Impact
Evidence of sustainable change in teaching quality and student learning
Educational change is about people: teachers who grow in skill and confidence, pupils who learn more and enjoy it, and schools that come to value good teaching. This is the human side of our work, and the reason we do it.
We also track our work closely. Careful monitoring keeps us accountable to the communities we serve and to the partners who fund us, and it tells us what is working, what needs to change, and where to put our effort. The evidence we gather guides our practice and shows what steady investment in teachers actually produces.
This page carries both sides: the voices of teachers and school leaders who have taken part, and the framework we use to measure whether the work is making a difference.
Stories from Teachers and Schools
The accounts below come from teachers, school leaders and partners across Siem Reap Province and beyond. They are first-hand, and they speak to what change in a classroom feels like from the inside. The measured evidence behind these experiences is set out in the framework further down the page.
Mrs Phout Keo, Primary School Teacher in Banteay Srei
The EFT programme from TDSO transformed my English teaching. My speaking and listening improved dramatically across the course, and I now use English far more confidently in my classroom.
What made the real difference were the practical activities: games, group work, presentations, and learning to use authentic teaching materials and classroom language. These weren’t just exercises. They developed all four language skills whilst showing me exactly how to teach them to my students.
I’ve learnt to explain things simply and clearly, using instructional language that my students understand. The supportive environment, helpful feedback, and working alongside other teachers boosted my confidence and improved my pronunciation.
Most importantly, I’ve developed teaching practices that work, and now I’m passing these on to my students.
Ms. Khob Sreynith, Primary School Teacher in Prey Chruk
This training course has been very helpful for primary school teachers. It has given me new skills to make my students enjoy learning more. Before the training, I used traditional teaching methods and my students were not very interested in lessons.
TDSO’s training helped me improve my English and learn practical teaching techniques. I now know better ways to teach vocabulary, use simple language in class, lead conversations with students, teach reading skills, and use games in my lessons.
When I use these new methods, I can see the difference. My students are more interested and active in class, and their learning has improved.
Mr. Thon Sotheara, English Language Team Leader at SR-PTTC
Our partnership with TDSO has helped our student teachers become better educators. Through training programmes, workshops, mentoring, and shared resources, they have developed stronger teaching skills and greater confidence.
TDSO’s support has been particularly valuable in helping student teachers move from theory to practice. They now understand how to use modern teaching methods in real classrooms. During their practicum placements, we see clear improvements. Student teachers confidently use learner-centred approaches, manage their classrooms well, and keep students actively involved in lessons.
This practical progress shows the real value of our partnership. Our student teachers are better prepared for their careers, and together we are working towards education that is more inclusive, practical, and relevant for today’s students.
Mr. Meas Eang, Principal of Steung Preah Srok Primary School
My teachers now have a much better understanding of how to teach English effectively. They have learnt to develop well-structured lesson plans and use practical techniques in their classrooms. They also know how to integrate games and activities into their teaching, following the approach of “learning through play, playing to learn.
I have also noticed important changes in our students. Before the training, students were shy and reluctant to participate in class. Now they are much braver and more willing to engage in lessons. They are not afraid to make mistakes anymore, and they are eager to try new things and practise their English.
These improvements in both teaching methods and student confidence show the real impact of the training on our school.
Our reach since 2017
Since 2017 we have built depth in Siem Reap Province while preparing for national scale. The figures below describe our reach, namely how many teachers and schools we have worked with and how much training they received. They are not measures of impact. Impact, meaning change in pupil learning, is dealt with in the framework section below.
In Siem Reap Province
1,072 teachers
Completed foundation training programmes
(6-12 months)
45,000 Students
Learning with trained teachers
3,300 Teachers
Participated in continuing professional development programmes
280+ Schools
Served across Siem Reap Province
98% Completion Rate
Across all programmes
95% Attendance Rate
Demonstrating programme quality and
teacher commitment
Completion and attendance are indicators of programme quality and teacher commitment, not of pupil learning.
Building National Capacity
10 Provinces
Active partnerships with teacher-education institutions in 10 provinces, expanding to 18 in 2026
18 Provincial Centres
All 18 English Teacher Centres and Regional Teacher Training Colleges in our network
Three-Year Model
• A staged model in which local institutions take over delivery. We treat the handover as a milestone, not the finish line. Success is the approach still running once we have left.
2,000 to 10,000
Capacity for 2,000 to 10,000 teachers trained a year as systems scale
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
TDSO measures its work against a single sequence, from what we deliver through to what pupils learn. Each stage is evidenced on its own, and each measure states plainly what it can and cannot show. This keeps our reporting honest: no figure is asked to carry more than it can bear.
One rule governs how we use words. “Impact” means the change in pupil learning, and nothing else. Teacher confidence, classroom practice and system uptake are each measured and reported in their own terms. They are not called impact, because that would claim a pupil result we have not yet shown.
The sequence we measure
Our programmes are intended to produce change in order:
- Activities – the training, coaching and materials we deliver.
- Participation – the teachers reached and the training they receive.
- Reaction – whether teachers and partners value the training and the working relationship.
- Teacher learning – whether teachers’ English proficiency and teaching skill change.
- Teacher practice – whether classroom teaching changes.
- Pupil learning (impact) – whether pupils of trained teachers learn more.
- System institutionalisation and transfer – whether the approach is embedded in the system and delivered without us.
Beyond this sit longer-term aims, namely pupils’ progression through school and wider opportunity. These show the direction of travel. We do not report them as achieved within a programme cycle.
How much weight each measure carries
Not all evidence is equal. Within each stage we rank sources by how far they stand independent of the people being judged:
- Objective testing, marked independently of the trainer.
- Independent observation against a shared guide.
- The judgement of a supervising body, such as a headmaster or District Office of Education.
- Self-report, namely a teacher’s own confidence in their teaching.
Self-report is the softest of these. It records belief, not measured change, and we never present it as evidence of learning or of results. Where a stage draws on more than one source, we report the sources separately and in this order, rather than blending them into a single figure that would hide the difference between them.
What each stage shows
Reach and participation. Drawn from our central records, this establishes how many teachers took part, in which districts, and how much training they received. It is the base against which every later stage is read. It shows who was present, not what changed.
Reaction and satisfaction. Two separate questions: whether trainees value the training, and whether headmasters, District Offices and other partners value working with us. The second matters for our standing with government and for the prospects of scaling. Every figure is reported with the share of people who answered. Satisfaction is not learning, and we do not treat it as such.
Teacher learning. Measured in two areas, English proficiency and teaching skill, and drawn from the sources above in order of weight, from objective testing down to self-report. This establishes teacher-level change. It does not by itself establish what happens in the classroom.
Teacher practice. We observe teachers in the classroom several times during the coaching period, using the same observation guide each time. Our own coaches naturally want their trainees to do well, so we also ask coaches to observe teachers who are not their own. Comparing the two sets of scores shows how much a coach tends to favour their own trainee, which we report openly rather than hide. Change itself is shown as the share of teachers who reach the target level on each part of the guide.
Pupil learning, our measure of impact. We test pupils at the start and end of a period, using the same assessment each time, marked by someone other than their own teacher. We compare their results with those of pupils whose teachers have not been trained. This tells us whether the training helped pupils learn more. We are careful not to claim it as the only cause, because how much a child learns depends on many things beyond one teacher’s training. Saying so plainly is what makes the finding believable.
System institutionalisation and transfer. Whether the approach becomes part of the public education system and is carried without us. We track this in two independent ways. The first is content: how far the approach is written into the system’s own instruments, such as accreditation of the training, a teacher-training college’s own curriculum, or recognition of teacher-led professional learning communities in the national framework for teacher development. The second is delivery: how far institution staff, rather than TDSO, run the training, moving from observing, to co-delivering, to delivering on their own. Each of these rests on a real record, such as a dated accreditation, a named curriculum or a delivery log, not on our own sense of how embedded things feel. We do not measure the issuing of policy, because TDSO carries out policy rather than makes it.
Transfer is the point at which the approach keeps running after we have gone. A signed handover is a step towards it, not the thing itself.
Reading the evidence together
The stages are reported side by side for the same group of teachers, and they check one another. Strong teacher confidence sitting on top of flat classroom observation and flat pupil scores tells us the confidence is running ahead of the results. A wide gap between what teachers say about their teaching and what observers record is itself worth knowing. We do not lead with the softest measure, and we hold each measure to what it can show.
How we use the evidence
Day-to-day monitoring. Regular internal tracking of participation, coaching and delivery, used to manage programmes while they run.
Programme improvement. Observation and assessment data feed directly into changes to content, coaching and materials.
Strategic evaluation. The slower question of institutionalisation and transfer, read over several years rather than term by term, and reported alongside the rest of the evidence rather than folded into it.
Challenges and Learning
TDSO’s commitment to evidence-based practice extends to honest assessment of our own performance. Our framework shows not only successes but also the areas that need adjustment and ongoing learning.
Scaling quality
Our most significant challenge is holding programme quality steady as we widen our reach. The high completion and attendance rates in Siem Reap Province reflect intensive coaching and closeness to our Centre of Competence. As we scale nationally through partnerships with teacher-education institutions, keeping quality even across distant provinces calls for careful preparation of facilitators, steady technical support, and regular quality checks. Our staged handover model is built for this, but it takes real investment in relationships and capacity.
Resource development
Producing high-quality teaching resources that fit the local context takes substantial work in design, production and field testing. Our practice school gives us a place to test them, but adapting resources for different provinces, and for subjects beyond our English foundation, calls for continued development and partnership with subject specialists.
Staff recruitment and development
Building a team with the mix of subject knowledge, teaching skill, coaching ability and commitment to evidence is hard in Cambodia’s education sector, where that combination is rare. We address this by developing our own people, including through our Talent Factory programme, which grows internal capacity over time. This turns recruitment from a search for ready-made specialists into a process of finding promising educators and developing them.
Measuring pupil learning
Measuring how much pupils learn over the long term, and how much of that we can put down to our training rather than everything else in a child’s life, is genuinely hard. This is why we report our contribution to pupil learning rather than claiming it as the sole cause, and why we keep refining how we measure it.
.
