Re-interpreting relevant learning: an evaluative framework for secondary education in a global language

ABSTRACT

The 2030 education goal privileges ‘relevant learning outcomes’ as the evaluative space for quality improvement. Whilst the goal was designed for global level monitoring, its influence cuts across different scales. Implementation of the goal involves reinterpreting ‘relevant learning’ at the local level. One way that small scale projects engage in the creative work of reinterpretation is through the design of their evaluative frameworks. We illustrate this with the example of an innovation in Tanzania that aimed to improve language and subject learning amongst lower secondary school students making the transition from using an African language, Kiswahili, to using a global language, English, as the language of instruction. The project developed a framework for evaluating learning processes and outcomes that was grounded in socio-cultural theories of learning. The framework was founded on an understanding of subject learning consistent with the purpose of sustainable development. Sustainable development is understood here as a process of social learning engaged through local responses to issues that have global reach. We conclude that implementing the 2030 education goals as part of a broader ambition towards sustainable development, demands reinterpretation of its targets in a way that makes explicit our underpinning theories of learning.

KEYWORDS:

• Language in education
• secondary education
• learning theory
• evaluation
• development goal

Acknowledgements

The research was conducted in collaboration with researchers at the University of Dodoma and the Institute for Educational Development, Aga Khan University East Africa. The ideas have developed as we worked together to design proto-type textbooks, research instruments and analyse data. Some of the people we have had the privilege to collaborate with, learn from and be inspired by are Kalafunja Osaki, Richard Alphonse, Prosper Gabriel, Eliakimu Sane, Florence Mbembe, Pambila Mwema, Geoffrey Murasi, Julius Ndubakarane, Francis William (all from University of Dodoma); Noah Mtana (Jordan University College, Morogoro), Peter Kajoro (IED, AKU, East Africa), Casmir Rubagumya (St. John’s University, Dodoma); Neil Ingram (University of Bristol) and John Clegg.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributor

Angeline M. Barrett is a Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Bristol, UK. For the last 15 years, she has conducted a range of research on the quality of basic education in sub-Saharan Africa. This includes work on teacher professionalism, pedagogic practices, social justice conceptualisations of quality and the development of innovative bilingual learning materials.

David Bainton is a Research Fellow in Education at the University of Bristol. His research focuses on how education in developing countries impacts on the lives, knowledges and livelihoods of marginalised communities. His work aims to create pedagogy and learning materials that enable education to be translated and practised in more culturally relevant ways.

Notes

1 The exact wording of the target is ‘primary and secondary education’. Documents supporting the Education SDG indicate, such as the Incheon Declaration (World Education Forum 2015), suggest that this is to be interpreted as lower secondary by specifying a compulsory basic education cycle of nine years.

2 In 2011, more than three quarters of ‘O’ level examination candidates in Mainland Tanzania were enrolled in Community schools. Only 6% of Community School candidates qualified for selection to upper secondary compared to 35% of Government Schools managed directly by the Ministry and 20% from private schools.

3 Language policy had, until last year, been stable, when the former president announced that Kiswahili would replace English as the medium of instruction. At the time of writing, there has as yet been no indication from government of how or when the new language policy will be implemented and this article is not addressed to the debate of what language should be the language of instruction.

4 Clegg and Afitska (2011) distinguish between code-switching utterance which is limited in length and code alternation, where there may be long stretches of monolingual teacher talk in either language or teacher talk in the global language may give way to monolingual group or pair work in the learners’ main language.

Additional information

Funding

The research presented here was made possible through a grant from the Partnership to Strengthen Innovation and Practice in Secondary Education (PSIPSE).