SBTP Report
Transcript of SBTP Report
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
1/21
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
2/21
2
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project School Based Training Program
(SBTP) on Evaluation of Students Learning
Outcomes was conceptualized after a thorough and
careful analysis of the project proponent on theacademic achievements of the school. The project
proponent did a series of SUG tests and it came out
that one of the major problems of the school that
needed immediate solution was on the low academicachievement. One of the solutions was to conduct
the above-mentioned training. It was based on the
Decision Making Tool: Paired Comparison Analysis.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
3/21
3
The Problem
One of the major problems of Osmea National High
School was on the low academic achievements of the
students. Based on the results of the 2004 National
Achievement Test (NAT), the average MPS was 51.38%
in the three learning areas tested (English, Math &
Science). In the 2004 Regional Achievement Test (RAT),
the school got an average MPS of 49.40%, which ranked
number 7 among the 12 schools in Samar Division which
were randomly tested. Looking at the 2005 NAT, the
school mean percentage score was 39.81%. Based on
the data above, it showed that the school was getting
poor academic performance.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
4/21
4
The Project
The project Three day School Based
Training Program (SBTP) on Evaluation of
StudentsLearning Outcomes
was realized in
2006 to address the problem of the school on
the low academic achievement of the
students.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
5/21
5
The Profile of the School
Osmea National High School is one of
the secondary schools in Samar Division. It
was founded in 1997 through the efforts of
the local government of Marabut, Samar.The school is located along the NationalHighway in Barangay Osmea, Marabut,
Samar which is about 400 meters from thebarangay proper. It occupies a land area of
2.99 hectares donated by the Unimasters
Conglomeration, Incorporated.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
6/21
6
The Profile of the School
The school was administered by a
Teacher-In-Charge (TIC) with eight (8)
regular permanent teachers and six (6)provincial funded teachers. The school
has 11 catchment barangays. In the
school year 2005
2006, the studentspopulation was 432.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
7/21
7
PHASE I
(Planning, Appraisal & Design)
PLANNINGAfter a thorough and careful analysis of the
problems of the school, the project proponent being
the TIC of the school, conducted a meeting with theteachers and the Parents Teachers Association
and agreed to come up with a School- Based
Training Program as one of the interventions on the
low academic achievements of the students. Theobjective of the said training was to equip teachers
with the knowledge and skills on the properassessment and evaluation of students learning
outcomes.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
8/21
8
PHASE I
(Planning, Appraisal & Design)
APPRAISAL
After the planning, it was determined by the project
proponent together with the teaching staff of the school that
the training was feasible and it went well as planned.
Below was the expenses incurred during the training:
Training Materials Php 675.00
Foods (snacks & lunch) 2,973.00
Honorarium of Resource Persons 2,000.00
Miscellaneous 340.00
TOTAL 5,988.00
Note: No registration fee was collected from the participants.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
9/21
9
PHASE I
(Planning, Appraisal & Design)
TimeDay 1
(January 8, 2006)
Day 2
(January 21, 2006)
Day 3
(January 22, 2006)
8:00 8:45 RegistrationTest Item Construction
Performance-Based
Assessment8:45 10:00 Opening Program
10:00 12:00Review of Blooms
Taxonomy
Workshop 2
Construction of Test ItemHolistic & Analytic Rubrics
12:00
1:00 LUNCH BREAK
1:00 3:00Preparation of Table of
SpecificationsTest Item Analysis
Workshop 4
Making of Holistic & Analytic
Rubrics
3:00 5:00Workshop 1
Preparation of TOS
Workshop 3
Test Item AnalysisEvaluation & Wrap-up
DESIGN
Below was the training design / matrix
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
10/21
10
PHASE II
(Selection, Approval & Control)
Selection & Approval
The Project proponent made a project
proposal together with its training design andit was submitted to the office of the schools
division superintendent for approval. The
project proposal was approved on January 2,2006 with the condition that the training will
be done on a Saturday and Sunday.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
11/21
11
PHASE II
(Selection, Approval & Control)
ACTIVATIONIn order to realize the project, the project
proponent sought help from the Parents
Teachers Association (PTA) for the fundingneed. The PTA shouldered the whole amount
for the training. Resource persons were
invited to discuss the different topics. Theproject proponent being the TIC of the school
issued a school memorandum to ensure the
attendance of teachers in the training.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
12/21
12
PHASE III
(Operation, Control & Handover)
OPERATION
The project proponent conducted
conference with teachers to organize differentworking committees. As stated in the training
matrix, the training workshop was done in
three days. The participants elected their
seminar officers to help facilitate the active
involvement and participation of the
participants.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
13/21
13
PHASE III
(Operation, Control & Handover)
CONTROL
The project proponent did the
supervision and control within three daysduring the training workshop. He made
sure that the participants actively
participated and submitted the requiredoutputs.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
14/21
14
PHASE III
(Operation, Control & Handover)
HANDOVER
After the training-workshop in
January 2006, the project proponent leftschool in April 2006 to finish his masters
degree. The project was handed-over to
the new school head for the continuedsupervision, monitoring and evaluation of
the project.
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
15/21
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
16/21
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
17/21
17
PICTORIALS
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
18/21
18
PICTORIALS
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
19/21
19
PICTORIALS
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
20/21
20
PICTORIALS
-
7/27/2019 SBTP Report
21/21
21
In every meaningful project undertaken
for the best of intentions, initiators and
prime movers usually encounterproblems. However, problems arise to
make one realize that in the
implementation of programs andprojects, seemingly insignificant details
should not be taken for granted.