successfully used for functions (a) and (b). It has great potential for functions (c), (d) (e) and (f) and Ministry Supervisors in their work with practicing teachers.

The following factors elucidate the impact of the PTPDI: (1) it facilitated a change of culture and management style in relation to teacher education and teaching; (2) it put an onus on managers to develop new capacities to implement competence-based evaluations and resultsbased approaches; (3) by providing a graduated scale of teaching competences, the PTPDI helped to establish the _connective tissue_ between the various stages of teacher professional development - PRESET, Induction and INSET (Feiman-Nemser 2001); (4) the advent of the PTPDI highlighted the need for all involved in the continuum of teacher education to join forces in developing coherent policies and practices to facilitate collaboration and ensure continuity in the career-long development of teachers (see Figure 1).

The PTPDI has been lauded by Education Deans and Faculties, and by Ministry personnel, as a powerful instrument for upgrading the quality of teachers and ensuring the relevance of teacher education programs to actual practice.

# **5. Impact of TEIP: Outputs and Outcomes**

The overall impact of TEIP can be gauged from the outputs and outcomes of the PRESET and INSET components. It is also borne out in quantitative and qualitative evidence from multiple sources<sup>10</sup> and in an independent evaluation. Consultation with and between all stakeholders, which was a constant feature of TEIP, was also a valuable source of impact evidence. In the absence of data on the achievement levels of students in participating schools,<sup>11</sup> the PTPDI was a critical tool in the collection and verification of concrete evidence of impact.

Positive responses gleaned from qualitative data reported for both PRESET and INSET participants were supported by the outcomes of quantitative studies carried out by AED on behalf of the MoEHE. According to a draft of AED’s final report (not released<sup>12</sup> but cited in the ICR, 2019: 13-14), pre-service Practicum 5 trainee teachers scored higher than their Practicum 2 counterparts in 12 of 14 competences observed. In six of these, the differences were reported to have been statistically significant.

> 10 These sources include: classroom observation of TEIP participants; annual reports from the participating universities, CCCU and the MoEHE Project Coordination Unit; biannual World Bank Aide Memoirs; Impact Reports from MoEHE’s Assessment and Evaluation Department (AED); self-reports from TEIP participants; an independent evaluation of TEIP (Assaf July 2019); an _Implementation Completion and Results Report_ (ICR) commissioned by the World Bank (2019).

> 11 The MoEHE and World Bank teams had to forego the measurement of learning outcomes due to: (a) lack of an established system in the West Bank and Gaza to track such; (b) the organizational demands and funding requirements to put a standardized learning assessment system in place for Grades 1-4. The MoEHE discontinued participation in PIRLS and TIMMS during the pilot phase of TEIP.

> 12 The external evaluator of TEIP expressed concern about AED’s overreliance on satisfaction ratings of participants in the determination of project impact (Assad 2019). Some TEIP consultants were also concerned about the limitations of the Fitzpatrick Model of evaluation and the Stallings method of classroom observations used in some of AED’s evaluations of the project.

18