1

An investigation into the relationship between educational inputs and achievement at the basic education level in the South Western

Educational Division in Malawi

By

Demis Kunje

2

Presentation• Background• The problem• Research questions• Significance of the study• Limitations• Theoretical framework• Literature review• Methods• Pilot• Main study• Sample• Instruments• Procedure• Analysis

3

Background

• Free primary education in 1997• Enrolments soared 1.2 to 3m• A success story• Educational system under stress• infrastructure• teachers• books• facilities and teaching and learning materials

4

Considerable efforts

• Recruited 22,000 teachers –GTZ

• Built more school blocks – DfID,WB, EU, ADB

• Bought more textbooks – CIDA

• Trained PEAs – DfID• Constructed TDCs DfID,

WB

• Developed DEP –DfID, JICA

• Implemented DEP- JICA

• All were busy trying to support the FPE

5

A decade later

• Pop: 11,937,934• Pop growth: 3.32%• Pop of 6 – 13yr:

21.3%• GER: 126%• NER: 33.1%• Adult Lit: 60.9%• RuralAL: 58.7%

• T/P 1:83• Classroom/p 1:106• Trained teachers: 85%• Completion rate: 30%• Drop out rate: 15%• Attendance: 88%• Age range: 6 –13yr vs 4-

18+yrs• Std 5: 10 yrs vs 8 –18+ yrs• Std 7: 12yrs vs 9 –18+yrs

6

The problem

• The provision of educational inputs in an effort to improve quality especially achievement is uncoordinated,

• In trickles• Not prioritised• Not holistic• Unsustainable• Pupil achievement has remained low

7

Research questions

• 1 What are the relationships between school level, classroom level and pupil level factors and achievement in mathematics, Chichewa and English in std 5 and std7?

• 2 What combinations of school, classroom and pupil factors are associated with achievement in mathematics, Chichewa and English?

• 3 How are the resources in schools utilised to improve achievement in basic education?

8

Significance of the study• Understand relationships that exist between resources and

achievement• Some idea of minimum levels of resourcing schools for

optimum achievements• Pupil characteristics which influence achievement• Provide a predictive model of resources, pupil

characteristics and achievement• Salient features of school ethos which matter in improving

efficiency• The study complements efforts to identify effective schools

in consonance with EFA goals

9

EFA goals

• Creating a conducive learning environment• Promoting higher achievement levels• Improving the availability of teaching and

learning materials• Promoting effective monitoring and

evaluation of education quality

10

Limitation of the study

• Complex nature of cause effect studies• Many factors at work• Only considering basic factors• Studying ethos require adequate time to

cover a school year

11

School a critical entity

• School climate• Enabling conditions • Teaching and learning

process

• Outcomes• Participation• Academic

achievement• Social skills• Economic skills

12

Schooling influenced by

Supporting Inputs

Pupil characteristics

Context

Parents and community

International

System support Cultural

Material support Political

economic

13

Literature Review• Inspired by effective schools research in the 1980s• Ifelunni(1990) studied correlates of academic

achievements• Pennycuick(1997) summarised results from effective

schools research• Cautious with results – easily reach spurious conclusions• Multi level analysis offers a more acceptable approach• Malawi’s problem very basic• Overwhelming evidence that achievement levels are low.

14

Literature

• SACMEQ performing below minimum desirable levels of reading and mathematical skills

• MIE categorically showed only 10% are ready to move on to the next class

• Evoked need to investigate what contributes to learner achievement

15

Method

• Piloting• Main study

16

Pilot• Main aim: Pilot instruments and collect characteristics of schools

for sampling• Sample: 1 urban school and 4 rural schools - Std 5and std 7 - Std 5 persevered so far and moving on to senior classes

needing sound background - Std 7 about to complete primary need to know what

they have as they graduate • Instruments: Tests in maths, English and Chichewa - school profile: enrolments, staffing, availability of

textbooks, infrastructure, facilities and NGO support

17

procedure• Std 5 and std 7 teachers designed tests to cover

curriculum• Checked by PEAs• Verified by researchers• Researchers designed school profile• Administered tests• Marked• Item analysis• Produced final tests and school profile as well as pupil

background questionnaire

18

Results of pilot

• Std 5 girls did better than boys in mathematics and English

• Girls in urban school were worse than girls in rural in Chichewa

• Std 7 urban schools scored much higher than rural schools in all areas except Chichewa composition

19

Sample frame: SWED 70u:544r

Location T/p ratio No. of schools

Urban Low= 20-49 4

Urban Medium=50-70 4

Urban High=71-345 4

Rural Low=20=49 17

Rural Medium=50-70 29

Rural High=71-345 42

20

Pupils and instruments

• Random sample of 30pupils in std 5 in 100 schools

• 3000 std 5 pupils• Random sample of 30

pupils in std 7• 3000 std 7 pupils• Boys and girls

selected separately

• Instruments• Maths: multiple choice• Chichewa and English

std 7: composition and multiple choice

• School profile• Pupil background

21

Procedure

• 5 teams I researcher and 1 res. Asst• 20 schools in 10 days• Teachers to assist invigilation• Invigilators to assist pupil background• Head teacher to fill school profile• Teachers marked tests• Code school and pupil profiles

22

Challenges

• Some schools not accessible and changed T/P criterion

• Many absentees - difficult to identify pupils and spent considerable time

• Test conditions uncomfortable

23

Coding school profile

Low Medium High

code 1 2 3

Teacher/p 1:20 – 1:49 1:50 – 1:70 1:71–1:345

Classrm/p 1:15 – 1:49 1:50 – 1:70 1:71–1:345

Desk/p 1:1 – 1: 3 1:4 –1:10 None

Mathstext/p 1:1 – 1:5 1:6 – 1:10 1:11 -

Engtext/p 1:1 – 1:5 1:6 – 1:10 1:11 -

24

Coding pupil profile

Standard age code age Code

5 - 12 1 13 - 2

7 - 14 1 15 - 2

25

Sex: Male = 1 female = 2

SES Low Medium HighCode 1 2 3RoofingFloorWaterToiletLightingHh effectsBooks

26

Parents’ education

Level low Medium High

Code 1 2 3

Moth Ed Std 8 JC, MSCE Above

Fath Ed Std8 JC, MSCE Above

27

Variability

location Teach/p maths Eng Chich

Urban Low

Urban Medium

Urban High

Rural Low

Rural Medium

Rural High

28

Textbooks

location Mathstext/p Maths mean scores

Urban Low

Urban Medium

Urban High

Rural Low

Rural Medium

Rural High

29

Correlations: Pupil characteristics

maths Eng Chich

Male

Female

LowSES

MediumSES

HighSES

30

Hierarchical multi level modeling• How much of the variability in attainment is

attributable to differences between schools and between students?

• Can we find factors at the student and school levels which account for the variability at each level?

• Allows us to determine the relative impact of each level of the hierarchy and to identify the factors at each level that are associated with that level’s impact

• How much these two analyses support each other

31

End of Phase one

Phase two: Qualitative analysis of a sample of schools with high

achievement rates