The Rebirth of Quality Education in Uganda: Wells Project
Uganda, 2017 - 2019
Get Microdata
Reference ID
WELLS_PROJECT_UGANDA
Producer(s)
Luigi Giussani Institute of Higher Education (LGIHE)
Created on
Feb 15, 2024
Last modified
Feb 15, 2024
Page views
61750
Downloads
799
Identification
Survey ID Number
WELLS_PROJECT_UGANDA
Title
The Rebirth of Quality Education in Uganda: Wells Project
Country
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| UGANDA | UG |
Study type
Informal Sector Survey [hh/iss]
Abstract
LGIHE implemented a 2 years WELLS project to contribute to the re-birth of quality education in Uganda through the delivery of an education proposal that ignites a dynamic change with a whole-schoolapproach where school leaders, teachers, students, parents and other key stakeholders collaborate towards the personal, holistic growth of life-long learners. The project activities were fully implemented in 9 schools (5 Primary and 4 Secondary).In order to assess the achievement of the goals, objectives and indicators of the project as a result of LGIHE’s interventions, an endline study was conducted in the 9 project schools. Specifically, the endline study was conducted to: (i) ascertain the extent to which the project indicators have been achieved; (ii) assess the effectiveness of the project interventions; (iii)assess the sustainability of the project interventions; and (iv) assess the degree of satisfaction of the school leaders with the project implementation process.
The endline study employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The methods included: a survey with 9 headteachers; a survey with 133 teachers; teachers’ classroom observations targeting those who were observed at baseline (112 teachers); students’ soft skills survey targeting Senior two students who were assessed at baseline while in Senior one (285 students); FGDs with teachers; FGDs with Seniortwo and Senior three students; group interviews with SMC/BOG and PTA representatives; KIIswith school leaders; and documentation review.The endline study revealed that 67% of the school leaders demonstrated improved leadership skills. Furthermore, 65% of the school leaders had successfully completed and graduated in the
School Leadership and Management course of LGIHE. School leaders acknowledged the School Leadership and Management course for having equipped them with knowledge and skills
relevant in managing issues in their school.LGIHE’s interventions have also tremendously contributed to an improvement in teachers’ pedagogical teaching methods. Teachers’ classroom observations revealed that 78% of the teachers demonstrated improved pedagogical teaching methods through prior lesson planning and preparation, use of appropriate teaching and learning aids and employed formatively driven classroom techniques. Classroom observations further revealed that, 76% of the teachers employed improved teaching methods for accelerated literacy while 82% of the teachers had improved assessment and evaluation methods.Most schools had either active PTA or SMC/BOG committees. The committee members reported to have understood their roles and responsibilities in the school as result of LGIHE’s interventions. Furthermore, 67% of the schools had active SMC/BOG and PTA committees.In regards to sustainability, all the schools practice strategies aimed at sustaining the knowledge and skills acquired from LGIHE trainings. These include but not limited to: staff review meetings, departmental meetings, PTA and SMC/BOG meetings, parents’ meetingstogether with the teachers and students; staff support supervision, among others.
Lastly, in regards to the degree of satisfaction of the school leaders with the project implementation process, the satisfaction levels ranged from 58% to 97%, with an average score of 83% which indicates a moderate to high level of satisfaction.Based on the findings of this study, the following key recommendations are made:
For LGIHE
- Improving feedback mechanism: School leaders and the teachers stressed the need for immediate feedback on various activities conducted to be used as a reference while embarking on improving their practices. This could be done through availing the various training and field reports to the schools.
- Sensitisation of school leaders on the need for extracurricular activities in schools: There is need to create awareness of the importance of extracurricular activities such as games and sports, clubs and music, dance and drama in the development of students' skills. Participation of children in such activities helps to improve their talents and serves as a forum to develop their soft and high order thinking skills.
- Trainings for learners: During focus group discussions with teachers and interviews with school leaders for secondary schools, a need was realized to extend trainings to the learners so that they can be helped to understand themselves and their value. The training could as well be used to emphasize the importance of education to them.
For Schools
- Need to improve on record keeping: Records are crucial for decision making and making appropriate strategies improving teaching and learning in the school. School leaders need to adopt a culture of documenting all records of school activities such as minutes and attendance lists for meetings for future reference.
- Sensitization of parents on their role in the education of their children: Though an improvement in parents' participation has been achieved during the course of the project, there is still need to sensitize them on their roles in regards to education of children.
The endline study employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The methods included: a survey with 9 headteachers; a survey with 133 teachers; teachers’ classroom observations targeting those who were observed at baseline (112 teachers); students’ soft skills survey targeting Senior two students who were assessed at baseline while in Senior one (285 students); FGDs with teachers; FGDs with Seniortwo and Senior three students; group interviews with SMC/BOG and PTA representatives; KIIswith school leaders; and documentation review.The endline study revealed that 67% of the school leaders demonstrated improved leadership skills. Furthermore, 65% of the school leaders had successfully completed and graduated in the
School Leadership and Management course of LGIHE. School leaders acknowledged the School Leadership and Management course for having equipped them with knowledge and skills
relevant in managing issues in their school.LGIHE’s interventions have also tremendously contributed to an improvement in teachers’ pedagogical teaching methods. Teachers’ classroom observations revealed that 78% of the teachers demonstrated improved pedagogical teaching methods through prior lesson planning and preparation, use of appropriate teaching and learning aids and employed formatively driven classroom techniques. Classroom observations further revealed that, 76% of the teachers employed improved teaching methods for accelerated literacy while 82% of the teachers had improved assessment and evaluation methods.Most schools had either active PTA or SMC/BOG committees. The committee members reported to have understood their roles and responsibilities in the school as result of LGIHE’s interventions. Furthermore, 67% of the schools had active SMC/BOG and PTA committees.In regards to sustainability, all the schools practice strategies aimed at sustaining the knowledge and skills acquired from LGIHE trainings. These include but not limited to: staff review meetings, departmental meetings, PTA and SMC/BOG meetings, parents’ meetingstogether with the teachers and students; staff support supervision, among others.
Lastly, in regards to the degree of satisfaction of the school leaders with the project implementation process, the satisfaction levels ranged from 58% to 97%, with an average score of 83% which indicates a moderate to high level of satisfaction.Based on the findings of this study, the following key recommendations are made:
For LGIHE
- Improving feedback mechanism: School leaders and the teachers stressed the need for immediate feedback on various activities conducted to be used as a reference while embarking on improving their practices. This could be done through availing the various training and field reports to the schools.
- Sensitisation of school leaders on the need for extracurricular activities in schools: There is need to create awareness of the importance of extracurricular activities such as games and sports, clubs and music, dance and drama in the development of students' skills. Participation of children in such activities helps to improve their talents and serves as a forum to develop their soft and high order thinking skills.
- Trainings for learners: During focus group discussions with teachers and interviews with school leaders for secondary schools, a need was realized to extend trainings to the learners so that they can be helped to understand themselves and their value. The training could as well be used to emphasize the importance of education to them.
For Schools
- Need to improve on record keeping: Records are crucial for decision making and making appropriate strategies improving teaching and learning in the school. School leaders need to adopt a culture of documenting all records of school activities such as minutes and attendance lists for meetings for future reference.
- Sensitization of parents on their role in the education of their children: Though an improvement in parents' participation has been achieved during the course of the project, there is still need to sensitize them on their roles in regards to education of children.
Unit of Analysis
Basic units of analysis are as follows:
- Teacher survey and classroom observation had teachers as the units of analysis
- Student survey had individual students as the units of analysis
- School information survey had the schools as the as the units of analysis.
- Teacher survey and classroom observation had teachers as the units of analysis
- Student survey had individual students as the units of analysis
- School information survey had the schools as the as the units of analysis.
Version
Version Date
2022-05-01
Version Notes
This study was underataken from 2017-2019
Scope
Notes
HEADTEACHERS : Basic information of the headteacher like name, age, level of education, employment status and how many years they ahve been headteacher at the school. Majorly, the tool focused on the school demograpgy and that is, owbership of the school, funding of the school, pupils enrollment, number of pupilds in the school, nummber of staff, non teaching staff and all information regarding operations of the school.
CLASSROOMS : The observer was looking for behavioural characteristics based on Not accomplished, Somewhat accomplished, Accomplished and Accomplished very well. Some of the variables looked at by this file include scheme of work by the teacher, ordering of topics, greetings, whether students respect the teacher and vice versa, attention in the classroomrational movements and basic codes in a classroom.
STUDENTS: softskills for students, home and other school factors that influence students' studie, if students feel safe in school, whether they share their problems with the teacher, whether they reflect, their inner feelings, their problem solving skills, their self control and their view on their teachers and parents.
TEACHERS: how teachers view their school, school leaders, school development, team building and culture in the school, professional growth and development, organisational management, human flourishing and core self-evaluation
PTA AND SMC/BOG COMMITTEES: Interviews with 2-4 participants of the PTA and SMC/BOG committees were conducted to describe and explore how the LGIHE trainings have facilitated their roles and responsibilities, what they have put in practice as a result of the various trainings, and the most significant change they have observed in the school, etc. An interview guide was developed for this.
CLASSROOMS : The observer was looking for behavioural characteristics based on Not accomplished, Somewhat accomplished, Accomplished and Accomplished very well. Some of the variables looked at by this file include scheme of work by the teacher, ordering of topics, greetings, whether students respect the teacher and vice versa, attention in the classroomrational movements and basic codes in a classroom.
STUDENTS: softskills for students, home and other school factors that influence students' studie, if students feel safe in school, whether they share their problems with the teacher, whether they reflect, their inner feelings, their problem solving skills, their self control and their view on their teachers and parents.
TEACHERS: how teachers view their school, school leaders, school development, team building and culture in the school, professional growth and development, organisational management, human flourishing and core self-evaluation
PTA AND SMC/BOG COMMITTEES: Interviews with 2-4 participants of the PTA and SMC/BOG committees were conducted to describe and explore how the LGIHE trainings have facilitated their roles and responsibilities, what they have put in practice as a result of the various trainings, and the most significant change they have observed in the school, etc. An interview guide was developed for this.
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
The study was condusted in the districts of Pallisa, Kampala, Tororo, Kyenjojo, and Wakiso in Uganda
Universe
The study covered teachers teaching in nursery, primary and secondary classes and surveyed students in secondary school.
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Luigi Giussani Institute of Higher Education (LGIHE) | LGIHE |
Producers
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| John Mary Vianney Mitana (Ph.D) | LGIHE | project execution |
| Mauro Giacomazzi | LGIHE | project execution |
| Monica Fontana Abad (Ph.D) | LGIHE | project execution |
| Betty Okot (Ph.D) | LGIHE | project execution |
| Martin Ariapa | LGIHE | project execution |
| Gillian Atuheire | LGIHE | project execution |
| Edimond Serwanga | LGIHE | data processing |
| Godfrey Rukundo | LGIHE | project execution |
| Immaculate Namuli | LGIHE | project execution |
| Christine Nassanga | LGIHE | project execution |
| Godwin Obuya | LGIHE | project execution |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Wellspring Philanthropic Fund | Financial support |
Other Identifications/Acknowledgments
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Uganda National Council for Higher Education | Collabioration |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
The study population comprised of students, teachers, SMC/BOG and PTA representatives and school leaders of the project schools.
Headteachers' survey: In each school, a headteacher was asked to complete the school information questionnaire (9 headteachers in total).
Furthermore, each school headteacher completed the weighted checklist for assessing their degree of satisfaction with the implementation process (9 headteachers in total).
Focus Group Discussions: Discussions with 6-12 teachers were conducted. The participants included: teachers who had participated in the various trainings by LGIHE; at least 1 representative from each class/level, a mixture of males and females, those teaching Arts and Science subjects; and excluding Headteachers, Deputy headteachers, and Directors of studies (1 FGD per school, totalling to 7 FGDs).
Furthermore, students of Senior 2 and Senior 3 participated in the FGDs whereby in each school, 3 males and 3 females from each class were considered (1 FGD per school, totalling to 4 FGDs).
KIIs with stakeholders: In each school, a headteacher was interviewed (totalling to 8 headteachers).
Group interview: Interviews with 2-4 PTA and SMC/BOG representatives were conducted (1 interview per school, totalling to 5 interviews)1.
Teachers' survey: A survey for all the teachers who participated in at least one training of LGIHE was conducted. A total of 133 teachers participated in the survey.
Students' survey: A total of 387 Senior 2 students who participated in the baseline study (i.e., those who were in Senior 1 in 2018) were targeted for the soft skills survey. Overall, 285 students participated in the endline study.
Classroom observations: Lessons of 156 teachers who were observed at baseline were targeted. Overall, 112 teachers were observed at endline.
Headteachers' survey: In each school, a headteacher was asked to complete the school information questionnaire (9 headteachers in total).
Furthermore, each school headteacher completed the weighted checklist for assessing their degree of satisfaction with the implementation process (9 headteachers in total).
Focus Group Discussions: Discussions with 6-12 teachers were conducted. The participants included: teachers who had participated in the various trainings by LGIHE; at least 1 representative from each class/level, a mixture of males and females, those teaching Arts and Science subjects; and excluding Headteachers, Deputy headteachers, and Directors of studies (1 FGD per school, totalling to 7 FGDs).
Furthermore, students of Senior 2 and Senior 3 participated in the FGDs whereby in each school, 3 males and 3 females from each class were considered (1 FGD per school, totalling to 4 FGDs).
KIIs with stakeholders: In each school, a headteacher was interviewed (totalling to 8 headteachers).
Group interview: Interviews with 2-4 PTA and SMC/BOG representatives were conducted (1 interview per school, totalling to 5 interviews)1.
Teachers' survey: A survey for all the teachers who participated in at least one training of LGIHE was conducted. A total of 133 teachers participated in the survey.
Students' survey: A total of 387 Senior 2 students who participated in the baseline study (i.e., those who were in Senior 1 in 2018) were targeted for the soft skills survey. Overall, 285 students participated in the endline study.
Classroom observations: Lessons of 156 teachers who were observed at baseline were targeted. Overall, 112 teachers were observed at endline.
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2017-01-01 | 2019-05-02 |
Data Collection Mode
Face-to-face [f2f]
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
Document review: The Evaluation team reviewed documents related to the project in order to inform the study, more so the tool development process. Additionally, school related documents such as: parents’meeting minutes and SMC/BOG minutes, etc. were reviewed.
Headteachers’ survey: A survey with headteachers or deputy headteachers was conducted in order to establish general information about the schools. A school informationquestionnaire that was used at baseline was adapted for this. Furthermore, school leaders were asked to assess their degree of satisfaction with the implementation process of the project. A weighted checklist was developed for this.
Teachers’ survey: A survey for teachers that aimed at assessing Headteachers’ school leadership and management skills and other issues related to the project, was conducted. The tool that was used at the baseline was adapted for this.
Students’ Survey: A survey for secondary school students aimed at ascertaining the levels of their soft skills was conducted. A soft skill tool that was developed by LGIHE during the learning outcomes study,and employed at baseline study, was adapted. Students wereasked to self-complete the questionnaires with the guidance of the LGIHE research personnel.
Classroom Observations: A classroom observation rubrics that entails items on pedagogical teaching approaches, assessment and evaluation that was used at baseline was adopted. The observations duringlessons were done by an LGIHE project staff with vast experience in assessment and evaluation. He/she scored the rubrics based on the lesson(s) observed.
KIIs with various stakeholders: Interviews with headteachers or deputy headteachers wereconducted to describe and explore related aspects of the project. An interview guide wasdeveloped for this.
Group interviews: Interviews with 2-4 participants of the PTA and SMC/BOG committees were conducted to describe and explore how the LGIHE trainings have facilitated their roles and responsibilities, what they have put in practice as a result of the various trainings, and the most significant change they have observed in the school, etc. An interview guide wasdeveloped for this.
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Discussions comprising of 6-12 teachers of the project schools were conducted to describe and explore how the LGIHE trainings have facilitated their pedagogical approaches, what has worked well for them, what has not worked for them, what they have put in place to ensure sustainability, and the most significant change they have observed in their lives, fellow teachers, administrators, etc. A FGD guide wasdeveloped for this. Furthermore, discussions comprising of 6-10 students from Senior two 4and Senior Three were conducted to explore the changes students have observed in the teachers and administrators as a result of LGIHE trainings. A FGD guide was developed for this
Headteachers’ survey: A survey with headteachers or deputy headteachers was conducted in order to establish general information about the schools. A school informationquestionnaire that was used at baseline was adapted for this. Furthermore, school leaders were asked to assess their degree of satisfaction with the implementation process of the project. A weighted checklist was developed for this.
Teachers’ survey: A survey for teachers that aimed at assessing Headteachers’ school leadership and management skills and other issues related to the project, was conducted. The tool that was used at the baseline was adapted for this.
Students’ Survey: A survey for secondary school students aimed at ascertaining the levels of their soft skills was conducted. A soft skill tool that was developed by LGIHE during the learning outcomes study,and employed at baseline study, was adapted. Students wereasked to self-complete the questionnaires with the guidance of the LGIHE research personnel.
Classroom Observations: A classroom observation rubrics that entails items on pedagogical teaching approaches, assessment and evaluation that was used at baseline was adopted. The observations duringlessons were done by an LGIHE project staff with vast experience in assessment and evaluation. He/she scored the rubrics based on the lesson(s) observed.
KIIs with various stakeholders: Interviews with headteachers or deputy headteachers wereconducted to describe and explore related aspects of the project. An interview guide wasdeveloped for this.
Group interviews: Interviews with 2-4 participants of the PTA and SMC/BOG committees were conducted to describe and explore how the LGIHE trainings have facilitated their roles and responsibilities, what they have put in practice as a result of the various trainings, and the most significant change they have observed in the school, etc. An interview guide wasdeveloped for this.
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Discussions comprising of 6-12 teachers of the project schools were conducted to describe and explore how the LGIHE trainings have facilitated their pedagogical approaches, what has worked well for them, what has not worked for them, what they have put in place to ensure sustainability, and the most significant change they have observed in their lives, fellow teachers, administrators, etc. A FGD guide wasdeveloped for this. Furthermore, discussions comprising of 6-10 students from Senior two 4and Senior Three were conducted to explore the changes students have observed in the teachers and administrators as a result of LGIHE trainings. A FGD guide was developed for this
Data Processing
Data Editing
Data entry was performed using Epidata (Version 3.1) that controls for data input errors and safeguards data integrity, and also eases the process of export to the analytical packages while data analysis was conducted using STATA (Version 13) that allows for merging, editing and cleaning. The results were disaggregated by school.
Access policy
Access authority
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luigi Giussani Institute of Higher Education | RELI Africa | datarequests@aphrc.org | Link |
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Copyright
Copyright © LGIHE, 2024
Metadata production
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luigi Giussani Institute of Higher Education | (LGHE) | Uganda National Uganda National Council for Higher Education | Project Execution |
Date of Metadata Production
2019-01-01
DDI Document version
Version 1.0