Change to Ukrainian interface versionChange to English interface versionChange to Russian interface versionHome pageClear last query resultsHelp page
Search for specific termsBrowse by subject categoryBrowse alphabetical list of titlesBrowse by organizationBrowse special topic issues

close this bookAction Research Report on «Reflect» - Education research paper No.17 (DFID; 1996; 96 pages)
View the documentOverseas Development Administration - Education papers
View the documentAcknowledgements
View the documentList of other ODA education papers available
View the documentAbstract
View the documentForeword
Open this folder and view contents1. Introduction
Open this folder and view contents2. Theoretical roots of the new method: reflect
Open this folder and view contents3. The REFLECT method
close this folder4. The evaluation of the projects
Open this folder and view contents4.1 Background to the projects
Open this folder and view contents4.2 Starting up the new literacy programmes
close this folder4.3 Approaches to monitoring and evaluation of the pilot projects
View the document4.3.1 Bangladesh control groups
View the document4.3.2 Uganda
View the document4.3.3 El Salvador
Open this folder and view contents4.4 Monitoring progress & problems in the pilot projects
Open this folder and view contents4.5 Reading, writing and numeracy
Open this folder and view contents4.6 Empowerment
View the document4.7 Methodological learning
Open this folder and view contents4.8 Cost effectiveness
View the document5. Concluding reflections
View the document6. A dialogue on reflect with critics
View the documentReferences
View the documentAcronyms
 

4.3.3 El Salvador

The Control Groups

In El Salvador the evaluation was led by CIAZO, the national NGO specialising in adult literacy with whom the pilot project with COMUS was undertaken. Although CIAZO were involved in the pilot we felt they were also neutral in that the control group used was their own work in other areas which they have built up over five years with 30 different grassroots organisations. They had no vested interest in showing the REFLECT pilot (which is very small scale within their national programme) to have been more successful than the bulk of their own literacy work. Rather they wished to critically review the work in order to help them define their future methodology.

CIAZO chose two types of control group: firstly their other work with grassroots organizations similar to COMUS (one organization in Usulutan - Codecosta, and one in Conchagua) and secondly with their more recent work with local government at the municipal level with UNICEF. It proved difficult to collect all the data from these control groups but sufficient data was found to provide a clear comparison and this was then reinforced through discussions with CIAZO advisers from across the country.

Monitoring

Basic monitoring of the literacy circles took place on a permanent basis through support visits of the COMUS promoters and through the monthly workshops. Each literacy facilitator also maintained a notebook to document key events and debates in their circle.

The Evaluation

In March 1994 CIAZO, COMUS and ACTIONAID worked together to establish a detailed methodology for the evaluation and to field test some formats. Most of the evaluation work was then conducted between March and May 1995 by a team of 2 CIAZO staff (Luis and Oscar) and 3 COMUS staff (Juan, Ovilio, Abdon). Other CIAZO staff helped collect data from the control group (particularly Arantza). The evaluation data was consolidated and analysed in ten days of May with the help of other CIAZO personnel (including Nicolas Foroni, Arantza and Blanca), David Archer (ACTIONAID) and Sandrine Tiller (Latin American Coordinator of the World University Service).

The evaluation team reviewed basic information and statistics and conducted literacy and numeracy tests. A range of structured interviews were designed and various matrices were elaborated which could be completed with learners in a participatory way. All these formats were pre-tested in March and adapted in the light of this pre-testing. A particular effort was made to "close" open-ended questions during this pre-testing period so as to make the forms easier to complete.

The full scope of the evaluation involved:

 

REFLECT/COMUS

CONTROL GROUP

Basic Literacy and Numeracy Tests

44 learners

74 learners

Matrix: Self-evaluation of Learning

34 learners

7 learners

Matrix: Self-evaluation of Impact

32 learners

7 learners

Table: Participation in Organisations

36 learners

-

Table: Community Actions

4 circles

-

Diagram: Time-use in circle

7 circles

1 circle

Self-evaluation of facilitators

15 facilitators

-

Evaluation of training

15 facilitators

-

Structured Interviews: learners

37 learners

18 learners

Structured Interviews: drop outs

18 people

5 people

Structured Interviews: facilitators

15 facilitators

5 facils.

Structured Interviews: comm leaders

18 leaders

5 leaders

Structured Interviews: promoters

3 promoters

2 promoters

Structured Interviews: leaders of COMUS

5 people

 

Structured Interviews: leaders of CIAZO

2 people

 
to previous section to next section

[Ukrainian]  [English]  [Russian]