Decentralizing population education research.

PIP: Population education research will now be conducted at the regional, division, and local levels. It is expected that this decentralization will solve problems faced by population education teachers and supervisors in the field and help to formulate curricula suitable to local needs. It will also mean changes in the implementation of the research activities of the Department of Education and Culture-Population Education Program. Since its creation in 1972 the Population Education Program of the Research Unit has been conducting research studies on a centralized basis, seeking out research leads, conducting studies to determine the content and methodology of program curriculum, and assessing the effectiveness of training programs. During the past 3 years the Research Unit has also made significant progress in monitoring the program's activities - determining problems and needs, making recommendations on the basis of findings, and initiating action on such recommendations. 1 recommendation is to establish regional centers for research activities. If approved by the Commission on Population, the proposal will bring about major changes in the research program, the most significant of which will be the establishment of research centers in 12 teacher-training institutions all over the country. Additionally, these institutions will offer consultative services to researchers in the field. The reorganization of the research program, as well as the eventual restructuring of the Training and Curriculum Units, anticipates the withdrawal of foreign financial assistance by 1977. In the decentralized setup, basic results gathered by regional research centers can be immediately consumed by the training or curriculum staff based in these institutions. With decentralization and the related activities, the Population Education Program shows itself capable of responding to emerging research needs.^ieng

Program evaluation: the experience in population education.

PIP: The Population Education Program (PEP) of the Department of Education and Culture in the Philippines takes pride in a built-in evaluation system which assesses accomplishments primarily in light of objectives laid out and gathers feedback useful in improving future training programs. Its evaluation theoretically serves to measure 3 training dimensions -- before, during, and after each training course. Evaluation of both the 5- and 1-week training programs follows the same pattern. Pretraining evaluation is done by administering a pretest at the beginning of each course, which quantitatively measures trainees' baseline knowledge and attitudes. It is intended for the use of trainers in determining how the course should proceed. Assessment made while training is in progress (formative evaluation) is done through a steering committee meeting held at the end of a week or a day for the 5- and 1-week courses, respectively. The meetings focus on identifying weaknesses requiring immediate or future course revisions. At the end of the course, a posttest is given to measure positive or negative changes in the trainees' knowledge and attitudes. These changes are assumed to have been caused by training. Additional qualitative information is collected through an evaluation sheet containing open-ended questions on different aspects of the course. Problems of "who" should evaluate and "how to" evaluate are among current problems evident in practice, and a revised training scheme has been implemented to deal with these problems.^ieng

Teacher training evaluation.

PIP: The functions of training evaluation in population education programs is the subject of this article. The author states that 1) decisions regarding training can be made more rational through a systematic analysis and collection of information; 2) positive attitudes towards evaluation depend on the trainees' and trainers' understanding of the purpose and importance of the evaluation process; 3) an evaluation system must be strongly based on a body of theories and propositions from which a conceptual framework for evaluating teacher training programs in population education can be developed; 4) evaluation must be directed toward providing information useful to decision-makers; 5) pre- and post-tests are measures of change that provide information on the trainees' pre- and post-instruction level of competence; 6) evaluation can exert its strongest influence during training by providing a system in which weaknesses or failures may be identified and corrected; 7) evaluation in principle and practice should initiate change; 8) a feedback mechanism provides continuous control and refinement of training procedures; and 9) the effectiveness of follow-up work depends on the establishment of clear-cut and validated criteria for assessing teacher competence and effectiveness of teacher-trainees on the job. In all of these areas, however, problems exist in the program reviewed by the author.^ieng