Micro-innovation Report

 STIR Micro-­‐innovation Report Updated 13 January, 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 3 MI #26: Local Learning Materials ............................................................................................ 5 Motivation and Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Forms and Variations of Local Learning Material MI .................................................................................................. 6 Passive Learning Aids ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Active Learning Aids ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Teacher Perspectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Student Perspectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Parent Perspectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Implementation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Utility Assessment of the Local Learning Materials MI ........................................................................................... 10 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 MI #43: Reading Skill Discovery ............................................................................................ 12 Motivation and Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Forms and Variations of the Reading Skill Discovery MI ........................................................................................ 13 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Teacher Perspectives .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Student Perspectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 External Factors that Influenced Implementation ................................................................................................... 15 Utility Assessment of the Reading Skill Discovery MI ............................................................................................. 16 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................. 17 List of Figures Figure 1: Teacher constructed passive learning aids ...................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Learning aids constructed with student input ................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Sliding phonetic letters.................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Local biology diorama ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Reading aids created from local materials .................................................................... 13 2 Executive Summary During the first term of 2014, STIR invited hundreds of teachers from schools across the country to submit micro-­‐innovations to be disseminated to other teachers. The top 50 innovations (out of 600+ submissions) were combined in a booklet and shared with all STIR partner teachers through STIR networks.1 These teachers were then encouraged to select and implement at least one micro-­‐innovation (MI) in their classrooms beginning in the second term of the school year. In certain networks this selection was carried out on an individual basis, while in others the entire group voted and agreed on a single micro-­‐innovation to pursue. During subsequent network meetings, STIR teachers shared challenges, ideas, and supported each other in implementing their chosen micro-­‐innovations. Teachers that embodied the STIR ideals and showed high levels of participation and engagement, including through the implementation of their selected micro-­‐innovations, were awarded a certificate and invited to Kampala for the STIR Changemaker Summit held in December. This document details the findings of an evaluation designed to understand the mechanisms through which two micro-­‐innovations influence teacher and student performance.2 These two micro-­‐innovations are: 1) MI 26: using local learning materials to create classroom learning aids 2) MI 43: using a variety of classroom techniques to foster reading skill discovery To conduct this evaluation, IDinsight attended STIR network meetings, conducted classroom observations, and interviewed teachers, head teachers, students, parents, and partner staff to assess the benefits of these micro-­‐innovations on teacher and student level outcomes. This evaluation specifically investigated teacher and student attitudes towards the micro-­‐
innovations, catalogued variations in implementation, and examined external factors that enabled or inhibited uptake. Recommendations were then identified to improve current MI implementation and to replicate the micro-­‐innovations in new contexts. It should be noted that this assessment does not constitute a formal impact evaluation. The process evaluation conducted was not designed to measure the quantitative impact of the micro-­‐innovations, but rather to understand the mechanisms through which these micro-­‐
innovations might influence teacher and student performance. 1
STIR networks local were groups of 15-­‐40 teachers, from different schools, that met together throughout the school term. During network meetings teachers shared experiences, challenges, and innovative pedagogical practices. 2
These MIs were selected by STIR for this evaluation because they were two of the three most popular micro-­‐
innovations (with over 10 teachers implementing each) and, in the case of MI 43, involved a mix of primary and secondary schools. 3 The use of local materials, micro-­‐innovation 26, was effective in increasing the prevalence of learning aids and improving the overall classroom environment. The activity also appeared effective in shifting teacher mindset – presenting a clearly defined activity for aspiring teachers to carry out. The micro-­‐innovation’s impact on student learning, however, is less direct and could not be determined during this evaluation. The micro-­‐innovation seemed to be most applicable in a primary school setting, although in narrow cases could be adapted to older students. Micro-­‐innovation 43, fostering student reading ability, directly addressed core learning objectives and was applicable in both primary and secondary school settings. Teachers observed that student reading ability had noticeably improved as a result of the micro-­‐
innovation – although without quantitatively assessing student literacy, this claim could not be verified. This micro-­‐innovation can more aptly be described as a category of focus than a specific micro-­‐innovation, with teachers using a variety of techniques to address student literacy. 4 MI #26: Local Learning Materials Motivation and Overview Most schools in Uganda are underfunded and severely lacking in resources. Classroom materials typically consist of a blackboard, some posters, and, at best, a few books for students to share. The result is often a bare and uninviting learning environment that does little to engage student learners. This micro-­‐innovation attempted to address this scarcity of material by encouraging teachers to create learning aids from locally sourced materials. These locally sourced materials typically included banana fibers, plastic water bottles, recycled cardboard, and any other materials that could be easily acquired near the school. The theory behind this innovation was twofold. First, the act of spurring teachers to create their own learning aids might improve collaboration with other teachers and students – and may encourage teachers to take more ownership over their classrooms. Second, placing students in friendly, resource-­‐rich environments might lead to improved student engagement and may spur incidental learning.3 IDinsight evaluated this micro-­‐innovation between 27 October and 7 November in Masindi District, during visits to seven Red Earth and three Build Africa-­‐supported schools. IDinsight conducted classroom observations, met with students, and interviewed 29 primary school teachers to develop its analysis. It should be noted that prior to its engagement with STIR, Red Earth already encouraged its teachers to use local materials to improve the classroom environment. Due to this, the activities of this micro-­‐innovation were ubiquitous within Masindi – with every interviewed Red Earth teacher implementing them regardless of whether s/he had specifically selected the MI in her/his network meeting.4 5 Despite this fact, there were noticeable variations in the process and success in implementing the micro-­‐innovation across teachers. 3
“Incidental learning” refers to phenomenon of students independently studying learning aid content without teacher input. In doing so, students not only learn the aid’s content, but also practice the reading skills required to learn it. “Children don’t intend to learn [a] particular item…but upon seeing it very beautiful and attractive they take that interest of reading it. When they read it, if it’s interesting, they will keep it in their minds. So at the end of it all, you find that the leaners are learning on their own.” – Red Earth Teacher 4
Most of the Build Africa teachers also used local materials as a regular part of their teaching, though they selected different micro-­‐innovations to implement in term two. 5
Elsewhere in Uganda, where STIR teachers focused on other MIs and weren’t supported by an NGO like Red Earth, using local materials was far less prevalent. 5 Forms and Variations of Local Learning Material MI Teachers interpreted the micro-­‐innovation very broadly, using local materials in a variety of ways. The learning aids teachers constructed can be loosely divided into “passive” and “active” categories. Passive Learning Aids This category encompassed the majority of learning aids, which took the form of posters and reference materials placed around the classroom. They functioned to improve the overall classroom environment and allow for incidental learning. Instead of using paper and cardstock posters, teachers often used cardboard and rice sacks,6 along with other decorative materials such as feathers and millet (Figure 1). Students created many of these posters (Figure 2) and their placement throughout the classroom offered a form of recognition. Figure 1: Teacher constructed passive learning aids Geometry reference made with seeds Chicken illustration using real feathers Chandelier of vocabulary words Figure 2: Learning aids constructed with student input Map of Africa made from rocks Student drawings 6
These canvas rice sacks were sometimes purchased by the school rather than sourced from discarded materials. 6 Active Learning Aids The second use of local materials was as actively used learning aids. These were learning aids that were either directly used in classroom lessons or constructed as part of the lesson, itself. Figure 3 shows an example of the former, whereby a teacher at Kina Primary School placed cardboard letters in plastic bottles suspended by string. The teacher would have her class sound out each individual letter, and then would slide the letters apart and together on the string to phonetically form complete words. Figure 4 illustrates the second case, wherein a teacher had her students collect seeds, feathers, plants, and other biological materials to reinforce the vocabulary words they were learning during science lessons. These examples highlight some of the more creative uses of these local materials. Figure 3: Sliding phonetic letters Figure 4: Local biology diorama Special Focus: Group Competition A commonplace use of local materials among Red Earth teachers (for both those who did and did not attend STIR meetings) was in a daily group competition game. Teachers would divide their class into groups of students, who would then compete throughout the day to participate and answer questions. Groups would be given bottle caps, beans, and other counters for correct answers -­‐ and the team with the most points at the end of the day was awarded a trophy made of local materials. While this activity encompassed a much greater scope than the micro-­‐innovation, it illustrated another example of how local materials could actively support classroom pedagogy. Trophy awarded daily to highest performing group 7 Findings This micro-­‐innovation succeeded in increasing the prevalence of classroom learning aids among all of the classrooms visited. Teachers were better equipped to construct quality learning aids, and some were very clever in incorporating these aids into their lessons. The degree of success in creating additional learning aids seemed to vary between teachers and schools, due in part to teacher mindset as well as a number of external factors including head teacher support, access to materials, and community relations. While students seemed engaged by these learning aids in certain classroom visits, given the limited scope of the evaluation, it was not possible to determine what impact the micro-­‐innovation may have had on student performance. Teacher Perspectives Interviewed teachers found the micro-­‐innovation worthwhile. Perhaps due to the influence of Red Earth, teachers would often use the state of their classroom environment as a metric to evaluate how the year had been overall.7 Most teachers expressed enthusiasm towards the activity of constructing learning aids, viewing it both as a method of improving their teaching and addressing resource constraints. When asked about the value of classroom learning aids, many teachers took the utility of these tools for granted. Some would elaborate by describing the importance of creating a classroom environment welcoming to students, and how it could spur incidental learning. The Red Earth coordinator explained that Red Earth places an emphasis on learning environment, “because everybody loves something beautiful. If a learner comes to a classroom that is really attractive, then they will feel comfortable to learn in that environment.” A teacher at Bulyango Primary School noted, “When the environment is really conducive to learning, there is even self-­‐
learning.” Finally, teachers were motivated to use local materials as a method of making their lessons more exciting and tangible. Either by actively using the learning aids in their instruction, or involving students directly in their construction, some teachers felt better able to engage their students. Student Perspectives Most of the students interviewed expressed enthusiasm for the micro-­‐innovation – specifically when they were involved in constructing the learning aids. Students enjoyed the process of finding materials and putting them to creative use.8 The lower performing students (as identified by their teachers) seemed to particularly appreciate the products of the micro-­‐
innovation, as evidenced by their preference for lessons to include learning aids, while the more advanced students preferred learning on the blackboard. While most students seemed to 7
When asked about what the positive aspects of the year had been, many teachers would begin by describing improvements in their classroom environments. 8
Constructing lengths of rope using woven banana fibers was a common student favorite. 8 positively regard the use of local materials, it is difficult to discern what impact the activity had on learning outcomes. Parent Perspectives The one parent who agreed to be interviewed reflected positively on the use of local materials and used the number of classroom learning aids as a metric of evaluating the school’s performance. She also stated that while parents in her community were aware of students collecting local materials, none were directly involved in the activity. Soliciting parental involvement in collecting local materials might serve as a method of increasing material access and improving community relations. Implementation Teachers were somewhat varied in how they implemented the micro-­‐innovation. Some actively collaborated with fellow teachers, while others worked mostly independently. In some cases the head teacher would facilitate teacher collaboration by structuring regular times for the staff to construct learning aids. During these sessions, teachers would often work together to jointly create learning materials for a particular class each day, which allowed each teacher to contribute her/his particular skills. Interviewed teachers found these collaborative sessions very useful, and their classrooms had far more learning aids than their counterparts. It is difficult to say, however, whether these collaborative sessions improved staff cohesion, versus whether their existence was a product of positive preexisting relations. In many cases teachers would also involve their students in obtaining local raw materials (such as bottle caps, cardboard, plastic bottles, and other more specialized materials), and in creating the learning aids themselves. Teachers found this process of engaging students highly rewarding – believing that involved students had more ownership of the classroom,9 were more engaged during school, and were more likely to take care of existing materials. On the other hand, there were teachers that found the micro-­‐innovation challenging and had become discouraged during its implementation. They primarily complained about limited time and material resources.10 While, teacher mindset seemed to be the strongest differentiator of learning aid prevalence, environmental factors often also played a role. Teachers highlighted a number of external factors that enabled and inhibited their ability to implement the micro-­‐innovation. 9
“[The students] are innovative themselves. They try to make things – like most of those charts. They make and they come, ‘Teacher, I have made this one,’ and I say, ‘Wow, this is good.’ ‘Can we display it here?’ And I say, ‘Yes, display it here,’ and now the classroom looks nice.” – Teacher at Bulyango Primary School 10
“The learning aids are not enough, simply because you’ll find the materials do not come on time…then alongside you’ll find that maybe we’ve made the materials but now hanging them, or displaying them in class, you’ll find you’re not committed to hang them because of the poor structures in the class…. You are squeezed because of the [work] overload. Because we don’t have enough time to make those learning aids.” – Kitonozi P.S. Teacher 9 •
•
•
•
Support from head teacher: Schools with supportive head teachers were significantly more successful in implementing this micro-­‐innovation -­‐ creating far more learning aids than their counterpart schools. Head teachers that attended STIR meetings, or were otherwise supportive of the micro-­‐innovation, would regularly structure time to create learning aids, work to procure materials, and regularly assess teachers on their classroom environment. Of the external factors affecting the MI, this was one of the strongest. Access to basic materials: Even though the micro-­‐innovation was intended to address the challenge of limited classroom materials, there were still core materials that were required to construct learning aids. Markers, for example, were still required to inscribe messages on recycled cardboard as much as on purchased manila. While clever alternatives may have existed, teachers with access to basic materials (markers, scissors, glue, etc.) were much more prolific in creating learning aids. Proximity to town/availability of local resources: Basic materials notwithstanding, certain schools were located in areas with greater access to recycled and other local materials. Teachers and students in schools near Masindi town found it easier to find cardboard, plastic bottles, string, and other local materials. Red Earth attempted to address this issue by operating a collection bin in Masindi and distributing the materials to head teachers. This collection bin seemed very effective, with teachers and head teachers both highlighting its utility. Vandalism/community hostility: Some teachers faced the challenge of repeated classroom vandalism from students and the general community. This affected a small subset of schools that seemed to have particularly poor community relations, poor school security (i.e. classrooms without security window bars), and disaffected students. Many teachers addressed this challenge by making learning aids that could be easily removed at the end of the day and stored in a locked room overnight. All, however, found these experiences of vandalism discouraging and devoted less time and effort to constructing learning materials as a result. In contrast, teachers at schools with strong community relations seemed to largely avoid this challenge. Furthermore, some teachers felt that efforts to engage students in creating learning aids also helped decrease the incidence of vandalism. Utility Assessment of the Local Learning Materials MI The local learning materials micro-­‐innovation offers a number of benefits to teachers in the schools that implement this MI. For one, the micro-­‐innovation was effective as a method of galvanizing and engaging teachers. The activity provided teachers with a clear, tangible goal that also encouraged teachers to think creatively.11 The micro-­‐innovation may have also helped foster collaboration between teachers. This seemed especially true in schools that that had structured time for learning aid construction, however it was difficult to assess the preexisting levels of collaboration prior to the micro-­‐innovation. 11
It is for this reason that Red Earth considers the process of creating learning aids a necessary first step in teacher development; it is a measurable goal that fosters a growth mindset and allows for further teacher improvement. 10 In some cases, this micro-­‐innovation served as mechanism for influencing teachers outside the STIR network. A few teachers described how they would create learning aids for their colleagues to spur them in adopting other micro-­‐innovations (besides using local materials). In one example, a STIR teacher tried to prod a colleague into using group competition by helping make the trophy, counters, and name tags used in the activity. Red Earth teachers that were part of the STIR network had the opportunity to share ideas with each other surrounding the process and content of creation of these local learning aids at the periodic network meetings. Even though Red Earth teachers were already engaged in creating local learning materials, seeing this in the context of other micro-­‐innovations helped open the teachers’ minds and most of them decided to implement other micro-­‐innovations at the same time.12 Taken together, this likely had a subtle influence in showing Red Earth teachers what a growth mindset means in practice, further entrenching the concept. The micro-­‐innovation’s effect on students, however, seemed more indirect. While an improved classroom environment resulting from an increase in passive aids may make students more comfortable in the classroom and improve rates of incidental learning, these outcomes are difficult to measure. Use of active learning aids, on the other hand, appeared successful in engaging students in more creative and interactive methods -­‐ either by actively using learning aids during lessons, or by involving students in their construction. Recommendations In order to increase the uptake of this micro-­‐innovation, or to replicate its success elsewhere, STIR and its partners might consider: • Specifically engaging head teachers to support teachers in implementing MI • Establishing collection bins to assist teachers in collecting materials • Structuring regular time for teachers to meet and construct learning aids • Increasing avenues for student involvement • Enrolling the support of parents in collecting local materials to improve material access and foster community relations Overall, this micro-­‐innovation seemed most useful as a method of affecting teacher mindset. It provided a clearly defined activity that encouraged creative thinking. In this way, it presents itself as an excellent first MI for newly recruited teachers to attempt. Its effects on student learning, however, are less clear. Therefore, this micro-­‐innovation should be implemented with the intention of supporting other curricular goals, rather than serving as an end in itself. 12
Red Earth teachers drew inspiration for many of these concurrent micro-­‐innovations from the MI booklet and were not previously a part of the Red Earth curriculum 11 MI #43: Reading Skill Discovery Motivation and Overview Literacy is one of the three main objectives of Ugandan primary schools13 (along with numeracy and life skills), and yet only 58% of P3 students, and only 40% of P6 students, are achieving basic competency.14 Each year students are promoted to higher grades without mastering the fundamentals of reading, creating a compounding problem that burdens upper-­‐grade teachers and inhibits student learning in all subjects. Interviewed teachers typically identified poor English reading and speaking skills as one of the primary challenges in their schools. They pointed to the universality of reading and how its proficiency was necessary to learning in all school subjects. Additionally, teachers connected confidence in English reading and speaking to general student confidence in the classroom environment, viewing this micro-­‐innovation as a way of also developing more engaged students. Many teachers selected this micro-­‐innovation in an attempt to address large variations in student ability,15 viewing it as a method that could benefit a wide spectrum of students. Initially formulated by Juliet Amuge, a teacher in Ngora District, (the district in which many teachers adopted this MI and which IDinsight evaluated), this micro-­‐innovation involved awarding students with gifts, classroom ranks, or other forms of recognition to encourage student efforts in reading. While the description in the MI booklet is fairly specific in providing recognition to students in front of their peers based on reading effort for the week, in practice, this MI evolved into a broad category of different pedagogies intended to foster reading skill discovery amongst students. While many teachers used physical gifts to award students, others used group-­‐based competition, debates, and other creative ways of emphasizing reading to make it a specific area of curricular focus. IDinsight conducted the evaluation for this MI during the week of 17 November in Ngora District. To develop its analysis, IDinsight visited eight Build Africa16 supported schools and interviewed 23 teachers. All teachers in the Ngora network collective chose to implement this micro-­‐innovation. The specific methods of each teacher, however, took different forms. 13
Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports “Revised Education Sector Strategic Plan 2007-­‐2015” http://www.education.go.ug/files/downloads/Revised%20Education%20Sector%20strategic%20plan%202007-­‐
2015(1).pdf 14
Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports “2013 Fact Sheet” http://www.education.go.ug/files/downloads/Fact%20Sheet%202002-­‐2013.pdf 15
In the Ugandan system students are promoted to the next class even if they are deficient in core learning competencies. Repeated every year, this has the effect of creating classes with very wide variances in ability. 16
PEAS jointly supported one of these schools along with Build Africa 12 Forms and Variations of the Reading Skill Discovery MI Teachers in Ngora interpreted this micro-­‐innovation loosely, and used a number of methods to improve student reading. These methods included: • Devoting more class-­‐time to reading lessons, where teachers increased their curricular emphasis on reading • Emphasizing reading in non-­‐language subjects,17 where even if teachers were providing instruction in math or science, they would have their class practice reading aloud every new word to practice phonetics • Rewarding students that demonstrate strong efforts in reading, either with small physical gifts or class recognition • Dividing students into groups and conducting reading competitions • Conducting speech and debate competitions • Using local materials to create picture books and other reading materials Figure 5: Reading aids created from local materials (Amugagara Primary School) Findings Reactions to this micro-­‐innovation were generally positive, with interviewed teachers stating that as a result of this MI, they have noticed improvements in reading levels over the previous year.18 17
“In every subject that we teach we emphasize reading. Before a child begins to do any maths or any equation a child has to read it first. That is one of the most important things we’ve agreed upon -­‐ every word a teacher writes on the chalkboard a student has to read” – Teacher at St. Aloysius Primary School 18
It should be noted that this report primarily captures the opinions and attitudes of STIR teachers, and that this evaluation did not formally assess the reading ability of their students, as teachers did not have recorded data that could substantiate this observation. 13 Teacher Perspectives All interviewed teachers stated that, while change has been gradual, they have observed noticeable differences in their students’ reading ability as a result of the micro-­‐innovation. When asked to identify specific differences, teachers spoke mostly in general terms about the reading and writing ability of their students. A teacher at Omaditok Primary School described how, “there has been a big change in these children. At first they could not construct a sentence. But now they are able to express themselves freely. They are able to read. They can spell. They can read a story and answer questions. That’s what we’re realizing this year.” Teachers also identified that the micro-­‐innovation had spillover effects into areas outside of student reading ability. One of these areas was student-­‐confidence not just in English, but other subjects as well. A teacher at Amugagara P.S. described how, his students “used to not speak, they used to fear. But as we introduced the reading skill discovery they can now speak – because after reading we emphasize [that they] put into good practice what they’ve read.” Finally teachers claimed that the more engaging nature of their lessons has led to increased student motivation, reduced absenteeism,19 and improved teacher-­‐student relations. A few teachers went as far as to describe how the improvement in student engagement had made their teaching both easier and more enjoyable. Student Perspectives It was difficult to gather substantive student input on the reading innovations. Interviewed students were able to highlight the importance of reading and claimed to also read outside of school. In schools where speech and debate competitions were carried out, students expressed enthusiasm towards participating. As part of the evaluation, interviewed students were given a diagnostic passage to read as an informal assessment – which all students successfully read. Given the limited scope of these interviews, however, it was not possible to draw conclusions regarding changes in student reading performance. 19
Schools did not have records available to independently verify this claim. 14 Special Focus: Speech and Debate As part of their micro-­‐innovation, three schools in the Ngora network have begun holding regular speech and debate competitions – both internally and with their neighboring schools. Teachers and students both expressed an affinity for this activity, describing it as a strong motivator for English learning. Teachers attributed gains in student confidence, vocabulary, and student-­‐to-­‐student learning (by pairing strong and weak students) to the activity. In addition to improving English skills, this activity also had the quality of fostering inter-­‐
school knowledge transfer. Teachers enjoyed visiting these neighboring schools and have begun developing relationships with the teachers they meet at the competitions. A few STIR teachers have plans to invite these other teachers to observe their classrooms in order to pass on their reading innovations. These competitions present a unique opportunity for STIR to influence teachers and schools outside its local network. External Factors that Influenced Implementation In addition to the intrinsic factors of teacher mindset and effort, there were a number of external factors that affected the success of this micro-­‐innovation. • Availability of reading materials: Only a few schools had libraries that loaned books and other reading material to students. With few other ways to access reading materials, this constraint severely limited the ability of students to learn independently. While teachers tried to compensate for this setback by creating reading materials for their classroom lessons, their instruction was targeted towards the entire class body. This group-­‐level focus provided few avenues for students to practice reading individually. Providing access to reading material, via a school library, for example, seemed to be a prerequisite for supplemental practice and independent learning outside the classroom environment. • Classroom size: Schools in Ngora were notable for their large classroom sizes – with some teachers overseeing classes of 90+ students. During lesson observations it appeared that, with this many students, the benefits of the MI were diluted. Teachers would attempt to solicit individual student participation, but could only incorporate a small percentage of the actual class in their planned activities. Due to this challenge, it seemed that the success of the MI was large determined by the teacher’s ability to handle large classes and engage students in group work. • Engagement of Head Teacher: Teachers that had greater buy-­‐in from their head teacher were more supported in acquiring reading materials for their lessons and in influencing other teachers within the school. 15 Utility Assessment of the Reading Skill Discovery MI The Reading Skill Discovery micro-­‐innovation seemed to have a high degree of classroom utility. While student outcomes could not be directly measured, the micro-­‐innovation appeared to have an impact not only on reading, but on other scholastic subjects, as well. Teachers grasped the importance of the micro-­‐innovation and developed variations to suit their individual classroom needs. Given the fundamental nature of this micro-­‐innovation in addressing core student competencies, it follows that other teachers and students would also benefit from its implementation. Teacher reported improvements in student reading and the micro-­‐innovation itself seemed widely replicable in other contexts. Caution should be taken in extrapolating any of these findings, however, given this assessment’s reliance on teacher feedback. Future evaluations should aim to solicit greater student feedback and rigorously track student outcomes. Recommendations In order to increase the uptake and success of this micro-­‐innovation, STIR or its partners might consider: • Specifically engaging head teachers • Aiding schools in acquiring reading material20 • Sensitizing parents to encourage home reading21 • Training teachers in how to effectively manage large groups • Providing teachers with methods to evaluate individual student performance 20
Ngora PEAS Secondary School had worked out an arrangement (via PEAS) to receive weekly copies of The Daily Monitor through a special educational arrangement. This arrangement is one that could be potentially replicated elsewhere. 21
Parents should be consulted further before this recommendation is strongly adopted. 16 Concluding Remarks Overall, both micro-­‐innovations included in this evaluation appeared to be effective methods of focusing teacher energy and encouraging classroom innovation. They provided teachers with clearly defined methods of improving their teaching and were well regarded by those interviewed. More specifically, the micro-­‐innovation using local materials succeeded in increasing the prevalence of classroom learning aids. It was an effective method of generating teacher enthusiasm and directly addressed a daily challenge that teachers face. Its effects on student learning, however, were more subtle and difficult to directly ascertain. While students were excited about the learning aids, especially those they helped create, it was unclear how this affected learning outcomes. Therefore, while it is a worthwhile activity, the micro-­‐innovation should not be considered an end in itself, but rather a corollary method of supplementing other teaching goals such as reading comprehension or science literacy. In contrast, the reading skill discovery micro-­‐innovation more directly targeted core student competencies. It directly addressed what teachers identified as the primary challenge facing their schools and students. Its implementation, however, evolved to take on many different forms. As teachers developed speech and debate teams, ran classroom reading competitions, and simply emphasized reading skills as a curricular focus, the term “reading skill discovery” lost specific meaning and became more an overarching category of different micro-­‐innovations. In the upcoming year, STIR should consider dividing this overarching category into smaller, discrete micro-­‐innovations to better equip teachers in teaching literacy skills. While the majority of IDinsight’s observations took place in a primary school setting, there were indications of how effective these micro-­‐innovations might be if implemented in secondary schools -­‐ which would require appropriate adaptations for an older student body. The local learning materials innovation, in its current form, would likely have more limited applicability within secondary schools. Teachers would likely face difficulty soliciting participation from older students in creating learning aids and would require more sophisticated learning aids to demonstrate more sophisticated concepts. However, clever teachers might be able to create useful learning aids for certain lessons – particularly in math and science. Immersing secondary students in a print-­‐rich environment and providing opportunities for passive learning, moreover, is an aspect of the micro-­‐innovation that could still be applicable. The reading skill discovery MI looks to be more applicable to a secondary school setting. IDinsight observed a number of successful techniques already employed in this space: speech and debate tournaments, scheduling of independent student reading time, and supporting students in writing school-­‐wide publications. There is reason to believe that these activities could be even more engaging in secondary schools than in primary schools. Expanding this MI 17 in the secondary setting, and developing new methods that specifically foster independent reading, represents an exciting opportunity for the program. The recommendations in the report focus primarily on improving these two micro-­‐innovations. There are, however, additional ways that STIR can support its partners in implementing the MI program overall. STIR is uniquely positioned to connect partners with each other and with external resources. STIR can facilitate the sharing of partner best practices, especially between partners with different backgrounds and strengths. STIR can also help connect partners with resources that assist in MI implementation. STIR’s partner PEAS has developed a relationship with The Daily Monitor (a Ugandan newspaper) to purchase discounted editions of its publications to support student reading. STIR could emulate this, for example, by fostering similar relations for its other partners in an effort provide material support (from other publications, businesses, or NGOs) for their MI programs. Finally, as the program continues to grow, STIR should consider methods of formally soliciting student feedback or assessing student learning outcomes. While these two micro-­‐innovations, overall, seemed effective for teachers, it is difficult to determine what effect they had on students. Creatively thinking about ways to collect this student information will better inform which aspects of a given micro-­‐innovation are effective, how they can be improved, and how certain micro-­‐innovations compare to others. 18