Notes in relation to my first panel presentation on Monday 15th Nov. Apart from the quantity of information that I can deliver within the 15 min time limit (remembering that the TARF presentation required 3 hours), additional points of concern include the following:

1) Social System theory – a largely positivist approach to the characterisation of the development of society and social life. While Traditional African societies tend toward the closed end of the spectrum (society is mechanical and individual needs are subordinate to the group), the entire paradigm is based on a rational, scientific understanding of society. This form of assumption may not be appropriate when defining African society as the entire understanding of knowledge and knowledge acquisition (the informal education system) appears to be diametrically opposed to that of the west and the formal education system i.e school operates in broad isoation from its surroundings, a point emphasised by Tedla.

2) The paradigm differential within the classroom between (top-down) communicative approach and the (bottom up) linguistic approach. Reading could provide a coherent and cogent link between the different approaches. Furthermore, the acquisition of phonics can be readily linked with improved reading ability as potential assessed using the BURT (or equivalent) reading test. On the basis that reading ability has been improved (as a basis for knowledge aquisition) further testing could be applied to test cognitive understanding.

3) Currently there are a broad number of test areas; cognitive, affective, reading and computer literacy. Should the number of test objectives be rationalised.

Observations from the panel members are listed as follows:

1) Clarify the research objectives as a means ensuring that the research is sufficiently original. Whilst a change in research context is not perceived as providing sufficient contrast, there is little evidence to suggest much comparative educational research in a developing world environment.

2) Furthermore, the methodology associated with the SOLE is currently perceived as insufficiently resilient and requiring additional transparency linked to a clear ontology and epistemology.

3) The panel members indicated that a method limited to an assessment of outcomes is considered inadequate i.e whilst learning objectives may be satisfied, there will be no understanding of the learning process. It is suggested that some form of dialogue analysis be considered as a means of interpreting interaction between participants. A bibliography will be provided as a means of determining the most appropriate approach to analysis in the given context.