ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Lesson observation and quality in primary education as

contextual teaching and learning processes
Margo O’Sullivan
Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, South Circular Road, Limerick, Ireland

Abstract

Quality in primary education is currently high on the education agenda in developing countries. What is quality?
How can we effectively measure it? How can we achieve it? How can we improve it? The author considers two
suggestions to be critical to answering these above questions and engages with them in this article:

 place what is happening in the school and classroom, specifically teaching and learning processes, at the top of the
quality agenda; and
 use lesson observation to answer the questions.

The engagement in the article with the term ‘‘quality’’ highlights that six conceptualisations are used in the literature.
However, the author argues that only two subsections of one of the conceptualisations are influencing policy, i.e. the
input and output definitions of quality. An exploration of the common indicators of quality supports this and the
author uses a political economy perspective to consider the reasons for it. This leads to the main section of the paper
which seeks to explore the two suggestions bulleted above.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Quality; Primary education; Lesson observation

1. Introduction However, efforts to engage with quality are

Quality in primary education is high on the
education agenda in developing countries. The
provision of a good-quality education to children
in developing countries is critical to their future.
E-mail address: margo.osullivan@mic.ul.ie.
fraught with difficulties, not least of which is a
consideration of what quality is. Also problematic
are efforts to effectively achieve, improve and
measure quality. Numerous reform programmes
and projects, many of them donor supported have
been introduced since the early 1990s. Yet, quality
is still poor in many countries. Engaging with the
reasons for this highlights the complexity of the

0738-0593/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.07.016
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
problem. In this paper, the author explores one
perspective on the reasons for the continuing poor
quality of Education in developing countries. This
perspective, albeit somewhat simplified, is high-
lighted in these anecdotes: When one visits a
doctor, two basic steps are involved—at first one is
asked what the problem is and then one is
examined to enable the doctor to address it.
Similarly, when a road needs to be built in an
area to ease traffic congestion, engineers will visit
the area and assess the viability of building the
road on a specific route. Yet, when primary
education in developing countries has problems
with quality, the literature indicates that profes-
sionals involved in addressing them too often do
not begin the process by examining the location of
the illness, the classroom, specifically what is
happening in the classroom, the teaching and
learning that takes place in it, in an effort to make
a diagnosis and recommend a cure that will work.
Effectively, what is happening in the school and
classroom, specifically teaching and learning pro-
cesses, must be placed at the top of the quality
agenda. In this article, the author engages with this
and explores the potential of lesson observation as
one approach to support the improvement of
quality.
The paper begins with an examination of the
term ‘‘quality’’ and will explore various definitions
and conceptualisations of it. This leads to an
exploration of the indicators of quality (within a
political economy perspective), and an examina-
tion of the extent to which they indicate it. The
next section argues that quality is ultimately about
teaching and learning processes, and highlights the
critical role of context in this notion of quality.
The article then considers the usefulness of lesson
observation within this notion of quality and the
extent to which lesson observation is used in the
research and the literature concerning quality.
This section also raises questions about the
international glorification of specific pedagogical
practices as being more effective than others. It
will briefly explore indicators for lesson observa-
tion and consider how one would construct
indicators from lesson observations. Finally, the
paper concludes with an overview of the main
arguments.
247
2. Quality of education in developing countries
In the 1970s, research on primary education in
developing countries was concerned with studying
the justifications for investment in primary educa-
tion (Motola, 1995). In the 1980s the concern
shifted to exploring ways of expanding and
reducing unit costs, i.e. efficiency. This was
accompanied by a major thrust on quality
improvements, which continues to the present
day. For example, since the 1990s, there have
been many declarations and conferences held
around the globe associated with the development
and improvement of quality in education. It was
the theme at the conference of the Ministers of
Education of the Commonwealth held in Barba-
dos in 1990. It was also highlighted as a significant
concern at the Jomtien conference in the same year
and at the follow-up Dakar conference 10 years
later. It is one of the six goals of Education for All
(EFA, 2005). Currently, the World Bank, bilateral
agencies, NGOs, and developing country Minis-
tries of Education, all now consider quality issues
as critical. However, the rhetoric has not yet been
translated into practice. The quality of education
in many developing countries remains poor. Sam-
off (1999) laments the fact that ‘‘there has been
progress and, in some countries, very substantial
achievements. Still, in much of Africa, many
children get little or no schooling, illiteracy rates
have ceased to decline (or begun to rise), school
libraries have few books, laboratories have out-
dated or malfunctioning equipment and insuffi-
cient supplies, and learners lack chairs, exercise
books, even pencils’’. The literature highlights that
poor quality is not confined to African countries;
for example, Duraisamy et al.’s (1998) study in
Tamil Nadu found that teachers had to work in
difficult conditions, such as teaching large classes
under trees. Numerous research studies use exam-
ination statistics to highlight poor-quality educa-
tion, for example, in Ghana, 10 years of
‘‘successful’’ education reform is seen in a new
light when 85% of sixth-grade students scored less
than 40% in English on a national test of language
proficiency and 500 million dollars had been
spent’’ (Improving Educational Quality Project,
1999, p. 6). Similarly, in South Africa, only 53%
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
248 M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
passed the matriculation examination in 1995 and
only 15% passed the university entrance exam in
1996 (Department of Education, 1997, cited in
Motola, 2001).
3. What is education quality?
A lot has been written about quality. However,
a reading of the literature can be confusing as
numerous and conflicting definitions of quality are
presented, depending on how the term is con-
ceptualised. The normative nature of the concept
provides an explanation for this. Motola (2001,
p. 66) points out that ‘‘debates in the international
literature noted the difficulty in finding a definition
of quality that would apply to all situations’’. In
an effort to make sense of the various definitions in
the literature, the author has divided them into six
broad conceptualisations:
– the deficit notion;
– the competency approach;
– the value-added and fitness for purpose view;
– Bergman’s (1996) four types of quality—value,
input, process and output;
– quality as teaching and learning processes; and
– the contextual understanding of quality.
Firstly, the studies noted in the previous section
highlight a common notion of quality in the
developing country literature—the deficit notion.
This focuses on what poor quality is. For example,
the literature refers to a variety of factors such as
overcrowding and lack of resources, which in-
dicate poor quality and also hamper the delivery of
high quality. Riddell’s (1999) complex hierarchy of
factors that hinder quality also include non-school
factors, for example, the health and well-being of
the child, the culture of the community, and
parental involvement. However, the paucity of
various factors and conditions should not be used
to completely excuse poor quality. The deficit
definition has for too long acted as a noose around
the neck of those making efforts to improve it. We
need to move away from the deficit explanation
and focus on what can be achieved within the
available contexts that are currently considered to
hamper quality. This is not suggesting that we no
longer strive to improve and provide various
factors, such as reducing the pupil–teacher ratio.
The laudable efforts of ministries of education in
various developing countries to put these in place,
often supported by donors, should continue.
However, this process takes time and in the
meantime a generation of children are the losers
as they are not receiving a good-quality education.
Are we to sacrifice these children at the altar of
quality factors, as we wait for the conditions
deemed necessary for quality to be made available?
This paper explores an approach which may untie
the noose. It also considers why specific conditions
are currently considered critical to improving
quality.
Secondly, there are educators whose conceptua-
lisation of quality is grounded in a competency
approach—quality is the effectiveness of the
degree to which objectives are met or described
levels of competence are achieved (Adams, 1993).
This definition is useful, but what is crucial to its
effectiveness are the actual competencies that are
used and how their achievement is measured.
This leads to the third definition—Webbstock’s
(1994, p. 7, in Motola) conception that a workable
notion should include ‘‘fitness for purpose’’ and
‘‘value-added’’ approaches. Tymms (1999) work
with the latter provides a useful understanding of
it. Value-added takes the starting and end points
of children’s learning in school into account.
Baseline assessments provide the latter data—they
are used to measure children’s learning when
they begin school. The notion of progress is
central to it. Value-added uses national data to
provide an expectation of what level the average
child should be at various stages, particularly upon
entry and exit from school. It uses these data to
highlight what inputs tend to lead to specific
outputs. It then looks within a school in order to
compare pupils’ attainment with other pupils in
their school and class with the same starting
points. This approach highlights the critical role of
the teacher in quality as it essentially looks at the
impact that a teacher is having on children’s
learning. Harvey and Green (1993) also support
the value-added notion and suggest that quality is
something exceptional, something that provides
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
value for money, something that is transformative
or empowering.
A fourth definition of quality evident in the
literature is proposed by Bergman (1996) and
subscribed to by Chapman and Adams (2002),
who argue that there are different types of quality.
Bergman (1996) used three studies to show how
parents use different types of quality when
demanding education or when children drop out.
Four types of inter-related educational quality are
postulated—value quality, input quality, process
quality and output quality. He suggests that value
quality is about how values shape what is
considered as quality, for example, when a
Classical Education is more valued than a Science
Education or when parents choose religious
schools; input quality includes resources, the
curriculum, and the stage of development of the
child upon entry to a class; ‘‘process quality is the
quality of the teacher–pupil interaction in the
teaching–learning process’’ (p. 587); and output
quality is the quality of student achievement—‘‘A
minimum level of [output] quality is full functional
literacy and a fair mastery of basic mathematical
operations’’ (p. 587).
The final definition is that quality is contextual.
A contextual definition/conceptualisation of qual-
ity education can address the problems associated
with the normative nature of the concept. Quality
is grounded in cultural traditions, social relations,
and economic and political life, and is therefore
unique to each nation and culture. Angula (2000,
cited in Ipinge, undated, p. 2), the notable Minister
of Higher Education, Training, and Employment
Creation in Namibia, aptly describes this notion:
‘‘quality and standards should be measured in
relation to the context and environment in which
education is located’’. Critical to a contextual
definition is the type of teaching and learning
that is feasible within the micro-contexts of
education, i.e. the realities at school level within
which teachers work, such as available resources,
professional capacity of the teachers, and so on.
One cannot effectively judge the quality of
education in a school without reference to
contextual factors. Contextual factors, macro-,
meso-, and micro, should guide the articulation of
quality.
249
4. Indicators of quality
The numerous conceptualisations of quality
presented above highlight the extent to which
quality is engaged with in the literature. However,
to what extent do the debates in the literature
impact upon policy, specifically, which of the
conceptualisations underpin the decisions concern-
ing quality taken by policy-makers? In an effort to
answer these questions, it is useful to examine the
considerable number of quality indicators that are
currently used and which tend to have implications
for policy. The author draws from three sources to
highlight the common indicators used. Firstly,
there are the internationally recognised indicators
of quality that are highlighted in the substantial
body of literature which attempts to determine the
appropriate school quality inputs required to
boost student achievement. Torres (2003, p. 303)
highlights the World Bank’s reliance on nine
indicators of quality in primary education, and
highlights that ‘‘in the WB perspective, quality
education results from the presence of specific
‘inputs’’’. Her review prioritises the indicators in
the following order: (1) libraries; (2) instructional
time; (3) homework; (4) textbooks; (5) teacher
subject knowledge; (6) teacher experience; (7)
laboratories; (8) teacher salaries; (9) class size.
Other commonly used indicators are: pupil–tea-
cher ratios; teacher qualifications; grade repetition;
literacy rates; enrolment data; dropout rate;
student and public attitudes about education;
and examination achievement data. The latter
leads into the second set of indicators—those used
in national examinations and international league
tables, which use standardised tests in reading,
mathematics and other subjects. N’tchougan-
Sonou (2001, p. 161) provides an example:
‘‘Ghanaian education is currently confronted with
the massive problem of poor quality, as attested by
abysmal national criterion referenced test scores
from 1992 through to 1996’’. Similarly, the results
of the Ugandan 1999 National Assessment of
Progress in Education (NAPE, 1999) study in-
dicated that only 14% of pupils performed above
minimum standards in English literacy. In South
Africa, Motola (2001) laments the fact that the
only performance indicator is the matriculation
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
250 M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
examination. Torres’ (2003, p. 303) review of the
strategies of the World Bank in improving the
quality of Basic Education suggests that it equates
educational quality with ‘‘learning outcomes mea-
sured by achievement tests vis-a-via the goals and
objectives set by the school system (learning what
is taught, being promoted to the next grade,
completing the primary school cycle, etc.).’’ The
third set of indicators are those espoused by
international donors. Currently, for example, the
following are high on their agendas and are
considered critical to improving education in
developing countries: net enrolment ratio (EFA,
2005); female enrolment; private sector involve-
ment in education provision; and community
involvement.
The three sets of indicators above subscribe to
only two subsections of one of the six definitions
of quality which emerge in the literature and
which were discussed in the previous section, i.e.
Bergman’s (1996) type of education definition
(value, input, process and output). The first set
of indicators subscribes to the input conceptuali-
sation of quality and the other two subscribe to
both the input and output definitions. It seems that
the other definitions/conceptualisations of quality
described in the previous section are not influen-
cing quality policy decisions. A political economic
perspective on educational reform and aid pro-
vides a theoretical framework within which to
usefully analyse and explain the reliance on this
input/output conceptualisation of quality. Cur-
rently, the economic aspects of globalisation lead
to an emphasis on efficiency in education, on
proper resource allocation, on competencies, and
on measurable inputs and outputs and ‘‘drives
education into a closer relationship with markets’’
(McGrath, 2001, p. 392; Motola, 2001). Indicator
information is considered to enable the achieve-
ment of higher quality education at lower cost and
can allow for greater accountability. Riddell (1998,
p. 284) highlights the relationship between this and
the considerable influence of donors on developing
countries: ‘‘However, due to the relative depen-
dence on international donors for financing
educational reform, economists’ notions of quality
have been more evident than in industrialised
countries, and thus, quality as inputs in preference
to processes, as well as rather narrowly defined
outputs, such as years of education or examination
passes, have generally been utilised’’. The three
sets of indicators discussed above, subscribing to
the input and output conceptualisations of quality,
are considered to be economically effective. Also,
they can be relatively easily accessed and pub-
licised.
There have been some challenges to the extent to
which input indicators actually indicate quality.
Over a decade ago, Harbison and Hanushek
(1992) concluded that there is little evidence that
specific inputs have an impact on student achieve-
ment. It needs to be pointed out that Hedges et al.
(1994a, b) re-analysed Hanushek’s data using more
sophisticated methods and challenged some of the
findings. Other evidence subsequently emerged,
which further supports Harbison and Hanushek
(1992) input argument. Hanushek’S (1997) review
of 400 studies of student achievement found no
strong or consistent relationship between student
performance and school resources. He notes, ‘‘the
clearest message of existing research is that
uniform resource policies will not work as
intended y simply providing more funding or a
different distribution of funding is unlikely to
improve student achievement’’. Similarly, Chapman
and Adams (2002) use research conducted by
the World Bank on teacher characteristics (1997,
cited in Chapman and Adams, 2002, p. 19) to
support this: ‘‘Indian experience confirms that
proxies for teacher quality—such as type of
certification, pre-service education, or salary—
typically are not related to student learning
achievement’’. Similarly, Heyneman’s (1997) study
on the quality of education in the Middle East and
North Africa indicated that 13 year olds in Jordan
had acquired less information in Mathematics and
Science than in other countries which allocate
similar levels of expenditure per student.
A closer examination of all the input oriented
indicators used to measure quality provides an
explanation for the failure of inputs in improving
quality. It suggests that most of the input
indicators, with their underlying efficiency ratio-
nale, are more quantitative than qualitative in
nature; for example, numbers of trained teachers
does not provide any indication of the quality of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
teaching and learning that those teachers ulti-
mately provide for their pupils. Similarly, pupil:
textbook ratio and enrolment data do not indicate
the extent to which they lead to an improvement in
the teaching and learning taking place in a
particular context. They do not indicate the use
of the inputs, which is the key to their bringing
about an improvement in quality. They do not
provide any understanding of what happens to the
inputs, to how they are used, in other words, to the
teaching and learning processes they can facilitate
if used effectively. The extent to which inputs can
improve quality is directly related to the extent to
which teachers effectively use them to improve the
teaching and learning process. The reliance on
input indicators has led to the ignoring of this
critical aspect of inputs. ‘‘This paradigm presup-
poses that social systems, such as education, can
be engineered as can a product such as a house or
a bridge’’ (DeStefano et al., 1999, p. 1). A focus on
outputs and on the donor influenced international
trends also ignores this. In developing countries, a
focus on examination results can be detrimental to
the quality of teaching and learning as teachers
tend to rely on rote teaching and learning to
prepare children for the tests. Children are only
developing one skill, that of memorisation. The
indicators of quality used by donors are also not
concerned with processes. For example, a study of
the District Primary Education Programme
(DPEP) in India raises questions about the
effectiveness of the community participation para-
digm and the extent to which it will lead to an
improvement in quality (James, 2002). James
(2002, p. 10) found examples of how village
officials had an effect on teacher attendance but
‘‘found no evidence that their actions had had any
effect on classroom learning’’. The main message
here is that it is time to move forward and begin to
use indicators which are more qualitative in nature
and which reflect what is happening in the class-
rooms, i.e. how the inputs are being used.
5. Quality as teaching and learning processes
The literature suggests that the reliance on an
input conceptualisation of quality is beginning to
251
be questioned and as Riddell (1998) points out,
narrower input notions of quality have expanded
to include what goes on in schools and classrooms,
i.e. processes, and one of the definitions of quality
highlighted earlier in the ‘‘What is quality’’
section. This conceptualisation of teaching and
learning processes as quality is currently gaining
increasing attention (Alexander, 1997 [quality in a
British context]; Riddell, 1999; Motola, 2001;
EFA, 2005). Chapman and Adams (2002, p. 9)
argue that ‘‘improvements in the quality and, to
some extent, the efficiency and equity of education
depend on the nexus of teaching and learning’’.
More recently, Clarke (2003, p. 27) points out ‘‘As
the quality of education reflected in classrooms
becomes more important in influencing student
performance many countries are embarking on
large-scale reforms in teaching and learning’’.
It is not, however, a new concern. Lockheed and
Verspoor’s (1991) review of in-school strategies for
improving the quality of primary education in
developing countries identifies five major subsec-
tors: improving curriculum; increasing learning
materials; increasing instructional time; improving
teaching; and increasing the learning capacity of
students. Even Jomtien called for the focus of
basic education to be on ‘‘actual learning acquisi-
tion and outcome rather than exclusively on
enrolment’’ (Chesterfield, undated, p. 2). Similarly,
a number of research studies in the early 1990s also
argued for a stronger school and classroom focus
and for research into process factors such as
teaching, learning, school leadership and commu-
nity involvement (Grisay and Mahlck, 1991; Levin
and Lockheed, 1993; Heneveld, 1994). However,
the literature indicates that the latter two have
received more attention from donors and policy-
makers, though donors are beginning to focus on
teaching and learning (see paragraph below). This
is the key, the translation of the attention in the
literature to policy, a key that one notable project
had some success in opening.
The project is the USAID funded 10-year
Improving Education Quality (IEQ) project,
which began in 1991. The project supported
research initiatives in a number of countries,
including Ghana, Mali, Uganda, South Africa
and Guatemala, which sought ‘‘to strengthen
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

252 M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260

countries’ capacities to systematically access the particularly to Heneveld’s (2002) views on con-
local conditions for teaching and learning—and to tent—that schooling should develop literacy,
use the knowledge as a basis for reforming numeracy and essential life skills. These are the
national policy and local practice’’ (Schubert, foundation stones upon which other skills can be
2001, p. 5). It sought to bring the classroom built. Developing countries must strive at least to
experience of teachers and learners to the policy- ensure that teaching and learning processes are
makers and others: ‘‘If policy makers were able to effectively enabling students to acquire these
enter the classroom and have the experience of building blocks.
learners and teachers, how might their debates
and decisions about quality be transformed’’
6. Lesson observation and indicators of quality
(Schubert, 2001, p. 6). The project was based on
a working definition of quality as being relative,
Currently, students’ achievements on paper and
not absolute, and of it being rooted in teaching
pencil tests seem to be the main measure of the
and learning processes. The project involved a
quality of teaching and learning (Bedi, 1997). This
number of successful initiatives and some, though
provides some indication of the learning taking
the author would argue, limited, success in respect
place, but does not highlight the quality of the
to its impact on policy. For example, in Ghana,
teaching and only offers some insight into the
IEQ worked with a project funded by USAID to
quality of the learning. Neither do tests illuminate
develop textbooks. When IEQ researchers visited
suggestions for improving quality. If teaching and
classrooms they found that pupils were not using
learning is considered critical to improving quality,
the books and this led to policy-makers to monitor
we must consider how it can be measured. The
and encourage textbook use (Chesterfield, un-
author feels that classroom-based methods, in-
dated, p. 3). This project’s influence on policy is
cluding lesson observations, learner interviews,
exceptional. A contextual and teaching and learn-
and teacher interviews, are critical methods in the
ing process conceptualisation of quality does not
effective measurement of quality in teaching and
generally influence policy-makers. One explana-
learning. They provide insights critical to assessing
tion for this is the extent to which teaching and
and improving quality, which are otherwise
learning processes are not among the many
inaccessible. She finds the use of lesson observa-
indicators of quality highlighted in the literature
tion particularly useful, and this will be explored in
and in international league tables. Why is this?
this section. It is beyond the scope of the article to
One reason may be that identifying and measuring
explore the use of the other methods cited above,
teaching and learning indicators requires time to
i.e. interviewing, that can enable an understanding
be spent in classrooms and is seen to be expensive.
of classroom processes that can ultimately improve
In comparison, input indicators are considered to
quality. At first, let us consider descriptions of two
be relatively easy to measure and make digestible
lessons.
for policy-makers and others. They are considered
The following observations are taken from field
efficiency friendly.
notes of lesson observations in grade III (8–9 year
Critical to a pedagogically oriented conceptua-
olds) Namibian classrooms.
lisation of quality is the ‘‘what’’ that is to be
learned, and the author feels that it is appropriate
at this stage to summarise briefly her views on the Teacher A
‘‘what’’. An exploration of this merits its own The classroom was a newly built brick
paper. However, the scope of this paper only built classroom and the desks were ar-
allows a brief illumination of the author’s views. If ranged in six groups, each seating ap-
we define quality as involving learning, one must proximately six children in mixed gender
define learning—it is more than being able to groups. The classroom walls displayed a
memorise and produce for tests. It must also create few commercially made posters. It was
capacity for further learning. She subscribes an English reading lesson. The teacher
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
asked the children to open their English
textbooks; each child had his/her own
textbook. Then she spent the lesson very
slowly writing sentences from the text-
book on the board while the children
watched. When she had written each
sentence, she read it and asked the
children to repeat it in unison numerous
times. She repeated this procedure for 10
sentences. Then she asked the children
to repeat the whole text approximately 10
times. She asked individual children to
repeat it. The lesson lasted 50 min.
Teacher B
The class was observed under a tree.
The children were seated on wooden
benches, with approximately eight chil-
dren on each bench. There were five
benches. Three children shared one text-
book. The teacher began the lesson by
playing ‘I spy’, using the picture of the
text in the textbook. She then asked the
children a lot of questions on the picture,
including some higher order questions,
for example, ‘where do you think she will
go next?’ Children raised their hands and
she asked individuals to answer and
praised their efforts. She had a very
encouraging style. She then asked them
to point out various words in the text.
Then she wrote each of the new words
on the blackboard and encouraged the
children’s use of phonics to decipher
them. She explained the meaning of each
word, using the picture in the text, mime
or verbal explanations. She used choral
and individual repetition to allow the
children to practise saying the new
words. She put them into sentences and
asked the children to try to do this. Only a
few volunteered to do this. Then she
asked the children to find the new words
in the text. Then she read the text and
asked the children to repeat the lines
after her, as a class, in groups and
253
individually. Then she asked individual
children to read the text. She asked a lot
of questions on the text, again using both
lower order and higher order questions.
She concluded the lesson by asking the
children to copy any new words from the
text into their exercise books. The lesson
lasted 40 min.
The observation notes above illustrate how
lesson observations can illuminate teaching and
learning processes and indicate the quality of
education taking place at the chalk face. They can
also highlight the realities within which teachers
work and which practices can be effective in these
realities. Even though it is unlikely that all readers
will agree on the quality of each lesson, the author
assumes that most will agree that the second lesson
is of higher quality, in the light of contextual
factors. It is likely, the author boldly assumes, that
if faced with a choice of teacher for your own
child, readers would choose teacher B. Teacher B
makes an effort to ensure that the children are
learning (though not all aspects bring about
effective learning), whereas teacher A makes no
effort to do this. The observation also supports the
author’s earlier argument about the failure of
input indicators to improve quality. Teacher A
had more resources and better working conditions
than teacher B, which according to the input
conceptualisation of quality should lead to im-
proved quality. However, the lesson observation
questions this. It highlights the potentially critical
role of lesson observation in the quality arena, one
that is beginning to gain some, though as of yet,
limited, attention.
The use of lesson observation is not an
innovative approach, yet, the literature suggests
that it is rarely used in research and evaluation
studies which seek to improve and assess quality in
developing countries, and even more rarely, as
highlighted in the previous section, to inform
policy or in implementation efforts. For example,
a trawl through the five main journals in the field
of Comparative Education and other journals for
the previous 10 years (1993–2005) highlights the
dearth of studies which use lesson observation to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
254 M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
access data in developing countries.1 There are
some notable exceptions and the author finds that
these studies are particularly illuminating and
provide some indication of the way forward in
bringing about improvements in quality (for
example, Bergman, 1996; Kanu, 1996; Harley
et al., 2000; Ven der Werf et al., 2000; Clarke,
2003; Pontefract and Hardman, 2005). Develop-
ment Co-operation Ireland (DCI, formerly known
as Ireland Aid), USAID and other bilateral donors
are using lesson observation data more often now.
However, these uses of it do not tend to be
published in journals or books. They can be found
in donor reports, for example, Schubert (2001) and
Ministry of Education documents. These docu-
ments can usefully inform the quality debate and,
in particular, policy decisions, and ought to be
made more easily accessible. Currently, it is
difficult to access Ministry of Education reports
from various countries, unless they are online, as
some are, or unless one has access to a library,
such as the IDS (Institute of Development Studies)
library at Sussex University, which houses many
country specific reports.
The use of lesson observation data in the few
studies published in journals was critical to
understanding the quality aspects. For example,
Clarke’s (2003) recent evaluative study of the
DPEP (District Primary Education Project) which
covers almost half of the districts in India,
involved the observation of 243 teachers in order
to understand the extent to which the project was
successful. The programme attempted to ‘‘trans-
form instructional practices in primary school
classrooms integrally through a holistic pro-
gramme of pedagogical reform’’ (Clarke, 2003,
p. 27). Lesson observation data indicated that even
though teachers increased their use of instructional
aids, activities and demonstrations during instruc-
tion, it had not ‘‘integrally transformed their
teaching and learning in the classroom. They have
skillfully integrated ‘activity and joyful learning’
into their traditional rote method of instruction
1
The journals include: Compare, Comparative Education,
Comparative Education Review, International Journal of
Educational Development, Journal of Education for Teaching,
Prospects, and Teaching and Teacher Education.
where it is transferred en bloc and memorisedy.
During instruction, though transformed with
activity and demonstration, teachers remain pri-
mary players in the classroom’’ (Clarke, 2003,
p. 38). These data were only accessible through the
use of lesson observation.
6.1. Why use lesson observation to improve quality?
Lesson observation can answer the ‘‘what’’
questions and illuminates the ‘‘how’’ questions,
i.e. what is the current state of educational quality
in schools and how can it be realistically improved
with the available resources. It can also provide
some insights into the ‘‘why’’ questions—why is
the quality of education poor? The ‘‘why’’ ques-
tions have to be supported with other data, most
notably teacher interview data, in order to more
fully understand the teaching and learning pro-
cesses currently being used and the extent to which
particular processes are likely to be implemented.
This leads to the area of teacher thinking, which is
also critical to improving quality.2
There are a number of reasons to justify the use
of lesson observation studies. These are explored
here. Such studies take context into account, they
address transfer, they raise questions about
accepted ‘‘good’’ pedagogical practices, and they
access effective indigeneous practices. Let us begin
with an exploration of context. Lesson observation
enables the contextual nature of quality to emerge
and be used in efforts to improve it (O’Sullivan,
2003). The author’s work on an in-service teacher
training project in Namibia found that lesson
observations highlighted the realities within which
teachers worked and indicated the potential or
otherwise of specific teaching and learning
approaches. For example, lesson observations
2
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss this. Teacher
thinking explores how teachers structure their actions in the
classrooms and the related frameworks and worldviews that
underlie these actions. Barrett (2002) highlights the wealth of
research on teacher thinking in the West and points out that
‘‘while research in the West was gaining insight into teachers as
thinking, feeling, doing, believing human beings (e.g. Nias,
1989; Broadfoot et al., 1993; Hargreaves, 1994), in developing
country literature this view was often obscured by the
immediacy and magnitude of financial difficulties’’ (p. 5).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
indicated that teachers in the Namibian context were
having considerable problems implementing com-
municative approaches to teaching English, which
were introduced in the early 1990s (O’Sullivan,
2001). The communicative approach is complex—
it is dependent on teachers being effectively trained
and on the availability of adequate resources, both
of which were absent at the time of the study
[1995–1997]. The lesson observations indicated
that the in-service training programme’s capacity
would only enable teachers to implement a
simplified version of communicative approaches
and one dependent on adequate resources, for
example, textbooks.3
The strength of using lesson observations is that
it enables a focus on what can be done with
available resources and professional capacity at a
particular time. Lesson observations take into
account the micro-context, the realities in which
teachers work, thus drawing from a contextual
conceptualisation of quality. Such observations
place the teacher centre-stage, which is too often
neglected (O’Sullivan, 2002). Ultimately, reforms
are implemented by teachers and must be within
their capacity to implement. Otherwise, teachers
become overwhelmed by reforms, fail to imple-
ment them, and become disillusioned, as illu-
strated aptly by a comment from a multi-grade
(grade I–III) teacher in Southern Africa: ‘‘Some-
times I think we are being asked to perform
miracles. Well, I am not a miracle worker so
perhaps I should not teach any more’’ (Prouty,
2000, p. 1). Other aspects critical to the imple-
mentation of reforms are teachers’ salaries and the
motivation of the teacher: lesson observation at
least can highlight the extent to which reforms are
likely to be implemented within various contexts,
including contexts in which teachers are poorly
paid. Quality is complex, and the extent to which it
involves human action, particularly on the part of
teachers, needs to be borne in mind. A contextual
3
This leads onto a consideration of how one would construct
indicators of quality teaching and learning processes. In light of
the current pervading influence of political economics, this has
to take place. A consideration of this is, however, beyond the
scope of this article.
255
perspective of quality and the use lesson observa-
tion enables this to happen.
Taking context into account also enables one to
address transfer issues. Educational reform models
tend to be explored en mass, and they often
include decontextualised ‘‘best practice’’ ap-
proaches. These approaches, considered effective
practices in Western contexts (generally), tend to
be exported to developing countries. They include:
group and pair work; learner-centred approaches;
communicative approaches; and continuous as-
sessment. These have been found to be inappropri-
ate in some developing country contexts.
Tabulawa (2003) and O’Sullivan (2004) raises
questions in the literature about the effectiveness
of learner-centred education in developing coun-
tries: learner-centred approaches presuppose avail-
ability of a specially designed environment with
space, resources and small classes, which are often
absent in developing countries; students and
teachers may have considerable difficulty in
making the leap from learning within traditional
approaches to learner-centred approaches, which
require the acquisition of great skill and under-
lying assumptions, that may be beyond the
professional capacity of teachers in the light of
their training; and learner-centred approaches are
not culturally appropriate in some developing
countries. Findings from Alexander’s (2000) no-
table study, which involved extensive lesson
observations, also raises questions about learner-
centred approaches. He argues that learner-
centred approaches are not adequately supported
by research, demonstrating the extent to which
they effectively bring about learning in classrooms.
This also leads him to question the tendency to
dismiss other approaches, such as whole class
direct instruction approaches and rote learning.
He found examples of lessons in Russia and
France, which used direct instruction approaches
and whole class teaching to effectively bring about
learning. Stevenson and Lee’s (1997) research
study, involving the observation of 480 mathe-
matics lessons in primary schools in the US, China
and Japan, supports this. Their study highlights
many positive aspects of whole class teaching
methods, which they found were used much more
effectively in the Japanese schools. Similarly,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
256 M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
Alexander’s (2000) study of Indian classrooms
involved the observation of teachers, who, within
the constraints of small and overcrowded class-
rooms, were able to secure dialogue and scaffold
understanding, using what in the US and Britain,
would be considered rote learning and conse-
quently, frowned upon. In Indian classrooms,
Alexander (2000) also found that an apprentice-
ship approach to teaching [Bruner’s first model]
successfully brought about learning in some music
and dance lessons in India. He termed this the true
alternative to rote. His study also raised questions
about the effectiveness of group work and
independent research. This led him to question
the accepted wisdom that certain pedagogical
practices are more effective than others.
When and how did specific approaches, for
example, learner-centred, group work, and so on,
become immortalised as the best practices? The
World Bank attempt to get economies of scale in
educational reform across different countries
undoubtedly has some part to play in the
emergence of universally accepted good practices.
Alexander (2000) uses Bruner’s four dominant
models of learners’ minds to provide another
explanation. The models are: (1) seeing children
as imitative learners [basis of apprenticeship]; (2)
seeing children as learning from didactic exposure
[informs transmission model of teaching]; (3)
seeing children as thinkers; (4) seeing children as
knowledgeable (Bruner, 1996). Alexander argues
that there is value in all four types of learning, but
that the first two have tended to be rejected. He
suggests that this came about as an unintended
result of efforts to move teachers away from a
reliance on the first two models of teaching. For
example, Watkins and Mortimore (1999) refer
only to the third and fourth models ‘‘for a good
reason—to encourage teachers to abandon mere
didactism—but in doing so, overstate, I think, the
hierarchy implied by Bruner, seeing apprenticeship
as ‘primitive’, transmission as ‘traditional’ and on
the third and fourth models as appropriate to
Western schooling in the twenty-first century’’
(Alexander, 2000, p. 560). They use Bruner’s
conclusion that achieving skill and accumulating
knowledge are not enough (his first and second
model) to reject these models, ‘‘But again, have
they overstated the objections to skill apprentice-
ship and the acquisition of prepositional knowl-
edge?’’ (Alexander, 2000, p. 561). Alexander
argues for the virtue of Bruner’s framework in
that it allows ‘‘for the possibility that all [four
models—contrasting stances on learning and
knowledge] may have some part to play’’ (p.
561). This is ‘‘an unfashionable standpoint’’ (p.
561), however, worth considering.
The glorification of specific practices has had
vast implications for educational reform in devel-
oping countries. It is time to question the wisdom
of all universally accepted ‘‘best’’ practices. What
matters ultimately is whatever methods best bring
about teaching and learning in specific contexts.
Lesson observation can help to highlight and
access these. It can also enable the accessing of
indigenous ‘‘best practices’’, i.e. approaches that
work well within local contexts that can be
identified and passed on to other teachers within
these contexts. Some work is beginning to be done
in this area (see: O’Sullivan, 2003).
Ministries of Education in developing countries
are serious about their commitment to improve the
quality of education—they want to provide the
best possible education for their country’s chil-
dren. If they accept that ultimately, quality is
about the teaching and learning that takes place in
classrooms, it might be time to look more closely
at practices that are effective and feasible in their
context and that bring about learning. For
example, in the Indian context, Alexander (2000)
asks the question: Why does India make so little
use of the culture’s other indigenous pedagogic
tradition, which he found to be so effective? The
Ministries of Education need to start asking
questions about various practices—for example,
in Clarke’s (2003) study described earlier, one of
the reasons for the failure of the project, according
to Clarke, was that teachers still remained
‘‘primary players’’ in the classroom, rather than
taking on other roles, such as the role of
facilitator. However, the study did not explore
the extent to which their ‘‘primary player’’ role
could contribute to bringing about learning. What
is wrong with teachers being the key players,
perhaps the focus should be on how to make the
‘‘primary player’’ role more effective in bringing
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
about quality learning? Ministries need to start
using local contexts to devise effective practices
that will work in the reality of their schools.
Lesson observation will facilitate this.
It is important at this stage to flag aspects of
lesson observation necessary to its effective use, as
it is beyond the scope of this article to explore
them. Firstly, lesson observation should be rooted
in a contextual understanding of quality. For
example, in the UK, lesson observation is cur-
rently used extensively by the inspectorate. The
inspectors have tended to use it rigidly (Shaw
et al., 2003). They use specific indicators to guide
their observations and to indicate the extent to
which lessons are effective. These indicators tend
to be grounded in the ‘‘performativity culture’’
(Crossley and Watson, 2003, p. 72). Consequently,
the observation of lessons is assessment and
performance management driven, and teaching
and learning becomes instrumental, rather than
the focus. Teaching and learning processes which
do not appear in the indicator checklist are not
considered. Context is not adequately taken into
account when making judgements of quality
teaching and learning. There is a valuable lesson
to be learnt here—it is important that in an effort
to highlight the useful role of lesson observation
that context remain high on the agenda. Secondly,
the cost implications of adopting a system in which
lesson observation is used to support the develop-
ment of quality may be a deterrent. However, if
the finance needed to place teaching and learning
processes at the top of the quality agenda leads to
an improvement in quality its cost-effectiveness
could be validated. Consider the savings, for
example, of fewer dropouts and repeating students
in education systems. The critical question is how
to make policy-makers, stakeholders, and govern-
ments consider this. Currently, they view educa-
tion reform as ultimately being about improving
children’s achievements, and it is assessment and
performance management driven.
7. Conclusion
The paper began on a positive note, highlighting
that quality is at the top of education agendas in
257
developing countries. What is important is to
ensure that this attention to quality is not only
rhetorical, but that it ensures that all children not
only attend school, but benefit from their atten-
dance, i.e. that they leave school at least having
achieved basic literacy, numeracy and life skills.
Currently, this is not happening. The evidence is
overwhelming that a considerable number of
children are failing to learn in school. Thus, their
future and the future development of their
countries continue to be deprived of their full
human resource. This article considered how to
address this by engaging with the term quality and
exploring how to achieve, improve, and measure it.
Four main findings emerged from this.
Firstly, the article considered the complex
nature of the concept of quality and the various
definitions of it and highlighted that policy-makers
rely on only two subsections of the six definitions
presented, i.e. an input and output conceptualisa-
tion of quality. It considered the reasons for this,
one of which used a political economic perspective
of education to explain it. However, the article
argued that this input/output conceptualisation is
not working—quality remains poor. This led to
the second main message—a context-focused
teaching and learning processes conceptualisation
of quality is critical to improving educational
quality in developing countries. This conceptuali-
sation takes into account the normative nature of
the concept and the extent to which it involves
human action. It also focuses on how inputs are
being used, which is critical to improvements in
quality. Effectively, what is happening in the
school and classroom, specifically teaching and
learning processes, must be placed at the top of the
quality agenda. The doctor and civil engineer
anecdotes in the paper’s opening paragraph
illustrate the rationale for this. Ultimately, educa-
tion is about bringing about learning and quality
has to focus on how to achieve this. The inputs are
important, but the considerable efforts expended
on putting them in place are not improving
quality. What is particularly important here, is
achieving quality within the contextual realities of
schools, often closely related to available inputs.
The author suggests a definition of quality—the
effective use of teaching and learning processes by
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
258 M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
teachers, which can be implemented within the
realities in which they work, and which lead to
children acquiring basic numeracy, literacy and life
skills. Expecting teachers to implement teaching
strategies that are not context-friendly is a waste of
time and resources, as is the reliance on the use of
indicators that only seek to measure inputs.
A context-focused teaching and learning processes
conceptualisation of quality also enables a move
away from the deficit explanations for poor
quality, which tend to excuse it in the light of
inadequate inputs, such as large numbers of
unqualified teachers, lack of resources, and so
on. It enables a focus on what realistically can be
achieved within available inputs, specifically the
viable teaching and learning processes. The lesson
vignettes highlight a difference in the teaching and
learning taking place in classrooms A and B.
Teacher B was more effective, yet she did not have
as many resources.
Thirdly, if it is accepted that teaching and
learning is critical to improving quality, we must
consider how we will measure this. The article
suggests lesson observation as a critical method
here. It can be used to highlight processes that will
work in available realities, to support teachers’
implementation of these processes, and to indicate
the extent to which they are being implemented.
This section identifies four main uses of lesson
observation—the extent to which it takes context,
the teachers’ realities, into account; the addressing
of transfer; the questioning of the uncritical
acceptance of international ‘‘best practices’’; and
the accessing of indigenous practices.
This leads to the final message—the need to
move policy-makers away from a reliance on input
and output conceptualisations of quality towards a
commitment to a context-focused teaching and
learning process perspective. The article explored
the extent to which the former perspectives on
quality can be explained in light of globalisa-
tion, the efficiency and ‘‘performativity culture’’
(Crossley and Watson, 2003, p. 72), and neo-
liberal agendas. One way forward would be to
work within these agendas and the political econo-
mic perspectives of educational reform to highlight
how teaching and learning processes can fit with
these agendas. If improving teaching and learning
ultimately brings about an improvement in
quality, it is likely that it will be seen to be
cost-effective and efficient, even if only in the
long-term. An acceptance of this will require a
change of understanding and attitude of many
stakeholders. This is a difficult task, but not
impossible. In conclusion, it is necessary to high-
light to policy-makers, governments and stake-
holders, the link between a contextual teaching
and learning processes conceptualisation of qual-
ity, lesson observation, and efficiency. Teaching
and learning need to be seen as the focus, rather
than the instrument of quality. Context-focused
teaching and learning processes must move to the
top of the quality agenda. Convincing policy-
makers is critical to and will institute a major
challenge, but a challenge well worth accepting if
we are to move away from the discourse of quality
to action—action that could have a considerable
impact on all our futures.
References
Adams, D., 1993. Defining Education Quality. Institute for
International Research, University of Pittsburg.
Alexander, R.J., 1997. Policy and Practice in Primary Educa-
tion: Local Initiative, National Agenda. Routledge, Lon-
don.
Alexander, R.J., 2000. Culture and Pedagogy. International
Comparisons in Primary Education. Blackwell, Oxford.
Barrett, A., 2002. Bringing literature to life and life to learning:
students in the north and teachers in the south. Paper
presented at the BAICE conference, 2002, University of
Nottingham, 6–8 September.
Bedi, A.S., 1997. The importance of school quality as a
determinant of earnings in a developing country: evidence
from Honduras. International Journal of Educational
Development 17 (4), 427–437.
Bergman, H., 1996. Quality of education and the demand for
education: evidence from developing countries. Interna-
tional Review of Education 46 (6), 581–604.
Broadfoot, P., Osborn, M., Osborne, M., 1993. Perceptions of
Teaching: Primary School Teachers in England and France.
Cassell Education.
Bruner, J.S., 1996. The Culture of Education. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chapman, D., Adams, D., 2002. The Quality of Education:
Dimensions and Strategies. The Asian Development Bank/
Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong, Manila.
Chesterfield, R., undated. Classroom Observation Tools. The
Improving Educational Quality Project, funded by USAID.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
Clarke, P., 2003. Culture and classroom reform: the case of the
primary education project, India. Comparative Education
39 (10), 27–44.
Crossley, M., Watson, K., 2003. Comparative and Interna-
tional Research in Education. Globalisation, Context and
Difference. Routledge Falmer, London.
DeStefano, J., Hartwell, A., Schubert, J., Vargas-Baron, E.,
1999. Pupils, learning, and educational quality. The Quality
Link 2.
Duraisamy, P., James, E., Lane, J., Tan, J.P., 1998. Is there
a quantity-quality trade-off as pupil–teacher ratios
increase? Evidence from Tamil Nadu, India. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Development 18 (5),
367–383.
Education for All, 2005. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005.
UNESCO, Paris.
Grisay, A., Mahlck, L., 1991. The Quality of Education in
Developing Countries: A Review of Some Research Studies
and Policy Documents. IIEP, Paris.
Hanushek, E.A., 1997. Assessing the effects of school resources
on student performance: an update. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis 19 (2).
Harbison, R.W., Hanushek, E.A., 1992. Educational Perfor-
mance of the Poor: Lessons from Rural Northeast Brazil.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Hargreaves, A., 1994. Changing Teachers, Changing Times:
Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age.
Teachers’ College Press, New York.
Harley, K., Barasa, F., Bertram, C., Mattson, E., Pillay, S.,
2000. The real and the ideal: teacher roles and competences
in South African policy and practice. International Journal
of Educational Development 20 (4), 287–304.
Harvey, L., Green, D., 1993. Defining quality. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (1).
Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., Greenwald, R., 1994a. Does money
matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of
differential school inputs on student outcomes. Somewhere:
a reply to Hanushek. Educational Researcher 23 (4), 9–10;
23 (3), 5–14.
Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., Greenwald, R., 1994b. Money does
matter somewhere: a reply to Hanushek. Educational
Researcher 23 (4), 9–10.
Heneveld, W., 1994. Planning and Monitoring the Quality of
Primary Education in SubSaharan Africa. AFTHER
Technical Note No. 14, Human Resources and Poverty
Division, Technical Department, Africa Region, World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Heneveld, W., 2002. The Challenge of Quality Education for
All. Paper presented at the Ireland Aid Education Forum—
Quality Education for All: Issues and Challenges, Dublin,
October 4th.
Heyneman, S.P., 1997. The quality of education in the Middle
East and North Africa (MENA). International Journal of
Educational Development 17 (4), 449–466.
Improving Educational Quality Project, 1999. Educational
Quality Framework. American Institutes for Research,
Report prepared for USAID.
259
Ipinge, S.M., undated. Quality in education and access to
education in Namibia: goals of education after years.
www.nied.edu.na/nied/publications/journals/journals13, ac-
cessed on Jan 13 2003.
James, M., 2002. But what do you mean successful? The role
evaluatory activities play in creating and maintaining
teacher quality. A case study of the Indian District Primary
Education Programme. Paper presented at the BAICE
conference at Nottingham University.
Kanu, Y., 1996. Educating teachers for the improvement of the
quality of basic education in developing countries. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Development 16 (2), 173–184.
Levin, H.M., Lockheed, M.E. (Eds.), 1993. Effective Schools in
Developing Countries. Falmer Press, London.
Lockheed, M., Verspoor, A., 1991. Improving Primary Educa-
tion in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press,
World Bank.
McGrath, S., 2001. Research in a cold climate: towards a
political economy of British international and comparative
education. International Journal of Educational Develop-
ment 21 (5), 391–400.
Motola, S., 1995. Surviving the system—a critical appraisal of
some conventional wisdoms in primary education in South
Africa. Comparative Education 31 (2), 161–179.
Motola, S., 2001. Quality and indicators of quality in South
African education: a critical appraisal. International Jour-
nal of Educational Development 21, 61–78.
National Assessment of Progress in Education, 1999. Executive
Summary on the Achievements of Primary School Pupils in
Uganda in English and Mathematics. Uganda National
Examinations Board.
Nias, J., 1989. Primary Teachers Talking: A Study of Teaching
as Work. Routledge, London.
N’tchougan-Sonou, C.H., 2001. Automatic promotion or large-
scale repetition—which path to quality? International
Journal of Educational Development 21, 149–162.
O’Sullivan, M.C., 2001. Communicative approaches to teaching
English in Namibia: the issue of transfer of Western
approaches to developing countries. International Journal
of Early Years Education 9 (1), 51–61.
O’Sullivan, M.C., 2002. Reform implementation and the
realities within which teachers work: a Namibian case
study. Compare 32 (2), 219–237.
O’Sullivan, M.C., 2003. What is happening in the classroom? A
common-sense approach to improving the quality of
primary education in developing countries. Paper presented
at the 47th International Comparative and International
Education Society conference in New Orleans, March
12–16th.
O’Sullivan, M.C., 2004. The reconceptualisation of learner-
centred approaches: a Namibian case study. International
Journal of Educational Development 24 (6), 585–602.
Pontefract, C., Hardman, F., 2005. The discourse of classroom
interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative
Education 41 (1), 87–106.
Prouty, D., 2000. Teachers as miracle workers—stepping stones
to success. The Quality Link 2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
260 M. O’Sullivan / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 246–260
Riddell, A., 1998. Reforms of educational efficiency and quality in
developing countries: an overview. Compare 28 (3), 277–291.
Riddell, A., 1999. Evaluations of educational reform pro-
grammes in developing countries: whose life is it anyway?
International Journal of Educational Development 19,
383–394.
Samoff, J., 1999. No teacher guide, no textbooks, no chairs:
contending with crisis in African education. In: Arnove,
R.F., Torres, C.A. (Eds.), Comparative Education—the
Dialectic of the Global and the Local. Rowan and Littlefield
Publishers Inc., Boston.
Schubert, J., 2001. The Path to Quality. Report Prepared for
the Improving Educational Quality Project.
Shaw, I., Newton, D.P., Aitkin, M., Darnell, R., 2003. Do
OFSTED inspections of secondary schools make a differ-
ence to GCSE results? British Educational Research Journal
29 (1), 63–75.
Stevenson, H.W., Lee, S., 1997. The East Asian version of
whole-class teaching. In: Cummings, K., Altbach, G. (Eds.),
The Challenge of Eastern Asian Education. Implications for
America. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Tabulawa, R., 2003. International aid agencies, learner-centred
pedagogy and political democratisation: a critique. Com-
parative Education 39 (1), 7–26.
Torres, R.M., 2003. Improving the quality of basic education?
The strategies of the World Bank. In: Beauchamp, E.R.
(Ed.), Comparative Education Reader. Routledge Falmer,
New York.
Tymms, P., 1999. Baseline assessment, value-added and the
prediction of reading. Journal of Research in Reading 22
(1), 27–36.
Ven der Werf, G., Creemers, B., de Jong, R., Klaver, E., 2000.
Evaluation of school improvement through educational
effectiveness model: the case of Indonenisia’s PEQIP
project. Comparative Education Review 44 (3).
Watkins, C., Mortimore, P., 1999. Pedagogy: what do we
know? In: Mortimore, P. (Ed.), Pedagogy and its Impact on
Learning. Paul Chapman, London, pp. 1–19.