By CEMASTEA NOVEMBER 2016

i

SECONDARY SCHOOLS PRINCIPALS’ WORKSHOP

REPORT FOR 2016

By

CEMASTEA

NOVEMBER 2016

ii

CENTRE FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN

AFRICA (CEMASTEA)

P. O. BOX 24214-00502 Karen – Bogani-Karen Roads Junction, NAIROBI – KENYA

Phone: +254-20-2044406; +254-20 2633591; +254-0706-722697/0780-797648

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http/www.cemastea.ac.ke

All rights reserved

© CEMASTEA, 2016

Approved for circulation

Stephen M. Njoroge,

Director, CEMASTEA

../../../../../gnorado/Downloads/[email protected]

../../../../../gnorado/Downloads/http/www.cemastea.ac.ke

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. v

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... vi

Abbreviations and Acronyms .............................................................................................................. viii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ ix

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... x

1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.4 Objectives of the Principals Workshop ........................................................................................ 1

2.0 TRAINING/WORKSHOP CONTENT ........................................................................................... 2

2.1 UNIT ONE: PRACTICE OF ASEI-PDSI ................................................................................... 2

Rationale of the session.................................................................................................................. 2

Objectives of unit ........................................................................................................................... 2

Summary of presentation ............................................................................................................... 3

Evaluation of training/Workshop ....................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Conclusion and recommendations ............................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 UNIT TWO: ICT INTEGRATION ............................................................................................. 7

2.2.1Rationale ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.2 Objectives of unit .................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Evaluation of training/Workshop ................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Conclusion and recommendations ............................................................................................. 10

2.3.1Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 11

2.3 UNIT 3: MANAGEMENT OF LESSON STUDY ........................................................................ 12

2.3.1 Rationale ................................................................................................................................. 12

2.3.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.3: Summary of presentation ....................................................................................................... 12

2.3.4 Quality of facilitation .............................................................................................................. 13

2.3.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 15

iv

2.3.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 15

2. 4 UNIT 4: PEDAGOGICAL LEADERSHIP .................................................................................. 15

2.4.1 Rationale ................................................................................................................................. 15

2.4.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.4.3: Summary of Presentation ....................................................................................................... 16

2.4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 18

2.5 UNIT 5: EFFECTIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN SCHOOLS ........................................ 19

2.5.1Rationale .................................................................................................................................. 19

2.5.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 19

2.5.3: Background information .................................................................................................... 20

2.5.4: Summary of presentations .................................................................................................. 20

2.5.5 Findings................................................................................................................................... 21

2.5.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 22

2.6. UNIT 6: SCHOOL VISIT, 2016 ................................................................................................... 22

2.6.1Rationale .................................................................................................................................. 22

2.6.2 Summary of presentations ....................................................................................................... 22

2.6.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 23

2.7 WELFARE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES ...................................................................... 24

2.7.1 Boarding and catering ...................................................................................................... 24

2.7.2 Management of the workshop by CTCDC members ....................................................... 24

2.7.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 24

2.8: Overall evaluation of the workshop per unit ................................................................................. 24

4.0 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 26

4.1 Appendix 1: Training programme ........................................................................................ 26

4.2 Appendix II: Session Evaluation Tools ............................................................................... 28

v

Acknowledgements

The principal’s workshop was held at the counties across the county between March and

August 2016. Certainly, this was made possible through a concerted effort and commitment

by many stakeholders such as CDEs, TSC County Directors, CEMASTEA staff, INSET

centre principals, secondary school principals, and Kenya Secondary Schools Heads

Association (KESSHA). I therefore take this opportunity to specifically appreciate these

stakeholders for the roles they played that made the 2016 county principals’ workshop a

success. CEMASTEA values your effort and commitment in ensuring effective

implementation and management of the workshops.

I also acknowledge the effort of all CEMASTEA staff, who worked hard to ensure that the

workshops held were of high quality in terms of facilitation. I appreciate and thank the

trainees, public secondary school principals without whom the county workshop would not

have been actualized. This shows their desire to enhance their pedagogical leadership and

supervision in effective ways. My expectation is that they will be able to put to practice what

they learned during the workshop.

This report is a product of this principals’ workshop. It is hoped that it will be shared with the

stakeholders and also improve future principals’ workshops.

Mr. Stephen M. Njoroge

Director, CEMASTEA

vi

Executive Summary

In 2016, CEMASTEA implemented a training programme for principals of secondary

schools in 18 counties across the country. The training took place between March and August

2016. The training was based on a Module developed in line with the CEMASTEA Training

Needs Assessment (TNA) Report of 2015. The duration for the training was designed for a

period of four days. The theme of the training was, `Enhancing Pedagogical Leadership in

the implementation of SMASE activities at school level`. The major thematic areas covered

included:

a) Practice of ASEI-PDSI in the classroom

b) ICT integration in teaching and learning

c) Management of lesson study at school level

d) Pedagogical leadership

e) Effective resource management

f) School visit

CEMASTEA Staff conducted the training at centers identified by County Teacher Capacity

Development Committee (CTCDC). The approach used was through exposition, group

activities and discussions, sharing of experiences including benchmarking by school visits. A

training programme was provided to guide on session duration.

3308 Principals attended the training comprising 1407 males and 1901 females, which

translates to 42.5% and 57.5 % respectively. It was observed that attendance was very good

in most centers across the country. The number trained actually surpassed the expected

number.

Evaluation tools were used to collect data covering all the aspects of the training focusing on

quality of facilitation and usefulness of the topics. The rating was based on a five-point scale

(1-5) where 1- Poor, 2- Fair, 3- Good, 4- Very Good, 5- Excellent. The CEMASTEA

trainers also observed on the organization and management of the training.

Based on the analysed data, the following are key highlights arising from the 2016 Principal

County training workshops:

The Workshops was non- residential but participants were paid some allowance for

accommodation.

Quality of Facilitation was highly rated at a mean of 4 and above on a scale of 1- 5.

The workshops were considered quite useful to the participants` professional role as

school managers. This was inferred from the high mean ratings on this aspect.

The participants appreciated the importance and relevance of the training

Most centers were well managed and the CTCDCs were supportive of the

programme.

Not all teachers have undergone training in SMASE activities.

During the training, it was also established that most schools had inadequate teaching and

learning resources, physical facilities and teaching staff. ICT tools and materials were

vii

inadequate. Some teachers also lacked ICT skills thus requiring training. In conclusion, the

workshops were generally successful. However, some recommendations were made on areas

that require improvement which included the following:

Increasing the duration of training to five days

Equip schools with teaching and learning resources, and training teachers on ICT

skills.

The timing of the training should be such that it is done when schools are not in

session or when activities are not many.

The venues of the training should be away from own Counties and not in a school.

Similar trainings to be cascaded to the deputy principals.

Train all teachers in SMASE activities

viii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ASEI-PDSI Activity Student Experiment Improvisation - Plan, Do, See and

Improve

CEMASTEA Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in Africa

CTCDC County Teacher Capacity Development Committee

CPD Continuous Professional Development

ICT Information and Communication Technology

INSET In-Service Education and Training

LS Lesson Study

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MoE Ministry of Education

M&S Mathematics and Science

SMASE Strengthening of Mathematics and Science Education

TNA Training Needs Assessment

TSC Teachers Service Commission

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1: Demographic information ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2: ASEI-PDSI practice................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 3: ICT Integration ..................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4: Graph of Mean ratings on Lesson Study .............................................................................. 14

x

List of Tables

Table 2: Overall means for ASEI- PDSI practice .................................................................................. 4

Table 3: Recommendations on ASEI- PDSI .......................................................................................... 6

Table 4: ICT Integration Mean per county ............................................................................................ 8

Table 5: Recommendations on ICT integration ................................................................................... 11

Table 6: Mean ratings on Lesson Study ............................................................................................... 14

Table 7: Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 15

Table 8: Mean ratings for quality of facilitation and usefulness .......................................................... 17

Table 9: Evaluation per unit ................................................................................................................. 24

+

1

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Principals’ workshops are part of CEMASTEA activities aimed at strengthening the teaching

and learning of mathematics and science in secondary schools. These workshops bring

together all the principals of secondary schools in each county where they are taken through

issues on pedagogical leadership and sensitized on the INSET content that their mathematics

and science teachers go through. This report details how and where the 2016 workshop were

conducted and issues that arose which require the attention of CEMASTEA and other

stakeholders.

1.2 Rationale of the workshop

The Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in Africa (CEMASTEA)

organize and conducts sensitization workshops for various stakeholders with a view to build

their capability to support the implementation of training activities. One of the main

objectives of such workshops is to sensitize stakeholders on CEMASTEA’s Strengthening of

Mathematics and Science Education (SMASE) activities. Principals of secondary schools are

among key stakeholders sensitized through such workshops. Principals play a critical role in

the supervision of classroom practices on implementation of learner-centred lessons and

provide pedagogical leadership in the school. Principals of secondary schools play a key role

in the supervision and providing pedagogical leadership for quality curriculum

implementation at the school level. CEMASTEA’s TNA 2015 report indicated that 19% of

serving principals are newly appointed hence require capacity development in pedagogical

leadership.

1.3 Theme of the workshop

The theme of 2016 Principals Workshop was “Enhancing Pedagogical leadership in

the implementation of SMASE activities at school level”.

1.4 Objectives of the Principals Workshop

The overall goal of the workshop was to enhance school principals’ pedagogical

and leadership skills for quality curriculum implementation in schools. In

particular, the objectives of the workshop were:

1. Discuss and share participant’s experiences on;

a) Supervision of ASEI-PDSI practices in teaching and learning

b) ICT integration in teaching and learning

c) Mobilization, prioritization, and utilization of resources

2. Enhance principals’ supervisory and pedagogical leadership skills to manage teaching

and learning activities in their schools.

3. Develop participant’s ability to coordinate and supervise lesson study activities

4. Appreciate participant’s roles in providing pedagogical leadership and supervision

through school visits.

2

1.5 Date, venues and numbers trained

The principals’ workshop was conducted between March and August 2016 in various

counties across the country. The training was implemented in 18 counties namely:

Lamu, Garissa, Homabay, Narok, Kakamega, Kiambu, Murang’a, Nakuru, Makueni,

Bungoma, Wajir, Vihiga, Bomet, Kericho, Mandera, Kisii and Samburu consisting of

27 cohorts. The participants were principals’ of public secondary schools in the

respective counties. The CTCDC organized for the venues where the workshops were

conducted. Out of the expected 3,431, a total of 3308 principals were trained which

translates to 96.4% turn out. The high turnout in most counties can be attributed to the

importance attached to the impact SMASE programme has on mathematics and science

and counties having invited all their public school principals and welfare issues.

2.0 TRAINING/WORKSHOP CONTENT

The principals’ module comprised of six units namely; ASEI- PDSI practice in the

classroom, ICT integration, management of implementation of lesson study,

pedagogical leadership, resource management and utilization and school visit.

2.1 UNIT ONE: PRACTICE OF ASEI-PDSI

Rationale of the session

In-Service Education and Training (INSET) programs are expected to lead to improved quality of

teaching and learning. However, CEMASTEA Training Needs Assessment (CEMASTEA, 2015)

noted that 64% of the teachers interviewed indicated they experienced challenges in linking practical

activities to lesson objectives and the content to be learnt. Majority (69%) of teachers also indicated

that they rarely create opportunity for learners to gather, evaluate and communicate information. In

addition, 78% of the teachers inadequately encouraged learners to produce and / or utilize innovative

materials. On use of locally available materials, a large number of teachers (73%) inadequately

utilized teaching and learning resources. In this unit, we shall discuss the ASEI-PDSI approach with

the aim of getting feedback on classroom practices in the teaching and learning of mathematics and

science. This unit was therefore aimed at giving the principals an opportunity to share experiences on

the current situation on the practice of ASEI-PDSI in their school.

Objectives of unit

By the end of this unit, the participants were expected to:

1. Understand the principles and practices of ASEI-PDSI as an approach for improving the quality

of teaching and learning.

2. Share feedback on current practices in the teaching and learning of mathematics and science.

3. Appreciate their role in management of the implementation of ASEI-PDSI approach.

Facilitators

The training was conducted at the counties and was facilitated by CEMASTEA staff. Two

facilitators were sent to each INSET centre.

3

Summary of presentation

The facilitators gave a 20 minutes exposition consisting of an introduction, rationale and objectives of

the session. Participants were given background information on SMASE activities since inception in

1998 so as to bring all principals on board. The meaning of ASEI-PDSI was discussed. Thereafter,

participants were given discussion tasks to share experiences on the extent of implementation of

ASEI-PDSI in their schools with a view of coming up with good practices and challenges

encountered. They also discussed ASEI –PDSI lesson plans for mathematics and the three sciences

namely chemistry, physics and biology. This was to give them skills on how to identify ASEI lesson

plans during supervision of implementation of ASEI-PDSI.

The participants discussed and came up with reports that were shared in the plenary. Successes

reported are as follows:

Most schools have embraced ASEI-PDSI practice

Experiments done by learners on their own

ASEI lessons are prepared for teaching

Resources are improvised by teachers

Principals reported they oversaw lessons in class

Information is gathered to improve lessons

An increased number of girls taking sciences e.g physics

. However, the following challenges were reported;

Lack of resources and inadequate facilities for teaching

Inadequate staffing e.g. teachers

Time consuming in ASEI lesson preparation

Low entry behavior of students

Lack of source of power in some schools

BOM teachers have not been trained on ASEI-PDSI

Teachers are challenged by matters of technology and resort to talk and chalk method

Negative attitude by both teachers and students towards mathematics and science

Teachers lack capacity to prepare experiments

Little input in practicing ASEI-PDSI in some schools

Lack of motivation for teachers

Risk while collecting specimens

Improvisation may compromise accuracy of results

Misconceptions during teaching.

Evaluation of training/Workshop

According to Table 2, the overall of quality of facilitation was rated at 4.12 and that of

usefulness at 4.44 on a scale of 1-5. The overall rating of the session was 4.29. This indicates

that the session was rated highly by participants. This was attributed to the fact that principals

appreciated the workshop as a value adding exercise and were impressed by the quality of

4

facilitation by the CEMASTEA staff. The high rated usefulness show that principals found

the session relevant to their profession and also to societal needs.

Table 1: Overall means for ASEI- PDSI practice

ASEI-PDSI

County

Quality of

facilitation

Usefulne

ss of

unit

Overall

mean

Bungoma 4.20 4.40 4.30

Homa bay 4.1 4.60 4.35

Mandera 4.19 4.4 4.30

Lamu 4.42 4.7 4.56

Wajir 4.35 4.5 4.41

Kakamega 4.15 4.4 4.23

Makueni 4.08 4.4 4.24

Nakuru 3.98 4.3 4.14

Garissa 4.49 4.60 4.55

Narok 4.1 4.4 4.25

Kericho 4.1 4.3 4.2

Bomet 4.16 4.4 4.28

Samburu 4.34 4.5 4.42

Kisii 4.14 4.35 4.25

Kiambu 4.23 4.30 4.25

Muranga 4.14 4.6 4.37

Overall

mean

4.12

4.44

4.29

a) Quality of facilitation

The aspects of quality of facilitation consisted of time management within the

session, mastery of content, effective use of equipment and materials, effective

use of activities, achievement of objectives, participatory approach, and creativity

of facilitator. These aspects are discussed below in terms of strengths and

weaknesses.

Strengths observed on quality of facilitation

The objectives of the session were achieved since participants expressed their

satisfaction of what they had learned. They said they were able to understand the

ASEI-PDSI. This was also supported by the fact that the principals who do not teach

mathematics and science attested that they were now aware what ASEI-PDSI is all

about and were in a position to manage its implementation in their schools. They also

5

reflected on the practice of ASEI PDSI back in their schools and agreed to support it

in terms of implementation and supervision.

The principals reported that the CEMASTEA facilitators had good mastery of

content. This was attributed to very good presentations and well researched papers.

On effective use of equipment and materials, the participants reported that the Power

Point presentations were quite visible to all participants.

On participatory approach, active participation by participants during group

discussions and reporting was observed indicating positive attitude towards the

workshop

The activities and the video demonstration were effectively used and articulately described

the aspects of ASEI-PDSI .

Weakness observed on quality of facilitation

A number of weaknesses were reported by participants. These included the following;

Time management was not very good since the start of the sessions in most INSET

centers had challenges as a number of participants did not arrive in good time

Halls in some INSET centers, lacked curtains that could keep the hall dark during

PowerPoint projection.

Some halls also lacked internet connectivity so participants were made to observe

rather than interact with the internet.

Figure 2 below indicates that the quality of facilitation, usefulness of the unit and overall

mean in all counties were rated above 4.0 on a scale of 1-5. This indicates that the

objectives were achieved. This is attributed to the fact that facilitators were well

prepared and participants were also receptive to the information. These therefore show

that most of the principals understood ASEI- PDSI approach and were ready to

implement and supervise it in their schools.

6

Figure 1: ASEI-PDSI practice

2.3 Conclusion and recommendations

2.3.1 Conclusion

The objectives were achieved, the principals reported that they had understood

ASEI-PDSI and were ready to implement and supervise in their schools.

The training was participatory since participant-centered activities were used

Participants reported that there was a shortage of teachers which TSC needed to

address

Most schools lacked adequate teaching and learning materials

Teachers to be trained by CEMASTEA on how to improvise teaching and

learning materials

Participants reported that the Power Point presentations were quite visible to all

participants

Time management during the session was inadequate

Train HODs and principals on ASEI-PDSI

Overall,training was rated highly by principals.

2.3.2 Recommendations

Table 2: Recommendations on ASEI- PDSI

S/No Item Recommendation Responsibility Action by date

1 ASEI-PDSI practice Train all teachers on

ASEI- PDSI including

BOM teachers

CEMASTEA Continuous

2 Inadequate Teaching

and learning

Resources

Provide more teaching

and learning resources

CDEs, principals,

,CEMASTEA

During trainings

3 Inadequate Staffing Provide more teachers TSC Immediately

4 Time management Increase time of

session

CEMASTEA, CDE During training

5 Induct HODs and

principals on ASEI-

PDSI

Provide induction CEMASTEA Regularly

6 Improvisation

teaching of materials

by teachers

Induct teachers on

improvisation of

materials

CEMASTEA,CDE,

Principals

Regularly

7 Attending SMASE

training

Ensure all teachers

attend SMASE

TSC,

CDEs, principals

,CEMASTEA

Regularly

7

2.2 UNIT TWO: ICT INTEGRATION

2.2.1Rationale

ICT Skills and ICT Integration has become an important component of education world over.

ICT integration in teaching andlearning is part of the STI initiatives geared towards making

Kenya a middle level economy by the year 2030. It is for this reason that principals need to

oversee its effective implementation and practice in the classroom. The TNA report

(CEMASTEA 2015), QASO’s indicated that 52% of mathematics and science teachers had

implemented ICT integration in teaching and learning while 14% of the principals often

provided ICT tools in teaching/learning mathematics and science. On the teaching skills

competence, about 45% of mathematics/science teachers often integrated ICT tools in their

lessons.

The Tracer Study report (CEMASTEA 2015), teachers and students explained that ICT

integration in mathematics & science lessons makes teaching and learning enjoyable. The

principals stated that they had witnessed teachers integrate ICT in their lessons and confessed

that the practice has enhanced understanding of concepts resulting to improved performance.

Thus, principals need to provide support in implementation and supervision of ICT

integration in teaching and learning in their schools.

2.2.2 Objectives of unit

By the end of this unit, principals should be able to;-

1. Understand ICT integration in education as an approach for improving quality of

teaching and learning

2. Share feedback on implementation of ICT integration in school

3. Appreciate that ICT integration is a tool for improving quality of teaching and learning

4. Appreciate their role in entrenching ICT integration in teaching and learning in their

schools

2.2.3 Facilitators

The training was conducted at the counties and was facilitated by CEMASTEA staff. Two

facilitators were sent to each INSET centre.

Summary of presentation

The participants were taken through an exposition of about 20 minutes. The rationale of the

unit, objectives, goal and outcome of the unit were articulated. The principals discussed the

following activities:

a) What they understood by ICT integration

b) What ICT tools they were aware of and how they can be used in ICT integration

c) The pedagogical leadership they have provided in their school to integrate ICT.

8

In addition, they also evaluated ICT integrated demo lessons provided in the module. The

participants then reported the outcome of their discussions in the plenary. The following

strengths and challenges were reported by the participants;

Strengths observed

The participants reported that they had some knowledge on ICT integration.

There was evidence that participants understood the need for ICT integration

Teachers in some schools had demanded the procurement of tools and resources for ICT

integration

Some principals reported to have witnessed lessons delivered using ICT tools

The principals resolved to support implementation of ICT integration in teaching and

learning in their schools.

Weakness observed

The following weaknesses were observed;

In most schools, ICT integration is confined to the accounts section and processing of

exam results and report cards.

Most principals confirmed that their teachers have not been trained on ICT integration

in teaching and learning. Hence, there is still limited application of ICTs in lessons

Lack of the necessary infrastructure had affected the use of ICT in most centers

There were constraints of time and this posed as a challenge to cover the content effectively.

2.2 Evaluation of Workshop

According to table 4 below, the overall quality of facilitation was rated at 4.21 and usefulness

at 4.5 on a scale of 1-5. The overall rating of the session was 4.32. This indicates that the

session was highly rated by participants. This means that the quality of facilitation by the

CEMASTEA staff was high. The high rated usefulness show that principals found the session

relevant to their profession and also to societal needs. ICT is the way to go in 21st century

and hence it is an important topic to principals.

Table 3: ICT Integration Mean per county

ICT Integration

County Quality

of

facilition

Usefulne

ss of unit

Overall

mean

Bungoma 3.00 4.50 3.75

Homa bay 4.10 4.50 4.300

Mandera 4.21 4.4 4.31

Lamu 4.70 4.80 4.75

Wajir 4.38 4.50 4.44

Kakamega 4.24 4.45 4.37

Makueni 4.16 4.4 4.28

Nakuru 4.42 4.50 4.46

9

Garissa 4.46 4.6 4.53

Narok 4.18 4.4 4.29

Kericho 4.11 4.3 4.21

Bomet 4.13 4.4 4.27

Samburu 3.99 4.2 4.1

Kisii 4.16 4.35 4.26

Kiambu 4.25 4.40 4.33

Muranga 4.20 4.50 4.26

Mean

Overall

means

4.21 4.5 4.32

a) Quality of facilitation

The aspects of quality of facilitation consisted of time management within the session,

mastery of content, effective use of equipment and materials, effective use of activities,

achievement of objectives, participatory approach, and creativity of facilitator. These aspects

of quality of facilitation are discussed below in terms of strengths and weaknesses”:

Strengths observed

The objectives were achieved since it was observed that most principals were

enthusiastic to provide support in implementation and supervision of ICT integration

in their schools. They also agreed to set aside resources to acquire more infrastructure

and training teachers on ICT skills.

The facilitators had good mastery of content

There was evidence that participants understood the need for ICT integration and that

most schools can afford the resources to support ICT integration in their schools

Some reported to have witnessed lessons delivered using ICT tools as well teacher

demanding the procurement of tools and resources for ICT integration.

The principals resolved to support implementation of ICT integration in teaching and

learning in their schools.

Few participants had carried their laptops and many had smart phones which they

used during facilitation.

Weakness observed

The following weaknesses were observed;

In most schools, ICT integration is confined to the accounts section and processing of

exam results and report cards.

Lack of the necessary infrastructure and teachers lacking skills have affected the use

of ICT in most schools

A few participants had carried their laptops while others had smart phones which they

used during facilitation.

10

The session did not witness any challenges except the constraints of time making it

impossible to complete the content.

The hall also lacked internet connectivity so participants were made to observe rather

than interact themselves with the internet

Figure 3 below show that the quality of facilitation in all counties apart from Bungoma

were rated above 4.0 while usefulness of the unit and overall mean in all counties were

rated at or above 4.0 on a scale of 1-5. This indicates that the objectives were achieved.

This is attributed to the fact facilitators were well prepared and participants were also

ready to learn ICT integration. These therefore show that most of the principals gained

knowledge and skills on ICT integration. It was reported that they were ready to equip

their schools with ICT tools and materials for teaching and learning.

Figure 2: ICT Integration

2.3 Conclusion and recommendations

The following conclusions and recommendations were drawn from the session.

2.3.1Conclusion

School principals promised to support their teachers to undertake training in ICT

integration and to provide required infrastructure and digital content for teachers to

use.

Time management to be improved by the principals reporting for the workshop in

time and resist from first passing through their schools

Avail ICT tools and equipment to make the session on ICT Integration more practical

All future workshops to be held in a venue where the principals can access ICT and

internet

ICT integration to be more practical by principals accessing ICT tools and practice

on what they will have learnt

11

Increase the session time for ICT Integration

Capacity building teachers with the acquisition of the necessary ICTs

Participating in team teaching (ICT integration in their subjects)

They requested for more time on the session.

Schools to be equipped schools with ICT tools

Teachers to mobilize ICT tools either at school or at individual level so as to upgrade

their


The following recommendations were drawn:

Table 4: Recommendations on ICT integration

S/No Item Recommendation Responsibility Action by

date

1 Capacity build teachers on

ICT Integration

Train teachers on

ICT Integration

CEMASTEA Continuous

2 Teaching and learning ICT

Resources and tools

Equip schools with

ICT tools

CDEs,

CEMASTEA,

school

principals,

During

trainings

5 ICT Laboratories Provide ICT

Laboratories

School

principals

Immediately

6 Time management during

ICT training

Increase time of

session

CEMASTEA During

training

7 Induct HODs and

principals on ICT

Provide induction for

HODs and principals

on ICT

CEMASTEA Regularly

8 Lack of or Inadequate

internet connectivity

Provide internet School

principals

Always

12

2.3 UNIT 3: MANAGEMENT OF LESSON STUDY

2.3.1 Rationale

According to CEMASTEA, Situational Analysis Report (2009) practice of ASEI –

PDSI had not taken root in most schools despite the fact that teachers of mathematics

and science had been taken through the four cycles of INSET

In 2011, lesson study was introduced to institutionalise INSET with a view of

improving practice of ASEI – PDSI.

According to Lesson Study Report (CEMASTEA, 2015) some schools have

implemented lesson study as though it was actualization.

Some schools conducted lesson study in one day, others in two or three days.

Principals need to be sensitised on the process of Lesson Study and how to provide

and supervise it in a harmonised manner so that the practice of lesson study takes root

in schools.

2.3.2 Objectives

By the end of the session, participants should be able to:

(i) Understand lesson study process

(ii) Share feedback on the implementation of lesson study

(iii)Discuss and come up with the roles of principals in the implementation of lesson

study

2.3.3: Summary of presentation

Introduction

In most counties, participants were taken through the rationale, objectives, unit goal and

expected outcome. Emphasis was laid on why Lesson Study is an important approach in

enhancing continuous professional development for teachers at school level.

Introduction to the unit was done by trying to establish if the participants understood the

concept of Lesson Study.

Facilitation was conducted by staff from CEMASTEA in all the 18 counties. From the

county reports, it is observed that most of the facilitation was done through reflection,

exposition, group activities and discussions as well as interactive sharing of experiences.

Feedback on Practice of Lesson Study

In almost all the counties, facilitators allowed participants to share the extent to which

Lesson Study has been implemented in their respective counties. Feedback on the practice of

Lesson Study in some of the counties across the country was shared through the Secondary

Lesson Study M & E report of 2015.The focus was on how Planning and Implementation of

Lesson Study was carried out. Other aspects considered include attendance, lesson study

design and quality of facilitation.

13

Through exposition, the participants shared on the process of Lesson Study, the role of the

school administration in the planning and implementation of Lesson Study

Participants shared and discussed the strengths and challenges in the implementation of

Lesson Study in school.

Useful suggestions on how lesson study can be improved and entrenched in school were

shared.

The following are some of the highlights: On the topic of Lesson Study,

Majority of the principals observed that Lesson Study is an effective way for

Continuous Teacher Capacity Development (CTCD).

In general, principals promised to support lesson Study in their schools

Many Principals felt that Lesson Study is very relevant because it brings teachers

together to learn from one another and sharing good classroom practices

Lesson Study encourages creativity and innovation in the teaching of Mathematics

and Science in schools

For effective implementation of Lesson Study, participants saw the need to support

teachers in the acquisition of teaching and learning resources

In order for Lesson Study to be successful, there is need for principals to be

exemplary and act as role models in curriculum implementation.

There is need for change in attitude among teachers to allow fellow teachers to

observe their lessons.

ASEI-PDSI and Lesson Study principles are equally applicable in teaching and

learning of other subjects such as Languages and Humanities

2.3.4 Quality of facilitation

Table 6 provides a summary of the mean rating on quality of facilitation per County.

14

Table 5: Mean ratings on Lesson Study

County Quality of

facilitation

Usefulness

of topic

Mean rating

Bungoma 4.32 4.5 4.41

Homa Bay 4.7 4.2 4.45

Mandera 4.24 4.4 4.32

Nakuru 3.99 4.35 4.17

Lamu 4.65 4.7 4.7

Wajir 4.34 4.4 4.37

Muranga 3.99 4.25 4.12

Kakamega4.21 4.32 4.5 4.41

Makueni 4.23 4.4 4.315

Garissa 4.4 4.5 4.5

Narok 4.19 4.4 4.295

Kericho 4.03 4.4 4.215

Samburu 4.21 4.4 4.305

Kisii 4.19 4.45 4.32

Bomet 4.36 4.5 4.43

T/TAVETA 4.15 4.5 4.325

KIAMBU 4.21 4.4 4.305

Figure 3: Graph of Mean ratings on Lesson Study

15

From figure 4, above, it can be observed that most Counties had a mean rating of over 4.0

thus implying that the quality of facilitation was generally very good.

In all the counties, the usefulness of the topic was rated above 4.2. This indicates that the

participants considered the topic of Lesson Study relevant and useful in their professional

undertaking, both at individual and societal levels.

2.3.5 Conclusions

Participants enhanced their skills on management of Lesson Study and promised to

implement it in their respective schools.

Training objectives were met in almost all the counties

Participants appreciated their role in helping teachers embrace internal Lesson

observation in order to improve the teaching and learning process.


The following were the recommendations:

Table 6: Recommendations

ITEM RECOMMENDATION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINES

Resources More resources required to conduct

Lesson Study activities

Principal, CTCDC,

CEMASTEA

Continuous basis

Teachers Provide adequate number of

teachers

Involve more teachers in Lesson

Study

TSC, BOM.

CTCDC/CEMASTEA

As need arises

Time Session to be given adequate time

for participants to fully

conceptualize Lesson Study

CEMASTEA Review Workshop

Programme

immediately

2. 4 UNIT 4: PEDAGOGICAL LEADERSHIP

2.4.1 Rationale

Mathematics and science are expected to play a key role in contributing to the economic

development of Kenya (Vision 2030). ASEI-PDSI in lesson delivery can improve the

quality of teaching and learning to a great extent. Principals are expected to provide

effective Pedagogical leadership that will ensure quality curriculum implementation.

CEMASTEA;s Tracer Study (2015) findings indicated that teachers of science and

mathematics observed that school administration played a key role in enabling them

16

practice the ideals of ASEI-PDSI. Training Needs Assessment study (TNA)

(CEMASTEA 2015) found that about 46% of school principals have a challenge in

supervision of learner-centred lessons. Therefore there is need to sensitize principals on

their role in providing pedagogical leadership. The unit will endeavour to enhance

pedagogical leadership skills to model best practices in learner-centred lessons in order to

instil confidence in teachers.

2.4.2 Objectives

a) Share experiences in provision of pedagogic leadership in school

b) Suggest strategies for effective provision of pedagogic leadership

c) Appreciate your role in providing pedagogic leadership

2.4.3: Summary of Presentation

Introduction was done through exposition on the rationale of the unit, the goal, objectives and

the learning outcome.

Through a series of activities, participants were able to internalize pedagogic leadership

asstipulated below:

Understanding the terms Pedagogy and Pedagogic Leadership

Distinguishing and comparing Instructional and Pedagogic Leadership Sharing and

reflection on one`s individual leadership styles

Benefits of pedagogic leadership

Skills for pedagogic leadership

Classification of pedagogic skills: professional, interpersonal and organizational.

Roles of various school administrators in the provision of Pedagogic Leadership in

schools

Strategies for exercising pedagogic leadership

Collegial consultation

The following were the salient issues gathered under this topic:

Principals indicated that they will practice effective pedagogical leadership in their

schools.

The sharing on pedagogical leadership was an eye opener to most principals who

confessed that they hardly observed lessons nor encouraged lesson observation in

their schools

Generally, there was no sufficient time for participants to exhaustively discuss

pertinent issues on Pedagogical Leadership

Principals were keen to initiate and support activities that enhance the practice of

pedagogical leadership

Encourage mentorship programmes on pedagogical leadership

17

Table 7: Mean ratings for quality of facilitation and usefulness

PEDAGOGICAL

LEADERSHIP Column1 Column2 Column3

COUNTY

QUALITY OF

FACILITATION

USEFULNESS

OF TOPIC

MEAN

RATING

BUNGOMA 4.15 4.5 4.325

HOMA BAY 4.15 4.45 4.3

MANDERA 4.15 4.3 4.225

NAKURU 4.1 4.5 4.3

LAMU 4.79 4.7 4.745

WAJIR 4.39 4.5 4.445

MURANGA 3.86 4.3 4.08

KAKAMEGA 4.18 4.4 4.29

MAKUENI 4.24 4.4 4.32

GARISSA 4.44 4.6 4.52

NAROK 4.26 4.4 4.33

KERICHO 4.03 4.4 4.215

SAMBURU 4.25 4.4 4.325

KISII 4.18 4.45 4.315

VIHIGA 4.3 4.4 4.35

BOMET 4.32 4.5 4.41

T/TAVETA 4.13 4.3 4.215

KIAMBU 4.24 4.4 4.32

Overal mean 4.24 4.44 4.34

From Table 8, it is apparent that the quality of facilitation and usefulness of the topic were

very good with mean ratings of 4.24 and 4.44 respectively. This is an indication that the unit

objectives were achieved. Usefulness of the topic scored higher than quality of facilitation.

This shows that the participants appreciated the importance and relevance of the topic to their

professional work and application to societal needs.

18

Figure 6: Graph of mean ratings per County

2.4.4 Conclusion

The school principals required more sessions to formulate strategies of enhancing

pedagogical leadership.

Principals indicated willingness to work closely with Heads of Departments in order

to be in touch with how teachers are implementing Lesson Study.

More resources to be availed for institutionalization of Lesson Study.

There should be appropriate timing of Principals Workshop to enhance concentration

and active participation.

Exposure of participants to pedagogical Leadership enhances their skills on how, why

and when to supervise ASEI-PDSI practice.

19

Table 9: Recommendation

ITEM RECOMMENDATION RESPONSIBILY TIMELINES

Session

Duration

Due to its importance and relevance,

more time and sessions required

CEMASTEA Next training

2.5 UNIT 5: EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES IN SCHOOLS

2.5.1Rationale

From the Training Needs Assessment Report (CEMASTEA, 2015) it was obvious that school

principals do practice mobilization and guide resource use but rarely coordinate teachers to

mobilize resources since only 17% often do so.

Accordingly, 23% of them rarely encourage teachers to effectively use the resources and

11% rarely monitor effective use of teaching and learning resource materials. 23% rarely

ensure that there are adequate laboratories that are equipped with necessary resources.

Majority 32% rarely provide ICT tools for use in teaching and learning mathematics and

science subjects. It is therefore important that principals share experiences on appropriate

resource identification, prioritization, mobilization, usefulness and utilization for teaching

and learning.

Management of resources is different in various school types and therefore there is need for

principals to compare notes on how well resources can be managed. This school visit

provides participants with an opportunity to do this and take home good practices and

suggest areas of improvement.

2.5.2 Objectives

By the end of the session, participant were expected to;

1. Share experiences on identification, prioritization, mobilization and utilization of

resources for teaching and learning

2. Appreciate their role in efficient management of teaching and learning resources in

school

3. Appreciate the role of County INSET resource centers in improving the quality of


4. Background Share experiences on identification, prioritization, mobilization and

utilization of resources for teaching and learning

5. Appreciate their role in efficient management of teaching and learning resources in

school

6. Appreciate the role of County INSET resource centers in improving the quality of


20

2.5.3: Background information

This report is based on the workshop trainings that took place in the counties. A total of

3082 principals were trained. The data from the session reports were analyzed along the

aspects of quality of facilitation, the usefulness of the session in participants’ profession and

its ability to address societal needs.

2.5.4: Summary of presentations

The sessions started with exposition where participants were taken through the preliminaries

namely; rationale, goal, objectives, and learning outcomes. Participants were then asked to

discuss and share on the resources they would need if they were given an opportunity to

start a new school (one of the various activities in the module). The participants identified

funds, students, teaching and non-teaching staff, classrooms, offices, toilets, records,

teaching and learning materials, among others. Participants said that they give priority to

teaching and learning materials. Participants reported that they mobilize resources through

Government grants, funds-raising, asking parents to pay fees in kind, school fees, students’

bursaries, writing proposals to donors, among others. Generally the method used was that

of participatory approach where participants were actively involved in answering questions,

discussions and sharing of experiences. Exposition covered the following areas:

Mobilization of resources in schools

Prioritization and utilization of resources

Role of principals in resource management and utilization

Evaluation of the sessions

Participants were accorded an opportunity to evaluate the sessions along quality of

facilitation aspects and the usefulness of the topic in their day today professional activities

and also its usefulness in addressing societal needs. Evaluation was based on a 1-5 point

scale.

Below is the summary of analyses of their ratings.

2.5.4 Mean ratings for resource management

21

Figure 7: Mean ratings on resource management

2.5.5 Findings

From the chart above, it is observed that the quality of facilitation in the counties was rated

above 4 on a scale of 1 to 5 with Bomet County rated the highest at 4.38. The overall mean

rating was 4.23. For usefulness of the topic, all counties were rated above 4 on a scale of 1 to

5 with Lamu County rated the highest at 4.8. The average mean rating was 4.48.

Overall mean rating of resource management session was 4.36 on a scale of 1 to 5.

Strengths

Principals were defending their role in resource mobilization

The objectives were well achieved.

Challenges

Principals were complaining of lack of money to buy the resources

Time management should be improved

They are in large groups hence facilitation not effective.

Involve participants to more discussions on resources

Time constraint with participants very eager to leave

More time is needed for effective coverage.

Suggestions by principals for future improvement

Participants made the following suggestions to improve the future workshops:

a) The frequency of the workshops needs be annually and to be held when schools

are not in session

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00Graph of mean ratings on resource managment

Mean score for quality Mean score for usefulness Overall mean

22

b) Increase the number of facilitators to at least three instead of the current two to

reduce monotony due to overload

c) Session duration to be increased for quality comprehension of issues

d) Workshops training to be organized along sub-county basis to improve effective

interactions that would be occasioned by smaller number of participants per

training. The number of participants should not be more than fifty.

e) The number of the workshop days to be increased to five days.

f) Principals requested for more and frequent trainings to be provided since the

sessions were educative and relevant to what they do.

2.5.6 Conclusion

Participants appreciated the session judged by the manner they rated the quality of

facilitation. The objectives of the session were well achieved.

Participants gained useful knowledge in the topic of resource management and are

expected to transfer the knowledge in their respective schools. This high rating

indicates that participants enjoyed the session and considered it useful and relevant in

their professional undertaking.

The session went on well but one thing came out:-principals do not give priority to

teaching and learning resources

2.6. UNIT 6: SCHOOL VISIT, 2016

2.6.1Rationale

The function of a school manager is to manage the school and formulate policies that best

suit the needs of the school as well as the overall interests of the students. Hence, a school

manager should have a good understanding of the school itself as well as the trend of on-

going education programs. The management of resources is different in various school types

and therefore there is need for principals to compare notes on how well resources can be

managed. This school visit provides participants with an opportunity to do this and take

home good practices and suggest areas of improvement.

2.6.2 Summary of presentations

This unit discussed the activities involved during an excursion on selected schools. The

activities included observation of how the visited schools manage resources, handle

administrative issues, infrastructure and other contemporary issues that may affect teaching

and learning of mathematics and science subjects. Schools observed were selected based on

aspects of strength and on gender categories of girls, boys or mixed; boarding or day; newly

established or more than five year old. Other considerations for selection included; school

culture such as good performance in a particular subject or overall school performance,

cleanliness, leading in sports, or other extra-curricular activities including Education for

Sustainable Development (ESD).

23

Observation

That commitment and discipline improves the school mean grade

A lot of improvisation and innovation is necessary in all schools

Hardwork, sacrifice and teamwork are necessary ingredients for good performance

Principals indicated that they were going to implement what they had learnt from the

schools they visited.

Observing lessons brought them to the reality of how students are being taught and how

teachers can be supported to enhance learning

Principals learnt from the schools they visited

Strengths

Good arrangement in sourcing for the schools to be visited and availing and fueling of

the buses

Early arrival of the two school buses to be used

The facilitators joined the principals during the education tour

Principals learnt from the schools they visited

Challenges

A one day visit was not sufficient to give participants enough time to conduct the activity.

Two days would be efficient

In some counties, some participants did not tour the schools due tolate arrival

Lack of appropriate observation skills; skills that are crucial in supporting lesson study in

their schools.

The tour started late due to late arrival of participants and this made some of them not

tour the schools.

Too much time spent in one school

Time for discussion on the outcomes of the visits. There was very little time allocated for

participants to discuss on the outcomes of the visits since they were eager to go home

after the visits.

2.6.3 Conclusion

This session was timely as it helped principals to appreciate the differences in the schools

in terms of resource utilization, and the role played by pedagogic leadership in resource

management.

The principals appreciated the importance of involving stakeholders in all school matters

for ownership and support.

The session on school visits proved important to principals especially where they get to

observe different facilities in the school. Observing school facilities brought them to the

reality of how student’s environment supported to enhance learning.

24

Pparticipants commented positively remarks on the workshop as useful to their work and

many committed themselves to implement what they had learnt.

The activity was well coordinated and concluded

2.7 WELFARE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

2.7.1 Boarding and catering

Training was non-residential as participants had made arrangements for their own

accommodation.

Appropriate arrangement by the management for the participants and facilitators

during the holy month of Ramadhan were made.

The welfare of the participants was of high quality and those who requested for

special diet were well taken care of.

2.7.2 Management of the workshop by CTCDC members

The CTCDC outstandingly organized and managed the workshops. Members of the

CTCDC appreciated CEMASTEA for having taken the training to the counties and

for the provision of adequate funding.

A good arrangement between the CDE and the TSC county Director was observed,

where the CDE opened and the TSC County Director closed the workshops.

2.7.3 Conclusion

Most centres were well managed and CTCDC members were present to manage

administrative affairs though there is need for improvement

It was noted that there were communication issues in some counties where

participants did not get the invitation in good time.

CTCDC members should ensure that punctuality in attendance is observed to avoid

poor time management.

2.8: Overall evaluation of the workshop per unit

Table 8: Evaluation per unit

Topic ASEI

PDSI

practice

ICT

Integra

tion

Implementati

on of lesson

study

Pedagogical

leadership

Resource

Management

Overall

Mean

Rating 4.29 4.32 4.31 4.34 4.36 4.32

The overall training index of the workshop was rated at 4.32. This figure is obtained from

means. This clearly illustrate that the training objectives were achieved.

25

3.0 REFERENCES

CEMASTEA. (2015). Training Needs Assessment report for secondary schools

26

4.0 APPENDICES

4.1 Appendix 1: Training programme

Day Time Topic/Sub-topic Facilitator(s)

Day 1 08 30 – 09 00hrs Registration & Administrative Issues CEMASTEA /KESSHA

09 00 – 09 30hrs Training Guidelines & Objectives

Leveling of Expectations

CEMASTEA STAFF

09 30 – 10 30hrs Opening Ceremony CDE

10 30 – 11 00hrs Health Break – Tea/Coffee

11 00 – 13 00hrs Unit 1: Practice of ASEI-PDSI in the classroom –

participatory discussions, activities & sharing

CEMASTEA STAFF

13 00 – 14 00hrs Health Break – Lunch

14 00 – 16 00hrs Unit 2: ICT Integration in Teaching & Learning –

participatory discussions, activities & sharing

CEMASTEA STAFF

≥16 00hrs Self-Directed Activities


08 30 – 10 30hrs Unit 3: Management of Implementation of Lesson

Study at School – participatory discussions,

activities & sharing

CEMASTEA STAFF


11 00 – 13 00hrs Unit 4: Pedagogical Leadership – participatory

discussions, activities & sharing

CEMASTEA STAFF


14 00 – 16 00hrs Unit 5: Effective Resource Management in School

– participatory discussions, activities & sharing

CEMASTEA STAFF

≥ 16 00hrs Self-Directed Activities


08 30 – 13 00hrs Unit 6: School Visit CEMASTEA STAFF

/KESSHA/CDE/CDE-TSC


14 00 – 16 00hrs Discussions & Report writing CEMASTEA STAFF

/KESSHA/CDE/CDE-TSC

≥ 16 00hrs Self Directed Activities


27

Reporting on shool visit

08 30 – 10 30hrs Action Plan & Way Forward CEMASTEA STAFF


11 00 – 12 00hrs Sharing of Action Plans & Way Forward CEMASTEA STAFF

12 00 – 13 00hrs Closing Ceremony CDE-TSC


14 00 – 15 00hrs Announcements KESSHA/CDE/CDE-TSC

≥ 15 00hrs Self Directed Activities

28

For official use only

S/No.

4.2 Appendix II: Session Evaluation Tools

Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (CEMASTEA)

Date: .........................

SESSION EVALUATION FOR PRINCIPALS' WORKSHOP: DAY 1

Introduction

Today the following topics were covered: (1) Practice of ASEI-PDSI in the classroom, and (2) ICT integration

in teaching and learning. As a participant, you are required to evaluate the quality of facilitation and usefulness

of the topics facilitated using this tool. Please tick (√) or fill all blank spaces of this tool as appropriate

Section A: Background Information

1. Sex: Female [ ] Male [ ]

Section B: Quality of Facilitation

2. Table 1 contains aspects of facilitation of the session. Use the following rating scale to rate the quality of

each aspect of the session for the two topics facilitated. Rating scale: 5 - Very Good; 4 - Good; 3 - Fair; 2 -

Poor; 1 - Very Poor

Table 1

No. Aspects of facilitation of session Rating Remarks

Topic 1 Topic 2

a). Time management within the session

b). Effective use of equipment and materials

c). Effective use of activities

d). Participatory approach

e). Mastery of content

f). Creativity of facilitator(s)

g). Achievement of the objectives

Section C: Usefulness of the session

3. Table 2 contains areas of usefulness of the session. Use the following rating scale to rate each of the aspects

in the table. Rating scale: 5 - Very Useful, 4 - Useful; 3 - Somewhat useful; 2- a little useful; 1 - Not

useful

Table 2

No. Areas of usefulness of session Rating

Topic 1 Topic 2 Remarks

a). In relation to your profession

b). In relation to addressing societal needs

29


S/No.

4. Suggest areas for improvement

............................................................................................................


Date: .........................


Introduction

Today the following topics were covered: (3) Management of implementation of lesson study at school level,

(4) Pedagogical leadership and (5) Effective resource management in the school. As a participant, you are

required to evaluate the quality of facilitation and usefulness of the topics facilitated using this tool. Please tick

(√) or fill all blank spaces of this tool as appropriate





each aspect of the session for the two topics facilitated. Rating scale: 5 - Very Good; 4 - Good; 3 - Fair; 2 -

Poor; 1 - Very Poor

Table 1


Topic 3 Topic 4 Topic 5











useful

Table 2

No. Areas of usefulness of session Rating Remarks

Topic 3 Topic 4 Topic 5

a). In relation to your profession

30


S/No.

b). In relation to addressing societal needs

4. Suggest areas for improvement ............................................................................................... .............

...............................................................................................................................................................


Date: .........................


Introduction

Today you were taken through the following sessions: (6) School visit, and (7) Post-school visit sharing. As a

participant, you are required to give feedback on the experiences of the day in the space given below.

a) School visit

What I liked What I did not like

Suggest areas of improvement

b) Post-school visit sharing

What I liked What I did not like

Suggest areas of improvement

Lessons learnt: .........................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................................................

31


S/No.


Date: .........................


Introduction

Today the following topic was covered: (8) Action plan and Way forward. As a participant, you are required to

evaluate the quality of facilitation and usefulness of the topics covered using this tool. Please tick (√) or fill all

blank spaces of this tool as appropriate





each aspect of the session for the topic facilitated. Rating scale: 5 - Very Good; 4 - Good; 3 - Fair; 2 - Poor;

1 - Very Poor

Table 1


Topic 8











useful

Table 2

No. Areas of usefulness of session Rating Remarks

Topic 8

c). In relation to your profession

d). In relation to addressing societal needs

4. Suggest areas for improvement .................................................................................... ........................

...............................................................................................................................................................

32


S/No.

4.3 Appendix III: Overall Training/Workshop Evaluation Tool


Date….......……..

OVERALL TRAINING/WORKSHOP EVALUATION

Introduction

Evaluation of training/workshop is important because the information obtained is useful in the improvement of

future trainings/workshops. As a participant of this training/workshop, you are required to use this questionnaire

to evaluate all aspects of the training/workshop you have just undergone. The questionnaire has two sections,

Section A and section B. Please take a few minutes of your time and respond to all the questions in both

sections. Do not write your name anywhere on this questionnaire and feel free to give information you deem

appropriate.

Section A: Background information

1. Indicate type of training/workshop (e.g., Secondary INSET, Principals' Workshop, Workshop on Primary

INSET, HODs Workshop, Stakeholders' workshop, TCTP): ...................................

2. Name of INSET Centre/Venue: ........................................................................... ......................

3. Gender: Female [ ], Male [ ]

Section B: Overall aspects of Training Evaluation

Table 1 contains statements about the training/workshop you have attended. Please indicate your level of

agreement with statements by writing the number that best describes your level of agreement based on the

following Scale. Scale: 5 - Strongly Agree; 4 - Agree; 3 - Not Sure; 2 - Disagree; 1 - Strongly Disagree.

Table 1

No. Aspect Level of

agreement

4.

The objectives of the training were clearly explained

5. The training objectives were met

6. Individual participation and interaction with other

participants were encouraged

7. The topics covered were relevant to the course content

8. The content was well organized and easy to follow

9. The training materials provided were adequate and

relevant

10. This training experience will be helpful in my work

11. Trainers were knowledgeable about training content

33

No. Aspect Level of

agreement

12. Trainers were well prepared

13. Duration for training was sufficient

14. The timing of the training was appropriate

15. The training rooms and facilities were appropriate

16. Meals were of good quality, quantity and variety

17. Washrooms were clean, adequate and accessible

18. Accommodation facilities were appropriate

19. Suggest areas for improvement ............................................................................................... ...

....................................................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................

Thank you for sparing time to respond to this questionnaire

Documents

By CEMASTEA NOVEMBER 2016