sbtp report

7/27/2019 SBTP Report

1/21


2/21

2

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The project School Based Training Program

(SBTP) on Evaluation of Students Learning

Outcomes was conceptualized after a thorough and

careful analysis of the project proponent on theacademic achievements of the school. The project

proponent did a series of SUG tests and it came out

that one of the major problems of the school that

needed immediate solution was on the low academicachievement. One of the solutions was to conduct

the above-mentioned training. It was based on the

Decision Making Tool: Paired Comparison Analysis.


3/21

3

The Problem

One of the major problems of Osmea National High

School was on the low academic achievements of the

students. Based on the results of the 2004 National

Achievement Test (NAT), the average MPS was 51.38%

in the three learning areas tested (English, Math &

Science). In the 2004 Regional Achievement Test (RAT),

the school got an average MPS of 49.40%, which ranked

number 7 among the 12 schools in Samar Division which

were randomly tested. Looking at the 2005 NAT, the

school mean percentage score was 39.81%. Based on

the data above, it showed that the school was getting

poor academic performance.


4/21

4

The Project

The project Three day School Based

Training Program (SBTP) on Evaluation of

StudentsLearning Outcomes

was realized in

2006 to address the problem of the school on

the low academic achievement of the

students.


5/21

5

The Profile of the School

Osmea National High School is one of

the secondary schools in Samar Division. It

was founded in 1997 through the efforts of

the local government of Marabut, Samar.The school is located along the NationalHighway in Barangay Osmea, Marabut,

Samar which is about 400 meters from thebarangay proper. It occupies a land area of

2.99 hectares donated by the Unimasters

Conglomeration, Incorporated.


6/21

6

The Profile of the School

The school was administered by a

Teacher-In-Charge (TIC) with eight (8)

regular permanent teachers and six (6)provincial funded teachers. The school

has 11 catchment barangays. In the

school year 2005

2006, the studentspopulation was 432.


7/21

7

PHASE I

(Planning, Appraisal & Design)

PLANNINGAfter a thorough and careful analysis of the

problems of the school, the project proponent being

the TIC of the school, conducted a meeting with theteachers and the Parents Teachers Association

and agreed to come up with a School- Based

Training Program as one of the interventions on the

low academic achievements of the students. Theobjective of the said training was to equip teachers

with the knowledge and skills on the properassessment and evaluation of students learning

outcomes.


8/21

8

PHASE I


APPRAISAL

After the planning, it was determined by the project

proponent together with the teaching staff of the school that

the training was feasible and it went well as planned.

Below was the expenses incurred during the training:

Training Materials Php 675.00

Foods (snacks & lunch) 2,973.00

Honorarium of Resource Persons 2,000.00

Miscellaneous 340.00

TOTAL 5,988.00

Note: No registration fee was collected from the participants.


9/21

9

PHASE I


TimeDay 1

(January 8, 2006)

Day 2

(January 21, 2006)

Day 3

(January 22, 2006)

8:00 8:45 RegistrationTest Item Construction

Performance-Based

Assessment8:45 10:00 Opening Program

10:00 12:00Review of Blooms

Taxonomy

Workshop 2

Construction of Test ItemHolistic & Analytic Rubrics

12:00

1:00 LUNCH BREAK

1:00 3:00Preparation of Table of

SpecificationsTest Item Analysis

Workshop 4

Making of Holistic & Analytic

Rubrics

3:00 5:00Workshop 1

Preparation of TOS

Workshop 3

Test Item AnalysisEvaluation & Wrap-up

DESIGN

Below was the training design / matrix


10/21

10

PHASE II

(Selection, Approval & Control)

Selection & Approval

The Project proponent made a project

proposal together with its training design andit was submitted to the office of the schools

division superintendent for approval. The

project proposal was approved on January 2,2006 with the condition that the training will

be done on a Saturday and Sunday.


11/21

11

PHASE II

(Selection, Approval & Control)

ACTIVATIONIn order to realize the project, the project

proponent sought help from the Parents

Teachers Association (PTA) for the fundingneed. The PTA shouldered the whole amount

for the training. Resource persons were

invited to discuss the different topics. Theproject proponent being the TIC of the school

issued a school memorandum to ensure the

attendance of teachers in the training.


12/21

12

PHASE III

(Operation, Control & Handover)

OPERATION

The project proponent conducted

conference with teachers to organize differentworking committees. As stated in the training

matrix, the training workshop was done in

three days. The participants elected their

seminar officers to help facilitate the active

involvement and participation of the

participants.


13/21

13

PHASE III


CONTROL

The project proponent did the

supervision and control within three daysduring the training workshop. He made

sure that the participants actively

participated and submitted the requiredoutputs.


14/21

14

PHASE III


HANDOVER

After the training-workshop in

January 2006, the project proponent leftschool in April 2006 to finish his masters

degree. The project was handed-over to

the new school head for the continuedsupervision, monitoring and evaluation of

the project.


15/21


16/21


17/21

17

PICTORIALS


18/21

18

PICTORIALS


19/21

19

PICTORIALS


20/21

20

PICTORIALS


21/21

21

In every meaningful project undertaken

for the best of intentions, initiators and

prime movers usually encounterproblems. However, problems arise to

make one realize that in the

implementation of programs andprojects, seemingly insignificant details

should not be taken for granted.

sbtp report

Documents