Professional Documents
Culture Documents
39
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
40
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
Mathematics is a very emotive subject and feelings about it can run high
(OECD, 2009, p.114). Regardless of teaching methodology, students need to show
some mastery if they are to progress vocationally (Norris, 2011; OECD 2010). Research
findings identify mathematics achievement more closely related with proximal school
and personal variables such as homework, instructional materials, classroom
management, motivation and cognitive thinking (Wang, Haertel, &Walberg, 1993),
than with distal variables such as state and district policies and administrative practices.
There has been a movement to change the teaching of mathematics significantly
in the West in recent years, with the focus being shifted from the rote application of
rules and techniques to the teaching of concepts and their understanding (Lokan&
Greenwood, 2000). Freudenthal (1973) expressed the connection between problem
solving and subject matter oganisation as these defined the mathematical application
and guided discovery of knowledge (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), where the
learning is student centred at the point of entry to a contextual problem and formal
mathematical knowledge is then 'revealed' in an exercise guided by the teacher. Even
today there are differences of opinion about which methods are effective, probably
arising from a disconnection between research on learning and research on teaching
(Hiebert&Grouws, 2007). The OECD survey (2010) reported that although most
teachers expressed an interest in trying new approaches, more than half of them used
traditional (transmissive) methods. Dimmock (2002) draws attention to the significant
cultural variations that occur in learning, which are drawn upon in the OECD (2010)
report to explain the apparent conflict of teaching and learning associations with
mathematics achievement across different groups of countries.
In Pakistan thetextbook has a particular significance and authority (Shah, 2006;
Stewart et al., 2000), so it is not unusual to see the traditional transmissive approach to
mathematics teaching in the classroom. In terms of Douady'sdidactical contracts,
Pakistani teachers operate at the second of these contracts:neither the teachers nor the
students debate or explore the meaning and value of mathematics (1997, p.377).
Mathematics is a prescribed, closed body of information. There is evidence that the
second contract approach is widespread and not just limited to Pakistan (Haylock,
2001; Hiebert&Grouws, 2007; Norris, 2011).
Contextual Variables Affecting Achievement in Mathematics
Motivation/Attitudes
The drive to learn mathematics; self-belief in the capacity to do well in
mathematics and liking of mathematics are all expected to be correlated with high
subject performance according to Bandura (1993). From an international meta-analysis
of 113 studies at the elementary and secondary level, Ma and Kishore (1997) concluded
that attitude towards mathematics has a stronger influence on achievement at the
secondary level with a mean correlation of 0.25. Over all the studies, the correlation of
0.11 has only a small effect size. It is not argued that the attitude/achievement relation is
causative, rather than a teacher is able to cultivate subject interest and motivation in the
students, is operating in a feedback loop where attitude and achievement reinforce each
other (OECD, 2010).
The forced nature of a transmissive learning environment is unlikely to allow
personal reflection on the subject matter to give the degree of control needed to form
positive attitudes (Ajzen, 1988). In high-stakes, examination driven, rote-learning
classrooms like those found in Pakistan (Bregman& Mohammad, 1998), the subject
c
41
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
42
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
43
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
44
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
15.188 **
15.725 **
1.498
0.423
2.029
1.363
15.186 **
17.301 **
0.423
1.873
Two-level
Students
Schools
**p<0.01
In the two-level model, Constant=13.570 (0.307), N=2778
c
45
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
2*Loglikelihood = -15985.270
1j
3j
5j
The beta coefficients are computed by the software to get the best possible
match between each student's actual achievement score and the value obtained by
substituting the corresponding scores for the student on each of the significant variables.
Variables constant, teacher achievement, and Test version show significant, random
Level 2 school variations, which are denoted by subscript j. Subscript i indicates
random pupil variation. The equation is best interpreted by referring to the resulting
coefficients appearing in Table 2, where only the significantly contributing variables are
shown to avoid over-complexity for the reader. Effect sizes are computed by dividing
coefficients or variances by standard deviations, which are calculated in turn from
standard errors and sample sizes (2778 pupils at Level 1 and 197 teachers/schools at
Level 2) (Rethinam, Pyke, & Lynch, 2008).
Fixed variations show the importance of teacher's own mathematics cognition.
Location in the Punjab and the school 'ethos' measure of parent/teacher support for
high achievement, both have a contextual significance. Attitudes to mathematics and
preferring it to other subjects are significant student contributions. The classroom is the
source of the homework frequency variable. The concern with the dual testing policy of
NEAS is confirmed with the significant Test A effect: students score 1.286 more on
average (out of 33) if they receive this paper.
There are significant variations from school to school for three of the variables.
This means that the fixed variation coefficients for these variables will have standard
deviations given by the square roots of the three random variances. Teachers'
achievement scores, parent/teacher "ethos" ratings and writing Test A show significant
school variations.
46
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
Table 2
Fixed variation
Constant
Student variance in Constant
School variance in Constant
Teacher's mathematics score
(scale from 4 to 33)
School in Punjab (scores 1)
Headteacher's parent/teacher
support (scale 1 to 5)
Mathematics preference over
three other subjects (scores 1)
Test version A(scores 1)
Liking mathematics (scale 0 to 1)
How often do you get homework
in Mathematics? (scale 1 to 4)
12.446
ES
0.225
0.286
0.404
1.364
0.031
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.823
0.681
0.644
0.138
0.960
0.881
0.423
0.339
0.012
0.005
0.043
0.049
0.829
0.179
<0.001
0.088
1.286
1.108
0.286
0.206
0.328
0.087
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.118
0.064
0.062
14.509
12.337
0.044
0.015
0.002
0.209
6.764
2.217
<0.001
0.217
4.266
0.829
<0.001
0.367
Comparing the variances for students and schools from Tables 1 and 2, the
partition of explained variance is:
for Level 1 students, 0.667 or 4.46%;
by 4.964 for Level 2 schools, or 28.69%,
by 5.631 for both levels, or 17.33%.
By explaining an overall 17.33% of variance in mathematics achievement scores,
the full multi-level model has an effective multiple linear regression type, multiplecorrelation of 0.416 (Luke, 2004, p. 37). The NEAS survey has collected variables
which explain little of the variance which can be attributed to the students themselves,
but it has identified a range of significant contextual variables, the most important of
which is the teacher's own mathematical ability.
An analysis of the teachers' coefficient of 0.225 of Table 2 shows that just three
of 197 teachers score significantly above the norm of 0.225 (at p<.05) and only four
below, so despite Level 2 variation the effect of teacher cognition in mathematics is
practically consistent from school to school.
An inspection of the NEAS teacher questionnaire responses relating to
experience, qualifications and approach to mathematics teaching was unable to identify
any significant differences between this small sample of seven teachers at the extremes.
47
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
Research Question 3
Q3. What are the significant contextual variables associated with teacher
achievement in mathematics?
As far as possible, teacher questionnaire data was factor analysed to reduce its
complexity. Analysis then proceeded with breakdowns of the teacher attitudes and
views on classroom practice by demographic variables and teacher qualifications. A
profile of a self-perceived approach to Grade VIII mathematics teaching showed
exclusive use of the textbook by 89% (of 756 teachers); homework given after every
lesson by 85%; using homework and written testing to assess progress by 97%; most
teachers make written records of students' responses to questions, but the highest
achieving teachers keep no record at all; in-service mathematics is infrequent with 71%
reporting no training during the last two years. Of these teacher variables, only the
recording of students' responses showed any correlation with teacher achievement and
qualifications.
Significant associates with teacher achievement cannot be separated from the
effect of gender. Male teachers have significantly higher achievement scores (M=24.49,
SD=7.72, n=307 for males; M=19.86,SD=8.41, N=273 for females, p<.01, medium
effect size); their students do better (M=13.34, SD=3.99, N=440 for male teachers;
M=12.49, SD=4.06, N=341 for female teachers, p<.01, small effect size) and are slightly
more positive about the subject (M=0.89, SD=0.09, N=437 for males; M=0.87,
SD=0.11, N=352 for females, p<.05, small effect size).
The relative importance of the multivariate contributions to teacher
achievement is summarised in the linear multiple regression analysis of Table 3, which
confirms the strength of the gender variable in reducing scores by over 4 marks for
female teachers. The PTC qualification is the minimum for entering the profession.
Table 3
Significant variables
(Constant)
Teacher's gender (female scores 1)
Rural location (scores 1)
School in ICT (scores 1)
School in KPK (scores 1)
Professional qualification PTC (scores 1)
Teacher's age (scale 1 to 5)
Academic qualification beyond Masters
(scores 1)
Coefficients
contributed
SE
19.58
-4.18
3.60
6.56
3.20
-5.19
0.95
1.38
0.68
0.65
1.57
0.95
2.06
0.40
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.001
0.012
0.016
7.9
3.8
2.0
1.6
0.8
0.8
-4.23
1.87
0.024
0.6
Further analysis of the location effect, which favours rural teachers, shows that
this is attributed to one region only: the Punjab. In this province, mean scores for both
male and female teachers in urban areas are very low (M=17.54, SD=10.57, N=149 for
urban; M=27.01, SD=5.71, N=93 for rural, p<.01, large effect size). The class mean
achievements reflect this location effect, also with a large effect size.
c
48
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
Discussion
Q1.What is the relevant contribution of the teacher to student achievement in
mathematics at Pakistani Grade VIII?
Inspecting the coefficients and standard errors of Table 2 shows that teacher
cognitive achievement is the highest contributing variable to student mathematics
achievement in terms of its effect size and the Wald Test t-ratio, which is obtained from
the division of coefficient and standard error. Further, Table 1 reports that 53.3% of
the variance of students' achievement scores lies within the schools and their teachers.
This is comparable with the East Asian countries of Japan and Hong Kong-China,
where the percentage is around 50% (OECD, 2010, p.74). If schools and teachers are
very similar within a country, the percentage of student score variance arising from
external sources will be low. Finland is a good example with only 4% of variance due to
the schools. The conclusion is that the high degree of variability in schools and teachers
in Pakistan is not untypical in Asia.
A major finding is the clear demonstration that teacher cognition ranges widely
and the normally accepted definition of 'teacher' as savant and student guide no longer
applies. In 10% of the schools, the teacher scores lie below the mean student sample
score, and this is on a test measuring, for the most part, at the lower cognitive levels.
The positive association of student performance with teacher cognition is largely
consistent across the schools, regardless of Level 2 school variation which affects only
4% of schools.
Q2. What are the significant contextual variables contributing to student
achievement in mathematics?
The interpretation of the results of the multi-level analysis (Table 2) shows that
student achievement variance explained is just one seventh of the school variance after
the addition of contextual variables. This outcome might be compared with the
international findings from OECD (2010, p.76), where the average is between one half
and one third depending upon the completeness of the model. The relatively low
contribution of Pakistani student variance is explained by the lack of any correlation
with parental occupation, social composition of the school or school size. In addition,
the NEAS survey did not include several variables measured in the OECD study,
namely students' attitudes to school, mathematical self-efficacy and anxiety, students'
learning strategies, school disciplinary climate and student-teacher relations.
It can be hypothesised at this point that students' learning strategies might hold
the key to the difficulty of accounting for much student variance in Pakistan. In
relatively low-performing countries, as the OECD point out, students tend to use
memorisation strategies much more than others. There is a very high negative
correlation between the use of memorisation and achievement, which has important
implications for all low-achieving countries (OECD, 2010, p.126). If as the evidence
suggests, Pakistani government education is extremely, if not entirely focused on rotelearning and memorisation, without a direct measure of this 'technique', the variance
associated with it will always be missed.
The direction of this discussion now leads directly to the significance of
homework frequency in Table 2, although the effect size is small. The OECD report
points out the importance of homework especially for extending study time by drawing
on The Carroll Model (Carroll, 1989). According to this model, students exposed to
low-quality instruction would be expected to require more time to learn than those
exposed to better instruction. National policies that limit school hours allow schools to
c
49
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
organise homework as an extension of the school day. This is a necessary policy for
Pakistan because of excessive summer temperatures. The OECD report presents some
ambiguity in findings for the association of homework frequency in mathematics and
achievement. In more than half the countries surveyed the association is negative
(OECD, 2010, p.93), which might be attributed to the weaker students getting more
homework. Intriguingly, research from the USA (Rose & Betts, 2001; Cooper,
Robinson, &Patall, 2006) demonstrates a positive association. If this finding is related to
the continual employment of 'recitation' teaching (Hiebert&Grouws, 2007, p.392), then
homework provides the time to practice these low-level memorisation strategies, so a
positive homework-achievement link, as in Pakistan, could be indicative of a rotelearning approach to mathematics content.
In terms of effect size, the use of alternative achievement test versions follows
teacher cognition as the strongest predictor of student achievement. The use of two
parallel papers gives Test A students a 4% advantage. As well as questions of varying
difficulty, the profiles of difficulty with content vary, which leads to different validities.
Hence the Level 2 school variation, where some teachers are better able to handle
some topics rather than others. The NEAS attempt to standardise the marks of the two
test versions is unconvincing. There seems no reason when monitoring surveys are
conducted by NEAS why a single paper cannot be used, as supervision is much easier
than with a complete year group and malpractice in a 'low-stakes' environment is most
unlikely.
The significance of school location in Punjab is not unsurprising. This province
is relatively more prosperous and arguably the best run. It has the highest population,
the greatest number of schools, colleges, universities and teachers. The per capita
income, parents' educational level, and literacy rate are all higher compared to other
regions of the country. Attending school in Punjab rather than any other province, is
then a quasi-measure of socio-economic status and consistent with the OECD (2010)
and other studies which show the importance of this variable.
The positive association of achievement with attitudes to mathematics appears
but only after controlling for other variables, and then with only a low effect size. It is of
interest that a simple bivariate correlation is not significant, which by itself suggests
support for the hypothesis that the link is weak for assessment-driven students (Koller et
al., 2005). This attitudinal relationship is supported by the 'preference for mathematics
over other subjects' link with achievement, which has in fact a higher effect size in the
predictive equation.
The school "ethos" measure is derived from items completed by the head
teacher. The scale refers to the support teacher and parents give to high achievement at
the school. The most highly achievement oriented school can add more than 4 marks
to a student's total on average, and the researcher has to move into the socio-cultural
dynamic of the staff and parents of the Pakistani school for further investigation
(Bregman & Mohammad, 1998).
Q3.What are the significant contextual variables associated with teacher
achievement inmathematics?
Teacher gender is the strongest of the NEAS variables associated with teacher
achievement (Table 3). The weaker performance of female teachers confirms the
results from the earlier research in the Pakistani primary school (Warwick & Jatoi,
1994). As far as it is possible to deduce a teaching methodology from the NEAS data, a
strong textbook-led approach, homework and written-test supported, with a zealous
recording of students' responses support the initial hypothesis that Pakistani
c
50
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
mathematics teaching is firmly located at the second didactical contract level (Douady,
1997, p.377). The most able teachers seem confident to move away from the
administrative chore or recording students' responses, but it is notable that there is no
teacher ability effect mediating any of the other classroom variables.
Despite the low frequency of in-service training, if what little is provided is
effective, it is reasonable to expect some positive effect on teacher achievement. Not
only is this absent, but the amount of in-service stands isolated in the analysis showing
no association with any NEAS variable. Expanding Douady's concept of the didactical
contract, the second level has been extended from classroom learning to the
administration of the educational system. In-service training is provided because it is
expected to exist, but there is no 'ownership' by the participants and no personal
impact.
Mean teacher achievement scores are highest in ICT and KPK so it is no
surprise to see these regions as significant contributors to the Table 3 regression.
Neither is the appearance of teacher age as a predictive variable: older teachers will be
more familiar with the content and will have learned from earlier experiences. Teachers
with the lowest professional qualification that requires less than one year's formal
training will have problems with interpreting content appropriately with more than half
having no more mathematics learning than that from their own schools. The negative
effect of academic doctoral level can be explained only if the teacher is working outside
the area of scholarship.
The rural school predictive effect is due entirely to the very low achievement of
urban teachers in Punjab province. Elsewhere, the location difference is not significant.
The Punjab result is at first sight surprising given its relative prosperity and organisation,
but this might be the very explanation. Potential teachers in Punjab have far more
opportunity for career advancement in the urban areas, which means that teachers in
the schools are drawn from a pool lacking the most able. It is only in the rural areas of
Punjab that the relatively better regional socio-economic climate is apparent, as
alternatives of employment in these areas are much more restricted. This hypothesis is
supported by an analysis of rural areas only where Punjab outscores all other regions on
teacher achievement, student achievement and attitudes, all with a large effect size.
Conclusions
In the introduction, a rather dismal profile of teaching and learning in Pakistan
was presented where a rote-learned, text book oriented curriculum was taught at the
lowest cognitive levels by uninspired teachers with low cognitive skills. Our research
addressed these issues with respect to mathematics to identify how much weight should
be born by the teacher for this state of affairs by apportioning the teacher's contribution
to student achievement in comparison with other relevant student, school and
demographic variables.
The over-riding significance of teacher cognitive ability has been established. A
major further finding is that teacher cognition ranges so widely and questions the whole
concept of a teacher leading students in learning, when teacher standards are so low that
in 10% of schools the students outscore the teachers.
The contribution of the contextual variables to student achievement is below the
OECD average. It has been suggested that this is because the significance of homework
frequency item on achievement is indicative of a rote-learning approach to mathematics
content. In a system focused on rote-learning and memorisation, studies which do not
measure this strategy are likely to omit considerable achievement variance.
c
51
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
52
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
Chang, M., Singh, K., & Filer, K. (2009). Language factors associated with achievement
grouping in math classrooms: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(1), 27-45.
Chin, R., & Benne, K. D. (1985). General strategies for effecting changes in human
systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), The Planning of
Change, Fourth Edition (pp. 22-45). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Earlbaum.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve
academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of
Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.
Cowasjee, A. (2010, August 15). Sixty-three and down on our knees. Dawn, p7.
Available [on-line] http://archives.dawn.com/archives/19461
Crisis Group, (2004). Pakistan: Reforming the education sector. Asia Report No. 84.
International Crisis Group. In R. M. Hathaway (Ed.), Education reform in
Pakistan: Building for the future (pp. 166-172). Washington, D.C.: International
Center for Scholars.
Dawn, (2009, May 20). Curriculum of hatred. Dawn newspaper editorial. Available [online] http://archives.dawn.com/archives/30854
Dimmock, C. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in interpreting and doing research. In
M. Coleman & A. R. J. Briggs (Eds.), Research methods in educational
leadership and management (pp. 28-42). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Douady, R. (1997). Didactic engineering. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning
and teaching mathematics. An international perspective (pp. 373-401). Hove:
Psychology Press.
Ercikan, K., McCreith, T., & Lapointe, V. (2005). Factors associated with mathematics
achievement and participation in advanced mathematics courses: An
examination of gender differences from an international perspective. School
Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 5-14.
Farooq, M. S., & Shah, S. Z. (2008). Students attitude towards mathematics. Pakistan
Economic and Social Review, 46(1), 75-83.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Reidel.
Greaney, V., & Hasan, P. (1998). Public examinations in Pakistan: A system in need of
reform. In P. Hoodbhoy (Ed.), Education and the state: Fifty years of Pakistan
(pp. 136-171). Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Government of Pakistan. (2009). National Educational Policy, 2009. Islamabad:
Ministry of Education.
Government of Pakistan. (2012). Pakistan economic survey 2010-11. Islamabad:
Ministry of Finance.
Halai, A. (2007). Boys are better mathematicians! Gender issues in mathematics
classrooms in Pakistan. In R. Qureshi& J. F. A. Rarieya (Eds.), Gender &
Education in Pakistan (pp.109-125). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Halai, A. (2010). Gender and Mathematics Education in Pakistan: A situation analysis.
The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 7(1),47- 62
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference, what is the research evidence? Australian
53
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
54
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)
Mitchell, J., Humayun, S., & Muzaffar, I. (2005). Education sector reforms in Pakistan:
demand generations as an alternative recipe. In R. M. Hathaway (Ed.),
Education Reform in Pakistan: Building for the Future (pp. 107-122).
Washington, D.C.: International Center for Scholars.
Naseer, M. F., Patnam, M., & Raza, R. R. (2010). Transforming public schools: Impact
of the CRI program on child learning in Pakistan. Economics of Education
Review, 29, 669683.
NEAS, National Educational Assessment System, (2005). National assessment report,
2005. Ministry of Education, Islamabad.
Niaz, I. (2010). The culture of power and governance of Pakistan 1947-2008. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
Norris, E. (2011). Solving the maths problem: International perspectives on
mathematics education. London: Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts,
Manufactures and Commerce.
Nuttall, D. L., & Willmott, A. S. (1972). British examinations: Techniques of Analysis.
Slough: NFER Publishing Co.
OECD, (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results
from TALIS. Paris: OECD.
OECD, (2010). Mathematics teaching and learning strategies in PISA. Paris: OECD.
Parveen, S. (2008). Female education and national development: As viewed by women
activists and advocates. Bulletin of Education and Research, Lahore, 30(1), 3341.
Pell, A. W., Iqbal, H. M., & Rheman, S. (2012). Pakistani Grade VIII mathematics
teaching as the transmission of low-level knowledge. Manuscript in preparation.
Rareiya, J. F. A. (2007). Gender and education - whose agenda is it? In R. Qureshi & J.
F. A. Rarieya (Eds.), Gender & Education in Pakistan (pp. 259-264). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rasbash, J, Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M., Woodhouse,
G., Draper, D., Langford, I., & Lewis, T. (2000). A user's guide to MLwiN.
Version 2.1. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Rethinam, V., Pyke, C., & Lynch, S. (2008). Using multi-level analyses to study the
effectiveness of science curriculum materials. Evaluation and Research in
Education, 21(1), 18-42.
Rose, H., & Betts, J. R. (2001). Math matters: The links between high school
curriculum, college graduation, and earnings. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy
Institute of California.
Saeed, M., Gondal, M. B., & Bushra, M. (2005). Assessing achievement of primary
grader students and factors affecting achievement in Pakistan. International
Journal of Educational Management, 19(6), 486 499.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness.
Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Shah, D. (2003). Country report on decentralization in the education system of
Pakistan: Policies and strategies. Islamabad: Academy of Educational Planning
and Management Ministry of Education.
Shah, S. (2006). Educational leadership: an Islamic perspective. British Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 363-385.
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M., Ho, L. M., Zaman, R. M., Dar, R., & Anwar, M. (2000).
Perceptions of parents and adolescent outcomes in Pakistan. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 336-352.
55
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)