1 / 21

Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Social Effects of Community-Based Education in Afghanistan (ALSE) Research Project

This presentation provides an overview of the ALSE research project, its origins, goals, and methods. It discusses the challenges faced in conducting rigorous research in a conflict-affected country and presents the findings of Phase One and the issues that arose. The presentation also introduces Phase Two and the key research questions to be addressed.

michaelcraig
Download Presentation

Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Social Effects of Community-Based Education in Afghanistan (ALSE) Research Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF COMMUNITY-BASED EDUCATION IN AFGHANISTAN (ALSE) Research Project by: Dr. Dana Burde, Dr. Joel Middleton, Dr. Cyrus Samii Presentation by: Vedrana Misic, Senior Research Manager For more information: alse.nyu@gmail.com

  2. OUTLINE • Brief overview of ALSE • Research Design • Phase One and Two: Issues and their impact, or lack thereof, on feasibility of conducting RCTs in Afghanistan • Lessons Learned

  3. ALSE Origins • Study and CBE program initiated by 4 governments: Canada, USAID, Danida, the Afghan Ministry of Education (MoE) in 2012 • Goal is to provide rigorous evidence on CBE • Research design planning ensued with the MoE, NGOs, and funders in 2013

  4. Overview of ALSE Partners and ALSE established commitment to: • Collaborative design to collect long-term data and conduct an impact evaluation to understand questions related to CBE effects, transition, and sustainability • Flexibility to add research questions along with “just-in-time” data and briefing papers to provide robust findings on key questions of interest to education community in Afghanistan

  5. ALSE Provinces

  6. Overview of ALSE: Methods Randomized controlled trial/Impact evaluation: • Phased-in design, with 132 villages randomly selected to receive CBE starting in 2014; 52 villages starting in 2016 • 3 variations • Teacher recruitment strategies • Community member engagement activities • Time of transferring CBE from NGOs’ to MoE administration

  7. Overview of ALSE: Methods Cont. • Community Based-Education Enhancement Program (CBEEP) designed specifically to answer questions of interest to MoE, donors, and implementing partners • Phase one focus is on understanding the effects of teacher recruitment criteria and community engagement activities on children’s learning. • Phase two focus is on understanding how children’s learning outcomes can be sustained.

  8. Phase 1

  9. Key question for this presentation: • Is it possible to conduct rigorous research in a country affected by conflict? • If so, how?

  10. Overview of Challenges to Research • Critical to understand and be sensitive to social divisions (ethnic, linguistics, religious, etc.) • Critical to understand security issues in local communities and establish relations so that communities support research and guarantee security of researchers • Rapid turnover among expat staff in all organizations • Political tensions in gov’t institutions • Attention to hiring staff to avoid aggravating ethnic tensions • Trouble shoot constantly

  11. Phase 1- Research Questions • What are the effects of imposing a higher qualifications requirements for teacher recruitment on children’s learning? • Does increasing community engagement increase children’s learning?

  12. Phase 1 - Issues • Unit of randomization: • Changed from “village” to “community” to avoid stoking local rivalries or creating the perception of partiality • Modest amount of attrition and non-compliance • 12 communities removed from the study • 2 from the control group • 10 from the treatment group • Security concerns was the primary factor in 9communities (i.e., the effect of security was minimal)

  13. Phase I - Issues Continued • Non-compliance in 30 communities • 19 communities assigned to treatment group and 11 communities assigned to control • External factors were the primary reason as opposed to the community rejecting the program • Main list of external factors, by order of frequency: • An external agency started CBE class • Community did not meet the MoE criteria for establishing CBE class • NGO partner employed a different teacher recruitment strategy than assigned • Children accessed school in a nearby community • Attrition and non-compliance mitigated by ITT/Intention to Treat Analysis

  14. Quality of Implementation • Our surveys contained questions related to implementation of program activities • Enhancement activities • NGOs adhered to randomized assignment • Community members take-up was low

  15. Phase I - Impact on Feasibility of ALSE • Did these issues compromise ALSE researchers’ ability to estimate the effects of teacher recruitment strategies and community engagement activities on children’s attendance and learning outcomes? • NO. • The researchers had a sufficiently high number of treatment communities to study program variations. • Yet, the weak take-up of community engagement enhancement activities may explain their lack of statistically significant impact.

  16. Phase 2

  17. Phase 2: Research Question • Key Questions: • How to sustain hard-won access to education in remote and rural areas for girls and boys? • E.g., Understand how Citizen’s Charter can support community management and oversight of CBE classes

  18. Phase 2: Issue • The MoE faced financial constraints that prevented it from assuming administrative responsibility for CBE classes as planned in 2016. • Financial constraints are not specific to countries affected by conflict.

  19. Phase 2: New Research Directions • NGOs agreed to continue supporting CBE classes for an additional academic year. • ALSE researchers decided to study how community-level institutions, with the MoE’s oversight, can sustain access to education in remote and rural areas. • The researchers assumed additional, non-research responsibilities such as facilitating program implementation(e.g. hiring consultants to develop training materials, fundraising for teacher salaries, etc).

  20. Lessons Learned • It’s not impossible to conduct a RCT in conflict-affected countries! • Contextualize the intervention to the setting • Cluster the villages to avoid contamination/spillover • Attune to the ethno-cultural-linguistic sensitivities • Minimize non-compliance issues by encouraging and supporting implementing partners’ role in ensuring fidelity to the research design. • Find creative solutions to incentivize external agencies to adhere to research design. • All projects have budgetary constraints. • Be willing to assume additional roles and responsibilities that go beyond conducting research!

More Related