‫ث‬ ‫بث‬‫أأ ب‬ TEACHERS IN LEBANON: UNDERSTANDING THE QUALITY OF TEACHERS’ INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND PERFORMANCE RESEARCH FOR RESULTS PROGRAM 2021 TEACHERS IN LEBANON: UNDERSTANDING THE QUALITY OF TEACHERS’ INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND PERFORMANCE RESEARCH FOR RESULTS PROGRAM 2021 2 © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. This report was prepared by the World Bank Education Global Practice Middle East & North Africa Unit. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover design: Sarah Alameddine 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 Acknowledgements 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations 6 Executive Summary 8 Methodology 8 Main Findings 18 Chapter 1. Introduction 22 Teachers’ Data 23 Teachers’ Characteristic 24 Chapter 2. Methodology & Framework 26 2.1. Measuring Teacher Effectiveness- A Goal to Ensure Student Outcomes 31 2.2. Reflecting on the Nature of Teacher Classroom Practices - Post Observation Interview 35 2.3. Teacher Assessment of Content Knowledge 36 Chapter 3. Instructional Practices and Teaching Process 36 3.1. Instructional Quality- International Comparison 41 3.2. Instructional Practices: 46 3.3. Teaching Practices By Subject, Shift, and Type of School 58 3.4. Who Are the Best and Worst Teachers? 60 Chapter 4. Teacher Classroom Practices - Post Observation 60 4.1. Education Philosophy 62 4.2. Classroom Environment 63 4.3. Teacher’s Perception on Parents’ Support 64 4.4. Teacher’s Perception on Challenges and Success 69 4.5. Teacher’s Professional Development 70 4.6. Lesson Plan 75 4.7. Teachers’ Perception of Assessment of Students 83 Chapter 5. Teachers’ Content Knowledge Evaluation 84 5.1. Teachers’ Content Knowledge in Languages and Math 95 5.2. CLASS Score vs Evaluation Score 102 Chapter 6. Conclusion and Policy Recommendation 105 References 110 Annex A 112 Annex B 119 Annex C 124 Annex D 125 Annex E 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by a team in the World Bank’s Education Global Practice Middle East and North Africa unit. It was initiated under the guidance of Husein Abdul Hamid (Senior Education Specialist,) and Mohamed Yassine (Education Specialist) and brought to completion by Nathalie Lahire (Senior Economist). The report was authored by Anahita Hosseini Matin (Consultant), with contributions from Nathalie Lahire (Senior Economist), Hana Addam El Ghali (Senior Education Specialist), Elisabeth Sedmik (Economist), Nadine El Franji (Consultant), Cynthia Yammine (Program Assistant), Husein Abdul-Hamid (Senior Education Specialist), Mohamed Yassine (Education Specialist) and May Bend (Consultant). In addition, technical and administrative support to the study’s implementation was provided by, Christin McConnell (Consultant), Rita Nasrallah (Consultant), Reine Khoury (Consultant), Viticia Thames (Consultant), and Mirvat Haddad (Program Assistant). Valuable comments and feedback on the report were received from peer reviewers Andrew B. Ragatz (Senior Education Specialist) and Ezequiel Molina (Senior Economist). The team is also grateful for guidance and support from Saroj Kumar Jha (Regional Director, Middle East Department Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, and Syria), Keiko Miwa (Regional Director, Human Development, Middle East & North Africa Region), and Andreas Blom (Practice Manager, Education, Middle East & North Africa Region). The principal editor of the report was May Bend. The publication design was developed by Sarah Alameddine. This report presents detailed analysis and findings of the teacher performance study, one of four studies featured in the Research for Results (R4R) program Volume II. The R4R program is a partnership between the Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) and the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD), the World Bank, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), and the United States Agency for International Aid (USAID). The team is especially thankful to generous financial contributions from the FCDO and from USAID which made R4R research possible. The R4R program was governed by a steering committee chaired by Fadi Yarak (Director General of Education, MEHE) and included Ahmad Jammal (former Director General of Higher Education at MEHE), Therese El Hachem (Dean of Faculty of Education, Lebanese University), and Karma El Hassan (American University of Beirut), as well as representatives from the two donors of the program, FCDO and USAID, who provided close follow-up, guidance, and valuable feedback to the research process and outputs. A technical committee chaired by Nada Oweijane (Former President, CERD) that included Hilda Khoury (DOPS-Direction d’Orientation Pédagogique et Scolaire, MEHE), Samia Abou Hamad (CERD), Nashaat Mansour (Lebanese American University), Iman Khalil (Lebanese University), Fadi El Hage (Saint Joseph University), Claudine Aziz (Education Practitioner), Hanadi Jardali (Education Practitioner), and Samir Costantine (Education Practitioner), provided valuable inputs to the research design, instruments, and outputs. The team extends its appreciation to the DOPS coaches who conducted the classroom observation, and to all staff at MEHE who provided administrative and technical support to this study. The team would also like to acknowledge Yvonne Godber from Teachstone, for conducting the CLASS training (Classroom Assessment Scoring System - developed by Robert Pianta at the University of Virginia) to the DOPS coaches and to the enumerators who got then certified. And the team would like to acknowledge Joseph Haddad and InfoPro team for organizing the Teacher Observation Training, the hard work on the field data collection, and for the training of the classroom observers/enumerators. The team would also thank World Learning, Kara McBride, Wafa Kotob, Rania Khalil, Sarah Brandt, for the preparation of the Post Observation Questionnaire, the Student Perception Survey, the Teacher Tests and the Student Assessment Rubric. 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CLASS Classroom Assessment Scoring System CERD Center for Educational Research and Development DOPS Direction d’Orientation Pedagogique et Scolaire FCDO Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office GDP Gross Domestic Product MEHE Ministry of Education and Higher Education MENA Middle East and North Africa MET Measure of Effective Teaching PISA Program for International Student Assessment PMU Program Management Unit R4R Research for Results USAID United States Agency for International Development 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of the Research for Results (R4R) initiative is to carry out a comprehensive review of education service delivery in Lebanon and recommend effective policy measures to improve the quality of teaching and, ultimately, student learning outcomes. As Lebanon continues to suffer from challenges in education from past and recent crises (influx of Syrian refugees, social unrest, economic crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc.), studying and measuring the quality of teaching instruction in Lebanese upper elementary classrooms contributes to understanding the gaps in teaching (shortages, absenteeism, etc.) and teaching practices and can be used as a guide for school leadership programs, teacher professional development trainings - including new curriculum design and effective lesson preparation. Designing policies that strengthen teaching practices is a crucial step in improving education quality for all in Lebanon. Identifying what has worked well in a lesson and which strategies were successful can support teachers in reviewing and assessing their own classroom practices. During classroom observations in Lebanon, only a small number of teachers (<10 percent) were seen to focus on ways that maximize student engagement through clear presentation of key ideas (using the CLASS observation tool). These teachers also focused on encouraging deep understanding of content through the provision of meaningful, interactive discussions and explanation of broad organizing ideas that were consistently linked to students’ prior knowledge in ways that clarified misunderstandings. In those select classrooms, students were consistently engaged in extended opportunities to use higher-order thinking and/or independently solve or reason through an open-ended task, requiring them to select, utilize or apply existing knowledge and skills. Unfortunately, these remain, so far, the exception rather than the norm in Lebanon. According to the World Bank Global Platform for Successful Teachers (2019), teachers are successful in improving the quality of education when teacher policies are designed and implemented in a system that prepares, supports, and motivates them to become high-performing teachers. In a given classroom, students are the major input in this system. Countries with a high-performing education system such as Finland, Japan, and Singapore pride themselves on having successful teams of teachers. In most low to middle income countries, teacher policies are either ineffective or lack consistency. Teacher qualifications are set much lower than in other professions, and unprepared and poorly trained teachers are expected to teach a complex curriculum to students. As a result, students spend the most important part of their developmental years learning little and not reaching their full potential in order to contribute to national human capital and economic growth and prosperity. Many countries have failed to recognize the cost of such a shortcoming, and would benefit from investing in an education system that trains high-performing teachers.1 1 Successful Teacher, Successful Students: A New Approach Paper on Teachers (World Bank Publications 2019) 7 Classroom observations can be a valuable part of a performance evaluation as well as one of the best sources of information to guide teacher professional growth through coaching. The learning environment created and maintained by the teacher and the interactions between teacher and students are essential for student learning. These elements can best be assessed through direct observation (Goe et al. 2012). The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta at the University of Virginia is a tool for analyzing the quality of teacher-student interactions in the classroom. At the upper elementary level, CLASS produces qualitative ratings of teacher performance on a scale from 1-7 on twelve dimensions across three broad domains: 1) emotional support; 2) classroom organization; and 3) instructional support. (World Bank 2015) FIGURE 0.1: CLASS DOMAINS (3) AND DIMENSIONS (12) Measures specific teacher’s behavior that promotes students’ academic achievement and engagement by fostering positive relationships and motivation. This domain also measures whether EMOTIONAL or not the teachers are being aware and responsive to students’ SUPPORT needs and allowing students to willingly take learning risks (Hu et al. 2016). The emotional support domain consists of positive climate, teacher sensitivity, and regards for student perspective dimensions. Describes teachers’ behaviors that establish and affect structure for learning through organization and management of students’ behavior, time, and attention in the classroom. Classrooms function CLASSROOM best and provide the most opportunities to learn when students are ORGANIZATION well-behaved, consistently have things to do, and are interested and engaged in learning tasks. The classroom organization domain consists of productivity, behavior management, and a positive or negative climate. Refers to specific teaching behaviors that push the students thinking to deeper understanding and more advanced performance skills. These behaviors help students build knowledge, promote INSTRUCTIONAL higher order thinking skills, expand students' learning through SUPPORT specific feedback, and use discussion to deepen students’ academic understanding. The instructional support domain consists of institutional learning formats, content understanding, analysis and inquiry, quality of feedback, and instructional dialogue. For each dimension, the CLASS protocol gives coders concrete guidance on whether the score given should be “low” (scores of 1-2), “medium” (scores of 3-5), or “high” (scores of 6-7).  Thus, each teacher receives dimension scores as well as domain scores and an overall score on a scale of 1-7.  8 CLASS stands out as a scientifically sound observation tool both for its appealing theoretical framework and for its accumulation of robust empirical evidence demonstrating connections between the quality of teachers’ classroom behaviours and children’s developmental competencies (e.g. social skills and learning behaviours), school readiness skills, and even long- term academic outcomes (Hamre, Hatfield, Pianta and Jamil 2014; Pianta and Hamre 2009). Methodology This report focuses on assessing teachers’ instructional quality in teaching Arabic language, Foreign Language (English or French), and Mathematics (English or French), comprising 707 teachers in a total of 146 schools from a nationally representative sample across Lebanon in grades 4 and 7, in public (morning and afternoon shifts), free private and fee-based private schools, using the CLASS observation tool. There were 599 teachers (85 percent) in the morning shift, and 108 teachers (15 percent) in the afternoon shift. There were 375 (53 percent) teachers in public schools, 71 teachers (10 percent) in free-private, and 261 teachers (37 percent) in fee-based private schools2.In order to gain in-depth understanding of teacher’s instructional effectiveness, each classroom was visited twice and during each visit, two enumerators observed the lesson for two cycles, each consisting of a 15-minute lesson. The inter-reliability rate for observers who observed grade 4 teachers is 96 percent and for observers who observed grade 7 teachers is 98 percent. Enumerators then performed a post-observation interview with all the teachers in the sample asking a range of questions about their lesson plan, opportunities for professional development, students’ behavioural issues, their (teachers’) morale, etc. At the end, each teacher was given an evaluation test, which was in accordance with the grade, subject and curriculum they taught. Main Findings Below are the main findings of this study: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION OUTCOMES 1. The performance of teachers in Lebanon’s upper elementary education system should be improved. While the overall live classroom observation measure (CLASS) indicated that teachers tended to perform at a medium score level, the majority (86 percent) of teachers’ instructional practices in the classroom were scored low (scored between 1-3 in CLASS scoring system). Most teachers (86 percent) in Lebanon appear to display rote (flat) emotional affect and do not provide frequent positive comments to students, resulting in monotone delivery of content. The majority (86 percent) of Lebanese teachers present lessons content using limited modalities, strategies and/or materials and the students’ opportunities to interact with these modalities/materials are often brief. 2. Lesson discussions and class materials (i.e. content of the lesson) communicate only a few of the essential attributes of key learning concepts. Furthermore, opportunities for students to independently practice the skills relevant to lesson content are limited in classroom settings. 2 Fee-based private schools are financed by students’ tuition fees. Free private schools are private schools that are privately owned but subsidized by the government, religious associations, charities and other organizations. 9 3. Teachers appear inflexible, rarely following students’ lead or encouraging expression of their ideas and opinions. The vast majority of teachers (94 percent) also rarely connect student’s practical experiences to the lesson. Class material is not presented in such a way as to communicate relevancy to students, therefore helping them understand the value and/or connection of the lesson to their current life experiences. 4. There is a significant difference in the quality of teaching practices between morning and afternoon shifts in Lebanese public schools, especially among Grade 4 afternoon shift teachers. Grade 7 teachers who teach in the afternoon have shown significantly higher score as compared to Grade 4 teachers in the same shift. As figure 0.2 indicates, the mean CLASS score for Grade 4 morning shift teachers is 4.16 and the score for afternoon shift teachers is 3.72. Similarly, Grade 7 teachers’ overall score in the morning shift is 4.17, as compared to the score of afternoon teachers (3.85). FIGURE 0.2: CLASS SCORE BY SCHOOL SHIFTS 3.72 Afternoon 3.85 4.16 Morning 4.17 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 Grade 4 Grade 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon classroom observations Additionally, this significant difference between morning versus afternoon shift teachers can be specifically observed in the quality of teacher feedback to students and in the instructional learning format dimensions teachers use. For instance, Grade 4 morning teachers were observed to mildly engage students in facilitating lesson content, whereas the vast majority of Grade 4 afternoon teachers (92 percent) were observed to communicate learning targets in a disorganized manner and only offered lesson content in a single mode (e.g. lecture). As figure 0.3 indicates, only 10 percent of afternoon teachers scored high-medium, as compared to one‑third (30 percent) of morning teachers. Both grade 4 and grade 7 teachers who teach afternoon shifts, appear to perform significantly weaker in all dimensions of instructional support domain based on the results on CLASS dimension scores. What could possibly explain such a significant difference is limited early career support and in-service professional development opportunities are provided for afternoon shifts teachers. FIGURE 0.3: CLASS SCORE DISTRIBUTION IN LEBANON (BY SHIFT) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Class Score Distribution Afternoon 29% 61% 10% Morning 1% 14% 55% 30% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Author calculation, Lebanon classroom observation 10 5. Fee-based and free private school teachers provided students with occasional opportunities to think about their own thinking (metacognition) through reflection, self-evaluation and planning. The quality of teaching at free private and fee-based private schools is similar. Even though teachers in fee-based private schools were observed to perform slightly better on the instructional support domain compared to their colleagues in free-private schools, this difference was not observed to be statistically significant. While only 14 percent of public school teachers scored medium-high (score of 5), 38 percent of teachers who teach at free-private schools, and 43 percent of fee-based school teachers scored medium-high (figure 0.4). Around one-third (27 percent) of public school teachers scored medium, while only 3 percent of fee-based private and 6 percent of free-private teachers scored medium. FIGURE 0.4: CLASS SCORE DISTRIBUTION IN LEBANON (BY TYPE OF SCHOOL) Fee-Based Private 3% 52% 43% 1% Free Private 1% 6% 55% 38% Public 1% 27% 58% 14% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculation, Lebanon classroom observation 6. Arabic teachers have significantly better practices in instructional dialogue, quality of feedback offered and along the analysis and inquiry dimensions compared to teachers of other subjects (French, English, Math in French, and Math in English). Amongst Grade 4 teachers, French Language teachers score the lowest. Similarly, Grade 7 teachers who taught math in French have the lowest CLASS score. 7. Teachers in Lebanon follow steady, firmly fixed teaching practices in their classrooms. No evidence of significant improvement in quality of teaching outcomes was observed in the second visit to classrooms (the second visit was 5-6 months apart from the first one), no significant variations in how teachers teach in their classrooms were observed. During both visits, students often showed passive rather than dynamic engagement in the classroom. While some periodically shared their ideas or gave responses, generally most grade 4 and 7 students in Lebanon appear to be in receptive rather than active mode. Even the best performing teachers fail to deliver teaching practices that meet CLASS’ high range of Instructional Support domain standards, but rather fall into the low to mid-range of this domain (figure 0.5). While 73 percent of the teachers scored low to low-medium according to CLASS scoring system, only around one-third (27 percent) of the teachers scored high-medium. No teacher achieved high scores regardless of type of school. For more international classroom observation comparisons, please refer to Chapter 3. FIGURE 0.5: CLASS SCORE DISTRIBUTION IN LEBANON (OVERALL SCORE) Class Score 1% 16% 56% 27% Distribution 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculation, Lebanon classroom observation 11 WHO ARE THE BEST AND WORST TEACHERS? 8. Even the most effective teachers (i.e. Lebanon’s best performing teachers with 75th percentile CLASS score) do not discuss lesson materials effectively and only communicate solid pieces of concepts and procedures to students, failing to engage students in extended opportunities that challenge their cognitive skills . Lebanon’s best performing teachers (75th percentile) score in the low to mid range on all dimensions of the instructional support domain. Understanding the quality of teaching practices across grades, subjects, shifts and types of schools gives education policymakers a profound picture of the reality of their workforce efforts. Studying the proportion of teachers who score lower and/or higher on the live observation gives us a better picture of the teachers’ capacity to communicate learning objectives to students. 9. In the emotional support domain, positive climate and teacher sensitivity scores are within mid to high range, however, regards for the student perspective dimension score ranges from low-mid to mid which shows teachers in general do not encourage peer-to-peer interactions that are meaningful in connection to the context of the lesson. In Lebanon, teachers rarely follow students’ lead in the classroom and do not welcome students’ ideas and opinions. Additionally, the focus of the class in not primarily on meaningful discussion and explanation of broad, organizing ideas and it does not elicit and/or acknowledge students’ background knowledge or misconceptions to integrate information with previously learned material. (figure 0.6) FIGURE 0.6: CLASS MEASURE DIMENSION - 75TH PERCENTILE Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon classroom Observations (N=112) 12 10. The 25th percentile of teachers (the lowest performing teachers) score results indicate that on all the dimensions in the instructional support and emotional support domains, the scores are from low to low-mid range (figure 0.7). The lowest performing teachers only offer information with little to no variety in delivery strategies or materials. Scant effort is made to elicit student knowledge or acknowledge students’ misconceptions and mistakes and any feedback (if given) is only in the form of correct/incorrect, which does not meaningfully engage students in higher order thinking skills. FIGURE 0.7: CLASS DIMENSION- 25TH PERCENTILE Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon classroom observations (N=112) 11. Best performing teachers (75th percentile) who teach morning shifts in grades 4 and 7 score within mid to mid-high in most of the dimensions of instructional support domain, except for analysis and inquiry dimension. The analysis and inquiry dimension score for best performing teachers who teach in the morning in both grade 4 and 7 indicate that teachers provide opportunities for students to apply knowledge and skills within familiar contexts, but do not provide opportunities for analysis and problem solving within novel contexts and/or without teacher support (independently). 12. Best performing (75th percentile) afternoon shift teachers on the other hand, mostly scored low to low-mid in instructional support domain in both grades 4 and 7. Only around 10 percent of best performing grade 7 afternoon shift teachers have scored mid‑high in instructional support domain. Around 70 percent of Grade 4 and 80 percent of grade 7 morning shift teachers who are amongst the 25th percentile category (the lowest performing teachers) scored in low range in instructional support and emotional support domain. And 90 percent of grade 4 and grade 7 afternoon teachers who are amongst worst performing teachers scored in low range in instructional support category. This result for afternoon shift teachers indicates that students are not encouraged to think independently, evaluate, and reflect on their own leaning or plan their own learning experiences. For more comparisons of best versus worst performing teachers across grade levels and schools shifts, please refer to Annex C 13 LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND STIMULATION 13. Classrooms appeared to have a suitable environment in most schools (85 percent), although there were some schools without proper heating and/or electricity. 14. Special Education Needs: Even though most teachers (81 percent) reported using different methods of instructional learning that adjust the pace of lessons and correspond to students with special needs (e.g., children with learning disabilities), their low CLASS score on the emotional support dimension does not reflect the teachers’ perspective. 15. Parents’ Support: Most public-school teachers (85 percent) expressed their dissatisfaction about the degree the parents are involved in their children’s education, for example participating in school related events and activities during a school year. The majority of parents (94 percent) whose children attend afternoon shifts are not involved at all in their children’s academic and social activities. TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON CHALLENGES, SUCCESS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: 16. Educational Resources and Curriculum. The majority of observed classrooms (90 percent) use traditional resources - such as textbooks, learning aides, etc. - and teachers do not often have access to educational resources that employ ICT technology. Afternoon teachers report that schools do not provide them with equal opportunities to access and use computers, tablets or LCD projectors compared to their colleagues who teach the morning shift. 17. Learning Resources. Around three-quarters of the teachers expressed concern regarding students’ previous learning achievements, which apparently do not sufficiently prepare students with the foundational skills to advance to higher grades. Most teachers (80 percent) expressed concern regarding access to learning resources needed to support their teaching. Teachers also stated that professional development training in creating stimulating classroom environments is insufficient. Most public school teachers (75 percent) requested training in the use of technology in the classroom, followed by support and training in the use of formative learning and assessment tools to enhance student learning, such as collaborative student projects, new methods in exams and quizzes, standardized tests, etc. LESSON PLANS: 18. Preparation. Around one-fifth of the teachers did not have an observable lesson plan on the day of the interview. A higher percentage (90 percent) of public-school teachers had lesson plans as compared to teachers in fee- based private schools (66 percent) and free-private schools (75 percent). Additionally, on average, for every hour that a teacher in Lebanon teaches a lesson, they spend only 20 minutes planning and preparing. On average a typical teacher in Lebanon spends around 7 hours planning lessons during the week and teaches around 20 hours per week. According to international standards, for every hour of teaching, at least 2-4 hours of lesson planning is required. Regardless of the grade and subject, Lebanese teachers do not spend adequate time planning lessons. 14 19. Content and Clarity. More than three-quarters of the observed lesson plans were clear, organized and easy to follow. However, more than half did not include a review activity of what was taught in the previous lessons. The majority of the plans (76 percent) did not take into consideration that students are of different skill levels and learning abilities. Interactive methods in the lesson plans were not well structured, since there was a significant difference between the interactive methods the teachers practice vs. what they reported while being interviewed. Less than half of the lesson plans included setting a homework assignment based on the lesson. 20. Creativity. The lesson plans did not include students’ leadership skills, as indicated by low CLASS scores on the students’ perspective dimension. The low score in regards for students perspective dimension in CLASS is also reflective of this result. 21. Utilization. Most teachers (86 percent) did not utilize and implement their lesson plans in their classrooms, which is reflected by a low CLASS score on the instructional support dimension. TEACHERS’ USE OF STUDENT ASSESSMENT IN THE CLASSROOM: 22. Over half of the teachers (65 percent of them) were not seen to use formative learning and assessment tools (such as student collaborative projects, poster presentation, student self-evaluation techniques, etc.) that can foster students cognitive and critical thinking skills, nor to provide effective feedback and comments to increase students understanding of the lesson and/or curriculum. 23. The majority of teachers (86 percent) in both grades 4 and 7 failed to provide practical, thought provoking, and challenging questions for students in both language and math subjects. Also, most teachers (close to 80 percent) did not provide additional assistance or hints in order to direct students to correct their mistakes. 24. The majority of language teachers (86 percent) used short-answer, fill in the blank, and essay writing assessment questions on exams, homework assignments and school projects, while math teachers (83 percent) rarely used problem-solving questions requiring analysis of graphs, charts and tables and could challenge students’ critical thinking skills. Here it is important to note that there are significant differences between the Evaluation Methods the teachers practice versus what they say they do in the classroom. TEACHERS’ CONTENT KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION: 25. Teachers, regardless of their level of knowledge and mastery of the curriculum, adopt somewhat similar instructional practices in classrooms . The majority of teachers (90 percent) across grades 4 and 7 and subjects (languages and math) did not exhibit a significant difference in CLASS overall score vis-a-vis their content knowledge evaluation score. Most teachers (nearly 80 percent) do not encourage students to think, evaluate or reflect on their own learning. Instruction is presented in a rote manner with limited opportunities for students to engage in open-ended tasks and the majority of surveyed students (nearly 90 percent) are not encouraged by their teachers to continuously apply previous knowledge and skills to new contexts during a lesson. 26. No significant difference was observed in how teachers approach language subjects (i.e. Arabic, English, French) based on the type of school they teach at, while math teachers in private schools (free and fee-based) exhibited a different trend (higher evaluation scores) as compared to public school math teachers and showed stronger evaluation score results. 15 27. Afternoon (second shift) teachers performed significantly lower on their evaluation tests than did morning (first) shift teachers in most of the subjects. The overall teacher evaluation results (by school shift) show a pattern similar to the CLASS findings where afternoon shift teachers average lower scores across all subjects. An example can be seen in the figure below (figure 0.8). For more details please refer to Chapter 5. FIGURE 0.8: TEACHER EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE- GRADE 4-MATH IN ENGLISH- BY SHIFT Q13 23.1% 38.2% Q12 0% 10.1% Q11 8% 40% Q10 61.5% 76.4% Q9 76.9% 90.9% Q8 61.5% 81.8% Q7 23.1% 36.4% 53.9% Q6 58.2% Q5 38.5% 47.3% Q4 46.2% 58.2% Q3 23.1% 52.7% Q2 61.5% 74.6% 84.6% Q1 81.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Math in English Grade 4 Afternoon Math in English Grade 4 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 28. French language teachers performed the highest in their knowledge test amongst language teachers. However, Grade 4 French teachers were observed to utilize ineffective methods of teaching practices since they achieved the lowest CLASS score. 29. A significant gap in terms of overall evaluation score vis-à-vis CLASS score was observed between math teachers who taught in English in Grade 4 and Grade 7 (see Chapter 5 for additional details). 30. The result of the student learning outcome study was not included in this study due to data misalignment of teacher study vs student assessment study. This data misalignment prevented accurate statistical analysis and data merging that could associate students to their corresponding teachers that their classrooms were observed. The result of the student learning outcome study has been presented separately. 16 POLICY OPTIONS 1. Basic education in Lebanon would benefit from reforms to provide equitable, high quality learning opportunities for all students, regardless of school shift or type. Even though teachers in private schools (free and fee-based) performed better during live classroom observation, the scores for each CLASS domain still fall in the medium range of this observation tool. Accordingly, policy options should focus on significant improvement in quality of teaching practices, and on methods to achieve a more equitable distribution of teaching resources among the various school types. 2. Frequent professional development opportunities could be introduced to teachers with constant follow-up .This study reveals that teachers could benefit from ongoing professional development opportunities. During the post-observation interview teachers asked to be provided with professional development courses that replicate classroom environments. The overarching need to improve teaching practices through coaching, professional development opportunities with on-going follow-up, individually tailored support to teachers that targets their specific skill level, improvement in their lesson planning development, etc. Accordingly, it may be difficult for teachers to implement what they’ve learned in training in their classrooms when they are unable to adjust the new techniques to their classroom environment. The Lebanese education system can be strengthened to better integrate and coordinate between various functions to enhance teacher training with on-going support. Within high-quality studies of pedagogical interventions, those interventions that employ adaptive instruction and teacher coaching techniques are particularly effective (Evans and Popova 2016). For instance, pedagogical interventions in Africa (defined as those that change instructional techniques) were found to be more effective at improving student learning than all other types of interventions combined (Conn 2014). In Kenya students were assigned to classes on the basis of initial preparedness so that teachers could focus instruction at the level of learning of the students (Kremer et al. 2011). This increased test scores at all levels of initial preparedness (by 0.17 standard deviations in language and 0.16 standard deviations in math). This grouping program was particularly effective for low-performing students, and improved their performance by 0.16 standard deviations with results carrying over into the next school year after the program had stopped. Giving students in India a brief assessment of basic language skills at the start of the academic year and then setting aside a portion of the school day to teach students in groups according to ability level, independent of grade or age, improved both oral and written language test scores, by 0.15 standard deviations and 0.14 standard deviations, respectively (Duflo et al. 2015). 3. Detailed support tailored to the skill levels of teachers can also be effective. An Indian program giving teachers diagnostic training that provides detailed guidance on what and how teachers should teach has proven to be effective in enhancing the skills of low-performing students. For instance, a scripted literacy program in Mumbai that provided storybooks, flashcards, and a child library, as well as instructions for teachers specifying the activities in which these should be used and when, had positive effects on child literacy (Murnane and Ganimian 2014). This highlights the fact that impactful improvements in student learning produced by appropriate teacher training may be in part driven by a large degree of overlap with other interventions because many of the successful instructional interventions are shown to be coupled with teacher training in how to employ the new method in the classroom (McEwan 2015). For instance, the intervention providing flashcards to teach children English in India improved test scores much more when it was implemented through a teacher-training program than when it was introduced externally without preparing teachers (Evans and Popova 2016). 17 4. Relationships between parents, school, teachers and community could be strengthened, and engagement agendas should be created to shift culture toward promoting parental involvement and shared responsibility to improve learning instead of just holding schools accountable. For instance, schools could provide families with information related to creating a supportive learning environment at home and establish effective school-to- home and home-to-school communication. 5. The Lebanese education system could be strengthened to better integrate and coordinate between its various functions to enhance teacher training and ongoing support. Specifically, efforts might be further coordinated to prioritize teacher support interventions (including improvement plans), and ongoing professional development cycles, coaching and mentoring. Providing teachers with specific training and professional development opportunities will likely improve the quality of their instruction and therefore student learning outcomes. Even though most of the observed teachers showed a moderate level of knowledge in the curriculum content they are teaching, instruction itself seems to be a mechanical process that does not enable students to fully participate in classroom activities. Teachers are not facilitating higher-order thinking in their classrooms and many activities and exercises are based on memorization. Opportunities for students to engage in novel, open-ended tasks which give them a certain degree of autonomy appears to be rare or non-existent in Lebanese classrooms. In the vast majority of observed classes, teachers are lecturing to passively engaged students. Teachers’ feedback in most lessons is given in the form of “correct/incorrect” and teachers do not attempt to scaffold student learning by offering students the opportunity to engage with curricular content independently or in small groups. 6. Teachers’ mastery of pedagogical concepts and lesson planning: There is a misalignment between lesson preparation and what teachers actually teach. While many (40 percent) teachers appeared to be unprepared, those that used lesson plans (60 percent) as a pedagogical guiding tool often lacked necessary practices in the plan to implement in classrooms. The percentage of teachers (30-40 percent) who had a well-written lesson plan rarely practiced it in class. Long-term peer coaching and in-classroom training programs could be initiated for in-service teachers to help them write lesson plans that can be effectively used in the classroom. 7. National curriculum and skills needs to be aligned with the Lebanese economy’s needs. While most teachers report that they are unable to cover all curricular contents over the course of the school year, the curriculum does not appear to leave room for students to think outside the box and gain knowledge and skills beyond what is in textbooks. This is also confirmed by Lebanon’s poor PISA and TIMSS results.3 Student-centered teaching methods and active learning and collaboration of students are not commonly practiced in Lebanese classrooms. 3 In 2018, the Lebanese average was 393 on mathematics, 353 on reading and 384 on science. In comparison, OECD averages were 487 on math, 489 on reading and 489 on science – over 100 points higher on nearly all three tested subject areas. 18 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Lebanon is an upper- middle-income developing country, with a per capita GDP of USD $12,000 (2018) and population of 6.8 million people (as of April 2020). Lebanon’s education consists of two education systems: a public, government- oriented sector, run by MEHE, and a larger more diverse private school system that includes well-established religious-based schools. Education in Lebanon has faced many external challenges including the civil war in 1975, the Syrian refugee crisis in 2011, recent national political unrest in 2019 and, most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. As a result, schools in Lebanon frequently face resource constraints and a safety and security environment that has interrupted the school-year academic calendar, and disrupted students’ attendance at school. Additionally, the Syrian refugee crisis has had a significant and ongoing effect on the public education sector - as of 2018 the number of non-Lebanese students nearly reached the number of Lebanese students in public schools. The expansion in formal education to Syrian refugees was made possible through establishment of a second shift in public schools, where 70 percent of non-Lebanese students were enrolled in 2018 (Abdul Hamid 2020). The public-school system has struggled to accommodate this ongoing refugee crisis while addressing other existing challenges. Student performance is demonstrated to be low in comparison to international averages in programs such as PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). According to PISA 2018 results, Lebanese students score poorly in all three subjects: math, reading and science (figure 1.1). Indeed, Lebanese student performance lags between 3 to 4 years of schooling below the OECD average. In reading, math and science subjects, around 66 percent of the students did not meet the basic proficiency level. In the PISA 2015 results, Lebanon was the worst performer among all 70 participating countries. FIGURE 1.1: LEBANON PISA SCORES 2015 AND 2018 IN READING, MATH, SCIENCE Mathematics Reading Science PISA-2015 396 347 386 PISA-2018 393 353 384 OECD Average-PISA 2018 487 489 489 Source: PISA 2015 and 2018 19 In MENA, Lebanon scored 58 points below the regional average on reading in PISA, 2018 (figure 1.2). PISA results also indicate that girls are about one year of schooling ahead of boys in reading skills; no gender gap was observed for math and science (figure 1.3). Based on their scores, private schools students appear to be around two years ahead compared to their public school classmates who study in the same grade. Additionally, students in rural areas are around 1.5 years of schooling behind their urban peers. Lebanon’s performance is shown to be significantly lower in PISA 2018, compared to countries with similar GDP per PPP (economic development level). FIGURE 1.2: LEBANON PISA SCORE; READING SUBJECT TREND 550 OECD 500 Reading PISA Score 450 MENA 400 Lebanon 350 300 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 Source: PISA 2018 FIGURE 1.3: LEBANON 2018 PISA SCORE BY GENDER PROFILE Top 20% ESCS Reading 423 Bottom 20% ESCS 305 1 year of schooling Males 394 Math Females 393 Males Science 381 Females 386 Males Reading 338 Females 366 300 330 360 390 420 450 Source: PISA 2018 20 While most of Lebanese students attend private schools (71 percent), public schools have expanded their capacity tremendously to accommodate Syrian refugee education since the 2011 crisis began. As of 2019, Lebanon enrolled around 290,6558 non-Lebanese students into public schools. This has required the public education system to increase its capacity by approximately 77 percent over the past seven years, with non-Lebanese students comprising 45 percent of total students in the public education system in 20194 (figure 1.4). The expansion in formal education to Syrian refugees was made possible through creation of second shifts in public schools. In 2018-2019, 70 percent of non-Lebanese students were enrolled in second shifts, for their instruction only, while the remaining 30 percent went to schools with their Lebanese peers during the first shift (figure 1.5). The Syrian refugee crisis introduced a parallel system of financing sponsored by donor countries and aimed at responding to the Syrian refugees’ need for education services. Donor financing to the public education system between 2014-2018 had an annual average of US$250–US$300 million, representing more than 25 percent of public education sector financing (Abdul Hamid & Yassine 2020). FIGURE 1.4: NUMBER OF LEBANESE AND NON-LEBANESE STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 350000 300000 290655 254038 257378 264231 248826 247723 238536 249494 242548 250000 237872 220498 195706 200000 148796 150000 102022 109543 100000 51522 50000 22081 27446 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Lebanese in Public Schools Total Non-Lebanese in Public Schools Source: CERD statistical yearbooks and indicators, Beirut, https://www.crdp.org/statistics?la=en retrieved on February 1, 2018; RACE PMU, February 1, 2018; and Abdul Hamid and Yassine 2020 FIGURE 1.5: NUMBER NON-LEBANESE STUDENTS IN FIRST AND SECOND SHIFTS 300000 250000 200000 150000 170511 124140 155014 100000 83675 30418 59024 50000 71604 65121 71566 65484 72037 51522 50519 22081 27446 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Morning Shift Afternoon Shift Source: CERD statistical yearbooks and indicators, retrieved on April 8, 2018; RACE PMU, February 1, 2018; and Abdul Hamid and Yassine 2020 4 R4R Volume 1, World Bank Group; Abdul Hamid & Yassine 2020 21 The challenges discussed above - from extending school capacity for Syrian refugees to the low performance of two-thirds of students on PISA (2018) – clearly depicts a learning crisis in Lebanon’s education system. In response to this crisis, the Government of Lebanon partnered with the World Bank Group (WBG) to learn more about teachers’ content knowledge and classroom performance in order to explore options around teacher-driven policy reform and sector transformation. To understand Lebanon education service delivery system challenges, the Ministry of Education and Higher Education in Lebanon (MEHE), in collaboration with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the WBG launched the Research for Results (R4R) initiative in 2016. The aim of this initiative was to gather new evidence on student and teacher performance through live classroom observations. Observations were then combined with research on service delivery, including stakeholder outreach and system-level analysis, to create policy recommendations for strengthening the efficiency and quality of the system. The R4R initiative tackled two main areas of system diagnostic: (1) a political economy analysis of policies and institutions; and (2) service delivery research on teaching and learning in schools (Abdul Hamid and Yassine 2020). BOX 1.1: THE IMPORTANCE OF INVESTING IN HIGH-PERFORMING TEACHERS Teachers across many low to middle-income countries believe they do not receive enough financial and professional support from their governments. Better pay, a suitable work environment, and learning career advancement opportunities were among a few issues teachers frequently raised while being asked to comment on their profession. The World Bank Global Platform for Successful Teachers (2019) raises the following points regarding the need to invest in high-performing teachers: 1. Most effective education interventions work through teachers, making teacher policy design and implementation crucial to improve student learning. 2. In high-performing education systems, teachers do more than just master subject and pedagogy. They help all students learn how to learn. These skills, along with cultivating a growth mindset in students, will be important in schools of the future. 3. In most low- and middle-income countries, teachers often know much less than they need to, in order to teach effectively. And even when they know the content, many are unable to teach it because they have not acquired the necessary pedagogy and instructional techniques to do so. In short, high performing teachers make all the difference in optimizing student learning and efforts to enhance student performance do best when they involve raising the bar (and support) for teachers. Source: Adopted from Successful Teacher, Successful Students: A New Approach Paper on Teachers (World Bank Publications 2019) 22 This report focuses on the second part of the R4R system diagnostics, regarding teachers’ effectiveness in classrooms. This report aims to accomplish three main goals: (1) to understand outcomes of live classroom observations using a high inference instrument called CLASS (across grades, subjects, school types, and school shifts); (2) to connect teachers’ preparation efforts (lesson plans, student assessment, type of feedback, etc.) to their live classroom observation score (across grades, subjects, school types, and school shifts); and (3) to study teachers’ performance and examine whether there is a link to their live classroom observation score (Across grades, subjects, school types, and school shifts). Teachers’ Data Approximately, 710 teachers in 146 schools from a nationally representative sample were observed across Lebanon in grades 4 and 7 in public (morning and afternoon shifts), fee-based and free private schools. Table 1.1 shows the summary description of the schools visited. In order to get an in-depth understanding of teachers’ instructional effectiveness, each classroom was visited twice and during each visit an enumerator observed the lesson for two cycles, each consisting of a 15-minute lesson segment, without causing any disruption in the flow of the class. Enumerators then performed a post-observation interview with teachers, asking a range of questions about their lesson plan, opportunities for professional development, students’ behavioural issues, etc. At the end each teacher was given an evaluation test, in accordance to the grade, subject and curriculum they were teaching. TABLE 1.1: SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF CLASSROOMS OBSERVED   Number of Classrooms Number of Classrooms School Shifts   Grade 4 First (Morning) 314 Grade 4 Second (Afternoon) 75 Grade 7 First (Morning) 288 Grade 7 Second (Afternoon) 33 Governorate   Beqaa (‫)البقاع‬ 82 South (‫)الجنوب‬ 43 North (‫)الشمال‬ 109 Nabtieh (‫)النبطيه‬ 36 Beirut (‫)بيروت‬ 42 Mount Lebanon (‫)جبل البنان‬ 132 Subject of Instruction Grade 4 Grade 7 Arabic 130 Arabic 107 French 60 French 49 English 69 English 58 Math (in English) 70 Math (in English) 58 Math (in French) 60 Math (in French) 49 Source: Author calculations; R4R data 2017 23 Teachers’ Characteristic Out of the teachers whose classrooms were observed and were interviewed, around 20 percent of them were male and 80 percent consisted of female teachers, with one third of the teachers in the sample (31 percent) having 5 years or less years of teaching experience. On average, morning shift teachers have 13 years of experience, whereas afternoon shift teachers have 10 years of experience. Table 1.2 shows the summary statistics for teachers’ characteristic in the sample. Around half of the teachers (49 percent) have a bachelor’s degree and 20 percent have bachelor’s degree in education. About one third (36 percent) of the teaching force in the sample, specialize in subjects other than the subjects that their classrooms were observed for (i.e. Arabic, English, French and Math). This indicates that grade 4 and grade 7 teachers are specialized in a subject that is often not relevant to the subject they teach. Only around 19 percent of the teachers have a teacher training diploma. TABLE 1.2: SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF TEACHERS’ CHARACTERISTICS Percentage Gender Male 20% Female 80% Years of Teaching Experience <= 5 years 31.2% > 5 years and <=10 years 21.2% > 10 years and <=15 years 13.9% > 15 years and <=20 years 13.3% > 20 years and <=30 years 12.3% >30 year 9.4% Education Level Secondary school Diploma 9.9% Secondary school Diploma (with teacher training certificate) 5.9% Bachelor’s degree (University Degree) 48.8% Bachelor’s degree (in Education) 20.2% Post Graduate Diploma (DEA-DES) 4.7% Master’s degree 9.2% Master’s Degree in Education 1% Area of Specialization Arabic 26.3% French 10.6% English 15.1% Math (in English & French) 15.3% Others 36% Source: Author calculations; R4R data 2017 This report first discusses the instrument used for the teachers’ live classroom observation assessment. Next, it examines the results of live classroom observation performance as well as post-observation interview, and teachers’ content knowledge evaluation results. 24 CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY & FRAMEWORK The critical core of every education system revolves around instructional encounter between teachers and students in the classroom. Teachers’ interactions with students is considered to be a vital resource that foster social, behavioral, and cognitive development of students in their years of schooling and beyond (e.g. Curby et al. 2009; Hamre and Pianta 2005; O’Connor and McCartney 2007). The role of the teacher in the classroom and the effectiveness of her teaching characteristics is also another key determinant of successful learning in schools. There are a number of areas in which a teacher’s quality of teaching is generally measured, including: (a) content knowledge (knowledge in the subject taught); (b) pedagogical knowledge (general knowledge regarding how to interact with students of certain age or grade levels); and (c) pedagogical content knowledge (specific knowledge of how to represent content in a way that enhances student learning). Pedagogical interventions (such as effective teaching and delivery methods) and teacher training are proven to be among the most effective interventions in improving student learning outcomes (Evans and Popova 2017). There is growing interest in observing teaching practices, for formative feedback to teachers, teacher performance evaluation and incentives, program impact evaluation, and research on the determinants of student learning (Bruns 2016). Many early versions of these evaluations tended to take the form of checklists (whether a teacher used certain techniques, whether children’s schoolwork was displayed on the wall, etc. Additionally, low-inference classroom observation measures are often used to provide qualitative comparison differences between expert and experienced vs incompetent teachers in their behaviors and cognition. Instruments, such as the “Stallings Classroom Snapshot” instrument, developed by Professor Stallings in the 1970s, capture low-inference measures on amounts of time spent on specific activities (e.g. proportion of classroom time spent on group work), frequencies (e.g. number of questions asked by the teacher), and other general observations (e.g. proportion of students engaged in the activity at specific points in the lesson). These forms of observation offer a useful picture of what is taking place in the classroom and allow analysts to infer certain levels of quality in teaching and learning, but little about the teaching-learning process itself is directly measured (Coflan et al. 2018). With the paradigm shift away from looking solely at the amount of time the teacher interacts with students in the classroom, current instruments aim to measure the quality of what takes place in the classroom. Among these tools, high-inference classroom observation measures seem to be more appropriate to assess the quality of teaching methods and strategies in classrooms (Coflan et al. 2018; MET Study 2012). A recent study by the Stanford Rural Education Action Program found that while teachers in rural China gained knowledge from 25 their training, teachers did not subsequently change their teaching behaviors, leading to no significant improvement in student learning outcomes (Lu et al. 2017; Coflan et al. 2018). To address such challenges, one promising avenue is to have professional development programs accompanied by classroom observations and feedback . Classrooms are now seen as complex social interactions that differ in organization, climate, space, etc. It is obvious that there is no one-size-fits- all-needs optimal teaching practice. Balancing cognitive and social aspects of learning, as well as the trade-off between excellence of some students, on the one hand, and learning progress of the entire learning group on the other, make it necessary for a teacher to be explicit about the learning goals and to choose teaching strategies accordingly (Cortina et al. 2015). Additionally, the perspective of understanding teaching as a complex task vs a process- product paradigm (that tends to identify teachers’ isolated skills such as level of education or number of years of teaching experience) will allow us to measure the effectiveness of teaching in classrooms. Studying and measuring the quality of teachers’ instructional practices in the classroom coupled with student learning outcomes contributes to greater understanding of teaching and can be used as a guideline for teachers’ lesson planning and ongoing professional development, along with school leadership programs and even curriculum design. It will help the school leadership to play a helping role (e.g. through in-service training and/or workshops) in providing teachers with learning opportunities and programs to improve their classroom effectiveness. The overall knowledge performance of a teacher also plays an equally important role in providing students with more opportunities in their learning environment (figure 2.1). FIGURE 2.1: TEACHER EVALUATION AND SUPPORT SYSTEM TEACHER EVALUATION TEACHER AND SUPPORT EFFECTIVENESS Measuring Teacher Teacher Effectiveness Assessment (e.g. CLASS) - Professional Student Development Assessment - Curriculum plan Source: Adopted from Hamre 2015 26 2.1. Measuring Teacher Effectiveness- A Goal to Ensure Student Outcomes In order to understand differences in student achievements using their performance results, identifying those teachers with larger value-added (higher score in classroom observations) anticipates teacher effectiveness. Data from the initial Measure of Effective Teaching (MET) study (2010) depicts potential teachers’ effectiveness in relation to their value-added score in a school year and the related opportunity of raising student achievement (figure 2.2). The orange lines depict the distribution of value-added of the quarter of teachers with the best evidence of effectiveness in 2009-10, while the blue lines represent the distribution in value-added for those with the least evidence of effectiveness. The dotted lines depict the distributions of value added when evidence is limited to student perceptions; the solid lines depict the distributions when value-added data from 2009-10 is combined with student perceptions in 2009-10. FIGURE 2.2: ADDING VALUE-ADDED WIDENS THE DIFFERENCE IN EXPECTED EFFECTIVENESS AND REDUCES OVERLAP Source: MET Research Paper Report 2010 Interestingly, when more information is added, the two distributions widen. In fact, the difference in mean effectiveness between the quarter of teachers with the best and worst evidence almost doubles from 0.129 to 0.206 when more information is added. Also, the distribution of true effects within each group narrows (MET Project 2010). Everyday, effective teachers are being treated as if they were the same as ineffective teachers and ineffective teachers are automatically granted tenure after several years on the job. Given that we know there are large differences in teacher effects on children, we are effectively mis-categorizing everyone when we treat everyone the same. Value-added data adds information. Better information will allow schools to make decisions, which will lead to higher student achievement (MET Project 2010). 27 Current instruments assessing teacher quality are more sophisticated in dealing with psychometric properties than their predecessors (Martínez-Rizo 2012). These instruments tend to use scales and be based on rubrics that define a range of quality from low to high. Many of these instruments have been developed in the United States. The most prominent of these is the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta and colleagues, and the Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson (Coflan et al. 2018). THE CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT SCORING SYSTEM (CLASS) INSTRUMENT CLASS is a high-inference observational tool that offers an evidence-based approach to defining and measuring effective classroom interactions (Pianta, Hamre, and Mintz 2012; Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre 2008). At the upper elementary level, CLASS assesses classroom settings on twelve components (dimensions), measuring three broad domains: (a) emotional support; (b) classroom organization; (c) instructional support (figure 2.3). FIGURE 2.3: OVERVIEW OF CLASS DOMAINS AND DIMENSIONS CLASS Score Domain Emotional Support Classroom Organization Instructional Support • Positive Climate • Behavior Management • Learning Format • Teacher Sensitivity • Productivity • Content Understanding Dimension • Regard for Student • Negative Climate • Analysis and Inquiry Perspectives • Quality of Feedback • Instructional Dialogue Student Engagement Source: Upper Elementary CLASS manual. Used with permission of Teachstone. The validity of the CLASS coding system to effectively predict social and academic outcomes has been proven repeatedly (e.g. Allen et al. 2011; Curby, Rimm-Kaufmann and Abry 2013; Hafen et al. 2012). Its objectivity and reliability is in rating observed instruction on the CLASS dimensions, which are descriptive in nature. Indicators based on the information observed with CLASS are easy to analyze, yet particular and helpful in the context of teacher professional development (Cortina et al. 2015). CLASS stands out as a scientifically sound observation tool both for its appealing theoretical framework and for its accumulation of robust empirical evidence demonstrating its relationship to children’s developmental competencies (e.g. social skills and learning behaviors), school readiness skills, and even long-term academic outcomes (Hamre et al. 2014; Pianta and Hamre 2009). 28 WHAT DOES CLASS MEASURE? The main aim of CLASS is to identify specific strengths and weaknesses in teachers’ instructional practices (MET Research Paper 2012). The upper elementary and secondary CLASS captures three domains of instructional quality based on developmental theory and research on in-class student- teacher interactions: 1. Emotional support refers to specific teacher’s behavior that promotes students’ academic achievement and engagement by fostering positive relationship and motivation. Emotional support measures the temperature (e.g. warm) and feel (e.g. sensitive) of the emotional environment in class. Do the teacher and students enjoy spending time together and are teachers aware of and responsive to students’ needs, thus creating the learning conditions for students to willingly take learning risks? (Ha et al. 2016) Researchers believe that teachers motivate students to learn by providing activities focused on student interests and ideas. Students who experience supportive relationships with teachers feel comfortable reaching out for academic and emotional guidance and make a greater effort on challenging tasks (Greenberg, Weissberg and O’Brien 2003; Zins et al. 2007). The dimensions under this domain on the Upper Elementary CLASS measures are: ƒ Positive Climate: the enjoyment and emotional connection that teachers have with students, as well as the nature of peer interactions. ƒ Teacher Sensitivity: the level of teacher responsiveness to the academic and social/emotional needs and levels of individual students. ƒ Regards for Student Perspective: the degree to which teachers meet and capitalize upon the social and developmental needs and goals of students for decision-making and autonomy, relevance, having their opinions valued, and meaningful interactions with peers. The classroom interactions measured by these dimensions have been shown to relate to positive outcomes for elementary and secondary students, including students’: engagement in school, quality of relationships, academic attitudes, and academic achievement (Bryk, Lee and Holland 1993; Crosnoe, Kirkpatrick- Johnson and Elder 2004; Gilman and Anderman 2006; Roeser, Eccles and Sameroff 1998; Deci and Ryan 2007). A strong student-teacher relationship is one key to positive academic performance; increased school motivation, and positive behavioral outcomes (Roeset et al. 1998; Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck and Connell 1998); students achieve more in challenging yet supportive environments in which they feel a positive connection (Cothrane, Kulinna and Grarrahy 2003; Eccles 2004; Gentry and Rizza 2002; Resnick and others 1997). 2. Classroom Organization is a broad domain of teacher behaviours and classroom processes related to the establishment, organization, and management of student behaviors including time management and attention in class (Emmer and Strough 2001). Classroom organization measures levels of behavioral support to students through the setting of clear expectations and promotion of self-regulation competencies so that students can get the most out of their time while engaged in meaningful activities (Ha et al. 2016). 29 The Upper Elementary CLASS framework suggests the following dimensions under this domain: ƒ Behavior Management: how well teachers encourage positive behaviors and monitor, prevent, and redirect misbehaviour. ƒ Productivity: how well the classroom runs with respect to routines, how well students understand the routines, and the degree to which teachers provide activities and directions so that maximum time can be spent in learning activities. ƒ Negative Climate: the level of expressed negativity such as anger, hostility, aggression, or disrespect exhibited by teachers and/or students in the classroom. Teachers who are effective classroom managers provide predictability and reduce complexity, allowing students the chance to focus on learning (Wang, Haertel and Walberg 1993-1994; Weinstein 2007). 3. Instructional Support refers to specific teaching behaviors that push student thinking and lead children to deeper understanding and more advanced performance skills. These behaviors help students build knowledge, promote higher order thinking skills, expand learning through specific feedback and use discussion to deepen understanding. Instructional support promotes children’s higher order thinking, while teacher feedback expands their learning (Ha et al. 2016). The Upper Elementary CLASS measure has five dimensions under this domain: ƒ Instructional Learning Formats: how teachers engage students in and facilitate activities so that learning opportunities are maximized. ƒ Content Understanding: what teachers emphasize, and approaches they use to help students understand both the broad framework and key ideas in an academic discipline. ƒ Analysis and Inquiry: how teachers promote higher order thinking skills (e.g., analysis and integration of information, hypothesis testing, metacognition) and provide opportunities for application in novel contexts. ƒ Quality of Feedback: how teachers extend and expand students’ learning through their responses and participation in activities. ƒ Instructional Dialogue: how teachers use structured, cumulative questioning and discussion to guide and prompt students’ understanding of content. There is a great deal of knowledge about how to teach students to learn and develop new skills most effectively. Effective teachers present new material in small steps, and review relevant previous learning, and prerequisite skills and knowledge, while guiding student performance through modeling, numerous examples, and opportunities for extensive practice - both supervised and independent (Ausubel 1960; Bransford et al. 2000; Rosenshine 1995; Swansin, Hoskyn and Lee 1999). Supervised practice builds automaticity, thereby freeing up cognitive space for deeper understanding (Bransford et al. 2000). Effective teachers also tap into the natural problem-solving abilities and curiosity of students by applying learning to real-world and novel contexts and utilize higher-order thinking skills (Bransford et al. 2000; Marzano, Pickering and Pollock 2001; Wenglinsky 2002). Further, children learn better when new information is tied to their background knowledge and real-world examples and when multiple perspectives are presented (Bransford et al. 2000; Marzano 2004). 30 BOX 2.1: THE QUALITY OF TEACHING INSTRUCTION MATTERS In United States, many states and school districts looked to reinvent the way they do teacher evaluation and feedback, and they demanded better tools. With the help of nearly 2,400 teacher-volunteers, the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project evaluated alternative ways to provide valid and reliable feedback to teachers for professional development and improvement (figure 2.4). Using a wide range of indicators that compared many different instruments such as: Framework for Teaching (or FFT, developed by Charlotte Danielson of the Danielson Group); Classroom Assessment Scoring System (or CLASS, developed by Robert Pianta, Karen La Paro, and Bridget Hamre at the University of Virginia); Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (or PLATO, developed by Pam Grossman at Stanford University); Mathematical Quality of Instruction (or MQI, developed by Heather Hill of Harvard University); and UTeach Teacher Observation Protocol (or UTOP, developed by Michael Marder and Candace Walkington at the University of Texas-Austin), MET ultimately discovered that all of these observation instruments show a positive association with student achievement in math and open-ended reading comprehension assessments. The study also found that the students of teachers with higher observation scores are learning the most . For example, students in classes taught by teachers scoring in the bottom quartile (below the 25th percentile) of FFT, CLASS, or UTOP fell behind students with comparable peers by roughly 1 month of schooling in math. In contrast, students of teachers scoring in the top quartile (above the 75th percentile) moved ahead of comparable students by 1.5 months (and even more for those at the top-end of the UTOP scale. FIGURE 2.4: MET PROJECT - MULTIPLE MEASURES OF TEACHING Teacher Pe Stud er ch nts rce en pti t Tea ssme on se s As Student Classroom Assessment OBSERVATIONS Student Student Content Assessments Source: MET Research Paper Report 2012 31 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT Even though observing student behavior in the classroom in not categorized under any domain of the CLASS tool, it is measured as an independent dimension. CLASS’ student engagement measure determines teacher effectiveness through interaction frameworks such as students discussing materials related to the lesson, their verbal and non-verbal (active listening) behavior, asking or answering a question, or participating in an in-class discussion. Student engagement is the overall engagement level of student functioning and focuses on what the teacher is doing to promote student engagement . Positive educational conditions (including classroom and school climate, classroom organization, and high-quality instruction) lead to positive student beliefs about their own competencies, changes in values and goals, and improved social connections. In turn, these factors lead to increased levels of academic engagement, motivation and, ultimately, to improved academic achievement.5 Further technical aspects of the CLASS scoring mechanism, validity of the instrument measure , test of reliability of R4R study, etc. can be found in Annex A and Annex B. 2.2. Reflecting on the Nature of Teacher Classroom Practices - Post Observation Interview Classroom observations can play a significant role in the professional growth of educators as a form of teacher accountability and, if done for the purpose of improving instructional quality, can facilitate improvements in student learning . Many education policymakers and research experts recommend evaluation models that include multiple methods of data collection in an effort to account for the limitations of each measure (Milanowski 2011). Rockoff and Speroni (2011) found evidence that first year teachers, who received quality subjective evaluations by trained mentors, produced greater gains in student achievement . A post observation interview with a teacher is common practice, both in research and in mentoring teachers. Identifying what worked well in a lesson and which strategies were successful allows teachers to further review and assess their own classroom practices independently and effectively. Effective post-observation interviews between evaluator and teacher focus on the teacher’s instruction strengths based on observable actions and result in professional development goals for the teacher (Ovando 2005). 5 National Research Council “Engaging Schools: Fostering High School Students’ Motivation to Learn,” 2004 report 32 In R4R research, we used a post-observation instrument to better understand the teachers’ philosophy of teaching and the planning behind the delivered class. In Lebanon, post observation interviews might be helpful to identify major improvement areas that could maximize the quality of instructional practices and offer practical policy recommendations to the MEHE. Results from post observation interviews - coupled with live classroom observation data (using CLASS) and teacher content knowledge evaluations - might also help policymakers better identify options to improve Lebanon’s education system. The post observation instrument includes basic information about the students, notes about the lesson plan, observations about teacher success or challenges, educational resources, assessment, educational needs, educational philosophy, curriculum, teacher’s perspective on parent participation, teacher’s professional development, teachers’ methods of student evaluation and feedback, using samples of student evaluation methods used by teachers during the school year (such as annual or quarterly exams, homework, etc.) (figure 2.5). FIGURE 2.5: POST OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT CONSTRUCT Teacher professional development information Educational Teachers' resources and challenges support P OS T OBS ERVATION Student evaluation Lesson plan techniques Source: R4R Post Observation Interview Instrument 2016 33 BOX 2.2: WHAT CONTENT IS TYPICALLY INCLUDED IN POST OBSERVATION INTERVIEWS? Using data gathered from interviewing teachers allows education experts to help teachers think through what they can improve in a given lesson, including: lesson objective, methodology, strategies, teaching techniques, and classroom assessment . Giving suggestions to improve and develop these skills can result in improving students’ learning experience (Trinter and Carlson-Jaquez 2016). Questions typically included in post classroom observation interviews address the following areas: ƒ Lesson planning/structure (how a lesson opens, the main goal of the lesson, organization of activities, links between transitions, what does the teacher expect students to have learnt by the end of the lesson) ƒ Classroom management strategies (maintaining order, organizing groups, time management) ƒ Types of teaching activities: strategies the teacher employs to help students reach lesson objectives (i.e. whole class exercises; individual, pair and small group activities, etc.) ƒ Presentation methods (i.e. use of textbook, teacher’s own design materials, the internet or other ICT in the classroom, etc.) ƒ Student assessment: how the teacher assesses whether or not students have reached lesson objectives Source: Richards and Farrell 2011; Trinter and Carlson-Jaquez 2016 R4R POST CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT The post classroom observation instrument used in the R4R service delivery part of the research is described according to the following constructs: ƒ Philosophy of Education: Teachers were asked about their personal perception and ideals in education such as their approach to exercise autonomy in the classroom and their perspective on the learning process and challenges. ƒ Basic Information on Teacher and Classroom Environment: Includes questions about the number and background of students registered in the class (i.e. in order to obtain data on Syrian students’ distribution and/or students from other nationalities), teachers’ number of years teaching, education degree, weekly hours of teaching, subject specialization, whether or not they have a teaching diploma, and whether the classroom environment is appropriate and stimulating for students according to the teacher’s perspective. 34 ƒ Educational Needs: In this section, teachers provide information on which methods they adopt when particular students are facing learning difficulties in the classroom, such as students with special needs, or students who learn more slowly than most students. ƒ Teacher’s Challenges and Successes: In this part of the instrument, the teacher provides information on what limits his/her ability to achieve his/her learning goals in terms of behavioral issues, learning resources to support the student and/or the teacher, and the degree to which parents are involved in students’ education. Teachers were also asked if they can cover curriculum content on-time, and if the content is appropriately tailored to student needs. ƒ Teacher’s Professional Development: Teachers are asked about their perception on sources of educational support, the types of professional development they feel they need, and the professional development opportunities that teachers have experienced and benefited the most from. ƒ Lesson Plan: In this part of the instrument, teachers are asked how much time they spend lesson planning and asked to share their lesson plan for the day on which they are observed. The lesson plan was evaluated on: (a) availability of learning objectives; (b) presence of an introductory activity; (c) existence of a core/main activity; (d) existence of a lesson summary; and (e) observed use of educational resources and technology, types of classroom interaction, amount of time given for each classroom activity, and use of a classroom assessment to gauge student understanding of the lesson (i.e. homework, quizzes, etc.). ƒ Student Evaluation: In this part of the tool, the teacher is asked several questions to determine how effective he/she is at creating different types of classroom assessments to help students develop an in-depth understanding of the lesson. Each teacher was asked to show a sample of three types of assessments they have conducted in class so far: (1) homework (they have assigned to students); (2) quiz or exam; and (3) group project and/or in-class exercise. Within each type of assessment, teachers were evaluated for the types of questions asked from students and whether or not any feedback (short or comprehensive) is given to each student. 35 2.3. Teacher Assessment of Content Knowledge In addition to the live observation and post classroom observation interview, teacher participants in the R4R research are assessed on their general content and pedagogical knowledge in relation to the curriculum level of the subject and grade they teach. For example, the test for language teachers (Arabic, French, English) was conducted in two sections. In the first section the teachers were asked to grade/correct mock student tests consisting of two texts in which a student has answered several questions based on reading the texts. The first section consisted of 10 main questions. The second section comprised three types of questions about sentence structure, grammar, conjugation, subject- verb match, objective and subjective pronouns, etc., in each language and teachers were asked to identify whether or not the student answered correctly. For each incorrect answer, the teachers were asked to give the correct answer and to provide suggestions/feedback that would help the student understand his/her mistake and learn the target learning objective. The tests for Grade 4 vs Grade 7 in each language were designed based on the curriculum and minimum knowledge expected of the teachers. For the teachers who taught math in English and French a similar trend was also implemented in designing the tests. In the first section of the math test (given in either French or English), teachers were asked to correct a student’s mock math exam, which consisted of 10 questions. In the second section of the assessment, which consisted of three questions, teachers were tested on analyzing students’ responses, and were asked to choose the type of feedback they would offer students to help with the mistake, and what they would expect the students to learn from the mistake. The research is designed under the assumption that understanding teachers’ instructional practices in class will help MEHE design programs to: ƒ Establish goals to focus on effective learning ƒ Implement and promote reasoning and problem-solving skills amongst students ƒ Build procedural fluency from conceptual understanding ƒ Elicit and support evidence of students’ critical thinking abilities 36 CHAPTER 3. INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND TEACHING PROCESS 3.1. Instructional Quality- International Comparison The CLASS observation tool has been extended to classrooms worldwide. Initial evidence from research in international contexts suggests that the predictive utility of classroom interactions as captured by the CLASS extends across cultures (Cadima et al. 2010; Malmberg and Hagger 2009; Pakarinen et al. 2010). As discussed earlier, the focus of the CLASS instrument observers is on the process of learning rather than on “what” is being taught. Overall, instructional practices in Lebanon in grade 4 and 7 classrooms are just below those observed in advanced countries such as the United States (US) and Germany. Finland has the highest CLASS score, followed by Germany and the US while Lebanon scores in the mid-range after the US and Germany. The Lebanon score results, compared with the US and Germany does not show a significant overall difference, indicating an intermittent or average engagement of teachers facilitating students’ learning process (figure 3.1). It also shows that in these three countries (Lebanon, Germany, US) the facilitation of higher-order (or critical) thinking through presentation of cognitive challenges, such as open-ended tasks is sometimes provided, and students have only occasional opportunities to engage in such activities. FIGURE 3.1: CLASS SCORE MEASURE - INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON6 Chile 3.48 Lebanon 4.08 USA 4.2 Germany 4.2 China 4.65 Finland 4.87 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon class observations; USA (2012), Finland (2017), Germany (2016), China (Guandang, 2016), Chile (2016) 6 While the results of different studies are presented in this section as cross-country comparison, taking the measurement invariance into account, makes a significant difference to consider different country context (i.e. cultural aspects, gender distribution, students characteristics, learning environment, etc.). 37 Teachers in Lebanon exhibit the same behavior as teachers in Chile, when it comes to the emotional support domain (figure 3.2). Most teachers in Lebanon appear to display flat/rote emotional affect and teachers sometimes provide positive comments to students. Lebanon scores in the high-mid range in the classroom organization domain and the overall country score is in the same range as other advanced countries such as Germany, China, and the US. Lebanese teachers effectively manage time and routine in 70 percent of their classrooms and there is minimal evidence of students’ misbehavior or redirection of negative attitudes in the classrooms. In the instructional support domain, Lebanon scored in the lower-mid range, similar to China, the US and Germany. Instructional support score shows that most teachers who teach both grade 4 and 7 in Lebanon present lesson information using limited modalities, strategies and/or materials and the students’ opportunities to interact with these modalities/materials are often brief/limited. Additional details on countries’ sample size is presented in Annex C (Box C.1). FIGURE 3.2: DOMAIN SCORES- INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 7 6.35 5.97 6 5.74 5.57 5.4 5.46 5 5.09 5 4.64 4.22 3.87 4 4 3.65 3.74 3.03 3.17 2.88 3 2.17 2 1 0 Chile China Finland Germany Lebanon US Emotional Support Classroom Organization Instructional Support Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Comparing the principal CLASS domains in Lebanese classrooms (both grades 4 and 7) to US classrooms indicates that the majority of Lebanese classrooms show a moderate (mid) quality in the emotional support domain, meaning that students in Lebanon are only occasionally provided with supportive environment in the classroom and feel comfortable to sometimes reach out to teachers for academic guidance (figure 3.3). In comparison, the US scores high-moderate (mid) quality in the emotional support domain. Additionally, the mid-range score also indicates that teachers provide all the structure for the class most of the time, but at times they are flexible in following students’ leads. Classrooms in Lebanon show high quality in the classroom organization domain similar to the US, indicating that most teachers effectively manage behaviors and instructional time in the classrooms without reflecting any negative climate (figure 3.3). It also indicates absence of chaos and little time lost to redirection of such instances occurring in the classroom. Although, the classroom organization domain indicates classrooms with little to no negative 38 climate, there have been multiple reports by international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, etc. showing violence and corporal punishment against students does exist in Lebanese classrooms. According to a 2019 Human Rights Watch report: Amna, 11-year-old student, said “her teachers, principal and other staff hit children for failing to bring notebooks to class, not memorizing assigned texts, or running in the playground. Teachers wanted us to have four notebooks, and they would hit me and send me to the principal, and he’d hit me too, with a stick, on the back of my hands. The French teacher hit me the worst because I couldn’t memorize French. She used a wooden ruler. Most of the [students in] French class got hit. The principal hit me more than the French teacher. He would first tell me, ‘Why didn’t you memorize the lesson,’ and then hit me, everywhere he could. Also, the supervisor who watches the kids, he would hit you in the thigh if you ran on the stairs or on the playground. (Human Rights Watch 2019) FIGURE 3.3: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION ANALYSIS – LEBANON VS THE UNITED STATES Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations The overall results in the instructional support domain indicate that Lebanese teachers’ instructional practices lack the advanced performance capabilities needed to help students’ develop critical thinking skills. Teachers in Lebanon exhibit a low to low-mid level of quality in the instructional support domain somewhat similar to teachers in the US (figure 3.3). Most teachers in Lebanon seem to be either uninvolved in the students’ classwork or mildly engaged in facilitating student understanding during lessons. In most of the observed grade 4 and 7 classrooms, teachers focused on presenting discrete pieces of information with little effort to elicit students’ background knowledge. Moving within the domains, what distinguishes Lebanese classrooms from all other developed countries in the sample, are the dimensions within each domain. Overall, most Lebanese teachers do not demonstrate much indication of genuine positive emotional affect, and these interactions are brief. Also, while teachers are sometimes responsive to students’ academic and social needs, most of the time they are dismissive in comparison to countries with similar mid- range scores in the teacher sensitivity dimension such as Germany, Chile, and China. Additionally, the teachers in Lebanon appear to rigidly provide lessons and class structure 39 most of the time (85 percent), with only a few instances of flexibly following students’ leads and/ or encouraging students’ opinions (10-15 percent). Doing so is key in order to foster responsibility and leadership (figure 3.4). FIGURE 3.4: DIMENSIONS IN THE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOMAIN - INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 4.36 US 4.34 5.21 2.97 Lebanon 3.99 4.26 4.86 Germany 5.04 5.38 4.34 Finland 5.34 5.31 3.69 China 4.24 5.46 3.15 Chile 3.81 4.66 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Regard for Student Perspectives Teacher Sensitivity Positive Climate Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Results along the dimensions within the classroom organization domain indicate that Lebanese classrooms, similar to China and the US, exhibit no sign of negative affect and only rare episodes of disrespect and mild negativity can be observed. In Lebanon, similar to Finland and China, students are well behaved, and teachers in most classrooms seem to have established rules and expectations. However, even though in live observations only mild cases of negativity were observed, several reports show that teachers’ commonly demonstrate negative physical and verbal punitive behavior in class. Overall, classrooms in Lebanon appeared productive during live observation, and students were provided with a task most of the time. Nevertheless, learning time was disrupted by inefficient classroom management tasks some of the time (20-30 percent of the lesson time) (figure 3.5). FIGURE 3.5: DIMENSIONS IN CLASSROOM ORGANIZATION DOMAIN - INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 6.37 US 5.41 4.94 6.51 Lebanon 4.7 5 7 Germany 4.92 5.3 6.79 Finland 5.67 5.45 6.72 China 4.91 5.36 6.87 Chile 4.46 4.86 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 40 In instructional support domain, Lebanon has the lowest score on the analysis and inquiry dimension, and the highest on instructional learning format . Lebanon scored lower than Germany and the US, while classrooms in countries such as China and Chile exhibit the same routine on the instructional support domain. Lebanese teachers use little to no effort to meaningfully engage students in higher-order (critical) thinking tasks that require students to evaluate, compare and contrast lesson concepts. Furthermore, with a low- mid level score on the content understanding dimension, it appears that lesson discussions and class materials in Lebanese schools communicate only a few of the essential attributes of concepts and procedures and opportunities for students to independently practice skills relevant to the content of the lesson is limited (figure 3.6). FIGURE 3.6: ANALYSIS OF DIMENSIONS IN INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DOMAIN- INTERNATIONAL LEVEL 2.85 2.87 US 2.85 2.69 4.57 2.82 3.08 Lebanon 2.26 3.37 3.62 2.73 2.52 Germany 2.73 2.17 4.23 4.27 3.89 Finland 4.27 3.76 4.89 3 3.7 China 2.29 4 4.13 2.08 1.65 Chile 2.08 1.53 3.53 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Formats Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 41 3.2. Instructional Practices: Teachers in Lebanon follow steady, firmly fixed teaching practices with little flexibility in their classrooms. No evidence of significant improvement in the quality of teaching outcomes was observed in the second visits to Lebanese classrooms: the overall CLASS score for both grade 4 and 7 classrooms during first and second visits were not statistically significantly different . The t-test result also indicated no statistical significance of test scores for both Grade 4 and Grade 7 teachers, indicating that teachers did not show significant improvement in the quality of instructional practices and teaching routines between first and second observations across grades and/or subjects. Additionally, even though Grade 7 teachers performed slightly better than Grade 4 teachers, the difference of scores is not statistically significant (figure 3.7). FIGURE 3.7: CLASS SCORE - LEBANON Grade 7 4.14 (N=321) Grade 4 4.07 (N=389) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations CLASS SCORE ACROSS DOMAINS: The data suggests that the majority of Grade 4 teachers possess strong classroom organization and weak instructional formats to help students build knowledge and expand learning . Grade 4 teachers’ quality of instruction showed no significant change between the first and second visits. The Grade 4 score for the instructional and emotional support domains were in the low to mid range. At the low-mid level in the emotional support domain, teachers do not promote positive relationships and seem to display flat affect in the classroom and only 14 percent of teachers feel comfortable providing emotional guidance and support (observed at a medium-high range) to students. Furthermore, in the instructional support domain, the majority of instructional practices are presented in a rote manner with minimal opportunities for students to engage in novel or open-ended tasks . There is no evidence of mid-high to high range of instructional quality amongst Grade 4 teachers. In the classroom organization domain, however, more than half of Grade 4 teachers have been highly successful in establishing behavioral expectations in the classrooms and managing their time and routine to maximize instructional time. There is also an absence of negative affect in the classrooms and teacher and students are rarely disrespectful to one another during live observation (figure 3.8). FIGURE 3.8: CLASS DOMAIN ANALYSIS - GRADE 4 Instructional Support Classroom Organization Emotional Support 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations (N=389) 42 Results suggest that the number of Grade 7 teachers whose teaching helped promote higher order thinking skills while deepening academic understanding among students is far greater than the number of Grade 4 teachers . The overall results indicate that, Grade 7 teachers motivate more students by promoting positive relationships with students and creating a supportive environment within which to approach challenging tasks. Around 65 percent of Grade 7 teachers fall in the mid-high range in the emotional support domain and 75 percent of Grade 7 teachers scored in the mid-range of the instructional support domain. Grade 7 teachers present lesson information in an organized manner some of the time (30-50 percent of the time) and they are intermittently engaged (40-60 percent of the time) in facilitating student involvement through questioning, appropriate pacing, and active display of interest and engagement in students’ work. Learning material is sometimes meaningfully connected to students’ current experiences and the teacher gives some consideration to making it relevant. In particular, Grade 7 teachers have a tendency to relate required content with students’ daily life experiences, although observed analogies are not always well developed. Also, in the mid-range of emotional support, the teacher does not fully foster student autonomy, but students do have some choices of how to complete each classroom task. Additionally, Grade 7 teachers are on the stronger side of the spectrum when it comes to classroom organization. More than 80 percent of the teachers have established successful behavioral expectations and efficiently maximize their instructional time (figure 3.9). FIGURE 3.9: CLASS DOMAIN ANALYSIS- GRADE 7 Instructional Support Classroom Organization Emotional Support 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations; (N=321) CLASS SCORE ACROSS DIMENSIONS: Grade 4 teachers are failing to meaningfully engage students in open-ended tasks and scored low on the analysis and inquiry dimension. The analysis and inquiry dimension assesses the degree to which students are engaged in higher-order thinking skills (in analysis and inquiry dimension) and opportunities of metacognition processes. Approximately 64 percent of the Grade 4 teachers are in the low range of this dimension indicating that the teachers fail to meaningfully engage students in higher-order thinking tasks and/or encouraging them to reflect on their own learning. Teachers also performed poorly on the instructional dialogue and quality of feedback dimensions. Only 40 percent of Grade 4 teachers use feedback loops occasionally and/or scaffold student learning. Similarly, the score range on the instructional dialogue dimension indicates that classrooms are mostly dominated by teachers talking , although sometimes distributed dialogues involve only a few students in the class. There is minimal evidence of negative affect and disrespect in Grade 4 classrooms between teachers and students. Indeed, results indicate that 78 percent of Grade 4 teachers have successfully established clear behavioral expectations and/or have been effective in redirecting misbehavior in their classrooms. 43 Even though, very little evidence of negative classroom climate was seen during live classroom observation, there are numerous reports detailing the violence that exists against students in many Lebanese schools. According to a Human Rights Watch report, for instance: During the 2017-2018 school year, a teacher at a private school in the Mount Lebanon governorate broke the nose of a boy – Charbel, age 10 – after he told her to stop hitting another student. According to the boy’s mother, Rana, no one from the school called me. No one said a thing. He arrived home with blood all over his face. Then I started getting calls from other parents telling me what happened. I requested an urgent meeting with the principal the next day, along with several other parents. He said he was shocked, but given all the complaints, surely, he knew she was violent. I told him, ‘You suspend her now or we won’t send our kids back to school.’ He asked us to submit a written complaint, and they suspended [the teacher] for 10 days, but then she came back. I wrote more than 15 emails, complaining, but the school didn’t take any meaningful action. I had to do something. I decided to file a lawsuit against the teacher. I went to the police station in [town redacted] to submit the complaint. They questioned her, then they called us. They brought a forensic doctor. My son testified. The investigative judge declared that she will go on trial. Rana changed her son’s school because “he started hating school and hating teachers. He thought all teachers were like her. It took him a month after starting at a new school to understand. And he asked me to send a gift to his old principal—a human rights book, so he will learn how to protect the rights of [my son’s] friends. (Human Rights Watch 2019) Around 80 percent of Grade 4 teachers score in the mid-range on the teacher sensitivity dimension, indicating teachers will usually assist students, supporting those who need help on a problem (figure 3.10). FIGURE 3.10: CLASS DIMENSION ANALYSIS- GRADE 4 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations (N=389) Similar to Grade 4 teachers, Grade 7 teachers fail to encourage students to model thinking about thinking (metacognition), present open-ended tasks, or cognitive challenges. Around 60 percent of Grade 7 teachers scored low on the analysis and inquiry dimension (as did 64 percent of Grade 4 teachers). Grade 7 teachers provide opportunities for students to apply knowledge and skills within familiar contexts but fail to offer students opportunities that involve analysis and problem solving within novel contexts . The regards for perspective 44 dimension captures the degree to which the teacher is able to meet and capitalize on the social and developmental needs of students. Approximately, 66 percent of teachers scored low to low-mid on this dimension, demonstrating lack of teachers’ support for autonomy and leadership and/or connection of the content to students’ lives. It also indicates that teachers rigidly provide all lesson structures and do not regard for students’ autonomy. During the live observation, negative climate on the other hand seem to be non-existent in Grade 7 classrooms, which were characterized by CLASS to show an absence of negative affect, harsh punishment, threats, yelling, bullying, etc. However, according to Human Rights Watch (and Child Protection NGO, Beirut) (2018): Most cases of routine abuse are not reported. A child protection officer at a Lebanese NGO said that in her experience, “The worst thing is that hitting has become the norm. It’s only when it’s is really bad that the parents report it.” Children also appeared to accept violence by teachers against students as normal. According to Human Rights Watch report (2019), while interviewing 4 students (two boys and two girls, ages 10 to 13) who attended four different public schools in Beirut during the 2017-2018 school year, three children said that teachers regularly hit them or their classmates, and that they had not complained to school staff or asked NGOs to refer their complaints. The beatings were punishment for various infractions, the children said. “If we go to school without wearing a uniform, or if we get into a fight, they beat us with a stick – all the teachers do, except for the Arabic and Science teachers,” said an 11-year-old who attended one school. “If we run during the break, there’s a teacher who hits us and shouts and pulls our ears,” a 13-year-old student at another school said. A 10-year-old boy who attended a third school said that one teacher meted out an especially severe punishment: “They give us 30 hits with a stick,” on the hands, the boy said. About 65 percent of Grade 7 teachers score in the middle range on the instructional learning format dimension, which indicates that students are sometimes presented with information in varied modalities and strategies, and that teachers are only mildly engaged in facilitating student involvement through questioning. Classroom material is also limited in scope as 85 percent of Grade 7 teachers fall in the mid-range on the content understanding dimension (figure 3.11). FIGURE 3.11: CLASS DIMENSION ANALYSIS- GRADE 7 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations (N=321) 45 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: Students in Lebanese classrooms are involved in passive engagement rather than a dynamic classroom. They may periodically share their ideas or give responses, but generally most students in Lebanon appear to be in receptive rather than active mode. Student Engagement is the dimension that is measured independently from all other domains and dimensions. It is noteworthy to remember that even though student engagement is a function of teachers’ activities throughout the lesson, this dimension does not capture teachers’ effort; rather it measures the active participation of students. The mean score for student engagement in both visits in Grade 4 was 4.7 and for Grade 7 was 4.6. The Student Engagement score indicates rote-learning process in the classrooms rather than a dynamic active classroom in which students fully participate in learning and engage in discussions. Approximately, 72 percent of Grade 4 and 81 percent of Grade 7 students across two visits appear to be passively listening to or watching the teacher and not taking an active role by responding to a question or by asking their own questions , or there is a mix of students that are actively participating in classroom activities for part of the time and then being disengaged for the rest of the class (mid-level scores of 4 and 5). Grade 4 students seem to maintain a more active role in classroom discussions and activities as compared to Grade 7 students, as around 20 percent of Grade 4 students are actively engaged in classroom activities such as volunteering information, sharing ideas, and responding to questions vs 13 percent in Grade 7. The overall score analysis shows that around 94 percent of the classrooms visited scored 4-6 on the student engagement dimension, indicating that instructional practices in Lebanese classrooms provide students with a mix of activities that keep them engaged (either passively or actively) for the majority of class time, but there are times that students are distracted and disengaged (figure 3.12). FIGURE 3.12: STUDENT ENGAGEMENT DIMENSION Student Engagement_Overall Grade 7 (N=320) Grade 4 (N=387) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 46 3.3. Teaching Practices By Subject, Shift, and Type of School CLASS ANALYSIS BY CLASSROOM SUBJECT: This section examines the CLASS score results according to the lesson subject observed during both visits. Math and languages (including foreign language) are two major subject groups that are fundamentally important in primary and secondary education for international comparison and the MEHE guidelines and policies of the Lebanese education system. In order to better understand the teaching quality gap in classrooms, five subject areas were chosen for observation: Arabic language, French language, English language, mathematics in French and mathematics in English. The overall CLASS results suggest that Arabic and English language teachers achieved slightly higher scores in both Grade 4 and Grade 7 classrooms. Amongst Grade 4 teachers, French language teachers scored lowest (figure 3.13). In Grade 7, teachers who taught math in French have the lowest overall score followed by French language teachers (figure 3.14). FIGURE 3.13: AVERAGE CLASS SCORE BY SUBJECT -GRADE 4 Arabic Language (n=130) 4.16 French Language (n=60) 3.98 English Language (n=69) 4.11 Math in French (n=60) 4.02 Math in English (n=70) 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations FIGURE 3.14: AVERAGE CLASS SCORE BY SUBJECT - GRADE 7 Arabic Language (N=107) 4.22 French Language (N=49) 4.03 English Language (N=56) 4.2 Math in French (N=49) 4.01 Math in English (N=57) 4.11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 47 Despite the differences of scores across the subjects, the overall score difference is very small and not statistically significant. Results of subject- domain analysis show that in Grade 4, Arabic language teachers have slightly higher scores on the instructional support domain, indicating that teachers and students sometimes use facilitation strategies that encourage active listening, open-ended questions and accurate presentation of content knowledge. Additionally, Grade 4 English, Arabic and math teachers (who teach in French) had achieved a similar score range (low-mid range) in the emotional support domain, indicating that most teachers demonstrate some indication of genuine positive affect, however these displays are brief. Generally, teachers attempt to help students but cannot effectively address student problems/questions. Math teachers (who teach math in English) have improved their scores in classroom organization domain (figure 3.15). FIGURE 3.15: CLASS SCORE - SUBJECT-DOMAIN ANALYSIS - GRADE 4 3.28 2.9 Instructional 3.01 Support 3.01 2.89 5.46 5.41 Classroom 5.37 Organization 5.37 5.50 3.89 3.7 Emotional 3.9 Support 3.86 3.71 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arabic Language (n=130) French Language (n=60) English Language (n=69) Math in French (n=60) Math in English (n=70) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Similar to Grade 4 teachers, Grade 7 Arabic language teachers scored slightly better than the teachers of other subjects being observed on the instructional support domain. However, the overall score falls within the low-mid range of CLASS score rubric, indicating that the teachers asked students mostly close- ended questions and occasionally extended comments to more elaborate dialogues such as critical thinking through explanation, self-evaluation, etc. Opportunities for novel applications were also limited and brief in depth. Math teachers (who taught in English) have the highest score on the classroom organization domain, and both Arabic and English Language teachers in Grade 7 scored slightly higher in emotional support domain than teachers who taught other subjects, even though the score range is still in low-mid level. It appears 48 that all the teachers, regardless of the subject and the grade they teach, follow more or less a similar trend of lesson planning strategies and pedagogical practices in their classrooms which mostly focuses on providing solid pieces of information rather than challenging student’s cognitive and analytical skills (figure 3.16). FIGURE 3.16: CLASS SCORE - SUBJECT-DOMAIN ANALYSIS - GRADE 7 3.37 2.95 Instructional 3.13 Support 2.94 3.09 5.51 5.53 Classroom 5.66 Organization 5.52 5.68 3.91 3.73 Emotional 3.88 Support 3.75 3.65 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arabic Language (N=107) French Language (N=49) English Language (N=56) Math in French (N=49) Math in English (N=57) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations The subject vs. dimension analysis offers deeper understanding of the quality of instructions provided from teachers to students in grades 4 and 7 in each subject observed. In Grade 4, the notable dimension in the emotional support domain is with regards to student perspective. Arabic and math (who teach in French) teachers have a low-mid score in this dimension and French teachers have the lowest score in this dimension. Arabic and math teachers (who teach in French) most of the time provide class structure, and sometimes offer ample opportunity for students to share their ideas. On the other hand, French teachers rigidly provide all class structure and rarely follow students’ leads or encourage student opinions. In the positive climate dimension, English language teachers score in the mid-range, reflecting the fact that teachers and students sometimes provide positive comments or indicate positive expectations of one another. Grade 4 teachers do not show any significant difference across subjects in the dimensions of classroom organization domain (i.e. behavior management, negative climate and productivity). However, Grade 4 Arabic teachers depict significant difference when it comes to the instructional dialogue, quality of feedback, and analysis and inquiry dimensions. There are extended cumulative conversations about content in Arabic language classes and students sometimes plan and initiate an active and valued role in discussions. Also, in the quality of feedback dimension, Arabic, and math teachers (who teach in French) use a low-mid range of feedback loops and scaffolding. These teachers sometimes build on student responses; however, these exchanges are brief and limited in depth. In assessing the degree to which students in Grade 4 are engaged in higher-level thinking skills, the analysis and inquiry dimension indicates that Arabic teachers as compared to other subjects engage students occasionally to find ways to deal with complex and open-ended problems or to think about their own thinking through explanations, self-evaluation, and planning (figure 3.17). 49 FIGURE 3.17: CLASS SCORE- SUBJECT DIMENSION ANALYSIS- GRADE 4 3.25 Instructional 2.75 2.81 Dialogue 2.68 2.64 3.31 Quality of 3.13 3.17 Feedback 3.3 2.9 2.6 Analysis 2.03 2.1 and Inquiry 2.28 2.09 3.58 Content 3.4 3.41 Understanding 3.13 3.33 3.75 Instructional 3.82 3.69 Learning Format 3.7 3.57 6.61 Negative 6.47 6.64 Climate 6.28 6.64 4.8 4.78 Productivity 4.97 4.62 4.8 5.01 Behavior 5.14 5.25 Management 5.37 5.37 3.22 Regards for 2.65 3.07 Student Perspective 3.15 2.83 4.17 Teacher 4.07 4.07 Sensitivity 4.02 4.03 4.31 Positve 4.37 4.54 Climate 4.4 4.27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arabic Language (n=130) French Language (n=60) English Language (n=69) Math in French (n=60) Math in English (n=70) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Grade 7 teachers on the other hand show more similarities in their instructional practices’ quality across classroom subjects in the dimensions of the emotional support domain. Positive climate and teacher sensitivity dimensions are in mid-range across all five subjects showing that teachers and students demonstrate some indications of genuine positive affect and that the teacher is sometimes responsive to students’ academic and emotional needs. Regards for student perspective is slightly higher, but not significant amongst Arabic teachers. In the classroom organization domain, behavior management and productivity fall the in high- mid range showing that students generally do not misbehave, and some routines are clearly in place in the classroom. Also, the negative climate dimension score across all the subjects shows minimal evidence of disrespect or negative affect in Grade 7 classrooms, which indicates that teachers did not use punitive methods in front of observers. Some students reported that: “There’s always a ruler in the classroom to hit students, it’s been decreasing, but the teacher can be verbally abusive using bad words” (Human Rights Watch 2019). 50 The instructional dialogue dimension shows a significant score difference for Arabic teachers as compared to other subjects. Arabic teachers fall in the low-mid range of this dimension, indicating that the class is mostly dominated by teacher talk, but there are occasional content-based discussions in class among teachers and students without follow- up questions or comments from the teacher. The quality of feedback dimension score also indicates that Arabic teachers use feedback loops, scaffolding and building on students’ response instructional techniques more often in their classrooms as compared to teachers who teach other subjects. Arabic teachers also score in the low-mid range (versus all of the other subjects that scored in low range) of the analysis and inquiry dimension. In Grade 7 Arabic classes, students occasionally engage in higher-order thinking and teachers provide some opportunities for students to apply knowledge and skills within familiar contexts. Content understanding and instructional learning format dimensions do not show a significant difference across subjects, indicating that class discussions and materials communicate just a few of the essential attributes of concepts (figure 3.18). FIGURE 3.18: CLASS SCORE- SUBJECT DIMENSION ANALYSIS- GRADE 7 3.34 Instructional 2.78 2.88 Dialogue 2.69 2.91 3.48 Quality of 3.02 3.17 Feedback 3.12 3.16 2.71 Analysis 2.14 2.21 and Inquiry 2.22 2.3 Content 3.33 3.69 Understanding 3.18 3.72 Instructional 3.82 3.72 Learning Format 3.59 3.75 Negative 6.8 6.67 Climate 6.43 6.68 4.76 Productivity 5.12 4.65 5.13 Behavior 5.08 5.41 Management 5.39 5.47 3.25 Regards for 2.78 3.12 Student Perspective 3.12 2.95 Teacher 4.08 4.09 Sensitivity 4 4.07 Positve 4.43 4.48 Climate 4.27 4.12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arabic Language (n=107) French Language (n=49) English Language (n=56) Math in French (n=49) Math in English (n=57) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 51 CLASS SCORE ANALYSIS BY SCHOOL SHIFT: There is a significant difference in the quality of teaching practices between the morning and afternoon shifts (public schools), especially among Grade 4 afternoon shift teachers. Also, Grade 7 teachers who teach in the afternoon have shown significantly higher score as compared to Grade 4 teachers in the same shift. The mean CLASS score for Grade 4 morning shift teachers is 4.16 and the score for afternoon shift teachers is 3.72. Similarly, Grade 7 teachers’ overall score in the morning shift is 4.17, as compared to the score of afternoon teachers (3.85) (figure 3.19). FIGURE 3.19: CLASS SCORE BY SCHOOL SHIFTS Afternoon 3.72 3.85 Morning 4.16 4.17 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 Grade 4 Grade 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Grade 4 teachers who teach morning classes were observed to use significantly stronger instructional practices compared to afternoon shift teachers, since there is a significant difference in the instructional support domain between teachers in morning and afternoon shifts (figure 3.20). FIGURE 3.20: CLASS DOMAINS SCORE BY SCHOOL SHIFT - GRADE 4 Instructional 2.5 Support 3.2 Classroom 5.28 Organization 5.51 Emotional 3.53 Support 3.9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Afternoon (N=75) Morning (N=313) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Similarly, Grade 7 teachers who teach in the morning classes scored higher than afternoon teachers, across all domains . Additionally, Grade 7 teachers, similar to their Grade 4 colleagues, show a significant difference in instructional support domain that deals specifically with the quality of the lesson taught in live observation, in morning and afternoon shifts (figure 3.21). It is notable that no significant difference in domains during the first and second school 52 visits is observed among teachers who teach afternoon shifts, indicating no improvement in quality of instructional practices over the observed time period. Additionally, the stability in the scores indicates the validity and reliability of the results. FIGURE 3.21: CLASS DOMAIN SCORES, BY SCHOOL SHIFT - GRADE 7 Instructional Support Classroom Organization Emotional Support 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Afternoon (n=33) Morning (n=285) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Grade 4 morning shift public school teachers show higher quality teaching practices in the majority of the dimensions, and this difference can be seen to be statistically significant in the dimensions of the instructional support domain (figure 3.22). Even though the quality of instruction is lower in Grade 4 public school afternoon shifts, most dimension scores are not significantly different from morning shifts. In the instructional learning format dimension, teachers who teach in the afternoon shifts communicate learning targets in a disorganized manner and only offer information in a single mode, where as morning shift teachers are mildly engaged in facilitating student involvement through questioning. Content understanding, quality of feedback and instructional dialogue dimensions also show significant differences between morning and afternoon shift teachers. The lowest scored dimension in the second shift is analysis and inquiry, which indicates lack of open-ended tasks and cognitive challenges in the classroom. FIGURE 3.22: CLASS DIMENSION SCORES, BY SCHOOL SHIFT - GRADE 4 2.28 Instructional Dialogue 3.04 2.48 Quality of Feedback 3.33 1.84 Analysis and Inquiry 2.39 2.77 Content Understanding 3.56 3.25 Instructional Learning Format 3.82 Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Afternoon (N=75) Morning (N=314) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 53 Grade 7 teachers who teach morning and afternoon shifts also show similar trends in quality of instruction within dimensions, as compared to their Grade 4 colleagues. Among Grade 7 teachers, the teacher sensitivity dimension is significantly different between morning and afternoon shifts (figure 3.23). Fewer afternoon teachers than morning teachers monitor students for cues and address student needs when extra support is demanded. The afternoon teachers are also not effective at addressing student problems. Similar to Grade 4 afternoon teachers, instructional learning format, content understanding, analysis and inquiry, quality of feedback and instructional dialogue are also the dimensions that are significantly lower amongst Grade 7 afternoon shift teachers. The majority of afternoon classes focus primarily on presenting discrete pieces of topically related information and class discussions fail to effectively engage students with the essential attributes of the learning concepts. Both grade 4 and grade 7 teachers who teach afternoon shifts, appear to perform significantly weaker in all dimensions of instructional support domain based on the results on CLASS dimension scores. What could possibly explain such a significant difference is limited early career support and in- service professional development opportunities are provided for afternoon shifts teachers. FIGURE 3.23: CLASS DIMENSION SCORES BY SCHOOL SHIFT - GRADE 7 Instructional Dialogue 2.36 3.07 Quality of Feedback 2.61 3.31 Analysis and Inquiry 2.09 2.42 Content Understanding 3.03 3.64 Instructional Learning Format 3.4 3.78 Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity 3.64 4.16 Positve Climate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Afternoon (n=33) Morning (n=285) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 54 CLASS SCORE ANALYSIS BY TYPE OF SCHOOL: The quality of instructional practices in Lebanese public schools is lower than in private schools. Private school group includes ‘free private’ and ‘fee-based private’ schools. Although the quality of teaching seems significantly different in public vs private schools, both school types fall within the low-mid to mid range of CLASS scores (See figure 3.23). FIGURE 3.24: SCHOOL TYPES AND CLASS SCORE 4.42 Grade 7 3.91 4.37 Grade 4 3.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Private Public Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations The teaching quality of free private and fee-based private schools is similar, and in both it is significantly better than that found in public schools. Lack of providing adequate teaching resources for teachers in public schools, and professional development opportunities that resemble similar environments in their classrooms are a few reasons for the low score. Additional factors could be length of the learning time/lesson time is shorter in public schools than in private schools and hence teachers in public school do not spend adequate instructional time with students to make sure students are academically challenged. Even though it appears that public schools fail to provide enough resources to improve the quality of teaching practices, as compared to private schools, all school types are within the of low-mid to mid range of the CLASS measure (figure 3.24). FIGURE 3.25: CLASS SCORE - PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE SCHOOLS 4.44 Grade 7 4.41 3.91 4.42 Grade 4 4.23 3.79 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Private- Fee Based Free Private Public Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 55 In Grade 4, Arabic teachers who teach in free private schools are performing slightly better than teachers in public schools and fee-based private of schools. In general, the teachers of free private schools perform better than those in other schools when it comes to quality of teaching practices (figure 3.25). FIGURE 3.26: CLASS SCORE ACROSS SUBJECTS AND SCHOOL TYPE - GRADE 4 5 4.39 4.46 4.5 4.5 4.18 4.32 4.36 4.24 4.3 4.28 4.11 4 3.8 3.81 3.77 3.89 3.56 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Math in English Math in French English Language French Language Arabic Language Grade 4 Public Grade 4 Private-Free Grade 4 Private- Fee Based Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations The same trend is observed in Grade 7 free private vs public and fee-based private schools. Math teachers (in English and French) in Grade 7 free private schools provide better quality of teaching practices. Math teachers perform better in both types of private schools as compared to their fellow colleagues who teach in public schools (figure 3.26). FIGURE 3.27: CLASS SCORE ACROSS SUBJECTS AND SCHOOL TYPE - GRADE 7 5 4.52 4.54 4.49 4.4 4.45 4.46 4.5 4.36 4.41 4.18 4.3 4.06 3.89 3.89 4 3.6 3.8 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Math in English Math in French English Language French Language Arabic Language Public Private-Free Private- Fee Based Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations In Grade 4, private schools (free and fee-based) scored highest in all three domains as compared to public schools. The score in not significantly different between the two types of private schools. In the instructional support domain, the score gap between private and public schools is significantly different. In public schools, the instructional support domain falls in the low-range, whereas in private schools, instructional support falls in the low-mid range (figure 3.27). 56 FIGURE 3.28: CLASS DOMAINS SCORES BY TYPE OF SCHOOL- GRADE 4 Instructional 3.51 3.26 Support 2.66 5.74 Classroom 5.52 Organization 5.28 4 Emotional 3.86 Support 3.53 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Private- Fee Based Free Private (n=50) Public (n=198) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Similarly, Grade 7 private school teachers (free and fee-based) scored significantly higher than Grade 7 teachers in public schools on the instructional support domain. Additionally, within the instructional support domain, even though the average score seems slightly different, both public and private schools fall within the low-mid to mid range of scores, indicating that the majority of teachers do not teach critical thinking and analytical skills in their classrooms (See figure 3.28). FIGURE 3.29: CLASS DOMAINS SCORES, BY SCHOOL TYPE - GRADE 7 3.54 Instructional 3.54 Support 2.75 5.83 Classroom 5.88 Organization 5.36 4 Emotional 3.92 Support 3.62 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Private- Fee Based Free Private (n=24) Public (n=174) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations Across dimensions, in Grade 4 classes, the instructional dialogue, quality of feedback, content understanding, analysis and inquiry dimensions show significant differences between public and private schools, indicating that public school students are provided with less frequent feedback and assistance in ways that would lead them to a deeper understanding of the materials and concepts being taught . Between free private and fee-based private schools there are no significant differences between dimension scores (figure 3.29). 57 Among Grade 7 teachers, a similar trend compared to their Grade 4 colleagues can be observed in public and private schools. Behavior management and productivity in Grade 7 classes in private schools (free and fee-based) is significantly higher as compared to Grade 7 classes in public schools. Content understanding, instructional dialogue, and quality of feedback are the significant dimensions of the instructional support domain in Grade 7 classes that are significantly lower among Grade 7 public school teachers. This significance indicates that Grade 7 students in public schools do not receive class materials and discussions consistently and effectively from their teachers, and the focus of the class is not usually interactive, nor does it facilitate student involvement (figure 3.30). FIGURE 3.30: CLASS DIMENSION SCORES, BY TYPE OF SCHOOL - GRADE 4 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Private- Fee Based (n=141) Free Private (n=50) Public (n=198) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations FIGURE 3.31: CLASS DIMENSION SCORES, BY TYPE OF SCHOOL - GRADE 7 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Private- Fee Based (n=122) Free Private (n=24) Public (n=174) Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 58 3.4. Who Are the Best and Worst Teachers? While understanding the quality of teaching practices across grades, subjects, shifts and types of schools gives education policymakers a profound picture of the reality of their workforce efforts, studying the proportion of teachers who score lower and/or higher on the live observation gives us a better picture of the teachers’ capacity to communicate learning objectives to students. Even Lebanon’s best performing teachers (75th percentile) score in the low to mid range on all dimensions of the instructional support domain indicating that even the most effective teachers do not discuss lesson materials effectively and only communicate solid pieces of concepts and procedures to students, failing to engage students in extended opportunities that challenge their cognitive skills . In the emotional support domain, positive climate and teacher sensitivity scores are within mid to high range, however, regards for the student perspective dimension score ranges from low-mid to mid which shows teachers in general do not encourage peer-to-peer interactions that are meaningful in connection to the context of the lesson. In Lebanon, teachers rarely follow students’ lead in the classroom and do not welcome students ideas and opinions. Additionally, the focus of the class in not primarily on meaningful discussion and explanation of broad, organizing ideas and it does not elicit and/ or acknowledge students’ background knowledge or misconceptions to integrate information with previously learned material. (figure 3.31) FIGURE 3.32: CLASS MEASURE DIMENSION - 75TH PERCENTILE Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations (N=112) The 25th percentile of teachers (the lowest performing teachers) score results indicate that on all the dimensions in the instructional support and emotional support domains, the scores are from low to low-mid range (figure 3.32). The lowest performing teachers only offer information with little to no variety in delivery strategies or materials. Scant effort is made to elicit student knowledge or acknowledge students’ misconceptions and mistakes and any feedback (if given) is only in the form of correct/incorrect, which does not meaningfully engage students in higher order thinking skills. 59 FIGURE 3.33: CLASS DIMENSION- 25TH PERCENTILE Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations (N=112) Further comparisons of best vs worst performing teachers across grade levels and schools shifts are provided in Annex C . Best performing teachers (75th percentile) who teach morning shifts in grades 4 and 7 score within mid to mid-high in most of the dimensions of instructional support domain, except for analysis and inquiry dimension. The analysis and inquiry dimension score for best performing teachers who teach in the morning in both grade 4 and 7 indicate that teachers provide opportunities for students to apply knowledge and skills within familiar contexts, but do not provide opportunities for analysis and problem solving within novel contexts and/or without teacher support (independently). Best performing (75th percentile) afternoon shift teachers on the other hand, mostly scored low to low-mid in instructional support domain in both grades 4 and 7. Only around 10 percent of best performing grade 7 afternoon shift teachers have score mid-high score in instructional support domain. Around 70 percent of Grade 4 and 80 percent of grade 7 morning shift teachers who are amongst the 25th percentile category (the lowest performing teachers) scored in low range in instructional support and emotional support domain. And 90 percent of grade 4 and grade 7 afternoon teachers who are amongst worst performing teachers scored in low range in instructional support category. This result for afternoon shift teachers indicates that students are not encouraged to think independently, evaluate, and reflect on their own leaning or plan their own learning experiences . 60 CHAPTER 4. TEACHER CLASSROOM PRACTICES - POST OBSERVATION As discussed in Chapter 2, the post-observation classroom interview is a professional development approach that allows education experts to analyze and critique the instructional practices of individual teachers in the classroom over a period of time. It also allows experts to study how teachers who implement specific teaching strategies including lesson plans (intro, core tasks, closing), in-class student evaluations, etc., reflect on the outcome and quality of their teaching methods. Identifying what worked well in a lesson and which strategies were successful allows teachers to further review and assess their own classroom practices independently. Supporting teachers as they think through how to improve a particular lesson including lesson and offering suggestions can help teachers to independently improve their daily teaching practice, resulting in improved student learning. 4.1. Education Philosophy In an effort to understand the teachers’ perspective in relation to their education philosophy, it is important to ask teachers about how to maximize student learning, inside and outside the classroom . The philosophy of education is defined as the “big picture” that a teacher has based on his/her personal principles and ideals in educational matters, such as how to effectively maximize student learning, or the role of a teacher in the classroom, school and society, or how the teacher’s professional growth and experience can affect student performance. An example of an educational philosophy is, “I believe that with dedication, perseverance, and hard work, a teacher’s students will rise to the occasion.” (Darling-Hammond et al. 2013). Teachers in the post observation interview answered questions regarding: “ 1- whether they believe students learn better when they find solutions on their own (by themselves)?” and “2- whether they believe students should remain silent during the lesson to make education effective?” The majority (80 percent) of surveyed teachers believe that students need to be active learners and find solutions on their own. The remaining 20 percent of teachers believe students will learn better by just listening (figure 4.1). Unlike public school teachers, around one-third of the teachers in free-private schools believed that students should actively participate in classroom activities, only 61 remaining silent to listen during the lesson. Teachers’ opinions on education philosophy are similar to CLASS score results. The average national score on the teacher sensitivity dimension, which mainly reflects the teacher’s timely responsiveness to the academic, social, emotional, behavioral needs of students, is reported to be around 4. According to figure 4.2, around 80 percent of teachers scored in the low to low-mid range this dimension. This clearly confirms that most teachers wrongly believe neglecting students’ emotional, behavioral, social, and academic needs is not going to support student learning. Additionally, the student engagement dimension score (see figure 3.12) indicates that the majority of students are passively engaged in the classroom during a lesson by simply listening, which confirms the education philosophy amongst some teachers who believe students learn better if they remain silent during the lesson. No other significant difference was observed in terms of teacher’s opinion of education philosophy across shifts and grades. FIGURE 4.1: TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVE IN EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY Do you believe that students should be engaged by only 19.4 57.2 23.5 listening during the lesson to make education effective? Do you believe students would actively learn better 48.4 46.4 5.3 when they find solutions on their own (by themselves)? 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Percent Always Sometimes Never Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations FIGURE 4.2: TEACHER SENSITIVITY DIMENSION-NATIONAL AVERAGE 10.0 30.1 36.8 20.2 2.8 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 62 4.2. Classroom Environment Overall, the classroom environments appear suitable in most public schools. Around 80 percent of the teachers stated that they find the classroom space suitable for the number of students in their classes. In about 85 percent of the classrooms lighting and air conditioning are sufficient and in 65 percent the arrangements of desks and seats facilitates student interaction. However, heating was non-existent in around half of the classrooms. Functioning electricity was available in 94 percent of the schools during the observation, and about 83 percent of school lavatories available to students were in working condition. In two-thirds of the classrooms there were no educational posters. EDUCATIONAL NEEDS Special Education Needs When working with special needs students, the majority of teachers responded that they either change the pace of the class, add more exercise or use wider variety of teaching techniques (figure 4.3). However, the low score on the CLASS emotional support domain does not reflect the teachers’ statement with regards to dealing with children of special needs. Most teachers were observed to use conventional methods of instructional learning formats and did not challenge students critically and cognitively, especially when the students are seen to have learning disabilities. As figure 4.4 indicates, most teachers (around 81 percent) who provided a positive response to different methods of support for children with learning difficulty, still fall into the low-mid range of the emotional support domain. The average CLASS score for teachers who respond positively to providing additional support, and/or adjusting the pace of the lesson for students who have difficulty in learning is also within the mid range, which indicates that even though teachers may attempt to help students, these attempts are inconsistent and ineffective. It appears that despite teachers’ willingness to support students with special needs, they do not possess the techniques and skills necessary to help such children, and the majority are in practice dismissive of these students’ academic needs. FIGURE 4.3: WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOUR STUDENT HAS LEARNING DIFFICULTIES IN CLASS? Work with a group of students separately when they have 55% learning difficulties Diversification of teaching 87% methods to suit Students' needs Add more exercises 88% Change the pace of the lesson to suit the level of students 90% understanding 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 63 BOX 4.1: LEARNING WITH LEUKEMIA Fadi, now 12 years old, was diagnosed with leukemia at age 5, when he was attending a private pre-school. He continued for the start of his primary education at the private school, “where the teachers helped him in class,” his mother, Rasha, said. The family moved to another town when he was 9, and he was enrolled in a public school. That is where the problems started, in 2016. Because of the medication, it was hard for him to focus, and he was targeted for harassment [by his teachers] because he was not doing well in school. The French teacher called him a donkey and pulled his hair in front of the other students. She even did it in front of his mother when she came to the school. The teachers regularly made him stand outside in the cold, next to the outside wall, not inside in the hallway. Rasha said she complained to the school director “four or five times,” and also argued with the director as to whether Fadi would advance to the next grade, but without result. The director said, “We can’t treat him any better than the other students,” and pulled his hair at least twice. Rasha eventually found a private school that offered Fadi a scholarship, and the staff at the new school provided accommodations for Fadi. Source: Human Rights Watch, May 2019 FIGURE 4.4: EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOMAIN - TEACHERS WHO SUPPORT LEARNING DIFFICULTIES ADJUSTMENTS IN THE CLASSROOM 9.0 41.0 40.0 9.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations 4.3. Teacher’s Perception on Parents’ Support The majority of schools report having a parent council. Parent councils in public one-shift schools met more frequently than in public two-shift and private schools. Parent councils in about one-third (32 percent) of one-shift public schools met six or more times, as compared to public two-shifts (20 percent), free private (11 percent) and fee-based private schools (23 percent). In general, parent councils engaged in similar activities across schools, such as facilitating parent communication, organizing school events, and providing input on administrative and academic issues, ensuring availability of teachers in languages, arts, computers, and physical education, ensuring availability of school equipment, etc. The majority of parents (97 percent) reported having received their children’s academic progress report upon asking for it, however 64 only 56 percent of parents reported to have received this information in a written form (i.e. report card), and the rest of the parents received the academic progress information either during a meeting or over the phone, verbally. Most teachers expressed their dissatisfaction with the degree to which parents are involved in their children’s education. According to teachers, around 30 percent of the parents whose children attend public schools participate in school related events and activities during the school year (figure 4.5) and only 45 percent of the teachers in private schools reported that parents always attend school events. According to teachers, around 18 percent of parents in public school and 25 percent in paid private schools follow up on their children’s academic progress and achievement. Around 94 percent of the parents with children who attend afternoon shifts do not supervise them while doing their homework and only about 18 percent of parents who send their children to fee-based private schools always supervise their children during homework. FIGURE 4.5: DO PARENTS PARTICIPATE? Participate in solving 26% 62% 12% behavioral problems Attend the celebrations 39% 47% 14% and school activities Supervising the 13% 70% 17% completion of homework Follow up the educational 18% 73% 9% achievement of their children Attend periodic 31% 59% 10% parental meetings 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Always Sometimes Never Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 4.4. Teacher’s Perception on Challenges and Success EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AND CURRICULUM Teachers reported using traditional resources such as textbooks, learning aides, etc. in the majority (90 percent) of classrooms, without use of ICT (figure 4.6). Students stay motivated in the pedagogy of the learning process when technology is used in the classroom. The use of technology helps engage students in the learning process, allows students to have a higher accuracy with computational tasks, helps create a less-anxious environment for students, helps motivate students, help students get a deeper understanding of the lesson content, and helps struggling students to process the lesson contents more easily (Murphy 2016). Afternoon shift teachers reported that they could not provide students with as much access to computers/tablets and LCD projectors as morning shift teachers. Teachers in fee-based private schools could provide students with more educational resources such as computers, 65 tablets, LCD projector, books, paper, etc. than teachers in public schools and free private schools. While, only around 4 percent of the teachers reported not to have access to books (such as textbooks, stories, dictionaries, etc.) and learning aides (such as paper, writing instruments, geometry instruments, etc.), around 38 percent of teachers reported that they and/or their students do not have access to computers or tablets in the classroom. Around 70 percent of teachers mentioned a lack of interactive boards in the classrooms, and around 38 percent reported having no access to LCD projector in the class (figure 4.6) FIGURE 4.6: USE OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES IN THE CLASSROOM LCD Projector 44 18 38 Technology Resources Using Interactive Boards 21 9 70 Computers/Tablets 45 17 38 Technology Resources Learning Aides Not Using 88 8.5 3.5 Books 80 16 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 Always Sometimes Never Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations CURRICULUM COVERAGE AND ADEQUACY Only around half the teachers, teaching in public schools stated that they can cover the entire curriculum during an academic year (figure 4.7). Only 32 percent of the teachers who teach afternoon shifts said they are always able to completely cover the entire material during the school year. In private schools, around 68 percent mentioned that they can cover the curriculum material during the school year. About 40 percent of public-school teachers interviewed believe that the curriculum they are teaching (regardless of grade) fit the needs of students (figure 4.7). Just twenty-six percent of afternoon shift teachers believe the curriculum content is suitable for their students. In private schools (free and fee-based) around 55 percent of the teachers feel the curriculum fits student needs. FIGURE 4.7: CURRICULUM Does the content of the curriculum fit the needs of the 40 49 11 students you are teaching? Can you cover the curriculum 53 36 11 content at the specified time? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Always Sometimes Never Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 66 BEHAVIORAL ISSUES Overall, teachers did not report having major behavioral incidents in their classrooms (figure 4.8). However, as mentioned above - reports from various Human Right’s Watch sources describe verbal and physically abusive behavior by teachers in the classrooms. When teachers were asked about the behavioral problems they face in the class, around 60 percent of the teachers reported lack of student motivation, and psychosocial problems (not specified) can sometimes cause issues in the classrooms. No significant difference was observed across grades, subjects, shifts and types of school. FIGURE 4.8: WHAT ARE THE BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS TEACHERS FACE IN CLASS? Social and 8 61 31 psychological problems Lack of Students 9.5 63 27.5 motivation Behavioral problems 7.7 64.5 27.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Always Sometimes Never Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations Teachers were also asked how they deal with behavioral misconduct in class. The majority state that they verbally give clear classroom rules, and motivate students (without specifying the type of motivational activities they provide for the students) (figure 4.9). FIGURE 4.9: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH BEHAVIORAL MISCONDUCT IN THE CLASSROOM? Getting school 72% management support Motivating Students 89% Putting Clear Rules 89% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 67 Even though the teachers mentioned they put clear rules in the classrooms, the score on the behavior management dimension of CLASS indicates that not all teachers successfully manage their classrooms and incidents of behavioral mismanagement by teachers were spotted during live classroom observation (figure 4.10). FIGURE 4.10: BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT DIMENSION- CLASS LIVE CLASSROOM OBSERVATION 4.2 12.0 30.2 48.1 5.3 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations LEARNING RESOURCES The majority of teachers complain about a lack of student support at home (such as parents not helping enough with students’ homework). Teachers also stated that parents who are unable to provide food and medical care necessities for their children rarely ask about their academic progress and offer support at home. Teachers also expressed their concern regarding students’ previous learning achievement, which they view as insufficient to help them progress to higher grades. Around 73 percent of Grade 7 teachers expressed their dissatisfaction on the quality of education in lower grades, which does not prepare students with the fundamental skills to advance to Grade 7 and above. This issue was also emphasized by an even greater majority of afternoon shift teachers (90 percent) (figure 4.11). FIGURE 4.11: WHAT PROBLEMS DO YOU FACE IN TERMS OF LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT? The students' previous learning achievements 69% are insufficient Lack of learning 27% resources for students Lack of adequate 88% support at home 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 68 Learning resources needed to support teachers in their teaching is another area of concern. Teachers report that the lack of professional development training courses that resemble their classroom environment is a major resource insufficiency, followed by lack of appropriate educational resources necessary for work (figure 4.12). FIGURE 4.12: WHAT PROBLEMS DO YOU THAT TEACHERS FACE IN TERMS OF LEARNING RESOURCES AND TEACHER SUPPORT? Lack of professional development training 25% similar to their classroom environment Insufficient Support and educational 10% advice by school administration Lack of educational resources 23% necessary for work 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations The majority of teachers report using different techniques in presenting new information and a variety of learning methods in dealing with students who are struggling to learn (figure 4.13). Although interviewed teachers expressed their enthusiasm and effort in providing students with different teaching methods, the low score on the instructional support domain in the CLASS classroom observation shows little evidence of teachers actively using advanced learning methods in class or adjusting the pace of the class for students struggling to keep up. As can be seen in figure 4.14, the low to low-mid score of this domain indicates that students are not encouraged to think, reflect, or evaluate their own thinking, and that teachers in general move on quickly to another topic, after a student has provided an answer or presented work, without building on the student’s responses . FIGURE 4.13: WHAT HELPS YOU ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS FOR TEACHING PRACTICES? I deal with students who are struggling 82% using different learning methods. I use learning activities that require levels of thinking/cognitive skills (eg assessment 66% and analysis of information) I use different techniques 88% in presenting information 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations FIGURE 4.14: INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DIMENSION - CLASS CLASSROOM OBSERVATION 2.4 35.9 41.9 18.0 1.8 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 69 4.5. Teacher’s Professional Development Most public school teachers believe that when they need professional support and guidance, their primary source is the school principal and guidance and orientation unit at the school level (figure 4.15). School coordinators are less available for support in the public school afternoon shifts (24 percent of the time), as compared to public school morning shifts (66 percent of the time). Also, school coordinators are more reliable sources of support in private schools (fee-based and free) as compared to public schools. Around 77 percent of private school teachers have access to a school coordinator, whereas the guidance and orientation unit is the main source of support for public school afternoon shifts teachers (82 percent of the time). FIGURE 4.15: SOURCES OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT TEACHERS RECEIVE 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Guidance and School School Colleagues Orientation Unit Principal Coordinator in School Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations In terms of opportunities and professional development, the majority of teachers in public schools frequently request trainings in use of technology in class, followed by support and training in use of advanced evaluation tools (figure 4.16). No other significant differences across grades, subjects, shifts and school types was observed. Most interviewed public school teachers reported having benefited mostly from participating in training courses and personal distance learning opportunities online (figure 4.17). Around half the teachers also benefited from viewing their colleagues’ classrooms or working under supervision. Afternoon shift teachers were not provided with equal opportunities to attend training courses as compared to their colleagues who teach morning shifts. 70 FIGURE 4.16: AREAS IN WHICH TEACHERS NEED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT In-depth understanding of the 37% material I teach Interacting with students who need 53% social and psychological support Interactive methods of teaching 57% Interacting with students 57% with special educational needs Use of advanced evaluation tools 70% Use of technology in the classroom 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations FIGURE 4.17: WHAT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE TEACHERS BENEFITED FROM? Attending conferences 31% View Colleagues' Classrooms 48% Work Under Supervision 57% Follow-up the educational topics related to their subject 66% on the internet Personal Distance Learning 74% Opportunities Online Participation in training courses 83% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 4.6. Lesson Plan On the day of the post observation interview, more than half (56 percent) of public school teachers had an available and observable lesson plan. The majority of the teachers being interviewed stated that they always have a lesson plan, however when asked by enumerators: “Do you have the plan for today’s lesson?” around 21 percent responded that they did not. Even amongst those 80 percent of the teachers who said they have a lesson plan, 15 percent of them did not allow the enumerator to look at their lesson plans. While in public schools, 90 percent of the teachers reported to have prepared lesson plans, only 66 percent of the teachers in fee-based private schools and 75 percent of teachers in free-private schools indicated preparing lesson plans. 71 No significant difference was observed across shifts, grades or subjects in terms of availability of a lesson plan. For additional information about what a typical lesson plan includes according to previous research please refer to Annex D (Box D.1). From the observable lesson plans, around 83 percent of them were clear, organized and easy to follow. Although 85 percent of the lesson plans included a core/main activity, only 70 percent included a preparatory/preliminary activity and 63 percent included a final activity. More than half of the lesson plans (55 percent) did not include a revision activity of what was explained in the previous lessons. Ninety-four percent of lesson plans did not include the use of technology. In public schools, teachers who taught afternoon shifts did not include use of technology in their plans at all. In fee-based private schools, 14 percent of teachers included use of technology as part of their lesson plan. Around 76 percent of the plans did not take into consideration that students are of different skill levels and learning abilities. Additionally, none of the lesson plans indicated a special activity/exercise for children with special needs who have learning difficulties/disabilities, nor was it observed in the lesson plans that the pace of the lesson would be adjusted for those individual students. About 72 percent of lesson plans did not include clear time allocation for each activity in the plan and 61 percent did not include diverse/different interactive methods. Around half (49 percent) of the lesson plans did not include tools to assess/evaluate how much students did learn in that lesson, and only less than half (47 percent) of lesson plans included setting a homework assignment based on the lesson (figure 4.18). FIGURE 4.18: LESSON PLAN DETAILS The lesson plan clearly includes a 85% specific core/main activity Clarity of Activities The lesson plan is clear, organized and 83% easy to follow The lesson plan clearly includes a 70% specific preparatory/priliminary activity The lesson plan clearly includes a 63% specific final activity The lesson plan includes a review of 45% the materials previously explained The lesson plan indicates the necessary 56% materials tool and resources for the lesson. Tools and Resources The lesson plan determines the time 28% allotted for each activity. The lesson plan includes procedures that take 24% into account the different skill levels of students The lesson plan includes different 39% interactive methods The lesson plan includes the use of technology 6% Assessment The lesson plan includes a way to assess the 51% students' understanding of what was taught The lesson plan includes homework 47% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 72 The lesson plan results confirm CLASS scores. The lack of student assessment methods and homework in more than half of the lesson plans confirms the low to mid score range on the quality of feedback dimension in the CLASS results. Moreover, only 28 percent of the lesson plans include time allotted for class activities. The CLASS productivity dimension is in the mid- range, indicating that a considerable amount of lesson time was being utilized for a learning activity. Only 39 percent of the lesson plans included an interactive method, confirming the low range teachers scored on the CLASS instructional dialogue dimension. Also, the lesson plans fail to include work on student leadership skills, which is also reflected in the low score teachers received on the regards for student perspective dimension (figure 4.19). FIGURE 4.19: DIMENSIONS OF INSTRUCTIONS Instructional Dialouge 33.7 37.7 19.6 7.6 Quality of FeedBack 18.7 45.7 25.8 9.4 Productivity 6.4 22.1 37.9 30.7 2.8 Regards For Students 13.4 42.1 35.1 7.7 1.4 Perspective 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations On average, a typical teacher in Lebanon spends around 7 hours planning lessons during the week and teaches around 20 hours per week in the same school. The hours that a teacher reports dedicating to lesson planning is not significantly different across subjects, type of schools and school shifts. Regardless of the grade and subject, Lebanese teachers do not spend adequate time lesson planning. The international standard mandates at least 2-4 hours of lesson planning per 1 hour of teaching class. On average, for every hour that a teacher in Lebanon teaches a lesson, they spend only 20 minutes planning and preparing. As figure 4.20 indicates, around 87 percent of teachers spend less than 10 hours lesson planning per week, while 90 percent of the teachers teach around 11-20 hours per week. Teachers who teach more than 20 hours per week rarely prepare any lesson plans. FIGURE 4.20: TIME SPENT PLANNING LESSONS VS TEACHING TIME (HOUR/WEEK) 50 45 45 42 40 35 31.2 30 % 25 22.4 20 17.6 18.2 15 9.2 10 10 5 1.4 2 0.85 0.15 0 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Low Mid High Hours Per Week Planning Teaching Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 73 INTERACTIVE METHODS IN LESSON PLANS Before examining the lesson plans, enumerators interviewed teachers about interactive methods they use in the classrooms. The enumerators then examined the lesson plans to see if they find evidence of those interactive methods being used in the classroom. The evidence indicates that most teachers who had a plan did not utilize nor implement their lesson plans in their classrooms. Interactive methods in the lesson plans are not well structured, since there is a significant difference between the interactive methods the teachers practice (in their lesson plan) versus what they stated (earlier during the interview) that they do in the classroom. While the majority of teachers reported using discussions between the teacher and the students as an interactive method in their classrooms, only 43 percent of them included this activity in their lesson plans. Similarly, 75 percent interviewed teachers stated that they use dual work as one of the main interaction methods in the classrooms, however, only 7 percent of those teachers actually included pair work activities in their lesson plans (figure 4.21). No significant difference in interactive methods across grades, shifts and type of schools (private versus public) was observed. FIGURE 4.21: TYPE OF INTERACTION IN THE CLASSROOM-LESSON PLAN VERSUS TEACHER INTERVIEWED 54% Role Plays 6% Collaborative/Team 47% Work for Projects 7% 75% Dual Work 7% 52% Presentation 7% 67% Group Work 16% Discussion Between 94% Teacher and students 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Interactive Method Teachers Said They Use Interactive Methods Obeserved in Lesson Plan Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 74 STUDENT ASSESSMENT METHODS IN LESSON PLANS The majority of the teachers do not utilize an effective tool to assess student understanding during lessons. Similar to the lesson plan, although teachers reported that they used different methods of in-class assessments during their interview, only 43 percent of them in fact included in-class questions and assessments in their lesson plans. This result confirms the low score on the quality of feedback dimension. More than 65 percent of the teachers fall into the low category, indicating that feedback (assessment) which expands and extends understanding is almost non-existent in most classes (figure 4.22). While 93 percent of the teachers mentioned using short quizzes as an assessment tool, only 20 percent of those teachers included short quizzes in their lesson plan (figure 4.23). Teachers in free private schools used written restructuring of what was taught in the class, and oral questions about the lesson as frequent methods of student evaluation, while teachers who taught morning shifts in public schools tend to use short quizzes more frequently than their colleagues teaching afternoon shifts. FIGURE 4.22: QUALITY OF FEEDBACK DIMENSION- CLASS CLASSROOM OBSERVATION Quality of 18.7 45.7 25.8 9.4 FeedBack 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Classroom Observations FIGURE 4.23: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF STUDENT ASSESSMENT- LESSON PLAN VERSUS INTERVIEWED (A) Teacher Interviewed Projects 43% Essay Writing 46% Classroom Presentation 52% Self Assessment (Students corrected) 60% Oral Test 68% Exams 88% Short Quizzes 93% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% (B) Lesson Plan Questions about the lesson 43% Restructuring of what was taught orally 29% Short Quiz at the end of the lesson 20% Restructuring of what was taught in written format 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 75 BOX 4.2: WHY IS STUDENT ASSESSMENT SIGNIFICANT IN INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT? Student assessment (e.g. in-class quizzes, oral and/or written presentations, essay writing, etc.) is an important part of instructional development. By tracking student performance over time, instructors receive formative feedback about their teaching and can assess the impact of instructional changes. The evidence of instructional effectiveness can in turn inform future instruction, and vice versa. For instance, student assessments can be used to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses, assist educators in planning subsequent instruction, assist students in guiding their own learning by evaluating and revising their own work, and foster students’ sense of autonomy and responsibility for their own learning. Student assessment checks whether the teacher’s instructional goals have been met and how teachers can improve student learning. To become an integral part of the instructional process, assessments cannot be a one-shot, do-or-die experience for students. Instead, assessments must be part of an ongoing effort to help students learn. The assessment answers the following questions: ‘Did my students learn/understand the lesson?’ ‘Is there a better way to teach a particular subject to improve students’ learning?’ Teachers who develop useful assessments, provide corrective instruction, and give students second chances to demonstrate success can improve their instruction and help students learn. Source: Andrade and Cizek 2010; Richards, 2013; Brown and others 2013; Evans 2013 No other significant difference across school types (public versus private), grades, and subjects was observed in terms of teachers’ use of evaluative methods in the lesson plan versus what they stated to use in classrooms. The majority of the teachers also reported to have done at least one diagnostic test in the class and they share their evaluation materials with other colleagues who teach the same grades and subjects. 4.7. Teachers’ Perception of Assessment of Students In the post observation interview, three types of assessment methods were chosen to analyze teachers’ frequency of use and ability to diagnose students’ depth of understanding. Teachers who utilize ‘new, advanced assessment tools’ and make effective effort to use up-to-date methods of providing feedback and comments to increase students understanding of the lesson and/or curriculum can foster development of students’ cognitive and critical thinking skills (Nold 2017). The assessment methods chosen were: (i) exams and quarterly tests; (ii) homework; and (iii) practical exercise and project. Each teacher was required to present the interviewer with at least 2-3 samples of his/her own for each type of assessment methods. For each type of assessment method, the enumerator tried to obtain different levels of student scores: low, medium, and high marks. Every enumerator examined each type of assessment document for about 5 minutes, and then filled out the questionnaire accordingly. 76 Most teachers (92 percent) presented sample exams and/or quarterly tests as the most frequent type of assessment method, followed by homework assignments (37 percent) and practical exercise/projects (35 percent). The majority of the documents directly observed by the enumerators in the practical exercise/project category consisted of practical exercises, and only a few (<1 percent) were class projects. No significant difference across shifts, grades and types of schools (public vs private), in terms of assessment methods’ frequency of use was observed. Additionally, no significant difference was observed in teachers’ types of contracts or their academic background. 4.7.1. EXAMS AND QUARTERLY TESTS Most language teachers (i.e. Arabic, English, and French) used short-answer questions in their examinations as the frequent type of evaluation tool , followed by essay writing (38 percent), and long written answers (36 percent) (figure 4.24). Math teachers who teach it in English tend to use proof written questions more frequently than those teachers who teach math in French. Grade 4 teachers tend to use more essay writing assessment type of questions (67 percent of the time), as compared to Grade 7 teachers who use essay writing questions only 50 percent of the time in their examinations. Similarly, public school teachers tend to use essay-writing questions less frequently than their colleagues in free and fee-based private schools who use this of type of assessment tool in 75 percent of their sample exams. Around 44 percent of the sample exams observed from teachers in the afternoon shift included essay writing, while only 36 percent of the exams obtained from morning shift teachers include this assessment tool. No other significant difference across shifts, grades or types of school was observed amongst teachers in using different evaluation techniques in exams and quarterly tests. FIGURE 4.24: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS - EXAMS AND QUARTERLY TESTS IN LANGUAGE AND MATH Compare/Match Between Two Groups 10% True or False 5% True or False 13% Multiple Choice Questions 8% Multiple Choice Questions 17% Proof Written Questions 14% Fill in the Blanks 35% Fill in the Blanks 15% Long Written Answers 36% Analysis of Graphs, Charts or Tables 17% Essay Writing 38% Solving Math Problems 27% Short Answers 59% Solving Math Equations 30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% Language Mathematics Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations FIGURE 4.25: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EXAMS AND QUARTERLY TESTS- PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT 56% Essay Writing 56% 60% 59% Long Written Answers 40% 56% 15% Compare/Match Between Two Groups 13% 20% 45% Fill in the Blanks 50% 72% 11% True or False 27% 29% 85% Short Answers 86% 95% 15% Multiple Choice Questions 34% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Arabic Language French Language English Language Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 77 Arabic language teachers, do not use multiple-choice questions as frequently as their peers who teach English and/or French (figure 4.25). Additionally, English and French language teachers use true/false statements as an assessment tool in around one-third of their sample exams as compared to Arabic language teachers who have used it only in 11 percent of their sample exams. English language teachers use fill-in-the-blanks questions in 72 percent of the exams, while French language teachers use short-answer questions as the frequent assessment tool. Questions with long written answers are commonly used in Arabic and English language sample exams. Mathematics teachers (who teach in either English or French) in the afternoon shifts tend to choose a variety of assessment tools less frequently in their exams and quarterly tests. For instance, only 5 percent of the afternoon math teachers use proof-written questions in their exams versus 16 percent of the morning shift math teachers (figure 4.26). The low score on the critical thinking dimension indicates that teachers fail to provide more practical, thought provoking, and challenging questions for students who study in the afternoon shift. The most commonly used types of evaluation tools used by afternoon teachers are solving math equations and solving math problems. Language teachers who teach in the morning tend to use long written answer evaluation tools more frequently than do their peers in the afternoon shift. FIGURE 4.26: TEACHERS’ EXAMS AND QUARTERLY TESTS - PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT BY SHIFTS Math Analysis of Graphs, Charts or Tables 12% 18% Proof Written Questions 5% 16% Multiple Choice Questions 6% 8% Fill in the Blanks 20% 14% True or False 1% 6% Solving Math Equations 30% 29% Solving Math Problems 25% 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Afternoon Morning Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations Language Essay Writing 36% 44% Long Written Answers 23% 39% Compare/Match Between Two Groups 11% 10% Fill in the Blanks 35% 38% True or False 11% 13% Short Answers 58% 59% Multiple Choice Questions 16% 21% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Afternoon Morning Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 78 Most teachers do not provide additional assistance or hints in order to direct students to correct mistakes. The majority of the comments and feedback provided by the teacher in exams and quarterly tests specify the location of the mistake and often are indicated by an X sign being placed next to or circled around the mistake (figure 4.27). About 66 percent of the teachers provided students with grades and no other additional feedback. As discussed earlier in figure 4.22, the low score on the quality of feedback dimension confirms that teachers’ feedback is largely focused on the mistake and students are frequently left without hints or assistance that clarifies or extends their learning. FIGURE 4.27: TEACHERS’ COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK IN EXAMS AND QUARTERLY TESTS The teachers writes praises 57% 4% and compliments 39% The feedback is detailed enough to 13% 66% direct the student to correct the mistake 21% 47% The teacher has given the correct answer 12% 41% Feedback specifies the location of the mistake by placing a X as an indication 4% or circling around it, or making a note 4% 92% indicating the mistake. 31% Only the Grade 3% 66% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Disagree Cannot determine Agree Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations In free private schools, 27 percent of the teachers wrote compliments and praise as evaluatives, whereas in fee-based private schools, around 60 percent of the teachers either gave students grades or feedback that only determined the placement of the mistake, similar to 34 percent of teachers in public schools who only indicated placement of the mistake without further clarification. About 17 percent of the morning shift teachers used detailed feedback in correcting students’ exams, whereas only 8 percent of the afternoon shift teachers provided students with detailed feedback on their exams and quarterly tests. French and Arabic language teachers tend to provide students with grades only, without any additional comments/feedback in around 75 percent of the sample exams, as compared to other subjects. Morning shift teachers provide students with right answers next to their mistake and/or detailed feedback more frequently than afternoon shift teachers (24 percent of the time versus 8 percent). The same trend can be observed in paid private schools, where the teachers have been observed to give the correct answer in half the sample exams. 79 4.7.2. HOMEWORK Homework assignments lack questions that challenge students and/or encourage them to think critically in math and language subjects. The majority of the language teachers use short- answer, fill in the blanks, and essay writing assessment questions, none of which strengthen students’ critical thinking skills (figure 4.28). Similarly, math teachers rarely utilize proof written questions that require analysis of graphs, charts and tables. No significant difference across grades, or types of school (private versus public) was observed in terms of type of assessment tools in student homework assignments. FIGURE 4.28: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT- HOMEWORK IN LANGUAGE AND MATH Short Answers Solving Math Equations 17% 42% Fill in the Blanks 21% Fill in the Blanks 5% Essay Writing 17% Solving Math Problems 5% Analysis of Graphs, Long Written Answers 14% 4% Charts or Tables Multiple Choice Questions 7% Proof Written Questions 2% True or False 6% Multiple Choice Questions 1% Compare/Match Between Two Groups 3% True or False 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 20% 40% Language Mathematics Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations Math teachers who teach math in English, tend to use solving math equations and solving math problems questions, more frequently on homework assignments than do their peers who teach math in French (figure 4.29). Math teachers who teach in French use fill in the blanks type questions more frequently than their colleagues who teach in English. FIGURE 4.29: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT- HOMEWORK IN MATH 18% Analysis of Graphs, Charts or Tables 15% 5% Proof Written Questions 8% 0% Multiple Choice Questions 4% 32% Fill in the Blanks 4% 0% True or False 4% 58% Solving Math Equations 85% 11% Solving Math Problems 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Math In French Math In English Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 80 Similarly, Arabic language teachers use short answer questions more frequently than their colleagues who teach English and French languages. There is a significant difference between morning and afternoon math teachers in the design of their homework assignments. Morning math teachers use a more diverse range of questions in their homework assignments, whereas afternoon teachers use limited types of questions such as solving simple math problems and equations (figure 4.30). No evidence of proof written questions that require students to analyze the information they have learned was observed in afternoon shift homework assignments. FIGURE 4.30: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT-ASSIGNMENT BY SHIFTS Math Analysis of Graphs, Charts or Tables 0% 5% Proof Written Questions 0% 2% Multiple Choice Questions 0% 0% Fill in the Blanks 5% 5% True or False 1% 2% Solving Math Equations 16% 17% Solving Math Problems 2% 6% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Afternoon Morning Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations Languages Essay Writing 15% 17% Long Written Answers 8% 16% Compare/Match Between Two Groups 3% 5% Fill in the Blanks 19% 26% True or False 5% 8% Short Answers 31% 45% Multiple Choice Questions 7% 7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Afternoon Morning Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 81 On exams and quarterly tests, the majority of teachers use praise and compliments as well as assigning grades as the only form of feedback. In contrast, on homework assignments, most teachers (62 percent) provide detailed feedback directing students to correct their mistakes. No significant difference across grades, subjects, shifts, or school types was observed in terms of teachers providing feedback on student homework assignments (figure 4.31). FIGURE 4.31: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT- COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK IN HOMEWORK The teachers writes praises 68% 4% and compliments 28% The feedback is detailed enough 62% to direct the student to correct 10% 28% the mistake The teacher has given 37% 11% the correct answer 52% Feedback specifies the location of the mistake by placing a X as an indication 34% 4% or circling around it, or making a note 62% indicating the mistake. 62% Only the Grade 9% 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Disagree Cannot determine Agree Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 4.7.3. PRACTICAL EXERCISE AND PROJECT Similar to homework assignments, practical exercises were also observed to be lacking questions that encourage critical thinking in both math and language subjects. On practical questions, teachers follow a similar trend in choosing assessment question types in language subjects (teachers most commonly used short answers) and math subjects (teachers used fill in the blanks questions mostly) (figure 4.32). French language teachers use essay writing as part of practical exercises more frequently than do English and Arabic teachers. Both Arabic and French teachers use short answer questions as part of evaluation in practical exercises. Math teachers who teach math in French use solving math equations and fill in the blank more often than math teachers who teach in English. Additionally, similar to homework assignments, teachers in the afternoon shifts do not provide students with exercises and/ or projects that require students to use higher order of thinking. No other significant difference was observed across grades or types of school. 82 FIGURE 4.32: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT- PRACTICAL EXERCISE OR PROJECT IN LANGUAGE AND MATH Language Mathematics Short Answers 46% Solving Math Equations 19% Fill in the Blanks 21% Fill in the Blanks 8% Essay Writing 18% Solving Math Problems 6% Long Written Answers 17% Analysis of Graphs, 4% Charts orTables Multiple Choice Questions 8% Proof Written Questions 2% Compare/Match 7% Multiple Choice Questions 2% BetweenTwo Groups True or False 3% True or False 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations The types of feedback teachers provide students on practical exercises were commonly observed to include praise and compliments (66 percent of the samples), and detailed feedback (63 percent of samples). Around half the time teachers give students the correct answer as feedback (figure 4.33). FIGURE 4.33: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT- COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK IN PRACTICAL EXERCISE AND PROJECT The teachers writes praises 66% 3% and compliments 31% The feedback is detailed enough 63% to direct the student to correct 9% 28% the mistake The teacher has given 47% 9% the correct answer 44% Feedback specifies the location of the mistake by placing a X as an indication 14% 7% or circling around it, or making a note 79% indicating the mistake. 41% Only the Grade 2% 57% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Disagree Cannot determine Agree Source: Author calculations; Lebanon Post-Classroom Observations 83 CHAPTER 5. TEACHERS’ CONTENT KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION Teacher content knowledge evaluation is linked to student outcome as teachers cannot effectively teach a lesson to their students when they do not have sufficient knowledge. Teachers with better knowledge of the subject they teach offer a higher level of value-added to help students learn topics from a more in-depth perspective. Also, in addition to the live classroom observation, teacher effectiveness in class can be measured through evaluating teachers’ level of mastery of content knowledge. The results of the teacher evaluation coupled with understanding teachers’ performance during live observation can help policymakers improve professional development opportunities for teachers, which in turn can boost student learning and achievement. In the R4R research survey, teachers whose classrooms were observed were evaluated on their content knowledge according to the corresponding grade and subject they taught. For example, Grade 4 teachers were given different tests than their peers who taught the same subject in Grade 7. Each test consisted of two parts: In part one teachers were asked to mark a student’s test. In languages (Arabic, English and French) there were two stories/passages that a student read and then answered follow-on questions. The teachers were asked to identify whether the student answers were (i) correct/incorrect; and (ii) if the answer was incorrect, provide a correct answer. Similarly, for math teachers (in English and French), for the first part of the test teachers were asked to correct a student’s math test, identify whether the answers were (i) correct/incorrect; and (ii) if incorrect, indicate the correct answer. A sample of the language test (for Grade 4 English teachers) and math test (for Grade 7 math in English teachers) can be observed in Annex E. The second part of the test consisted of analyzing student responses. In both math and language subjects, teachers were presented with 3 questions from a student’s test which had an incorrect answer. For each question, they were asked to (i) give the correct response; (ii) provide a reason behind the student’s mistake, and confusion; and (iii) provide a guiding suggestion that would help the student understand his/her mistake and learn the target leaning objective of that concept/question. The second and third follow-up questions about the source of student confusion and a guiding suggestion were presented as multiple-choice options to teachers. 84 5.1. Teachers’ Content Knowledge in Languages and Math BY SUBJECT AND GRADE The first part of the teacher evaluation test for each subject and grade consisted of a total of 10 questions. For languages (Arabic, English, French) each passage/ story included between 4-6 questions, which needed to be corrected with only short answers. As can be seen in figure 5.1, the score for individual questions for Grade 4 Arabic teachers represents a low percentage of correct answers. Grade 4 teachers struggled to identify whether the students’ response to the first three comprehension question from the passage 1, were correct or incorrect, and if they were incorrect, only around one-third of grade 4 teachers could write the correct answer. In the second passage, grade 4 Arabic teachers also struggled to provide correct short answers to questions related to comprehension. The average evaluation score for Grade 4 Arabic teachers was around 47 percent, indicating that on average each teacher was only able to provide correct answers to around half of the questions in the evaluation test . This trend is seen to be different amongst Grade 7 Arabic teachers where with the exception of the eighth question, they scored more than 60 percent of correct answers for all other questions in the evaluation. FIGURE 5.1: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SCORE - ARABIC LANGUAGE - GRADES 4 AND 7 - PART A 65.4% 62.6% 9.4% 89.7% Arabic_Grade 7 62.6% 83.2% 67.3% 80.4% 67.2% 67.3% 80.6% 46.6% 99.2% 48.9% 44.2% Arabic_Grade 4 73.6% 79% 24% 31% 30.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Q10 Q9 Q8 Q7 Q6 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey English teachers in grades 4 and 7, answered around eight out of 10 questions (80 percent) correctly, in part A . Majority of Grade 4 teachers (73 percent) could not answer correctly to a ‘personification’ question in the second passage which was about a driving accident. Additionally, in the second passage, 70 percent of the teachers could not provide an example of ‘gerund’ in the text. However, Grade 4 English teachers provided more correct answers per question than their colleagues in Grade 7 (figure 5.2). Around half the Grade 7 teachers 85 (50 percent) could not provide a correct answer to a grammatical question from the first passage, and about 57 percent of the teachers did not describe the second passage overall message ‘towards nature’ correctly. French language teachers in both grades 4 and 7 answered around 78 percent of the questions in part A correctly. Compared to their peers who taught English or Arabic, French teachers had the highest average in providing correct answers in their evaluation. Also, there is less variation in the number of teachers with correct answers, as all questions have been scored with more than 60 percent of correct responses (figure 5.3). FIGURE 5.2: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SCORE- ENGLISH LANGUAGE - GRADES 4 AND 7 - PART A 43.1% 70.7% 96.5% 86.2% English_Grade 7 67.3% 50.0% 70.7% 82.8% 81% 94.8% 62.3% 30.4% 90% 27.5% English_Grade 4 88.4% 89.9% 98.5% 66.7% 91.3% 76.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Q10 Q9 Q8 Q7 Q6 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey FIGURE 5.3: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SCORE - FRENCH LANGUAGE - GRADES 4 AND 7 - PART A 87.5% 75% 60.4% 68.8% French_Grade 7 83.3% 68.8% 75% 97.9% 83.3% 83.3% 95% 63.3% 76.7% 85% French_Grade 4 73.3% 70% 78.3% 61.7% 91.7% 85% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q10 Q9 Q8 Q7 Q6 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 86 Grade 7 math teachers scored significantly higher than Grade 4 math teachers when correcting student exams. On average, Grade 4 math teachers in English and in French scored around 63 percent of correct responses in part A (i.e. correcting student’s exam), while Grade 7 math teachers in English scored around 81 percent and Grade 7 math teachers in French scored 78.6 percent in part A. Additionally, Grade 4 math teachers (in English and French) appear to have more variation and less consistency in correct answers as compared to their Grade 7 colleagues (figures 5.4 and 5.5). FIGURE 5.4: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SCORE - MATH IN ENGLISH - GRADES 4 AND 7 - PART A 94.8% 84.5% 91.4% Math in 36.2% 69% English_Grade 7 93.1% 94.8% 87.9% 94.8% 63.8% 73.5% 88.2% 77.9% Math in 33.8% 57.4% English_Grade 4 45.6% 55.9% 47% 72% 82.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Q10 Q9 Q8 Q7 Q6 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey FIGURE 5.5: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SCORE - MATH IN FRENCH - GRADES 4 AND 7 - PART A 93.9% 91.9% 89.8% 44.9% Math in 24.5% French_Grade 7 98% 91.8% 85.7% 91.8% 73.5% 62.3% 77.1% 75.4% 52.5% Math in 52.5% ` French_Grade 4 37.7% 54.1% 41% 90.2% 83.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Q10 Q9 Q8 Q7 Q6 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 87 For the second part of the teacher evaluation (part B), Grade 4 and Grade 7 language teachers (Arabic, French, and English) were presented with three questions, involving grammar and conjugation concepts in accordance to the curriculum they were teaching. As mentioned before, the teachers were (1) asked to provide a correct answer to an incorrect response from a student test; (2) justify the reason behind the student mistake or confusion; and (3) provide a teaching remediation to help the student understand the underlying concept. Figure 5.6 presents the results where teachers answered all three parts of the Q11, Q12, and Q13 correctly.7 It is noteworthy that few (less than half the teachers average) teachers were able to follow a coherent instructional process to provide correct answers to all sections of the questions. On average, both Grade 4 and Grade 7 Arabic teachers scored the lowest compared to French and English teachers. While around one-third of Arabic teachers (grades 4 and 7) were able to answer all parts of analyzing students’ responses correctly, more than 75 percent were able to determine the students’ incorrect response and provide a correct answer. However, when it came to understanding the source of student confusion and proving a guiding solution and/or a remedy to alter the way they teach, less than one-third of the teachers were able to answer the follow-up questions correctly. FIGURE 5.6: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SCORE – LANGUAGES - GRADES 4 AND 7 - PART B 54.2% French_Grade 7 43.8% 29.2% 43.3% French_Grade 4 58.3% 75% 28.0% English_Grade 7 70.7% 34.5% 12% English_Grade 4 24.6% 44.9% 18.7% Arabic_Grade 7 36.5% 24.3% 47.3% Arabic_Grade 4 20.9% 25.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Q13 Q12 Q11 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey There is a significant difference between Grade 4 versus Grade 7 English teachers. On average, only around 27 percent of Grade 4 English teachers have answered all three sections of each question in part B, correctly, whereas 44.4 percent of Grade 7 English teachers provided correct answers to all three sections. Also, while more than 80 percent of English teachers (grades 4 and 7) determined the correct answer to the student’s incorrect response and around half the teachers could understand the source of student confusion/mistake, only around one-third of Grade 4 and 40 percent of Grade 7 teachers were able to correctly determine a new teaching strategy to help students better understand the underlying concept. French teachers (grades 4 and 7) scored highest amongst language teachers. Overall, around 59 percent of Grade 4 and 43 percent of Grade 7 French language teachers were able to answer all three sections of each question in part B correctly. On average, while about 82 percent of Grade 4 and Grade 7 7 Q11 in languages revolved around conjugation questions, subjective or possessive pronouns, sentence structure using correct tense, direct vs indirect object compliment, etc. Q12 included questions about sentence structure, subject and/or object pronouns, adverbs and adjectives, verb conjugation, sentence tense conversion, etc. Q13 included correct use of modal verbs, correct subject vs pronoun, verb and subject conjugation, etc. 88 French language teachers were able to correctly determine the student response, around half of those teachers were able to understand either the source of the student’s mistake and/or an appropriate recommendation for new instructional strategy. In Part B of the math evaluation tests, Q11 included question about unit conversion (for Grade 4 teachers) and power calculation (for Grade 7 teachers). Q12 included a subtraction word problem question for Grade 4 math teachers, and prime number factorization for grade 7 teachers. Q13 included a subtraction examination question as a word problem for grade 4 teachers, and a geometry question (equilateral triangle) for Grade 7 teachers. Grade 4 versus grade 7 math teachers (in English and French) depict a significantly different evaluation score (figure 5.7). Teachers who teach math in English have scored lowest amongst all math and language teachers. Additionally, there is a significant difference in terms of scores between Grade 4 vs Grade 7 math (in English) teachers. On average around 26.4 percent of Grade 4 math (in English) teachers answered all sections of the part B questions correctly, whereas only 14.2 percent of Grade 7 math (in English) teachers answered all sections correctly. While around 70 percent of math (in English) teachers corrected an incorrect student’s response, less than one-third of them were able to either understand the likely reason for the student’s mistake or offer a remedial teaching instruction correctly. Grade 4 math teachers who taught in French averaged 32 percent in part B of the test, whereas Grade 7 math teachers (in French) averaged 23.4 percent. Around 85 percent of math teachers (in French) in grades 4 and 7 were able to determine a correct answer to the student’s incorrect response, however, only around 30 percent of Grade 4 and less than one-quarter of Grade 7 math (in French) teachers correctly determined the reason for the student mistake or an effective teaching remediation. FIGURE 5.7: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SCORE - MATHEMATICS - GRADES 4 AND 7 - PART B 26.5% Math in French_Grade 7 13% 30.6% 26.2% Math in French_Grade 4 17% 52.5% 8% Math in English_Grade 7 14% 20.7% 35.3% Math in English_Grade 4 10% 33.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Q13 Q12 Q11 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey The content knowledge evaluation results for teachers who achieved lower than 60 percent in Part B (compared to part A of the evaluation) specifically confirms the CLASS classroom observation findings (figures 3.17 and 3.18). Low dimension scores on the Analysis and Inquiry, Quality of Feedback, Content Understanding, and Instructional Dialogue dimensions can be directly linked to teachers’ inability to identify and determine the source of the student’s mistake and/or suggesting a guiding instruction or new teaching strategy to help the student better understand the underlying concept. According to CLASS results, the majority of Grade 4 and Grade 7 teachers primarily present discrete pieces of information and the focus of the class is not on encouraging deep understanding of content through provision of meaningful, interactive discussion and explanation of organizing ideas. Furthermore, there are limited instances in which teachers engage students in higher order thinking and problem-solving skills. The CLASS results also indicate that teachers rarely scaffold student learning and, if they do, these interactions are brief and not of sufficient depth to allow students to fully perform at a higher academic level. 89 BY SCHOOL SHIFT The teacher evaluation score results for Grade 4 Arabic language teachers show a significant difference in around 40 percent of the total questions between morning and afternoon shifts (figure 5.8). In part B of the teacher evaluation test, afternoon teachers scored significantly lower on a question (Q12) related to conjugating a sentence (subject-verb). The majority of the afternoon teachers failed to provide a correct answer with regards to the source of the student’s mistake and/or a guiding instructional feedback to help the student better understand the underlying concept. FIGURE 5.8: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 4 - ARABIC LANGUAGE - BY SHIFT Q13 48% 47% 12% Q12 23% Q11 28% 25% 72% Q10 82.7% Q9 64% 46.2% Q8 100% 99% Q7 52% 48% 44% Q6 44.2% 72% Q5 74% Q4 76% 79.8% Q3 24% 24% Q2 24% 32.7% Q1 40% 27.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Arabic_Grade 4 Afternoon Arabic_Grade 4 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey Unlike Grade 4 Arabic teachers, Grade 7 Arabic teachers show a significant difference between morning vs afternoon shifts on their evaluation test scores. Afternoon teachers scored significantly lower in 54 percent of the evaluation questions as compared to morning teachers (figure 5.9). Most of the significant difference was observed in part A of the teacher evaluation where afternoon teachers scored significantly lower than morning shift teachers in almost all questions (with the exception of Q3). Part A of the evaluation asked teachers to provide the correct answer to an incorrect student response. FIGURE 5.9: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 7 - ARABIC LANGUAGE - BY SHIFT Q13 18.2% 25% Q12 36.4% 36.5% Q11 9.1% 26% Q10 45.5% 67.7% Q9 54.6% 63.5% Q8 0.0% 10% Q7 81.8% 90.6% Q6 81.8% 83.3% Q5 63.6% 45.5% 62.5% Q4 69.8% Q3 90.9% 79.2% Q2 27.3% 71.9% Q1 63.6% 67.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Arabic_Grade 4 Afternoon Arabic_Grade 4 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 90 FIGURE 5.10: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 4 - ENGLISH LANGUAGE - BY SHIFT Q13 9.0% 14.3% Q12 0.0% 30.9% Q11 43.6% 50.0% 50.0% Q10 65.5% Q9 28.6% 30.9% Q8 89% 92% Q7 24.3% 29.1% Q6 85.7% 89.1% Q5 71.4% 94.6% Q4 100.0% 98.2% Q3 71.4% 65.5% Q2 85.7% 92.7% Q1 71.4% 78.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% English_Grade 4 Afternoon English_Grade 4 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey Similarly, a significant difference can be observed among Grade 4 and Grade 7 morning vs afternoon shift English teachers. However, this difference is limited to a few questions amongst Grade 4 teachers (figure 5.10), whereas Grade 7 English teachers show a greater variation difference between morning and afternoon shift teachers. Grade 7 afternoon shift teachers scored significantly lower on about 62 percent of the evaluation as compared to their morning shift colleagues (figure 5.11). FIGURE 5.11: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 7 - ENGLISH LANGUAGE - BY SHIFT Q13 20% 28.9% Q12 68% 87% Q11 25% 36% Q10 42% 50% Q9 70% 75% Q8 100% 96% Q7 62.5% 90% Q6 37.5% 72% Q5 12.5% 56% Q4 37.5% 76% Q3 62.5% 86% Q2 62.5% 84% Q1 87.5% 96% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% English_Grade 7 Afternoon English_Grade 7 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 91 While Grade 4 afternoon French language teachers scored significantly lower on 54 percent of the evaluation questions as compared to their colleagues who teach during the morning shift (figure 5.12), Grade 7 French teachers showed a significantly higher degree of variance between morning vs afternoon teachers (figure 5.13). Grade 7 French teachers who teach in the afternoon score significantly lower on 77 percent of the evaluation questions as compared to their morning shifts peers. FIGURE 5.12: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 4 - FRENCH LANGUAGE - BY SHIFT Q13 27.3% 46.9% Q12 63.6% 57.1% Q11 45.5% 81.6% Q10 90.9% 95.9% Q9 45.5% 67.4% Q8 63.6% 79.6% Q7 63.6% 89.8% Q6 71.4% 81.8% Q5 54.5% 73.5% Q4 72.7% 79.6% Q3 63.6% 61.2% Q2 90.9% 91.8% Q1 81.8% 85.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% French_Grade 4 Afternoon French_Grade 4 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey FIGURE 5.13: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 7 - FRENCH LANGUAGE - BY SHIFT Q13 66.7% 53.3% Q12 33.3% 44.4% Q11 0.0% 31.1% Q10 100.0% 86.7% Q9 33.3% 77.8% Q8 66.7% 60% Q7 66.7% 68.9% Q6 33.3% 86.7% 66.7% Q5 68.9% Q4 33.3% 77.8% Q3 100.0% 97.8% Q2 33.3% 86.7% Q1 33.3% 86.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% French_Grade 7 Afternoon French_Grade 7 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 92 While Grade 4 afternoon shift math teachers (in English) significantly underperformed their colleagues teaching during the morning shift on around 85 percent of the evaluation questions (figure 5.14), afternoon Grade 7 math teachers (in English) slightly over performed in about half the evaluation questions compared to morning shift teachers (figure 5.15). FIGURE 5.14: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 4 - MATH IN ENGLISH - BY SHIFT 23.1% Q13 38.2% 0% Q12 10.1% 8% Q11 40% 61.5% Q10 76.4% 76.9% Q9 90.9% 61.5% Q8 81.8% 23.1% Q7 36.4% 53.9% Q6 58.2% 38.5% Q5 47.3% 46.2% Q4 58.2% 23.1% Q3 52.7% 61.5% Q2 74.6% 84.6% Q1 81.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Math in English_Grade 4 Afternoon Math in English_Grade 4 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey FIGURE 5.15: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 7 - MATH IN ENGLISH - BY SHIFT 0% Q13 8% 12.5% Q12 14% 12.5% Q11 22% Q10 100% 94% Q9 100% 82% Q8 100% 90% 25% Q7 38% 62.5% Q6 70% Q5 100% 92% Q4 100% 94% 75% Q3 90% Q2 100% 94% 55% Q1 66% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Math in English_Grade 7 Afternoon Math in English_Grade 7 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 93 Grade 4 math teachers (in French), who teach morning shifts show a higher outcome in their evaluation results as compared to afternoon teachers (figure 5.16). Additionally, Grade 7 morning shift teachers scored lower on about 60 percent of the evaluation questions (figure 5.17). FIGURE 5.16: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 4 - MATH IN FRENCH - BY SHIFT Q13 41.7% 22.5% Q12 8.3% 18.4% Q11 16.7% 61.2% 58.3% Q10 63.3% Q9 66.7% 79.6% Q8 83.3% 73.5% 41.7% Q7 55.1% Q6 58.3% 51% 25% Q5 40.8% 50% Q4 55.1% Q3 25% 44.9% 83.3% Q2 91.8% Q1 75% 85.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Math in French_Grade 4 Afternoon Math in French_Grade 4 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey FIGURE 5.17: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION OVERALL SCORE - GRADE 7 - MATH IN FRENCH - BY SHIFT Q13 33.3% 26.1% Q12 33.3% 10.9% Q11 0.0% 32.6% Q10 100.0% 93.5% Q9 100.0% 91.3% Q8 100.0% 89.1% 33.3% Q7 45.7% Q6 33.3% 23.9% Q5 100.0% 98% Q4 66.7% 93.5% Q3 33.3% 89.1% Q2 100.0% 91.3% Q1 100.0% 71.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Math in French_Grade 7 Afternoon Math in French_Grade 7 Morning Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey The overall teacher evaluation results (by school shift) show a pattern similar to the CLASS classroom observation findings where afternoon shift teachers average lower scores across all subjects. This also indicates that lack of adequate content knowledge in accordance to the curriculum, a factor that impacted classroom observation performances. 94 BY TYPE OF SCHOOL Moving on to teacher evaluation test scores across school types, no statistically significant difference can be observed in evaluation scores of teachers who teach language subjects (i.e. Arabic, English, French). Calculating individual teacher’s evaluation score, as figure 5.18 shows, Grade 7 Arabic teachers in fee-based private schools scored slightly lower than their peers in public and free private schools. However, this difference did not appear to be statistically significant. Also, Grade 4 French teachers in fee-based private schools did not score as high as their colleague who teach the same subject and grade in free private and public schools. FIGURE 5.18: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION AVERAGE SCORE - LANGUAGE SUBJECTS - BY SCHOOL TYPE Free Private 57.7% Grade 7 French Fee-Based Private 65.4% Public 66.1% Free Private 68.8% Grade 4 French Fee-Based Private 60.4% Public 69% Free Private 62.1% Grade 7 English Fee-Based Private 58.4% Public 61.5% Free Private 42.8% Grade 4 English Fee-Based Private 53.8% Public 50.8% Free Private 50.7% Grade 7 Arabic Fee-Based Private 43% Public 51.5% Free Private 45% Grade 4 Arabic Fee-Based Private 47.1% Public 48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 95 A different pattern can be observed among math teachers. On average, math teachers in private schools (free and fee-based) performed better than their peers who teach in public schools. While Grade 4 math (in English) teachers in free private schools scored slightly better than their colleagues in other types of schools (figure 5.19), Grade 4 math (in French) teachers in fee-based private schools performed significantly better on their evaluation as compared to their peers who teach in free private and public schools. Although teachers who teach in private schools (free and fee-based) did slightly better on their evaluation scores, as compared to teachers in public schools, the overall CLASS score result doesn’t show a significant difference (figures 3.27 and 3.28) in methods of instruction the teachers implement in their classrooms. Math teachers in both private and public schools use instructional methods that do not challenge students’ cognitive and high-order thinking abilities (figures 3.29 and 3.30). Also, the majority of math teachers in both public and private schools do not use scaffolding techniques when introducing a new math concept. All teachers (in both public and private schools) fall in the mid to mid-low range of CLASS score and learning objectives, which indicates when teachers present lesson materials, they do not maximize student engagement by actively facilitating student participation. FIGURE 5.19: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION AVERAGE SCORE - MATH SUBJECTS - BY SCHOOL TYPES Math in French Free Private 63.3% Grade 7 Fee-Based Private 58.9% Public 64.4% Math in French Free Private 49.8% Grade 4 Fee-Based Private 64.1% Public 49.5% Math in English Free Private 60.9% Grade 7 Fee-Based Private 61.5% Public 58.7% Math in English Free Private 52% Grade 4 Fee-Based Private 46.9% Public 49.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 5.2. CLASS Score vs Evaluation Score In order to better understand whether or not teachers’ instructional practices are directly linked to their evaluation performance, four different evaluation score grouping were selected: (i) teachers who scored <= 25 percent in their test; (ii) teachers who scored more than 25 percent but less than 50 percent; (iii) teachers who scored between 50 and 75 percent; and (iv) teachers who scored above 75 percent. 96 As can be seen in figure 5.20, Grade 7 math (in English) teachers depict a significant difference between the teachers who scored <25 percent in the knowledge evaluation test vs those who scored >75 percent in relation to their CLASS score. The majority of teachers across grades 4 and 7 and subjects (languages and math) do not exhibit a significant difference on their overall CLASS score. Additionally, no significant difference was observed across the CLASS Instructional Support domain and its related/ corresponding dimensions. FIGURE 5.20: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION AVERAGE SCORE VERSUS CLASS OBSERVATION SCORE CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 4 Math in Grade 7 French CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 3.7 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 4 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 4.1 Math in Grade 4 French CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 4.1 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 4.2 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 4.6 Math in Grade 7 English CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4.1 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 3.9 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 3 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 3.9 Math in Grade 4 English CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 4.1 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 3.9 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 3.9 Grade 7 French CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4.2 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 3.9 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 3.9 Grade 4 French CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 3.8 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 3.9 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 4.4 Grade 7 English CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4.2 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 4.4 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 4 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% Grade 4 English CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4.1 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 4.1 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 4.1 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 4.3 Grade 7 Arabic CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4.1 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 4.3 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 4.2 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>75% 4 Grade 4 Arabic CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% 4 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% 4.3 CLASS Score if Evaluation Score<25% 3.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 97 As can be seen in figure 5.21, the instructional support domain across grades 4 and 7 does not show any statistically significant difference in relation to their content knowledge evaluation. Even though the teachers in both grade 4 and 7 who have scored their knowledge evaluation test more than 75 percent, have slightly higher score than teachers with weaker content knowledge (<25 percent score), they still fall into low-mid range of CLASS score. This indicates that the strategies teachers use (regardless of their knowledge) to enhance student’s engagement in instructional content is ineffective. FIGURE 5.21: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION CORRELATION WITH INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DOMAIN VERSUS GRADE Evaluation Score 2.9 >75% 2.5 Evaluation Score 2.8 >50% &<=75% 2.5 Evaluation Score 2.9 >25% &<=50% 2.6 Evaluation Score 2.3 <25% 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Grade 7 Grade 4 Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey Figure 5.22 shows the breakdown of instructional support domain in correlation with teachers’ knowledge evaluation test and subjects. FIGURE 5.22: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION VERSUS SUBJECT-INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DOMAIN Math in French_Grade 7 Math in French_Grade 4 Math in English_Grade 7 Math in English_Grade 4 French_Grade 7 French_Grade 4 English_Grade 7 English_Grade 4 Arabic_Grade 7 Arabic_Grade 4 0 1 2 3 4 Evaluation Score>75% Evaluation Score>50% &<=75% Evaluation Score>25% &<=50% Evaluation Score<25% Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 98 The dimensions within the instructional support domain show a low to low- mid score indicating that most teachers do not encourage students to think, evaluate and/or reflect on their own learning (figure 5.23). Instruction is presented in a rote manner with limited opportunities for students to engage in open-ended tasks and the majority of students are not encouraged by their teachers to continuously apply previous knowledge and skills to new contexts during a lesson. Teachers also make minimal to no effort to increase student involvement in class and only occasionally build on student responses when they ask a question in an effort to expand student understanding and learning. Overall, most teachers sometimes provide positive comments and encouragement in their classrooms. FIGURE 5.23: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION VERSUS GRADE -INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DIMENSIONS Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 7 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 4 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey In terms of teachers’ instructional support dimensions across subjects, it appears that teachers who scored <25 percent in the content knowledge evaluation test, scored lower as compared to teacher who scored higher in their evaluation test, indicating that these teachers do not encourage students to think and reflect on their own learning. For example, grade 4 math (who teach in English) (figure 5.24), grade 7 math (in French) (figure 5.25), grade 7 English teachers (figure 5.26) and grade 7 Arabic teacher (figure 5.28) have all have significantly lower score in Analysis and Inquiry dimension, as compared to teachers who scored higher in the knowledge test; indicating that students are not provided with any opportunity to self-evaluate lesson contents. 99 FIGURE 5.24: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION VERSUS INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DIMENSIONS- MATH IN ENGLISH Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 7 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 4 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey FIGURE 5.25: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION VERSUS INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DIMENSIONS- MATH IN FRENCH Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 7 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 4 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 100 FIGURE 5.26: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION VERSUS INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DIMENSIONS- ENGLISH Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 7 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 4 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey FIGURE 5.27: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION VERSUS INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DIMENSIONS- FRENCH Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 7 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 4 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 101 FIGURE 5.28: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION VERSUS INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT DIMENSIONS- ARABIC Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 7 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% Evaluation Score >75% Evaluation Score Grade 4 >50% &<=75% Evaluation Score >25% &<=50% Evaluation Score <25% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Source: Author calculations; R4R Teacher Evaluation Survey 102 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATION This R4R study employed a multidisciplinary diagnostic system to review the existing teaching practices in Lebanon’s primary and upper-primary education. This diagnostic looked into what’s happening in the classrooms through live observation. Then it assessed teachers’ morale, philosophy, challenges, needs, and wants. The diagnostic also assessed teachers’ instructional readiness and knowledge. By improving the quality of education on a national level, the country can ensure long-term sustainable economic growth as a result of human capital development. This report reveals the following: Overall, even though the government has not made progress in improving quality of public education for Lebanese students over the past 10 years, they have been successful to increase the national capacity to accommodate Syrian refugee students’ surge by introducing afternoon shifts in public schools. The teachers observed directly in the classroom fall within the mid-range of CLASS score, which means they deliver lessons primarily by presenting discrete pieces of information, but higher-order thinking and broad organizing ideas are very rarely encouraged. The majority of the teachers asked for cutting edge instructional methods as professional development opportunities and specifically emphasized their need to learn how to implement ICT using 21st century technology in their everyday teaching. Policy Options 1- Basic education in Lebanon would benefit from reforms to provide equitable, high quality learning opportunities for all students, regardless of school shift or type Even though teachers in private schools (free and fee- based) performed slightly better during live classroom observation, the scores for each CLASS domain still fall in the medium range of this observation tool. Accordingly, policy options should focus on significant improvement in quality of teaching practices, and on methods to achieve a more equitable distribution of teaching resources among the various school types. 2- Frequent professional development opportunities could be introduced to teachers with constant follow-up This study reveals that teachers could benefit from ongoing professional development opportunities. During post-observation interview teachers asked to be provided with professional development courses that replicate classroom environments. Accordingly, it may be difficult for 103 teachers to implement what they’ve learned in training in their classrooms when they are unable to adjust the new techniques to their classroom environment. Within high-quality studies of pedagogical interventions, those interventions that employ adaptive instruction and teacher coaching techniques are particularly effective (Evans and Popova 2016). For instance, pedagogical interventions in Africa (defined as those that change instructional techniques) were found to be more effective at improving student learning than all other types of interventions combined (Conn 2014). In Kenya students were assigned to classes on the basis of initial preparedness so that teachers could focus instruction at the level of learning of the students (Kremer and others 2011). This increased test scores at all levels of initial preparedness (by 0.17 standard deviations in language and 0.16 standard deviations in math). This grouping program was particularly effective for low-performing students, and improved their performance by 0.16 standard deviations with results carrying over into the next school year after the program had stopped. Giving students in India a brief assessment of basic language skills at the start of the academic year and then setting aside a portion of the school day to teach students in groups according to ability level, independent of grade or age, improved both oral and written language test scores, by 0.15 standard deviations and 0.14 standard deviations, respectively (Duflo et al. 2015). 3- Detailed support tailored to the skill levels of teachers can also be effective. An Indian program giving teachers diagnostic training that provides detailed guidance on what and how teachers should teach has proven to be effective in enhancing the skills of low-performing students. For instance, a scripted literacy program in Mumbai that provided storybooks, flashcards, and a child library, as well as instructions for teachers specifying the activities in which these should be used and when, had positive effects on child literacy (Murnane and Ganimian 2014). This highlights the fact that impactful improvements in student learning produced by appropriate teacher training may be in part driven by a large degree of overlap with other interventions because many of the successful instructional interventions are shown to be coupled with teacher training in how to employ the new method in the classroom (McEwan 2015). For instance, the intervention providing flashcards to teach children English in India improved test scores much more when it was implemented through a teacher-training program than when it was introduced externally without preparing teachers (Evans and Popova 2016). 4 - Relationships between parents, school, teachers and community could be strengthened, and engagement agendas should be created to shift culture toward promoting parental involvement and shared responsibility to improve learning instead of just holding schools accountable. For instance, schools could provide families with information related to creating a supportive learning environment at home and establish effective school-to-home and home- to-school communication. 5- The Lebanese education system could be strengthened to better integrate and coordinate between its various functions to enhance teacher training and ongoing support. Specifically, efforts might be further coordinated to prioritize teacher support interventions (including improvement plans), and ongoing professional development cycles, coaching and mentoring. Providing teachers with specific training and professional development opportunities will likely improve the quality of their instruction and therefore student learning outcomes. Even though most of the observed teachers showed a moderate level of knowledge in the curriculum content they are teaching, instruction itself seems to be a mechanical process that does not enable students to fully participate in classroom activities. Teachers are not facilitating higher-order thinking in their classrooms and many activities and exercises are based on memorization. Opportunities for students to engage in novel, open-ended tasks which give them a certain degree of autonomy appears to be rare or non-existent in Lebanese classrooms. In the vast majority of observed classes, teachers are lecturing to passively engaged students. Teachers’ 104 feedback in most lessons is given in the form of “correct/incorrect” and teachers do not attempt to scaffold student learning by offering students the opportunity to engage with curricular content independently or in small groups. 6- Teachers’ mastery of pedagogical concepts: There is a misalignment between lesson preparation and what teachers actually teach. While many (40 percent) teachers appeared to be unprepared, those that used lesson plans (60 percent) as a pedagogical guiding tool often lacked necessary practices in the plan to implement in classrooms. The percentage of teachers (30-40 percent) who had a well-written lesson plan rarely practiced it in class. Long-term peer coaching and in-classroom training programs could be initiated for in-service teachers to help them write lesson plans that can be effectively used in the classroom. 7- National curriculum and skills needs to be aligned with the Lebanese economy’s needs. While most teachers report that they are unable to cover all curricular contents over the course of the school year, the curriculum does not appear to leave room for students to think outside the box and gain knowledge and skills beyond what is in textbooks. This is also confirmed by Lebanon’s poor PISA and TIMSS results.8 Student-centered teaching methods and active learning and collaboration of students are not commonly practiced in Lebanese classrooms. 8 In 2018, the Lebanese average was 393 on mathematics, 353 on reading and 384 on science. In comparison, OECD averages were 487 on math, 489 on reading and 489 on science – over 100 points higher on nearly all three tested subject areas. 105 REFERENCES Abdul Hamid, Hussein and Mohamad Yassine 2020. Political Economy of Education in Lebanon, Research for Results. World Bank Group, Washington DC. Abry, Tashia, Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman, Ross A. Larsen and Alexis J. Brewer. 2013. The Influence of Fidelity of Implementation on Teacher–Student Interaction Quality in the Context of A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Responsive Classroom Approach. Journal of School Psychology 51(4): 437–453.  Allen, Joseph P., Robert C. Pianta, Anne Gregory, Amori Yee Mikami, and Janette Lun. 2011. An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement. Science 333: 1034-1037. Andrade, Heidi L., and Gregory Cizek. 2010. Handbook of Formative Assessment. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Ausubel, David P. 1960. The Use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of Meaningful Verbal Material. Journal of Educational Psychology 51 (5): 267–272. Belfield, Clive R. Milagros Nores, W. Steven Barnett, and Lawrence Schweinhart. 2006. The High/ Scope Perry Preschool Program: Cost–Benefit Analysis Using Data from the Age-40 Follow Up . Journal of Human Resources 41 (1): 162–190. Béteille, Tara and David K.Evans. 2019. Successful Teachers, Successful Students: recruiting and Supporting Society’s Most Crucial Profession. World Bank: Washington DC. Bransford, John D., Anne L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Brown, Gavin T. L., and Lois R. Harris. 2014. The Future of Self-Assessment in Classroom Practice: Reframing Self-Assessment as a Core Competency. Frontline Learning Research 2(1): 22-30. Bruns, Barbara, and Javier Luque. 2015. Great Teachers: How to Raise Student Learning in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Group. Bryk, Anthony, Valerie Lee, and Peter Holland. 1993. Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cadima, Joana, Robin Mcwilliam, and Teresa Leal. 2010. Environmental Risk Factors and Children’s Literacy Skills during the Transition to Elementary School. International Journal of Behavioral Development 34(1): 24–33. Bruns, Barbara, Soledad De Gregario, and Sandy Taut. 2016. RISE Working Paper 16/009— Measures of Effective Teaching in Developing Countries, September, 2016 Coflan, Andrew Moore; Andrew B. Ragatz, Amer Hasan, and Yilin Pan. 2018. Understanding effective teaching practices in Chinese classrooms: evidence from a pilot study of primary and junior secondary schools in Guangdong, China (English). Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 8396. Washington, D.C., World Bank Group. Conn, Katharine M.. 2014. Identifying Effective Education Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis of Rigorous Impact Evaluations. Columbia University, New York. Cothran, Donetta, Pamela Kulinna, and Deborah Garrahy. 2003. This is Kind of Giving a Secret Away: Students’ Perspectives on Effective Class Management. Teaching and Teacher Education 19: 435-444. 106 Crosnoe Robert, Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, Glen H. Elder. 2004. Intergenerational Bonding in School: The Behavioral and Contextual Correlates of Student-Teacher Relationships. Sociology of Education 77(1): 60-81. Cortina, Kai S., Kevin F. Miller, Ryan McKenzie, Alanna Epstein. 2015. Where Low and High Inference Data Converge: Validation of CLASS Assessment of Mathematics Instruction Using Mobile Eye Tracking with Expert and Novice Teachers. International Journal of Science and Math Education 13: 389– 403. Curby, Timothy W., Jennifer Lo Casale-Crouch., Timothy R. Konold, Robert C. Pianta, Carollee Howes, Burchinal, M., et al. 2009. The relations of observed pre-k classroom quality profiles to children’s academic achievement and social competence. Early Education and Development 20: 346 –372. Curby Timothy W., Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman, and Tashia Abry. 2013. Do Emotional Support and Classroom Organization Earlier in the Year Set the Stage for Higher Quality Instruction? Journal of School Psychology 51(5): 557–569. Darling-Hammond, Linda, Stephen P. Newton, and Ruth Chung Wei. 2013. Developing and Assessing Beginning Teacher Effectiveness: The Potential of Performance Assessments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 25 (3): 179–204. Duflo, Esther , James Berry, Shobhini Mukerji, and Marc Shotland. 2015. A Wide Angle View of Learning Evaluation of the CCE and LEP Programmes in Haryana, India. 3ie Impact Evaluation Report 22. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Washington, DC. Eccles, 2004. Schools, Academic Motivation, and Stage-Environment Fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook Of Adolescent Psychology: 125–153. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Emmer, Edmund, and Laura Stough. 2001. Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational Psychology, with Implications for Teacher Education. Educational Psychologist 36: 103–112. Evans Carol. 2013. Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research 83(1): 70-120. Evans, David K.; and Anna Popova. 2016. What Really Works to Improve Learning in Developing Countries?: An Analysis of Divergent Findings in Systematic Reviews. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the World Bank. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank. org/handle/10986/29308 Evans, David K. and Anna Popova, 2017. Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods, Economic Development and Cultural Change 65 (2): 189-221. Gentry, Marcia, Robert K. Gable, and Mary G. Rizza. 2002. Students’ Perceptions of Classroom Activities: Are There Grade-Level and Gender Differences? Journal of Educational Psychology 94(3): 539–544. Gilman, Rich, and Eric Anderman. 2006. Motivation and its Relevance to School Psychology: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of School Psychology 44: 325-329. Greenberg, Mark T., Roger P. Weissberg, Mary Utane O’Brien., Joseph E. Zins, Linda Fredericks, Resnik, and Maurice J. Elias. . 2003. Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning. American Psychologist 58(6-7): 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466 Goe, Laura, Kietha Biggers, and Andrew Croft 2012. Linking teacher evaluation to professional development: Focusing on improving teaching and learning (Research & Policy Brief ). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from www. tqsource.org/publications/ LinkingTeacherEval.pdf 107 Ha Dinh, Thi Thuy, Ann Bonner, Robyn Clark, Joanne Ramsbotham, and Sonia Hines. 2016. The Effectiveness of the Teach-Back Method on Adherence and Self-Management in Health Education for People with Chronic Disease: a Systematic Review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 14(1): 210-247. Hafen, Christopher A., Joseph P. Allen Amore Yii Mikami, Anne Gregory, Bridget Hamre B., and Robert C. Pianta. 2012. The Pivotal Role of Adolescent Autonomy in Secondary School Classrooms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41: 245-255. Hamre, Bridget, and Robert C. Pianta. 2005. Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First Grade Classroom Make a Difference for Children at Risk for School Failure? Child Development 76 949 –967. Hamre, Bridget K. Robert C. Pianta, R. C., Andrew J. Mashburn, and Jason T. Downer. 2007. Building A Science of Classrooms: Application of the CLASS Framework in Over 4,000 U.S. Early Childhood and Elementary Classrooms. Retrieved from https://www.fcd-us.org/building-a-science-of- classrooms-application-of-the-class-framework-in-over-4000-u-s-early-childhood-and- elementary-classrooms/ Hamre, Bridget K., Bridget Hatfield, Robert C. Pianta, Faiza Jamil. 2014. Evidence for General and Domain-Specific Elements of Teacher-Child Interactions: Associations with Preschool Children’s Development. Child Development 85: 1257– 1274. Harold, Wenglinsky. 200). The Link Between Teacher Classroom Practices and Student Academic Performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10. Hoglund, Wendy L. G. Wendy L. G. Klingle, and Naheed E. Hosan. 2015. Classroom Risks and Resources: Teacher Burnout, Classroom Quality and Children’s Adjustment in High Needs Elementary Schools. Journal of School Psychology 53 : 337–357. Human Rights Watch interview with education expert from international NGO, Beirut, May 11, 2018. Kremer, Michael, Esther Duflo, and Pascaline Dupas. 2011. Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking. American Economic Review 101: 1739–74. Lu, Meichen, Prashant Loyalka, Yaojiang Shi, Chang, Chengfang Liu, and Scott Rozelle. 2017. The Impact of Teacher Professional Development Programs on Student Achievement in Rural China. Malmberg, Lars-Erik, and Hazel Hagger. 2009. Changes in Student Teachers’ Agency Beliefs during a Teacher Education Year, and Relationships with Observed Classroom Quality, and Day- to-Day Experiences. British Journal of Educational Psychology 79(4): 677–694. Martínez-Rizo, Felipe. 2012. Procedures for Study of Teaching Practices. Literature review. Relieve 18(1,). http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_1eng.htm Marzano, Robert J., Debra J. Pickering, and Jane E. Pollock. 2001. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA. Marzano, Robert J. 2004. Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement: Research on What Works in Schools. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA. McEwan, Patrick J.. 2015. Improving Learning in Primary Schools of Developing Countries: A Meta Analysis of Randomized Experiments.” Review of Educational Research 85: 353–94. 108 Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. 2012. Gathering Feedback for Teaching Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. 2010. Learning about Teaching, Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Milanowski Anthony. 2011. Strategic Measures of Teacher Performance. Phi Delta Kappan 92(7): 19-25. Ministry of Education and Higher Education. 2016. Reaching All Children with Education: RACE II (2017-2021). Retrieved from http://www.mehe.gov.lb/uploads/file/2016/Oct/RACE%20 II_FINAL%20Narrative_29AUG2016.pdf Murnane, Richard, and Alejandro J. Ganimian. 2014. Improving Educational Outcomes in Developing Countries: Lessons from Rigorous Evaluations.” Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Murphy, Daniel. 2016. A Literature Review: The Effect of Implementing Technology in A High School Mathematics Classroom. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES) 2(2): 295-299. National Research Council. 2004. Engaging Schools: Fostering High School Students’ Motivation to Learn. Nold, Herbert.2017. Using Critical Thinking Teaching Methods to Increase Student Success: An Action Research Project. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 29 (1): 17-32. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2019. Lebanon Country Note: PISA 2018 Results.” Paris: OECD. O’Connor, Erin, and Kathleen McCartney. 2007. Examining Teacher–Child Relationships and Achievement as Part of an Ecological Model of Development. American Educational Research Journal 44: 340-369. Ovando, Martha. 2005. Building Instructional Leaders’ Capacity to Deliver Constructive Feedback to Teachers. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 18:171-183. Pakarinen, Eija, Noona Kiuru, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Anna-Maija Poikkeus, Martii Siekkinen, and Jari-Erik Nurmi. 2010. Classroom Organization and Teacher Stress Predict Learning Motivation in Kindergarten Children. European Journal of Psychology of Education 25(3): 281–300. Pianta, Robert C., Karen M. La Paro, and Bridget K. Hamre. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing. Pianta, Robert C., and Bridget K. Hamre. 2009. Conceptualization, Measurement, and Improvement of Classroom Processes: Standard Observation can Leverage Capacity. Educational Researcher 38(2): 109-119. Pianta, Robert C., Bridget K. Hamre, and Susan L. Mintz. 2010. Classroom Assessment Scoring System–Secondary (CLASS-S). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Pianta, Robert C. Bridget K. Hamre, and Susan L. Mintz. 2012. The CLASS-Secondary Manual. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. 109 Richards Jack C. 2013 Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward Design. RELC Journal 44(1): 5–33. Richards, Jack C., and Thomas S. C. Farrell 2011. Practice Teaching: A Reflective Approach (Cambridge Teacher Training and Development). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roeser, Robert W., Jacquelynne S. Eccles, and Arnold J. Sameroff. 1998. Academic and Emotional Functioning in Early Adolescence: Longitudinal Relations, Patterns, and Prediction by Experience in Middle School. Development and Psychopathology 10(2): 321–352. Roeser, Robert, Jacquelynne S. Eccles, and Karen Strobel. 1998. Linking the Study of Schooling and Mental Health: Selected Issues and Empirical Illustrations at the Level of the Individual. Educational Psychologist 33: 153-176. Rockoff, Jonah, and Cecilia Speroni. 2011. Subjective and Objective Evaluations of Teacher Effectiveness: Evidence from New York City. Labour Economics 18: 687-696. Rosenshine, Barak. 1995. Advances in Research on Instruction. The Journal of Educational Research 88(5): 262–268. Ring Hannah Reeves, Amy R. West. 2015. Teacher retention in refugee and emergency settings: The state of the literature. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives 14(3): 106-121. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Teacher- Retention-inRefugee-and-Emergency-Settings-Literature-Review-December-2015.pdf Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2007. Active Human Nature: Self-Determination Theory and the Promotion and Maintenance of Sport, Exercise, and Health. In Martin S. Hagger and Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Exercise and Sport: 1-19. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Trinter Christine, Heather Carlson-Jaquez. 2016. An Examination of the Nature of Post- Observation Feedback Provided to Middle School Mathematics Teachers. Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC) publications. Skinner, Ellen A., Melannie J. Zimmer-Gembeck, and James P. Connell. 1998. Individual Differences and the Development of Perceived Control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63(2-3): v–220. Swanson, H. Lee, Maureen Hoskyn, and Carole Lee. 1999. Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Guilford Press. UNICEF, “Syria Crisis Humanitarian Situation Report – October 2018. Wang, Margaret C., Geneva D. Haertel, and Herbert J. Walberg. 1993. Synthesis of Research: What Helps Students Learn? Educational Leadership 51: 74-79. Wang, Margaret C., Geneva D. Haertel, and Herbert J. Walberg. 1993. Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research 63(3): 249–294. Weinstein, Jeremy M., 2007. Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. World Bank. 2019. Lebanon PISA 2018. World Bank: Washington, DC. Zins, Joseph, Michelle Bloodworth Roger Weissberg and Herbert Walberg. 2007. The Scientific Base Linking Social and Emotional Learning to School Success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 17:191-210. 110 ANNEX A: SCORING WITH CLASS INSTRUMENT The CLASS tool for upper elementary and secondary classrooms requires the observers to make standardized, structured judgments and assign a numeric score on a 1-7 Likert scale using the CLASS manual. Ratings from the CLASS measure provide important descriptive information about the current status of upper elementary and secondary classrooms and also have a predictive value in academic and social outcomes for students (MET, 2012). The observation time requires the observer to watch, without interruption, activities in the classroom for a period of 15-20 minutes (it is called 1 cycle/ segment). The scoring should be completed immediately after each segment of observation in a classroom using a scoring sheet. During this time the observer will be watching the ‘who, what, how’ of everything that is happening at the classroom level, with particular attention to the teachers’ instructional interactions and behaviors. In each dimension the observer looks for the presence of specific indicators, each characterized by the presence of a variety of behavioral markers as expressed by the teacher and student, grouped in three ranges: a score of 1 or 2 (the low range); a score of 3, 4 or 5; and a score of 6 or 7 (the high range). Quality and depth of indicators is also taken into account when judging scores (Coflan and others, 2018). Observers review the descriptions in each dimension and make judgments based on the following (table A.1). 111 TABLE A.1: CLASS SCALE SCORING The low-range description fits the classroom/teacher very well. All, or 1 almost all, relevant indicators in the low range are present. Low Range The low range description mostly fits the classroom/teacher but there 2 are one or two indicators that are in the mid-range. The mid-range description mostly fits the classroom/teacher but there 3 are one or two indicators in the low range. The mid-range description fits the classroom/teacher very well. All, or Mid-Range 4 almost all, relevant indicators in the mid-range are present. The mid-range description mostly fits the classroom/teacher but there 5 are one or two indicators in the high range. The high-range description mostly fits the classroom/teacher but 6 there are one or two indicators in the mid-range. High Range The high-range description fits the classroom/teacher very well. All, or 7 almost all, relevant indicators in the high range are present. Source: Upper Elementary CLASS Manual, page 12. Used with permission of Teachstone. The Upper Elementary CLASS dimensions are intended to reflect the value of the classroom environment for all students in the class, or in other words, the typical or average student in the class. They do not target a single student, nor do they target only a single adult. It is important to note that the CLASS measure is not a checklist and the observers view the dimensions as holistic descriptions of classrooms that fall in the low, mid, or high range. 112 ANNEX B: THE VALIDITY OF CLASS INSTRUMENT MEASURE & TEST OF RELIABILITY The CLASS measure was developed based on an extensive literature review on classroom practices shown to relate to upper elementary and secondary students’ social and academic development. The dimensions were derived based on a review of constructs assessed in classroom observation instruments used in school research, literature on effective teaching practices, focus groups, and extensive piloting. Throughout this process, numerous experts in classroom quality and teaching effectiveness have agreed that the CLASS measures aspects of the classroom that are of importance in determining student performance, suggesting considerable face and construct validity. Criterion validity assesses the extent to which a measure is associated empirically with other measures of similar constructs. The MET (Measure of Effective Teaching) study (2012) examined associations between the CLASS measure and various other measures of classrooms (table B.1). The analysis indicated that the CLASS instrument was designed to assess classroom-level processes directly associated with student performance. Additionally, teachers who demonstrate the types of practices emphasized in the CLASS measure had higher value-added scores than teachers who did not (figure B.1). The figure depicts the average value-added scores (y-axis), expressed in estimated months of student schooling gained or lost relative to the average teacher, for teachers at different percentile rankings of CLASS scores (x-axis). The results demonstrate that as teachers’ CLASS scores increase, so do their value-added scores (as measured by student schooling gained or lost). FIGURE B.1: ESTIMATED TEACHER VALUE-ADDED SCORES BY CLASS PERCENTILE RANK 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 20 40 60 80 100 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 State Math Tests State ELA Tests Balanced Math Assessment SAT9 Reading Test Source: Upper Elementary CLASS Manual. Used with permission of Teachstone. 113 TABLE B.1: COMPARISON OF DOMAIN COMPETENCIES OF OBSERVATION INSTRUMENTS Emotional Support Classroom Organization Regard for student Behavior Positive climate Teacher sensitivity Productivity Negative climate Cross subject perspectives management CLASS Instructional Support Student Engagement Instructional Quality Analysis Content Instructional learning of and Student Engagement understanding dialogue formats feedback Inquiry Classroom Environment Framework for Creating an environment of Managing classroom Cross subject Establishing a culture of learning Managing student behavior Teaching respect and rapport procedures Instruction Using questioning and discussion Using assessments in Communicating with students Engaging students in learning techniques instruction PLATO Prime Behavior Management Time Management Explicit Strategy use and instruction ELA specific Modeling Classroom Discourse Intellectual Challenge Classroom Work Connected to Math Richness of Mathematics Working with Students and Mathematics MQI Lite specific Math Student Participation in Meaning Making and Explicitness and Thoroughness in Errors and Imprecision Reasoning Content Presentation Classroom Environment Intellectual Attention to Student generation Collegiality among Majority of students Classroom engagement with key access, equity, and of ideas/questions students on-task Management ideas diversity Lesson Structure Math and science specific Critical and Structures for student Investigation/problem based Lesson organization Appropriate resources reflective on engagement approach UTOP practice Mathematics Content Use of Teacher Accuracy of Connections to Relevance to Significance of Explicitness of abstraction knowledge and teacher written other disciplines/ history, current content importance and fluency content math areas events representation Implementation Questioning strategies Use of formative assessments Involvement of all students Allocation of time Source: MET study, 2012 114 BOX B.1: EVIDENCE OF MEASURING EFFECTIVE - TEACHING PRACTICES USING CLASS INSTRUMENT (UNITED STATES) Measuring classroom interaction in the United States (US) shows compelling evidence that those teachers who use effective teaching practices in their classrooms have students who make greater academic and social progress. Consistent research suggests that to improve students’ academic achievement and social skills development, we need to focus on the nature and quality of teacher-student interactions. When we identify and measure effective interactions, we can then create opportunities to promote them through teacher education, professional development, monitoring, and evaluation. This will, in turn, lead to enhanced outcomes for students and teachers. Students will learn more and teachers will become more effective (University of Virginia website). In the US, a typical school day for some students includes spending most of their time engaged in productive instructional activities with caring and responsive adults who consistently provide feedback and challenge students to think critically. Yet for others, even in the same grade and same school, a typical day consists of spending most of the time sitting around, watching the teacher deal with behavioral problems, and engaging in boring, rote instructional activities such as completing worksheets and taking spelling tests. Students in classrooms with higher CLASS ratings are proven to make greater gains in achievement and social skills development. Evidence suggests that high levels of emotional support are associated with growth in reading and math achievement from kindergarten through fifth grade. Research conducted in over 6,000 upper elementary classrooms suggests that on average in the US, students are exposed to moderate levels of social and organizational support in their elementary classrooms but quite low levels of instructional support (figure B.2). The following figure illustrates that across several thousand classrooms observed throughout the country, students tend to experience moderate to high levels of effective interactions for emotional support and classroom organization. However, most students attend classrooms characterized by very low levels of instructional support. FIGURE B.2: ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATION LINK IMPROVEMENTS TO POSITIVE OUTCOMES FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS Source: CLASS Teachstone (2012) 115 ANNEX B: TEST OF RELIABILITY - R4R STUDY The internal consistency of the CLASS measure in the R4R study was tested by the following tests: 1. Correlations among CLASS dimensions in Grade 4, Grade 7 and overall; and 2. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the CLASS dimensions and three domains. Correlation Analysis The correlation analysis shows significant and high internal consistency of results. In Grade 4 classrooms, teacher sensitivity is highly correlated with positive climate (0.80). Quality of feedback is highly correlated with content understanding (0.77) (table B.2). In Grade 7 classrooms, analysis and inquiry is highly correlated with regards for student perspective (0.70) (table B.3). In the overall correlation analysis, the instructional learning format is highly correlated with teacher sensitivity (0.69) (table B.4) BOX B.2: HIGH RELIABILITY OF CLASS MEASURE REQUIRES HIGH DEGREE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE Maximizing the number of observations will increase reliability of CLASS measures on live observations. The following general guideline needs to be followed before beginning live classroom observations: 1. Recruiting/selecting Observers: Generally, the minimum requirement for observers to be chosen is those individuals with teaching experience and at least a bachelor’s degree as their minimum education level. 2. Observers’ Training: Observers need to be trained and expected to demonstrate their ability to use the CLASS observation tool with a high degree of reliability before beginning live classroom observations. The training includes discussion of the instrument, and its performance level as well as video examples of teaching practices and their corresponding levels of performance. Also, in every training the observers practice scoring videos with the CLASS tool, receive feedback from trainer(s), and learn how to minimize their rating biases. 3. Observers’ Certification: Good training is necessary but insufficient to ensure accuracy for CLASS live observations. At the end of training, the observers are required to assess and rate number of pre-scored videos and achieve minimum score level as compared to an expert score. The minimum score required to pass CLASS is an 80 percent reliability rate. 4. Recertification: Those observers who fail the certification test after the first attempt are asked to take the test again. And those who failed the certification exam after the second attempt are deemed ineligible to score with CLASS observation measure. 116 FIGURE B.2: ENSURING ACCURACY OF OBSERVERS Source: Adopted from MET Research Paper Report (2012) TABLE B.2: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CLASS DIMENSIONS – GRADE 4 Grade 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.Positive Climate 2.Teacher 0.80* Sensitivity 3.Regard 0.48* 0.49* for Student Perspectives 4.Behavior 0.58* 0.58* 0.25* Management 5.Productivity 0.64* 0.68* 0.29* 0.69* 6.Negative Climate -0.49* -0.41* -0.21* -0.49* -0.40* 7.Instructional 0.59* 0.68* 0.38* 0.45* 0.69* 0.24* Learning Formats 8.Content 0.51* 0.59* 0.46* 0.42* 0.62* 0.16* 0.73* Understanding 9.Analysis and 0.36* 0.41* 0.65* 0.20* 0.26* 0.09* 0.39* 0.60* Inquiry 10.Quality of 0.53* 0.57* 0.58* 0.40* 0.54* 0.14* 0.65* 0.77* 0.66* Feedback 11.Instructional 0.50* 0.53* 0.48* 0.38* 0.54* 0.15* 0.56* 0.69* 0.64* 0.74* Dialogue 12.Student 0.64* 0.64* 0.44* 0.56* 0.58* 0.29* 0.67* 0.56* 0.40* 0.56* 0.52* Engagement Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations 117 TABLE B.3: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CLASS DIMENSIONS – GRADE 7 Grade 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.Positive Climate 2.Teacher 0.75* Sensitivity 3.Regard 0.53* 0.54* for Student Perspectives 4.Behavior 0.46* 0.50* 0.19* Management 5.Productivity 0.53* 0.63* 0.24* 0.75* 6.Negative Climate -0.42* -0.30* -0.20* -0.39* -0.34* 7.Instructional 0.56* 0.68* 0.44* 0.42* 0.60* 0.25* Learning Formats 8.Content 0.45* 0.54* 0.53* 0.42* 0.56* 0.23* 0.71* Understanding 9.Analysis and 0.40* 0.42* 0.70* 0.16* 0.24* 0.10* 0.38* 0.59* Inquiry 10.Quality of 0.50* 0.56* 0.66* 0.34* 0.43* 0.14* 0.59* 0.75* 0.70* Feedback 11.Instructional 0.48* 0.52* 0.51* 0.28* 0.45* 0.14* 0.50* 0.65* 0.63* 0.76* Dialogue 12.Student 0.64* 0.64* 0.48* 0.41* 0.46* 0.25* 0.63* 0.48* 0.39* 0.54* 0.49* Engagement Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations TABLE B.4: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CLASS DIMENSIONS – OVERALL (GRADES 4 AND 7) Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.Positive Climate 2.Teacher 0.78* Sensitivity 3.Regard 0.46* 0.48* for Student Perspectives 4.Behavior 0.51* 0.53* 0.19* Management 5.Productivity 0.58* 0.65* 0.23* 0.71* 6.Negative Climate -0.43* -0.35* -0.15* -0.42* -0.36* 7.Instructional 0.59 0.69* 0.36* 0.39* 0.63* 0.22* Learning Formats 8.Content 0.48* 0.57* 0.49* 0.39* 0.57* 0.15* 0.71* Understanding 9.Analysis and 0.37* 0.40* 0.69* 0.14* 0.22* 0.07* 0.35* 0.59* Inquiry 10.Quality of 0.49* 0.56* 0.63* 0.35* 0.48* 0.09* 0.62* 0.76* 0.67* Feedback 11.Instructional 0.47* 0.51* 0.49* 0.29* 0.45* 0.11* 0.51* 0.67* 0.65* 0.76* Dialogue 12.Student 0.63* 0.65* 0.44* 0.47* 0.50* 0.24* 0.64* 0.51* 0.38* 0.53* 0.47* Engagement Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations 118 Cronbach’s Alpha The Cronbach’s alpha for Lebanon is reliably high, indicating high consistency of dimensions. The overall coefficient is 0.91 (table B.5). Table B.6 shows the alpha coefficients across domains. While the overall coefficient is still good, it is not as high as the coefficients between dimensions. TABLE B.5: CRONBACH’S ALPHA – CLASS DIMENSIONS Overall Cronbach’s Alpha 1.Positive Climate 0.9036 2.Teacher Sensitivity 0.9009 3.Regard for Student Perspectives 0.9105 4.Behavior Management 0.9122 5.Productivity 0.9059 6.Negative Climate 0.9217 7.Instructional Learning Formats 0.9039 8.Content Understanding 0.9028 9.Analysis and Inquiry 0.9113 10.Quality of Feedback 0.9025 11.Instructional Dialogue 0.9062 12.Student Engagement 0.9056 Overall 0.9145 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations TABLE B.6: CRONBACH’S ALPHA – CLASS DOMAINS Overall Cronbach’s Alpha Emotional Support 0.6388 Classroom Organization 0.8413 Instructional Support 0.7585 Overall 0.8195 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations 119 ANNEX C: BOX C.1: DETAILS ON CLASS INTERNATIONAL SAMPLE United States: Around 1,333 English language arts teachers and 1,000 mathematics teachers in grades 4 through 8 have been observed and the quality of their lessons were scored using the CLASS methodology. Each teacher was observed at least three times, with the total the number of 7491 lessons rated with the CLASS measure. (2012) Finland: Trained observers coded classroom interactions based on video recordings of 46 Grade 6 classrooms (450 cycles) (2017). Germany: 61 language classrooms with a total sample of 390 primary school students were observed with CLASS (2016). German classrooms scored very low on Instructional Support as compared to the Finnish (above). Chile: A subsample of 137 schools participated in the CLASS experiment. Assessed teachers primarily taught Grade 4 languages. A total of 185 classes (teachers) were observed for four lessons of 60 minutes each. Each of the four hours per teacher was divided into 15-minute segments and one segment per hour was coded (for a total of 760 segments). The study found stronger gains in children’s language, and academic skills in classrooms in which the teacher consistently provided higher emotional, organizational, and instructional support. (2016) China: The China CLASS assessment study took place in Guangdong province, on the nation’s southern coast. Stratified random sampling was used to select a total of 180 schools from three municipalities. The three selected municipalities were characterized by the Guangdong provincial government as advanced, average, and below average, respectively, in terms of their economic development. In each school, one primary school teacher was observed. (2016) FIGURE C.1: CLASS DIMENSION - 75 PERCENTILE, GRADE 4 - MORNING SHIFT Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations 120 FIGURE C.2: CLASS DIMENSION - 75 PERCENTILE, GRADE 4 -AFTERNOON SHIFT Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations FIGURE C.3: CLASS DIMENSION - 25 PERCENTILE, GRADE 4 -MORNING SHIFT Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations 121 FIGURE C.4: CLASS DIMENSION - 25 PERCENTILE, GRADE 4 -AFTERNOON SHIFT Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations FIGURE C.5: CLASS DIMENSION - 75 PERCENTILE, GRADE 7 - MORNING SHIFT Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations 122 FIGURE C.6: CLASS DIMENSION - 75 PERCENTILE, GRADE 7 - AFTERNOON SHIFT Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations FIGURE C.7: CLASS DIMENSION - 25 PERCENTILE GRADE 7 - MORNING SHIFT Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations 123 FIGURE C.8: CLASS DIMENSION - 25 PERCENTILE, GRADE 7 - AFTERNOON SHIFT Instructional Dialogue Quality of Feedback Analysis and Inquiry Content Understanding Instructional Learning Format Negative Climate Productivity Behavior Management Regards for Student Perspective Teacher Sensitivity Positve Climate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Source: Authors’ calculations; Lebanon class observations 124 ANNEX D: BOX D.1: WHAT IS A LESSON PLAN? A lesson plan is a teacher’s detailed description of the course of instruction or “learning trajectory” for a lesson. The lesson plan correlates with the teacher’s philosophy of education, which is what the teacher feels is the purpose of educating the students. A daily lesson plan is developed by a teacher to guide class learning and to efficiently run a particular lesson. Planning a lesson in advance will save time in the future. Lesson planning also serves as a guideline tool for teachers who teach multiple classes of the same grade and provides them with a unified structured direction of what has/hasn’t been covered in a certain classroom/ lesson according to their written plan. A well-developed lesson plan reflects the interests and needs of students. Proper classroom planning will keep teachers organized and on track and help students reach their objectives more easily. Classroom disruptions are minimized, stress on teachers is reduced and the learning environment is optimized for students. In addition, lesson plans can serve as evidence of a teacher’s professional performance. If a supervisor wants to know what was done in class two weeks ago, the teacher only has to refer to that day’s lesson plan. Every teacher has a different style in preparing their lesson plan, however all lesson plans must include the following basic aspects: ƒ Lesson Objectives: The teacher can begin the lesson by giving students an overview of the day’s lesson, and the purpose and plan behind the day’s activities. ƒ Introductory/warm-up learning activities: The lesson can start by either reviewing materials from a previous lesson or a brief activity that generates a positive classroom environment ƒ Core learning activities: The main focus of the lesson around which most activities will take place. This component mostly focuses on planning procedure for delivering lesson instructions. It can have many subsections as the teacher answers ‘How will I teach the lesson today?’ Activities can include using the textbook, group activities, lab experiments, etc. ƒ Optional learning activity: These are the types of activities the teacher hopes to do in the classroom if she/he had extra time. It can include giving students’ extra in-class assignment, exercises, etc. ƒ Assessing students: In order to check students’ knowledge and understanding after learning activities, it is important that the teacher have some pre-planned questions to ask. The teacher can check understanding orally or in writing. ƒ Materials needed for the lesson: It is very important for the teacher to have prepared the materials he/she is going to use during the lesson. For example, photocopying/printing lesson materials, quizzes, homework, in class assignments, etc. Source: Richards, 2013; Reed & Michaud, 2010 125 ANNEX E: Sample Language Teacher Evaluation Test (English Grade 4) PART I: MARK A STUDENT TEST Below is a test paper from a Grade 4 school pupil. Please mark with an X the answers either “correct” or “incorrect .” For those answers that are incorrect, you must write the correct answer in the space provided. TEXT 1 Read the text and then answer the questions 1 to 5. A dove was sitting on the branch of a tree when an ant came to the riverbank to drink water. While making its way to the river, a gust of wind blew the ant into the water. “Help!” cried the ant. Hearing the cry of the struggling ant, the dove grabbed a leaf in its beak and dropped it into the water. As the ant was clinging to the leaf, the dove carefully pulled the leaf out of the river and saved the ant. A few days later, a hunter came to the forest. He saw the beautiful dove, so he aimed to shoot his arrow at it. Just then, the ant saw the hunter and said, “Oh! No! He will kill the dove, I have to act quickly”. In a flash, the ant crawled up the hunter’s foot and bit his ankle. The hunter cried out in pain and dropped his arrow. The dove was frightened by the shouting of the hunter and flew to a safer place. 1. Read the paragraph below: Hearing the cry of the struggling ant, the dove grabbed a leaf in its beak and dropped it into the water. As the ant was clinging to the leaf, the carefully dove pulled the leaf out of the river and saved the ant. Which word in the paragraph is an adverb? Student’s answer: struggling 1.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  1.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 126 2. There are two examples of the past progressive. Write one of them below. Student’s answer: have to act 2.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  2.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here: 3. Why is this text classified as a fable? Student’s answer: the text is a story and about animals 3.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  3.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 4. How would you describe the dove’s character? Student’s answer:  Kind and helpful 4.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  4.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 5. According to this story, why should we help strangers if they are in need? Student’s answer: One day, they may return the favor and help us. 5.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  5.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here: TEXT 2 Read the text and then answer the questions 6 to 10. Sam fell off his motorbike because of driving very fast. He was covered with dust and there were several holes in his trousers. He could see blood on his legs through the holes. Sam slowly got off the ground and wiped off the dust and the blood. He looked at the motorbike. The motor was on its side, and Sam could hear the spinning wheel scream. Sam’s elbow and shoulder gave him pain as he struggled to pull the heavy bike up once again. He got back on his motorbike and headed for home. When he got there, he quickly grabbed the hose and sprayed down the motorbike with water and then parked it against the wall. He walked into his house where his mother was shocked to see him. “Oh! What happened to you, Sam?” Sam did not even hesitate, “I got attacked by a dog after school. It was one of our neighbor’s dogs.” 127 6. Why did Sam tell his mother the story about the dog? Student’s answer: She would get angry if she knew the truth 6.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  6.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here: 7. What personification does the writer use in the text? Student’s answer: headed for home 7.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  7.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here: 8. How do you think Sam felt when his mother asked him what had happened to him? Student’s answer: He was angry 8.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  8.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here: 9. Which word in paragraph 1 is a gerund? Student’s answer: spinning 9.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  9.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here: 10. Which part in the sentence below is a phrasal verb? Sam’s elbow and shoulder gave him pain as he struggled to pull the heavy bike up once again. Student’s answer: to give pain 10.1 Select one: CORRECT  INCORRECT  10.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here: 128 PART II – ANALYZE STUDENT RESPONSES Below are test items answered incorrectly by a Grade 4 school pupil. For each one, you will be asked, below, to give the correct answer and to provide suggestions that would help the student to understand his/her mistake and learn the target learning objective. 11. The bold part of the sentence below is a(an)_______________: Jim could clean his car by himself. A. subject pronoun B. reflexive pronoun C. object pronoun D. possessive pronoun Student’s answer : C 11.1 The student’s answer is wrong. What is the correct answer? 11.2 What do you think is the reason behind the student’s mistake? Where is his confusion? a. The student thought the word “object” refers to the car. b. The student assumed “him” is considered an object pronoun even if it is used with the word “self.” c. The student could not identify “himself” as a pronoun. d. The student interpreted a reflexive morpheme as a possessive morpheme. 11.3 What kind of teaching remediation is needed here with this student? a. Have the student practice editing a paragraph with “him” and “himself” used incorrectly many times. b. Expose the student to the contrast between “whose” and “who’s” and then show its application to the categorization of pronouns. c. First review the concept of pronoun. Then contrast reflexive pronouns with object pronouns by examining their use in a text. d. Have the student write a creative piece using no pronouns at all and then have the student read the story out loud, substituting in the pronouns. 12. Fill in the blanks with the correct word The boy always plays _________ with his classmates. A. merrily B. happy C. friendly D. calm Student’s answer: C 12.1 The student’s answer is wrong. What is the correct answer? 129 12.2 What do you think is the reason behind the student’s mistake? Where is his confusion? a. The student identified the word “friendly” as an adverb because it ends with -LY. b. The student thought that “friendly” is an adjective that describes “classmates.” c. The student assumed “friendly” is an adverb that comes after action verbs. d. All of the above 12.3 What kind of teaching remediation is needed here with this student? a. Review the rules for subject-verb agreement and placement; practice conjugation and sentence formation; and follow up with practice exercises. b. Review the rules for the use, formation and placement of adverbs and adjectives; and follow up with practice exercises. c. Review the rules of sentence combination; give the student simple sentences to combine; and then ask the student to create original compound sentences. d. Begin with simple conversational questions; write key words on the board; have students copy the key words into their notebooks and translate them. 13. Which word does NOT go in the blank: We _______ to do our homework every day. A. Have B. Should C. Need D. All of the above Student’s answer: D 13.1 The student’s answer is wrong. What is the correct answer? 13.2 What do you think is the reason behind the student’s mistake? Where is his confusion? a. The student is confused about modals for ability b. The student doesn’t know the rules for modal formation c. Modals and semi-modals are usually unstressed in a sentence; the student simply hasn’t heard the correct forms clearly enough d. All of the above 13.3 What kind of teaching remediation is needed here with this student? a. Showing the students a diagram with the different meanings and strengths of modals to talk about responsibilities b. Having the students unscramble several sentences with modals and semi-modals and then eliciting the difference in terms of using the infinitive or the bare infinitive c. Presenting minimal pairs (modals vs. semi-modals), discussing the difference and giving practice d. b and c END 130 Sample Language Teacher Evaluation Test (Math in English Grade 7): PART I: MARK A STUDENT TEST Below is a test paper from a Grade 7 school pupil. Please mark with X the answers either “correct” or “incorrect .” For those answers that are incorrect , you must write the correct answer in the space provided. In a class of 35 students 60 percent are girls; so the number of boys is: 1. Student’s answer : 21 1.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  1.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : What is the number x whose double plus 5 equals its triple minus 19? 2. Student’s answer: 24 2.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  2.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 3. 4 ÷ 4 × 4= Student’s answer: 4 ∕ 16 3.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  3.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 4. What are the coordinates of point P? Student’s answer: P(-2,-3) 4.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  4.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 131 5. If ABC is an isosceles triangle of base [AC] and then Student’s answer: 80 0 5.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  5.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 6. How many ways can 360 be factorized into the product of 3 factors greater than 1? For example, 360 = 3 x 12 x 10. Student’s answer: 4 6.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  6.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 7. Which is a shorter path from A to B Knowing that each curve is semi circular? Student’s answer: the one with one semi circle that is the part above. 7.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  7.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 8. If the price of 5 kg of sugar is 6 000 LL, then the price of 12 kg of sugar is: Student’s answer: 14 400 L.L. 8.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  8.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 9. Student’s answer: 4100 9.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  9.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : 132 10. If a is negative then: (-3) x (5) x a is: Student’s answer: POSITIVE 10.1 Circle one : CORRECT  INCORRECT  10.2 If it was incorrect, write the correct answer here : Part II on the next page Please turn the page 133 PART II – ANALYZE STUDENT RESPONSES Below are test items answered incorrectly by a Grade 7 school pupil. For each one, you will be asked, below, to give the correct answer and to provide suggestions that would help the student to understand his/her mistake and learn the target learning objective. 11. 2 0 + 30 + 5 0 + 7 0 = A. 7 B. 4 C. 17 D. 10 Student’s answer: A. 7 11.1 The student’s answer is wrong. What is the correct answer? 11.2 What do you think is the reason behind the student’s mistake? Where is his confusion? a. The student thought that a number raised to the power 0 equals 1.Then he added all the terms. b. The student multiplied each number by its power then added all the terms. c. The student interpreted each number raised to the power 0 as a number raised to power 1 then added all the terms. d. The student considered that 7 was raised to the power 0 as well. 11.3 What kind of teaching remediation is needed here with this student? a. I will prompt the student with a hint offering an explanation of the process. b. I will never intervene with the student’s construction of meaning. The process is more effective if they just are left alone. c. I will repeat to the student that practice makes perfect so will provide him/her with the correct answer and more similar exercises. d. I will remind him/her that exponent is repeated addition so when it is 0 we multiply it by itself 0 times. 12 A number between 90 and 100 that has exactly 4 factors is: A. 92 B. 93 C. 96 D. 98 Student’s answer: A. 92 12.1 The student’s answer is wrong. What is the correct answer? 12.2 What do you think is the reason behind the student’s mistake? Where is his confusion? a. The student forgot to count 1 as a divisor. b. The student did not read instruction carefully so didn’t see exactly. c. The student forgot that the numbers 1 & 92 as divisors. d. The student thought that the number 93 is prime. 134 12.3 What kind of teaching remediation is needed here with this student? a. I will ask the student recall and memorize divisibility rules. b. I will remind the student that 0 is a multiple of all numbers. c. I will give the student more time to rethink and resolve the problem by using division. d. I will review the way we determine the divisors of a number starting by 1 and itself using a tree. 13 Which statement is true? A. If MA=MB then M is the midpoint of [AB] B. If ABC is an equilateral triangle then AB=AC C. If AB=AC then ABC is equilateral triangle D. If angle then ABC is equilateral Student’s answer: A. If MA=MB then M is the midpoint of [AB] 13.1 The student’s answer is wrong. What is the correct answer? 13.2 What do you think is the reason behind the student’s mistake? Where is his confusion? a. The student knows that the midpoint of a segment divides it into two equal parts. b. The student didn’t go through the rest of the statements because the first one is misleading. c. The student’s confusion is in geometry. d. The student believes that equality is the same as collinearity. 13.3 What kind of teaching remediation is needed here with this student? a. I will show the student many segments divided into two equal parts by their midpoints. b. I will insist he reads the choices till the end & find the correct one. c. I will tell the student that it’s a wrong answer and give him/her more time to reflect. d. I will use a variety of formats and representations to show a counter example by drawing the perpendicular bisector. THE END