Myanmar Myanmar Education Portfolio 2012–17 Pakistan Gilgit Baltistan Education Development and 2010–15 Improvement Sri Lanka Transforming School Education Project 2011–17 Timor-Leste Education Program 2012–16 Teacher development in Australian aid programming This evaluation considers Australia’s teacher development programming four categories to fit program designs and be consistent with the of teacher development used in developed and developing contexts. Figure 1 shows the typology of teacher development used for Australia’s aid programming and for this evaluation. It groups the four sub-categories under two broad competencies and continuous professional development. Figure 1: Typology of teacher development used for Australia’s aid programming Australia’s assistance often includes several of these categories in a country program to meet multiple problems in a context. Conceptual boundaries are also blurred in implementation, especially the distinction between cohort-based and school-based professional development. UNICEF’s characteristic modality, for example, is to combine group development with follow-up mentoring visits to schools.13 Table 3 lists and defines the sub-categories used in this evaluation. Sometimes the differences in the categories are not apparent to program management. In many DFAT programs, for example, is used without differentiating between ‘in-service’ training and professional development that does not lead to a teacher qualification. It is important to be clear on such differences, because they require different policy and institutional arrangements to optimise the quality and effectiveness of teacher development. Being clear also facilitates efficient and effective research into different approaches (for example, the strong and distinct literature on cohort and school-based professional development models). 3: Teacher development sub-categories and definitions Category Definition Explanation
Myanmar Myanmar Education Portfolio 2012–17 Pakistan Gilgit Baltistan Education Development and Improvement 2010–15 Sri Lanka Transforming School Education Project 2011–17 Timor-Leste Education Program 2012–16 Teacher development in Australian aid programming This evaluation considers Australia’s teacher development programming four to fit program designs and be consistent with the categories of teacher development used in developed and developing contexts. Figure 1 shows the typology of teacher development used for Australia’s aid programming and for this evaluation. It groups the four sub-categories under two broad competencies and continuous professional development. Figure 1: Typology of teacher development used for Australia’s aid programming Australia’s assistance often includes several of these categories in a country program to meet multiple problems in a context. Conceptual boundaries are also blurred in implementation, especially the distinction between cohort-based and school-based professional development. UNICEF’s characteristic modality, for example, is to combine group development with follow-up mentoring visits to schools.13 Table 3 lists and defines the sub-categories used in this evaluation. Sometimes the differences in the categories are not apparent to program management. In many DFAT programs, for example, ‘in-service’ is used without differentiating between training and professional development that does not lead to a teacher qualification. It is important to be clear on such differences, because they require different policy and institutional arrangements to optimise the quality and effectiveness of teacher development. Being clear also facilitates efficient and effective research into different approaches (for example, the strong and distinct literature on cohort and school-based professional development models). 3: Teacher development sub-categories and definitions Category Definition Explanation
teacher-development-evaluation.docx