Introduction
This paper presents purpose of research, research questions, hypotheses, methodology, procedures, data analysis, discusses results of study and conclusion of study.
Purpose of the study
Aim of research is to examine schools from child rights friendly environment perspective. As per definition of UNICEF (2004); a child friendly school provides children quality education, with an environment that is fun, healthy and engaging activities. In other words school is a place where they can play, be protected from harm, express their views and actively participate in the learning process. Study conducted from students of class seventh of two different schools including one from public and other from private. Purpose of study is to explore differences in maintaining child rights friendly environment in both public and private sector schooling systems, and to understand the relationship between age level and students understanding about child rights-friendly environment in school. Results of research suppose to help policy makers, teachers, head teachers and students about the track record of child rights friendly environment in both systems and students understanding about this very important issue.
Research Questions
The study has two main research questions;
To what extend, Government schools are different from private schools in maintaining child rights friendly environment?
2 - What is the relationship between the age level and the understanding of the students about child rights-friendly school?
Statement of Hypothesis
There are two main hypotheses according to the research questions;
• there is no difference between the public and private school in maintaining child rights-friendly environment.
• there is no relationship between the age level and the perception of child right school.
METHODLOGY/DESIGN
Study was designed by cross-sectional quantitative paradigm. Data collected from one public school by me and other one private school by my research partner on same day by single visit once a time. Cross-sectional studies are relatively inexpensive, takes up little time, can estimate prevalence of outcome of interest because sample is usually taken from the whole population. Face-to-face delivery method utilized for survey questionnaire. In “face-to-face the researcher can read the questions aloud, explain any difficult points if necessary, and record the responses in as much detail as he desired” Gorard, S. (2003). Applying the method I kept in mind the factors “cost, time, geography, length, complexity, control of the question order, visual aids, the use of respondents personal of the question for reference, rapport, sensitivity, sample bias, response rate, response bias, knowledge of the non-responders and so on” Gorard, S. (2003).
SAMPLE
“One of the most important steps in the research process is the selection of the sample of individuals who will participate (be observed or questioned). Sampling refers to the process of selecting these individuals.” Fraenkel and Wallen (2003). For our study facilitator of course chose population (Schools) each one from public and private, and Samples (7th Class Students), however I and my study partner administrated our tool (questionnaire) in those selected schools. Number of participants from public school was 32 female students of higher secondary girl’s school out of total 59.
The selection of sample comes under purposive sampling method in which “researcher assume they can use their knowledge of the population to judge whether or not a particular sample will be representative.” Fraenkel and Wallen (2003).
MEASUREMENT TOOLS
For data collection facilitator provided me one demographic paper under title “Information About You” which was developed to seek basic required information of sample, and other was the survey questionnaire In demographic paper name of sample, grade, name of school, school shift, age, gender, residential area, father’s and mother’s occupation, mother tongue and other tongue columns were included. Demographical information provides us samples average age, language they use in school and at home, their parents occupation. From study of demographic data, we can infer sample’s socio economical conditions. Most of participant’s male parents engaged in average business and lower jobs in public and private sector, which unfolding that most of students belonged lower middle class, where ever majority of their mothers were house wives, which was revealing the psyche of lower middle class about working women issue. Provided Second form was questionnaire/survey tool for collection of data. The title of questionnaire was “how much sensitive is your school on student’s rights?” Questionnaire employed a 4-point Likert scale 1stands for Never, 2 stands for rarely, 3 stands for often, and 4 stands for always. The tool composed in Urdu. The questionnaire consists of thirteen questions regarding child right friendly environment in school. “A survey is the system for collecting information to describe, compare, or explain knowledge, attitudes, and practices or behavior” Fink A, (1995). In fact success of field study depends upon the successful administration of survey tools. More the questions be simple, readable, understandable, more reliable data would be collected.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test is applied for confirmation of normality is used for K-S test. The table 1 shows that frequency on SPSS for private school, D (69) = .086, p >.05. It means distribution is not normal. On the contrary, frequency on SPSS for public school is D (69) = .184, p < .o5 (p = .007). It means distribution for public school is normal.
Table 1
School Kolmogorov- Smirnov
Total-mean
Private School
Public School Statistics df. Sig.
.086 27 .200
.184 32 .007
PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING DATA FROM FIELD
Before school visits for administration of research tool for collecting data, facilitator send written application to the concerned principles for formal permission for field study. On the fixed time and date our team reached at school, as it was girls higher secondary school and researchers team was comprising majority of males, to avoid from any misunderstanding facilitator along with one female researcher went to principal office to inform her for arrival of our team. At the gate of principal’s office facilitator was stopped by principal as she was busy in telephonic conversation. After completion of her talk facilitator told her about our team, and she allowed us to visit different classes. This is very important for researchers to respect the values of the institutions, because those are allowing us for our own study. Some times it would be hard to control ourselves for rude behavior school authorities but we must keep complete control ourselves. In our case, as principal asked our facilitator to wait at gate until she finishes her telephonic conversation was seemingly not fair treatment. However our facilitator nodded her head and said ok, no problem, and she waited unto end of conversation. After formal permission I approached seventh class which was already allocated me to collect the data. At moment class was free and no teacher was in room. As I entered in class, all students glaze towards me with wonder. For creation of friendly environment I spoke some humors words. When I realized that they accepted me, I introduce myself and got there introduction. After that I told them my aim of visit. First I distributed the demographic paper. Demographic paper was composed in English; hence school was Urdu medium, so students faced difficulty to under stand the meaning of some words and sentences. To overcome the difficulty I read each question and narrate meaning in Urdu and make sure that, they all understood clearly. After satisfaction about their understanding, I requested them to fill the columns. Then I administrated the survey questionnaire. First I explain the rating scale and then demonstrated on black board how to tick the right response. Survey questionnaire was composed in Urdu. However, It was seems to be translated from English. When first I read the questionnaire for my understanding, I feel like I am reading English in form of Urdu. Translation was not standardized. It was translated direct word by word, which made difficulties to understand the real and actual meaning. Learning lessons from previous demographic questionnaire now I slightly changed my strategy. Now one by one I read the every question and after necessary explanation, asked students to tick on the right options from 1 to 4. After collecting the data we went office of principal and appreciated her for allowing us for study.
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The study was carried out in single attempt, from seventh class students. Number of sample was 32+27=59 by public and private school respectively. So due to limited time and low size of sample which taken from only 2 different schools, it can not be generalize able in other contexts.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data collected from field was entered into SPSS 16 (statistical package for social sciences) for further statistical analysis. After uploading the data provided the necessary codes, labels, and values and scales every variable in data view and variable view. Once the data is entered, it is much necessary to clean the data to proof-read text for errors (Robson, 2002). In data cleanup process missing data coded 99. Through Cronbach’s Alpha test reliability of data was checked. For checking the normality of data Kolmogorov- Smirnov test utilized to know the normality at looking to Mean (M), Number of participants (N) and Standard Deviation (SD) in the tables. In this process I converted data into tables and histogram formats. This process helped me to understand differences in maintaining child rights friendly environment between public and private sector schools. For correlation of age and students understanding on issue applied Pearson Correlation test. Through process differences among public and private sector on CRFS and correlation of age and understanding of students checked that those were significant or not. Then save important data on MS Word format for further analysis of results.
RESULTS
Table 2 shows that data of public school is distributed in the form of bell-shaped curve. That means data is normal.
Table 2
Similarly, Table 3 shows that data of private school is distributed in the form of bell-shaped curve. That means data of private school is also normal.
Table 3
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test is applied for confirmation of normality is used for K-S test. The table 4 shows that frequency on SPSS for private school, D (69) = .086, p >.05. It means distribution is not normal. On the contrary, frequency on SPSS for public school is D (69) = .184, p < .o5 (p = .007). It means distribution for public school is normal.
Table 4
School Kolmogorov- Smirnov
Total-mean
Private School
Public School Statistics df. Sig.
.086 27 .200
.184 32 .007
The table 5 shows that child rights friendly environment in private school is slightly high (M =2.79) than public school (M = 2.73), and dispersion of public school is also slightly high (SD =.399) than private school (SD = .332). It means dispersion of public school is more as compared to private school from the mean. However, the difference is not significant, [t (57) = .623, p > .05].
Table 5
Group Statistics
School N Mean Std. Deviation
Total_mean Private School
Public School 27
32 2.7949
2.7346 .33257
.39979
Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance t-test for Equality of Means
Total_mean
F Sig. t df. Sig. (two-
tailed
Equal Variance Assumed
.24
.878 .623
57
.536
Equal Variance not
Assumed .632 56.993 530
Moreover, due to interval scale of data, Pearson correlation test was applied for association between age of students of private and public school and their understanding about child rights environment variables. The table 6 shows that student’s age and their perception of child rights have positive relationship (r =.060).It means those students who have high age they have also more knowledge about child rights environment. However, the association is not significant (p =.650)
Table 6: Relationship between age and the perception of child rights-friendly School
Conclusion
The results show that there is no significant difference between private and public school in maintaining child right-friendly environment however private schools is a bit more child rights-friendly than the public schools. It means the students of the private schools have more rights than the students of public schools. This may be due to the instructional and parental care for their children’s education. As our demographic results revealed that parents of public school are from lower middle class and middle class parents prefer to put their children in private schools. Due to certain reasons parents whom children enrolled in public schools are caring less than the parents of students admitted in private schools. Due to understanding the sensitivity of quality of education the middle class parents whom children are getting education in private schools showing significant concerned for the rights of their children. They always try to remain in close association with the school regarding the implementation of child rights. Maintaining child rights friendly environment in school is very essential for holistic growth of children. Children can not develop mentally and physically until they are provided those rights. As it is very clear from the previous research that the children in private schools perform better academically than the children in the public schools, because private schools are more child rights friendly than the public schools.
So far as the results for the association of age and the perceptions of the students about child rights friendly school concerned, they are not satisfactory. The results reveal that there is no association between the age and the perception of child rights friendly school. It means with the increasing age, the understandings of the students regarding child rights friendly school will remain the same. This is not favorable, because it manifests the lack of negligence from the private and the public school in creating awareness among the children about child rights.
To sum up, the government should take some strict measure in order to help the schools to become more child rights friendly. The private and the public schools should work shoulder to shoulder for the promotion of children rights in their school so that the children have more and more rights.
REFERENCES
2004, October 8). Basic education and gender equality, Child-friendly schools Message posted to http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/index_focus_schoo...
unicef for children
Fraenkel and Wallen (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York:McGraw Hill. (Chapter 6).
Fink, A. (1995). How to Ask Survey Questions. Thousand Oaks, L: SAGE Publications
Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative methods in educational research: the role of numbers made easy. London continuum (chapter 5).
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Reasearch. A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner- Researchers. Malden: Blackwell publishers.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EVALUATION
According to Jan R., Hilary S., (2002), there are four main phases for school evaluation identified from the literature;
● Evaluation for curriculum and professional development
● Evaluation for school development and improvement
● Evaluation for public accountability
● Evaluation for individual and organizational learning
For process of evaluation either institution takes responsibility on her shoulders and commences the internal evaluation or hire independent consultants for external evaluation. The evaluation categorized in formative and summative. Nevo, D., (2001) termed formative evaluation activities are conventionally believed to be more appropriate for the internal evaluation and summative and outcomes activities for the external evaluation, as per his understanding internal evaluator is more familiar with the program and organizational culture, on the other hand the external evaluator is independent of the organization and this is less likely to fall victim to organizational politics. Internal evaluation is focused on development aspects and external evaluation deals in accountability perspective. We have one more term in this regard that is Self Evaluation, we do not need to confuse over the term, as in literature different researchers used self evaluation as alternate to internal evaluation. School self-evaluation (SSE) a procedure involving systematic information gathering initiated by the school with the intention to assess the functioning of the school for supporting decision-making, organizational learning and for fostering school improvement (Schildkamp& Vi sscher, 2010).
Internal evaluation “… argues that the concept of learning organization can be used to integrate the different processes involved in these at times conflicting activities” (David P, 2007, p.373). Internal/self evaluation is responsibility of internal management staff members as head teachers, teachers, school coordinators and managers. Internal evaluation often designed as per needs of external evaluation. Main features of internal evaluation are that it is less regulated than external evaluation, internal evaluation coordinated mainly by the management or an evaluation committee, academic staff with student’s participation. It is on going process and mostly termed as formative assessment for development. It should demonstrate commitment to continuous improvement of processes and involving as much of the staff as possible with mutual trust among team members so that conflicts and differences of opinion can be resolved in the best interest of the institution and stake holders. The process must identify common strengths and weaknesses and develop a meaningful plan for improvement that can be communicated effectively to all concern circles. Internal evaluation provides relevant information for decision-making at local level and beyond, including the participating foundations. Through process we can identify the organizations current position that which areas are functioning accordingly and where are the gaps and pauses which declined entire processes. Internal evaluation providing support the learning processes for pupils, teachers, staff and institutions involved. Documentation of findings provides evidences to policy makers.
Contrary External evaluation is undertaken by independent evaluators and seen in perspective of accountability of schools and teachers. External evaluation is a generic term for the quality or standard review usually performed by a team of external experts. External evaluation deals in quality monitoring, audit, assessment and accreditation. (e.g. OFSTED inspection, JCIA) (Vlasceanu, Grunberg & Parlea, 2004). External evaluation mostly brought by summative mode at the end of academic year. The evaluators work with freedom as they are not associated with organization. However, external evaluation claims more cost than internal evaluation. A well-planned and documented external review process adds significant credibility, accountability, and quality assurance for the internal review activities. The diverse perspectives of external practitioners can be very helpful in validating findings and recommendations and offering new insights on the best direction for ongoing program improvement and the related documentation requirements.
In both there are some issues of cost, flexibility, objectivity, accountability, ethics and utilization of results. Both have some advantages and disadvantages. The debate over methodology of evaluation is less important. According to Guskey, 1998, 2002 the evaluation is systematic investigation of merit or worth, and he emphasis that good evaluations does not need to be complex; what is necessary is good planning and paying attention to evaluation at the outset of the professional development program, not at the end. However, “...there is an inherent tension built into the inspection process, since it aimed of assuring accountability rather than development.” (David P. 2007). Similar concerns stated by Meuret and Morlaix (2003), they define school self-evaluation as a process which is performed by at least part of the schools stakeholders- management, staff, pupils and parents as opposed to external evaluation where the judgment on the school is delivered by external agents. “Everybody seems to hate External Evaluation while nobody trusts in Internal Evaluation” (Nevo, 2001). To overcome the dilemma and tensions between accountability and development perspectives virtually internal/self evaluation and external evaluation approaches the mixed methods in other words combination of both approaches introduced in many countries. According to combined approach an organization can utilize Internal Evaluators to collect data and External Evaluators to analyze data, or Internal Evaluator conduct full evaluation and External Evaluator directs a Meta –evaluation, Both Internal Evaluation and External Evaluation can conduct independent evaluations and then integrate or compare the results or an organization can hire an Internal Evaluator to collect data and analyze data and External Evaluator to monitor the evaluation process. (Christie, Moss, & Klein, 2004). In those cases researchers integrated and utilized both approaches at same time. Educators generally agree on the importance of assessing the quality of the services they provide their students and communities. Evaluation, the process of determining quality of schools and how to improve it, should be an integral part of all school.
WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MY CONTEXT?
Reading literature about monitoring and evaluation, scholarly discussions, in-depth qualitative and exploratory quantitative researches, effects on process, product and overall results, in term of excellent outcome at part of students learning, excited me, and make me realized the importance of process. However, when I see my own context, with same lenses, I find less encouraging things, the realities, running practices and attitudes towards the development, accountability and improvement, desperate me enough. I am from Public sector, engaged in teaching for 20 years at higher level of education at different contexts in province Sindh. I worked two years as Master Trainer for head teacher and teachers of primary and secondary level also. My work experiences provided me an opportunity to observe system explicitly at all three levels of education. At all levels we have some monitoring systems. School Inspections, school/college visits by higher authorities are few examples. In which senior teachers, officers of higher level scheduled to visit schools for observation. Supervisors, Sub divisional district educational officers visits schools and monitor the ongoing learning activities in their jurisdictions. However political interference in terms of appointment and postings ruined and paralyzed the system. Corruption successfully deepened it roots from lower level to top most authorities. Merit hanged publicly and all the efficient administrators illogically made powerless. “The existence of ghost schools siphoning off millions in salaries to employees on paper and the ever present “missing facilities” in government schools points to the rampant corruption in a department where role models for selfless service should have existed” Riaz I., (2010). “Pakistan’s education crisis must be addressed by a drastic reform to renovate the system”. Xhaferri R., Iqbal K. (2010). They further elaborate that “To ensure progressive revisions in education, a constant supervision of changes as well as a vast array of information must be made available to stakeholders and policymakers. However big question for us is how can we introduce the concepts of evaluation in our context. The realizing the prevailing political and bureaucratic hierarchy, my honest comment is that the single teacher or head teacher or small groups of people are not able to change the status co. however nothing is impossible. One candle can lit thousand others, with lit of every candle darkness of corruption, negligence minimized. What ever system legally exists, we try to implement it and spread legal and constitutional awareness among all stake holders regarding policies. My suggestion for introducing frame work is that we may introduce Thomas Guskey's 5 levels of professional development evaluation frame work in our institutions for evaluation, improvement and development. Which have 5 levels, i.e. 1; Participant Reaction, 2; Participant Learning, 3; Organizational Support, 4; Participant Use of New Knowledge and Skills, and 5; Student Learning Outcomes. Beauty of Guskey’s model is that success at an early level may be necessary for positive results at the next higher one. Further more Guskey’s model covering both formative and summative approaches. First two steps are formative and four and five steps are summative. In this regard I suggest the connections among student, teachers, and communities, and with institutions of regional, national and global level. These steps must be according to Guskey’s Model, first step will lead towards second and so on. It is very feasible, manageable and not violating any legal regulations. Latest information technology provided us enormous opportunities to be connected, (www) for what ever, when ever and where ever. This can be started at single institution with two to three skilled teachers in information technology with single computer with internet connection. Achieving one step will lead towards higher level of other one. Success encourages expanding the network. As level of understanding increases the chances of higher achievements gradually increase accordingly. Further evaluation of same program can open many dimensions and might be source of inspiration for many others. Guskey’s model can be used in evaluating the teacher performance by assessing results of students. Unfortunately we are not evaluating the results and assessment process in our context. In public sector very reliable data in terms of results at university and boards are available. We can utilize that available data. Through SPSS software correlating and comparing certain data we will be able to elaborate lot of hidden aspects of our system. The second step will be to give some meaning of that data, and then we will give institutional support and apply new knowledge there, and in next results comparing with previous ones we will be able to understand the volume of change and it will be cyclic process.
REFERENCES
Jane, R. & Hilary, S. (Eds.). (2002). School Self Evaluation: A process to support pupil and teacher learning. London: The National School Improvement Network.
Nevo, D. (2001). School Evaluation: External or Internal? Studies in educational evaluation.
Christie, C., Moss,R. & Klein, B. M. (2004). Moving toward collaboration by creating a participatory internal-external evaluation team: A Case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation 30,125-134.
Meuret, D., Morlaix. 2003, conditions of success of a school’s self-evaluation: some lessons of a European experiences, school effectiveness and school improvement 14:53-71.
Vlasceanu, L., Grunberg, L. & Parles, D. (2004). Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Grossary of Basic Tems and Definitions(Bucharest,UNESCO-CEPES) Papers on higher education,ISBN92- 9069-178-6.http://www.cepes.ro/publications/Default.htm
Schildkamp, K. & Visscher, A. (2010). The utilization of a school self-evaluation instrument, Educational Studies 1–19, Retrieved June 02, 2010 from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415834
Guskey, Thomas R., (2002) "Does it Make a Difference? Evaluating Professional Development." Educational Leadership.
Guskey, Thomas. R.,(1998). Making time to train your staff. The School Administrator,
Schwartz, J. (1993, September 30). Obesity affects economic, social status. The
Washington Post, pp. A1, A4.
Riaz, Ismat. “The mechanics of change.” Daily Dawn Karachi 27 June 2010 Education page ed.: N. pag.
Rudina Xhaferri & Khalid Iqbal. “Resources for successful education policies.” Daily Dawn Karachi
● Evaluation for curriculum and professional development
● Evaluation for school development and improvement
● Evaluation for public accountability
● Evaluation for individual and organizational learning
For process of evaluation either institution takes responsibility on her shoulders and commences the internal evaluation or hire independent consultants for external evaluation. The evaluation categorized in formative and summative. Nevo, D., (2001) termed formative evaluation activities are conventionally believed to be more appropriate for the internal evaluation and summative and outcomes activities for the external evaluation, as per his understanding internal evaluator is more familiar with the program and organizational culture, on the other hand the external evaluator is independent of the organization and this is less likely to fall victim to organizational politics. Internal evaluation is focused on development aspects and external evaluation deals in accountability perspective. We have one more term in this regard that is Self Evaluation, we do not need to confuse over the term, as in literature different researchers used self evaluation as alternate to internal evaluation. School self-evaluation (SSE) a procedure involving systematic information gathering initiated by the school with the intention to assess the functioning of the school for supporting decision-making, organizational learning and for fostering school improvement (Schildkamp& Vi sscher, 2010).
Internal evaluation “… argues that the concept of learning organization can be used to integrate the different processes involved in these at times conflicting activities” (David P, 2007, p.373). Internal/self evaluation is responsibility of internal management staff members as head teachers, teachers, school coordinators and managers. Internal evaluation often designed as per needs of external evaluation. Main features of internal evaluation are that it is less regulated than external evaluation, internal evaluation coordinated mainly by the management or an evaluation committee, academic staff with student’s participation. It is on going process and mostly termed as formative assessment for development. It should demonstrate commitment to continuous improvement of processes and involving as much of the staff as possible with mutual trust among team members so that conflicts and differences of opinion can be resolved in the best interest of the institution and stake holders. The process must identify common strengths and weaknesses and develop a meaningful plan for improvement that can be communicated effectively to all concern circles. Internal evaluation provides relevant information for decision-making at local level and beyond, including the participating foundations. Through process we can identify the organizations current position that which areas are functioning accordingly and where are the gaps and pauses which declined entire processes. Internal evaluation providing support the learning processes for pupils, teachers, staff and institutions involved. Documentation of findings provides evidences to policy makers.
Contrary External evaluation is undertaken by independent evaluators and seen in perspective of accountability of schools and teachers. External evaluation is a generic term for the quality or standard review usually performed by a team of external experts. External evaluation deals in quality monitoring, audit, assessment and accreditation. (e.g. OFSTED inspection, JCIA) (Vlasceanu, Grunberg & Parlea, 2004). External evaluation mostly brought by summative mode at the end of academic year. The evaluators work with freedom as they are not associated with organization. However, external evaluation claims more cost than internal evaluation. A well-planned and documented external review process adds significant credibility, accountability, and quality assurance for the internal review activities. The diverse perspectives of external practitioners can be very helpful in validating findings and recommendations and offering new insights on the best direction for ongoing program improvement and the related documentation requirements.
In both there are some issues of cost, flexibility, objectivity, accountability, ethics and utilization of results. Both have some advantages and disadvantages. The debate over methodology of evaluation is less important. According to Guskey, 1998, 2002 the evaluation is systematic investigation of merit or worth, and he emphasis that good evaluations does not need to be complex; what is necessary is good planning and paying attention to evaluation at the outset of the professional development program, not at the end. However, “...there is an inherent tension built into the inspection process, since it aimed of assuring accountability rather than development.” (David P. 2007). Similar concerns stated by Meuret and Morlaix (2003), they define school self-evaluation as a process which is performed by at least part of the schools stakeholders- management, staff, pupils and parents as opposed to external evaluation where the judgment on the school is delivered by external agents. “Everybody seems to hate External Evaluation while nobody trusts in Internal Evaluation” (Nevo, 2001). To overcome the dilemma and tensions between accountability and development perspectives virtually internal/self evaluation and external evaluation approaches the mixed methods in other words combination of both approaches introduced in many countries. According to combined approach an organization can utilize Internal Evaluators to collect data and External Evaluators to analyze data, or Internal Evaluator conduct full evaluation and External Evaluator directs a Meta –evaluation, Both Internal Evaluation and External Evaluation can conduct independent evaluations and then integrate or compare the results or an organization can hire an Internal Evaluator to collect data and analyze data and External Evaluator to monitor the evaluation process. (Christie, Moss, & Klein, 2004). In those cases researchers integrated and utilized both approaches at same time. Educators generally agree on the importance of assessing the quality of the services they provide their students and communities. Evaluation, the process of determining quality of schools and how to improve it, should be an integral part of all school.
WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MY CONTEXT?
Reading literature about monitoring and evaluation, scholarly discussions, in-depth qualitative and exploratory quantitative researches, effects on process, product and overall results, in term of excellent outcome at part of students learning, excited me, and make me realized the importance of process. However, when I see my own context, with same lenses, I find less encouraging things, the realities, running practices and attitudes towards the development, accountability and improvement, desperate me enough. I am from Public sector, engaged in teaching for 20 years at higher level of education at different contexts in province Sindh. I worked two years as Master Trainer for head teacher and teachers of primary and secondary level also. My work experiences provided me an opportunity to observe system explicitly at all three levels of education. At all levels we have some monitoring systems. School Inspections, school/college visits by higher authorities are few examples. In which senior teachers, officers of higher level scheduled to visit schools for observation. Supervisors, Sub divisional district educational officers visits schools and monitor the ongoing learning activities in their jurisdictions. However political interference in terms of appointment and postings ruined and paralyzed the system. Corruption successfully deepened it roots from lower level to top most authorities. Merit hanged publicly and all the efficient administrators illogically made powerless. “The existence of ghost schools siphoning off millions in salaries to employees on paper and the ever present “missing facilities” in government schools points to the rampant corruption in a department where role models for selfless service should have existed” Riaz I., (2010). “Pakistan’s education crisis must be addressed by a drastic reform to renovate the system”. Xhaferri R., Iqbal K. (2010). They further elaborate that “To ensure progressive revisions in education, a constant supervision of changes as well as a vast array of information must be made available to stakeholders and policymakers. However big question for us is how can we introduce the concepts of evaluation in our context. The realizing the prevailing political and bureaucratic hierarchy, my honest comment is that the single teacher or head teacher or small groups of people are not able to change the status co. however nothing is impossible. One candle can lit thousand others, with lit of every candle darkness of corruption, negligence minimized. What ever system legally exists, we try to implement it and spread legal and constitutional awareness among all stake holders regarding policies. My suggestion for introducing frame work is that we may introduce Thomas Guskey's 5 levels of professional development evaluation frame work in our institutions for evaluation, improvement and development. Which have 5 levels, i.e. 1; Participant Reaction, 2; Participant Learning, 3; Organizational Support, 4; Participant Use of New Knowledge and Skills, and 5; Student Learning Outcomes. Beauty of Guskey’s model is that success at an early level may be necessary for positive results at the next higher one. Further more Guskey’s model covering both formative and summative approaches. First two steps are formative and four and five steps are summative. In this regard I suggest the connections among student, teachers, and communities, and with institutions of regional, national and global level. These steps must be according to Guskey’s Model, first step will lead towards second and so on. It is very feasible, manageable and not violating any legal regulations. Latest information technology provided us enormous opportunities to be connected, (www) for what ever, when ever and where ever. This can be started at single institution with two to three skilled teachers in information technology with single computer with internet connection. Achieving one step will lead towards higher level of other one. Success encourages expanding the network. As level of understanding increases the chances of higher achievements gradually increase accordingly. Further evaluation of same program can open many dimensions and might be source of inspiration for many others. Guskey’s model can be used in evaluating the teacher performance by assessing results of students. Unfortunately we are not evaluating the results and assessment process in our context. In public sector very reliable data in terms of results at university and boards are available. We can utilize that available data. Through SPSS software correlating and comparing certain data we will be able to elaborate lot of hidden aspects of our system. The second step will be to give some meaning of that data, and then we will give institutional support and apply new knowledge there, and in next results comparing with previous ones we will be able to understand the volume of change and it will be cyclic process.
REFERENCES
Jane, R. & Hilary, S. (Eds.). (2002). School Self Evaluation: A process to support pupil and teacher learning. London: The National School Improvement Network.
Nevo, D. (2001). School Evaluation: External or Internal? Studies in educational evaluation.
Christie, C., Moss,R. & Klein, B. M. (2004). Moving toward collaboration by creating a participatory internal-external evaluation team: A Case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation 30,125-134.
Meuret, D., Morlaix. 2003, conditions of success of a school’s self-evaluation: some lessons of a European experiences, school effectiveness and school improvement 14:53-71.
Vlasceanu, L., Grunberg, L. & Parles, D. (2004). Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Grossary of Basic Tems and Definitions(Bucharest,UNESCO-CEPES) Papers on higher education,ISBN92- 9069-178-6.http://www.cepes.ro/publications/Default.htm
Schildkamp, K. & Visscher, A. (2010). The utilization of a school self-evaluation instrument, Educational Studies 1–19, Retrieved June 02, 2010 from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415834
Guskey, Thomas R., (2002) "Does it Make a Difference? Evaluating Professional Development." Educational Leadership.
Guskey, Thomas. R.,(1998). Making time to train your staff. The School Administrator,
Schwartz, J. (1993, September 30). Obesity affects economic, social status. The
Washington Post, pp. A1, A4.
Riaz, Ismat. “The mechanics of change.” Daily Dawn Karachi 27 June 2010 Education page ed.: N. pag.
Rudina Xhaferri & Khalid Iqbal. “Resources for successful education policies.” Daily Dawn Karachi
Friday, July 2, 2010
EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAINING
This paper aims at evaluating workshop of School Head Teachers Association for Development of Education (SHADE) conducted on May 29, 2010, under the title “History and Historical Thinking in School Curriculum”. Professional Teacher Associations Network (PTAN) comprises nine teachers and Head Teachers organization that manages workshops for promoting sustainable, environment for professional growth and development of the overall education in Pakistan. SHADE is a member association among eight others. SHADE has mainly focused on the continuous professional development of the head teachers. through workshops and discussions to develop human and other resources required for the promotion of school management as an area of study and design practices that can contribute towards the development of education in the country. Workshop was conducted by two professors one from AKU-IED and other from University of Karachi. Approximately 51 head teachers from different primary and secondary level institutions attended the workshop.
Facilitators brainstormed on the topic” how we judge the reliability and validity of facts and figures written in the books of history” and lead open discussion about it. Controversy over validity and reliability in historical facts and figures are natural. Teachers can validities the facts providing evidences from Artifacts, (art work, archeological findings, cave paintings), Oral History (stories, songs, genealogies) and written history (letters, books, news papers, official and personal records). Through discussions made consensus that the Educators are duty bound to be careful about fake facts and figures included in curriculum and text books by some biased resources. Facilitators termed teaching controversial history like “walking on sharp edge of sword”. They quoted Muslim History for the wars fought between Hazart Ali and Hazart Muawea causing the massacre of hundreds and thousands of Muslims from both sides. While teaching such type of topic should be intended to resolve a conflict between two contradictory or apparently contradictory ideas or parts logically, establishing truth on both sides rather than disproving one argument. In workshop facilitators show another realistic aspect of pedagogy that “teaching history and historical thinking as powerful tools to relate to the past, present and future, and interpret theme as dynamic processes. In fact study of history can be emotive and controversial which needs especial care and skills to teach. In fact Unemotional, realistic, and impartial careful studies of such historical incidents of Muslim history are expected to help Muslims settle their sectarian disputes now and put positive effects on Muslim community in future.
We have some more transformational powerful philosophies to consider. For example ‘theory of Marxism deals with the philosophy of two apparently opposed ideas the thesis and anti thesis became combined in a unified whole, the synthesis’. Centuries ago before birth of Marxism Sufism discussed same Dialectics in other way to emphasizing on NAFI and ISBAT and they believed that God consists in every object which exists in this world. So when someone hurting, beating and doing any thing wrong with any body virtually he is doing same with Almighty. Sufi’s believe in love, respect, trust and giving. This is a time for educators especially who are teaching history to conceptualize controversial issues from eye of those angles also.
When I was trying to link all proceedings of workshop with Teachers Learning class room discourse I recognize many related indicators, philosophies and theories. Workshop was designed for adult group of head teachers for their professional development. In approach of the ‘Andragogy (Adult Education) it is believed that learners bring a greater volume and quality of experiences; they are virtually rich resources for one and another, however readiness to learn is essential aspect to bring change’. Learners “…most adult educators want to be informed of new ideas and changes in the field that might have some bearing on practice” Sharan B. Merriam (1993, p.105).
I am evaluating workshop findings as per Guskey’s five-level model for evaluating professional development, which consists of Participants, reactions, Participants’ learning, Organization support and change, Participants’ use of new knowledge and Student learning outcomes. These levels can be used formatively and summative as well however, “Formatively, we need to find out at each level what's been done well and, if not done well, how it can be improved. Summatively, we need to know the effectiveness of elements at each level to judge the true value and worth of any professional development endeavor”. (Guskey 2006). Here I discuss only 1st and 2nd level as per relativity. Because I don’t went for post observation for same participants in their respective schools. In Guskeys model of evaluation level one participant’s reactions column “selected questions address” as per observation and through interviews I understand that most of them liked the teaching history with new approaches, they also learned the ambiguities and complexities in teaching of history especially controversial and sensitive issues. The learned to validities the facts figures and events of history. As it was overcrowded class and they were faced bit difficulties to move around the class, so I say their time partially well spent. The material in form of handouts and slides shared with them was very useful, the knowledge they got from workshop might be helpful if they introduce same in their educational institutions for their own self and teacher’s professional development and for better outcome of students. However, my response about their understanding regarding level 1 column two and participants learning column 1st and 2nd are not encouraging. It might be due to overcrowded class, made difficult for facilitators to provide feedback to everyone or allow all participants with some rigors discussions. Out of 51 participants only five to six out took part in classroom interactions. Facilitator when enquired about knowing Blooms Taxonomy only two participants raised their hands; it was clear indication about lower level of understanding on their part for very popular theories of education.
In course of Teaching Learning classroom practices Learning Organizations theory of Peter Senge also came under discussion. The theory starts from Team learning, Building shared vision, providing mental models, and Personal mastery and in last creating Systems thinking in organization. Workshops are source to enrich the understanding and knowledge regarding diverse topic(s) of mutual interest. It is rightly said that ‘workshops are investigation of truth through discussion or the art of investigating truth through discussion’. Successful organizations mostly use this tool to develop effective communication skills among all level of human work force to create a leadership culture in organization which is essential part of professional development toward journey to make institution one learning organization. Workshops are being designed to help participants stay motivated and updated in their respective fields. However workshops are micro component and those isolated events lonely would not make school as Learning Organization.
We as a group of six M.Ed students decide to observe the SHADE workshop as it was supposed to be very close to our specialization course. Before going to scheduled workshop we contacted the PTAN office for relevant information. Secretary apologized for non availability of such needed written material; however, she was cooperative enough to provide the broachers about both PTAN and SHADE. Reading the broachers we understood the aims, objectives, mission and vision of PTAN and SHADE.
Thus we as a group discussed the strategies to collect data. We had consensus to utilize non structured informal interviews from participants and from facilitators and take on- spot observational notes during ongoing proceedings. I took notes and managed to get interviews from two workshop participants during tea break and an interview from facilitator after end of the session. Soon after the workshop I hurried to preserve data thus collected. Since I have observed that we lose the important and minute details if we leave the data unrecorded immediately. Next day the group met to share respective findings of SHADE workshop. To me working collegiality with group is just a joint cluster of healthy minds at one place. Working with colleagues I have learnt the passion, patience, trust, respect, and willingness to help each other when required. Collaborative working is highly effective and highly recommended for professional growth.
REFERENCES
Guskey, R. (2002, Mar.). Redesigning Professional Development [Msg Volume 59 Number 6].
Does It Make a Difference?Evaluating Professional Development Message posted to http://www.nsrfharmony.org/guskey.pdf
Kreider, H., & Bouffard, S. (2006). Questions and answers: A conversation with Thomas R. Guskey. The Evaluation Exchange, XI(4), Winter 2005/2006. Retrieved April 4, 2006 from the Harvard Family Research Project web site at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue32/qanda.htm
Sharan . B. Merriam (Ed.), an update on adult learning theory. (pp. 105-110).New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, no. 57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Facilitators brainstormed on the topic” how we judge the reliability and validity of facts and figures written in the books of history” and lead open discussion about it. Controversy over validity and reliability in historical facts and figures are natural. Teachers can validities the facts providing evidences from Artifacts, (art work, archeological findings, cave paintings), Oral History (stories, songs, genealogies) and written history (letters, books, news papers, official and personal records). Through discussions made consensus that the Educators are duty bound to be careful about fake facts and figures included in curriculum and text books by some biased resources. Facilitators termed teaching controversial history like “walking on sharp edge of sword”. They quoted Muslim History for the wars fought between Hazart Ali and Hazart Muawea causing the massacre of hundreds and thousands of Muslims from both sides. While teaching such type of topic should be intended to resolve a conflict between two contradictory or apparently contradictory ideas or parts logically, establishing truth on both sides rather than disproving one argument. In workshop facilitators show another realistic aspect of pedagogy that “teaching history and historical thinking as powerful tools to relate to the past, present and future, and interpret theme as dynamic processes. In fact study of history can be emotive and controversial which needs especial care and skills to teach. In fact Unemotional, realistic, and impartial careful studies of such historical incidents of Muslim history are expected to help Muslims settle their sectarian disputes now and put positive effects on Muslim community in future.
We have some more transformational powerful philosophies to consider. For example ‘theory of Marxism deals with the philosophy of two apparently opposed ideas the thesis and anti thesis became combined in a unified whole, the synthesis’. Centuries ago before birth of Marxism Sufism discussed same Dialectics in other way to emphasizing on NAFI and ISBAT and they believed that God consists in every object which exists in this world. So when someone hurting, beating and doing any thing wrong with any body virtually he is doing same with Almighty. Sufi’s believe in love, respect, trust and giving. This is a time for educators especially who are teaching history to conceptualize controversial issues from eye of those angles also.
When I was trying to link all proceedings of workshop with Teachers Learning class room discourse I recognize many related indicators, philosophies and theories. Workshop was designed for adult group of head teachers for their professional development. In approach of the ‘Andragogy (Adult Education) it is believed that learners bring a greater volume and quality of experiences; they are virtually rich resources for one and another, however readiness to learn is essential aspect to bring change’. Learners “…most adult educators want to be informed of new ideas and changes in the field that might have some bearing on practice” Sharan B. Merriam (1993, p.105).
I am evaluating workshop findings as per Guskey’s five-level model for evaluating professional development, which consists of Participants, reactions, Participants’ learning, Organization support and change, Participants’ use of new knowledge and Student learning outcomes. These levels can be used formatively and summative as well however, “Formatively, we need to find out at each level what's been done well and, if not done well, how it can be improved. Summatively, we need to know the effectiveness of elements at each level to judge the true value and worth of any professional development endeavor”. (Guskey 2006). Here I discuss only 1st and 2nd level as per relativity. Because I don’t went for post observation for same participants in their respective schools. In Guskeys model of evaluation level one participant’s reactions column “selected questions address” as per observation and through interviews I understand that most of them liked the teaching history with new approaches, they also learned the ambiguities and complexities in teaching of history especially controversial and sensitive issues. The learned to validities the facts figures and events of history. As it was overcrowded class and they were faced bit difficulties to move around the class, so I say their time partially well spent. The material in form of handouts and slides shared with them was very useful, the knowledge they got from workshop might be helpful if they introduce same in their educational institutions for their own self and teacher’s professional development and for better outcome of students. However, my response about their understanding regarding level 1 column two and participants learning column 1st and 2nd are not encouraging. It might be due to overcrowded class, made difficult for facilitators to provide feedback to everyone or allow all participants with some rigors discussions. Out of 51 participants only five to six out took part in classroom interactions. Facilitator when enquired about knowing Blooms Taxonomy only two participants raised their hands; it was clear indication about lower level of understanding on their part for very popular theories of education.
In course of Teaching Learning classroom practices Learning Organizations theory of Peter Senge also came under discussion. The theory starts from Team learning, Building shared vision, providing mental models, and Personal mastery and in last creating Systems thinking in organization. Workshops are source to enrich the understanding and knowledge regarding diverse topic(s) of mutual interest. It is rightly said that ‘workshops are investigation of truth through discussion or the art of investigating truth through discussion’. Successful organizations mostly use this tool to develop effective communication skills among all level of human work force to create a leadership culture in organization which is essential part of professional development toward journey to make institution one learning organization. Workshops are being designed to help participants stay motivated and updated in their respective fields. However workshops are micro component and those isolated events lonely would not make school as Learning Organization.
We as a group of six M.Ed students decide to observe the SHADE workshop as it was supposed to be very close to our specialization course. Before going to scheduled workshop we contacted the PTAN office for relevant information. Secretary apologized for non availability of such needed written material; however, she was cooperative enough to provide the broachers about both PTAN and SHADE. Reading the broachers we understood the aims, objectives, mission and vision of PTAN and SHADE.
Thus we as a group discussed the strategies to collect data. We had consensus to utilize non structured informal interviews from participants and from facilitators and take on- spot observational notes during ongoing proceedings. I took notes and managed to get interviews from two workshop participants during tea break and an interview from facilitator after end of the session. Soon after the workshop I hurried to preserve data thus collected. Since I have observed that we lose the important and minute details if we leave the data unrecorded immediately. Next day the group met to share respective findings of SHADE workshop. To me working collegiality with group is just a joint cluster of healthy minds at one place. Working with colleagues I have learnt the passion, patience, trust, respect, and willingness to help each other when required. Collaborative working is highly effective and highly recommended for professional growth.
REFERENCES
Guskey, R. (2002, Mar.). Redesigning Professional Development [Msg Volume 59 Number 6].
Does It Make a Difference?Evaluating Professional Development Message posted to http://www.nsrfharmony.org/guskey.pdf
Kreider, H., & Bouffard, S. (2006). Questions and answers: A conversation with Thomas R. Guskey. The Evaluation Exchange, XI(4), Winter 2005/2006. Retrieved April 4, 2006 from the Harvard Family Research Project web site at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue32/qanda.htm
Sharan . B. Merriam (Ed.), an update on adult learning theory. (pp. 105-110).New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, no. 57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Friday, May 21, 2010
I have a dream...I am narrating my life story as a teacher supported with methopers which I used in my collage.
I HAVE A DREAM
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up... live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s (Aug. 28, 1963).
Dreams are born with human beings, humans die but dreams remain forever. I am narrating my dream story born with me at freezing season of winter January1959, in a Hut (Jhugi) made of mud and straws. After 6 years, my parents put me in a Primary Government School about 1.5 miles far from my home. There existed a little jungle between school and my home; often my dad escorted me up to the end of the jungle. My life story in pursuance of a dream started from that single room school, made by mud bricks, in front of a road and a canal to the left. My school building was devoid of boundary wall and any facility of toilet. After school I used to swim usually in canal with my school fellows especially in summer season, while at home I mostly used to work in the fields with my parents.
Dreams, only dreams in the dusk, Only the old remembered picturesOf lost days when the day's loss, Wrote in tears the heart's loss.
‘ Carl Sandburg’
As I grew, words, sights and sounds made meaning for me; I started feeling the impact of respect and love, from community and from my school teachers. To them, I was some very special child. Their kind treatment gave me much confidence, pride, encouragement and inspiration for life and people. The encouraging behavior I received from them was mostly because my uncle, who was a school teacher, and he was teacher of majority of my teachers in the school. My great uncle passed away in early fifties amid his career and I was born a few years back. My parents gave me my teacher uncle’s name, and because of that name every body showed me love and respect. Since that time it became a dream for me to become teacher, like my great uncle.
I dream of any things that one day I'll know, I dream of the freedom: a dream I won't let go, I dream of my future and marvel at my pride As my heart is flying and singing inside.
‘Twilight Whispers’
Thus in this journey of life, my dream of becoming a teacher ultimately materialized in 1990, when I joined a Government college in Karachi as lecturer. I was more than happy to achieve that milestone. This achievement proved a profound source of joy for me; I felt as if I kissed the Peak of Himalaya Mountain.
Once in the dream of a night I stoodLone in the light of a magical wood, Soul-deep in visions that poppy-like sprang; And spirits of Truth were the birds that sang, And spirits of Love were the stars that glowed, And spirits of Peace were the streams that flowed In that magical wood in the land of sleep.
‘Sarojini Naidu’
In fact that was my fantasy, the reality was quite contrary. That time Karachi was victim of severe lingual riots. Almost Every part of the city was disturbed. Innocent citizens were targeted, tortured and brutally killed without any reason. Terrorism ruled the time. I guessed educational institutions might be spared and teachers might be treated as teachers, but I was wrong. In my college a dominant student political group, backed by a local powerful political party, threatened those of us who did not belong to their ethnicity. The situation made me sick and I felt my life on stake. At night I used to experience the nightmares. I dreamt as if wolves were chasing me to grab and tear into pieces.
I dream of rainbows, Bright in the sky, I dream of lightning, together we cry,
I dream of flowers, I feel such delight, I dream of spiders, and I scream with fright, I dream of fish, swimming in the sea, I dream of sharks, coming after me, I dream of lambs, frolicking around, I dream of wolves, Hunting, no sound, ...
‘Cathryn Martin’
I was in a fix. I faced two difficulties simultaneously. On one hand as a novice teacher, unexposed to the pedagogical skills while on other side I felt continuously terrified. These beginning days of my career were dull, isolated and lonely. I regretted, “O my God! This is the Teaching profession I had been dreaming of since my childhood”. All good images associated with this profession were almost cracked. In the prevailing circumstances I could only visualize the blurred future and the deep dark ways ahead. Just After a few days of the beginning of my teaching career I had almost decided to quit my teaching profession. It is rightly held, In fact, nearly half of all new teachers leave teaching within the first five years (Boles & Troen, 2002). Another reality regarding novice teacher’s choice either to stay or leave is directly linked with principal’s relations with them. According to Mauer and Zimmerman (2000), novice teachers’ progress through an array of emotions, beginning with anticipation and moving through four phases known as survival, disillusionment, rejuvenation, and reflection. By modeling advocacy and empathy, principals assist teachers in navigating this process.
Fortunately I got support from my principal and senior teachers who guided and mentored me. A Professor of English literature and my friend gave me great psychological support; senior professor of commerce helped me in the field of pedagogy, and the in charge principal provided me security as much as he could. Their support made me confident; it made me start working normally.
Stay with me forever and together we’ll cope, Because when I dream of you, I dream of hope, Dream awhile with me and together we’ll see, Not all dreams are bad, so dream along with me.
‘Cathryn Martin’
As per guidance of senior colleagues, I teach my students without any bias. I practiced teaching to learn more than teaching. I started observing student behavior towards their study and other related aspects of social life. My friendly behavior and attitude of tolerance with my students paved for me way to search out the solutions and remedies of many an alarming question. Thus the students who threatened me confided into me like my friends. They respected me from very core of their heart. Moreover same students who threatened me apologized for their past behavior. That was an amazing experience for me through which I realized the power of teaching. I believe my emotional, social, and intellectual growth, during the three beginning years of my career as lecturer. This was time of hope and despair, I confronted risks, learned to survive to dominate and teach even in a highly stressful scenario. Here I found my new set of teaching family; they taught me how to laugh out the fear, to overcome the stress. Here I knew that our informal discussions are as important as our reading. The Colleagues’ guidance in the pedagogical areas, their moral support, provision of security, their valuing me as a family member influenced me to the extent to change my life style and thinking.
Thus, I resuscitate to start loving my profession. Now I have started understanding why people loved my uncle teacher and me his name sake. I have never thought of changing my profession, I have a renewed outlook and multiplied awe towards this sacred profession. My love for teaching and learning inspired me to team up with ESRA as a master trainer for head teachers and administrators. Thus the admission in my M.Ed. Programme here in AKU IED is the continuity of that dream, the dream to be a teacher.
Conclusion
To day when I peep back in my past life and consider the significant events occurred in my personal and professional life, I value my dreams and commitment, restless struggle, and my thirst for learning which paved the way towards my present status. Evaluating my past life connecting with present practices when I look towards future, I am visualizing all rainbow colors shining in my coming life.
REFERENCE
Boles, K.C. & Troen, V. (2002). Who’s Teaching Your Children: Why the Teaching Crisis is Worse Than You Think and What Can Be Done About It. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Boms, D. (2010, January 16). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND A NOVICE TEACHER. Retrieved from the Connexions Web site: http://cnx.org/content/m33450/1.1/
King, M. (1963, Aug. 28). The I Have a Dream Speech Message posted to http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html
Martin, C. (1991, Feb. 24). Dream A While with Me Message posted to http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/dream-a-while-with-me/
Mauer, E., & Zimmerman, E. (2000). Mentoring new teachers. Principal.
Naidu, S. (2006, Jan.). Dream Poem Message posted to http://www.poetseers.org/themes/poems_about_dreams/
Sandburg, C. (n.d.). Dreams in the dusk Message posted to http://www.famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/carl_sandb...
Whispers, T. (1991, Nov. 30). Everybody dreams Message posted to www.poemhunter.com/poem/everybody-dreams/
APPENDIX
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
تبصرن جا اطلاع حاصل ڪرڻ لاءِ:
هتي ڪلڪ ڪريو