Getting back to education in the developing world, Daley et al as part of educational studies in rural Kenya investigated the effect of background and classroom correlates on child achievement and behaviour. The measure and procedures are listed as follows: 1) Social Economic Status (SES). 2) Standardised test scores from school in seven subjects. 3) Cognitive tests including the Verbal Meaning Test (similar to the Peabody Picture Vocab test – Dunn & Dunn, 1981), 4. An arithmetic test adapted from the WISC-R. It is important to note that the cognotive test were underaken in the local vernacular. 4a) Behavioural test including on-task observation and 4b) a teacher rating of student behaviour, items include emotion, task persistence, social competence etc. 5) Classroom quality meaasures including assessment of the teacher in terms of organisational skills and teacher interest. The lessons were also vidoetaped and teacher performance was assessed in terms of tone, emotion and behaviour.
Results suggest that cognitive and behavioural outcomes were more closely linked to school quality than background variables, a finding consistent with other research (Heyneman & Loxley, 1983). Of the four teacher qualitilies measured only classroom organisation was a consistent predictor of outcomes, the remainder producng inconsistent results i.e teacher interest and experience were found to be inverse predictors. This study also found no relationship with outcomes and class size, although higher levels of off-task behaviour were observed and deemed to have a negative, indirect impact over a longer timescale.
From a practical view point, this study points to the range of tools that could be employed as part of the classroom characterisation process within the peer learning environment. This include: 1) background factors (SES) 2) parents education 3) cognitive ability 4) literacy and arithmetic ability 5) behaviour 6) teacher performance. This approach should be supplemented by a interpretist tool in order to obtain teacher and student opinions of education in general and the peer learning environment specifically.
The study highlights the potential significance of background SES influences when attempting to characterise a classroom in the developing world. The different question is whether SES represents a positivist or an interpretivist vector.
In terms of the learning tools that could be employed in the research, Pauline introduced me to the most relevant aspects of the Jolly phonics package including a teaching manual that can form the basis of the monitor training programme. The basic format is 42 days in duration, a single hour per day for each of the phonemic sounds. The learning framework is based on monitor modelling, reinforcement and blending strategies as a means of familiarising the student with individual and sounds and word pronunciation. The approach is a mixture of direct teaching and peer tutoring focussed on large (teacher) textbook and an associated (student)workbook. Whilst there is a lot of associated material, it would appear that the teaching approach remains consistent i.e once the framework is understood and the sounds have been learned, the monitor should be able to progress relatively unaided. Depending on the extent of the learning goals, Pauline has also recommended Read, Write Inc materials (developed by Ruth Mishkin) as a means of practicing elementary reading and comprehension skills.
Naturally, it would be very handy to find a similar tool for teaching arithmetic. Pauline has recommended Maths Makes Sense which in itself was also recommended by Mishkin.