Factors affecting the sustainability of Japan’s 『strengthening mathematics and science education』 project for teacher raining in Kenya

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

SMASE(Strengthening Mathematics and Science Education: 수학 과학 교육 역량 강화) 프로젝트는 기술협력의 구(舊) 모델이 가진 단(短)기간의 사업 수행과 공여국 중심의 특성으로 인해 한창 비판을 받던 1990년대 후반에 시작되었다. SMASE 프로젝트는 이러한 기술협력의 한계를 극복하고, 기술적, 제도적, 재정적 기반 위에 지속 가능한 현직교사연수(INSET) 시스템을 설립하고자 하였다. 이러한 기반은 케냐와 일본, 특히 케냐의 주도적인 이니셔티브와 자조 노력에 의해 공동으로 형성되었다. 본 연구는 케냐에서 구축된 SMASE INSET 시스템의 지속가능성에 영향을 미친 요인을 분석하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 구체적으로, 지속 가능한 SMASE INSET 시스템을 수립하기 위해 마련된 다양한 기술적, 제도적, 재정적 기반을 살펴보고, SMASE INSET 시스템의 지속가능성에 영향을 준 주인의식과 지식의 현지화 이니셔티브의 성과와 한계를 논한다.

본 연구의 Finding에서는 SMASE INSET 시스템의 지속가능성을 높이기 위해 컨텐츠, 인적자원, 제도, 재정적 수단이 마련되었음을 밝히고 있다. SMASE INSET의 교육과정과 컨텐츠는 케냐 교사교육가와 교사들이 케냐의 교육 맥락과 교사들의 요구에 기반을 두고 개발한 것이다. SMASE 프로젝트의 일환으로 수학, 과학 교사들의 역량 강화를 위한 아프리카의 구심점으로서 기능하는 CEMASTEA(Center for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in Africa: 아프리카 수학, 과학, 기술 교육 센터)가 설립되었으며, 이 센터에서 교사교육가와 행정관료와 같이 프로젝트 수행을 위한 인력이 정기적으로 양성되었다. CEMASTEA의 리더십 하에, SMASE 프로젝트는 국가부터 시도(district)까지 연결된 기존의 행정구조와 관료를 활용하여 실시되었다. SMASE 프로젝트가 국가-시도-클러스터 수준의 케스케이드 모델로 이루어진 것과, 모든 중등 수학, 과학 교사들에게 SMASE 연수가 의무화된 것은 SMASE INSET 시스템의 빠르고 폭넓은 확산과 구축에 기여하였다. 또한 케냐와 일본 정부간의 비용 분담과 ‘SMASE 기금’이라 불리는 지속 가능한 재정 조달 메커니즘을 통해 SMASE INSET 시스템의 지속가능성을 높일 수 있었다.

하지만 동시에 SMASE 프로젝트의 지속가능성을 방해하는 요소들도 존재하였다. 첫째, SMASE 연수의 핵심인 ASEI-PDSI(Activity, Student-centered, Experiment, Improvisation - Plan, Do, See, Improve) 접근법의 교실 내 활용도가 떨어진다는 점이다. 둘째, 시도와 클러스터 수준의 교사교육가와 행정관료의 역량이 부족하다는 것이다. 셋째, 하향식(Top-down) 접근과 연수의 강제성은 교사들의 SMASE 프로젝트에 대한 지지와 책임감을 저하시켰다. 넷째, SMASE 기금의 징수율이 학교별로 편차가 크고 어느 지역도 100%의 징수율을 보이지 못하였다. 또한 동 기금 관리의 불투명성이 여러 차례 문제가 되었다.

Discussion에서는 SMASE 프로젝트를 기술, 제도, 재정적 측면에서 분석한 결과를 연구자가 문헌연구를 토대로 만든 분석적 틀을 사용하여 주인의식과 지식의 현지화 관점에서 해석하였다. 연구의 결과는 고위급(중앙 정부) 수준의 주인의식은 보장되었으나 최종 수혜자 수준의 주인의식은 확보되지 못했음을 보여준다. 케냐와 일본의 공동 프로젝트 형성, 비용 분담 전략, 케냐 정부의 정책적 지지, 케냐 정부의 기존 구조 내 SMASE 시스템 통합 전략, SMASE-WECSA(Western Eastern Central and Southern Africa: 서, 동, 중앙, 남 아프리카) 회원국과의 남남협력 등은 케냐 정부의 주인의식을 높이는 데 크게 기여하였다. 하지만 프로젝트의 가장 중요한 수혜자인 교사의 주인의식을 고려하면, 교사들의 참여, 합의, 자력화는 케스케이드 (하향식) 모델 내에서 상당한 제약을 받았다. 또한 케냐 정부에 의한 SMASE 연수 참석의 의무화는 교사들의 동기를 저하시켰다. 교사들이 자신의 역할을 변화의 주체로 설정하고 SMASE 프로젝트에 대한 주도권을 잡지 않는다면 프로젝트는 성공적으로 지속될 수 없을 것이다.

SMASE 연수의 방향은 일본의 외래 지식과 남남협력을 통해 필리핀에서 획득한 지식에 의해 설정되었다. 하지만, 케냐의 현지 수요 발굴과 연수 컨텐츠의 개발은 케냐 카운터파트(C/Ps)의 현지 지식을 기반으로 하여 이루어졌다. 외래 지식의 현지화와 현지 지식의 활용은 협력국의 조건과 더 부합하는 연수 컨텐츠를 만들어내는데 도움이 되었다. 이는 SMASE 프로젝트가 케냐에서 더 지속가능하고 케냐 현지인들에게 더 친근감을 주는데 기여했다. 이러한 노력에도 불구하고, SMASE 연수를 받은 교사들은 연수를 통해 습득한 지식을 교실 현장에서 활용하는 데 어려움을 겪고 있었다. 케냐의 교사들은 SMASE 연수에서 배운 지식의 실천을 방해하는 열악한 주변 교육 환경과 여전히 씨름하고 있었다. 이러한 한계에는 2가지 이유가 있다. 첫째, 교사들은 기본적인 욕구가 충족되지 않는 실제 케냐 교육 환경을 고려할 때 적절치 못한 학습자 중심 교수법 등의 소위 “선진” 교수법을 활용하도록 요구 받고 있었다. 둘째, SMASE 연수 컨텐츠는 케냐의 다른 기관과의 네트워크 부족으로 인해 교사연수 유관기관의 기존 지식과 일치하지 않는 부분이 존재했다. 이와 같이 교사들의 SMASE 연수 컨텐츠 활용도가 낮은 것은 프로젝트 효과의 가시성을 떨어뜨리고 동시에 프로젝트의 지속가능성에 부정적인 영향을 주었다.

SMASE 프로젝트는 어떻게 주인의식과 지식의 현지화 담론이 실제로 개발협력 사업 현장에 적용되고 있는지, 또한 어떻게 이러한 노력들이 사업의 지속가능성으로 이어질 수 있는지를 보여준다. SMASE 프로젝트가 케냐 정부에 의해 시작되고 진행되었으므로 정부의 주인의식은 강력했다고 볼 수 있다. SMASE 연수 컨텐츠 또한 케냐 교사들의 수요와 케냐 교육과정에 기반하여 케냐인들이 개발한 것으로 지식의 현지화도 고려되었다. 하지만 SMASE 프로젝트는 변화의 주체로서 교사의 주인의식의 중요성을 고려하는 데 한계가 있었다. 또 다른 한계점은 본 프로젝트에서는 교사들이 태도를 바꾸면 모든 기본적인 도전과제들을 극복할 수 있다고 전제하고 수업 개선에 지나치게 집중했다는 것이다. 오직 교사를 연수시킴으로써 교사들의 역량 강화와 수업 개선을 도모하는 것은 어렵다. 그 이유는 교사들을 둘러싼 주변환경이 교사들이 혁신적이고 주도적으로 변화하기에 협조적이지 못하기 때문이다. 따라서 교사들이 스스로 교수 태도와 교수법을 바꿀 수 있도록 동기를 부여하는 통합적인 접근법이 필요하다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The SMASE (Strengthening Mathematics and Science Education) project was initiated and implemented in the global context in which the old model of technical cooperation (TC) was criticized because of its short-term engagement and donor-driven nature. The SMASE project tried to address these limitations of TC and aimed at establishing a sustainable in-service training (INSET) system on technical, institutional and financial bases. These bases were jointly formed by Kenya and Japan, but slight more emphasis was on Kenya’s initiatives and self-help efforts. However, the SMASE INSET system has shown several challenges in terms of sustainability. This study analyzes the factors that affected the sustainability of the SMASE INSET system in Kenya. More specifically, it examines the technical, financial and institutional measures which were taken to establish SMASE as a sustainable INSET system, and also the ownership and localization of knowledge initiatives and limitations which affected the sustainability of the SMASE INSET system.

The study indicates that the contents, human resources, institutional and financial measures have been taken to improve sustainability of the SMASE INSET system. The SMASE INSET curriculum and contents were developed by the efforts of Kenyan trainers and teachers on the basis of teachers’ needs and Kenyan educational context. CEMASTEA (Center for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in Africa) was established to serve as a center for teacher capacity development in mathematics and science education. Human resources for the project such as INSET trainers and administrative personnel have been trained regularly at the center. Under the leadership of the CEMASTEA, the project was implemented using existing management structures and the personnel from national to district level. The institutional frameworks which are cascade model from national to cluster and the enforcement of training to all secondary mathematics and science teachers have contributed to the fast, broad diffusion and establishment of the INSET system. Cost sharing between Kenya and Japan, and a sustainable fund raising mechanism, SMASE Fund, contributed to enhancing the sustainability of the INSET system.

However, there were also limitations which hindered the sustainability of the project. First, what teachers learned during the INSET (ASEI-PDSI approach) were not actively utilized by teachers in the classroom. Second, the lack of capacity of trainers and administrative personnel at the district and cluster level has hampered sustainability of the SMASE INSET system. Third, top-down approach and compulsoriness which failed to bring out teachers’ support and nurture their responsibility have threatened the sustainability of the project. Fourth, there was a discrepancy in the collection rate of the SMASE Fund between schools, and no district succeeded in collecting 100% of the Fund. In addition, the management of SMASE fund has become an issue.

These findings were interpreted from the perspective of ownership and localization of knowledge using analytical frameworks designed by the researcher based on literature review. The result shows that ownership was ensured at the high level (national government), but it was not promoted at the lower level (end-beneficiaries) in the SMASE project. Ownership of the Kenyan Government (GOK) was enhanced by joint project formulation, cost sharing strategy, GOK’s political support, integration of the project into existing structure and system of the GOK, and South-South cooperation with SMASE-WECSA(Western Eastern Central and Southern Africa) member countries. In terms of nurturing ownership of the most important beneficiaries, the teachers, their participation, empowerment, and consensus were quite limited under the condition of cascade model (top-down model). Also, the enforcement of participation by the Government made teachers de-motivated. Unless teachers consider their role as the agent of change and take ownership of the project, the project cannot be sustained successfully.

The direction of training was introduced and induced by the foreign knowledge from Japan and the knowledge gained through South-South cooperation with the Philippines. However, in the identification of local needs and the development of training contents heavily depended upon local knowledge of Kenya counterparts (C/Ps). Localization of foreign knowledge and utilization of local knowledge contributed to improving the training contents to be more compatible with the condition of the partner country, thereby, contributing to the project being more sustainable and friendly to the local people. In spite of such efforts, however, SMASE-trained teachers still face difficulties to apply the knowledge acquired through the project to the classroom practices. Teachers are still struggling with surrounding circumstances that hinders actual practice of knowledge. This challenge derived from two reasons. First, teachers were recommended to practice advanced teaching methods which was inadequate considering the actual environment where basic needs were not satisfied. Second, the training contents are not compatible with the existing knowledge of other stakeholder institutions due to lack of cooperative institutional network. Such low level of application of training contents resulted the effect of project to be less tangible, simultaneously, has impeded sustainability of the project.

The project shows how ownership and localization of knowledge discourses are practically applied to the development cooperation projects and how these efforts can lead to sustainability of the project. It was found that the ownership of the Government of Kenya was powerful as the project was initiated and led by the government. The INSET contents were developed by Kenyans based on Kenyan teachers’ needs and curricula. However, the project showed limitations in considering the importance of the role of teachers as the main agent of change as the result indicated that their ownership was not reinforced. Another missing piece is that the project was too much focused on the lesson improvement assuming that other basic challenges can be overcome solely by teachers’ attitude. Only by training teachers, it is difficult to engender teachers’ capacity development and lesson improvement since the surrounding circumstances were insufficient for the teachers to be innovative and proactive. There needs to be a comprehensive approach to make teachers more motivated to change their teaching attitudes and methods.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ·················································································· 1
• 1.1 Background and Statement of the Problem ····························································· 3
• 1.2 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ························································ 9
• 1.3 Significance of the Study ······················································································ 11
• 1.4 Limitations and Delimitations ··············································································· 13
• CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ···································································· 16
• 2.1 Changing Concept of Technical Cooperation ······················································· 16
• 2.2 Ownership and Localization in Technical Cooperation ········································ 21
• 2.3 Previous Studies on SMASE ················································································· 41
• CHAPTER 3. METHOD ······························································································ 45
• 3.1 Qualitative Research Approach ············································································· 45
• 3.2 Sample and Population ·························································································· 47
• 3.3 Data Collection ······································································································ 51
• 3.4 Data Analysis ········································································································ 54
• CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS: The Process of Establishing the SMASE INSET System
• ········································································································································· 57
• 4.1 Content Aspect ······································································································ 57
• 4.2 Human Resource Aspect ······················································································· 73
• 4.3 Institutional Aspect ······························································································· 81
• 4.4 Financial Aspect ···································································································· 97
• CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION: Ownership and Localization Factors affecting
• Sustainability of SMASE INSET System ·································································· 106
• 5.1 Ownership in SMASE ························································································· 106
• 5.1.1 Ownership of the Government ······································································ 107
• 5.1.2 Ownership of Beneficiaries ·········································································· 118
• 5.1.3 Japan‟s ODA strategy: enhancing self-help efforts and indirect assistance ·· 126
• 5.2 Localization of Knowledge in SMASE ······························································· 129
• 5.2.1 Localization of Foreign Knowledge ··························································· 129
• 5.2.2 Local Knowledge Initiative ·········································································· 133
• 5.2.3 Difficulty of using localized knowledge, WHY? ·········································· 140
• 5.2.4 Japan‟s ODA Strategy: Use of Japanese experience but with culturally careful
• approach ················································································································· 148
• 5.3 Implications to Korea‟s Education ODA ···························································· 153
• CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION ··················································································· 156
• REFERENCE ·············································································································· 163
• ANNEX ························································································································ 171
• Annex 1: SMASE Project Design Matrix ································································· 171
• Annex 2: Questionnaire of the Study ········································································ 190
• Annex 3: Informed Consent Form for Interview ······················································ 194
• Annex 4: Official Letter to Request Authority to Conduct Research ······················· 195
• 국문초록 ······················································································································ 197