01 Main

REPORT ON SMASSE MALAWI TRIAL INSET
CONTENTS
Abbreviation _______________________________________________________________ 3
1. BACKGROUND __________________________________________________________ 4
2. PURPOSES OF THE WORKSHOP __________________________________________ 6
3. EXPECTED OUTPUTS____________________________________________________ 6
4. SCHEDULE _____________________________________________________________ 7
5. PARTICIPANTS __________________________________________________________ 7
6. PREPARATION FOR TRIAL INSETAND ITS EVALUATION ____________________ 7
1) Action Plan __________________________________________________________________ 7
2) Evaluation of Implementation of Action Plan _____________________________________ 8
7. IMPLEMENTATIONS ____________________________________________________ 9
1) Lecture-Based Seminar________________________________________________________ 9
2) Peer Teaching ________________________________________________________________ 9
8. EVALUATION OF WORKSHOP ___________________________________________ 10
1) Evaluation of Lecture-Based Seminars __________________________________________ 10
a) Methodology______________________________________________________________________ 10
b) Valid Figures _____________________________________________________________________ 10
c) Mean of Evaluation Score ___________________________________________________________ 10
d) Analysis __________________________________________________________________________ 11
2) Evaluation of Subject-based Peer Teaching _______________________________________11
a) Methodology_______________________________________________________________________ 11
b) Valid Figures _____________________________________________________________________ 12
d) Analysis _________________________________________________________________________ 14
3) Evaluation of Implementation Ability among National Core Trainers ________________ 14
a) Methodology______________________________________________________________________ 14
b) Valid Figures _____________________________________________________________________ 14
d) Analysis _________________________________________________________________________ 15
4) Evaluation of TRIAL INSET Workshop _________________________________________ 16
a) Methodology______________________________________________________________________ 16
b) Valid Figures _____________________________________________________________________ 16
c) Results __________________________________________________________________________ 16
d)-1 Analysis (1 ) - Mathematics - _______________________________________________________ 17
d)-2 Analysis (2 ) – Science & Technology - ______________________________________________ 17
d)-3 Analysis (3) - Biology - __________________________________________________________ 18
d)-4 Analysis (4) – Home Economics - __________________________________________________ 19
9. ACHIEVEMENTS AND ISSUES ___________________________________________ 19
1) Achievements _______________________________________________________________ 19
a) Capacity Building in INSET Management for SMASSE Malawi Core Trainers __________________ 19
b) Verification of INSET Curriculum, Materials and Information Collection for Further Improvement __ 19
c) Promotion of Africa Regional Cooperation Under SMASSE-WECSA _________________________ 20
d) Strengthening Ownership ____________________________________________________________ 20
e) Achievement of Cost-Sharing _________________________________________________________ 20
f) Strengthening Framework for Cooperation with CIDA SSTEP Project _________________________ 21
1/24
2) Issues _____________________________________________________________________ 21
a) School Calendar of DCE and Implementing Capacity ______________________________________ 21
b) Vulnerable Management Structure （No Full Time Staffs）） _________________________________ 22
c) Ability of “Action” on The Preparation for Workshop ______________________________________ 22
d) Deepening Awareness of The Issue for Further Quality Improvement __________________________ 22
e) Funding System for Creating INSET Operation Cost ______________________________________ 23
f) Creating Necessary Incentives for Institutionalising INSET _________________________________ 23
10. THE WAY FORWARD ___________________________________________________ 24
1) Strengthening Technical Supports and Revising Programme Schedule________________ 24
2) Further Promotion of Africa Regional Cooperation _______________________________ 24
＜TABLES AND GRAPHS＞

Table 1：Summary of the activities for institutionalising SMASSE INSET Malawi ____________ 5
Table 2：Action Plan for conducting TRIAL INSET （developed at DCE, in Apr. 2003） ___________________ 7
Table 3: EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION ABILITY OF ACTION PLAN _________________________ 8
Table 4：Contents of Lecture-based Seminars and their valid figures ________________________________ 10
Table 5：Evaluation of Lecture-based Seminars ________________________________________________ 11
Table 6：Contents of Subject-based Peer Teaching and their valid figures ____________________________ 12
Table 7：Evaluation of Subject-based Peer Teaching _____________________________________________ 13
Table 8：Evaluation against implementation ability among National Core Trainers _____________________ 14
Table 9：Budget estimation and actual cost for conducting SMASSE MALAWI TRIAL INSET_____________ 21
Graph 1 ： Impact Evaluation of the Workshop （Math） __________________________ 16

Graph 2 ： Impact Evaluation of the Workshop （Sci. & Tech.）） __________________________ 17
Graph 3 ： Impact Evaluation of the Workshop （Biology） __________________________ 18
Graph 4 ： Impact Evaluation of the Workshop （HEC） __________________________ 18
＜ANNEX＞
1 ： Workshop Schedule
２： List of Participants
３： Evaluation Form for seminar and peer teaching
４： Evaluation Form for ability of core trainers
５： Pre-Evaluation Form for the workshop （e.x. Mathematics）
６： Pre-Evaluation forms for the workshop （e.x. Biology）
７： Proposed Schedule for Establishment of SMASSE INSET in Malawi
８： Strategic Matrices for Establishment of SMASSE INSET in Malawi
2/24
Abbreviation
ASEI/PDSI : Activity, Student-Centred, Experiment, Improvisation/Plan,

Do, See, Improve
CDSS : Community Day Secondary Schools
CIDA : Canadian International Development Agency
DCE : Domasi College of Education
DECs : Distance Education Centres
DTED : Department of Teacher Education and Development
EMAS : Education Method Advisory Services
INSET : In-Service Training
JICA : Japan International Cooperation Agency
MAMSTIP : Malawi Mathematics and Science Teaching Improvement
Project
MoEST ： Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Malawi
SEED : South East Educational Office
SMASSE : Strengthening of Mathematics and Science in Secondary
Education
SMASSE-WECSA : SMASSE-Western Eastern Central Southern Africa
SSTEP : Secondary School Teacher Education Project
SV : Senior Volunteer
TOR : Terms of References
TOTs : Trainers of Training
3/24
1. BACKGROUND
In February 2000, the SMASSE Kenya Team conducted a regional study in Tanzania, Malawi and
Zambia to see the possibility of regional cooperation aiming at the capacity building for science and
mathematics education at secondary level. As outputs through this study, the dissemination of experiences
of SMASSE Kenya towards other neighbouring countries by combination of the third country counterpart
training and in-country training was proposed in the mid-/long-term support. In August same year, JICA
Education Planning Adviser, two officers from the Ministry (Principal Education Methods Adviser in the
Headquarter and Senior Education Methods Adviser in South East Education Divisional Office) and the
Head of Science Faculty at Domasi College of Education participated in the 2nd National SMASSE INSET
to learn SMASSE activities in Kenya.
In February of the following year, 2001, the 1st SMASSE-ECSA Regional Conference was held in
Nairobi in which 11 countries1 were invited to discuss about the issues that each country was facing in
secondary education. At the end of the conference, it was agreed to formulate the regional network to
elaborate the cooperation to improve secondary education, especially, mathematics and science.
On the process of discussions for the regional cooperation with SMASSE Kenya, it was proposed that
in Malawi, from the aspects of the necessity for urgent supports with immediate effectiveness and
efficiency, establishing sustainable INSET system collaborated with the experience and know-how of
SMASSE Kenya project but it would be applied in the context of Malawi’s conditions of existing teacher
training system, contents of INSET and needs for training was assessed as effective. With this appraisal, the
JICA Education Planning Adviser in Malawi visited the 3rd SMASSE National INSET in August 2001 to
make plan for the Kenya-Malawi Joint SMASSE Workshop for the sensitisation of SMASSE approach to
Malawi counterparts.
In January 2002, Kenya-Malawi Joint SMASSE Workshop was organised at Domasi College of
Education in which ASEI (Activity, Student-centred, Experiment and Improvisation) approach, the features
of SMASSE teaching methodology, was demonstrated in Malawi for the fist time. Through this workshop,
the importance and necessity to establish SMASSE-typed INSET were addressed and be shared among the
Malawian counterparts. And March of the same year, the overall action plan to support in-service training
system for secondary mathematics and science education in Malawi with special emphasis on regional
cooperation was formulated under the tripartite agreement among Kenya Science Teachers’ College
(KSTC: the implementing organisation of SMASSE Kenya), JICA Malawi and JICA Kenya Office. Based
on this tripartite agreement, between August and November 2003, two counterparts from Malawi (Mrs.
Soko, Principle Education Methods Adviser and Mrs. Sineta, Senior Education Methods Adviser2) were
participated in the 4th SMASSE NATIONAL INSET and the 2nd SMASSE DISTRICT INSET in Kenya in
order to learn INSET management skills such as planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating and
1
11 countries are Kenya, Uganda, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Delegates at the 2nd Regional conference in June 2002, changed the name of the Association from SMASSE-ECSA to SMASSE-WECSA,
(Strengthening Mathematics and Science in Secondary Education in Western, Eastern, Central, And Southern Africa), to reflect the inclusion
of Ghana representing West Africa.
2
Job titles for two counterparts are as of August 2003.
4/24
financial management. With these counterparts, JICA Education Planning Adviser based on Lilongwe and
Science Education Adviser in Domasi, Malawi visited Nairobi to make detailed schedule and action plan
based on the original made in March. Having followed the action plan, stakeholders’ meeting and needs
assessment survey were conducted in 2002.
Between 30 March and 4 April 2003, the National Trainers’ Training Workshop with SMASSE Kenya
Team was held at Domasi College of Education (DCE). This was the second Joint Workshop that both
Malawian and Kenyan Team gathered to expose their teaching methodologies in mathematics and science.
Moreover, this joint workshop had been taken for not only “continuous workshop to promote mutual
relationships with Kenya” but also “the opportunity to appraise the REAL OWNERSHIP to precede
SMASSE INSET Malawi”.
Table 1 summarises main activities and their objectives during August 2002 and August 2003.
Table 1：Summary of the activities for institutionalising SMASSE INSET Malawi
Date Activities Main Outputs

Two ministry officers, one is working for the
headquarter and the other is for divisional education
Third Country Training office, were trained in INSET management and
Aug.- Nov.
1 Programme/ Technical became core facilitators of the programme;
2002
Exchange Programme Questionnaires for Needs Assessment Study was
developed as the output of training;
The draft of Action Plan was made.
The key principle of SMASSE INSET Malawi and
basic policy to support from JICA were formally
The 1st Stakeholders’ informed and sensitised to the
2 Oct. 2002
Meeting Four key areas, 1) financial, 2) management and
organization, 3) INSET policy, and 4) participation,
were identified and recommendations were set.
Staffs of Domasi College of Education (DCE) were
given a research opportunity so that it strengthened
their research ability;
By inviting counterparts from SMASSE Kenya to
support data analysis, the regional cooperation was
promoted;
The following baseline data was collected;
General information such as teacher qualification,
Nov.- Dec. Needs Assessment experience, specialization and subjects actually
3
2002 Survey teaching;
Teachers’ and students’ attitude in Mathematics and
Sciences towards new curriculum, assessment and
teaching methodology;
Topics that teachers and students find difficult;
The factors which make students like/dislike
Mathematics and Sciences;
Possible ways of improving performance in
Mathematics and Science.
The identified issues of mathematics and science in
secondary education through Needs Assessment Study
The 2nd Stakeholders’
4 Dec. 2002 were reported and shared with stakeholders;
Meeting
Through the discussion among stakeholders on the
draft of Terms of References (TOR) (See Annex 1) in
5/24
which overall programme design was specified, a

sense of ownership and commitment were promoted
Revise the TOR originally made in October 2002 to
Coordination in the
be approved by the Ministry
5 Jan. 2003 ～ Ministry on TOR with
New PS Identify the list of members of steering committee and
technical committee for the programme
Receive and discuss a report on the Needs Assessment
Survey for the pilot project (baseline study data) and
suggest the way forward
WSSD
6 Mar. 2003
Follow-up Meeting Approve ToRs and working schedule for the INSET
programme for each stakeholder
Formulate the Steering and Technical committee for
the project
Involvement of Qualified Secondary Teachers in the
INSET National Pilot area and SSTEP area supervisors as core members
Trainers’ Training of INSET National Trainers
7 Apr. 2003
Joint Workshop with Cooperation with SSTEP Project (CIDA)
SMASSE Kenya Budget Planning at DCE and SEED for INSET
activities in the next fiscal year
Ensure the JICA Policy toward SMASSE INSET
Meeting with MoEST
MALAWI and Necessary undertakings by Malawian
on the JICA Rolling
8 Aug. 2003 side for the way forward
Plan for Education
Identify memberships and roles of Steering
Sector
Committees and Technical Committee
The purposes of this TRIAL INSET were as follows;
2. PURPOSES OF THE WORKSHOP

1) To strengthen the capacity of National Core Trainers of SMASSE Malawi in INSET planning,
management and evaluation by conducting TRIAL INSET;
2) To verify the validity of INSET curriculum, lesson plans that were made for this workshop so that
they can be improved for further activities;
3) To promote African Regional Cooperation between Malawi and Kenya.
3. EXPECTED OUTPUTS
The followings were expected outputs in order to achieve the above three main purposes.
1)-1： National Core Trainers of SMASSE Malawi shall learn logistical procedures in planning INSET
programme and running training workshop;
1)-2： National Core Trainers of SMASSE Malawi shall enhance self-confidence in planning and
management of INSET as well as sense of ownership through conducting TRIAL INSET;
2)-1： Developed INSET curriculum and lesson plans shall be tested their validities;
2)-2： Information for improving INSET curriculum shall be collected;
2)-3： Teaching methodologies based on ASEI/PDSI shall be more sensitised among participant;
3)-1： Knowledge and experiences for the lesson reform shall be shared with Kenya SMASSE Team;
3)-2： Human resource networks under SMASSE-WECSA Association shall be strengthen among the
6/24
members of SMASSE Kenya, MoEST Malawi, and National Core members of SMASSE Malawi.
4. SCHEDULE
5 days: 1st – 5th September （see Annex 1）
＜Summary of Main Activities on each day＞
1st Day： Setting up the workshop with lecture-based seminar
2nd Day： ASEI Lesson exposure by National Core Trainers followed by peer
3rd Day： Developing lesson plans based on ASEI and holding lecture-based seminar
4th Day： Peer teaching based on lesson plans for further improvement and holding seminar
5th Day： Exposing lessons developed at neighbouring secondary schools and wrapping up the workshop
5. PARTICIPANTS
Please refer to Annex 2
6. PREPARATION FOR TRIAL INSET AND ITS EVALUATION

1) Action Plan
The SMASSE Malawi and Kenya Joint Workshop held from 31st March to 5th April 2003 aimed at
strengthening INSET implementation capacity of national core trainers, especially in subject contents and
teaching methodology, who are expected to play the central roles on the process of institutionalising INSET
for secondary science and mathematics teachers in Malawi. The workshop, in which ASEI model lessons
were provided by Kenya SMASSE subject specialists, gave Malawian counterparts an opportunity to be
sensitised and study the possible methods in order to implement teaching style based on ASEI.
At the final day of the workshop, with the strong initiative from Malawian side, the Action Plan for
TRIAL INSET scheduled in September was developed (Table 2). It covered all activities to be prepared for
conducting TRAIL INSET - time framework, and responsible persons for each activity - and was agreed to
proceed to implement preparation, monitoring among all participants. However, regarding time framework,
it was decided that it would be supervised by each responsible person after the workshop.
：Action Plan for conducting TRIAL INSET （developed at DCE, in Apr. 2003）
Table 2：）
When (Time schedule) 2003 By whom (responsible persons)
What (Activities) 4 5 6 7 8 9
a Set up College Based INSET Committee Mr. Chimenya

b Further Baseline Study Mr. Phaundi-Shonga
c Finalise INSET Curriculum Mr. Mkandawire
d Develop INSET Modalities Mr. Ndolo
e Subject Group Meeting Ms. Meke (HEC)
Mr. Kuzemga (Physical Science)
7/24
Mr. Msekandiana (Math)

Mr. Phwetekere (Bio)
f Develop Training Manuals Mrs. Yamamoto（JICA）
g Plan Lessons (resources) All Trainers of Trainings (TOTs)

Ms. Meke (HEC)
h Procurement of Materials Mr. Kuzemga (Physical Science)
Mr. Msekandiana (Math)
Mr. Phwetekere (Bio)
i Peer Teaching Among Core Trainers All TOTs
j INSET Programme Mr. Chimenya
k Identify Trainees from Secondary Schools All TOTs
l Invitation of Trainees Mr. Chimenya
m Conduct INSET All TOTs
2) Evaluation of Implementation of Action Plan

It cannot to be said that the actual practice of action plan, which was made by strong initiatives from
Malawian counterparts as mentioned above, was on/along the schedule. Table 3 shows evaluation for each
activity.
Table 3: EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION ABILITY OF ACTION PLAN
Activities Evaluation
a Set up College Based INSET Committee ◎
b Further Baseline Study ×
c Finalise INSET Curriculum ×
d Develop INSET Modalities △
e Subject Group Meeting △
f Develop Training Manuals ×
g Plan Lessons (resources) △
h Procurement of Materials ○
j Peer Teaching Among Core Trainers △
k INSET Programme ○
l Identify Trainees from Secondary Schools ○
m Invitation of Trainees ○
◎ ：Done on schedule
○ ：Delayed to implement, however, there was no negative impact on programme
△ ：Delayed to implement so that there were negative impact on programme
× ：Not Done
“Setting up college based INSET committee” was the only activity done on/along the action plan. All
other preparations were delayed to practice or never done.
8/24
This report should point out, especially, that there are three activities undone; 1) Further Baseline Study;
2) Finalise INSET Curriculum; and 3) Develop Training Manuals.
Concerning to 1), the proposal made by DCE came out; however, it was after the middle of July so that
time could not allow us to conduct. Moreover, there was inconsistency between expected outputs and its
study approach. About 2), the INSET curriculum for this TRIAL INSET was developed but the
comprehensive one for each subject has not completed yet. And there is almost no progress on activity 3). It
suggests that more effective and structured technical assistance is necessary in these areas to avoid to be
forced to manage INSET at day-to-day basis in the future.
Besides, the activities which are evaluated as “○” – delayed to implement, however, there was no
negative impact on the programme – also should be reflected on the way forward, otherwise, it can be
understood that “if there was no problem, it was not problem” but this logic is really lack of critical
thinking.
7. IMPLEMENTATIONS
The workshop was composed of mainly two types of programme; 1) Lecture-based Seminar, and 2) Peer
Teaching based on model lessons. The followings are the summaries of the programme.
1) Lecture-Based Seminar
（evaluation was done）
Contents of Seminar
a) The validity and importance of SMASSE ASEI/PDSI based teaching methodologies for science
and mathematics
b) Effective Management of Science Laboratories
c) The sustainable INSET
d) Teaching methodologies based on TALULAR (Teaching And Learning by Using Local
Available Resources) and ASEI
e) Assessment of classroom lessons and its methodology
（evaluation was not done）

Contents of Seminar
a) How can teachers be called Professionals – 10 commandments of Professionalism –
b) The summary of Needs Assessment Survey of INSET
2) Peer Teaching
Subjects Contents of Lessons
9/24
a) Probabilities
b) Mathematics Vector
c) Sets
d) Scientific Investigation
Science and Technology
e) Chemical Reaction
f) Locomotion of Fish and its Ecology
Biology
g) Components of Bones
h) Home Economics Patterns
8. EVALUATION OF WORKSHOP
This was TRIAL INSET so that we tried to evaluate programme implementation as much as possible.
There are fourfold evaluation; 1) Lecture-based Seminars, 2) Subject-based Peer Teaching, 3)
Implementation Ability among National Core Trainers, and 4) TRIAL INSET workshop as a whole.
The evaluation questionnaires and criteria for the analysis are following along the evaluation tools in
SMASSE Project (2003) Instruments for Internal Monitoring and Evaluation, SMASSE Internal
Monitoring and Evaluation Task Force, Nairobi.
1) Evaluation of Lecture-Based Seminars

a) Methodology
Soon after the session, the evaluation questionnaire (Annex 3) was provided to participants followed by
instructions, and 5-10 minutes were given to fill in. Then, they were collected by session facilitators after
completion.
b) Valid Figures
Valid
Contents of Seminars
figures
The validity and importance of SMASSE ASEI/PDSI based teaching methodologies for
a) 23
science and mathematics
b) Effective Management of Science Laboratories 33
c) The sustainable INSET 10
Teaching methodologies based on TALULAR (Teaching And Learning by Using Local
d) 26
Available Resources) and ASEI
e) Assessment of classroom lessons and its methodology 21
：Contents of Lecture-based Seminars and their valid figures

Table 4：
c) Mean of Evaluation Score

Table 5 shows the mean of evaluation score for each seminar. The range of indicators is between 0 and 4.
10/24
The bigger the number is, the more positive the evaluation shows.
4: Excellent, 3: Good, 2: Average, 1: Fair, 0: Poor
3.5 ≤ M ≤ 4.0: Attained , 2.0 ≤ M ≤ 3.5: Attaining , 0.0 ≤ M ≤ 2.0: Needs Effort
Relevance to
Les. Evaluation Motivating to Interesting to Participant's Time
Participant's
No. Category Participants Participants Involvement Management
Needs
Plenary 3.261 3.227 2.455 3.348 2.174
a)
Discussion 2.905 3.048 2.810 3.000 1.842
Plenary 3.194 3.290 3.233 3.567 2.000
b)
Discussion 3.333 3.424 3.156 3.344 2.939
Plenary 3.200 2.900 2.900 2.800 2.400
c)
Discussion 3.000 3.000 3.100 3.300 2.556
Plenary 3.125 3.292 3.500 3.458 2.417
d)
Discussion 3.185 3.333 3.370 3.462 2.667
Plenary 2.952 2.952 2.952 3.286 2.619
e)
Discussion 3.048 3.143 2.850 3.190 2.714
：Evaluation of Lecture-based Seminars

Table 5：
d) Analysis
The followings are analysis and conjecture led from the results of evaluation mentioned above.
An area of distribution is between 1.842 and 3.567. Most of indictors are obtained above “3”,
preferable evaluations can be observed from overall category.
An evaluation against “Time Management” is comparatively low. Seminars on “The validity and
importance of SMASSE ASEI/PDSI based teaching methodologies for science and mathematics” and
“Effective Management of Science Laboratories” are given severe critics.
An evaluation against “Participant's Involvement” is relatively not so high. Especially, seminars on
“The validity and importance of SMASSE ASEI/PDSI based teaching methodologies for science and
mathematics” presented one of the key elements of SMASSE teaching methodologies, which is the
importance of “Student-Cantered”, however, its evaluation was really controversial.
“The sustainable INSET” seminar got comparatively low evaluation in relevance of participants’
needs. It refers that an awareness of issues on sustainability among participants are not so critical or
a sensitisation among them is not satisfactory.
“Assessment of classroom lessons and its methodology” seminar received comparatively less
categories which exceeded “3” in their indicators.
2) Evaluation of Subject-based Peer Teaching

a) Methodology
One of the participants/core trainers gave ASEI model lessons in each subject, then based on that peer
11/24
teaching, discussions and development of teaching materials were practiced. An evaluation sheets (same as
seminar evaluation form) were provided soon after teaching demonstrations followed by instructions from
facilitators/core trainers.
b) Valid Figures
Subjects Contents of Lessons Valid Figures
a) Probabilities 263
b) Mathematics Vector 7
c) Sets 10
d) Scientific Investigation 6
Science and Technology
e) Chemical Reaction 6
f) Locomotion of Fish and its Ecology 7
Biology
g) Components of Bones 5
h) Home Economics Patterns 7
：Contents of Subject-based Peer Teaching and their valid figures

Table 6：

4: Excellent, 3: Good, 2: Average, 1: Fair, 0: Poor
3.5 ≤ M ≤ 4.0: Attained, 2.0 ≤ M ≤ 3.5: Attaining, 0.0 ≤ M ≤ 2.0: Needs Effort
3
This was presented as a model lesson based on ASEI/PDSI in overall session so that the sample volume became bigger than
other subject-based peer teaching.
12/24
：Evaluation of Subject-based Peer Teaching

Table 7：
Relevance to
Les. Evaluation Motivating to Interesting to Participant's Time
Participant's
No. Category Participants Participants Involvement Management
Needs
Plenary 2.625 3.375 3.375 3.000 3.000
Practical 3.542 3.625 3.542 3.375 2.958
Math. Discussion 3.174 3.182 3.261 3.500 3.043
a) Peer Teaching - - - - -
Feedback on Peer
- - - - -
Teaching
Plenary - - - - -
Practical 3.167 3.333 3.333 3.000 3.400
Math. Discussion 3.000 3.500 3.167 3.200 3.400
b) Peer Teaching 2.667 2.833 3.167 2.667 3.333
Feedback on Peer
2.600 2.800 3.000 2.800 3.400
Teaching
Plenary - - - - -
Practical 3.167 3.333 3.333 3.000 3.400
Math. Discussion 3.000 3.500 3.167 3.200 3.400
c) Peer Teaching 2.667 2.833 3.167 2.667 3.333
Feedback on Peer
2.600 2.800 3.000 2.800 3.400
Teaching
Plenary 3.000 2.800 3.600 3.600 2.800
Practical - - - - -
Sci.&
Discussion 3.000 3.000 4.000 3.667 3.333
Tech.
d) Peer Teaching - - - - -
Feedback on Peer
- - - - -
Teaching
Plenary 3.000 3.167 3.600 3.600 3.000
Practical 3.000 3.500 3.500 3.200 3.333
Sci.&
Discussion 3.000 3.000 3.800 3.400 3.600
Tech.
e) Peer Teaching - - - - -
Feedback on Peer
- - - - -
Teaching
Plenary 3.600 3.800 3.800 3.600 2.800
Practical 3.857 3.571 3.857 3.857 3.000
Bio. Discussion 3.750 3.800 3.600 3.600 3.800
f) Peer Teaching 3.800 3.200 3.600 3.400 3.000
Feedback on Peer
3.667 3.333 3.333 3.667 3.333
Teaching
Plenary 2.600 3.200 3.400 3.400 3.000
Practical 3.600 3.600 3.800 3.600 3.600
Bio. Discussion 3.600 3.600 4.000 3.800 3.800
g) Peer Teaching 3.250 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.250
Feedback on Peer
3.250 3.250 3.250 3.250 3.250
Teaching
Plenary - - - - -
Practical 3.857 3.857 3.857 3.857 3.714
HEC Discussion 3.857 3.714 3.714 3.714 3.500
h) Peer Teaching - - - - -
Feedback on Peer
- - - - -
Teaching
13/24
d) Analysis
All peer teachings are given 2.0 to 3.5, which means “Attaining”.
Evaluations against Biology and HEC are comparatively higher than other subjects, however, the
analysis cannot conclude that is coming from relative high quality of teaching ability or the different
evaluation criteria among evaluators. A further survey is necessary.
It can be observed that indicators in “Interesting to participants” and “Participant’s involvement” are
relatively lower. Possible factors for whether it is from the specific feather of mathematics that is
unlikely to encourage pupil’s participation or immaturity of teaching methods among participants
cannot be analysed through this evaluation tool. A further survey is necessary.
There were inconsistencies in entering evaluation forms in accordance with subjects and lessons.
3) Evaluation of Implementation Ability among National Core Trainers

a) Methodology
On the final day of the workshop, wrap-up discussion was conducted by all participants and in which one
of the main purposes of the workshop – strengthening the capacity of INSET management among core
trainers and its evaluation – was explained again and had an open discussion. After that, evaluation
questionnaire (Annex 4) was distributed with instructions from facilitators to participants for filling the
form.
b) Valid Figures
23
There are two categories in evaluation form; 1) Plan, and 2) Do. Contents of evaluation and their
indicators are as follows.
4: Excellent, 3: Very Good, 2: Good, 1: Average, 0: Below Average
3.5 ≤ M ≤ 4.0: Attained, 2.5 ≤ M ≤ 3.5: Attaining, 0.0 ≤ M ≤ 2.5: Needs Effort
：Evaluation against implementation ability among National Core Trainers

Table 8：
Category Contents of Evaluation Mean

Overall 3.077
P1 Appropriateness of INSET Programme/Work Plan 2.913
P2 Appropriateness of INSET materials 3.391
P3 Arrangement of facilities and equipment used in INSET workshop 3.130
P4 Local availability of INSET materials 3.087
P5 Demonstration of appropriate INSET 3.130
P6 On-time distribution of INSET materials along the programme 2.609
P7 Participation approach in planning INSET programme 2.826
P8 Fairness of roles taken by each core trainers 3.130
D1 Management capacity along INSET programme 2.870
D2 Time Management 2.565
D3 Appropriateness of usage of local available resources 3.217
14/24
D4 Effective and efficient usage of INSET materials 3.217

D5 Participation approach in implementation of INSET programme 2.957
D6 Effective facilitation of sessions 3.304
Harmonised and collaborative relationships among core trainers,
D7 3.304
participants and support staffs
D8 Ensuring participations of trainees 3.391
D9 Ensuring training evaluation on appropriate time 3.261
Overall
4.000
D9 P1
3.500
D8 3.000 P2
2.500
D7 2.000 P3
1.500
1.000
D6 0.500
P4
0.000
D5 P5
D4 P6
D3 P7
D2 P8
D1
d) Analysis
＜Overall＞
All indicators show “Attaining” stage. The ability to conduct INSET of SMASSE Malawi National
Core Trainers was evaluated as “Fair” although this was the first INSET for them.
However, there can be observed some fluctuations in categories. Categories given less than “3” need
immediate action for improvement and the ones given more than “3” need further development.
＜Plan＞
Planning for the usage of INSET materials is obtained fairly high point of evaluation. However, “P6：
On-time distribution of INSET materials along the programme” and “P7: Participation approach in
planning INSET programme” are with the grade of lower than “3”. That can lead to comparative lower
score on “P1: Appropriateness of INSET Programme/Work Plan”.
＜Do＞
Indicators relating to human relationships such as “D6: Effective facilitation of sessions”, “D7：
Harmonised and collaborative relationships among core trainers, participants and support staffs” are
relatively high.
On the other hand, “D1: Management capacity along INSET programme” and “D2: Time
Management” reveal lower evaluation from participants. Insufficient preparations for the programme
and a lack of understanding about necessary roles undertaken by each trainer possibly affect negative
impact on these indicators.
Concerning to “D5: Participation approach in implementation of INSET programme”, it is presumed
that insufficient practices on planning stage could affect on implementation stage.
15/24
4) Evaluation of TRIAL INSET Workshop

a) Methodology
The Pre- and Post-Evaluation were conducted before and after this TRIAL INSET in order to assess
impact of this workshop toward participants (See Annex 5 & 6). The Pre-evaluation was done on the first
day soon after morning break; however, it was not with appropriate instructions from core trainers so many
invalid answers or oversight of questions were found. Then, on the second day, that was taken again with
sufficient instructions. The Post-evaluation was conducted after the wrapping-up discussion on the final
day.
b) Valid Figures
Subject Pre Post
Mathematics 15 9
Science & Technology 7 4
Biology 8 5
Home Economics 4 4
Total 34 22
c) Results
A B C D E F
Ability to Ability to Ability to
Ability to use Ability to handle under
Consistency variety of develop poor apply and evaluate
Contents of purposes of introduce pupils’
Evaluation in lessons and teaching lesson plans conditions local understanding
methodologie and use local with
each category its s to help available experiment available and teaching
methodology resources methodologies
understanding resources and teaching into lesson of their own
materials
No. of 8 15 9 9 7 19
Questions
4: Strongly Agree, 3: Agree, 2: Not Sure, 1: Disagree, 0: Strongly Disagree

3.5 ≤ M ≤ 4.0: Can be sustained, 2.5 ≤ M ≤ 3.5: Positive but needs confirmation
0.0 ≤ M ≤ 2.5: Define change of attitude required
Math. 4.000
3.500
Pre Post
3.250
3.148 3.158
3.063 3.000 2.951
3.000 2.873
2.667
2.554
2.416 2.474
2.500 2.391 2.341
2.067
Grade
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
Overall Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Category F
：Impact Evaluation of the Workshop (Mathematics)

Graph 1：
16/24
d)-1 Analysis (1 ) - Mathematics -

The overall pre-evaluation scored “2.416” that was in the range of “Define change of attitude required”.
However, the post-evaluation increased to “3.063” as the result of gaining the points positively in all
categories. It refers that the workshop had a positive impact as a whole.
Especially, from the increase of points in the category “A: Consistency purposes of lessons and its
methodology”, “C: Ability to develop lesson plans and use local available resources”, and “F: Ability
to evaluate pupils, understanding and teaching methodologies of their own”, it can be inferred that the
workshop gave an opportunity for participants to rethink how to link lesson purposes with teaching
methodology in which what they should/could do to achieve it under local available resources. This is
definitely the main purpose of SMASSE that is to reform lessons based on attitude-change of teachers.
On the other hand, the fact that post-evaluation in category B, D, E remains at less than 3 points
suggests that the sustainable INSET system and its follow-up are crucial.
Science & Technology

4.000
3.500
Pre Post
3.219
3.063 3.056 3.083 3.107 3.079
3.000 2.833 2.815 2.810
2.533 2.508
2.429 2.390
2.500
2.246
Grade
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
：Impact Evaluation of the Workshop (Science & Technology)

Graph 2：
d)-2 Analysis (2 ) – Science & Technology -

The overall pre-evaluation scored “2.533” that slightly exceeded the area of “Define change of attitude
required”. However, the post-evaluation increased to “3.063” as the result of gaining the points
positively in all categories. It refers that the workshop had a positive impact as a whole.
From the great increase of points in the category “F: Ability to evaluate pupils, understanding and
teaching methodologies of their own” – 2.246 in pre-evaluation to 3.079 in post-evaluation with 0.763
gained -, it can be inferred that the importance of lesson evaluation was recognised by participants
through peer teaching, discussion and the usage of evaluation forms.
Indicators at the pre-evaluation was relatively higher than any other subjects, on the other hand, the
rate of increase at post-evaluation was not impressive. Therefore, it can be presumed that the direct
impact of the workshop was relatively lower.
17/24
Biology
4.000
3.700
Pre Post 3.771 3.716
3.639 3.689
3.493 3.467
3.500
2.900 2.917 2.895

3.000 2.813 2.813 2.768
2.583
2.500
Grade
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
Graph 3Impact Evaluation of the Workshop (Biology)
d)-3 Analysis (3) - Biology -

The overall pre-evaluation scored “2.813” added 0.826 point at post-evaluation and was increased to
“3.639”. Not only that all categories gained positively at post-evaluation but also that “Can be
sustained” was given to four categories (A, D, E, F) shows the workshop had a positive impact and
gave high degree of satisfaction to participants.
Especially, more than one point increase can be observed in the category “D: Ability to handle under
poor conditions with experiment and teaching materials” and “E: Ability to apply and introduce local
available resources into lesson”. It can be inferred that the workshop successfully provided the ideas
on “E: Experiment” and “I: Improvisation” that are main themes of SMASSE to participants.
Home Economics
4.000 3.833 Pre Post
3.637 3.700 3.667
3.625 3.614
3.500 3.381
3.000
2.594
2.500 2.367
2.250
2.124
Grade
1.917 1.905
2.000
1.711
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
Graph 4：Impact Evaluation of the Workshop (Home Economics)
18/24
d)-4 Analysis (4) – Home Economics -

The pre-evaluation by participants of this subject was the most severe. Not only the lowest score in
overall evaluation but also all categories except A were given less than 2.5 that means “Define change
of attitude required”.
On the other hand, the drastic improvement can be observed at post-evaluation in all categories. The
overall evaluation obtained “3.637” added 1.513 from pre-evaluation that is the second highest score
in four subjects. Besides, that all categories except E achieved “Can be sustained” explains that the
workshop had a positive impact and gave high degree of satisfaction to participants as we can see in
Biology.
9. ACHIEVEMENTS
ACHIEVEMENTS AND ISSUES
1) Achievements
In addition to three expected outputs through this workshop: 1) Capacity building in INSET management
for SMASSE Malawi core trainers; 2) Verification of INSET curriculum, materials and information
collection for further improvement; 3) Promotion of Africa Regional Cooperation under SMASSE-WECSA,
the other three can be addressed as achievements; that are 4) Strengthening Ownership; 5) Achievement of
Cost-sharing, and 6) Strengthening framework for cooperation with CIDA, SSTEP Project.
a) Capacity Building in INSET Management for SMASSE Malawi Core Trainers

In April 2003, on the Joint Workshop with SMASSE Kenya for SMASSE MALAWI National Trainers’
Training, science and mathematics secondary teachers (who are qualified and interested in joining INSET)
in the pilot area were invited as “candidates of core members” to strengthen human capacity and to be
expected to play central roles in institutionalising SMASSE INSET in Malawi.
In this TRIAL INSET, they joined from the planning stage of the programme with other core members
from DCE. This was the first time for them to be involved in planning, implementing, managing and
evaluating INSET as “Hosts”. There, of course, were some points, which were to be improved, however, as
[8. EVALUATION OF WORKSHOP] mentioned, the evaluation results showed promising for further
development.
b) Verification of INSET Curriculum, Materials and Information Collection for Further Improvement
For this TRIAL INSET workshop was literally “trial” for everyone for everything, efforts as much as
possible were undertaken to conduct internal evaluations which are used at SMASSE Kenya for sessions,
peer teachings for assessing consistency with needs of participants, degree of satisfaction and a
management capacity. Although it was not complaining less capacity of core trainers, if we continue
activities to institutionalise INSET system for science and mathematics teachers at secondary level, it
would be crucial to develop its curriculum and teaching/learning materials in order. It is important to
conduct additional needs assessment at secondary school level in order to collect more accurate data on
lesson-style and performance among students.
19/24
c) Promotion of Africa Regional Cooperation Under SMASSE-WECSA

This workshop has received a technical support from Kenya SMASSE, Mrs. Lynette Kisaka (Biology
specialist) and Mr. Ndelela Masoka (Chemistry specialist). Their presence was very encouraging for both
SMASSE Malawi core trainers and trainees and contributed a lot for enhancing the quality of workshop.
Moreover, their stance, attitude or style in advising was never “pushing” but “igniting” potentiality of
Malawian counterparts. It was respected and appreciated so that Malawian counterparts put great trust on
that. This is really one of the most positive aspects by regional cooperation in which not “Teaching and
Taught hierarchical relationship” but “Learning together by sharing ideas and experience relationship” has
been created and nurtured by respecting each regional conditions and with the common purpose that
“institutionalisation of sustainable INSET system in each country”.
d) Strengthening Ownership
This workshop had two participants from Department of Teacher Education and Development (DTED),
headquarter of the Ministry and three from South East Educational Division (SEED). Having had strong
commitment from DTED, which is expected to play an important role with Education Methods Advisory
Services (EMAS)4 in Steering and Technical Committee as the focal point for SMASSE INSET Malawi, it
was a really a positive sign to witness strengthening ownership, understanding that institutionalising INSET
is a part of Ministry’ s task from Malawian side.
e) Achievement of Cost-Sharing
The meeting on which cost sharing for the workshop and future activities was arranged by SMASSE
INSET Malawi coordinator (Mr. Mwanza, DCE) with participants from DTED, SEED and SMASSE
Malawi taskforce staffs from DCE. This was a visible token of above-mentioned ownership. Having this
kind of meeting for discussion of cost sharing itself was the first time so that it could be understood that
this SMASSE Malawi programme had been sensitised that it was not “all-covered support by donor”.
As the result of the meeting, the followings were covered by Malawian side; 1) allowances for all
participants except core trainers, in other words “trainees”, 2) allowances and accommodation fees for
DTED and SEED officers, 3) a part of costs for communication, transport fees, food and snacks. In the
previous activities such as Needs Assessment Study, twice Stakeholders’ Meeting and Joint Workshop with
Kenya SMASSE, all expenses were covered by JICA side, however, this was the first time to be able to
achieve cost sharing with Malawian side.
Table 9 shows how it was made. It compares budget estimations and actual costs. Cost sharing allowed
JICA to disburse only 53% of the budget that was equivalent to about MK 270,000 out of MK 495,000 in
total. This is really appreciated as “stepping forward” on the process of institutionalising INSET system in
Malawi from the point of views of “sustainability” and “cost-benefit”.
4
EMAS could not attend this workshop for during that period, it conducted inspection for primary and secondary school in
all over the country.
20/24
：Budget estimation and actual cost for conducting SMASSE MALAWI TRIAL INSET
Table 9：
Item Remarks Budget Estimation Actual Cost Difference

Day Allowance 140,000 68,250 -71,750
Transport Accommodation 50,000 0 -50,000
Fuel 6,500 20,065 +13,565
Communication Telephone 3,500 0 -3,500
Expendables Stationary 50,000 52,528.75 +2,528.75
Meeting Refreshment and snacks 245,000 125,355.99 -119,644.01
合計 495,000 266,199.74 -228,800.26
□：Items of cost sharing (Unit: MK)
f) Strengthening Framework for Cooperation with CIDA SSTEP Project

As mentioned in previous reports relating to SMASSE MALAWI5, it is crucial to collaborate with
SSTEP project supported by CIDA that has been aiming at upgrading unqualified secondary teachers
through distance education on the process of institutionalising sustainable INSET in Malawi.
For SSTEP is aiming at “strengthening subject contents or knowledge” and SMASSE is for “improving
teaching methodology” or “strengthening how deliver subject knowledge to students in the classroom”,
these two are like a pair of wheels to improve quality of secondary education. They are in supplementary
relationship.
In the last joint workshop in April, four SSTEP subject supervisors attended and tried to build the
framework of collaboration JICA with CIDA. Then in this workshop as well, we had them as “core
trainers” so that a collaborative relation was ensured and strengthen. SSTEP project Phase I (1999-2003)
will soon be finished and will almost continue to Phase II. It is surely expected to enhance this
collaboration in management and technical part in the future.
2) Issues
a) School Calendar of DCE and Implementing Capacity
Unexpected events such as front-loaded schedule for “teaching practice” that usually conducts around
this season for DCE students and introduction of “cluster system” for primary school leaving certificate
examination (PSLCE), disturbed management of TRAIL INSET workshop. Some of core trainers who are
DCE staffs should move out from workshop to attend teaching practice so that they could not contribute to
all programmes in the workshop. Fortunately, the programme itself was not so affected negatively and the
evaluation from participants was not inferior, however, this kind of mismanagement of the school calendar
should not be overlooked because it was and will be really big obstacle for institutionalising sustainable
INSET system. If this situation, that both human and physical resources of DCE are utilised at maximum
for other function even during holidays, goes on, it is wise enough to reconsider the role of DCE on
practising INSET. In other words、it is necessary to consider an alternative INSET system for effective and
5 See Y. Nakayama (Dec.2002) Pilot Project for the Establishment of Sustainable SMASSE INSET in Malawi –its
possibility and issues- and Y. Nakayama (May 2003) Progress Report II on The Pilot Programme for Establishment of
SMASSE INSET Malawi
21/24
realistic management that, for example, Small-scale INSET is regularly conducted at cluster level that was
supported to set up by DANIDA before so that cluster system will be also reorganised and reactivated and
then national level INSET is conducted based on DCE once in a year as a resource centre so that DCE can
be released from overloads. Because there are three long holidays in a school calendar of Malawi, it would
be possible to utilise secondary school facilities for INSET during holidays; however, doing the same
things at DCE seems to be practically unrealistic.
b) Vulnerable Management Structure （No Full Time Staffs）

Staffs）
Although the importance and necessity for institutionalising sustainable INSET system for secondary
teachers have been shared by Malawian side, its management structure for practical implementation is still
vulnerable. First of all, core members of SMASSE MALAWI are either DCE science staffs or secondary
teachers from the pilot educational division, SEED. They are normally holding more than two works in
their present organisation. It is true to all ministry officers in charge of this programme. Transports to
collect all members from their work places are poor, and communication infrastructure like land telephone
cannot be put on overall trust. Under this situation, preparation for conducting INSET workshop has been
facing great difficulties. By looking at the lessons learned from INSET experiences in other countries,
INSET needs a lot of energy to input both human and physical resources. Fundamentally, in order to
institutionalise INSET, intensive and direct inputs in human resources from the country that wishes to put it
in place are indispensable.
In the discussion with MoEST, Malawi in August 2003, this issue was shared and concerned, however, as
the government, whether full time staffs can be assigned or allocated for INSET only or not would be
turning point of education policy of Malawi to decide whether it would be institutionalised or not.
c) Ability of “Action” on The Preparation for Workshop

It is obvious to be forced to witness unsatisfactory preparations for the workshop due to lack of full-time
staffs for INSET. Under the condition that all core members have their own tasks in their places, looking
for time and gathering to work on preparing INSET curriculum or teaching/learning materials for the
workshop was really difficult. It is understandable. On the other hand, if each of members had his/her own
strong initiative and sense of responsibility for completing this given “challenged” task, there could be
something different from the one we observed in the preparation. Therefore, only the structure, which is
lacking specific assigned staffs or budget, cannot be complained.
Enhancing, strengthening not only the capacity for team works but also the “Just-Do-it” attitude,
capacity and its management are essential.
d) Deepening Awareness of The Issue for Further Quality Improvement

Although preparation activities were not necessarily satisfactory, as mentioned above, the evaluation
from participants was not so lower than expected. Expected outputs were gained in some extent, so that the
workshop was appreciated as “successful”, that seemed to be understood by core members of SMASSE
INSET MALAWI. However, we have to be conscious that for participants giving us that statically positive
22/24
evaluation, this was the first INSET they experienced, so that this might be the first and all for them. The
fact that not majority of them have experienced other type of INSET, participation itself might satisfy them,
tells us that this evaluation is not absolute but relative indicator under the situation that Malawi is facing
where the sustainable INSET system has never been established before so regular training opportunity has
been provided to teachers.
If we provide same type of programme with preparation and management ability we have done in this
workshop, it would be impossible to go on to satisfy participants in contents of the INSET workshop. We
should appreciate the points, which are successful and are ought to improve the areas, which need to be
improved. We have to lift ourselves to high philosophy with deep awareness of issues in order to be able to
provide high quality of INSET programme in the future.
e) Funding System for Creating INSET Operation Cost

Operation costs occur in every activity. And the sustainability of an activity is determined by the size
operation costs and their resources.
Malawi Mathematics and Science Teaching Improvement Project (MAMSTIP) conducted between 1990
and ’98 supported by the Netherlands, was INSET for secondary teachers in Malawi. However, soon after
the donor’s support withdrew, its activity was brought to an end due to the failure of institutionalising
operation costs within Malawi. On the other hand, in the Malawi civil servant system, allowances such as
day-, top up-, subsistence-, or out-of-pocket-, are regulated. We cannot oversee the fact that they are
playing an important role in putting motivation on the level of commitment among people in many cases. It
is not so difficult to blame this “Allowance Syndrome”; however, as long as this spearhead of accusation is
pointing at not only education sector but also at reforms of civil servant system as a whole, we have to find
out alternative funding resources that allow to cover operation costs under given conditions.
Cost sharing was achieved in this workshop for being had contributions from DTED as a department and
SEED as a divisional office within this year budget6. This is because on the process of planning the budget
for this fiscal year, efforts were taken to put budget in place at DCE and SEED. However, the way of cost
sharing in the future INSET activity is still unfixed.
Creating funding mechanism such as SMASSE KENYA is taking, in which a part of budget collected at
school level as development funds is pooled for INSET operational budget will become critical factor
whether SMASSE INSET MALAWI can be institutionalised in the system.
f) Creating Necessary Incentives for Institutionalising INSET

A sustainable training system, without any exception, has some merits for participants. Without any
benefits, who is spending his/her time, energy and money for that training? And we have to start to
discuss based on understanding that some can be motivated or given incentives by somehow “abstract”
gains such as improvement of teaching methodology or pupils’ performance but the majority cannot be.
6
The budget approved in July 2003 for 2003/04 fiscal year accepted MK 6.4 billion (27% up from last year)for education
sector that shares 22.0% (up from 20.7% last year) in total.
23/24
That whether we can provide “visible” and “easy to understand” benefits can become a determinant for
how much of the population can be absorbed into the INSET system with the situation in which about 65%
of total 6,000 secondary teachers are under qualified.
Precisely, creating necessary incentives for attending INSET and improving teaching methodology, for
example, which needs to link with a future promotion and adding positive factor on salary for teachers, is
critically important on the process of INSET systemisation.
10. THE WAY FORWARD

1) Strengthening Technical Supports and Revising Programme Schedule
By now, the technical supports for institutionalising SMASSE INSET MALAWI has been conducting
7
along the plan titled “Proposed Schedule for Establishment of SMASSE INSET in Malawi” (Annex 7)
made in August, 2003. When we look at purposes in each Stage that is divided in three (Annex 8), we are
standing at Stage 2 and its target are; 1) to attain the common consensus for teaching and learning methods
among stakeholders, 2) to refine the teaching and learning methods. ASEI/PDSI, which is the core principle
of SMASSE, became common term and understanding among stakeholders, however, technical areas such
as development of subject-based INSET curriculum, teaching manuals, and development of
teaching/leaning materials are slightly behind of schedule. This is mainly because technical support from
JICA side is insufficient and full time staffs for INSET activities from Malawi side are lacking.
For JICA side, “Two Advisers Technical Support System” -Education Planning Adviser in headquarter of
MoEST and Science Education Adviser (Senior Volunteer: SV) in DCE- cannot permit to provide sufficient
time and energy for INSET activities only. It is advisable to strengthen a technical support structure by for
example, dispatching more experts from Japan or SMASSE-WECSA. In addition to that, the programme
schedule should be adjusted among stakeholders by reflecting achievements and progress as of now
2) Further Promotion of Africa Regional Cooperation

Having started to support strategically to institutionalise SMASSE INSET MALAWI in August 2002,
Malawi experienced planning, managing and evaluating INSET based on their initiatives through this
TRIAL INSET workshop. Malawi did her own best and could be appreciated as the first own initiated
INSET as mentioned above. However, it is definitely important to promote more capacity building through
Africa Regional Cooperation under SMASSE-WECSA in order to enhance both human and institutional
capacity for higher quality of INSET.
Promoting this new type of regional cooperation in Africa must be only way to provide wider
opportunity to Malawian counterparts to turn to their eyes to outside world where different type of INSET
is practiced so that their individual and institutional target will be boosted up to a higher point that can not
be satisfied by conventional type of science and mathematics teaching.
7
Revised was done in October 2002 and February 2003.
24/24

01 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT ON SMASSE MALAWI TRIAL INSET

＜TABLES AND GRAPHS＞

Graph 1 ： Impact Evaluation of the Workshop （Math） __________________________ 16

ASEI/PDSI : Activity, Student-Centred, Experiment, Improvisation/Plan,

Table 1：Summary of the activities for institutionalising SMASSE INSET Malawi

Date Activities Main Outputs

which overall programme design was specified, a

The purposes of this TRIAL INSET were as follows;

2. PURPOSES OF THE WORKSHOP

6. PREPARATION FOR TRIAL INSET AND ITS EVALUATION

When (Time schedule) 2003 By whom (responsible persons)

a Set up College Based INSET Committee Mr. Chimenya

Mr. Msekandiana (Math)

g Plan Lessons (resources) All Trainers of Trainings (TOTs)

2) Evaluation of Implementation of Action Plan

Table 3: EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION ABILITY OF ACTION PLAN

（evaluation was not done）

1) Evaluation of Lecture-Based Seminars

：Contents of Lecture-based Seminars and their valid figures

c) Mean of Evaluation Score

：Evaluation of Lecture-based Seminars

2) Evaluation of Subject-based Peer Teaching

：Contents of Subject-based Peer Teaching and their valid figures

c) Mean of Evaluation Score

：Evaluation of Subject-based Peer Teaching

3) Evaluation of Implementation Ability among National Core Trainers

：Evaluation against implementation ability among National Core Trainers

Category Contents of Evaluation Mean

D4 Effective and efficient usage of INSET materials 3.217

4) Evaluation of TRIAL INSET Workshop

4: Strongly Agree, 3: Agree, 2: Not Sure, 1: Disagree, 0: Strongly Disagree

Overall Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Category F

：Impact Evaluation of the Workshop (Mathematics)

d)-1 Analysis (1 ) - Mathematics -

Science & Technology

：Impact Evaluation of the Workshop (Science & Technology)

d)-2 Analysis (2 ) – Science & Technology -

2.900 2.917 2.895

Overall Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Category F

Graph 3Impact Evaluation of the Workshop (Biology)

d)-3 Analysis (3) - Biology -

Overall Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Category F

Graph 4：Impact Evaluation of the Workshop (Home Economics)

d)-4 Analysis (4) – Home Economics -

a) Capacity Building in INSET Management for SMASSE Malawi Core Trainers

c) Promotion of Africa Regional Cooperation Under SMASSE-WECSA

Item Remarks Budget Estimation Actual Cost Difference

f) Strengthening Framework for Cooperation with CIDA SSTEP Project

b) Vulnerable Management Structure （No Full Time Staffs）

c) Ability of “Action” on The Preparation for Workshop

d) Deepening Awareness of The Issue for Further Quality Improvement

e) Funding System for Creating INSET Operation Cost

f) Creating Necessary Incentives for Institutionalising INSET

10. THE WAY FORWARD

2) Further Promotion of Africa Regional Cooperation

You might also like