Evaluation of the PISD Teacher Induction Program Using Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model

Evaluation of the PISD Teacher Induction Program

Using Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model

Farrah Mae C. Castro

UniversityofSoutheastern Philippines

Abstract

This paper addresses the issue of evaluating whether the training program implemented for teachers adds value to a school’s results using Stufflebeam’s CIPP model. Key informant interviews were conducted to assess target needs in context evaluation. The work plan in input evaluation was assessed using document analysis. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions involving the trainees were conducted too asses the program activities for process evaluation and program outcomes for product evaluation, respectively.  Three reports are made after the evaluation namely the program antecedents which include the origin of the program and its environment, the program implementation which includes the program components and the program results comprising of the evaluation design and findings. Bottom line assessment of the program synthesizes the evaluation conclusions and recommendations.

According to a study conducted by Bass and McMurrer, companies that invested in the development of their employees created value for their shareholders by outperforming the relevant market index (2004). These results suggest that the amount of time, money and expertise spent on training staff can serve as a useful predictor of a company’s performance in the future. That is why most companies conduct mentoring trainings to ensure the success of their employees.

Mentoring occurs when an older, more experienced professional assumes a supportive, guiding role with a less experienced individual, often referred to as a protégé or a mentee (Kelly, 1999). ThePhilippines’ Department of Education has been implementing the Teacher Induction program since April 2006.  It is the flagship project of the Teacher Education Council aiming to promote excellence in public education by enhancing the effectiveness in content knowledge and instructional skills of beginning teachers or those who have zero to three years teaching experience. The project also aims to improve the retention rate of beginning teachers and narrow the gap between pre-service and in-service education and training (PIA, 2006). Despite frequent references to mentoring in educational literature, formal evaluation studies of mentoring and empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of mentoring are absent (Fullerton, 1988; Roberts, 1999).

In light of these facts, this paper aims to evaluate whether the training program for neophyte teachers in one private school in the city, the Precious International School of Davao, adds value to its organization.

Program Antecedents

The program started in 1999 under the leadership of its then principal, now president Perla P. Kwan. She envisioned a group of teachers who are not only good in the classroom, but are also well-versed in other areas of the academe. The program’s mission is to equip incoming and even tenured teachers with all the necessary skills to obtain effective learning and at the same time, maintain the standard of education the school is known for. The program started with only her as the main trainer, and has now expanded to the whole academic council involving the administration, the department heads and area coordinators. The first batch of trainees were only 5 teachers, and now, after only 10 years, the program has trained more than 200 teachers from preschool to high school (PISD handbook, 2009).

Program Implementation

The program has three parts.

Part One is the Month-long Summer Training. This is conducted every May and is handled classroom style, that is teachers come as students to study from 8:00 – 3:00 daily. Course outline varies from year to year although basics are consistent, like  foundations of education, teaching strategies, behavior analysis and the like. At the end of the month, teachers’ performances are computed and graded. The second part of the program is the weekly teaching enhancement. This is done every Friday from 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. The main topic discussed during these weekly gatherings is Basic Communication skills, since the school’s main thrust is to promote English proficiency among its teachers and learners. The third part is the Year-long mentoring system wherein a neophyte is paired with a tenured teacher and they are expected to work together for the whole school year.

Program Results

In evaluating a teaching program as this, Stufflebeam’s CIPP model of evaluation is used. Since the question to be answered in this paper is whether this teacher training program improves the results of an organization, a model for evaluating the benefits is constructed.

The target of Context evaluation is to assess target needs using key informant interviews. Program leaders, like the academic coordinators, subject heads, trainers and others, are the interviewees for this part. Document Analysis is used to assess the work plan of Input evaluation. For process evaluation, current and past documents are analyzed to assess program activities. Focus group discussions were conducted during the product evaluation to assess program outcomes.

CONTEXT EVALUATION

The school’s mid-administrators are directly involved in the induction program making them the best people to interview.

Teachers’ Needs

Concerns

Opportunities to Address these Needs

Language Proficiency Some teachers are not fluent in English weekly English classes
Effective Teaching strategies Some teachers do not know the teaching strategies best applied in the classroom Observation and Demonstration
Latest in Educational Trends Some teachers do not know the latest trends in education Seminars, workshops

Analysis:

The school provides opportunities for its teachers to address their needs.

INPUT EVALUATION

Document Analysis was conducted to assess the work plan of the induction program.

1. What are the different program events, their costs and allocations?

 

  1. Month-Long Summer Training Program

Annual budget : P30,000 – P50,000

Inclusive of:

Allowance (newly-hired teachers)

Honorarium (trainers)

Materials and other expenses

Culmination Activity Expenses

  1. Weekly Teaching Enhancement

No specified budget

  1. Year-Long Mentoring System

No specified budget

2. Where do they get their trainers for the program? 

1. Outside Trainers

- Learning Styles – Dr. Archie Miguel of De La Salle University – 2005

- Writing – Mr. Rene Lizada – 2006

- City Disaster Coordinating Council

- Fire Department

2. In-house Trainers

- Assistant Principal, Principal

- Academic Coordinators

Analysis:

The school provides sufficient budget for the induction program, however, there is no fixed rate annually and no actual budget proposals are recorded.

PROCESS EVALUATION

Program Activities and Strategies

  1. Summer Training
  1. Academic Matters
  2. Personnel Policies
  3. Routine trainings

-          Fire and Earthquake Drills, First Aid

  1. Personal Development

-          Make-up Lessons

  1. Spiritual Development

-          faculty Retreat

  1. Social development

-          Kick-Off Party

  1. Weekly Enrichment
  1. Speaking Class
  2. English Remediation
  3. Teaching Strategies Sharing
  1. Mentoring System

1. Buddy-Buddy style

Analysis:

The school provides a wide range of activities for the teacher trainees in response to the needs reflected in context evaluation.

PRODUCT EVALUATION

Focus group discussions were conducted during the product evaluation to assess program outcomes.

In its pilot year, there were only 5 trainees and presently, the school has 69 teachers currently enrolled in the program. Focus group discussions were conducted with the teacher trainees and the results are as follows:

Positive Outcomes Negative Outcomes
  1. Informative
  2. comprehensive; covers a lot of different topics
  3. helps prepare neophyte teachers for the school year
  4. builds teachers’ confidence and self-esteem
  5. Fun, challenging activities
  6. Fosters camaraderie among co-teachers
  7. Regular training helps avoid mediocrity
  8. close supervision through the mentoring system minimizes neophyte errors
  9. time-consuming
  10. stressful sometimes
  11. minimal allowance for incoming faculty (first year teachers)

Analysis:

Positive outcomes according to the trainees far outweigh the negatives.

Bottom-Line Assessment of the Program

The school’s teacher induction program proves to be very effective in terms of training neophyte and tenured teachers. The program’s activities cater to the needs of the teachers as specified in context and process evaluation. In the year-end evaluation of the faculty, most teachers who have undergone the complete program fare well, if not more than satisfactorily. More support may be given into the input, particularly in the allocation of budget for more trainers, better teacher support and varied seminar topics.

References

Bassi, L.and McMurrer, D. (2004) How’s your return on people? Harvard Business

Review 82 (3) 18

PIA Press Release. (2006). DepEd to institutionalize Teacher Induction program.

Retrieved from

http://www.pia.gov.ph/?m=12&fi=p060824.htm&no=19

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000) The CIPP model for evaluation.In D. L. Stuffelbaum, G. F. Madaus & T. Kellaghan (eds) Evaluation models. Boston: Kluwer Academic

Publishers. 279-317.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (2007) CIPP Evaluation Model Checklist. Retrieved from

http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists.pdf

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1973). Evaluation as

enlightenment for decision-making. In B. R. Worthen & J. R. Sanders (Eds.), Educational evaluation:

Theory and practice.Worthington,OH: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company.

Stufflebeam, DL & Shinkfield, AJ. (2007)

Evaluation theory, models, and applications.Jossey-Bass,California,USA.

Vanderstoep, S. & Johnston, D. (2009).  Research Methods for Everyday Life: Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.San Francisco,USA: Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint.

The Logic Model

The Logic Model                                                                    

For more than 20 years, the Logic Model process has been used by program managers and evaluators to determine and describe the efficacy of their programs. As an evaluation tool, it describes logical linkages among program resources, activities, outputs, audiences, and short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes related to a specific problem or situation. Once a program has been described in terms of the logic model, critical measures of performance can be identified (McLaughlin, J.A. & G.B. Jordan. 1999).

Role of the Logic Model in Evaluation

To have an effective evaluation, one must have a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the program to be evaluated. This leads to objectivity, efficiency and fairness in evaluation. This is where the Logic Model comes into play.

Basically, The Logic Model serves as the foundation for evaluation. It answers the questions what is the program about, what are its resources, how does it work, what does it achieve, and etc.

Components of the Logic Model

Basically, the Logic Model has three components namely INPUTS, ACTIVITIES and OUTCOMES.

These three basic components provide the qualitative information in the Logic Model. In order to measure this qualitative information, outputs and indicators must be introduced.

SITUATION

This is the beginning point of the development of the logic model. It is the originating problem, or issue, set within a complex of sociopolitical, environmental and economic circumstances.

INPUTS

These are the things that go into the program: the resources and contributions that are invested. Examples of these are the staff, money, time, equipment, partnerships, and the research base.

OUTPUTS

These are the things that the program does  and the people it can reach, including activities, services, events, products and the people reached.

OUTCOMES

These are the results. These may  include short-term benefits (changes in awareness, knowledge, skills, attitudes, opinions and intent), medium-term benefits ( changes in behaviors,

decision-making and actions) and long-term benefits (often called impact) such as changes in social, economic, civic, and environmental conditions.

ASSUMPTIONS

These are the beliefs about  the program, the people involved, and how the program will work.

Assumptions include ideas about the problem or situation; the way the program will operate; what the program expects to achieve; how the participants learn and behave, their motivations, etc.; the resources and staff; the external environment; the knowledge base; and the internal environment.

EXTERNAL FACTORS

These are the aspects external to the program that influence the way the program operates.  Dynamic systems interactions include the cultural milieu, biophysical environment, economic structure, housing patterns, demographic makeup, family circumstances, values, political environment, background and experiences of participants, media, policies and priorities, etc.

In relation to Output 1 where I cited the milestones for both Inclusive Education and Multi-Lingual Education, the Logic Model may be used as follows:

Program

Proposed Titles

Logic Model phase

Inclusion 1. Efficacy of After-School Remedial Program for Preschoolers with Dyslexia2. Evaluating the Efficacy of Using Word Families in Teaching Preschoolers with Dyslexia in the Regular Classroom

Activities

Input

MLE
  1. Evaluating the Efficacy of Using MakFil Gawaing Pangkasanayan in teaching Grade One Filipino
  2. Evaluating the Trainability of Visayan Learners in an All-English Curriculum

Input

Input


References:

Logan, D., Piperno, R., MacFarland, F., & Bargamian, D. (December 1994/January 1995). Educational Leadership. available at

http://www.uni.edu/coe/inclusion/philosophy/benefits.html accessed: October, 2008.

The Logic Model Workbook. Innovation Network, Inc. available at

http://www.innonet.org/client_docs/File/logic_model_workbook.pdf

McLaughlin, J.A. and G.B. Jordan. 1999. Logic models: a tool for telling your program’s   performance story. Evaluation and Planning 22:65-72.

McCawley, P. (2000). The Logic Model for Program Planning and Evaluation. University of Idaho:Idaho.

Philippine Educational Reforms

 Philippine Educational Reforms

Issues and Concerns

Farrah Mae C. Castro – December 2010

The former president of the Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation in the Philippines, Dr. Ronald Meinardus once said, “the more and better educated a people, the greater the chances of economic development.” According to him, literacy and numeracy play vital roles in any country’s growth and progress.

In the past two decades, the Philippine government has been reforming our educational system to improve the quality of our education. Numerous agencies and organizations have taken a deeper look into the pros and cons of such, but so much more is yet to be studied. In this paper, I will be zooming in on two of the most “popular” programs of this decade; INCLUSION and MULTI-LINGUAL EDUCATION.

I.        Inclusiondepartment

Inclusion is a philosophical movement advocating for the education of Special Needs Children (SNC) in normal, mixed ability classes. According to Bowe (2005), inclusion would require SNCs to spend two-thirds or more of the school week in general classrooms. They need not be physically located there all of the time. Rather, they may be pulled out for or, speech/language pathology, or other related services. This is very similar to many practices.  He further argues that inclusion is a reasonable approach for most students with special needs.

The Magna Carta for Disabled (Republic Act 7277) strongly supports the full participation of SNCs into the mainstream of society. Special schools and SPED centers have been put up in most major cities in the country and even in some provinces. Organizations like the PMAG (Parents Mobilization Action Group) and DSAPI (Down’s Syndrome Association of thePhilippines, Incorporated) have worked hand-in-hand to promote the well-being of SNCs. In the same way, some government organizations like the Department of Education and the Department of Social Welfare and Development have also come up with their own sets of programmes and activities for SNCs.

InDavaoCity, the awareness of the society regarding the differently-abled is slowly broadening. Regular activities have been conducted for the benefit of SNCs. In turn, many schools, especially public elementary and high schools, have started accepting children with SNCs. With this “transformation” in the conventional enrollees’ admittance and the shift in the conventional special education paradigm, speculations have also risen about the schools’ and teachers’ capacity to accommodate SNCs. Teacher competencies, availability of facilities and materials, proper faculty and staff training are but some of the immediate concerns (Castro, 2005).

Teachers who are General Education graduates and have no training in Special Education may have some difficulties in addressing the needs of SNCs. Logan, et. al. (1995) says that today’s teachers grasp the importance of inclusion because they recognize its effectivity as an instructional practice. However, if the faculty does not see the value of inclusion, chiefly because of lack of training, the whole program will not be able to meet its target. Comprehensive pre-service and in-service trainings are necessary to ensure the success of inclusive education (Salend, 2001). Teachers should be provided with enough resources, intellectual and material, to help facilitate inclusion in their own classrooms.

Belcher (1995) conducted a study of teachers in general and special education and administrators who attended the New Mexico Council for Exceptional Children State Conference. They found out that 41% of the respondents agreed, and 37% strongly agreed that students with disabilities could be educated in the regular class given the proper supports and services. In-service trainings and seminars and workshops were likewise recommended by Bajenio (2004) in her study “Readiness and Performance of Regular Teachers for Inclusive Education of Visually Impaired Pupils inDavaoCity.”

In conclusion, the success of special needs children’s inclusion in the regular classrooms is difficult but achievable. Much effort must be exerted to equip the administrators, the teachers, the school and even the whole community as well, so they may all in turn provide the best and most conducive learning environment for children with special needs.

II.      Multi-Lingual Education

Dep. Ed. Order No. 74 s. 2009, otherwise known as the Multi-Lingual Education Program, states that MLE is to be institutionalized in all public and private schools in the country from preschool to high school. This means that learners will be taught how to read and write in their first language or L1. Academic subjects like Mathematics, Science and Social Studies will also be introduced through the same medium. As the learners develop a firm foundation in their L1, official languages, English and Filipino, are gradually introduced as separate subjects, first orally, then in the written form.

ThePhilippinesis a multi-lingual country with more than 170 different languages. In the census conducted in 2000, Tagalog holds the biggest number of native speakers with 21.5 million, followed by Cebuano with 18.5 million. Other languages like Ilocano, Hiligaynon and Bicolano are also included in the top 5. Seven other languages also hold more than a million native speakers each (Nolasco, 2008).

This reality proves to be one of the biggest hurdles MLE has to face. In his explanatory note to House Bill No. 4701, Representative Gullas, in his explanatory note to House Bill No. 4701 (AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN AND ENHANCE THE USE OF ENGLISH AS THE MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION IN PHILIPPINE SCHOOLS) said that because of the bilingual policy, the learning of the English language suffered greatly.

He also said expecting the learners to adapt to two languages (L1 and L2) is too much to ask, especially in the lower grades. The use of Filipino, which is basically Tagalog, is not effective since learners in the Visayas andMindanaoregions have very minimal exposure to it (Nolasco, 2008). English can, then, improve and enrich our own Philippine national language and other native languages, and cultures, and not make us lose our identity as a people (Yap, 2009).

On the other hand, Dutcher in collaboration with R. Tucker (1994) reviewed the international experience on this MLE and they found out that individuals easily develop cognitive skills and master content material when they are taught in a familiar language. Walter and Dekker (2008) in their study in Lubuagan stated that classes taught in L1 fare significantly higher in composite scores in all subjects compared to those taught in L2. They further claim that these results provide evidence that mother tongue instruction does help strengthen the learning of both the English and Filipino subjects, contrary to what is claimed by the proponents of the pro-English bill.

The discussion between the choice of English or mother tongue as mode of instruction is not ending anytime soon. Both programs have their own share of pros and cons, and expectedly much debate will be ensuing in the years to come as to which is more effective and beneficial to Filipino learners. Fortunately, many educators, researchers and politicians alike are working their way into finding a solution, no matter how torturous the work may seem.

Bajeňio, Anita G. (2004). Readiness and Performance of Regular Teachers for     Inclusive Education of  Visually Impaired Pupils in Davao City. Master’s Thesis. University ofSoutheastern Philippines,Davao City.

Bos, C. & Vaughn, S. (2002).  Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning and Behavior Problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 

Bowe, F. (2005). Making Inclusion Work. Merrill Education / Prentice Hall.

Dutcher, Nadine in collaboration with Richard Tucker. (1994). The use of first and second languages in education. A review of international experience. Pacfic Islands discussion paper series no. 1. WashingtonD.C.: The World Bank.

 

House of Representatives. 14th Congress. House Bill No. 305. An act to strengthen and enhance the use of English as the medium of instruction in Philippine schools. Introduced by the Hon. Eduardo Gullas.

Logan, D., Piperno, R., MacFarland, F., & Bargamian, D. (December 1994/January 1995). Educational Leadership. available at

http://www.uni.edu/coe/inclusion/philosophy/benefits.html accessed: October, 2008.

Philippine Commission on Education Reform. (2000). Philippine agenda for educational reform: the PCER report. Manila: Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

Walter, S. & Dekker, D. (2008). The Lubuagan mother tongue education experiment (FLC), a report of comparative test results. available at

http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/lit/2008-02-27_Report_to_Congress-Lubuagan_FLC_Paper.pdf accessed: December, 2010.

Yap, F. (March 2008). Global Filipino in Multi-Lingual Education. 1st International Conference on Filipino as a Global Language held at theUniversity of Hawaii-Manoa. available at

www.scribd.com/doc/25591770/Asian-Journal-Jan-22-201 accessed: December 2010.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

Here are some suggestions for your first post.

  1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
  2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
  3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can alway preview any post or edit you before you share it to the world.