summative (by assigning them points that contribute to the final grade) can inhibit students from taking risks or being creative, as they become overly focused on accumulating points instead. Research clearly supports the significance of such formative feedback to achieving specific learning goals. Hattie (2009), in a comprehensive review of meta-analyses on achievement, reported that providing students with frequent and specific information about their performance relative to standards led to significant learning gains. Further, grades should be updated regularly to reflect the most recent evidence; since learning is a continuous, iterative process, its level of quality should be prioritized over when it occurs. In addition, O‘Connor (2009) recommends thorough conversations with students concerning the assessment and grading process at the beginning of instruction, since one of the primary aims of education should be to have students gain the capacity to self-evaluate. Standards-based grading can provide a structured framework for such meaningful conversations about student work and opportunities for self-assessment. This, in turn, provides students with the feedback they need to ensure that their efforts at improvement are better focused and more likely to succeed (Guskey, 2001). A growing consensus seems to be that it is time to de-emphasize traditional grades, to better align and systematize the grading process and refocus on the learning and progress of individual students (McTighe, 1996). As this occurs, teachers will be better positioned to integrate assessment and grading into instruction so that it does not merely measure students, but becomes part of the learning process itself (NASSP, 2016). Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of graduate students enrolled in an education leadership (school principal preparation) program that used standards-based grading (SBG), about the processes involved in SBG, their

general effectiveness, and students‘ inclination to use it later in their own classrooms The authors of this paper all use some variation of SBG in their graduate courses. Data and conclusions from this study will help the authors refine the ways they are using standards-based assessment and grading strategies in their individual graduate courses and help determine to what extent the processes should be used programmatically. Research questions The researchers in this qualitative study sought to understand how students in a graduate school principal licensure program perceived the processes involved with standards based grading. To that end, the primary research question was: What are the perceptions of education leadership students enrolled in a course that utilizes SBG, about the effectiveness and defensibility of the model? Subquestions were: Did the students think SBG was a fair means of assessment? Compared to other university courses using a more traditional, points-based grading system, what were the relative strengths and weaknesses of SBG in this course from the students‘ perspective? Methodology The researchers used qualitative case study methodology to study Dr. Buckmiller‘s use of SBG in his Research, Measurement, Evaluation and Planning course. The course took place in the in the fall of 2014 at a mid-sized Midwestern university. The researchers used a qualitative approach in this study to obtain rich and naturalistic data (Stake, 1995). This approach is most appropriate when it investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life contexts (Yin, 2003). The phenomenon under investigation was graduate student perceptions of SBG processes in a higher education graduate class. Participants and confidentiality The bound system for this case study was a graduate course. The units of analysis were the students in the course. All 17 students in the class agreed to participate in the study and were consented via the process approved by the university IRB. Of the 17 students, ten were female and seven were male. Nine of the students were teachers in an elementary setting, six worked in secondary schools and two worked as education consultants. Each of the students held current state teaching licenses; four had completed a previous master‘s degree. Data Collection The students were assured that participation or non-participation in this study would not affect their final grade. The instructor did not have access to the qualitative data until after the final grades of the course had been given. To add further confidence, we ensured that when the instructor did look at the data, it was de-identified. Data were collected at three different points: on the first day of class, at the midpoint of the class, and on the final day of the class. Data were collected via various student writing responses to prompts by using Qualtrics. Another source of data included the final course evaluations (quantitative and qualitative); these were triangulated to provide a rich understanding of the

perceptions of students in this course. The data from the Qualtrics writing prompts were organized for analysis and the names were eliminated in order to ensure confidentiality. In total, every student participated in three such surveys (each with 4 or 5 prompts/questions). Analysis With regard to thematic analysis, the researchers employed a range of successive and complementary elements rooted in the grounded theory tradition (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), with the intent of highlighting themes to better understand how students perceive SBG as an assessment strategy in a graduate class. First, the researchers worked through the transcribed data systematically using a constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), giving attention to each item and identifying interesting aspects that formed repeated patterns. Patton (2002) described this as "the data [being] spread out for examination" (p. 486). The next iteration involved thematizing the data in order to grasp the greater structure and meaning of the responses (van Manen, 2003). In this case, the process meant clustering invariant elements of data from the research into thematic labels. This logical shift from the raw data—including the participants' original language— to the newly created thematic descriptions was accomplished via individual and shared analysis (Polkinghorne, 1989) in order to better triangulate and audit the data. The new themes captured important aspects of the data relative to the research questions and represented a more refined level of patterned response within the data set (Braun & Clark, 2006). The next analytical step employed a textural-structural synthesis, which integrated previous themes and descriptions into an account of the ranges of experiences representing the group as a whole (Moustakas, 1994). In the end, our analysis sought to grasp and elucidate the meaning, structure, and essence of the challenges and solutions of the study participants, many of whom were experiencing SBG as students for the first time. Finally, word clouds were generated to provide visual representations for the researchers so that common themes were made evident or reinforced. Case (Course) Context Standards based assessment and grading principles were utilized to more effectively communicate students‘ strengths and areas for growth relative to the learning standards of the course. At the time of the data collection, Dr. Buckmiller was an assistant, tenure track professor in his fourth year at the University. Dr. Buckmiller ‗s graduate level ―Research, Measurement, Evaluation, and Planning‖ class was based on six course standards and met over the course of three weekends during a semester. Students were required to complete assignments that encompassed one or more course standards. The six course standards were based on the following topical areas: basic educational research statistics, basic qualitative research, basic quantitative research, standardized test interpretation, planning, and data presentation. Throughout the course, the instructor used various formative assessment technics including practice tests, class discussions, small group projects and individual conversations. The instructor designated a summative assessment to determine whether or not students demonstrated proficiency in each of the standards. As a

concession to convention, the summative assessments were transformed to a letter grade for the purpose of reporting the students‘ progress to the University for record keeping. In order for a student to receive an ―A‖ for the class, he/she needed to demonstrate proficiency in all six standards. If a student demonstrated proficiency in five of the six standards, it would result in a B for the final grade. If the student demonstrated that they were proficient in four of the six standards, he/she would receive a C. Three of the course standards were assessed using short answer tests. For a student to reach proficiency on the written tests, he/she was required to answer more than 90% of the answers correctly. Rubrics were developed to assess the projects associated with the other three standards. Generally re-assessment and re-submission are foundational elements of SBG. If a student initially failed to demonstrate proficiency on a test or assignment, reassessment was an option. To encourage students take greater ownership of their learning, the re-assessment was offered at students‘ requests and with a learning plan for addressing the previous gap area(s). Re-assessments were held on the final day of class. Another component of SBG is the separation of academic and non-academic factors in the assessment process. The education leadership program created a Professional Habits Matrix to assess non-academic behaviors such as integrity, growth mindset, preparation, and collaboration. Program leaders have identified these habits as being essential for future successful school administrators, and although they are not directly related to the course content standards, students are still held accountable for them. As non-academic factors, the results on this matrix do not impact in the final academic grade for the course, but the feedback from this assessment plays an important role in the development of the aspiring administrator. Professors and program advisors will have crucial conversations with students who do not meet the proficiency mark on the Professional Habits Matrix as this instrument is leveraged to help the program faculty make decisions regarding clinical placement and final licensure. Findings Data was collected at the beginning, mid-point and end of the course. Many of the graduate students in the course had experience with standards-based grading practices in at least one other graduate course. A number of students also had experience in their own K-12 school setting with standards-based grading practices to varying degrees. To fully understand the perceptions of students and their understanding of SBG this section will highlight the data as it was gathered chronologically throughout the course. Preliminary Student Report An initial question asked students, ―In looking at the six learning standards for the course, which one or two will be the easiest for you to demonstrate?‖ The overall perception was that ―basic education research statistics‖ would be the simplest part of the course to learn. Conversely, another question asked the

students to consider what would be the most challenging part of the course. The data suggested that students perceived the topic of ―basic qualitative research‖ as posing the greatest challenge. These responses may reflect the fact that, while most teachers have dealt rather extensively with statistics and other data in this era of accountability, many have had comparatively fewer experiences to learn about and generate formal research, in spite of the fact that much current educational legislation places the burden of being ―research based‖ on K-12 educational practices. Other initial thoughts expressed by students about SBG were instructive, as well; respondents seemed both eager for and, at the same time, somewhat anxious about, a new type of grading for their higher education graduate course. Three general themes emerged from the first set of student responses that are substantiated with a representative sample of their clarifying comments. The initial response was that being graded according to the standards was “intimidating and pressure inducing.” A number of students reported that the prospect of being graded in a standardsbased fashion felt somewhat more intimidating and imbued with pressure than grading methods that they had previously experienced in traditional graduate courses. One student noted, with a vague sense of unease, that, relative to prior grading experiences, the standards-based approach would ―really hold me accountable for understanding the content.‖ One of his colleagues observed that the idea of any new grading system was ―nerve-wracking,‖ even given her prior knowledge of SBG, because of the different set of expectations for her as a student. She elaborated, ―It is a gut reaction to worry about my grade because I don‘t yet know how to succeed in the new system.‖ There was not complete consensus in this regard, however; a minority of these respondents‘ peers remarked that they believed the process would actually diminish the pressure to achieve a good grade, since they would have more ownership of their learning outcomes. The apprehension from some students seemed to be self-induced since at the time of the survey, minimal information about the course or courseassignments had actually been shared yet. Greater focus on learning as opposed to grades Another theme that emerged in initial thoughts about SBG was that students valued the potential for an increased emphasis on learning in the new system. Various students commented optimistically on this theme, with one surmising, ―I think I will like it…More of a focus on learning rather than the grades being issued is good.‖ Another noted, ―I‘m excited about SBG because I believe it shows the growth in learning.‖ A colleague with prior experience in a standardsbased district enthused, ―I‘m a huge fan of SBG because to a teacher, parent, or student, a letter grade doesn‘t really mean anything. Standards-based grades allow all stakeholders to understand how much the student knows.‖ Yet another student with little previous exposure to SBG observed that, ―it seems to make more sense than just taking a few tests and being done with it.‖ Experiencing SBG from the students’ perspective An interesting subset of data was related to feedback from multiple students who were well acquainted with SBG principles but who were nevertheless

excited about the prospect of engaging with SBG from the student perspective in a university level course. Many of these graduate students were utilizing SBG in their own classrooms and had clearly embraced the new grading model. A typical insight was that of a teacher who remarked: ―This manner of assessment in a university course will assist me in gaining the perspective [of my students] and will help me grow in this style of grading myself.‖ This sentiment reflected a common theme of empathy for, and solidarity with, the students these teachers work with each day. Another educator reiterated this, noting, ―I am a huge proponent of SBG and am implementing it in my classroom next year so I am glad we are using it here.‖ The comments pertaining to this overall theme might be summarized with a final observation from a practitioner who endorsed the process: ―I love standards-based grading and am excited to be on the student side of assessments for a new perspective.‖ Perceived strengths of SBG The majority of students perceived the strength of the SBG model of assessment to be the feedback they would presumably receive throughout the learning process. This, in some cases, was noted as being in marked contrast to the relative lack of feedback that participants reported being given in their own teacher evaluation processes. Examples of this were seen in appreciation for ―feedback on learning and the ability to better understand strengths and weaknesses,‖ as well as an enhanced knowledge of ―the areas I will need to improve on and [an acknowledgement] of what I already know.‖ Another interviewee predicted that SBG would ―provide students with a more accurate picture of their learning and abilities,‖ and a ―more objective portrayal than traditional grading.‖ And a peer expressed a preference for getting ―constant feedback throughout the class so the end result can be the best possible product.‖ Another common theme was that students perceived a high value in being encouraged and empowered to discern their own strengths and areas for growth through SBG practices. One participant observed that, ―SBG allows both teachers and students to determine where exactly [students‘] performance strengths and weaknesses lie,‖ while others appreciated the opportunities this presented for productive formative discussions. Another one pointed out that, ―knowing specific strengths and weaknesses is a good starting point for improvement‖ and ―as students we will be able to better balance our strengths and weaknesses.‖ Comments such as these suggested that most students appreciated the chance to be more personally engaged and invested in assessing their levels of skill and understanding. A student who noted, ―It is comforting knowing we have multiple chances and methods to show what we know,‖ exemplified a third, but less frequently mentioned, benefit to standards-based assessment and grading practices. This decidedly non-traditional component of SBG is a departure for most professors, and it is ironic that many teachers had heretofore expressed grave reservations about the concept of retakes and ―redo‘s‖ of work, in spite of the many instances of such iterative practices in the ―real world‖ of most modern workplaces. It is

also reflective of the idea that the act of learning should take precedence over its timing. Drawbacks of SBG Perceived drawbacks of an SBG grading model in a university graduate course were also solicited from students by way of an open-ended response format. A number of students did not list any perceived drawbacks to the system, while the ones who did provided responses that could be reduced to a pair of overarching themes. The first was a fear that they would not be able to master everything expected of them throughout the course. Although, as previously noted, students appreciated the anticipated feedback inherent to SBG as a strength, they also recognized that a corresponding reality meant that such feedback would come with an implicit expectation to act in a manner that would not only be challenging at times, but would also demand learning and growth. The other perceived drawback was related to the unique format of the course, which transpired over the course of three full weekends spaced two weeks apart. One student voiced this concern, worrying that ―in a short three weekend course, it might be difficult to [have] ample time to meet standards.‖ Another observed that, being new to both the students and the professor, the implementation of SBG ―may bring with it some glitches, as you‘d expect with any new initiative.‖ The course model of weekend classes, however, was a fixed model that could not be changed for this graduate course. Mid-course Student Report At the mid-point of the graduate planning, research, measurement, and evaluation course, students were asked to complete another short survey to provide feedback about the grading practices to date. The data provided was used to generate the following mid-course themes: Student ownership of learning In a multitude of ways students had begun to recognize and communicated that their levels of empowerment and self-actualization were generally higher with the standards-based approach than in traditional grading practices. One student remarked, ―I think it (SBG) is valuable because it forces student ownership of learning.‖ Others made similar comments, such as, ―More students will reach proficiency and understand the standards,‖ and ―I feel like you will actually learn the content and keep it rather than forget it after the class is over.‖ Effectively tracking progress Another theme that emerged from the data concerned students‘ ability to track their own progress relative to the course objectives. Because routine feedback and expectations for regular self-assessment were part and parcel of the grading process, students were better able to reflect on and gauge their own learning and proficiency. ―The value of SBG is clear criteria and expectations for each standard, not to mention where I stand in relation to those criteria,‖ one student asserted. Another student expressed appreciation for the chance to narrow his learning needs and priorities based their progress in the course: ―I am tracking

my own proficiency. improve.‖

I can pinpoint specific standards where I need to

Concerns about SBG Students were again asked to provide feedback regarding concerns they had regarding the use of SBG in class. Almost a third of the class—more than at the beginning—responded with ―No concerns.‖ Of those who responded with specific concerns at this point, most again conjectured as to whether they would be able to meet all of the course standards and/or whether they would have to redo assessments to accomplish this. Post Class Report At the conclusion of the course, students were asked to complete a post-class survey instrument. The researchers were interested in getting student perception data after they had experienced all aspects of standard-based grading throughout the entirety of the course. A range of themes emerged from the data, to be further outlined in this section. Improved learning through SBG Students, more strongly and in even greater concentrations than before, indicated that they had felt more ownership of their learning. One explained, ―It (SBG) allowed me to focus and reflect on the learning and put more application to the content instead of just checking things off.‖ Consequently, because of this self-actualized approach to learning, the instructor reported that students seemed more motivated to learn new ideas and embrace areas that had heretofore been needs for growth and development. Students expressed appreciation for being encouraged, empowered, and indeed, expected to monitor their progress and self-assess their learning relative to the course objectives. One reiterated this, noting: ―I liked the standards-based evaluation because it allowed me to self-assess and know exactly where I was at.‖ The rubrics used in class were also highlighted as effective learning tools. A student emphasized this, pointing out, ―Clear rubrics and quality feedback helped me know exactly how I was doing and what I needed to know.‖ Clearer direction toward standards The majority of students reported clear direction toward course standards because of the SBG practices utilized in the course. Multiple students addressed this concept in their surveys, including one who noted simply that he ―knew and understood the goals for the class,‖ as well as his progress toward those goals. Beyond mentioning the clarity of the formal course standards, students also remarked that informal and developmental expectations were also clearer. ―It (SBG) allowed me to know exactly what was expected and how I was going to be assessed [in all areas],‖ commented one student, while another added, ―I just like it because the learning targets are clear and it‘s about mastery—not failure.‖ It should be noted that not every student expressed unequivocally that the SBG strategies in the course always provided clearer direction for him or her. One responded, ―I do not think the SBG process necessarily helped my progression in this course,‖ yet the same student mentioned later in his survey that he did

gain an awareness in the course that, ―I can achieve and my grade is actually the one that I earned.‖ Big ideas about an SBG class One reflective question posed to students in the survey pertained to big ideas they might have taken away from being in a graduate class that used SBG assessment strategies. Students provided ample communication regarding their thoughts and ideas with this prompt. One student stated succinctly, ―It is about growth in my learning and meeting the objectives.‖ Such sentiments, taken in the context of a student having completed the course, might help future graduate students become less anxious about standards-based practices. A colleague identified his big idea as being that, ―You always know where you stand as far as proficiency toward the standard.‖ Another student substantiated this, when she observed, ―I think it is easier to understand the goals professors have. Also, it is clearly outlined with expectations so that students are not afraid to [make mistakes] because the feedback will help them get back on track.‖ Transferring SBG to their classrooms A final question on the post-class survey prompted students to provide feedback about how a graduate level class utilizing SBG strategies might be useful to their own professional practices as educators. Answers ranged from, ―I like that SBG provides feedback to students about learning versus collecting points‖ to ―I believe SBG could be used in the classroom; however, I also believe behavioral aspects that might otherwise be missed are important in the development of students.‖ In the end, it was apparent that the takeaways from students in the class were diverse and related to some degree to the students‘ own learning, perceptions, and readiness to apply new concepts in grading. Discussion and implications As we strive to build a leadership preparation program that is rigorous, defensible, and supportive of student learning, our aspirations and commitment are, in part, to ―practice what we preach‖ by leveraging effective assessment and grading practices that clearly communicate student achievement through formative feedback relative to standards, which is consistent with Hattie‘s (2009) powerful findings on this practice. We hope that, as students experience SBG in the role of learners, they will be better prepared to thoughtfully advise and, potentially, train their future faculty members on this topic. Moving forward, as this study suggests, instructors in leadership preparation programs and practicing school leaders alike will need to be aware of the general anxiety surrounding reform of assessment, grading, and reporting processes, and work to alleviate it. It will take ongoing engagement with current and future teachers and administrators—not to mention community members, college and university admissions personnel, decision makers in the state department of education, and even legislators—to build consensus that SBG potentially offers a more fair and accurate assessment and reporting model. As Heflebower, Hoegh, and Warrick (2014) observe, because of the magnitude of this work, it is not for the ―faint of heart.‖ It requires long-term commitment, a tenacity to do what is right for students, and a strategic, well-planned approach.

This is evidenced, to some degree, by the following inconsistency: Most interviewees in this study were clearly, repeatedly, and articulately able to convey that SBG facilitated more ownership and deeper levels of thinking and engagement in their own learning. They observed, further, that they benefitted greatly from the ongoing and substantive formative feedback throughout the course, a responsibility that they report is often ignored or neglected even in their professional evaluation processes. They reported clearer direction and enhanced progress toward their personal and professional goals. And perhaps most significantly, they acknowledged that the model encouraged productive risk-taking, in an educational climate that is otherwise rife with constructs that inordinately discourage and even penalize mistakes, first efforts, and innovation. Somehow, though, in spite of all of the evidence of obvious benefits gained from this model, a number of students nevertheless felt unable to fully endorse its immediate implementation in the K-12 ranks. The only apparent reasons for this irony that come readily to mind are that the respondents either felt that the cultural and historical barriers to implementation were too great, or that they themselves were so fully immersed in, invested in, and products of, the existing model that change would be difficult—if not impossible—on a personal level. With these deep, systemic challenges in mind, we have committed to an even more comprehensive transition to a standards-based learning, assessment, and grading model in our educational leadership program. We have formalized this to a degree by documenting these efforts in advance of our impending accreditation site visit. We have also brought in a series of nationally recognized speakers, and facilitated faculty conversations, on the topic of standards-based grading and assessment models. These conversations have had the involvement of everyone from new faculty to administrators, and have been well received in our institution. Further, we have expanded these professional conversations into the realm of academic inquiry, beginning with the aforementioned examination of how schools and districts are overcoming barriers and challenges to implementing standards-based grading (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014). With a like-minded colleague who has integrated standards-based principles into his classes at our university, we have undertaken a study using student voice (from interviews and focus groups involving his students) to assess the lived experience of a college student in a teacher preparation program. We have also submitted an article based on similar student survey data from a high school in the state that has been an early adopter of SBG at the secondary level Finally, in response to the feedback mentioned earlier from K-12 practitioners with whom we have worked, we have engaged in inquiry of college and university admissions offices, to determine their attitudes, policies, and practices toward grades, transcripts, and applications from schools employing standardsbased models. The intent of this endeavor was to help either dispel or confirm the perception that colleges‘ and universities‘ policies and practices are obstacles

to SBG models. And, using the results of these studies and our own experiences as a foundation, we have expanded our network and continued to collaborate extensively with schools, districts, and individuals who are investing in the implementation of standards-based models. Recommendations and questions for future consideration As this study illustrates, in spite of extensive advocacy for standards-based approaches, the logic of the system‘s alignment with learning and professional standards, and the positive results experienced by the participating students, further acceptance of, and adherence to such models will continue to pose formidable challenges. It is within the context of, and in order to encourage resolution to, these challenges that the authors submit recommendations and questions/implications for further research and practice. As we have noted previously (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014), in order to enhance the likelihood of SBG practices being implemented with integrity in any setting, a purposeful plan carried out within a reasonable timeline, high quality professional development and collaboration, and effective two-way communication about their underlying philosophy and purposes are needed. Aspiring teachers and administrators, such as those in this study, need opportunities for safe, honest conversations about their beliefs relative to the process, blended with a low-risk environment to experiment with and pilot innovative grading practices to merge with those beliefs. Ultimately, grading and assessment reform will require generating a sense of urgency and mission around the essential goals of education—including that the work of fostering learning for a lifetime is the right work. And based on our experiences with the individuals in this study and many other educators, educational leaders, and professors of education, advancing the discussions and practice surrounding SBG seems to require a growth oriented mindset or disposition. Working from that assumption, and based in part on the general dearth of extant research conducted on the use of, and instruction on, standards-based grading and assessment at the post-secondary level, we submit that those individuals in higher education who are charged with preparing teachers and school and district administrators should consider a number of actions. First, they should accept the challenge to become more conversant in SBG principles and practices, while exploring the feasibility of working with colleagues in higher education and K-12 practitioners/early adopters alike to better ensure effective transitions for students from high school to institutions of higher education. The rationale for this is, regardless of one‘s perspectives on standards-based practices, that without question there will continue to be ever-growing numbers of students entering college after having been immersed in, and accountable to, standardsbased grading and assessment systems. Without efforts to reconcile these oftendivergent structures, these same students may face unduly difficult transitions, lose ground academically, become less engaged in their learning, and experience diminished chances for success. Secondly, professors should make a commitment to conducting their classes in a manner that will adequately prepare educators for standards-based environments. Again, regardless of one‘s philosophical leaning, there is a

responsibility to create knowledge and opportunities that are conducing for aspiring teachers and administrators to thrive in the school and district settings where they will soon be seeking employment. As they gain confidence in standards-based grading principles, such instructors may decide to progress toward offering standards-based assessment and grading for their own postsecondary students. As the number of districts and schools enacting standards-based assessment and grading practices increases, another worthwhile contribution will be to engage with PK-12 partners in research collaborations, regular review of the literature, and the lending of expertise in SBG to districts implementing the model. Finally, university personnel are encouraged to become better connected to the smallbut-growing national network of SBG work being done in higher education. To guide this work, we will conclude with some questions that are conducive to advancing the reform of assessment and grading practices, and that may suggest potential areas for further inquiry: 1. Based on what we have discerned from schools that are early adopters of SBG regarding their successes, challenges and ongoing questions and concerns, how can we, and our institutions, become catalysts in supporting their efforts? 2. Most secondary schools and practically all colleges and universities continue to utilize traditional grading and assessment practices. If we continue to use archaic means to assess, grade and report while promoting innovative methods for teaching and learning, what are likely to be the consequences? To what extent do changes in assessment and grading models have the potential to become key leverage points for effecting systemic change? 3. A student-centered system should develop self-efficacy/agency, engagement, ownership of learning, and intrinsic motivation. It is rare to see most or all students demonstrating these qualities across most of their schooling. What actions need to be identified and leveraged in order to develop these types of environments, and what role can SBG play in such environments? 4. What are the gaps between the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that new teachers and administrators bring into their respective K-12 environments and those that are needed to advance success in standardsbased initiatives? How can and should these gaps be addressed? 5. What are the gaps between knowledge, skills, and dispositions being used in our college and university classrooms and those that are needed to advance success in standards-based learning? How can and should these gaps be addressed? 6. What successes and advancement are observable in postsecondary institutionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; knowledge, dispositions, and use of principles related to standards-based education, particularly as they relate to admissions and financial aid? How might these be expanded or further developed? 7. What questions, reservations, and concerns do you have about standards-based education models, including those featuring standards-

based grading and assessment? How might these be addressed or mitigated?

References Bailey, J., & McTighe, J. (1996). Reporting achievement at the secondary level: What and how. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Yearbook, 19-140. Beatty, I. (2013). Standards-based Grading in Introductory University Physics Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 1 – 22. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2). pp. 77-101. Cushman, K. (2000). Students solving community problems: Serious learning takes on a new look. Challenge Journal: The Journal of the Annenberg Challenge, 4(1). Daniels, D. H., Kalkman, D. L., & McCombs, B. L. (2001). Young children's perspectives on learning and teacher practices in different classroom contexts: Implications for motivation. Early Education and Development, 12(2), 253-273. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Guskey, T. (2001). Helping standards make the grade. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 20-27. Guskey, T. (1996). Jointly planning staff training. The School Administrator. 53(11),36-44. Guskey, T., & Bailey, J. (2009). Developing standards-based report cards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Guskey, T., Jung, L., & Swan, G. (2011). Grades that mean something. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 52-57. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York, NY: Routledge Heflebower, T., Hoegh, J., & Warrick, P. (2014). School leader’s guide to standards based grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Lab. Hirsch, D. (2008). Access to a College Degree or Just College Debt? Moving beyond Admission to Graduation. New England Journal of Higher Education, 23(2), 17-18. Johnson, V. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York, NY: SpringerVerlaug New York, Inc. Kincheloe, J. (2007). Clarifying the purpose of engaging students as researchers. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 745–774). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Kohn, A. (1994). The risks of rewards. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois. Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design (Vol. 41). Applied social research methods series. McTighe, J. (1996). What happens between assessments, Educational Leadership, 54(4), 612. Mitra, D. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing ―student voice‖ in schools lead to gains in youth development. Teachers College Record, 106(4). Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. NASSP. Breaking ranks: The comprehensive framework for school improvement. Retrieved July 25, 2016, from https://www.nassp.org/professionallearning/online-

professional-development/leading-success/module-1 %E2%80%94developing-leadership-skills-for-change/breaking-ranksframework?SSO=true O‘Connor, K. (2009). How to Grade for Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. O'Connor, K., & Wormeli, R. (2011). Reporting student learning. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 40-44. Olsen, L. (1995). Cards on the table. Education Week, 15(41), 23–28. Peters, R. and Buckmiller, T. (2014). Our grades were broken: Overcoming the barriers to implementing standards-based grading. Journal of Educational Leadership in Action. 2(2). Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Reeves, D. (2013). Making standards work: How to implement standards-based assessments in the classroom, school and district. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press. Rundquist, A. (2012). Standards-based grading with voice: Listening for students' understanding. In 2011 PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE (Vol. 1413, No. 1, pp. 69-72). AIP Publishing. Spencer, K. (2012). Standards-based grading. Education Digest, 78(3). Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A, Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Van Manen, M. (2003). Tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy. Left Coast Press. Yin, R. (2003). K.(2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 97-114, July 2016

A Survey on Assessment of the Prevailing School Fees for Private Secondary Schools in Tanzania Veronica R. Nyahende & Benedicto C. Cosmas Department of Planning, Research and ICT, Higher Education Students’ Loans Board, Dar es salaam, Tanzania Abstract. Higher Education Students’ Loans Board (HESLB) has been using secondary school fees as a key component in determining neediness for loan applicants at Higher Education (HE). Such fees are used as proxy indicator of the ability of parents/guardians to meet the costs of higher education in complementing the Government effort. This survey was conducted to assess the actual schools fees charged per student in the private secondary schools. The survey was geared towards achieving the following objectives (i) to examine the amount of school fees charged per student by private secondary schools (ii) to assess the components of school fees for private secondary schools (iii) to determine schools with special scholarship/grants programmes and the criteria thereof. This survey was conducted in all regions countrywide after being clustered into 5 groups (5 zones), Dodoma, Mwanza, Zanzibar, Arusha and Mbeya. Private secondary schools were visited in which data were collected from 260 respondents. Data collected were analyzed using Excel and Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Results were summarized in Tables, Figures and in Narrative form. The study concluded that currently private secondary schools are charging school fees at a range of Tshs. 500,000 and Tshs.1,000,000. It was further concluded that the components of the school fees as shown by most of the private secondary schools visited includes examination fees (Mock, National Examination Council-NECTA), Caution money, Admission fees, Identity cards, Registration fees, Medical fees and Boarding fees. It was further concluded that selection of students for financial support is basing on the orphanage status, family background and academic performance of the students. It was recommended that the Government should set standard of the amount of school fees to be charged in all private secondary schools as it is for the Public secondary schools. It was further recommended that Private secondary schools should ensure that components of school fees which do not directly relate to the learning process are treated separately and not as part of school fees for example inspection/ audit fees. It is also recommended that the Government should set rules to ensure that there is a specific

number of students to be financially supported by any established private secondary school hence adequate participation of each private secondary school in provisions of scholarships and/or grants Keywords: Higher Education Students’ Loans Board(HESLB); Public secondary school; Private secondary school; Government; School fees.

INTRODUCTION HESLB Establishment and the need for Survey The Higher education Students’ Loans Board (HESLB) is a body corporate established under the Act No.9 of 2004, (CAP 178) with the objective of assisting, on a loan basis, needy Tanzanian students who secure admission in accredited Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs), but who have no economic ability to pay for the costs of their education (HESLB,2014). The Board is also entrusted with the task of formulating the mechanism for determining amount of loans payable to students and advice the government accordingly (HESLB, 2016a). Currently the Board issue six loanable items to domestic students namely Meals and accommodation, Tuitions Fees, Books and stationary, Special Faculty Requirements, Field Practical Training and Research (HESLB, 2015). Three loanable items namely Tuition fees, Special faculty requirement and Field practical training are issued based on the means testing grades (HESLB, 2016b). Tuitions fees is an important component among the means testable items, this is because it changes frequently due to changes in the economic conditions hence the need for frequently review (Nyahende et al, 2015). The Board (HESLB) has been conducting surveys to ascertain the actual costs incurred by students/parents/guardian in their secondary schools hence establishing the levels of neediness among prospective loans applicants. The previous survey was done in 2011/2012 financial year which enabled the Board to review the rates of all means testable items. The revised rates were adopted and put in use beginning 2012/2013 financial year to date (HESLB, 2014) HESLB has been using secondary school fees as a key component in determining neediness for loan applicants at Higher Education (HE). Such fees are used as proxy indicator of the ability of parents/guardians to meet the costs of higher education in complementing the Government effort (Nyahende, 2016). However, over the four years of usage, almost all schools have reviewed their fees. It is therefore imperative that a study was conducted to ensure that the same are reviewed in the database of the Board (HESLB) and hence ensure reasonable amount which is closer to the abilities than the current ones which do not reflect the close to reality case. Based on the need by HESLB to have an accurate and updated secondary school fees data to enhance evaluation of applicants for 2016/2017, survey was conducted to an agreed sampling of Private secondary schools to determine the

actual school fees charged per student so as to prepare an accurate input for means testing regarding tuition fees to be adopted for the year 2016/2017. Survey Objectives General Objective The general objective of this survey was to assess the actual schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; fees charged per student in the private secondary schools. Specific objectives: (i)To examine the amount of school fees charged per student by private secondary schools. (ii)To assess the components of school fees for private secondary schools. (iii)To determine schools with special scholarship/grants programmes and the criteria thereof. Survey Questions: (i)What is the amount of school fees charged per student by private secondary schools? (ii)What are the components of school fees for private secondary schools? (iii)How many schools with special scholarship/grants programmes and the criteria thereof

METHODOLOGY Pretesting of the Questionnaires Prior to conduct actual study, the tools were pretested at Feza Boys School, and Makongo Secondary school in Dar es Salaam and the findings was used to improve the tools. Survey on the prevailing secondary school fees per student The survey adopted two main approaches in order to collect data. Primary Information Structured questionnaire Structured questionnaires were provided to all administrators/headmasters/headmistresses of the selected private secondary schools. Furtherance to questionnaire responding, the researchers were required to request for any guideline (including samples of admission letters which indicates the school requirements which requires each student to submit. Direct observation, A researcher observed how the secondary school set up can affect the school fees charged for example the newly established secondary school may attract more school fees.

100

Verbal Probing A cognitive interviewing technique were used, the researcher was required to administers a series of probe questions specifically designed to elicit detailed fees information from students/parents beyond that normally provided by teachers and or schools management. Secondary Information Secondary School fees per student In order to identify the secondary schools’ fees, all secondary schools were extracted through the Government Open Data Portal (both schools existing and non-existing in the HESLB database) and their locations identified. The survey team used the list of schools and identified locations for collection of data obtained from the National Examination Council. Survey Approach Data collection involved physical visit to the secondary schools by the researcher, whereby interviews was conducted using the structured questionnaires developed as well as the datasheet forms developed by HESLB for data collection. All regions countrywide were clustered into 6 groups (6 zones), with each group surveyed by the zonal manager assisted by zonal offices staff. The activities were supervised by the staff responsible for research from the Directorate of Planning, Research and ICT.

DATA ANALYSIS Data collected was analyzed using Excel and Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Results were summarized in tables, figures and in narrative form (Saunders et al, 2012).

FINDINGS Sample Characteristics The researcher distributed questionnaires to 260 private secondary schools, in which all the questionnaires were properly filled and returned to the researcher. The characteristics of the respondents were categorized in term of Ownership of the school, Distribution of secondary school by Regions, Type of the school, School fees charged per year, Changes in the amount of school fees charged, Availability of students’ financial support, Students receiving financial support, sources of finance for the support and the trend of payment. In order to understand well the collected data, the researcher need to carry out the descriptive analysis as a first step. The detailed sample characteristic is as depicted in Table 1 to 10. Distribution of School Ownership Questionnaires were randomly distributed to all private secondary schools regardless of ownership. The findings shows that about 40% of the secondary schools visited were owned by private individuals, 1/3 of the secondary schools

101

were owned by Christian societies while 10% of the secondary schools were owned by Muslim societies. This indicates the secondary school distribution as expected by the researcher. The researcher expected to find less secondary schools which Muslims are owned compared to Christian owned. The sample represents the population as expected and the results imply that there was fair ownership distribution among private secondary school. This indicates a good sample from secondary school ownership. Table 1 below explains. Table 1: School Ownership

Frequency Private Individuals Private companies Donor agencies Valid Muslim Societies Christian Societies Total Source: Survey data (2016)

Percent 102

39.2

47 1 26 84 260

18.1 .4 10.0 32.3 100.0

Distribution of Secondary Schools by Region 20 regions were visited within the country in which a total of 260 secondary schools were distributed with questionnaires. The results indicates that 11% of the respondents were from Dar es salaam city, followed by Kigoma and Arusha which consists of 10% and 9.2% of the total population, Iringa ranked the last with about 0.4% respondents. The researcher expected to find more secondary schools in Dar es salaam city compared to other regions, because being the administrative city with high population compared to other regions it attracts a lot of private individuals, private companies, donor agencies, Muslim societies and Christian societies to invest in education through establishment of secondary schools. The sample represents the population as expected and the results imply that there was a fair distribution of secondary schools by region. This indicates a good sample from secondary school distribution by regions. Table 2 below explains. Table 2: Secondary School by Region

Dar es salaam Njombe Mbeya Iringa Valid Ruvuma Kilimanjaro Bukoba Town Mwanza Mara

Frequency 30 20 21 1 14 13 9 16 14

Percent 11.5 7.7 8.1 .4 5.4 5.0 3.5 6.2 5.4

102

Geita Shinyanga Kigoma Mtwara Tanga Zanzibar Unguja Zanzibar Pemba Arusha Lindi Total Source: Survey data (2016)

4 14 27 7 13

1.5 5.4 10.4 2.7 5.0

8.5

2.3

24 5 260

9.2 1.9 100.0

Distribution of the secondary school by Type Questionnaires were evenly distributed among the secondary school regardless of the type of the school. The results of the analysis indicates that nearly 80% of the secondary schools visited were for core education, where by 15% of the respondents were from the secondary school with only girls and nearly 6% were from only boys secondary school and a few of respondents were from secondary school with special needs to the tune of 0.4%. The sample represents the population as expected, the researcher expected to find more core education secondary schools because it accommodates both female and male students to avoid segregation within societies. Also the researcher expected to find more girls secondary schools than boys due to the government policy to empower women through education. Therefore the results imply that there was a fair school type distribution. This indicates a good sample from secondary school distribution by school type. Table 3 below explains. Table 3: Type of the School

Frequency Core Education Only Boys Valid Only Girls School with Special Needs Total Source: Survey data (2016)

205 15 39 1 260

Percent 78.8 5.8 15.0 .4 100.0

Distribution of school fees Charged per Year Questionnaires were evenly distributed to determine the amount of school fees charged in each private secondary school within the sample selected. The results of the analysis indicates that more than 1/3 of the secondary schools are charging school fees at the range of Tshs.500,000 and Tshs.1,000,000, 1/5 of the

103

secondary school are charging school fees at the range of Tshs.1,500,000 and Tshs.2,000,000, while 4% and 2% of the respondents are charging their school fees at the range of Tshs.3,500,000 and above or at the range of 0 and Tshs.500,000. The researcher expected to find few secondary school charging school fees at the range of 0 and Tshs.500,000 due to the increase in the cost of living within the country, all the school running cost such as meals and accommodation, electricity and water bills has been risen up compared to previous years, and few secondary schools were expected to charge school fees at Tshs.3,500,000 and above because it is unaffordable by most individuals within the country. Therefore the results imply that there was fairness in the distribution of school fees charged per year. This indicates a good sample from secondary school distribution by school fees charges per year. Table 4 below explains. Table 4: School fees charged per year

Frequency 0 - 500,000 500,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 2,500.000 - 3,000,000 Valid 3,000,000 - 3,500,000 3,500,000 - 4,000,000 4,000,000 - 4,500,000 5,000,000 - 5,500,000 7,500,000 - 8,000,000 9,000,000 - 9,500,000 Total Source: Survey data (2016)

Percent 5 87 77 57 16 9 4 1 1 1 1 1 260

Distribution of the Review in the Amount of School fees Charged The results from the sample selected indicates that nearly 1/3 of the respondents secondary schools review their school fees charges after every three years, where by 1/5 of the secondary schools selected indicates that they review their school fees after every one year or two years and about 13% of the respondents secondary schools indicates that they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have specific period to review school fees they charge, all the changes are depending on the situations for example changes in the cost of living due to inflation. Therefore the results imply that there was a fair distribution in the review of the amount of school fees charged. This indicates a good sample from distribution of secondary school by changes in the amount of school fees charged. Table 5 below explains.

1.9 33.5 29.6 21.9 6.2 3.5 1.5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 100.0

104

Table 5: Review in the amount of School fees charged

Frequency After every one year After every two years After every three years Valid More than three years Others e.g Not more often Not applicable Total Source: Survey data (2016)

Percent 55 55 71 43 34 2 260

21.2 21.2 27.3 16.5 13.1 .8 100.0

Distribution of the Availability of Students’ Financial Support at School The results from the sample selected indicate that 60% of the secondary schools visited provide financial support to students who are needy while nearly 40% do not provide financial support to students who are needy. The researcher expected to find many secondary schools which support the needy because it has been specified in the secondary school development programme II policies( July 2010 – June 2015) as the requirement in establishment of any private secondary school in Tanzania. Therefore the results imply that there were fair distributions among the secondary schools which provide financial support to the needy. This indicates a good sample from secondary school distribution by availability of students’ financial support at school. Table 6 below explains. Table 6: Availability of Students' financial support at school

Frequency Yes No Valid Not Applicable Total Source: Survey data (2016)

Percent 156 103 1 260

60.0 39.6 .4 100.0

Students’ Receiving Financial Support A total of 260 questionnaires were evenly distributed, the results from the analysis indicates that students who are given financial support in various secondary schools are very few compared to the total students enrolled in the school. The results show that nearly 1/3 of the secondary schools visited provide financial assistance to the needy students at the range of 0 to 10 while only 8% of the secondary schools provide financial assistance to more than 50 students. The researcher expected to find few secondary schools providing financial support to the needy students because most secondary schools are resistant to this policy, they say it’s expensive. Therefore the results imply that there was a fair

105

distribution among students receiving financial support. This indicates a good sample from students receiving financial support from the selected secondary schools. Table 7 below explains thus: Table 7: Students’ receiving financial support

Frequency 0 – 10 10 – 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 Valid 40 – 50 More than 50 Not Known Not applicable Total Source: Survey data (2016)

Percent 71 34 13 7 5 22 5 103 260

27.3 13.1 5.0 2.7 1.9 8.5 1.9 39.6 100.0

Distribution in the Criteria for Financial Support to Students Results from the analysis indicates that more than 1/3 of the secondary schools select students for financial support basing on the following criteria (i) orphanage (ii) poor family background (iii) high performance, while 7% of the secondary schools’ selection is basing on academic performance, albinism or whether they are staff children as they use it as incentives to staff/ teacher within the school. The researcher expected to find this kind of results because poor orphans and children from poor family have got obvious evidence that they are needy students. Therefore the results imply that there was fair distribution among the criteria used for financial support to students. This indicates a good sample selection. Table 8 below explains. Table 8: Criteria for Financial support to Students

Frequency Academic Perfomance/ Albinos/ Staff children Poor Orphanage/ poor family/high perfomance Religious groups Valid Others e.g confirmation from ward secretaries and Historical Background Not applicable Not known Total Source: Survey data (2016)

Percent

7.3

32.7

3.8

13.1

104 8 260

40.0 3.1 100.0

106

Distribution for the Source of Finance for the Support of the needy students The results in Table 9 below indicates that more than 1/5 of the secondary schools visited is financing the needy students using funds from other sources such as donors and ownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; income where by 18% are financed from school fees. Most secondary schools do not have enough fund to finance needy students; they depend much on school fees to run the school, therefore the researcher expected to find most secondary schools depending on donors and owners income to finance needy students. Therefore the results imply that there was fair distribution among the secondary schools regarding the sources of finance to support the needy students. This indicates a good sample to secondary schools regarding sources of finance for the support of the needy students. Table 9: Source of finance for the Support

Frequency

Percent

School Using School fees

18.1

School using other sources e.g. donors Owners income/ contributions from donors Valid Not applicable Not known Others Total Source: Survey data (2016)

24.6

14.2

103 7 2 260

39.6 2.7 .8 100.0

Distribution of the Trend of payments of School fees The results of the analysis indicates that nearly 50% of the secondary schools visited are experiencing delays in school fees payments while only 41% are experiencing timely payments and 4% of the secondary schools are experiencing failures on payment of school fees. The researcher expected this trend because most family in Tanzania are of middle income earners, so because of the competing needs they have, it takes longer to clear their obligations most of the time they pay in piecemeal, they preferably pay by installment on delays and few of them are managing to pay timely. Therefore the results imply that there was fair distribution among the secondary schools regarding the sources of finance to support the needy students. This indicates a good sample to secondary schools regarding sources of finance for the support of the needy students. Table 10 below explains.

107

Table 10: What is the trend of payments (Students)

Frequency Timely Delays Postponement Valid Failure Not known Timely/ Delays/Postponement Total Source: Survey data (2016)

Percent 107 125 12 1 13 2 260

Survey Results In guiding this survey questionnaires were used to assess the viability of the actual schools’ fees charged per student in the private and public secondary schools. These questionnaires were as mentioned below: (i)To examine the amount of school fees charged per student by private secondary schools. (ii)To assess the components of school fees for private secondary schools’ fees (iii)To determine schools with special scholarship/grants programmes and the criteria thereof The following are the survey results in respect of each individual questionnaire analyzed: To examine the amount of school fees charged per student by private secondary schools. The research questions concerning this objective were answered through collection of data from various private secondary schools visited in which the responsible officers responded to the questions regarding school fees prevailing in the school. The results of the analysis indicates that more than 1/3 of the secondary schools are charging school fees at the range of Tshs.500,000 and Tshs.1, 000,000, 1/5 of the secondary schools are charging school fees at the range of Tshs.1,500,000 and Tshs.2,000,000, 4% and 2% of the secondary schools are charging their school fees at the range of Tshs.3,500,000 and above or at the range of 0 and 500,000 (Table 4). Therefore the result suggests that school fees in most private secondary schools are charged at a range of Tshs.1,000,000 and Tshs.1,500,000 while very few at the range of Tshs.3,500,000 and above. Furthermore the results also indicates that nearly 1/3 of the respondents secondary schools review their school fees charges after every three years, where by 1/5 of the secondary schools selected indicates that they review their school fees after every one year or two years and about 13% of the respondents secondary school indicates that they don’t have specific period to review school

41.2 48.1 4.6 .4 5.0 .8 100.0

108

fees they charge, they just review at any time when need arises; example changes in the cost of living due to inflation. Therefore the results suggest that most of the secondary schools are reviewing their school fees charges after every three years (Table 5). The results of the analysis also indicate that 1/3 of the respondents secondary schools were from Dar es Salaam city, followed by Kigoma and Arusha which consists of 10% and 9.2% of the total population, Iringa ranked the last with about 0.4% respondents (Table 2). Therefore the results suggest that Dar es salaam is the city with high economic power, high standard of living which attracts high costs in all the necessary items to run the school. Therefore most private individuals, companies, religious groups are attracted to establish secondary schools in Dar es salaam city; this attracts school fees charged to be high in most secondary schools. The results of the analysis also indicate that more than 50% of the students in the secondary schools respondents come from within the region and only 22% comes from neighborhood, enrolling students far from school attracts a lot of cost such as Medical costs, boarding fees ( Table 11). Therefore the results suggest that most students are enrolled on boarding hence this attracts high school fees to be charged. Table 11: Where are students coming from

Frequency Neighborhood Within the Region Outside the Region Valid Allover the country Within and Outside the Region Total Survey data (2016)

58 152 34 13 3 260

Percent 22.3 58.5 13.1 5.0 1.2 100.0

To assess the components of school fees for private secondary schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; fees The research questions concerning this objective were answered through collection of data from various private secondary schools visited in which the responsible officers responded to the questions regarding the assessment of the components of school fees for private secondary schools. The results of the analysis indicates that components of school fees are many and they differ from one school to another; about more than 50% of the secondary schools visited indicate that the components of the school fees include examination fees (Mock,NECTA),Caution money, Admission fees, Identity cards, Registration fees, Medical fees, Boarding fees, 26% of the schools include Uniforms, Stationaries & internal examinations,Sports uniforms fees, Meals costs, Transport fees, 3.4% of the secondary schools include Practical fees, School emblem fees, Shamba dress costs, Ream paper costs, Registration fees. 6.5% include Remedial classes fees, exercise book fees, school tour fees, slasher/hoes costs, 7.6% include Security costs, Maintance fees, Inspection/audit fees, Medical

109

insurance fees and 5.3% include Library costs, Project fees, Teaching aids, utilities cost, bible costs, food items (Table 12). Table 12: Components of School Fees

Frequency

Valid

Examination fees(Mock,NECTA),Caution money,Admission fees,Identity cards,Registration fees, Medical fees, Boarding fees Uniforms, Stationaries & internal examinations,Sports uniforms fees, Meals costs, Transport fees, Practical fees, School emblem fees, Shamba dress costs, Ream paper costs, Registration fees, Remedial classes fees, exercise book fees, school tour fees, slasher/hoes costs Security costs, Maintance fees, Inspection/ audit fees, Medical insurance fees Library costs, Project fees,Teaching aids, utilities cost, bible costs, food items Total

Percent

133

50.6

26.6

3.4

6.5

7.6

4.2

260

100.0

Survey data (2016) Also the results of the analysis indicate that nearly 50% of the secondary schools visited are experiencing delays in school fees payments while only 41% are experiencing timely payments and 4% of the secondary schools are experiencing failures on payment of school fees (Table 10). Nearly 25% of the schools visited are reporting the failures to the parents, the school board and/or school management. Nearly 14% of the schools visited are holdings studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; certificates to ensure payment after graduation (Table 13). Therefore the result indicates that most students are paying their school fees on delays and few of them are failing to pay the school fees. Table 13: Where do you report on failure in paying school fees

Frequency Valid

Percent

To the Owner of the school

24.2

Discussion with parents/School Board

24.2

110

Report to school Board/ School Management Head of the school is responsible Others/ holding of academic certificates/ Payment is done timely Not Applicable Total Survey data (2016)

34.6

2.7

13.8

1 260

.4 100.0

To determine schools with special scholarship/grants programmes and the criteria thereof The research questions concerning this objective were answered through collection of data from various private secondary schools visited in which the responsible officers responded to the questions regarding availability of financial support at school. The results from the analysis reveal that 60% of the secondary schools visited provide financial support to students who are needy and nearly 40% do not provide financial support to students who are needy (Table 6). Therefore the results indicate that most private secondary schools do provide financial support to the needy students. Furthermore the results of the analysis indicates that nearly 1/3 of the secondary schools visited provide financial assistance to the needy students at the range of 0 to 10 while only 8% of the secondary schools provide financial assistance to more than 50 students (Table 7). Therefore the results suggested that most private secondary schools do provide financial support to a small number of students while very few secondary schools provide financial support to many needy students. Also results from the analysis indicates that more than 1/3 of the secondary schools visited select students for financial support basing on orphanage, poor family background or whether these students are high performers with good grades while 7% of the secondary school visited are selecting students basing on academic performance, albinism or whether they are staff’s children as they use it as incentives to staff/ teacher within the school, selection basing on Religious groups forms nearly 4% (Table 8). Therefore the results suggested that most private secondary schools choose students for financial support basing on orphanage, poor family background or whether these students are high performers with good grades. The results of the analysis also indicate that more than 1/5 of the secondary schools visited is financing the needy students using funds obtained from other sources such as donors and owners’ income where by 18% are financed from school fees (Table 9). Therefore the results suggested that most private secondary schools are financing needy students using funds from other sources apart from school fees example donors’ fund and owners’ income.

111

More than 1/3 of the secondary schools visited reveal that students support are given at 100% (Full support) of the amount required for the student to study while 10% of the schools provide partial support. Some secondary schools provide semi partial/ full support, this forms about 18% of the secondary schools visited (Table 14).

Table 14: Extent of support given

Frequency Full Support Partial Support Not known Valid Not applicable Full support/ Partial Support Total Survey data (2016)

82 28 1 103 46 260

Percent 31.5 10.8 .4 39.6 17.7 100.0

CONCLUSIONS It was concluded that private schools are charging school fees at a range of Tshs. 500,000 and Tshs.1, 000,000, this is contrary to the school fees charged in year 2011/2012 in which school fees were charged at the range of Tshs. 0 to Tshs. 500,000 as shown in the last survey for ascertainment of school fees done in year 2011/2012 HESLB (2012). It was concluded that inflation is affecting the school by increasing the running costs of the school such fuel costs for standby generator, food, electricity costs, teaching and non-teaching staff salary e.t.c, hence school fees are reviewed after every three years to corp with the changes in the cost of living. It was further concluded that the components of the school fees as shown by most of the private secondary schools visited includes examination fees (Mock,NECTA),Caution money, Admission fees, Identity cards, Registration fees, Medical fees, Boarding fees. Other private secondary schools includes the following components; Uniforms, Stationaries & internal examinations, Sports uniforms fees, Meals costs, Transport fees, Remedial classes fees, exercise book fees, school tour fees, slasher/hoes costs, Security costs, Maintance fees, Inspection/audit fees, Medical insurance fees, Library costs, Project fees, Teaching aids, utilities cost, bible costs, food items. While the least of the secondary schools include Practical fees, School emblem fees, Shamba dress costs, Ream paper costs, Registration fees. These components results into many schools experiencing delays in school fees payments because it causes the increase of school fees to the level which is unaffordable by most parents/ students.

112

It was further concluded that private secondary schools always fulfill their social responsibility by providing financial support to the needy students. Students in need are always given full support to enable them attain their secondary school education, the selection of the students to be provided with financial support is basing on the orphanage status, in combination of whether the student come from poor family as well as the students’ academically ability is also considered. Sources of fund to finance the needy students are always from other sources apart from school fees, these include donors’ fund and owners’ income. It was also concluded that most of the secondary schools establishment is aiming at fulfilling the social responsibility as part of their obligations by proving financial support to the students who are needy from the surrounding, for example Feza schools are providing scholarships to students from neighboring primary schools, the selected students has to be not only needy but also high performer. Finally it was concluded that most secondary schools visited ( more than 80%) have no consideration for students with disability while less than 20% have consideration for students with disability this is due to lack of teaching materials, teachers and conducive environment for disable students.

RECOMMENDATIONS According to the conclusion derived above, the study recommends the following: The Government through the ministry of Education, Science and Technology should set standard of the amount of school fees to be charged in all private secondary schools, as it is for the Public secondary schools. The Government has to request for the justification in case of any suggestions regarding what to be charged as a school fees. Private secondary schools administration should scrutinize the components of school fees to ensure that those components which does not directly relate to the learning process has to be treated separately and not to be included as part of the school fees for example inspection/ audit fees and project fees, these has to be separately treated and they should bear a separate name. The Government should set strict rules to ensure that for any private secondary school set up, there must be a certain number of students required to be supported financially. This will help to increase the number of the needy students who will have financial aid, currently the study shows that a few number of students are sponsored ranging from 0 to 10 students which is too low compared to the number of the needy students we have in the society given the population in Tanzania. The government should give equal priorities to both public and private secondary schools because private schools also contributes to the public by

113

providing the economy with a well educated graduates and also through payments of taxes as it is for the Public secondary schools. The Government should set standards for any secondary school establishment to include features to accommodate students with disabilities because these disable students are part of the society and they need education equally as other students. HESLB to introduce a window on website where headmasters/ headmistresses will be required to fill online all the candidates’ information such as orphanage status and sponsorship particulars (poor students) which will help during the loan allocation process. HESLB is advised to work as a bank i.e. HESLB should follow bank steps during provision and collection of loans. Also the Government to create employment to the graduates so that they can have income to repay back the loans Finally the board should continue to issue loans to the needy Tanzania as it is helping in ensuring expansion of higher education to the whole Tanzanian society regardless of economic abilities.

Acknowledgement Our sincere thanks should go to the Management of the Higher Education students’ Loans Board (HESLB), for giving us support in term of funding and permission. Mr. Venance Ntiyalundura, Ms. Emma Sabaya, Ms. Joyce Mgaya, Mr. Ezra Ndangoya (Our co worker), and all selected officers at our Zonal offices at Dodoma, Mwanza, Arusha , Zanzibar and Mbeya they participated well in collection of the appropriate data which were compiled timely. Lastly many thanks should go to all officials in the private secondary schools visited, these include Headmasters/ Headmistresses, Administrators, Academic officers and Teachers on duty who provided valuable information through interview and filling of questionnaires given.

REFERENCE HESLB (2004). Act number 9 of 2004 CAP. 178, Dar es salaam, Higher Education Students’ Loans Board. HESLB (2014). Survey report on Assessment of the prevailing School fees for Private Secondary School, Dar es salaam, Higher Education Students’ Loans Board. HESLB (2015). Guidelines and Criteria for granting loans in the academic year 2015/2016, Dar es salaam, Higher Education Students’ Loans Board. HESLB (2016a). Guidelines and Criteria for granting loans in the academic year 2016/2017, Dar es salaam, Higher Education Students’ Loans Board. HESLB (2016b). Allocations and Disbursement Manual, Dar es salaam, Higher Education Students’

114

Loans Board Nyahende V. R., Bangu A.N. & Chakaza B. C. (2015). Survey on assessment of the current actual expenses incurred by students on the meals and accommodation within and around the campuses: The case of Tanzania Higher Education Students’ Loans Beneficiaries: The Journal of Higher Education Studies 5(4), Pp. 56-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n41p56 Nyahende V. R. (2016). Implementations of the Best Practices in Repayment, the way to Improve Collections of the due Students’ loans in Tanzania: The Journal of Higher Education Studies 6(1), pp. 60 – 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n1p60. Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for Business students (6th ed). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.