Antecedents for improving physics teachers’ effectiveness in Uganda : a case of Kigezi sub-region

Abstract

Science teachers were an important component of Uganda’s education system because they contributed to the realisation of policy goals of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Despite that importance, the academic performance of students at UCE in Physics had been perennially poor for decades. To reverse this trend, the SESEMAT programme was introduced to improve the teaching of science subjects in Uganda and consequently, academic performance. The goal of the intervention was in response to several studies before then that had attributed the declining academic achievement in science subjects to ineffective teaching. However, even after the introduction of the SESEMAT programme, academic achievement in the science subjects had not improved either, Kigezi sub-region inclusive. For that reason, this study focused on assessing the aspect of teacher effectiveness since it determined the academic achievement. Thus, the purpose of the study was to assess the antecedents for improving Physics teachers’ effectiveness in Uganda: A case of Kigezi sub region. Specifically, the study aimed at: - establishing the relationship between pedagogical approach antecedents and Physics teachers’ effectiveness; finding out the relationship between school environment antecedents and the Physics teachers’ effectiveness; and, ascertaining if the school environment moderated the relationship between pedagogical approaches and Physics teachers’ effectiveness. The study was anchored on Social Constructivism Theory and Social Ecological Systems Theory. Then the Pragmatism paradigm informed the study, leading to the use of mixed-methods approach and embedded/nested in the mixed-methods research design. In addition, both government aided and private-owned schools were involved. The study involved 214 respondents comprising 194 teachers, 6 District Education Officers and 14 head teachers. In that case, quantitative data was collected from teachers using questionnaires while qualitative data from head teachers and District Education Officers was collected using interviews. More qualitative data was generated through classroom lesson observation and focus group discussions with Heads of Department. The data was analysed quantitatively, using descriptive and inferential statistics; and qualitatively, using content analysis. The results showed a significant positive influence of SESEMAT pedagogical approaches on teacher effectiveness (β=0.348, p<0.001); a positive significant influence of school environment and Physics teachers’ effectiveness (β=0.596, p<0.001); and, a positive significant moderating influence of school environment on the interplay between SESEMAT pedagogical approaches and the Physics teachers’ effectiveness (β=0.275, p<0.001). It was concluded that the SESEMAT pedagogical approaches influenced the teaching effectiveness; the school environment influenced the teaching effectiveness; and the school environment moderated the influence of pedagogical approaches on teaching effectiveness. The study recommended a need: for instructional supervision by the head teachers; for ensuring regular workshops and trainings of science teachers by the government for improved teaching; for school administrators to provide minimum teaching materials; for vestibule training opportunities for benchmarking and creation of teacher development schemes, among others. Above all, the study added value to the existing body of knowledge on curriculum interventions and school outcomes by exploring the moderating influence of school environment. This provided enriched information for informing educational policy-makers.