A person who knows and is aware that he knows, is wise, follow him; A person who knows but is not aware that he knows, remind him; A person who doesn't know and is aware that he doesn't know, teach him; A person who doesn't know and pretends to know, he is fool, leave him

Bless me in my undertakings Dear God, grant me victory and I shall shout your blessings for all to hear of your power!

Monday, March 3, 2014

2013 National examination results ambiguity

What if form four exam results were judged on the basis of cut off points rather than a pass at D level in two subjects?

For example if all students scoring greater than 40 average points were considered to have scored zero then the students in column DIV IV >40 would get Div Zero. Column % DIV IV > 40?T. DIV IV shows the percentage of students who scored div four but could score zero if the max points for div IV was 40 points. Move over, column % DIV IV > 40/Total shows the percentage of all students from the selected schools who would have scored div zero but have division IV.

The selection of the schools for this analysis was totally random. There was a random click of the school from the list of schools displayed by the national examination council, and for every school that was clicked the number of DIV IV with with average points greater than 40 were counted. Later on a percentage of the students who scored div IV but have average points higher than 40 was calculated for both total div IV scores and Total students in the school.

From the sample of 21 schools under study a total of 21.7% of the students who scored div IV were supposed to score div zero. This means that the percentage of div zero for the studied schools would increase by 8% if the grading was based on average points score rather than a D score in two subjects.

School name DIV I DIV II DIV III DIV IV DIV 0 Total DIV IV >40 % DIV IV >40/T.DIV IV % Div IV >40/Total
Manyunyu  3 15 38 36 10 102 6 16.66666667 5.882352941
Sangu 17 66 118 140 6 347 8 5.714285714 2.305475504
Shabani Robert 32 47 63 19 0 161 0 0 0
Goima  0 0 2 11 25 38 1 9.090909091 2.631578947
Bujela  0 4 7 20 32 63 6 30 9.523809524
Pasiansi  0 17 19 37 25 98 8 21.62162162 8.163265306
Ipogolo  1 6 8 53 6 74 22 41.50943396 29.72972973
Ilunga  1 4 13 72 79 169 27 37.5 15.97633136
Ndorwe  0 1 20 40 56 117 9 22.5 7.692307692
Nachunyu  0 1 0 17 34 52 7 41.17647059 13.46153846
Lulembela  1 4 5 15 8 33 3 20 9.090909091
Sale  1 6 16 36 30 89 8 22.22222222 8.988764045
Raudha Academy 0 2 11 14 0 27 0 0 0
Chiwata  0 0 2 8 38 48 4 50 8.333333333
Kinampundu 0 0 2 19 7 28 5 26.31578947 17.85714286
Magengati  0 1 5 8 12 26 4 50 15.38461538
Mpunguzi  0 3 9 40 44 96 9 22.5 9.375
Ndoleleji  0 1 3 9 4 17 2 22.22222222 11.76470588
Unyamikumbi  0 0 7 22 20 49 0 0 0
Iwindi  1 2 19 59 47 128 16 27.11864407 12.5
Dahani  0 0 1 15 39 55 5 33.33333333 9.090909091
690 1817 150 21.73913043 8.255365988

What does this imply?
The government has technically reduced the number of zeros by re-grading the students who are practically failures but scored D grades in two subjects. In fact there is no rationale for judging the person with average score of 46 points but with two Ds as better than the one who scored 41 points and missed the two Ds. Logically how can we say a person with 41 point is worse than the one with 46 points. What does this exactly tell us? That a person who can master two subjects at D level and fail the rest is better than the one who has an average of E in all subjects? According to NECTA anybody scoring an E is regarded as failed? Then what is the rationale of having E and F? Why cant we consider any grade below 29 is a failure?

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

How to make a good teaching?

This presentation was done at Msolwa secondary school in Morogoro Tanzania in 2010, when I was invited for a workshop on how to make a good teaching. I previously posted this presentation in this blog, however some people have asked me to post it again as they could not find it.
So I am bringing it back again for those who wish to make a good teaching in their classrooms.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Challenges and Opportunities of Integrating Technology in Education in Tanzania

Kafyulilo,  Mafumiko and Mkonogwa (under review) Journal of Adult Education
Tanzania has been striving to introduce ICT in education since 1997, when the first computer studies syllabus was introduced in secondary schools. However, efforts to implement ICT in education have not been fruitful due to various challenges that ICT in education has been encountering. This study investigated the various challenges to ICT integration in education and  identified  opportunities that can be utilized by the government, schools and  teachers to integrate  ICT in education in Tanzania. Data for this paper were  collected through self-reported questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Findings from the study showed that ICT implementation in the country is challenged by: the lack of skilled teachers on ICT use, lack of technological tools in most schools, unreliable electricity supply in most schools, and teachers’ attitude towards technology. Despite these challenges, the study identified opportunities that can be utilized by the government, schools and teachers in Tanzania. Some of these opportunities include: high level of teachers’ motivation to use technology in teaching, availability of a framework to guide teachers’ professional development (e.g. TPACK) as well as the emergency of teachers’ collaboration;  an approach which is highly adopted in schools for teacher professional development. The reported challenges and opportunities are important for the government and other education stakeholders in determining the effective measures for integrating technology in education in Tanzania.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Tracing the Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Education: A Literature Review

Ayoub C Kafyulilo
University of Twente
Technology integration in education is currently receiving a great attention from various stakeholders in education worldwide. Both developed and developing nations currently striving to have ICT integrated in the teaching and learning process. This innovation in education requires teachers’ knowledge and readiness to integrate technology in their teaching. According to Fullan (2003), education changes depend on what teachers “think” and “do”. In the situation where teachers do not appreciate the new innovation and have limited knowledge and skills for implementing the new educational innovations, the resulting outcomes are likely to be unwelcoming. Given these facts, previous scholars on education reforms and innovation have paid a significant attention to the development of teachers’ knowledge to fit on the required innovations. Example Shulman (1986, 1987) insisted on the importance of teachers understanding of the pedagogy and content for effective teaching profession. Also during the emergence of the need to integrate technology in education, Koehler & Mishra (2005) and Niess (2005) considered the importance of teachers’ knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content. According to Kohler & Mishra (2005), Mishra & Koehler (2006) and Niess, (2005, 2006) for teachers to effectively integrate technology in their teaching, they need to develop an understanding of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK).