evaluation of the brac training …c4d-and-education.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/9/6/6496020/...report:...

EVALUATION OF THE BRAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEFOR GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

FINAL REPORT

2007-2011

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBER

Miriam Bailey

Elham Gharji

Sataruddin Sediqi

October 25, 2010

Report: Evaluation BRAC Training programme for government Secondary school teachers

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Evaluation Team expresses its appreciation of the support received from the

members of the BRAC Education Programme in Afghanistan under the leadership of

Shahabuddin Ahmed. The Team is also very appreciative of the help its members

received from the regional personnel in Kabul City and Province, Balkh, Herat, Kapisa,

and Parwan.

The Team was also assisted in its deliberations by the BRAC Training and Resource

Centre (BTRC), in particular, by its members who conducted the training of Master

Trainers.

Special thanks are also due to all those who took the time to complete the questionnaires

at such short notice, and to all the educational personnel at the secondary/high school,

district, and provincial levels, all of whom took time to meet with the members of the

Evaluation Team.

The BRAC administrative personnel provided organizational and logistical support to the

Team very willingly, and the members are thankful.

The Evaluation Team offers its sincere thanks to the twelve members of Kabul University’s

Faculties of Science, Psychology and Educational Science, and Literature (English

Department) who helped to evaluate the BRAC training materials in English, Mathematics,

Chemistry and Biology. These academics gave of their time freely and generously, and

the Team is very grateful.

Without the support of all these people, the Evaluation Team could not have fulfilled its

evaluation mandate.

Miriam Bailey

Elham Gharji

Sataruddin Sediqi

October 25, 2010


ABBREVIATIONS

BTRC BRAC Training and Resource Centre

CIDA Canadian International Development Agency

DED District Education Director

MoE Ministry of Education

PED Provincial Education Director

SI Structured Interviews

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

TED Teacher Education Directorate, Ministry of Education


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements (ii)

Acronyms (iii)

Table of Contents (iv)

Executive Summary (v)

Chapter 1: Introduction 12

1.1 Background 12

1.2 Objectives of the Training Programme 12

1.3 Objectives of the Evaluation 13

1.4 Methodology and its Implementation 13

1.5 Field Visits 14

1.6 Limitations 15

1.7 Report 15

Chapter 2: Subject-Based Teacher Training Programme 16

2.1 Structure of BRAC Training Materials 16

2.2 Selection of Master Trainers and Teachers 17

(a) Master Trainers 17

(b) Teachers 17

2.3 University Consultation 17

Chapter 3: Research and Analysis 20

3.1 Interviews with Provincial, District, and Secondary/High School 20

Personnel

3.1.1 Topics and Issues Raised in the Interviews 20

3.1.2 Results of the Round Table Discussion with 22

Master Trainers in Mazar-e-Sharif

3.2 Major Findings and Analyses of the Surveys 25

3.2.1 Findings of the Master Trainers’ Questionnaire 25

3.2.2 Findings of the Teachers’ Questionnaire 30


Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations 46

4.1 Conclusion 46

4.2 Recommendations 48

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Master Trainers’ Questionnaire 50

Appendix 2: Teachers’ Questionnaire 53

Appendix 3: Questions asked in the two Questionnaires, and in the 57

Structured Interviews

Appendix 4: Groups/Persons Consulted 62


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 BACKGROUND

One of the critical goals of the Government of Afghanistan is the improvement of the

quality of, and the promotion of access to education. To that end, the Government

contracted with BRAC Afghanistan to implement The Girls’ Education Project, 2006 –

2010, subsequently extended to 2011. In January, 2007, in response to a need identified

by the Ministry of Education to improve significantly the quality of teaching and learning,

the BRAC Afghanistan Education Programme added a new component to the Girls’

Education Project, namely training for teachers in government secondary school in the

four subjects of English, Mathematics, Chemistry and Biology. At the end of 2007, the

preparation of training started in English and was introduced in 2008; Mathematics was

introduced in 2009 and Chemistry and Biology in 2010.

The objective of the training programme is to provide some 4,000 government secondary

school teachers in the four subject areas. By the end of September 2010, 3,137

government secondary teachers had received training; this total does not include the 857

teachers who received the Inset I course in teaching methodology given by BRAC but

withdrawn in early 2008 at the request of the Ministry of Education’s (MoE) Teacher

Education Directorate (TED).

Objectives of the Evaluation

The BRAC Teacher Training Programme, in addition to the Girls’ Education Project, ends

in 2011, and BRAC has to decide if it wishes to request the Canadian International

Development Agency (CIDA) for a continuation. To that end, BRAC decided to evaluate

the Teacher Training Programme to: assess the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of

the training in English, Mathematics, Chemistry and Biology; ascertain the achievements

of the training, the constraints, issues, and lessons learned; review the different elements

of the training design; verify the sustainability of the Programme; and recommend/suggest

ways and means for improving the overall subject-based training. BRAC created a team

of four to carry out the evaluation.

Methodology and Implementation

The Evaluation Team started by reviewing the BRAC Afghanistan documentation on the

training programme. Following this, the Team decided to use both quantitative and

qualitative research approaches to do the primary research on the teacher training

programme. The quantitative component consists of a separate survey of Teachers and

Master Trainers in all ten Provinces where the training is given; and the qualitative

component consists of face-to-face interviews with provincial and district education

authorities, school Principals, Headmasters and Headmistresses, and a dedicated Round

Table discussion with Master Trainers. The qualitative component was confined to Kabul

City and Province, and the Provinces of Balkh, Kapisa, Parwan, and Herat.


The methodology for this research was developed with the intention of involving all

stakeholders, participants and beneficiaries in order to get a comprehensive perspective

on BRAC’s training programme. The Evaluation Team also considered it essential to

consult subject-specific experts as well as educational psychologists on the BRAC’s

subject materials and teaching methodologies. Twelve academic from Kabul University

kindly agreed to examine the relevance of the materials for the four subjects and ensure

that the materials complement the government textbooks used in schools for these

subjects. The educational psychologists examined the teaching methodologies to ensure

that they, too, were relevant to the needs of students and complement the materials and

subject content being taught.

Limitations

The Team had 19 days to complete the evaluation. In that time, the team members had to

survey a sample of Teachers and Master Trainers in the ten Provinces where the training

is being given, and conduct face-to-face interviews with education stakeholders in the six

locations given above. The Evaluation Team would prefer to have had somewhat longer

questionnaires and more detailed structured field interviews. The Team also recognizes

that some of the information gathered in the field interviews lacks specificity; fortunately

the more precise information garnered from the questionnaires helps to balance this

situation.

1 EXAMINATION of the TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMME

The BRAC Training and Resource Centre (BTRC) trained a group of teachers, recruited

by means of a competency-based examination, and based on the results, selected by the

Provincial Education Directors (PED) and then recommended to BTRC for training as

Master Trainers, who would then train teachers in the four subject areas. In total, BRAC

trained 270 Master Trainers. Teachers were selected for training by School Principals,

based on both the school’s and the individual teacher’s needs.

The Evaluation Team examined the structure of the training programme, the materials

used by Master Trainers, and the teaching methodologies used to train the teachers. The

Team found neither gaps nor problems. Since the members are not subject specialists

nor very experienced in teacher education and training, they needed to verify their

analysis; thus they went to the University of Kabul for an expert opinion, and subsequently

asked teachers and Master Trainers by means of the questionnaires and field education

stakeholders during the scheduled interviews about the appropriateness of the BRAC

materials and teaching methodologies.

The university review indicates that there are no substantive suggestions for change in the

BRAC materials. The university suggestions, however, should undoubtedly help to

improve both the materials and, as a consequence, the subject-based training of

secondary school teachers. The suggestions from the field interviews, again not

substantive, are given below in the analyses of both the qualitative and quantitative

research.


3 RESEARCH and ANALYSES

The analysis of the research findings is divided into two sections – the qualitative and

quantitative; the former covers the structured interviews with the field education

stakeholders, and the other deals with the results of the two survey questionnaires

completed by Master Trainers and teachers respectively.

3.1 Analysis of the Interviews of Provincial, District, and Secondary/High School

Personnel; and inclusion of Suggestions made at the Round Table for Master

Trainers

The structured interviews with the educational personnel in Kabul City and Province, and

the other Provinces of Balkh, Herat, Kapisa, and Parwan were examined, summarized,

and analyzed for response patterns that included general comments, criticisms, support

and recommendations. The following, in order of importance, reflect the major

topics/issues raised. Except for the last item, the frequency by which the topic/issue was

raised and its mention by the three groups constitutes what is meant by importance.

a. Each PED, District Education Director (DED), Principal/Headmistress/Headmaster and

their teacher representatives present agreed that the training has been, and continues to

be a success, and that the training should be continued and expanded for teachers in all

Provinces, and include additional subjects such as Religious Studies.

b. There was praise for the student-centered teaching methodologies that form the basis

of each training. In some cases, this teaching methodology was completely new to

teachers. There was general agreement that students became more interested in the

subject and their performance benefited as a result of the use by the trained teachers of

the student-oriented methodology. This indicates that the subject-based training is both

effective and relevant to the needs of secondary schools and their teachers.

c. There was general agreement that the training in each subject was too concentrated in

the time allocated. While no suggestion was made for additional time, the impression

given was for an extra week.

d. There is need for a follow-up component to be given by Master Trainers in each subject

training to ensure that the trained teachers receive maximum benefit from the training.

e. While trained teachers visit the classes of their colleagues, and share materials and

teaching methodologies with them, there is no formal mechanism in the school to facilitate

this sharing.

f. Laboratory assistants must be trained; and Science teachers need practical exposure to

the new training materials and equipment so that they can lead and involve students in

practical work, such as experiments.

g. Since many teachers teach at both the secondary and high school levels, it was

suggested that the BRAC training be extended to include high school teachers.


h. There are 270 Master Trainers among the ten Provinces. There was agreement that

the MTs constitute a valuable resource that should be used for the benefit of teaching and

learning on a national level. An expanded use of MTs would be a policy decision by the

MoE’s TED. Were a policy developed for the use of the MTs as an ongoing training

resource, the sustainability of the BRAC training would be strengthened.

i. In one district, concern was expressed about the lack of coordination between the NGOs

that provide training. As a result, there is little transferability among training programmes

given by the different NGOs. The question was raised as to the possibility of BRAC taking

the lead on this topic and approaching the TED to implement a coordination mechanism

among NGOs so that their training programmes can be streamlined. This would allow for

collaboration between NGOs that would promote the development of coherent, structurally

standardized training packages that could be shared and implemented by a number of

training bodies. The Evaluation Team considered this last item to be sufficiently important

as to be included in the interview analysis.

With the exception of these last two items, the others manifested themselves in the

analysis of the Master Trainer and Teacher questionnaires.

At the Round Table Discussion with Master Trainers, it was suggested that:

Master Trainers be hired by the PED during the holiday period to train new

teachers who had been given permits by the PED to teach in government schools;

The sharing of subject knowledge and teaching methodologies by the trained

teachers with their colleagues be formalized by making the sharing part of the

commitment of trainees who agree to take part in training.

BRAC training be extended to include high schools since many teachers teach at

both levels.

3.2 Analysis of the Master Trainers and Teachers Questionnaires

The survey results for the teachers and Master Trainers indicate that the programme has

been largely successful.. The effectiveness of the programme was tested in both Teachers

and Master Trainers’ questionnaires through asking different questions. The success of

the programme was also tested for its relevance and sustainability

Master Trainers’ Questionnaire

The training helped the trainees to improve their skills and knowledge significantly. Over

46% of the Master Trainers said that the trainees improved significantly after they received

the training. Over 49% said the trainees improved somewhat. The Master Trainers knew

the results of the training through conducting a pre and post-training examinations. The

survey also found that almost all trainees understood the training materials very well

(73.9%), and fairly well (23.3%) although the Master Trainers found majority of the

trainees to have difficulties with grasping new concepts and different components of the


curriculum (23.2%)) and getting used to the new methodology (55.1%). However, the

methodology used in the training was assessed by the Master Trainers as appropriate and

effective in improving trainees’ performance.

The survey showed that some trainees did not have the necessary background to benefit

from the training. The Master Trainers’ assessment of the trainees varied in this regard.

Over 15% of the Master Trainers believed all had the necessary background, but 46.4%

believed majority did. But overall, few of the Master Trainers (10.1%) believed that a small

number of trainees had the necessary background to benefit from the training. The

teachers’ survey also established that some teachers (15%) did not teach the subjects in

which they received the training; however, most trainees did have the background to

benefit from the training.

The survey of the Master Trainers suggested that there was no major problem with

training materials, method, and design of the course. The majority of the Master Trainers

(42%) thought that the training design was fine. However, a significant number (23.2%)

suggested that the training period should be made longer, and (21.7%) suggested that the

training should be made more practical/experimental. The latter issue was often raised by

the teachers, headmasters and other education stakeholders during the Evaluation

Team’s field visits.

Teachers’ Questionnaire

The survey of the teachers found that the training materials were relevant to the

government textbooks used in the schools. The majority (65.2%) of the trainee teachers

surveyed thought that all training materials were relevant to the textbooks though the

responses varied from one teacher to another within the remaining percentages.

An important point the survey revealed was the effectiveness of the BRAC programme in

giving the teachers the teaching methods necessary to improve students’ learning. Over

97% of the teachers said that the teaching methods improved the students’ confidence in

being able to learn new concepts and difficult materials. The teaching methodology also

helped to improve students’ overall performance and examination results in the subjects in

which their teachers received the trainings. Over 56% of the teachers surveyed evaluated

their students’ performance as having generally improved and 41.1% said that their

students’ performance has significantly improved.

With regard to the question of sustainability, the results of the teachers’ survey indicate

that most (61.1%) of trained teachers share their knowledge with colleagues who did not

receive the training; however, no formal mechanism for sharing exists. Sharing is critical

for the sustainability of the program and its overall impact on the educational environment

in Afghanistan.

The surveys of the Master Trainers and the Teachers demonstrate that BRAC’s Subject-

based Teacher Training Program for government secondary schools has generally been

effective and relevant. However, its sustainability depends largely on the continuation of


the programme. In order to make it more effective and sustainable, certain issues shall be

considered to improve and enhance the programme for further training. Those issues

concern the length of the training, its expansion and focus, and coordination with other

NGOs involved in the field of education and Teacher Training in Afghanistan.

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of specific recommendations are made for improving the effectiveness and

relevance of the programme. It was recommended that:

the time for the subject-based Teacher Training Programme be lengthened by at

least a week.

the programme be continued and include more subjects;

BRAC suggest to the DEDs that, in collaboration with school Principals, they

establish a formal mechanism, whereby trained teachers can share their

experiences, knowledge, materials, and teaching methodologies with colleagues.

BRAC develop an initiative for the MoE to prepare a plan to use the Master

Trainers trained by BRAC for the future training of teachers across Afghanistan.

the teacher training programme shall go beyond the government Secondary

School level to include teachers at the High School level.

at the national level, the NGOs working in the field of providing training to teachers

across Afghanistan be coordinated in order that their training programmes be

planned to complement each another.


CHAPTER 1

1.1 BACKGROUND

A critical goal of the Government of Afghanistan is to improve the quality of, and promote

equitable access to education. To that end, the Government contracted with BRAC

Afghanistan to implement The Girls’ Education Project, 2006 – 2010, subsequently

extended to 2011; this programme is supported by CIDA. More specifically, the Ministry of

Education has expressed “a commitment to expand access to education, increase

enrolment and retention rates, strengthen the curriculum and improve the quality of

teachers” (Project Implementation Plan Draft, prepared by BRAC, p. 2).

In January 2007, in response to a need identified by the Ministry of Education to improve

significantly the quality of teaching and learning, the BRAC Afghanistan Education

Programme added a new component to the Girls Education Project, which BRAC was

administering. This component would provide teaching methodologies and specific

subject-based training in English, Mathematics, and Science (Chemistry and Biology) to

teachers in government secondary schools. So that BRAC could maintain the budget

parameters of the Project, this training would be given only to a provincially representative

group of Grades 6 -9 teachers.

The training commenced in 2007 with an Inset I course in teaching methodologies using

TED materials. In 2008, the Ministry of Educations’ Teacher Education Directorate (TED)

decided that subject-based training was more critical; thus this component was ended. In

mid-July 2008, training in English was prepared by BRAC and given during the remainder

of 2008; in 2009, training in Mathematics was introduced; and in 2010, training in

Chemistry and Biology.

By the end of September 2010, 3,137 government secondary teachers had received

training in English, Mathematics, Chemistry and Biology; this figure does not include the

857 teachers who received the Inset I methodologies training in 2007/8. BRAC

Afghanistan has now exceeded its target of 4,000 teachers since the training is on going.

As a consequence, BRAC considers that this amount of training over the three-year period

provides a valid and reliable basis for evaluating this programme. The Girls Education

Project ends in December 2011, and BRAC has to decide if it wishes to request CIDA for

its continuation.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE TRAINING PROGRAMME for GOVERNMENT

SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

The objective of this training component, developed in 2008, was to provide training to

some 4,000 government secondary school teachers in subject based training in English,

Mathematics, Sciences (Chemistry and Biology) and Computers. Computer training was

subsequently dropped because most schools do not have computers.


1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

The following objectives for the evaluation were outlined in the Terms of Reference

prepared by BRAC Afghanistan. These are to:

assess the efficiency (feasibility of delivery), effectiveness (contribution to

improvement of teaching and learning) and relevance of the training in English,

Mathematics, Chemistry and Biology;

ascertain the achievements (intended and unintended) of the training, the

constraints, critical issues identified during the training, and lessons learned;

outline the areas for improving the training for future delivery;

review the different elements of the training design – training approaches; teaching

methods; course objectives, content and materials; verify the sustainability of, and

education stakeholder commitment to the Programme; and subsequent sharing of

subject knowledge and acquired teaching skills by trainees to teacher colleagues;

recommend/suggest ways and means for improving the overall subject-based

training.

1.4 METHODOLOGY and its IMPLEMENTATION

The Evaluation Team’s first task was to review BRAC documentation on the training

programme; this the Team did.

The Evaluation Team decided to use both quantitative and qualitative research

approaches to do the primary research on BRAC’s Subject Based Teacher Training

Programme in nine of out ten provinces of Afghanistan where BRAC conducts the

trainings. These provinces are Balkh, Kabul, Kapisa, Parwan, Herat, Samangan,

Nangarhar, Kandahar, and Laghman. The last four provinces were not visited by the

evaluation team due to time-limitation and security considerations. However, all are

included in the survey research. The research methods include a separate survey of

Teachers and Master Trainers, face-face-interviews with provincial and district education

authorities i.e. PED and DEDs, face-face interview with school Principals, Headmasters

and Headmistresses, and a Round Table discussion with Master Trainers in Mazar-e-

Sharif.

A sample of 500 out of the 3137 teachers, trained by the end of September 2010, was

planned in the Teachers’ Survey to which a total number of 414 teachers responded. This

makes over 13% of the whole population which is generally a representative figure. A

number of the questionnaires done in Nangarhar province were suspected to have been

falsely done and, therefore, were excluded from the final analysis. A survey questionnaire

of 69 out of 270 Master Trainers trained by BRAC to conduct trainings in the province was

successfully completed in all 10 provinces. The sampling strategy for the survey

questionnaires followed convenient sampling strategy, meaning that whoever, within the

research population, was accessed was asked to fill in the questionnaires. The

questionnaires were usually sent to the schools where BRAC-trained teachers were


teaching. Then it was distributed and collected by the school administration. It should be

admitted that this sampling strategy may be problematic in terms of objectivity and even

confidentiality because BRAC staff as well as the school administration knew the

respondents and interact with them directly in most cases. However, BRAC was advised

by the Team to do its best to ensure the confidentiality of the responses and diversity of

the respondents. The results of the questionnaires were analysed by the Evaluation

Team back in Kabul. The breakdown of the analysis of the questionnaires as well as the

examination of the structured interviews were subsequently checked against efficiency

and effectiveness, relevance, sustainability, and education stakeholder commitment.

As for the face-to-face interview, the Evaluation Team met with a total of 14 Principals,

Headmasters, and Headmistress in five provinces visited by the Team. The Team talked

with 4 PEDs or their deputies and 10 DEDs. The interviews with each of the persons

visited lasted around one hour or longer and involved discussion of the questions, which

were asked to all three interview categories. In addition, in order to get the views of MTs

directly, a Round Table discussion was organized in Mazar-e-Sharif, at which eight Master

Trainers and one Headmistress responded to three questions about the training

programme, suggested ways and strategies to improve the training, and made

recommendations especially on how the Master Trainers could be best used in the

Provinces.

The methodology for this research was developed with the intention to involve all

stakeholders, participants and beneficiaries in order to get a comprehensive perspective

on BRAC’s training programme. Although there are some province-specific discrepancies

in terms of the number of persons involved in this research phase of the evaluation, the

discrepancies are not significant to affect the overall research output.

The Team also considered it essential to consult subject-specific experts as well as

educational psychologists on the BRAC’s subject materials and teaching methodologies.

To that end, twelve academics from Kabul University kindly agreed to examine the

relevance of the BRAC materials for the four subjects of English, Math, Chemistry and

Biology and ensure that the materials complement the government textbooks in the four

subjects. The university Educational psychologists examined the teaching methodologies

to ensure that they, too, were relevant to the needs of students and complement the

materials and subject content being taught.

1.5 FIELD VISITS

The Evaluation Team and between October 9 and 16, went to the field to ascertain the

effectiveness of the training programme. Time restrictions did not allow for the Team to

visit all ten Provinces. So a representative sample was selected as follows: Kabul City

and Province, Balkh, Herat, Kapisa, and Parwan. The three evaluators travelled to the six

locations and interviewed the Deputy to the City Education Director of Kabul, Provincial

Education Directors (PED) or their deputies, District Education Directors (DED), and

Principals/Headmistresses/Headmasters in Kabul City and in the five Provinces. In

Mazar-e-Sharif, a Round Table discussion was held with eight Master Trainers and one


Headmistress who was closely involved with the training. The Round Table discussion

was the only dedicated meeting with Master Trainers.

1.6 LIMITATIONS

The Evaluation Team had 19 days to complete the evaluation. The Team’s decision to

survey a representative sample of teachers and Master Trainers and interview education

stakeholders in the field resulted in a very tight schedule, particularly given the difficult

travel and security conditions. The Team had some ten days to develop the

questionnaires, have them delivered across the country to all participating Provinces,

completed and returned for analysis; it was testimony to BRAC’s logistical expertise,

placed at the Team’s disposal that made this task possible. The Team would prefer to

have had somewhat longer questionnaires and more detailed structured field interviews;

this would have required a full month to complete. The Team recognizes that some of the

information gathered in the field interviews lacks specificity; fortunately, the more precise

information garnered from the questionnaires helps to balance this situation.

1.7 REPORT

In addition to this introductory chapter, the report contains the following: Chapter 2 on the

training programme itself; Chapter 3 on the research undertaken – field visits, and Master

Trainer and Teacher Questionnaires, and their analyses; and Chapter 4 on conclusions

and recommendations.


CHAPTER 2: SUBJECT-BASED TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMME

The subject-based training programme for government secondary education teachers

started in late 2008 with training in English. English was continued in 2009, followed also

in 2009 with Mathematics, and by Science – Chemistry and Biology in 2010. These four

subjects form the basis of the training programme.

As previously noted, the programme is given in 10 Provinces namely, Kabul City and

Province, Parwan, Kapisa, Ningarhar, Laghman, Samangan, Balkh, Jawzjan, Herat, and

Kandahar. The training time for teachers in each subject is: 13 days for English, and 14

days each for Mathematics, Chemistry and Biology. For the training of Master Trainers,

the duration of training is 16 days for English, and 17 days each for Mathematics,

Chemistry and Biology.

2.1 Structure of BRAC Training Materials

The training materials were tailored to reflect and complement the contents of the

government text books in the four subjects. Student-oriented teaching methodologies that

match the course content of each subject form an important and integral component of the

training programme.

BRAC contracted with a group of national and international subject specials to develop

training materials and teaching technologies for each of the four subjects. The completed

materials were subsequently submitted to the Ministry of Education’s Teacher Education

Directorate (TED) for approval; this was subsequently given.

The materials used by Master Trainers to train teachers contain the following components:

the training objectives for the particular subject and the schedule of training; basic subject

content; materials needed to teach the subject; teaching and learning methodology;

definition and major components of a lesson plan; checklist for an effective lesson plan;

simple lesson plan; and evaluation of students.

The Master Trainers, themselves, are trained by the BRAC Training and Resource Centre

(BTRC). In addition to the above training components for the teachers, the following are

included in the training of Master Trainers: pre- and post-testing, observation and

feedback, handling difficult situations, role of facilitation, effective discussion leadership,

participatory teaching methods, use of worksheets, and expected solution of problems.

The Evaluation Team examined all the training materials and found neither gaps nor

problems. However, the members are neither subject specialists nor very experienced in

teacher education and training. Thus, as shown below, they went to the University of

Kabul for advice; and subsequently asked teachers and Master Trainers about the BRAC

materials in the questionnaires (see the following chapter) as well as field education

stakeholders about the appropriateness of the BRAC materials and training

methodologies.


2.2 Selection of Master Trainers and Teachers

BRAC Education Programme’s personnel worked closely with the BTRC and the

Provincial and district authorities on the selection of Master Trainers and Teachers for

training in the four subjects. The selection process is outlined as follows.

(a) Master Trainers

The Master Trainers were selected under the leadership of the PED. Applications were

invited for the subject-based positions, and all applicants sat a competency-based

competitive examination. Those with the best results went for approval to the PED who

made a selection, which was then submitted to the BTRC for final selection and training.

In most cases, those selected were very competent teachers in their subject at the

secondary/high school level.

The Master Trainers were trained, each one in his/her subject area, by specialists at the

BRAC Training and Resource Centre (BTRC) and the training centered around the BRAC

materials and the government textbooks for each subject.

On completion of their assignments on the training of teachers, these Master Trainers

return to their individual secondary/high school. Later in this report, there will be a

discussion on the possible use of Master Trainers as a long-term training resource which,

according to education stakeholders, is badly needed, both on district and provincial

levels, for ongoing teacher training.

(b) Teachers

Government Secondary/High School Principals/Headmistresses/Headmasters play a

critical role in the selection of teachers for training in the four subject areas. The school

administration considers two issues: the needs of the school and those of the teachers.

The school’s final selection is submitted to the DED for approval.

One of the interesting issues, outlined in the next chapter, concerns the teachers who

have received training. To extend more widely the benefit of the trained teachers’ new

knowledge and expertise, these are expected to share their teaching materials, and help

colleagues with teaching and learning concerns. The problem is that, in most cases, there

is no structure by which teachers can do this. In some secondary/high schools, however,

the Principal designates the twice-monthly Teachers’ Meetings as the place for knowledge

and materials sharing.

2.3 University Consultation

Given that the BRAC materials, prepared by specialists in each subject area, were

approved by the Ministry of Education’s TED, it was obvious to the Evaluation Team that

BRAC has met the MoE’s overall requirements, and that, in particular, the BRAC materials

complement the content of each chapter in the government texts for each of the four

subjects.


The training of Master Trainers and Teachers, based on the BRAC materials, has been in

operation for three years. The Evaluation Team felt that it would be useful to re-examine

the materials to ascertain if any changes needed to be made to enhance or modify the

materials following a period of teacher training.

As mentioned, the three members of the Evaluation Team are not specialists in this field;

thus, they decided to ask an external body to comment on the subject content matter,

related materials and methodologies, and to recommend, if and where necessary, any

modifications or changes that would improve the overall training programme delivered by

the Master Trainers.

It was the Team’s good fortune that one of its members is a faculty member of Kabul

University. Twelve of his colleagues in the Faculties of Science, Literature (English), and

Education and Educational Psychology generously gave of their time to examine the four

packages of materials, contrast them to the government textbooks, and make any

comments and suggestions the specialists considered relevant to the improvement of the

BRAC training.

The following are the comments and suggestions made by the university specialists.

Biology: There is a logical relationship between the training materials and the

government textbook. The BRAC materials are good, and the teaching methodology also.

One weakness was identified in relation to terminology; some of the Latin biological names

are missing.

With regard to the time allotment for the different components of the training, the following

suggestions were made. The time needed for the delivery is 24 days ideally, and should

be organized as follows:

First week: Trainer teaches methodology only;

Second week: cell and other components;

Third week: Blood system;

Fourth week: Bone structure, breathing and eating systems.

Chemistry: There is a relationship between the Grade 6 – 9 textbook and the

BRAC materials. There are some problems, however. The definition of the only radical

concept in chemistry is incorrect in both the textbook and BRAC materials. The new

definition needs to replace the old one. Furthermore, the chapter in the BRAC materials

on the atom structure should come before the chapter on the chemical relationship

between Reduction and Occupation. Also, visual materials need expansion. There is a

need to train lab technicians. Time for training is sufficient.

Mathematics: Here again, there is a logical relationship between the training

materials and the government textbook. While the teaching methodology is important,


more emphasis needs to be given to teaching the subject content. The course design is

good. The time allocated to the training is sufficient.

English: There is a good relationship between the BRAC materials and the

government textbook. The teaching methodology is good, and the time allocation is

sufficient for the Master Trainer to cover the training adequately. There is need, however,

for a regular follow-up programme in the year following the training to be given by Master

Teachers so that the teachers can have their problems addressed, and have their teaching

methodology checked by the MTs.

Teaching Methodologies: Faculty members of Psychology and Education

reviewed the teaching methodologies and student-centered strategies. The four reviewers

stated that there was a good material relationship between the BRAC content and

methodologies and the BRAC materials. There are relevant methodologies for every

concept. Each concept has a good objective design. It was suggested that the time

allotment for each training be extended; the academics did not specify the additional

required time. Finally, they suggested that BRAC consider adding, if resources permit,

two subjects that all teachers being trained should take, namely, Educational Psychology,

and Student Evaluation.

This university review, in general, indicates that there are no substantive suggestions for

change to the BRAC materials. Subject objectives, content and methodologies are

satisfactory. Consequently, there appears to be no serious issues that would result in any

lessons to be learned. The university suggestions, however, should undoubtedly help to

improve both the materials and, as a consequence, the subject based training of

secondary school teachers.

In the following chapter, the comments and suggestions received from the field interviews

and two questionnaires are given.


CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH and ANALYSES

The Evaluation Team divided their investigation of the BRAC Training Programme into two

main tasks, one qualitative (structured interviews) and the other quantitative

(questionnaires); the first, a structured face-to-face interview of the government education

stakeholders at the provincial, district, and school personnel levels; and the second, a

survey by questionnaire, one sent to Master Teachers and the other to Teachers who

have received training to be completed by them and returned to the Team. The questions

asked of education stakeholders in the structured interviews, as well as the questions to

each of the Master Trainers and Teachers are given in Appendix 3.

Details and findings of the two pieces of research are given below.

3.1 Interviews of Provincial, District, and Secondary/High School Personnel

The structured interviews with the educational personnel in Kabul City and Province, and

the other Provinces of Balkh, Herat, Kapisa, and Parwan were examined, summarized,

and analyzed for response patterns that included general comments, criticisms, support,

and recommendations.

The Evaluation Team witnessed, firsthand, the commitment of the education stakeholders

at the three levels; these groups are fully supportive of the Programme, and would like it

expanded to a national level.

The information gathered from the three categories of PEDs, DEDs, and

Principals/Headmistresses/Headmasters together with some of their teachers was

summarized for each category; a table was prepared for each category’s summary and the

three tables are given in the following pages.

3.1.1. Topics and Issues Raised in the Interviews

The following, in order of importance, reflect the major topics/issues raised in the

combined categories. The frequency by which the topic/issue was raised and its mention

by the three groups constitutes what is meant by importance.

a. Each and every PED, DED, Principal/Headmistress/Headmaster and their teacher

representatives present agreed that the training has been a success, and that the

training should be continued and expanded to reach teachers in all Provinces, and

include additional subjects such as Religious Studies.

b. In each of the three categories, there was praise for the student-centered teaching

methodologies that form the basis of each training. In some cases, this teaching

method was completely new to teachers. Master Trainers (MT) use this approach

when training, and the trained teachers have adopted it. There was general

agreement that students, in turn, became more interested in the subject and their

performance benefited as a result of the use by teachers of the student-oriented

methodology. Thus, teaching and learning has improved in the classes taught by


the BRAC trained teachers. This suggests that the subject-based training is both

effective and relevant to the needs of secondary/high schools and their teachers.

c. Among each of the three categories, there was general agreement that the training

in each subject was too concentrated in the time allotted - 13 full days for English,

and 14 for each of Math and the two Science subjects. While no suggestion was

made for the amount of extra time needed, the impression given was for a week.

d. Again in each category, a need for a follow-up component to each training was

identified. It was considered that, to ensure maximum benefit of the training, it was

important for short refresher sessions to be held by MTs.

It is interesting to note that BRAC itself has identified this need, and has developed

a plan for refresher training in the four subject areas during 2010/11.

e. While trained teachers visit the classes of other teachers to help them, share

materials and teaching methodologies with their colleagues, there is no formal

mechanism in the school to facilitate this assistance and sharing of materials.

f. There are 270 trained Master Trainers among the ten Provinces. When they have

completed their training programme, they return to their individual permanent

teaching positions. There was agreement among the three categories that the

MTs constitute a very valuable resource that should be used for the benefit of

teaching and learning on a national level. It was understood that an expanded use

of MTs would be a policy issue decided at the Ministry of Education’s Teacher

Education Directorate. Were a policy developed for the use of the MTs as an

ongoing training resource, this would strengthen the sustainability of the training.

g. The need for laboratory training was also raised at each category level. Science

teachers need training in the use of both new lab equipment and related materials.

Some school Heads raised the issue of teacher familiarity with the conducting of

experiments; many teachers are not confident in demonstrating and involving the

students in the use of chemicals and specialized equipment. In some cases, it was

suggested that the training was somewhat theoretical. Furthermore, in some

districts where new lab equipment was purchased, it is not being used because

teachers, and lab assistants, where they exist, do not know how to use it.

It needs to be noted that the BRAC training in Chemistry and Biology started only

in 2010. BRAC is aware that the training of lab assistants in included in the

requirements of the training programme; since the training of MTs and teachers

were considered a priority, BRAC has yet to address the training of lab assistants.

h. In many schools, teachers teach at both the secondary and high school levels. As

a consequence, it was considered that the training should go beyond the

secondary level and include high school teachers.


i. It was suggested, during several interviews, that all training should be held during

the winter holiday season (summer in Kandahar, Ningarhar, Laghman). On most

instances, the training has been held during holiday time, but, on some occasions,

it could only be scheduled during school time.

j. The structured interviews indicated that there is a formal evaluation system in the

schools. The Principal and the Supervisory Board (City of Kabul and Provincial

District) assess teacher performance on an ongoing basis.

3.1.2 Results of Round Table Discussion with Master Trainers in Mazar-e-Sharif

The nine members of the Round Table addressed the following three questions:

(i) After December 2011, how do you think Master Trainers can be used?

(ii) How best can teachers, who have received training, share the

knowledge and interactive teaching methods with their colleagues,

and assist them when needed?

(iii) After 2011, how should the BRAC training continue? How can it be

maximized? How would follow-up be done for teachers who have

received training?

The following is a summary of their reflections:

(i) In the current structure of schools, Master Trainers could only be used

during the winter/summer holiday period. At that time, they could be very

effective in training new teachers who had been given permits by the PED

to teach in government schools. These new teachers are either Grade XII

graduates or those who have done the Ministry of Education’s two-year

training programme. At the Provincial level, the PED can hire MTs;

however, the MTs obviously would have to be paid.

(ii) While there is no formal mechanism for having trained teachers share their

knowledge and training with colleagues, most do and do so willingly. It was

suggested, however, that the sharing be formalized by making it part of the

commitment of trainees who agree to take part in training.

(iii) If there is no donor funding after 2011, the BRAC training programme

cannot continue. If BRAC can continue, then BRAC should focus on the

more practical aspects of the programme, particularly in relation to Science

subjects. BRAC needs to provide lab technician training as well as more

practical teaching to Science teachers so that they can use equipment

competently and conduct experiments. In addition, the BRAC training

should be extended to include high schools since many teachers teach at

both levels.

The elements common to both research pieces will be presented in the next chapter.

Table SI I INTERVIEW SUMMARIES: ALL PROVINCES by CATEGORYKabul City Education Director (CED) and Provincial Education Directors (PED)

Question KABULCITY (1)Deputy

KABULPROVINCE (0)

PARWAN (1)Deputy

KAPISA (1)Deputy

HERAT (1) BALKH (0)

1. In your opinion, has theBRAC subject-basedtraining been successful,If not, why?

Very effective;but when needsassessment wasdone, teachersshould have beenconsulted. Thereneeds to be afollow up done forall training.

It was not possibleto arrange aninterview. Timeand availabilitywere the problems.

Yes, the Programhas been a successbecause it iscontributing tocapacity building.

Yes, theProgramme is asuccess. The newstudent-basedteachingmethodology hashelped students tounderstand subjectconcepts moreeasily.

Largely successfulbut only 269teachers hadtraining andProvince has760,000 students.

It was not possibleto arrange aninterview. Time andavailability were theproblems.

2. In particular, how doyou think the followinghave performed, (a)overall and b) in specificsubject where differencesmay have been observed?a. Master Trainers indelivering the training;b Teachers in teachingsubject content morethoroughly, and inteaching in a student-friendly and interactivemanner;c. Students inunderstanding subjectcontent matter,participating with theteacher and other students

The Deputy feltunable to answerthis question sincehe had just beenrecently appointedto the job. Hesuggested that theTeam ask theteachers who willknow if/how wellthey are teachingas a result of thetraining.

Master Trainershave done a goodjob, so thatTeachers, in turn,are teachingcontent moreeffectively and inan interactivemanner. This hasenabled thestudents toparticipate in theirown learning.

The MTs andTeachers, in turn,have becomeexperienced inconveyinginformation, and inhelping others tounderstandconcepts andcommunicate them.This has helpedstudents tounderstand andlearn more easily.

MTs. MasterTrainers have donea good job.Teachers have beeneffective inchanging classroomenvironment, and insharing ideas withothers. 60 per centof class time isstudent orientedlearning and 40% iscontent teaching.Students: Theirperformance hasimproved; they haveresponded to newteaching methods.


in learning, andsucceeding in tests andexams.

3, In your view, what arethe strengths andweaknesses of thesubject-based training?

Overall, theprogramme hasbeen a success, butthe training needsto be expanded –reaching too fewteachers atpresent.

The student-oriented learningis helpingstudents tobecome interestedin learning. Thetraining time istoo short; teacherfind it difficult tocombine subjectcontent with newteaching methods.

The main strengthof the Programmeis the introductionof interactiveteaching methods.The biggestweakness is theinsufficient amountof time for traineesto absorbeverything.

Programme is goodbut there needs tobe training for useof equipment. PEDbought labequipment butDepartment Headscannot use it; needtechnical training.

4. Were there any issuesnot already mentionedthat had an impact on thetraining, teaching, andlearning, which issuesneed to be addressed:

The programmehas not been inplace long enoughto ascertain itsactual impact.

The trainingshould be madeavailable in allProvinces.

BRAC shouldensure that labtechnicians orteachers are trainedin the use of newequipment andmaterials.

BRAC has playedby governmentrules and require-ments, andcommunicates wellwith all parties –this ensures successof the programme.

5. What effects, if any,did the subject-basedtraining have on thefemale presence inschools, i.e, more womenteachers; girls withincreased achievementrates; changes to thedropout rate, etc.

Too soon to tell. There are anincreasing numberof female teachersand students inschool. It must beunderstood thatother factors mayinfluence thisincrease.

There is animprovement in theachievement rate ofgirls in recentyears.

When the quality ofeducation is good,girls will attend.They are becomingvery interested inbeing educated.Sometimes mothersand daughters are inthe same class. Nodropouts.

6. (a) Is there a specificmechanism for evaluating

Yes, teachersshare materials .

Yes, there is asupervisory

Yes, there is aevaluation

Teachers sharelearning materials.


teachers in the schools?(b) Do the teachers whohave received this traininguse, in their classrooms,the teaching materialswhich they havereceived? How do youknow?

Principal evaluateson an ongoingbasis, and Districtlevel ofSupervisory Boardevaluates teachersthree times yearly.The SupervisoryBd. has a memberin every school inthe city.

mechanism inplace. Thisenables thePrincipal to checkthe sharing ofmaterials.

mechanism in placeThe SupervisoryBoard evaluatesteachers regularly,and the largerschools have amember in everyschool. Principalsalso visit classesevery two weeks.Teachers sharetheir materials andknowledge withother teachers.

a. Yes. SupervisoryBoard is a nationalbody withprovincial anddistrict components.District supervisorsevaluate teachers ona regular basis andgive them feedback.Principals also visitclassrooms onceevery two weeks.

7. Do the teachers, whohave received he subject-based training, have a roleto play in their schoolswhen they return?

Teachers sharematerials andteaching strategieswith colleaguesthrough theDepartment Head.

Yes, they areexpected to helptheir colleagues,when asked, withteachingproblems.

The teachers havean informal role inhelping theircolleagues withcontent-related andmethodologicalissues.

Interview time ranout before it waspossible to return tothis question.

8. How were MasterTeachers selected to givethe training and Teachersselected to receive thetraining?

MTs are chosenby examination.Principal selectsteachers accordingto school needs,and then passesnames to DEDwho ensures thatas many schoolsas possible areincluded.

The MTs areselected by thePED based on theresults of acompetency-basedexamination.Teachers areselected by thePrincipalaccording toschool need andsubmitted to theDED forapproval.

The MTs areselected by thePED, and theteachers by thePrincipal accordingto the school’sneeds.

MTs. are selectedfrom the bestteachers in the Prov.They sit acompetency-basedexam. PED andBRAC select thosewith best results andsend their nomineesto Kabul. Teachersare selected byPrincipal andsubmitted to DEDfor approval.


9. When the trainingprogramme finishes inDecember 2010, how doyou think the MasterTrainers (governmentsecondary/high teachers,and TTI) could be usedfurther to help teachers?

This is a policyissue so the TEDshould deal withit.

This is a matterwhich the PEDwill work with theTED ondeveloping apolicy for the useof MasterTrainers.

We have a plan forthe use of MTs, andthe plan will besubmitted to theTED.

Ministry ofEducation needs totake the lead hereand develop apolicy regarding thefuture use of MTs.

10. Do you see benefit incontinuing the trainingbeyond 2010? If no,why? If yes,

In what areas? In what

Provinces andDistricts?

Yes, it should beexpanded toinclude moredistricts andProvinces, andinclude IslamicStudies =curriculum to bedeveloped by TED

Yes, the trainingshould be madeavailable in allProvinces.

Yes. TheProgramme shouldbe expanded to allProvinces.Religious Studiesshould also beadded to the list ofexisting subjects.

Yes, the Programmeshould continue andbe expanded inorder to reach largergroups of teachers.Physics (veryimportant foruniversity entrance)and Geometryshould be added tocurrent 4 subjects.

11, Other: Special topicsthat respondent may wishto raise.

BRAC shouldcontinue program,but each trainingshould last longer.Currently there isinsufficient timefor trainees toabsorb everything.

There is a need forthe training of labassistants.

The training ofteachers should beconducted duringthe winter breakwhen teachers arenot in school, andthus canconcentrate betteron the training.

Education is thefoundation-stone ofmodernAfghanistan; it willhelp to reduceviolence and makefor a same andsecure environment.This Programmehelps to improveeducation, and is,therefore,important.


Table SI 2: INTERVIEW SUMMARIES: KABUL CITY and PROVINCES by CATEGORYKabul City and District Education Directors (DED)

Question KABULCITY (1)

KABULPROVINCE (2)

PARWAN (2) KAPISA (2) HERAT (1) BALKH (2)

1. In your opinion, hasthe BRAC subject-basedtraining been successful,If not, why?

Yes, it hasprovided capacitybuilding forteachers.

Yes, theprogramme hasgiven teachers goodmaterials andinteractive teachingmethods.

Yes, the Programmeprovides capacitybuilding forAfghanistan.

Yes, theProgramme issuccessful in thatit provides goodteaching methodsthat help thestudent.

Yes, programme isvery successful dueto the BRAC/PEDcoordination.

Yes, SupervisoryBoard has statedthat teachers andstudents’performance hasimproved. BRACtraining andmaterials are good.

2. In particular, how doyou think the followinghave performed, (a)overall and b) in specificsubject wheredifferences may havebeen observed?(i) Master Trainers indelivering the training;

(ii) Teachers in teachingsubject content morethoroughly, and inteaching in a student-friendly and interactivemanner;

(iii) Students in under-standing subject contentmatter, participatingwith the teacher andother students in

There is a closerelationshipbetween theperformance ofMTs, trainedteachers, and thestudents they teach.In this programme,knowledge andteaching methodsare passed from MTto teachers, who inturn, introducestudents to newmaterials andteaching methods.

The availability ofthe good trainingand materials hasmade MTs. andteachers motivatedto collaborate withone another, andhelp students.

The MTs start theprocess of improvingthe teaching andlearning of thestudents. Then theteachers introduce thenew student orientedteaching methods andmaterials to thestudents so that thelearning process canimprove.

The MTs areproviding a goodtrainingprogramme.Teachers areintroducing thenew student basedmethodology totheir students whoare becomingmore interested intheir studies.

MTs. As well ashaving the subjectexpertise, MTsknow how to train.Teachers: theyhave improved bothin their teachingmethods andknowledge ofsubject content.Students: Theirperformance hasimproved; theyhave respondedwell to the newinteractive teachingmethods.

MTs are capableteachers, tested bySupervisory Boardand results sent tothe PED.Teachers: Super.Board has said thatthe teachers whohave been trainedare better thanthose who havenot been trained.Students: areresponding tointeractiveteaching methods.Their exam resultsalso showimprovement.Problem:Teachers do nothave enough


learning, and succeedingin tests and exams.

materials – maps,paper, pens etc.Schools cannotafford to buythem.

3, In your view, whatare the strengths andweaknesses of thesubject-based training?

Strengths are theintroduction toteachers of newmethods of teachingand new materials..

Teachers havelearned new studentoriented teachingmethods as well assubject content.Weakness is theinadequate no. ofdays for teachers toabsorb the newcontent andmaterials.

The new interactiveteachingmethodology, basedon studentparticipation, hasresulted in increasedstudent interest andimprovedperformance.

The teachingmethodologies aremaking learningmore interestingfor students.

MTs shouldconcentrate onteachingmethodologies.There isinsufficient time tocover all the subjectcontent.

Programme shouldcontinue but afollow-up systemis needed for eachsubject. MTsshould provideshort refreshersessions a fewtimes yearly.

4. Were there any issuesnot already mentionedthat had an impact onthe training, teaching,and learning, whichissues need to beaddressed:

No. Not all teachers aremotivated to learn.

Length of the trainingperiod should beincreased. Also,other subjects need tobe added to theexisting four.

The trainingprogramme needsto be of longerduration so thatteachers canabsorb the newcontent andmethodology.

Programme shouldcontinue after 2010.Number oftrainings should bedoubled, and moresubjects added suchas Geometry andComputer Science

There needs to bea cadre of MTs todeliver the follow-up. See no. 9below.

5. What effects, if any,did the subject-basedtraining have on thefemale presence inschools, i.e, morewomen teachers; girlswith increasedachievement rates;changes to the dropoutrate, etc.

Number of femalestudents in schoolshas increased, andtheir results arebetter. (There maybe other factors thatinfluence thisdevelopment.)

The number offemale teachers andstudents hasincreased. (Theremay be otherfactors thatinfluence thisincrease.)

There is an increasein the number offemale teachers andfemale students. (Itshould be noted thatthere may be othercauses that influencethis increase.)

There has beenan increase in thenumber of femaleteachers andstudents. Againthis may also bedue to otherfactors.

Female students aredoing well; theymake up 52% ofthe secondaryschool populationin Enjil District.

Percentageenrolment of girlshas increased butthis could be dueto other factorsalso.

6. (a) Is there a specificmechanism forevaluating teachers in

(a) Yes. In eachschool there is amember of the

(a)

Principal visits

(a)Principal visitsclass- rooms everyweek, and the

Yes, there is aformal evaluationsystem in place.

Three times a year,the Super. Boardvisits the school

Yes, (a) Principalsconduct regularassessments of


the schools?(b) Do the teachers whohave received histraining use, in theirclassrooms, the teachingmaterials which theyhave received? How doyou know?

Supervisory Boardwho checksteachers regularly.DED sometimesvisits classes also.(b) From theclassroom visits ofPrincipal andsupervisor.

classes as does theSupervisory Boardmember.

(b) Teachers shareTeachers sharematerials with oneanother.

Supervisory Boardmembers also visitteachers.

(b) Teachers shareinformation withcolleagues during thefree hour eachteacher has during theday.

The teachers canshare informationwith colleagues atteachers’meetings.

and checks onteachers. If ateacher continues tounderperform, thefull SupervisoryBd. arrives,examines students& teachers togetherand gives theteacher the averagestudent mark.b. Teachers arerequired to sharetheir training, mats.with colleaguesthrough thePrincipal’s Office.

teachers as doesthe SupervisoryBoard. (b) Thereis no formalmechanism toenable teachers toshare the newteaching method-ologies andmaterials.However, trainedteachers do thistask informally.

7. Do the teachers, whohave received thesubject-based training,have a role to play intheir schools when theyreturn?

They play an activerole in sharing theirknowledge andmaterials with otherteachers.

They shareinformation andmaterials withcolleagues.

See 6 (b) They areexpected to helptheir colleagueswith problems,and sharematerials.

They are requiredto act as advisors toother teachers onhow to make theirteaching morestudent oriented.

Ideally, they act asconsultants to theircolleagues onproblem issues.The SupervisoryBoard emphasizesthis issue for alltrained teachers.

8. How were MasterTeachers selected togive the training andTeachers selected toreceive the training?

MTs byexamination, andTeachers accordingto school andteacher needs.Teachers who areteaching subjectsfor which they arenot qualifiedespecially need thetraining.

MTs are chosen bya competency-basedcompetitive exam.The teacher’ssubject backgroundand school’s needinfluence theselection process.

MTs by examination;and teachersaccording to theneeds of the schooland on the principleof equality.

MTs byexamination andtheir subjectbackground; andteachersaccording toschool need.

MTs are selectedby PED (usuallythe best teachersavailable) based onthe results of acompetency basedexam given by theSupervisory Board.Teachers areselected byPrincipal based on

MTs are selectedby PED based oncompetency basedexam. results. Theteachers areselected by DEDon the advice ofthe individualPrincipal.


identified need andgiven to the DEDfor approval.


The PED and TEDwill need to make adecision about this.It’s a policy issue.

A plan needs to bedeveloped for thefuture use of allMTs.

The PED needs toinitiate a plan for thefuture use of MTs.

The DEDs willdevelop a plan forthe use of MTsfor submission tothe PED.

A reserve bank ofMTs is not plannedat present sincethey all have apermanent teachingjob.

A national policyis needed to createa cadre of MTswho can deliverfollow up andtraining support toteachers who needit.

10. Do you see benefitin continuing thetraining beyond 2010?If no, why? If yes,



Yes, training needsto be continued inthe Science, Math,and Englishsubjects, and inaddition, ReligiousEd., and literatureof Farsi and Pashtu.

Yea, there is a needfor the training tobe extended to allProvinces. Inaddition, socialsubjects should beadded, for example,Religious Studies,History, andGeography.

Yes. Programmeneeds to be extendedto cover all Provincesof Afghanistan.

Yes, Programmeneeds to beexpanded to allProvinces; andalso the list ofsubjects shouldinclude ReligiousStudies.

Yes, trainingshould continuebeyond 2010, andshould be expandedto all otherProvinces wheresecurity is good.

Programme shouldcontinue and beexpanded. Thereis need for trainingin all Sciencesubjects andEnglish inparticular.

11, Other: Specialtopics that respondentmay wish to raise.

There is a need forfollow-up withteachers who havereceived training toensure that anyproblems they havecan be solvedquickly.

It would beprofitable to haveall training done inthe winter vacationseason whenteachers are not inschool.

Training shouldbe done duringvacation time inthe winter orsummer.

In order to monitortraining adequately,teachers in distantschools should besupervised, aproblem because ofdistance.

Coordination isneeded betweenPED and NGOsthat give trainingso that coherenttraining plans canbe developed andimplemented.


SI 3: INTERVIEW SUMMARIES: KABUL CITY and ALL PROVINCES by CATEGORYPRINCIPALS/HEADMISTRESSES/HEADMASTERS

Question KABULCITY (1 school)

KABULPROVINCE (3)Shakardara &Paghman Districts

PARWAN (2)Jabul SerajDistrict

KAPISA (2)Mahmud Raqi

HERAT (4)Enjil, Guzara,and Herat City.

BALKH (2)Dedodi Districtand Mazar City.

1. In your opinion, has theBRAC subject-basedtraining been successful,If not, why?

Yes, but training timewas too limited forteachers to understandeverything.

Training forteachers is good,but needs to reachmore teachers.

Yes, the newstudent-basedmethodologies aresuccessful.

Yes, teachers weregiven very goodteaching methods;and good practicein making lessonplans.

Training hasbeen successful.The new studentbased methodsare helpingstudents achieve.In most cases,teachers hadnever heard ofthese methods.

Yes, training hasbeen successful.

2. In particular, how doyou think the followinghave performed, (a)overall and b) in specificsubject where differencesmay have been observed?a. Master Trainers indelivering the training;b, Teachers in teachingsubject content morethoroughly, and inteaching in a student-friendly and interactivemanner;c. Students inunderstanding subjectcontent matter,participating with theteacher and other students

MTs have helpedteachers to increasetheir skills.Teachers: trainedteachers are using thenew methodologieswhich help student tolearn.Student grades haveimproved.

MTs are competentand providing goodteachingmethodologies toteachers. Theteachers are doingwell and using themethodologies inclass. Studentgrades haveimproved. In oneof the three schools,the Principal heardEnglish teachersand their studentsspeaking Englishout of class time.He was verypleased at this

MTs have trainedthe teachers well.The teachers, inturn, are using thenew interactiveteaching methods,which enablestudents to beinvolved in theirown learning.Students arebecoming moreinterested in theirstudies as a result.

This is an inter-related question.The Principals saidthat the MTsdelivered thetraining well; theteachers are usingthe new teachingmethods which helpthe students learn;and the students areincreasing theirunderstanding ofcontent and subjectmaterials.

MTs deliver thetraining well.Teachers’methods ofteaching haveimproved verymuch – morestudent oriented.Students areresponding verywell to the newteaching methodsand exam resultshave improved inthe classes taughtby the trainedteachers.Students are alsomore disciplined

MTs. One of thefew negativecomments wasmade about MTsnot usinginteractivemethods.Teachers areperforming well,and are having apositive impacton studentlearning andperformance.Trainees alsolearn a lot fromone another.Students: Theirintroduction to


in learning, andsucceeding in tests andexams.

developmentparticularly when itwas a commonoccurrence.

and attend schoolon time.

new teachingmethods hasimproved theirperformance.

3, In your view, what arethe strengths andweaknesses of thesubject-based training?

Training itself is verygood. However,many more teachersneed to be trained.Also, those who havebeen trained needfollow-up from MTsto ensure that theseteachers are using themethodologies well .

There is a need forfollow-up visits byMTs. so thatteachers can use thenew methodologiesto the fullest.

Course time needsto be lengthenedbecause it is hardfor teachers tounderstand allaspects of thetraining. In somecases, the MTs lackcontent expertise.

The more students aschool has, the moreteachers who needto be trained!The teachers havereceived goodteaching materialsand instruction onhow to make lessonplans.

The training isvery good but itis too concen-trated. Moredays need to beadded to eachtraining. Oftentraining inScience is verytheoretical.

BRAC trainingmaterials are veryuseful toteachers. MTsshould be visitedby SupervisoryBoard. InEnglish, someteachers told thePrincipal thatthey failed thepre-test butpassed the post-test, a sign ofachievement.

4. Were there any issuesnot already mentionedthat had an impact on thetraining, teaching, andlearning, which issuesneed to be addressed.

There is a need fortraining for Scienceteachers and labassistants on the useof the new equipmentand materials.

Many schools donot have labs. Sothe use of much ofthe materials islimited.

Some terms in theBRAC materialsfor Science werenot translated intoboth Farsi andPashtun (the termsremain in English,the originallanguage in whichthe materials wereprepared.)

It would be usefulto extend thetraining to GradesXI and XII alsobecause manyteachers in theschools teach atboth the secondaryand high schoollevels.

Training in moreScience subjects(Physics) isnecessary. Also,more teachersneed to betrained so thatthe educationsystem canimprove.

Training timeshould beincreased on eachcourse: subjectcontent is veryconcentrated.One problem:Teachers don’thave enoughmaterials –charts, maps,paper, ink, etc.Schools cannotafford to buythem.

5. What effects, if any,did the subject-based

There are nowqualified women

There are nowqualified women

The number offemale teachers and

Only one schoolhad female students

Girls areresponding well

No commentmade even


training have on thefemale presence inschools, i.e, more womenteachers; girls withincreased achievementrates; changes to thedropout rate, etc.

teachers in the school.In 2002, there were 70girls in the school; in2010, there are 850.(It must be noted thatother factors will alsohave contributed tothis increase.)

teachers in theschools. Thisencourages girls tostudy and achieve.

female students areincreasing. Again,this situation maybe due to othercauses.

and teachers. Inthat school, both thefemale teacher andstudent numbers areincreasing. Againthe usual caveat thatthere are othercauses for thissituation.

to studentoriented learning.There are nowmuch fewerfemale dropouts.

though one was aGirls HighSchool

6. (a) Is there a specificmechanism for evaluatingteachers in the schools?(b) Do the teachers whohave received his traininguse, in their classrooms,the teaching materialswhich they havereceived? How do youknow?

Every 15 days, thePrincipal checks onteachers and observetheir teaching. TheSupervisory Boardmember also checks.(The SB keeps amember in everyschool in the city.)Teachers sharematerials with othersusually through theDept. Head.

Principal visitsclasses every twoweeks. Theschools’ member ofthe SupervisoryBoard also assessesteachers in theirclassrooms. Boththe Principal andSB member checkthat the teachers areengaging studentsin their ownlearning.

Both the Principaland member fromdistrict SupervisoryBoard assessteachers on aregular basis. Awritten record iskept of the teacherevaluations.Teachers sharetheir materials withother teachers on avoluntary basissince there is noofficial way ofdoing this.

There is a formalsystem of teacherevaluation. ThePrincipal checksteachers in theirclassrooms everytwo weeks, and amember of theSupervisory Boardalso visits teachersin the classrooms.Teachers share theirmaterials and know-ledge with othersbut there is notformal way.

Headmastervisits classroomsonce monthly,and theSupervisory Bd.also visits. Classrepresentativesmeet with thePrincipal anddiscuss teachingand learningissues amongothers. There isa teachers’meeting every 15days whentrained teachersassist withsolving teachingand learningconcerns.

6. Yes, schoolshave a fixedteacher assess-ment system –Principal andSupervisory Bd.Teachers sharethe trainingmaterials;Principal checksat classroomassessments.

7. Do the teachers, whohave received he subject-based training, have a roleto play in their schoolswhen they return?

Trained teachers helptheir colleagues, againthrough the Dept.Head. Sometimesthese teachers becomeDept. Heads.

Teachers areexpected to assistcolleagues withusing the newmethodologies.This is usually doneat the daily free

The teachers don’thave an officialrole to play, butthey are expectedto share theirtrainingexperiences with

Teachers don’thave a formal rolebut they do helpothers with teachingproblems.

Yes. The twicemonthly teachersmeeting is whereteachers canshare ideas, andwhere teacherswho have had

Up to the present,no. ButPrincipals intendto organize asharing systemeither through theDepartment Head


hour of teachersand throughDepartment Heads.

colleagues, andthey do this.

good training canplay a leadershiprole.

or seminars forsharing materialsand expertise.

8. How were MasterTeachers selected to givethe training and Teachersselected to receive thetraining?

MTs are selected byPED following anexamination and thensent to the TED.Principal selectsteachers for trainingbased on school andindividual teacherneeds; he thensubmits them to theCity EducationDirector’s office.

Based on theschool’s needs, thePrincipal selects theteachers for trainingand submits namesto the DED. ThePED chooses theMTs based on theresults of the examthey sit & sendsnames to TED.

MTs are selectedby the PED basedon the results of arequired exam, andPED recommendsnames to TED.Principal selectsteachers based onthe needs of boththe school and theteachers, and thensends names to theDED for approval.

Based on schoolneed, the Principalselects the teachersand submits them tothe DED forapproval. The PEDselects the MTsfrom the results ofthe competency-based examination,and then sends thenames to the TEDfor approval.

MTs sit for anexam, and basedon the results, areselected by thePED and sent forapproval to theTED. Principalsselect theteachers based onschool need, andsubmit them tothe DED forapproval.

MTs are chosenby the PED andteachers by thePrincipal basedon school needsand teacherbackgrounds.


When the MTs returnto their schools, theyshould become theofficial resourcepeople for the schoolon teaching methods.

There needs to be aplan developed forthe use of MTs.They are needed asresource people toschools.

There needs to be apolicy and plandeveloped for theuse of MTs. Thepolicy needs to beinitiated by thePED.

The schools intendto make a proposalto the DED on theuse of MTs so thatthey can help theschools with solvingteaching andlearning issues.

Only way to useMTs is tocontinue theBRAC training.Ministry shouldcreate amechanism forusing MTs.

Neither schoolhas any thoughtson the issue.

10. Do you see benefit incontinuing the trainingbeyond 2010? If no,why? If yes,



All teachers of Math,Science and Englishin the Province shouldreceive training. Farsiand Pashtun shouldalso be added.

Teachers in allProvinces needtraining. ReligiousStudies needs to beadded to the otherfour subjects fortraining.

All the secondaryand high schoolteachers in theProvince needtraining in thecurrent foursubjects.

Yes, the trainingneeds to continue,and should beextended to includeReligious Studies,and social subjectssuch as History andGeography.

Yes. There isneed for furthertraining in Math.as well as inEnglish andChemistry. Sci.teachers needmore technicalexpertise in usinglab equipment.Teachers alsoneed more

Training isneeded in Math.,English,Chemistry, andComputer Sci. Inaddition, trainingtime in allsubjects needs tobe lengthened ascourse contenttakes time tounderstand.


practical workand practice inrunningexperiments.

11, Other: Special topicsthat respondent may wishto raise.

Education is criticalfor the future of thecountry; it is hopedthat the donors cancontinue their supportto the BRACProgramme.

Training shouldideally be givenduring the winterschool vacation.Also, schools needscience labs for thefull use of thematerials and tomeet textbooktopics.

The BRAC trainingneeds to continue.

It would be best togive training duringthe three-monthwinter holidayperiod.

Many NGO givetraining inschools, based ondifferent modelsand systems.There is a need tohave thesedifferent trainingmodelscoordinated, andto have all theNGO communic-ate with oneanother on aregular basis.

BRAC materialsare very useful,and better thanthose of otherNGOs, which canbe boring.Reason: BRAC’sare student-oriented.


3.2 Major Findings and Analysis of the Surveys

The survey for this assessment includes two questionnaire surveys distributed among Master Trainers

and Teachers who received training. This section of the report presents major findings concerning the

effectiveness, relevance and sustainability of the trainings. Eight major questions were asked in the

Master Trainers’ questionnaire and ten in the teachers’ questionnaire, with the intention of having them

evaluate different aspects of, and issues related to the training. Some of the major responses are

presented and analyzed below. The Tables for all responses are shown in Appendices I and II.

3.2.1 Findings of the Master Trainers’ Questionnaire:

The first important question in the Master Trainers questionnaire was whether the content of the

subjects in which the training was conducted was understood by the trainees. Table 1 suggests that

majority of the trainees understood the subjects’ content.

How well did the trainees understand the subjects' content?

51 73.9 73.9 73.9

14 20.3 20.3 94.2

4 5.8 5.8 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

very well

fairly well

very poorly

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Table 1

However, there were participants who did not understand the content of the subject very well. This

could be because of the fact that some trainees did not have the necessary background to benefit from

the trainings. The teacher’s questionnaire frequency table number 4 in Appendix II establishes the fact

that some teachers (15%) did not teach the subject they received the training in. Table number 10 of

Appendix I also demonstrates the fact that not all trainees had the necessary background in the

subjects in which they were trained.

In relation to the first question, the Evaluation Team asked the Master Trainers if they found the training

materials difficult or easy. The majority said it was easy, though not all found it very easy. Table 2

below gives the full list of responses:

how easy/difficult were the training materials?

51 73.9 73.9 73.9

16 23.2 23.2 97.1

2 2.9 2.9 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

easy

somewhat easy

somewhat difficult

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 2

In order to know whether or not the training was helpful to the teachers participating in the program, the

Evaluation Team asked the following question and received the responses presented in Table 3 below:


How would you assess the trainee's post-training performance?

32 46.4 46.4 46.4

34 49.3 49.3 95.7

3 4.3 4.3 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

they improvedsignificantly

they improved somewhat

they did not improve

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 3

Table 3 demonstrates that, generally, the trainees’ performance improved after they received the

training. There is a pre- training testing mechanism for the trainees in order to know their level of

competency before giving them the training. Then, in order to see whether or not the trainees have

improved after receiving the training, a second test (post-assessment) is conducted by the Master

Trainers. By comparing the pre- and post- examination results, the Master Trainers clearly knew

whether or not the trainees had improved. As Table 3 suggests, a minor portion of the trainees did not

improve, probably because they did not have the necessary background to benefit from the training.

However, the number of the trainees who ‘somewhat improved’ makes a slightly bigger portion than

those who ‘improved significantly’. But overall, the trainees improved as a result of the training.

Another key question in the Master Trainers’ survey was: with which aspects, if any, of the training did

the trainees have problems? This question was asked to find out, if there were specific problems, if any,

regarding the training that might have an impact on the overall effectiveness of the programme. The

responses are presented in Table 4 below:

Which aspects, if any, of the training did the trainees have problems with?

16 23.2 23.2 23.2

38 55.1 55.1 78.3

5 7.2 7.2 85.5

6 8.7 8.7 94.2

4 5.8 5.8 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

grasping the concepts inthe different componentsof the curriculum

becoming used to theteaching methodology

doing the assignments

the trainees did not haveany problems

other problem

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 4

Table 4 demonstrates the fact that the training was not all easy. According to the Master Trainers, a

vast majority of the trainees did have problems with different aspects of it. Over 23% had problems with

grasping the concepts in the different components of the curriculum, and over 55% had problems with

getting used to the methodology. The former is probably because most teachers in Afghanistan do not

have a solid educational background because of the low quality of education in the country in general.

Further, schooling has been affected very negatively due to war in Afghanistan. Concerning the later


problem (getting used to the methodology) too, it was confirmed during Team’s field visits that the

methodology used in the training was very new to the trainees. As Table 10 of the Teachers’

questionnaire frequency table (Appendix II) suggests, it was difficult for students (over 17% them) to

adjust to the new methodology.

These are the possible explanations for the variation in the respondents’ answers in Table 4. The Table

also shows that some trainees had problems with doing the assignments, but a lower percentage of

them (5.8%) had other problems. Regarding the other problems option in the questionnaire, the

respondents frequently mentioned the time-limit that prevented them from benefiting fully from the

training. Over 13% of the teachers in Table 7 of Appendix II complained that there was not sufficient

time to absorb the training. See Table 7 of Appendix II for details.

Another key question in the Master Trainers’ questionnaire concerns the appropriateness of the

methodology. The vast majority approved the methodology as shown in the Table 5 below:

Do you think that the methodology used in the training was appropriate?

63 91.3 91.3 91.3

6 8.7 8.7 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

Yes

No

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 5

Table 5 suggests that, despite the fact that many of the trainees had problems with getting used to the

training methodology; the methodology had been assessed as appropriate for the training by the

Master Trainers. That is probably because of its effectiveness in improving the trainees’ performance in

the post-training test.

The methodology was assessed as very effective by the teachers too. Table 11 of the Teacher’s

frequency tables in Appendix II confirms it. A vast majority of the teachers believe that the new

methodology has improved students’ performance. See Table 11 in Appendix II.

Considering that the Master Trainers might be the best authority or the best placed to evaluate the

effectiveness of the training programme because they are directly engaged in the process, the

Evaluation Team asked the Master Trainers if they had any changes to suggest for the betterment of

the training programme. This question was critical for the assessment because the responses could be

very helpful in revising the training package in order to make it more effective. Quite a number of the

Master Trainers approved the way in which the training was conducted. However, there were also

certain suggestions made. See the responses below in Table 6:


Do you have any changes to suggest for the improvement of the course design/trainingprogram?

29 42.0 42.0 42.0

9 13.0 13.0 55.1

15 21.7 21.7 76.8

16 23.2 23.2 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

it is fine

make it more theoretical

make it morepractical/expermental

the training shall bemade longer

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 6

Table 6 fully supports the answers given by teachers and other education stakeholders in regard to

extending the period of the training. Although, the majority of the Master Trainers (42%) in the Table

above thought that the training design and program were fine, a significant number (23.2%) suggested

the training period shall be made longer. Another significant number (21.7%) suggested that the

training should be made more practical/experimental. The latter was often raised also by the teachers,

Headmasters and other education stakeholders during the Evaluation Team’s field visits. Science

subjects such as Chemistry and Biology need to be more experimentally oriented training in order to

make it more effective for both teachers and students’ learning.

At the initial stages of the evaluation, the Evaluation Team was told that, in some circumstances, the

training participants did not have background in the subjects in which they were receiving training. The

Evaluation Team wanted to find out what percentage of such trainees received the BRAC training. In

principle, if the portion of such trainees was large, it would affect the effectiveness of the program

because the people without background in the subject might not be able to benefit from it. The following

Table presents the Master Trainers responses to that question.

Did the trainees have the necessary background ( knowledge and understanding ofthe subject mater) to benefit from the training?

11 15.9 15.9 15.9

32 46.4 46.4 62.3

9 13.0 13.0 75.4

10 14.5 14.5 89.9

7 10.1 10.1 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

all did

the majority did

half did

less than half did

very few did

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 7

The master trainers differently evaluated trainees’ ability to benefit from the training. Over 15% of them

in the Table above thought all had the necessary background; a much bigger percentage of them


(46.4%) believed that the majority had the background, but a considerable percentage (14.5+10.1%)

thought that less than half and/or very few had the required background.

The variations in the responses cannot be explained easily. As Table 8 partly suggests, this might be

because some Master Trainers who trained more groups, trained more of those who did not have

background in the subject than those who trained fewer groups. The 44.4% of Master Trainers who

trained five groups believed that very few had the necessary background. However, this is disputed by

the next variable in Table 8. Over 42% of the Master Trainers who trained more than five groups

thought that the majority had the necessary background. See Table 8 below:

how many different groups did you train? * Did the trainees have the necessary background ( knowledge and understanding of thesubject mater) to benefit from the training? Crosstabulation

4 9 4 4 1 22

18.2% 40.9% 18.2% 18.2% 4.5% 100.0%

4 16 3 1 2 26

15.4% 61.5% 11.5% 3.8% 7.7% 100.0%

0 3 2 0 4 9

.0% 33.3% 22.2% .0% 44.4% 100.0%

3 3 0 1 0 7

42.9% 42.9% .0% 14.3% .0% 100.0%

0 1 0 4 0 5

.0% 20.0% .0% 80.0% .0% 100.0%

11 32 9 10 7 69

15.9% 46.4% 13.0% 14.5% 10.1% 100.0%

Count

% within how manydifferent groups didyou train?

Count


Count


Count


Count


Count


one

more than oneand less than five

five

more than fiveand less than ten

more than ten

how manydifferentgroups didyou train?

Total

all didthe majority

did half didless thanhalf did very few did

Did the trainees have the necessary background ( knowledge andunderstanding of the subject mater) to benefit from the training?

Total

Table 8

However, altogether, most trainees did have the background (knowledge and understanding of the

subject matter) to benefit from the training as Table 7 suggests. This is very good because the

effectiveness of the training program is not affected by the number of trainees who are not qualified

enough to benefit from the trainings. However, at the decision-making level, it should be ensured that

all the trainees coming for future training shall have the necessary background.

3.2.2 Findings of the Teachers’ Questionnaire:

In relation to the last question discussed in the Master Trainers questionnaire, the first important

question in the Teachers’ questionnaire was whether or not the teachers who got the BRAC raining

taught the same subject before the training. The responses of the teachers surveyed are presented in

Table 9 below:


did you teach the subject before receiving the training

347 83.8 84.4 84.4

64 15.5 15.6 100.0

411 99.3 100.0

3 .7

414 100.0

yes

No

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Table 9

As Table 9 suggests, a high number of the teachers receiving the BRAC training taught the same

subject before receiving the training. However, a significant number – 15.5% - did not teach the subject

prior to receiving the trainings. This was confirmed by the Master Trainers’ responses discussed above.

One of the objectives of this evaluation was to determine whether or not the trainees found the training

relevant to their subject needs. A question in the Teachers’ questionnaire was designed to assess the

relevance of the training materials. Table 10 below presents the responses:

how do you assess the relevance of the the BRAC's training materials to the text bookyou were/are using?

264 63.8 65.2 65.2

95 22.9 23.5 88.6

34 8.2 8.4 97.0

12 2.9 3.0 100.0

405 97.8 100.0

9 2.2

414 100.0

all materialswere relevant

most materialswere relevant

some materialswere relevant

the materialswere not relevant

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 10

Table 10 suggests that majority (65.2%) of the trainee teachers thought that all training materials were

relevant to the textbooks used in the schools. But as one can see, the degree of the materials’

relevance in general has been assessed differently; 23.5% said most materials were relevant and 8.4%

thought some materials were relevant. The percentage of those who said that the materials were not

relevant is insignificant; 3%. These variations cannot be explained easily. The responses are very

subjective as one can expect in this kind of surveys. However, Table 5 clearly shows that a vast

majority of the trainees found the training materials relevant to the textbooks they were using in class.

Principally, the materials cannot be irrelevant because the materials were developed in consultation

with the education authorities and were found to comply with the national education curriculum.


In examining the effectiveness of the training, a question was asked of teachers regarding the

effectiveness of the training in helping the students’ learning. The responses were all positive, implying

that the training has indeed been very successful. Table 11 presents the figures:

In your opinion, has the training given you methods of improving thestudents' confidence in being able to learn new concepts and difficult

materials

397 95.9 97.1 97.1

12 2.9 2.9 100.0

409 98.8 100.0

5 1.2

414 100.0

Yes

No

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 11

An important indicator for measuring the effectiveness of the training programme is the ability of

teachers to improve students’ learning. Table 11 shows that the teaching methodology to which the

teachers were introduced during the training has significantly affected students learning. Over 97% of

the teachers said that the training had given them teaching methods for improving students’ confidence

in being able to learn new concepts and difficult materials. Depending on how one judges the result, it

shows that the training has been very effective.

Another question that the teachers were asked in the Teachers’ questionnaire concerned specific

problems faced during the training. This was cross-checked in the Master Trainers questionnaires

presented earlier. The question was important for ascertaining the improvement as well as the

effectiveness of the training. Teachers’ responses are presented in the table below:

what problems, if any, did you face during the training?

28 6.8 6.9 6.9

20 4.8 4.9 11.8

53 12.8 13.0 24.8

307 74.2 75.2 100.0

408 98.6 100.0

6 1.4

414 100.0

the materials were difficult

the trainers did notpresent the materials well

there was not sufficienttime to absorb the training

I did not face any problem

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 12

As demonstrated in Table 7, the majority (75.2%) of trainees did not face any problem during the

training. However, 13% said that the time was insufficient for absorbing the training. This concern was

raised frequently during Team’s field visits also. The Master Trainers shared this concern with the

teachers (see Table 9, Appendix I), and suggests that the training should be lengthened. As shown in

Table 12, some teachers (4.9%) thought that the Master Trainers did not present the materials well.


During the Team’s visit to a high school in Balkh province, some of the trained teachers complained

that the English Master Trainers were not fluent in English themselves, and had problems explaining

things clearly. Almost 7 percent (6.9%) of the teachers thought the training materials were difficult.

Usually, in most circumstances, some people find it difficult to understand certain issues. However, the

percentage of the teachers who found the training materials difficult could be the ones who did not have

a background in the subject in which they received training. But as the Table below shows, this

correlation cannot be established factually. The Table bellow contradicts that supposition clearly:

did you teach the subject before receiving the training * what problems, if any, did you face during the training? Crosstabulation

25 13 48 256 342

7.3% 3.8% 14.0% 74.9% 100.0%

3 6 4 50 63

4.8% 9.5% 6.3% 79.4% 100.0%

28 19 52 306 405

6.9% 4.7% 12.8% 75.6% 100.0%

Count

% within did you teachthe subject beforereceiving the training

Count


Count


yes

No

did you teach thesubject beforereceiving the training

Total

the materialswere difficult

the trainersdid not

present thematerials well

there was notsufficient timeto absorb the

trainingI did not faceany problem


Total

Table 13

As Table 13 demonstrates, the majority of those who did not teach the same subject also said that they

did not face any problem during the training.

For the purpose of this assessment, it is important to know that the majority of the trainees surveyed did

not face problems during the training.

But did the teachers face problems applying what they learned during the training?

Did you find it easy or difficult to apply what you learned during the trainings inyour classes?

307 74.2 74.3 74.3

88 21.3 21.3 95.6

13 3.1 3.1 98.8

5 1.2 1.2 100.0

413 99.8 100.0

1 .2

414 100.0

easy

not that easy

difficult

very difficult

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 14

Table 14 shows that majority of the teachers did not face problems applying what they acquired during

the training. Very few (3.1%) found it difficult, though many (21.3%) found it not that easy to apply what


they learned. But in general, they were able to deliver what they learned to the students; this implies

that the training system is working and effective. The training also increased the level of confidence of

teachers in teaching their subject as demonstrated by Table 15, below:

How has your level of confidence in teaching your subject improved as a result of thetraining?

251 60.6 61.7 61.7

155 37.4 38.1 99.8

1 .2 .2 100.0

407 98.3 100.0

7 1.7

414 100.0

very much improved

somewhat improved

not improved

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 15

Despite the fact that the teachers found it difficult to adjust to the new teaching methodology during

their training, they found their students back at their schools to adjust easily to the new methodology.

Some teachers (17.2%) said that it was difficult for their students to adjust to the new method. Many

teachers explained in the blank spaces in the questionnaire that it took time for their students to adjust

to the student oriented methodology, but they all got used to it gradually.

In general, did your students find it difficult to adjust to your new teachingmethod?

70 16.9 17.2 17.2

336 81.2 82.8 100.0

406 98.1 100.0

8 1.9

414 100.0

Yes

No

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 16

However, the introduction of the new methodology significantly improved students’ performance as

demonstrated by Table 17 below. Over 56% of the teachers surveyed evaluated their students’

performance as having generally improved and 41.1% said that their students’ performance has

significantly improved. See Table 17 below for details:


In general, how would you evaluate your students' performance in your subject after youhave adopted the new teaching method?

233 56.3 56.3 56.3

170 41.1 41.1 97.3

11 2.7 2.7 100.0

414 100.0 100.0

Students' performancehave generally improved

Students' performancehave improvedsignificantly

Generally, students'performance has notimproved

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 17

This question was checked and confirmed in the structured interviews with Headmasters and

Headmistress during the field visits.

With regard to the question of sustainability, the Evaluation Team was interested to know if the teachers

who received the training shared their experiences and knowledge with their colleagues back at schools.

This sharing of knowledge could turn into an ongoing process among the Afghan teaching community.

As shown in Table 18, majority (61.1%) of the teachers surveyed said that they shared their experiences

with other colleagues who did not receive the trainings. See table 18 below:

Do you share with your teaching colleagues the experience, knowledge, andmaterials acquired during the training?

251 60.6 61.1 61.1

3 .7 .7 61.8

1 .2 .2 62.0

109 26.3 26.5 88.6

47 11.4 11.4 100.0

411 99.3 100.0

3 .7

414 100.0

Yes

No

when needed

no answer

missing question

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 18

It was discovered during the field visits, that there is no formal sharing mechanism in schools, but

teachers usually have administrative and teacher meetings during which they talk about problems they

have regarding their students and classes. The Evaluation Team was told that, in most cases, the

trained teachers act as consultants to other teachers in showing them how to improve their classes and

the students’ performance. They share their knowledge on effective teaching methods and ways to

engage students in the learning process.


A considerable number (26.5%) of the teachers surveyed, however, did not answer the question. It is

probably because they are not formally asked to share their experiences.

The missing question option in Table 18 was contained in the questionnaire distributed in Kabul

province only. In that questionnaire, question number nine of the final version of the questionnaire was

not included. Those questionnaires were mistakenly distributed prior to the team’s approval of them and

were not complete.

A final and concluding question in the Teacher’s survey was whether or not the teachers who received

the training thought that the training could be given to teachers on a national basis. The responses

were all “Yes”. See table 19 below:

In your opinion, can this training be given successfully to teachers on anational basis?

407 98.3 99.3 99.3

3 .7 .7 100.0

410 99.0 100.0

4 1.0

414 100.0

Yes

No

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 19

The last Table concludes the discussion of the effectiveness of the programme, by emphasizing thefact that the training should continue and cover all teachers at the national level. This implies that theprogram has the opportunity to turn into a national program in education in Afghanistan. By the sametoken, the enormous support for offering the training nationally signifies its relevance. Were BRAC toacquire the necessary donor support, this could be an indication of sustainability.


CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions

Unquestionably, the BRAC Training Programme for government Secondary School teachers is a

success, and effective in reaching its training target; in fact, BRAC has exceeded the target. Both the

qualitative and quantitative research demonstrates this success, and indicate that teaching and learning

has improved in the four subjects taught by BRAC trained teachers. The research also states that the

Programme should be extended by an addition of subjects and expanded to include a higher

percentage of teachers. Furthermore, the BRAC materials complement the government textbooks, and

the methodology is relevant both to subject content and promotion of student learning. In total, the

research shows that the Programme is effective and relevant; however the sustainability depends on

both the creation of a formal mechanism for trained teachers to share their knowledge, materials, and

teaching methodologies with colleagues, and the ongoing availability of funding of the Programme. The

research never indicated any inefficiency in the delivery of training. Furthermore, the research showed

the obvious commitment of all education stakeholders at the three category levels – Provincial, district,

and school – to the continuation and expansion of the Programme.

There are, however, certain weaknesses, also shown in the qualitative and quantitative research.

These include: insufficient time for the training of teachers in each of the four subjects; the lack of

follow-up with teachers who have received training; the inadequate training of Science teachers in the

practical elements of the two Science subjects (i.e, experiments), and the lack of training of lab

technicians.

The Evaluation Team considered it advisable to prepare a SWOT analysis to show that, in addition to a

summary of the Programme’s strengths and weaknesses, there were also opportunities and threats.

Were BRAC to implement some of the opportunities, the effectiveness, relevance and sustainability of

the Programme could be enhanced. The main threat to the Programme will always be present – the

termination of donor funding.

BRAC TRAINING PROGRAMME for SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES and THREATS (SWOT)

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

Traning Programme is a success, and should becontinued and expanded.

BRAC has an effective cadre of MTs. In the classes of the BRAC trained teachers,

teaching and learning has improved. BRAC’s training materials complement the

government textbooks, and are relevant to theimprovement of teaching and learning.

There is a national need for this kind of BRACtraining, which now has a proven record.

The training time of the four subject-based trainingprogrammes is inadequate.

There is no follow-up for those who have had thetraining.

There is no formal school mechanism for trainedteachers to share their knowledge, materials, andteaching methodologies with colleagues.

There is a lack of training for lab assistants, andScience teachers in the more practical elements oftheir teaching (experiments).

The BRAC training programme has trainedapproximately 4,000 teachers to-date, a minisculepercentage of the national teaching population.


OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

The expansion of the training to otherProvinces;

The extension of the training to the governmenthigh school level;

The designation of the 270 Master Trainers as aspecial secondary school teacher training unit,were BRAC to bring this issue to the attentionof the PED and the TED for decision-making.

BRAC collaborates with the TED incoordinating the work of all NGO engaged intraining, and in creating a mechanism for thesharing of expertise and information betweenthe NGO themselves and the TED.

A cut or a cancellation of funding by the currentdonor, and/or an inability to attract other donors;

A decision by the Teacher Education Directorateof the MoE to cease this kind of teacher training atthe government secondary school level.

TABLE 20

One of the more interesting opportunities for BRAC to explore centres on the potential future use of

Master Trainers. This issue was raised during the structured interviews.

BRAC has trained 270 Master Trainers, and they constitute a significant cadre of teacher trainers;

Afghanistan could benefit greatly from having such a cadre of trainers to conduct training for secondary

school teachers, when and where needed. At the present time, the MTs return to their individual

schools at the end of their BRAC training commitment. It would take a policy decision at the TED level

to change the role of the Master Trainers.

It was suggested that BRAC might take the initiative and present the issue both to the PEDs, in whose

Provinces the BRAC training is given, and to the TED where a decision could be made and a policy

developed. If the MTs were available to conduct training for a larger representation of secondary

school teachers in the four subject areas, this would add greatly to the sustainability of the BRAC

Teacher Training initiative.

One further issue was raised during the field visits. This concerns the NGOs that also do teacher

training. The Team was told that the many training NGO approach teacher training in many different

ways. It would benefit the secondary education system if these NGOs were to coordinate their training

programmes in a complementing manner. This complementarity would enable NGOs to share

expertise, materials, and even training programmes more easily, and thereby, provide an even greater

service to the secondary education community. It was also suggested that BRAC, because of its

successful reputation as a training body, should take the lead in seeking MoE support for such

coordination of, and communication with training NGOs.

4.2 Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the research findings, and the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

Threats (SWOT) analysis of the BRAC programme, the Evaluation Team selected the following

recommendations for the further improvement and effectiveness of the training programme.


It is recommended that:

1. the programme be continued and include more subjects;

2. the time for the subject-based Teacher Training Programme be lengthened by at least a

week.

3. BRAC develop an initiative for the MoE to prepare a plan to use the Master Trainers

trained by BRAC for the future training of teachers in Afghanistan.

The BRAC Master Trainers form a valuable resource in the country; this needs to be best used

for the development of education in Afghanistan. The use of Master Trainers as a training

resource nationally would also enhance the sustainability of the BRAC training programme.

4. BRAC suggest to DEDs that, in collaboration with school Principals, they establish a

formal mechanism whereby trained teachers can share their experiences, knowledge,

materials and teaching methodologies with colleagues.

5. the teacher training programme go beyond the government Secondary School level to

include teachers at the High School level.

There are two reasons for this recommendation: firstly, in most cases, there is a cross-over

between the secondary and high school level classes in terms of teachers teaching the same

subjects at both levels; secondly, high school students need qualified teachers to help them (the

students) prepare for the university entrance examination. This will make the BRAC programme

more effective.

6. at the national level, the NGOs working in the field of providing training to teachers

across Afghanistan be coordinated in order that their training programmes be planned to

complement one another.

This coordination would make the overall training efforts in the field more effective. Coordination with

the government is also necessary for the effectiveness of the programmes.


Appendix 1: MASTER TEACHER Frequencies

[DataSet2] C:\Users\Future Shop\Desktop\Brac\Brac MT questionnaire.sav

Frequency Table

sex of the respondent

21 30.4 30.4 30.4

48 69.6 69.6 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

male

female

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 1

province of the respondent

4 5.8 5.8 5.8

7 10.1 10.1 15.9

8 11.6 11.6 27.5

11 15.9 15.9 43.5

9 13.0 13.0 56.5

10 14.5 14.5 71.0

5 7.2 7.2 78.3

6 8.7 8.7 87.0

9 13.0 13.0 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

Balkh

parwan

Kapisa

Kabul

Samangan

Herat

laghman

Nangarhar

Kandahar

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 2

how many different groups did you train?

22 31.9 31.9 31.9

26 37.7 37.7 69.6

9 13.0 13.0 82.6

7 10.1 10.1 92.8

5 7.2 7.2 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

one

more than oneand less than five

five

more than fiveand less than ten

more than ten

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 3


How well did the trainees understand the subjects' content?

51 73.9 73.9 73.9

14 20.3 20.3 94.2

4 5.8 5.8 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

very well

fairly well

very poorly

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 4

how easy/difficult were the training materials?

51 73.9 73.9 73.9

16 23.2 23.2 97.1

2 2.9 2.9 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

easy

somewhat easy

somewhat difficult

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 5

How would you assess the trainee's post-training performance?

32 46.4 46.4 46.4

34 49.3 49.3 95.7

3 4.3 4.3 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

they improvedsignificantly

they improved somewhat

they did not improve

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 6

Which aspects, if any, of the training did the trainees have problems with?

16 23.2 23.2 23.2

38 55.1 55.1 78.3

5 7.2 7.2 85.5

6 8.7 8.7 94.2

4 5.8 5.8 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

grasping the concepts inthe different componentsof the curriculum

becoming used to theteaching methodology

doing the assignments

the trainees did not haveany problems

other problem

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 7


Do you think that the methodology used in the training was appropriate?

63 91.3 91.3 91.3

6 8.7 8.7 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

Yes

No

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 8

Do you have any changes to suggest for the improvement of the course design/trainingprogram?

29 42.0 42.0 42.0

9 13.0 13.0 55.1

15 21.7 21.7 76.8

16 23.2 23.2 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

it is fine

make it more theoretical

make it morepractical/expermental

the training shall bemade longer

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 9

Did the trainees have the necessary background ( knowledge and understanding ofthe subject mater) to benefit from the training?

11 15.9 15.9 15.9

32 46.4 46.4 62.3

9 13.0 13.0 75.4

10 14.5 14.5 89.9

7 10.1 10.1 100.0

69 100.0 100.0

all did

the majority did

half did

less than half did

very few did

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 10


APPENDIX II: TEACHERS’ Frequencies[DataSet1] C:\Users\Future Shop\Desktop\Brac\Brac teacher questionniare.sav

Frequency Table

sex of the respondent

188 45.4 45.6 45.6

224 54.1 54.4 100.0

412 99.5 100.0

2 .5

414 100.0

female

male

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 1

province of the respondent

42 10.1 10.1 10.1

62 15.0 15.0 25.1

56 13.5 13.5 38.6

36 8.7 8.7 47.3

67 16.2 16.2 63.5

60 14.5 14.5 78.0

22 5.3 5.3 83.3

3 .7 .7 84.1

66 15.9 15.9 100.0

414 100.0 100.0

balkh

pawran

Kapisa

kabul

Samangan

Herat

Laghman

Nangarhar

Kandahar

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 2

teacher's teaching subject

88 21.3 21.3 21.3

79 19.1 19.1 40.3

110 26.6 26.6 66.9

137 33.1 33.1 100.0

414 100.0 100.0

biology

Chemistry

english

Math

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 3

did you teach the subject before receiving the training

347 83.8 84.4 84.4

64 15.5 15.6 100.0

411 99.3 100.0

3 .7

414 100.0

yes

No

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 4


how do you assess the relevance of the the BRAC's training materials to the text bookyou were/are using?

264 63.8 65.2 65.2

95 22.9 23.5 88.6

34 8.2 8.4 97.0

12 2.9 3.0 100.0

405 97.8 100.0

9 2.2

414 100.0

all materialswere relevant

most materialswere relevant

some materialswere relevant

the materialswere not relevant

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 5

In your opinion, has the training given you methods of improving thestudents' confidence in being able to learn new concepts and difficult

materials

397 95.9 97.1 97.1

12 2.9 2.9 100.0

409 98.8 100.0

5 1.2

414 100.0

Yes

No

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 6


28 6.8 6.9 6.9

20 4.8 4.9 11.8

53 12.8 13.0 24.8

307 74.2 75.2 100.0

408 98.6 100.0

6 1.4

414 100.0

the materials were difficult

the trainers did notpresent the materials well

there was not sufficienttime to absorb the training

I did not face any problem

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 7


Did you find it easy or difficult to apply what you learned during the trainings inyour classes?

307 74.2 74.3 74.3

88 21.3 21.3 95.6

13 3.1 3.1 98.8

5 1.2 1.2 100.0

413 99.8 100.0

1 .2

414 100.0

easy

not that easy

difficult

very difficult

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 8

How has your level of confidence in teaching your subject improved as a result of thetraining?

251 60.6 61.7 61.7

155 37.4 38.1 99.8

1 .2 .2 100.0

407 98.3 100.0

7 1.7

414 100.0

very much improved

somewhat improved

not improved

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 9

In general, did your students find it difficult to adjust to your new teachingmethod?

70 16.9 17.2 17.2

336 81.2 82.8 100.0

406 98.1 100.0

8 1.9

414 100.0

Yes

No

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 10


In general, how would you evaluate your students' performance in your subject after youhave adopted the new teaching method?

233 56.3 56.3 56.3

170 41.1 41.1 97.3

11 2.7 2.7 100.0

414 100.0 100.0

Students' performancehave generally improved

Students' performancehave improvedsignificantly

Generally, students'performance has notimproved

Total


CumulativePercent

Table 11

Do you share with your teaching colleagues the experience, knowledge, andmaterials acquired during the training?

251 60.6 61.1 61.1

3 .7 .7 61.8

1 .2 .2 62.0

109 26.3 26.5 88.6

47 11.4 11.4 100.0

411 99.3 100.0

3 .7

414 100.0

Yes

No

when needed

no answer

missing question

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 12

In your opinion, can this training be given successfully to teachers on anational basis?

407 98.3 99.3 99.3

3 .7 .7 100.0

410 99.0 100.0

4 1.0

414 100.0

Yes

No

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Table 13


APPENDIX III

A. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW for PROVINCIAL and DISTRICT DIRECTORS,PRINCIPALS/HEADMISTRESSES/HEADMASTERS*

1 In your opinion, has the BRAC subject-based training been successful? If yes, how? If not,

why?

2 In particular, how do you think the following have performed, (a) overall and (b) in specific

subjects where differences may have been observed?

Master Trainers in delivering the training to teachers;

Teachers in teaching subject content more thoroughly, and in teaching in a student-

friendly and interactive manner;

Students in understanding subject content matter, participating with the teacher and

other students in learning, and succeeding in tests and exams.

3 In your view, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the subject-based training?

4 Were there any issues not already mentioned that had an impact on the training, teaching, and

learning, which issues need to be addressed?

5 What effects, if any, did the subject-based training have on the female presence in schools, i.e,

more women teachers; girls with increased achievement rates, etc?

6 (a) Is there a specific mechanism for evaluating teachers in the schools?

b) Do the teachers who have received this training use, in their classrooms, the teaching

materials which they have received? How do you know?

(c) Are these teachers expected to share their experiences, knowledge and materials with their

colleagues in the school?

7 Do the teachers, who have received the subject-based training, have a role to play in their

schools when they return?

8 How were Master Teachers selected to give the training and Teachers selected to receive the

training?

9 When the training programme finishes in December 2010, how do you think the Master Trainers

(all government secondary teachers) should be used?

10 Do you see benefit in continuing the training beyond 2010? If no, why? If yes,

In what subject areas?

In what Provinces and Districts?


11 Other: Special topics that respondent may wish to raise.

* The closer the official is to the teaching and learning in schools, the more specific his/her

answers will be, and the more practical the responses.

B Master Trainers’ QuestionnaireThis survey is conducted by independent evaluators to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the

Teacher Training Program conducted by BRAC in Afghanistan. As a master trainer who participated in

the project, we would very much appreciate your participation in this survey. However, participation in

this survey is not compulsory for you. You have been selected randomly based on your phone number

record, without identifying your name for the purpose of anonymity. This is also to ensure that your

response will be kept confidential, and participation in this survey will not harm you in any way or form.

Thank you!

Background Information: Please check the appropriate option:i. Gender:

(a) Female (b) Male

ii. Province:

a. Balkh b. Parwan c. Kapisa d. Kabul e. Samangan f. Herat

iii. Teaching subject:

a. Biology b. Chemistry c. English d. Mathematics

Questions: Please answer all questions1 How many different groups did you train?

(a) one

(b) more than one and less than five

(c) five

(d) more than five and less than ten

(e) ten

(f) more than ten

2 How well did the trainees understand the subject content?

(a) very well

(b) fairly well

(c) not very well

(d) not well at all

(e) very poorly


3 Were the training materials

(a) easy

(b) somewhat easy

(c) somewhat difficult

(d) difficult

4 How would you assess the trainees’ post-training performance?

(a) they improved significantly

(b) they improved somewhat

(c) they did not improve

5 Which aspects, if any, of the training did the trainees have problems with?

(a) grasping the concepts in the different components of the curriculum

(b) becoming used to the teaching methodology

(c) doing the assignments

(d) other. Please explain__________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

(e) the trainees did not have any problems.

6 Do you think that the methodology used in the training was appropriate?

(a) yes

(b) no. If no please explain _______________________________________

7 Do you have any changes to suggest for the improvement of the course design/ training programme.

(a) no

(b) yes. If yes, please explain _____________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

8 Did the trainees have the necessary background (knowledge and understanding of subject matter) to

benefit from the training?

(a) all had


(b) the majority had

(c) half had

(d) less than half had

(e) very few had.

C. Teachers’ questionnaire

This survey is conducted by independent evaluators to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the

Teacher Training Program conducted by BRAC - Afghanistan. As a teacher who received training by

BRAC, we would very much appreciate your participation in this survey. However, participation in this

survey is not compulsory for you. This is also to ensure that your response will be kept confidential, and

participation in this survey will not harm you in any way or form.

Thank you!

Background Information: Please check the appropriate option:

iv. Gender:

(a) Female (b) Male

v. Province:

a. Balkh b. Parwan c. Kapisa d. Kabul e. Samangan f. Herat

vi. Teaching subject:

a. Biology b. Chemistry c. English d. Mathematics

Questions: Please answer all questions

1. Did you teach the same subject before getting the training in it?

a. Yes b. No

2. How do you assess the relevance of the BRAC’s training materials to the textbook you were/are

using?

a. all materials were relevant

b. most materials were relevant

c. some materials were relevant

d. the materials were not relevant

3 In your opinion, has the training given you methods of improving the student’s confidence in

being able to learn new concepts and difficult material?

(a) Yes (b) No

4 What problems, if any, did you face during the training?

a. The materials were difficult

b. the trainers did not present the materials well


c. There was not sufficient time to absorb the training.

d. Other

e. I did not face any problem

5 Did you find it easy or difficult to apply what you learned during the trainings in your classes?

a. Easy

b. not that easy

c. difficult

d. very difficult

6 How has your level of confidence in teaching your subject improved as a result of the training?

(a) very much improved

(b) somewhat improved

(c) not improved

7 In general, did your students find it difficult to adjust to your new teaching method?

a. Yes b. No

b. If yes, please explain the difficulties which they have

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………

8 In general, how would you evaluate your students’ performance in your subject after you have

adopted the new teaching method?

a. Students’ performance have generally improved

b. Students’ performance have improved significantly

c. Generally, students’ performance have not improved

9 Do you share with your teaching colleagues the experiences, knowledge, and materials

acquired during the training?

10 In your opinion, can this training be given successfully to teachers on a national basis?

(a) Yes (b) No


GROUPS/PEOPLE CONSULTED

APPENDIX III

BRAC Personnel

Fazlul Hoque Country Head, Afghanistan

Shahabuddin Ahmed Programme Manager (Education)

Sadequr Rahman Khan Programme Manager, Training

Md. Abdul Quyyum Senior Manager (Education)

Md. Siddique Ali Programme Officer, Education

Mohiuddim Ahmed Regional Manager, Balkh Education Programme, Mazar

Nooruddin Haqyar Area Manager, BRAC Education Programme, Herat

Ajmal Hossain Regional Manager, BRAC Education Programme, Kabul City

Lailuma Kakar Associate Faculty Member, BRAC Training and Resource Centre

Mostafa Kamal Faculty Member, BTRC

Ghulam Mahedi Team Leader, BRAC Regional Office, Kabul City

Zamarai Sadeed Area Manager, Education Programme, Balkh

Habiba Wahaj Associate Faculty Member, BTRC

Balkh Province, Mazar-i-Sharif City, and Districts

Mohd Hanif District Education Director, Balkh District

Ghulam Rasul Rostayee District Education Director, Dehdadi District

Shiria Jan Principal/, Adeba Balkhi,Girls’ High School, Dehdadi District, Balkh

Nafisa Ghiyasi Principal, Hashim Barat High School, Narishahi District, Balkh

Round Table Discussion, Mazar-i-Sharif City

Masoda Akhgar Abu Nasir Parsa High School, Master Trainer

Huma Saadat Hashim Barat High School, Master Trainer

Narges Azizi Hashim Barat High School, Master Trainer

Aria Sharaf Hashem Barat High School, Headmistress


M. Yasin Bakhtar High School, Master Trainer

Zahra Paknezhad Shahid Mazar High School, Mater Trainer

Sayera Khulmi PED office, member of Supervisory Board, Master Trainer

Jawad PED office, Science Department, Master Trainer, Math.

Khairuddin Sheik Samarudding High School, Master Trainer, Math.

Herat: City and Districts

Basir Ahmad Arvin Tahiri Provincial Education Director, Herat

Naser Ahmad Habibi, District Education Director, Enjil District

Sayad Abdul Baqi Husseni, Member, Supervisory Board

Secondary Schools

Raoufa Jamy, Headmistress Mehri Heravi High School, Herat City

Haji Ab. Ghani, Headmaster Jamiat Servestan School, Enjil District

Abdur Rahman Pashtu Teacher

Abdul Rashid Teacher, Religious Studies

Basir Ahmad Trainer, CHF

M. Rafe Teacher Physics, Geometry

Feroz Ahmad, Teacher Mathematics

Abdul Qadir, Headmaster, Sarwistan High School, Enjil District

Mahommad Haroon Principal, Sarwistan High School, Enjil District

Asefa Habibi, Principal/Manager, Rawza Bagh Girls High School, Guzara District

Mohamad Asif Raoufi Headmaster, Fateh Khan High School, Guzara District

Khalil Ahmad Wafa Teacher who received training in Math/Geometry

Kabul City

Fazlul Ahmad Haidari, Deputy Director of Education

Secondary/High Schools

Shamsul Haque, Principal, Fazil Beg Secondary School, Kabul


Kabul Province

Jan Agha Sahebyar, DED, Shakar Darah District

Shireen Agha, DED, Mirbachah Koot District


Masoudah, Principal, Shakar Darah Girls High School, Shakar Darah District

Abdul Hakim Hashimi, Principal, Qala Murad Big Boys & Girls High School

Mohammad Feda, Principal, Abdullah bin Omar School, Paghman District

Kapisa Province

Mohd. Ismail, Deputy PED

Abdul Hadi, Deputy, DED, Hesa-e-Awal District

Abdul Hasson Husaini, DED, Hesa-e-Dowom District


Said Akber, Headmaster, Mahmood Raqi Boys High School

Khalilullah Headmaster, Mahmood Raqi Girls High School

Parwan Province

Nezamuddin Rahimi, Deputy PED

Abdul Baseer DED of Sayed Khil District

Mohd Aziz, DED, Jabul Seraj District


Raz Mohd,Principal, Jabul Seraj Boys High School

Khwajah Waisuddin,Principal,Jabul Seraj Girls High School

Kabul University

Faculties of Science, Psychology and Educational Science, and Literature

Dr. Meerazy Head of Biology Department

Afreday, M.Sc Biology Department

Dr.Taniwall, Head of Chemistry Department


Haider, M.Sc Chemistry Department

Dr. Ghori Head of Mathematics Department

Zarghonah, B.Sc Mathematics Department

Khalid, M.A. English Department

Haneef, M.A. English Department

Mariam, M.A. Psychology Department

Zabihullah, B.A. Psychology Department

Ainuddin, M.A. Education Department

Sayed Ahmad Shah, M.A. Education Department

evaluation of the brac training …c4d-and-education.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/9/6/6496020/...report:...

Documents