Frontier Tanzania Environmental Research - Frontier-publications ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SPIEEP: End of Project ReportBaseline survey data for participating pilot schools. San Sa Ho school was not visited dueto inaccessibility (bad weather conditions).2. General assessment after six months of implementationBroadly speaking, teachers in both schools found that both the structure and content ofthe curriculum were suitable for the differing age groups. Both these criteria have proveduseful also for the teachers, many of whom also started with a limited understanding ofenvironmental issues. The main areas of criticism revolved solely around specific areas ofcontent which different age groups found particularly difficult to understand. In somecases this difficulty was due to the concept itself, in others it was the way the lesson wasinterpreted.Other concerns included the limited number of activities associated with specific lessonsand, a more widespread concern, a lack of visual aids (or materials with which to makethem) available to the teachers. The lack of visual aids was a greater worry to the Ban Hoteachers who appear to have less ability in creating their own (Ta Van teachers, whilealso expressing concern, showed more creativity in this respect).However, regardless of the difficulties faced, both teachers and children clearly enjoy theteaching and learning of the environmental education curriculum. This enjoyment appears(from comments by teachers and the school principles) to stem from the relevance of thecurriculum to the local environment. In this context both teachers and children are able torelate to the issues being taught.In the opinion of the teachers, children who are taught the environmental curriculumappear to be more conscious of their local environment than those children who are not.Examples given by teachers include less rubbish being thrown around the school andvillage by the taught children (more put into bins), less rubbish being thrown into watertanks and taps being turned off.The results of the student test also practically support the opinions of the teachers asgiven above. Tests were conducted with the same classes (and the same questions), thesecond test 6 months after the first. The results were as follows (from 10 multiple choicequestions):Indicators Ta Van School Ban Ho SchoolBefore After Before After1. Average score 4.8 7.2 5.4 6.02. Highest score 7 9 7 73. Lowest score 2 4 3 5Tabulates student test results of Ban Ho and Ta Van SchoolsFrontier Vietnam Environment Research Report 23 39
SPIEEP: End of Project Report10Score8642Lowest scoreAverage scoreHighest score0Before After Before AfterTa Van SchoolBan Ho SchoolGraphical representation of Student Test Result of The Ban Ho and Ta Van Schools.The table and chart above indicate that the results have improved or stayed the same in allcases. Ban Ho school, however, has not increased as rapidly as Ta Van school. Thereason for this may be due to different teachers: “the teaching skills and enthusiasm of theTa Van teachers is higher than those of the Ban Ho teachers” Mr. Duc, Sa Pa DET said.From the assessment teams observations it appeared that most Ta Van teachers coulddevelop visual aids much better than teachers from Ban Ho school. This emphasises theimportance of visual aids for ethnic minority children with which to learn about theenvironment.Frontier Vietnam Environment Research Report 23 40
Page 1: Frontier Vietnam Environmental Rese
Page 4 and 5: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportTechni
Page 6 and 7: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportTABLE
Page 8 and 9: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportFronti
Page 10 and 11: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportMaps s
Page 12 and 13: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportIn Dec
Page 14 and 15: SPIEEP: End of Project Report3. Sa
Page 16 and 17: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportActivi
Page 18 and 19: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportOnce t
Page 20 and 21: SPIEEP: End of Project Report6.1.5
Page 22 and 23: SPIEEP: End of Project Reportarea l
Page 24 and 25: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportOnce t
Page 26 and 27: SPIEEP: End of Project Reportincome
Page 28 and 29: SPIEEP: End of Project Reportchan g
Page 30 and 31: SPIEEP: End of Project Report3.2.3.
Page 32 and 33: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportBox 15
Page 34 and 35: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportOvensT
Page 36 and 37: SPIEEP: End of Project Report6.1.1
Page 38 and 39: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportBox 18
Page 40 and 41: SPIEEP: End of Project Report4. Cit
Page 42 and 43: SPIEEP: End of Project Report3. Sho
Page 44 and 45: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportAppend
Page 54 and 55: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportVisits
Page 56 and 57: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportDuring
Page 60 and 61: SPIEEP: End of Project ReportLocal

Frontier Tanzania Environmental Research - Frontier-publications ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?