123

Multigrade Teaching Training in Nepal:
Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training＊

SUZUKI Takako
I. Introduction

The teacher is the most decisive factor in the qualitative improvement of primaryeducation（Mortensen, 1992）. A large number of unqualified teachers are the criticalobstacles to improve the quality of education in developing courtiers（Andrews et al.,1990）. Teacher training is a direct means to enhance the quality of teaching andstudent achievement. In-service training is one of the strategies for improving theknowledge and skills of unqualified teachers already employed（Lockheed et al, 1991）.
For example, a study in the Democratic Republic of Congo indicates that in-service
training has improved the French reading test scores of students in Grade 8（Biniakunu, 1982）.
Although teacher training is such a key factor in the quality of education, and somepositive results are available, a number of educational research and internationalorganisations are concerned that teacher training does not result in a better quality ofeducation（Craig et al., 1998）. Presenting ready-made, highly specific training as an
event is not the solution for the classroom（Fullan, 1982, Fullan and Stiegelbauer,
1991）. Most of the training is worth no more than providing the certificate （Dove,1986）. The quality of training in developing countries is often unsatisfactory（Stuart
and Lewin, 2002）. A study in Papua New Guinea showed the inefficiency of teacher
training, focussing on its duration and ad-hoc structural system（Guthrie, 1983）. In
particular, satisfaction with in-service training is limited（Commonwealth Secretariat,
1982）. For example, the quality of the in-service training of the MIITEP programme in
Malawi remains low and the training programme is not successful（Kunje, 2002）.
Here the government of Nepal has been providing a ten-day in-service teacher
training named Multigrade Teaching Training in order to improve current practice of＊Assistant Professor, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University.

Journal of International Cooperation Studies, Vol.16, No.3（2009.3）

124

国

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

multigrade teaching. Multigrade teaching means that a type of class organisation thatteachers are responsible for two or more grades simultaneously during one lesson
period. In Nepal, the teacher-school ratio is 3.8 in 1998（MOES, 2000）. In other words,
on average, only 3.8 teachers are available for 5 grade groups at one primary school.
Thus the prevalence of multigrade teaching is quite high and the government of Nepal
introduced the in-service training as one of the project components.
In the context of the education sector, however, there is no specific statement fornational policies on multigrade teaching. National curriculum, textbooks, teachers
guide and classrooms are designed for monograde teaching. This is because the needsof multigrade teachers and their students have been often overlooked by education
policy makers under the predominance of monograde teaching（Little, 2001）.
Multigrade classes in developing countries often have a poor image because they are
under-endowed with resources（Brunswic and Valerien, 2004）. Multigrade teachers
are often unsupported and not prepared to teach in multigrade classrooms（Rowley
and Nelson, 1997）. Moreover, teachers often express a negative perception on
multigrade teaching and face their practice pessimistically（Lally, 1995; Little, 2001;
Berry, 2001）. Consequently multigrade teachers struggle to teach in the gap between
their own multigrade reality and the universal monograde norm − not knowing what
to do. They organise multigrade teaching their own ways（Wright, 2000）. As a result,practice of multigrade teaching in classrooms differs widely from classroom toclassroom.
This Multigrade Teaching Training has been developed by the central governmentand one single model of the training is provided nationwide. However, considering thediversity of practice of multigrade teaching under such unsupported circumstances, isthe single model of the training touch upon the various problems in current practicewhich could be widely different from classrooms to classrooms?
Out of this question, this paper tries to measure the impact of Multigrade Teaching
Training in selected multigrade classrooms. The paper initially reviews the theories on
training and change. Then it describes the diversity of practice in multigradeclassrooms through a rigorous research conducted in Nuwakot and Kavre districts in
Nepal. After that, it explores how the diversity of classroom practice affects the impact
of in-service teacher training. Finally, it argues the importance of considering theMultigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

125

context of the recipients in providing teacher training alongside the theoreticalframework.

II. Training and Change
Several researchers have been concerned with explaining mainly two models of
training and change in quality of education. The first model puts the emphasis on
providers and their inputs.

It argues that training can make a change, when the

training is rationally justified by scientific research or good dissemination methods（Chin and Benne, 1969; Havelock, 1969; Havelock and Humbert, 1977; Hurst, 1983;
Lewin, 1991）. When training is developed by specialists with knowledge proved byscientific research within the wider social systems, the training is rationally justified
by the recipients. Additionally, when training is well diffused through goodcommunication media, the training can reach classroom practice.
The second model puts the emphasis on recipients. It insists that change occurs
when teachers attempt to use a new element introduced through training（Fullan,1982）. The foremost concern of the model is the spontaneous needs of the recipientsand conditions at the practice level - schools and classrooms（Chin and Benne, 1969;
Fullan, 1985; Havelock, 1969; Hurst, 1983; Lewin, 1991）. Training should be
implemented throughneed sensing, diagnosis and formulation of the need as aproblem to be solved, identification and search for resources relevant to the problem,
retrieval of potentially feasible solutions, translation of the knowledge into specificsolutions, and behavioural try-out or application （Havelock, 1969: 11-11）. The training
is meaningless unless teachers

needs and circumstances are considered as a priorfact（Havelock, 1969）.
Fullan（1982）analyses that teacher training fails to achieve its purpose because theimplementation of training tends to overlook
providers

recipients （teachers）in favour of

inputs （training curriculum, materials and so on）. Even if there is an

ideal of good training, it is not meaningful unless teachers adopt its components into
their classrooms. Training may be able to convey certain relevant kinds of knowledge
to the teachers, but such a providing role is only a part of a problem-solving process（Havelock, 1969）.The teachers must have self-initiative for the innovation to succeed.
One of the reasons why trainee-teachers do not adopt the training components is

国

126

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

that training often does not take into account the real world context where teachers
work（Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992）. In their own teaching-learning context,
teachers frequently do not see the need for a change that is being advocated, and are
not clear about what they ought to do differently in their classroom. Furthermore,
any given change may not needed or valued in some situation. Even when there is apotential need, as when teachers want to improve some area of the curriculum, thechange may be presented in such a way that it is not an obvious solution （Fullan,
1982: 250）.
In Multigrade Teaching Training in Nepal, how does the training take into accountthe real world context where teachers work and how do teachers react toward thetraining in their classrooms after the training? In order to answer these questions, afield research was held in two districts in Nepal.

III. Research Methods
The case study research was conducted in Nuwakot and Kavre districts. Both
districts are located near Kathmandu valley. Despite their advantaged location, 94.66%
of primary schools in Nuwakot district（2000）and 84.71% of primary schools in Kavre
district（2001）are multigrade schools（calculated from District Education Office（DEO）Nuwakot, 2000a, 2000b; DEO Kavre, 2001）. All of the 108 primary teachers in
the targeted areas were called for Multigrade Teaching Training for ten days. Out of
the targeted 108 teachers, 98 teachers attended the training.
In order to evaluate the training and study the relation between the training andchange, inputs of providers and real context of recipients were examined. About
inputs of providers

the national training developers were interviewed in Kathmandu

to understand how the training was developed. At the same time, the national training
curriculum was studied.
About

real context of recipientsclassroom practice of multigrade teachers wasstudied. Initially 14 primary multigrade schools in the two districts were visited andinterviewed all of the 14 headmasters/headmistresses and 33 teachers to grasp overall
condition of multigrade schools. Among these schools, 5 schools were selected andtheir classrooms were observed for a subsequent week at each school to understandclassroom practice of multigrade teachers. Through interviews and classroom

Multigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

127

observation, five different patterns of multigrade teaching were identified. These
patterns were confirmed by the data from interviews with 33 teachers and aquestionnaire completed by 108 primary school teachers in the target areas. The fivepatterns were analysed in the basis of teacher s responsibility for multigrade classes
and they were formed as the ladder of multigrade teaching（Figure 2）.
In order to evaluate the impact of the training programmes, five trainee-teachers
were selected among the 98 participants. Their classrooms were observed for one
week each before and after the training. Their practice before and after was comparedin relation to the training curriculum before and after the training. The result
identified in the five classrooms was confirmed by focal group discussions with all
trainers who conducted Multigrade Teaching Training in the two districts.
Their change was analysed with the ladder of multigrade teaching developed out of
the five patterns of classroom practice used as the scale, in order to understand therelation between the change and the real context of teachers（Figures 3 and 5）.

IV. Five Patterns of Multigrade Teaching
The observation revealed that the multigrade class organisation varies from school
to school and from classroom to classroom. This paper identifies five different patternsof multigrade teaching, which ranges even more diverse than three patterns of typicalpractice of multigrade teaching in developing courtiers identified through available
literature（Suzuki, 2008）.
100％

50%

SLA（a few mins）

T

T

T

T

T

50%
Pattern one

Pattern two

Pattern three

Pattern four

Pattern five

Figure 1 Five patterns of multigrade class organisation during a lesson period

The features of class organisation are shown in Figure 1. With the first pattern,
teachers divide their whole teaching time during one day between the number of

128

国

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

grades they have to cover, and teach each grade individually. This means that schools
move from a multigrade arrangement to a monograde set-up so that multigradeteaching in the school becomes invisible. With the other patterns multigrade teachingis more visible. With the second pattern, teachers divide the lesson period of amultigrade class into two equal time sections and teach each grade separately. Withthe third pattern, one class is considered the main class to be taught, and the other istreated as an additional class. In the additional class, teachers assign Self-Learning
Activity（SLA）during the first few minutes of the period, before going to teach themain class. The teacher concentrates on teaching in the main class. With the fourth
pattern, teachers visit different classrooms frequently during one period. With pattern
five, there is whole class teaching; in most schools this concerns only extracurricularsubjects.
The difference among the five patterns is caused by the different degrees ofteachers responsibilities for multigrade teaching. The different seating arrangement
for the students and the grade combinations of multigrade teaching create different
space and time boundaries for multigrade classes. These conditions determine theextent of teacher responsibility for multigrade teaching. Table 1 summarises thecharacteristics of the five patterns, including features of class organisation and degrees
of responsibility for two or more grades simultaneously.
In pattern one, students from different grades are seated in different classrooms.
The teachers divide their teaching day by the number of grades they have to cover,and teach each grade individually, one after the other. The first pattern, by dividing
the teachers time into the number of classes they have to cover, shifts the schoolfrom a multigrade school to a monograde school. A multigrade class is not identified
and multigrade teaching is physically invisible. Therefore, the teachers do not realise
their responsibility for two or more grades at the same time. Part of the students
time in each grade group is sacrificed, but the teachers do not realise their
responsibility for the time students are idle.
In pattern two, students from different grades are seated in the same classroom.
These two grades are identified by the teacher asa multigrade class.

The

multigrade class is physically visible so that the teachers know that they have to deal
with two or more grades during the same lesson period. However, they do not realiseMultigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

129

their responsibility for two or more grades at the precisely same time. Teachers divide
the lesson period of the multigrade class equally into two time sections and teach each
grade group separately, as if they were teaching two monograde classes. As a result,they do not provide SLA and do not occupy the time students are idle.
In pattern three, two or more grades are treated asa multigrade class.

One

grade is considered the main teaching class, the others as additional classes. The
teachers recognise their simultaneous responsibilities for both grades. For the
additional class they provide SLA at the beginning of the lesson period and feedback
at the end. However, they fail to control the additional class, because of an
inappropriate amount and quality of SLA to cover a 45-minute lesson.
Table 1 The characteristics and diversity of multigrade class organisation
identification of responsibility for control of student
the features of classthe class as a two or more grades time on task during
patterns
organisation
multigrade class simultaneously
self-learning timesharing the time of teachers
1
for all 5 grades
dividing the lesson period2
into twousing a main teaching class3
and an additional SLA class4
frequent visits
5
whole class teaching

In pattern four, the teachers also recognise their responsibility to simultaneously
control a multigrade class. The teachers visit two or more grades frequently during
one lesson period. The grades receiving these frequent visits during a lesson period
are identified as a multigrade class. The teachers realise their responsibility andprovide SLA whenever they leave one grade. By visiting and checking all grades
frequently, they control the student activity during SLA.
In pattern five, the grades grouped together during a lesson period are identified asa multigrade class. Subjects such as sports, music and arts are taught to a wholeclass. The teachers in pattern five identify two or more grades as a whole class andteach them together. The teachers are responsible for the grades simultaneously. All
students of the multigrade class receive direct teaching from the teacher and theiractivities during the lesson are controlled.

国

130

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

Taking into account the characteristics of the patterns and the level of the teachers
realisation of their responsibility for multigrade teaching, the five patterns ofmultigrade class organisation allow the construction of a ladder（Figure 2）. The
degree of conscious responsibility for multigrade teaching increases from pattern one
to pattern five. Withpattern one, the multigrade class is not identified. As a result,

the teachers do not realise their responsibility for the multigrade class. With pattern
two, the multigrade class is identified. However, the teachers still do not realise their
responsibility for the multigrade class. The teachers following pattern three realise
their responsibility, but fail to control the class taught indirectly. The teachers using
pattern four realise their responsibility and they succeed in controlling the multigradeclass. The teachers applying pattern five identify two or more grades as a whole classand teach them together.

Pattern 5
Responsibility andcontrol of themultigrade class
Pattern 4
Responsibility andcontrol of students
by grade
Pattern 3
Responsibility,
but failure tocontrol the class
Pattern 2
No responsibility
Pattern 1
No identification of
the multigrade classlower
responsibility for multigrade classes

higherFigure 2 Ladder of multigrade teaching

The main disadvantage from monograde teaching is constraint of learning time ofstudents, which determines quality of education（Lockheed et al., 1991）. There is asignificant difference in the amount of time given to each grade in different patterns.
The students in the classrooms with the patterns one and two tend to receive lessteaching-learning time than those in the patterns three, four and five. In order to raiselearning time of students in multigrade teaching, the way of multigrade classMultigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

131

organization should be improved.

V. Multigrade Teaching Training(1）Training Context
The government of Nepal has been providing several in-service teacher training.
Multigrade teaching is included in the training curriculum of two types of in-service
training. One is the Basic Primary Teacher Training, a ten-month in-service primaryschool teacher training, provided by the National Centre for Educational Development（NCED）. Another is Multigrade Teaching Training, a ten-day in-service teacher
training, developed by the Primary Teacher Training Unit（PTTU）. This paper
studies about the latter.
It is one of the components of the Basic and Primary Education Project（BPEP）.
BPEP was initiated in 1992, at its disposal, multi-donor funds, trying to improve accessto, quality and management efficiency of primary education（MOE, 1999）.1 The project
started with 19 districts and had expanded to 40 districts by the end of BPEP1.
Subsequently BPEP2 expanded the project to all 75 districts of Nepal.
Multigrade Teaching Training was organised every year from 1992/93 to 1998/99
and provided to a selected group of 3,843 trainees between 1992 and 1998（Shrestha etal., 1999）. The number of trainees in Multigrade Teaching Training was 158 in
1992/93, 1,514 in 1993/94, 903 in 1994/95, 584 in 1995/96, 292 in 1996/97 and 866 in
1997/98（BPEP, 1998）. Multigrade Teaching Training did expand not only as far as
the number of trainees is concerned. It also spread from the initial four pilot districts
to all of the 40 districts of BPEP1. The training was conducted in the selected four
districts in 1992/93, in 25 districts in 1993/94, 38 districts in 1994/95, 29 districts in
1995/96, 17 districts in 1996/97, and 40 districts in 1997/98（BPEP, 1998）.
According to the training policies specified by the government, all primary school
teachers employed by the government have to take at least one training module per
year. Until 1997/98, the selection of teachers for training was decided by the central
government and it was also responsible for distributing training packages to the
districts. The system was changed in 1998/99. Now the decision is made by the
districts, based on local needs, and packages are distributed by the PTTU according to
the demand from each district. In 2001, District Education Offices in Nuwakot and

132

国

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

Kavre districts decided to conduct Multigrade Teaching Training for all primaryteachers in the selected resource centres.

(2）Training Curriculum
The training package for Multigrade Teaching Training, which includes training
material for the trainees and a training handbook for the trainer, was developed byten members of PTTU, in co-operation with foreign and Nepalese advisors（PTTU,
1998）. The authors started preparing in 1994 and the package was finally published in
1998. The package has been used for Multigrade Teaching Training since 1999.
According to my interview with one of the authors, none of them had had teachingexperience in a multigrade primary school. For instance, the author interviewed wrote
parts of the first, second and fifth sections, the whole third section and the
management sub-section. She has teaching experience in a monograde secondary
school, but has never taught in a primary school. She also said that apart from an Irish
consultant, sent by UNICEF in 1988/89, there was no expert on multigrade teaching
involved in the preparation of the package.
To compensate for this, the authors visited multigrade primary schools during 12
days. This was done in order to observe multigrade classes and to experiment withmultigrade teaching. They tried multigrade teaching in one classroom, in separate
classrooms, and with separate blackboards for two or more grade groups, to find thebest methods for multigrade teaching. Following this experience, three or four
members of the PTTU wrote the training package. Each author wrote some sections,and the individual work was edited collectively. Pilot courses of teacher training using
the training package were run for 12 days in Kathmandu and two additional districts.
The content of the training material is structured for ten sections, each of which isplanned for coverage in one day. The following table shows the structure of the
training material（PTTU, 1998）.
The first four sections are more theoretical than the last six sections. In the firstsection, the definition, the situation and the reasons for multigrade teaching arecovered. According to the material, there are three types of teaching in Nepal. They
are grade teaching, subject teaching and multigrade teaching. Grade teaching is
described as when one teacher teaches all subjects in a particular grade through aMultigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

133

whole year（monograde）. Subject teaching is described as when the teacher teaches
only particular subjects taught separately from each other（monograde）. Multigradeteaching is described as when one teacher teaches either all subjects or someparticular subjects to two or more grade groups simultaneously. After the definition ofmultigrade teaching, trainees are expected to discuss how they conduct multigradeteaching in their own schools and what their problems are. Then the discussion isshifted to why multigrade teaching should be conducted in Nepal.

Table 2 The structure and content of the training material
Sections
Titles
Topics1
Types of teaching at primary level: Types of teaching
introduction of grade teaching,
Various situations of multigrade teaching
multigrade teaching and subject
Reasons for multigrade teachingteaching
Conditions for multigrade teaching
2
Multigrade teaching programmeTimetable（strategies）
Classroom management
Student management
Evaluation and examination
Students records
3
Multigrade teaching planning and Lesson plansteaching techniques
Multigrade teaching techniques（SLA）
Recreational /creative activities
4
Resources for multigrade teaching Teaching resources（SLA）
Skills for teaching5
Construction of Self-Learning
Construction of SLA
Activity（SLA）
6
The use if teaching materials in
The use of SLA
building up SLA
Model demonstration class, observation form
7
Model demonstration class
Practice teaching
8 and 9 Practice teaching
Review
10
Teaching practice and theexchange of experience

In the second section, a timetable, material on classroom and student management,
evaluation, examination, and students records are included. Constructing a timetable
is a major issue in the training. The basic programmes are about how to organise
several grades at the same time into a lesson and who teaches them. When two or
more grades are taught by one teacher, one grade should be the main class（named Tclass）and the others should be self-learning classes with a Self-Learning Activity（SLA）controlled by a selected monitor（named AM or AMT classes）. Group work is
encouraged. The students should be divided into groups and a leader should be

134

国

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

selected in each group.
In the third section, material on teaching planning, multigrade teaching methods,
and creative activities is included. Making annual, monthly, weekly and daily lessonplans is suggested. This section concentrates how to manage two or more grades withattention to the grade whose teacher is physically absent. Once again, the importanceof providing SLA and appointing the monitor is stressed.
In the fourth section, material on teaching resources and skills required for teachingis included. This section deals with how to make effective use of a blackboard,
textbooks, pictures, reference books, games, songs, SLA and homework.
The fifth to ninth sections are more practical. The fifth and sixth sections speciallyemphasise SLA. The seventh, eighth, and ninth sections relate to the demonstration
class and teaching practice. The trainer demonstrates a model multigrade lesson andthen the trainees run a practice lesson. In order for each trainee to observe thedemonstration and teaching practice of the others, an observation form is introducedin the seventh section. The observation form is comprehensive, including a timetable
to indicate the place of the demonstration and teaching practice, grades, subjects,
lesson topics and targets for the teacher, activities and achievements of the lesson,
student learning rates and seven categories of suggestions. The tenth section is theconcluding review of what has been learnt during the training.

VI. The Impact of the Training in the Scale of the LadderThis paper demonstrates some positive impacts of Multigrade Teaching Training. In
this research, two（Nuwakot-B3 and Kavre-12）of the five observed trainee-teachers
did change their practice of multigrade teaching after the training. 2 Before thetraining, trainee Nuwakot-B3 taught two or more classes sequentially in order. Afterthe training, she differentiated the main teaching class and the additional classes
providing SLA and appointing a monitor followed by instructions and answer keys tohim. She checked the SLA. Before the training, trainee Kavre-12 did not provide SLA
to one grade while he was teaching in another grade. After the training, he provided
SLA for the grade which he could not teach before starting teaching for anothergrade, and when he finished teaching the first grade, he checked on the SLA before
starting teaching.

Multigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

135

On the other hand, it is inefficient that only two out of five teachers changed but therest of the three trainee-teachers did not change their practice in the classroom. Yet,this paper considers that this does not mean that the in-service training is useless. The
difference between the two trainee-teachers who changed their practice and the otherthree who did not change involves not only the motivation of individual trainees but
their context of multigrade teaching. In the training, the uniformed training wasprovided to all teachers in the same way, but the context of the recipients in relation
to multigrade teaching was not same. To make it clear, the change made by teachers
is analysed using the ladder of multigrade teaching shown in the figure 2 as a scale.
Before the training, trainees Nuwakot-B3, Nuwakot-B22 and Nuwakot-R2 taught at
multigrade schools with pattern one. Teachers teaching at multigrade schools withpattern one can hardly change their multigrade teaching by themselves, because
multigrade teaching does not take place within one class unit. The school has
multigrade teaching, but individual teachers are not multigrade teachers as such. In
schools with pattern one, multigrade classes are not identifiable. In this kind of
structure, it is almost impossible for an individual teacher to implement theinnovations demanded in the training. Thus the multigrade teaching of the trainees
Nuwakot-B22 and Nuwakot-R2 did not change after the training, because of theabsence of structural change in multigrade teaching at their school.
Despite working at multigrade schools with pattern one, trainee Nuwakot-B3 moved
frompattern one

topattern three

after the training（Figure 3）. Trainee

Figure 3 Movement of trainee Nuwakot-B3 on the ladder of multigrade teaching

136

国

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

Nuwakot-B3 organised multigrade classes according to pattern one before the training,
because she used to work in a school using this pattern. In the year before hertraining course she was transferred from the school using pattern one to her current
school using pattern four. In her current school, the headmaster had alreadyundertaken Multigrade Teaching Training and organised his multigrade school in a
way which allowed for the clear identification of multigrade classes. The timetable
identifies the multigrade classes so that the responsibility of a teacher is clearlymarked out. The headmaster managed his multigrade classes using pattern four.
However, even after transfer, trainee Nuwakot-B3 continued to manage multigradeclasses according to pattern one, because this was the only method she was familiarwith. As a result, before the training, she was teaching according to pattern one in aschool using pattern four. During training, she learnt about new management methods
and techniques like SLA and the appointment of a monitor. After the training she
adopted these new techniques and started to manage two or more classes at the sametime.
Her management style for multigrade classes changed completely. Before thetraining, she did not identify her multigrade classes as multigrade and conductedteaching according to pattern one. After the training, however, she identified themultigrade classes and differentiated the main teaching class and the additional classes（pattern three）. She provided SLA and appointed a monitor, providing instructions
and answer keys to him. She checked the SLA. The content of SLA set by trainee
Nuwakot-B3 was not limited to copying or reading from the textbook. Yet the amountof SLA was not always sufficient to cover the whole self-learning time. She increased
her extent of simultaneous responsibility for two grades, but it did not reach the levelof patterns four and five, fully occupying two grades at the same time.
Trainees Kavre-12 and Kavre-3 teach at multigrade schools with pattern two before
the training. Although trainee Kavre-3 did not change his practice in relation tomultigrade teaching, trainee Kavre-12 changed his multigrade teaching.
Before the training, trainee Kavre-12 divided the lesson period into two parts andtaught two grades in turn. While he taught one grade, he paid no attention to theother grade and did not provide SLA for it（pattern two）. After the training, he stilltaught the two grades equally in turn within one lesson period. However, before

Multigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

SLA

50%

50%

homework

137

T

Figure 4 Multigrade class organisation Pattern 2+SLA

starting teaching for the first grade, he provided SLA for the other grade. When hefinished teaching the first grade, he checked on the SLA of the other grade before
starting teaching it. When he finished teaching the first grade, he seemed to think thatthe lesson for this grade was finished. However, although he did not look after the first
grade during the second half of the lesson, normally the students did receive
homework and started working on it. This means that students of the two grades had
always SLA or homework to keep them occupied during the whole lesson period（Figure 4）.
In comparison with the situation before the training, the time students of the groupwere occupied definitely increased. This is because the students of the second groupwere totally neglected before the training, with the students not being assigned any

Figure 5 Movement of trainee Kavre-12 on the ladder of multigrade class organisation

138

国

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

tasks. After the training, trainee Kavre-12 provided instructions to do some particular
work, and thus the students were engaged. Although his class management seems tocontinue in pattern two, the training influenced the trainee Kavre-12 in terms of his
feeling of responsibility for two grades. His class organisation certainly moved on theladder of multigrade class organisation frompattern two

before the training topattern two plus SLA after the training（Figure 5）. Specifically, he increased theextent of his responsibility for two grades. Before the training, he assumed
responsibility for each grade only for half of a lesson period. After the training, helooked after the two grades for the whole lesson period.

VII. Conclusion
Although teacher training is such a key factor in the quality of education, manyeducational research and assistance organisations are often critical for training particularly in-service training- by the fact. There are two theoretical models of
training and change: provider-oriented and recipient-oriented. Among the two models,some researchers conclude that training fails to achieve its purpose because theimplementation of training tends to overlook

recipientsin favour ofproviders.

Trainee-teachers do not adopt the training components when the training does nottake into account the real world context where teachers work.
This paper presented one example of positive impact of in-service training. Twotrainees did change their multigrade teaching after the training and their change
extended the engagement of students during their self-learning time. In other words,
the mechanism of the training functioned to change practice.
On the other hand, only two out of five trainees changed their practice. Why therest of three trainees did not change their classroom practice? This paper concludes
that it is not because of the mechanism of the training but because teachers did not
see the need for a change or could not introduce the new innovation, as it was not
adoptable in the real world context where they work. For example, the trainees who
were allocated to a school with patterns two, three or four adopted some of the
training components which they found had meaning for them. By contrast, thetrainees who taught at a school with pattern one could not change their practice ofmultigrade teaching, because a multigrade class was not identified in their schools.

Multigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

139

As multigrade teaching occurs beyond a single classroom, it is difficult for teachers tochange their classroom practice alone.
This Multigrade Teaching Training was developed by specialists based on research.
National providers carefully considered to develop training inputs. However, they
themselves in fact had never taught multigrade classes and were not familiar withmultigrade teaching. Assumingly they could not reach to understand the deep context
of multigrade teaching. Moreover, one single model of the training provided by thecentral government was provided nationwide. Thus the training was not fit to thediversity of practice of multigrade teaching with unsupported circumstances.
In the light of the reviewed two models of the innovation and change, this paper
supports the second model. Even if the training is rationally justified by some trainees,
it is not supported by others, because their real world context is very different. As
Fullan and Hargreaves（1992）argue, the adaptation of the training components by
the trainees is closely related to their real teaching-learning context. The way of theiradaptation to the training components indicates that the mechanism of training canmake a change when it precisely spots the potential needs and context of therecipients. Therefore, this paper concludes that the training can make a positive
impact in the trainees practice when the training matches with the teaching-learning
context of the trainees.
Consideration of the context in which multigrade occurs is of the up mostimportance. Multigrade teaching is much more widely diverse than monogradeteaching. The teaching-learning context of multigrade teachers is extremely complex
given the gap between multigrade reality and the monograde classroom, textbooks,
and teachers guides. A negative perception on the part of unsupported multigradeteachers tends to lead to passive behaviour and easy solutions. As a result, multigradeteaching consists of all these ambivalent factors and circumstances. This paper
identified five patterns in the selected classrooms, but there must be many morevarieties. In order to increase the number of trainees who can receive the benefits
from the training, the context of the recipients must be considered more carefully withthe training components and the context of the recipients being adjusted accordingly.

140

国

際

協

力

論

集

第16巻 第３号

Notes
１

The major donors were ADB, DANIDA, IDA, JICA and UNICEF for phase one（BPEP1）andDANIDA, EU, FINNIDA, IDA, JICA, NORAD and UNICEF for phase two（BPEP2）.
２ The practice of all of them in the classrooms in relation to general teaching methods was affected by
the training. I include only the impact in relation to multigrade teaching here.

References
Andrews, J. H. M., Housego, I. E. and Thomas, D. C. 1990. Effective in-service programs in developing
countries: A study of expert opinion. In V. D. Rust and P. Dalin（eds）, Teachers and Teaching in theDeveloping World 63-93. New York: Garland Publishing.
Berry, C. 2001. Achievement effects of multigrade and monograde schools in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Education, University of London, London.
Biniakunu, D. D. 1982. In-service teacher training improves eight grades' reading ability in Zaire. Journal of
Reading, 25, 662-665.
BPEP（Basic and Primary Education Project）. 1998. A Summary of Quantitative Targets and Achievementsof BPEP1992/93-1998/99. Kathmandu.
Brunswic and Valerien, 2004. Multigrade schools: improving access in rural Africa? Fundamentals of
educational planning 76, IIEP, Paris.
Chin, R. and K. D. Benne 1969. General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems. The Planningof Change . W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne and R. Chin. New York, CBS Collage Publishing.
Commonwealth Secretariat. 1982. In-Service Education of Teachers in Commonwealth.（1st ed.）. London:
Commonwealth Secretariat.
Craig, H. J., Kraft, J. R. J. and Plessis, J. d. 1998. Teacher Development Making an Impact（19009）: USAID,
World Bank.
DEO（District Education Office）Kavre. 2001. Educational Destination 2058. Dhulikhel.
DEO（District Education Office）Nuwakot. 2000a. School Leaving Certificate Examination Nuwakot: At a
Glance. Bidur, Nuwakot.
DEO（District Education Office）Nuwakot. 2000b. Teacher Selected Form 2000. Bidur, Nuwakot.
Dove, L. A. 1986. Teachers and Teacher Education in Developing Countries. New Hampshire: Croom Helm.
Guthrie, G. 1983. An evaluation of the secondary teacher training system（evaluation）. Port Moresby:
University of Papua New Guinea.
Fullan, M. 1982. Research into Educational Innovation. The Management of Educational Institutions. H. L.
Gray. Lewes, The Falmer Press: 245-261.
Fullan, M. 1985. Change Processes and Strategies at the Local Level. The Elementary School Journal, 85（3）,391-421.
Fullan, M. and A. Hargreaves 1992. Teacher Development and Educational Change, Teacher Development
and Educational Change. London, Washington, D.C. The Falmer Press: 1-9.
Fullan, M. and S. Stiegelbauer 1991. The New Meaning of Educational Change. London, Cassell Education
Limited.
Havelock, R. G. 1969. Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utelisation of Knowledge. Ann
Arbor, Michigan, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.
Havelock, R. G. and A. M. Huberman 1977. Solving Educational Problems. Paris, UNESCO.
Hurst, P. 1983. Implementing Educational Change - A Critical Review of the Literature. London, Departmentof Education in Developing Countries, University of London Institute of Education.
Kunje, D. 2002. The Malawi integrated in-service teacher education programme: an experiment with mixedmode training. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 305-320.
Lally, M. 1995. Multigrade teaching: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, The
Philippines and Viet Nam）
（ed.）, Managing schools for better quality: multigrade teaching and school
clusters. 33-52. Bangkok: PROAP（Principal Regional Offices for Asia and the Pacific）,UNESCO.
Lewin, K. 1991. Postcript . Educational Innovation in Developing Countries. K. Lewin and J. Stuart. London,
MacMillan: 281-303.
Little, A. 2001. Multigrade teaching: towards an international research and policy agenda. International
Journal of Educational Development, 21, 481-497.
Lockheed, M. E., Verspoor, A. M., Bloch, D., Englebert, P., Fuller, B., King, E., Middleton, J., Paqueo, V., Rodd,

Multigrade Teaching Training in Nepal: Diversity of Practice and Impact of Training

141

A., Romain, R. and Welmond, W. 1991. Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries.（1st ed.）.
Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press for The World Bank.
MOE（Ministry of Education）. 1999. Basic and Primary Education Program（BPEP2）, Program
Implementation Plan, 1999-2004. Kathmandu.
MOES（Ministry of Education and Sports）. 2000, School Level Educational Statistics of Nepal 1998 .
Kathmandu.
Mortensen, K. 1992. The involvement of the Danish International Development Agency（DANIDA）in
educational development: consideration and future plans . In L. Buchert（ed.）, Education and training in
the third world. 243-250. The Hague: Centre for the Study of Education in Developing Countries（CESO）.
PTTU（Primary Teachers Training Unit）. 1998. Multigrade teaching training manual（for the teachers）.
Sanothimi, Nepal: DOE, BPEP.
Rowley, S. D. and Nielsen, H. D. 1997. School and Classroom Organization in the Periphery: Using theAssets of Multigrade Teaching . In H. D. Nielsen and W. K. Cummings（eds）, Quality Education for All:
Community-Oriented Approaches. 183-212. New York, London: Garland Publishing.
Shrestha, G. m., Bajracharya, S. B., Thapa, B., Kumar, Rai, C. K., Bista, K. K. and Newa, D. R. 1999. Basic andPrimary Education Project（1992-1998）:A Synthesis of Experiences. Kathmandu.
Stuart, J. and Lewin, K. 2002. Editorial Forward. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 211219.
Suzuki, T. 2008. Comparative Analysis of Multigrade Teaching in Japanese and Nepalese Primary Schools.
The Bulletin of the Center for International Education, Vol.9. Nanzan University, Nagoya.
Wright, W. N. 2000. Belize experience of multigrade teaching. Paper presented at the Commonwealth
Secretariat Regional workshop on multigrade teaching, Gaborone, Botswana.