review-of-the-literature-on-basic-education-in-nigeria-june-2014-3-1

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in NigeriaThe disjuncture between development and university – opportunities for synergyIndependent research by Nigerian academics that was accessible tended to lack an empirical basis, andwas <strong>of</strong>ten more discursive about aspects <strong>of</strong> policy, such as UBE, or <strong>the</strong> curriculum. The relatively smallbody <strong>of</strong> available empirical research usually focused on a very specific issue and involved descriptive orstatistical analysis <strong>of</strong> questionnaires, sometimes supplemented by interviews with key informants.There seemed to be little crossover between <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> being produced through studies associatedwith development programmes and most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> studies being undertaken by academics in Nigerianuniversities. Although <strong>the</strong>re are a few Nigerian academics who combine university work withconsultancy for government and IDPs in development programmes, more generally <strong>the</strong>re seems to belittle interaction between <strong>the</strong> two domains. This is also perhaps partly a product <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> geographicaldivide and <strong>the</strong> fact that many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> major universities are in <strong>the</strong> south whereas most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>development projects are in <strong>the</strong> north. However, it would be beneficial for research in Nigeria as awhole if more university academics working in education were more involved in educationaldevelopment programmes.Limited research methodologies and respondent voicesSince most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research was tied into development projects, studies were predominantly evaluative,generally being baseline, mid-term or final evaluations <strong>of</strong> particular programmes or <strong>of</strong> sub-components,such as SBMCs or a school-based teacher development programme. Evaluation designs (like <strong>the</strong> initialproject designs) are heavily influenced by <strong>the</strong> pressure from donors to show results.To enable outputs and outcomes to be measured against programme targets, and to facilitate impactassessments, <strong>the</strong> studies were also mainly quantitative, with an emphasis on quantifiable indicators andon ‘inputs’. Even where qualitative data were ga<strong>the</strong>red <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>of</strong>ten quantified.Evaluations were <strong>of</strong>ten headed by external consultants. However, conducting evaluations over a largearea within a very limited consultancy period (typically two weeks) has implications for <strong>the</strong> sample,which was a limitation most researchers acknowledged. For example, when rural schools were visited,<strong>the</strong>y were <strong>of</strong>ten not too far from a main road, while school visits were necessarily brief in order to visitas many schools as possible in <strong>the</strong> time.Project personnel on <strong>the</strong> ground <strong>of</strong>ten had some say in <strong>the</strong> schools selected for visits but are likely tohave chosen <strong>the</strong> places where <strong>the</strong> project is working best, or at least not where it is barely functioning.Survey methods predominated and in <strong>the</strong> international development projects <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten relied upon <strong>the</strong>self-reported responses <strong>of</strong> interested parties in a questionnaire (e.g. SBMC chair, head teacher, etc.).Such participants will want to present information in a positive light, although sometimes o<strong>the</strong>r physicalevidence was required.Apart from a few notable exceptions, <strong>the</strong> voices <strong>of</strong> women and children and marginalised groups such asnomadic pastoralists, almajirai or street children were frequently not well heard in studies, <strong>of</strong>tenbecause <strong>the</strong> ‘key informants’ interviewed or surveyed tended to be state and LGEA <strong>of</strong>ficials, traditionalleaders and head teachers, who are predominantly men from dominant social groups. In cases where‘hard-to-reach’ respondents were deliberately sought out, <strong>the</strong>y were sometimes just that: hard to reachand thus unavailable for interview.Where qualitative research was conducted, interviews and observations were usually one-<strong>of</strong>f eventsand responses were also <strong>of</strong>ten quantified. In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> one-<strong>of</strong>f classroom observations, as <strong>the</strong>researchers <strong>of</strong>ten acknowledged, <strong>the</strong> observer effect was <strong>of</strong>ten magnified, making it difficult to get afeel for what a ‘normal’ lesson might be like.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 155
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in NigeriaBroadening research approachesMissing from <strong>the</strong> research evidence were more free-ranging, exploratory studies not constrained bydonor agendas and timelines. More in-depth, ethnographic and qualitative studies involving repeatedvisits to schools, communities and educational <strong>of</strong>fices would be able to provide more nuanced andholistic accounts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> complex micro-social, political and economic processes that have an impact oneducational opportunities, experiences and outcomes for particular children in particular contexts.Case-study comparisons between schools and communities where pupil access, retention and outcomesare faring relatively better or worse could usefully help identify features that support or hindereducational access, school quality and learning outcomes. Comparisons between poor ruralcommunities in a sou<strong>the</strong>rn state with relatively high enrolment levels and a good GPI with ones in anor<strong>the</strong>rn state with a low GPI, for example, would be illuminative.Longitudinal studies too could provide insights into how <strong>the</strong> different phases <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> agricultural yearhave an impact on schooling, or <strong>the</strong> daily lives <strong>of</strong> particular children, and affect learning.The netmapping methodology used in Kano could usefully be applied to o<strong>the</strong>r states to help grasp <strong>the</strong>political complexities in operation.There was an almost total absence <strong>of</strong> research that applied sociological <strong>the</strong>ory to try to understandeducational processes, as well as little participatory research – again possibly on account <strong>of</strong> timeconstraints.Similarly absent were studies exploring <strong>the</strong> interaction between ethnicity, religion, age, urban/rurallocation, etc. and how such issues play out in different locations in regard to schooling. That said, <strong>the</strong>relationship between Islam and gender (generally focused on women/girls) was a frequent topic <strong>of</strong>interest, whereas <strong>the</strong> relationship between education and Christianity or ATR was left unexplored. Theabsence <strong>of</strong> studies on religion and ethnicity in particular is perhaps because <strong>the</strong> topics were consideredto be too sensitive.Gender – conceptual limitationsGender – in <strong>the</strong> sense <strong>of</strong> girls and women generally – has been a strong focus <strong>of</strong> development efforts,especially in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Nigeria, and has <strong>the</strong>refore featured prominently in <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> in this <strong>review</strong>.Although discussed in detail in Chapter 8, it needs reiterating here that conceptualisations <strong>of</strong> genderneed to move beyond <strong>the</strong> gender binary (girls vs. boys) and <strong>the</strong> almost exclusive focus on girls toconceptualise gender as relational (girls and boys), thus considering <strong>the</strong> similarities and differencesbetween and within gender categories. A more nuanced understanding <strong>of</strong> gender also needs toacknowledge that people’s gender identities are differentiated by, and interact with, religion, ethnicity,age, socio-economic status, sexuality, disability and location, for example.In research terms, a reconceptualising <strong>of</strong> gender would move beyond a focus on counting girls and boysand female and male teachers (although this needs to be done as a starting point) and on generalisingabout girls and boys as homogenous groups. Instead, it would consider which particular girls and boys(and in what circumstances) and focus on gender relations and on <strong>the</strong> gendered structures andprocesses in particular institutions. Pertinent questions might <strong>the</strong>refore include <strong>the</strong> following:How are <strong>the</strong>se structures and processes similar or different in all-girls schools, all-boy schools, inpublic and private schools, in boarding and day schools, or in IQTE schools, and in <strong>the</strong> colleges <strong>of</strong>education that train <strong>the</strong> next generation <strong>of</strong> teachers?How do structures and processes support or work against social equality?What kinds <strong>of</strong> masculinities and femininities are being promoted and/or excluded in <strong>the</strong>seinstitutions and how does this affect educational quality and gender equality?EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 156
Page 1 and 2:
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON BASICED
Page 3 and 4:
Review of
Page 5 and 6:
Review of
Page 7 and 8:
Review of
Page 9 and 10:
Review of
Page 11 and 12:
Review of
Page 13 and 14:
Review of
Page 15 and 16:
Review of
Page 17 and 18:
Review of
Page 19 and 20:
Review of
Page 21 and 22:
Review of
Page 23 and 24:
Review of
Page 25 and 26:
Review of
Page 27 and 28:
Review of
Page 29 and 30:
Review of
Page 31 and 32:
Review of
Page 33 and 34:
Review of
Page 35 and 36:
Review of
Page 37 and 38:
Review of
Page 39 and 40:
Review of
Page 41 and 42:
Review of
Page 43 and 44:
Review of
Page 45 and 46:
Review of
Page 47 and 48:
Review of
Page 49 and 50:
Review of
Page 51 and 52:
Review of
Page 53 and 54:
Review of
Page 55 and 56:
Review of
Page 57 and 58:
Review of
Page 59 and 60:
Review of
Page 61 and 62:
Review of
Page 63 and 64:
Review of
Page 65 and 66:
Review of
Page 67 and 68:
Review of
Page 69 and 70:
Review of
Page 71 and 72:
Review of
Page 73 and 74:
Review of
Page 75 and 76:
Review of
Page 77 and 78:
Review of
Page 79 and 80:
Review of
Page 81 and 82:
Review of
Page 83 and 84:
Review of
Page 85 and 86:
Review of
Page 87 and 88:
Review of
Page 89 and 90:
Review of
Page 91 and 92:
Review of
Page 93 and 94:
Review of
Page 95 and 96:
Review of
Page 97 and 98:
Review of
Page 99 and 100:
Review of
Page 101 and 102:
Review of
Page 103 and 104:
Review of
Page 105 and 106:
Review of
Page 107 and 108:
Review of
Page 109 and 110:
Review of
Page 111 and 112:
Review of
Page 113 and 114:
Review of
Page 115 and 116:
Review of
Page 117 and 118:
Review of
Page 119 and 120:
Review of
Page 121 and 122:
Review of
Page 123 and 124:
Review of
Page 125 and 126:
Review of
Page 127 and 128:
Review of
Page 129 and 130:
Review of
Page 131 and 132: Review of
Page 181: Review of
show all

review-of-the-literature-on-basic-education-in-nigeria-june-2014-3-1

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?