194

Assessment of the Needs on Evaluation of Different Schools in the

Philippines
Carlo Magno
Asian Psychological Services and Assessment
Marife Mamauag
Help University, Malaysia
Neil Parias
Center for Learning and Performance Assessment
De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde
The study assessed the evaluation needs of 81 schools nationwide. A survey
questionnaire was constructed and validated by measurement experts.
Descriptive statistics were obtained to describe the evaluation activities,
practices and areas on evaluation needing technical assistance. Findings
show that all schools conduct evaluations mostly on teacher performance
(N=29.36%). There was an expressed need for technical assistance
practically from planning to utilization of evaluation results, especially in
areas of instrumentation and data analysis which were rated highly. The ttest results further indicate no significant difference in the needs between
public and private schools. Implications and recommendations related to
improve effective training programs that were drawn are discussed in the
study.
Keywords: Program Evaluation, Assessment, Evaluation Needs
Schools offer different programs to enhance the teaching and the
learning process. One way to determine whether certain educational
programs needs to be improved or is effective is through proper evaluation.
The information generated through proper evaluation is important by aiding
practitioners in the education sector for undertaking various decisions and
plans for programs offered. Although, very few schools engage in the real
concept of evaluation which brings the point of assessing the practices and
needs of schools in line with evaluation. There is a need to study how schools
Essentials on Counseling and Education

195

undertake their evaluation and their needs in order to identify the problems
faced by schools and to target specific ways to improve them. There is also a
need to investigate how the practice of evaluation is being conducted in
different areas to determine how evaluation is interpreted in different
contexts. This report surveyed selected schools in Luzon, Visayas, and
Mindanao to determine their needs in evaluation and how evaluation is being
practiced currently.
The quality of the countrys basic and higher education continue to
improve as it continues to face the challenges of the 21st century. The
National Achievement Test has been consistently low supported by low
ranking in international benchmarking studies such as the TIMSS. According
to the Department of Education, the grim reality has been brought about
primarily by two reasons: (1) the country is simply not investing enough in
the education sector; and (2) the education establishment has been poorly
managed.
Different contexts adopt different viewpoints of evaluation. According
to Fitzpatrick, Worthen, and Sanders (2004), some authors opt for a systems
approach, while others view evaluation as a process of identifying and
collecting information to assist decision makers. Others view evaluation as
synonymous with professional judgment, where judgment of a programs
quality is based on opinion of experts. In one school of thought, evaluation is
viewed as the process of comparing performance data with clearly specified
objectives, while in another evaluation is seen as synonymous with carefully
controlled experimental research on programs. Others urge the importance
of naturalistic inquiry or urge that value pluralism be recognized where the
individuals evaluated play a prime role in determining what direction the
evaluation study takes. These various points of view on evaluation bring
about differences in opinion on how evaluation is supposed to be done but
the worst are misconceptions on handling evaluations. Even if there are
various ways to adapt evaluation, an important area that needs to be met is
the end goal of evaluation which is to come up with judgment and overall
value of a program and its relative value. The American Evaluation
Association made effort to make the Guiding principles for Evaluation to
properly guide evaluators. These guide entails that (a) inquiries should be
data-based whatever is evaluated, (b) evaluators need to be competent, (c)
honesty and integrity are needed in the process, (d) respect of the security,
dignity, and self-worth of the respondent is important, and (e)
Essentials on Counseling and Education

196

responsibilities for the general and public welfare must be articulated.

Schools conducting the process of evaluation must be aware of these guiding
principles to put into proper perspectives and justifications their practices.
Most often before a program is started, institutions would conduct
needs assessment. An evaluation of a need seeks to identify and measure the
level of unmet needs within an organization (Posavac & Carey, 2003). The
planning would then be guided by answering the needs that arises. Astin
(1993) expresses the need for schools to evaluate regularly since the quality
of education provided to students as well as services are based on it. The
quality of education likewise is measured through evaluation. Conducting
needs assessment is concerned whether a problem or a need exists and to
describe the problem of a program and then make recommendations for
ways to reduce the problem. Basically, needs assessment determines
whether there is a sufficient need existing to initiate a program, and if there
is, then there needs to be assistance in program planning by identifying
potential program models and activities that might be conducted to achieve
goals. McKillip (1998) identified five processes on needs analysis which
includes: (1) identification of users and uses, (2) description of the target
population and service environment, (3) need identification, (4) needs
assessment, and (5) communication. McKillip (1998) explains that needs
assessment is to produce recommendations for action. Different studies may
focus on the process and monitoring component of a program. Such studies
focus on whether the program is being delivered according to some
delineated plan or model or may be more openended, simply describing the
nature of delivery of the successes and problems encountered (Fitzpatrick,
Worthen, & Sanders, 2004).
What is Evaluation?
The term evaluation has been used rather loosely without definition
beyond what was implicit in context. Yet among professional evaluators,
there is no uniformly agreed-upon definition of precisely what the term
evaluation means. In fact, Michael Scriven, one of the founders of evaluation,
recently noted that there are nearly sixty different terms for evaluation that
apply from one context to another. These include adjudge, appraise, analyze,
assess, critique, examine, grade, inspect, judge, rate, rank, review, score,
study, test, and so on (cited in Patton, 2000). Scriven further concluded that
Essentials on Counseling and Education

197

the various definitions of evaluation are reflective not only of the immense
importance of the process of evaluation in practical life, but the explosion of a
new area of study as well.
Indeed, evaluation can be described as an elastic word that stretches
to cover judgments of many kinds (Weiss, 1997). Lincoln and Guba (1986)
defined evaluation as a form of disciplined inquiry that applies scientific
procedures to the collection and analysis of information about the content,
structure and outcomes of programs, projects and planned interventions.
As cited in Clarke and Dawson (1999), few more definitions are as follows:
Program evaluation is the systematic collection of information
about activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs for
use by specific people to reduce uncertainties, improve
effectiveness, and make decisions with regard to what those
programs are doing and affecting (Patton, 1986).
Evaluation is a type of policy research, designed to help people
make wise choices about future programming. Evaluation does
not aim to replace decision makers experience and judgment,
but rather offers systematic evidence that informs experience
and judgment. Evaluation strives for impartiality and fairness.
At its best, strives to represent the range of perspectives of
those who have a stake in the program. (Weiss as quoted in
Alkin, 1990)
Evaluation is usually defined as the determination of the worth
or value of something in this case, of educational and social
programs, policies, and personnel judged according to
appropriate criteria, with those criteria explicated and justified
(House, 1993; Scriven, 1991)
Evaluation research is the systematic application of social
research procedures for assessing the conceptualization,
design, implementation, and utility of social intervention
programs (Rossi & Freeman, 1993).

Essentials on Counseling and Education

198

Early in the development of the field, Scriven (1967) defined

evaluation as judging the worth or merit of something. Many recent
definitions encompass this original definition (Mark, Henry, & Julness, 1999;
Stake, 2000; Stufflebeam, 2001). The agreement was that evaluation is
determining the worth or merit of an evaluation object (whatever is
evaluated). More broadly, evaluation is identification, clarification, and
application of defensible criteria to determine an evaluation objects value
(worth or merit) in relation to those criteria (Flitzpatrick, Sanders, &
Worthern, 2004).
The Conduct of Needs Assessment
A need refers to a discrepancy between what is and what should be.
There are at least five discrepancies that people could have in mind when
they speak of needs. There might be a discrepancy between an actual state
and (a) an ideal, (b) a norm, (c) a minimum, (d) a desired state, or (e) an
expected state. Needs also refers to something (X) that people must to be in
a satisfactory state; without X they would be in an unsatisfactory state; with
X they achieve but do not exceed a satisfactory state (Posavac & Carey, 2003).
As one of the prerequisites of planning school-wide program change,
the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (1998) suggests that a
comprehensive needs assessment should be undertaken first. This is
because this process will yield the database from which the planning team
develops its vision of the future. Through the needs assessment, a school
identifies its strengths and weaknesses and specifies priorities for improving
student achievement and meeting challenging academic standards.
Conducting a needs assessment helps planners focus better on school-wide
issues and link goals with hard data. Every aspect of the school is a candidate
for assessment. However, experienced planners advise concentrating on how
the school addresses the comprehensive academic needs of all the students
in the school, especially students who are educationally disadvantaged,
neglected or delinquent, migrant, indigenous people, or vulnerable to the
dangers of drug or alcohol addiction (NCREL, 1998).
The NCREL (1998) suggests the following steps in conducting needs
assessment: (a) clarify the school vision; (b) create a school profile focus
areas to consider include student achievement, curriculum and instruction,
professional development, family and community involvement, and school
Essentials on Counseling and Education

199

context and organization; (c) determine data collection methods and plans;
(d) collecting data and summarizing evidence; and (e) analyzing program
needs and setting goals.
Needs assessment questions are concerned with establishing (a)
whether a problem or need exists and describing that problem, and (b)
making recommendations for ways to reduce the problem, i. e., the potential
effectiveness of various interventions.
There are a number of approaches to needs assessment used in the
social sciences. The discrepancy model (e. g., Kauffman & English, 1979) is
perhaps the most frequently used model in education. This model focuses
decision-making on discrepancies identified between what is expected and
what occurs.
The marketing model (e. g., Nickerns, Puga, & Noriega, 1980) defines
needs assessment as a feedback process used by organizations to learn about
and adapt to the needs of their client populations. This model focuses on
determining the needs of a target population and meeting them.
Another approach to needs assessment is that of Keeney and Riaffa
(1976). They described a decision-making model that uses decision theory
(specifically multi-attribute utility analysis). This model assumes that
decision-makers show biases in judgment when confronted with complex,
multidimensional information.
Purpose of the Study
To determine the needs of school in line with their evaluation process,
the following research questions are posed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Do schools conduct evaluation of their different programs?

What are the activities that schools commonly evaluate?
What evaluation tasks need specific improvement?
Who are the personnel that commonly conduct evaluation in schools?
What are the different ways employed by schools in gathering data for
evaluation?
6. What are the technical needs of schools in the process of evaluation?
7. What are the different sources of information does schools get in
knowing how to conduct evaluation?

Essentials on Counseling and Education

200

8. What are the suggestions for improvement of different schools in the

process of their evaluation?
Research Design

Method

The design used in the study is descriptive. Through the descriptive

design the frequencies and means on the categories of school needs on
evaluation are identified. The study employed the quantitative analysis
where the frequencies of responses are counted and the percentage is
reported. The breakdown of the participants according to region and type of
school is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Breakdown of Participants by Region and Type of School
Luzon
Public
Private
Total
Public
Frequency
16
28
44
0
Percentage
36.36
63.64
54.32
0

Frequency
Percentage

Mindanao
Public Private Total
3
19
22
13.64
86.36 27.16

Visayas
Private
15
100

Public
20
24.69

Total
Private
61
75.31

Total
15
18.52
Total
81
100

Participants
There are 81 respondents who participated in the study coming from
different institutions. The participants were selected through convenience
sampling. The position of the respondents varied that includes principals,
directors, administrators, assistant principal, coordinators and guidance
counselors. The participants basically belong to the upper and middle level
management positions.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

201

Instrument
The researcher together with other experts in measurement and
evaluation constructed a needs assessment inventory focusing on the needs
of schools in evaluation of their various curricular programs. The survey is
composed of 8 items that reflects how evaluation is practiced and identifies
the need for various aspects of evaluation. The items identifies (1) if
evaluation is being conducted in the school, (2) activities evaluated, (3)
activities the needs improvement, (4) who handles the evaluation, (5) how
data is gathered during evaluation, (6) areas in evaluation that needs
technical assistance, (7) information where evaluation is taken and (8)
suggestions how to improve the evaluation.
Procedure
The instrument was constructed for the purpose of surveying out the
needs of schools on evaluation. The survey was reviewed and revised. It was
administered to principals, assistant principals, coordinators and other
school heads from different schools in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The
participants were given a letter and the purpose of the needs assessment was
explained to them. The administrators were asked to accomplish the survey
form. Some surveys forms were answered immediately and others needs
time to answer it and requested to be retrieved in another time. After
accomplishing the forms the school heads were again debriefed about the
purpose of the assessment. Each school surveyed were furnished with a copy
of the needs assessment report together with a transmittal letter.
Results
The data were coded and the frequencies were then converted in to
percentages to report the majority of selection of every category on the
needs of schools in evaluation.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

202

Table 2
Percentage of Conducting Evaluation in Schools
Luzon
Public
Private
f
%
f
%
Evaluation
is
12
Conducted
Evaluation
is not
4
conducted
N Total
16

Visayas
Public
Private
F % f
%

Total

Mindanao
Public
Private
f
%
f
%

75

28

100

15

100

100

19

100

77 95.06

25

4.94

100

28

100

15

100

100

19

100

81

100

Table 2 shows that most schools in the Philippines are conducting

evaluation. A large percentage of the participants report that they are
conducting evaluation in their schools. There are four schools public school
participants who reported that they are not conducting evaluation in their
school.
Table 3
Activities that Schools Evaluate
Activities
Teacher
Performance
Administrative
Performance
(e.g.,
coordinator,
principal,
director, etc.)
Support Staff
Performance
Implementation
of New
Academic
Programs
Teacher
Training
Programs (e.g.,

Luzon
Public
Private
F
%
f
%

Visayas
Public Private
F % F
%

Mindanao
Public
Private
f
%
f
%

Total
f

12

75

27

96.43

14

93.33

100

19

100

75

92.59

43.75

20

71.43

14

93.33

66.67

16

84.21

59

72.84

43.75

22

78.57

13

86.67

66.67

16

84.21

60

74.07

10

62.5

17

60.75

11

73.33

66.67

11

57.89

51

62.96

12

75

25

89.29

14

93.33

66.67

16

84.21

69

85.19

Essentials on Counseling and Education

203

Activities
seminars,
symposia, etc.)
Selecting
Students for
Academic and
Special Awards
Guidance and
Counseling
Programs
Homeroom
Guidance
Program
Administrative
Services (e.g.,
maintenance,
engineering,
accounting, etc.)
Student
Organizations
Student
Publications
Sports
Development
Program
Cultural
Activities
Community
Service
Retreat,
Recollection and
other Formation
Programs
Service
feedback
Canteen/Cafeteria
Evaluation
Personalized
Student Program
School Building
System

Luzon
Public
Private
F
%
f
%

Visayas
Public Private
F % F
%

Mindanao
Public
Private
f
%
f
%

Total
f

56.25

25

89.29

11

73.33

100

15

78.95

63

77.78

56.25

20

71.43

60

33.33

14

73.68

53

65.43

56.25

17

60.71

10

66.67

33.33

13

68.42

50

61.73

43.75

17

60.71

10

66.67

66.67

12

63.16

48

59.26

36.25

22

78.57

11

73.83

66.67

13

68.42

57

70.37

31.25

18

64.29

53.33

33.33

47.37

41

50.62

50

19

67.86

40

33.33

12

63.16

46

56.79

56.25

18

69.23

10

66.67

66.67

11

57.89

50

61.73

43.75

17

60.75

10

66.67

66.67

14

73.68

50

61.73

31.25

22

78.57

13

86.67

16

84.31

56

69.14

2.5

16

57.71

40

33.33

47.37

36

44.44

11

68.75

22

78.57

12

80

100

13

68.42

61

75.31

6.25

6.66

2.47

3.57

1.23

5.26

1.23

Essentials on Counseling and Education

204

Activities
Performance
Classroom
Instruction
Integrated
Admin
Performance
Student
Assistance
Health Services
Organizational
Climate
Security /
Janitorial
Students
Alumni Services
Student Services
Colloquim

Luzon
Public
Private
F
%
f
%

Visayas
Public Private
F % F
%

Total

Mindanao
Public
Private
f
%
f
%

6.66

1.23

6.66

1.23

6.66

1.23

6.66

1.23

5.26

1.23

33.33

1.23

5.26

1.23

5.26

1.23

5.26

1.23

5.26

1.23

Table 3 shows that most of the school in the Philippines conduct

evaluation on teacher performance. In Luzon, public school commonly
evaluate teacher performance and teacher training programs. In Visayas,
private schools commonly evaluate teacher performance, administrative
performance, and teacher training programs. All public and private schools in
Mindanao evaluate teacher performance, selecting students for academic
awards and canteen/cafeteria evaluation. The top five activities that are
mostly evaluated across the schools and region are (1) teacher performance,
(2) teacher training, (3) selecting students for academic awards, (4) support
staff, (5) canteen and cafeteria evaluation. The schools does not evaluate
much of their school building, system performance, classroom instruction,
integrated administrative performance, student assistance, health services,
organizational climate, security/Janitorial, students, alumni services, student
services, colloquim.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

205

Table 4
Activities that Needs to be Improved
Luzon
Public
Private
Activities
Teacher
Performance
Administrative
Performance
(e.g., coordinator,
principal,
director, etc.)
Support Staff
Performance
Implementation
of New Academic
Programs
Teacher Training
Programs (e.g.,
seminars,
symposia, etc.)
Selecting
Students for
Academic and
Special Awards
Guidance and
Counseling
Programs
Homeroom
Guidance
Program
Administrative
Services (e.g.,
maintenance,
engineering,
accounting, etc.)
Student
Organizations
Student
Publications
Sports
Development

Visayas
Public Private

100.0

12

42.86

0.0

12

66.7

F % f

Mindanao
Public
Private

Total

46.67

66.67

26.32

29

35.80

42.86

60.00

33.33

36.84

29

35.80

28.57

46.67

66.67

31.58

25

30.86

166.7

32.14

26.67

33.33

15.79

22

27.16

133.3

14

50.00

53.33

33.33

31.58

33

40.74

66.7

17.86

33.33

66.67

26.32

19

23.46

66.7

11

39.29

20.00

0.00

26.32

21

25.93

33.3

25.00

40.00

0.00

26.32

19

23.46

66.7

10

35.71

26.67

33.33

21.05

21

25.93

33.3

25.00

60.00

33.33

36.84

25

30.86

33.3

21.43

53.33

0.00

26.32

20

24.69

33.3

11

39.29

26.67

0.00

47.37

25

30.86

Essentials on Counseling and Education

206

Program
Cultural
Activities
Community
Service
Retreat,
Recollection and
other Formation
Programs
Service feedback
Canteen/Cafeteria
Evaluation
School Building
Security
Students
Alumni Services
Student Services
Colloquim

33.3

25.00

20.00

33.33

36.84

19

23.46

33.3

11

39.29

13.33

33.33

31.58

21

25.93

66.7

28.57

26.67

0.00

31.58

20

24.69

33.3

21.43

26.67

33.33

26.32

17

20.99

100.0

11

39.29

40.00

66.67

26.32

27

33.33

0.0

3.57

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.23

0.0

0.00

0.00

33.33

0.00

1.23

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.26

1.23

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.26

1.23

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.26

1.23

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.26

1.23

Table 4 shows that there is variation in the different activities that

needs improvement in evaluation. For both the public and private schools in
Luzon, the evaluation on teacher training programs needs to be improved. In
Visayas, the evaluation on administrative performance and student
organizations needs to be improved. In Mindanao public school, the
evaluation on teacher performance, support staff, selecting students for
awards, and canteen/cafeteria needs to be improved. For the private schools
in Mindanao, the evaluation on sports development needs top be improved.
The top three activities where evaluation needs improvement include (1)
teacher training program, (2) teacher performance, and (3) administrative
performance. The others have tied percentage on their concerns for
evaluation improvement.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

207

Table 5
Persons who Conduct Evaluations
Persons
Guidance Counselor
Teachers
Coordinators
Assistant Principal
Principal
Division Supervisor
School President
Director
Human Resources
Evaluation Committee
Deans / VPA / AVP
ITEO
Superintendent
Students and Parents
Research / Evaluation
Office
Administrative Council
Club Moderator
Student Affairs
Coordinator
Program Coordinator
ARM / TQM Expert
Researcher
Psychometrician
Department Head
Academic Supervisor

Visayas
Luzon
Public
Private
Public
Private
f
%
f
%
f % f
%
5 6.17 12 14.81 0 0 8 9.88
5 6.17 10 12.35 0 0 4 4.94
4 4.94 5 6.17 0 0 8 9.88
0
0
6 7.41 0 0 5 6.17
11 13.58 19 23.46 0 0 10 12.35
4 4.94 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
1 1.23 0 0 0
0
0
0
6 7.41 0 0 0
0
0
0
1 1.23 0 0 0
0
0
0
1 1.23 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 3 3.70
0
0
1 1.23 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 1 1.23
0
0
1 1.23 0 0 1 1.23

Mindanao
Public
Private
f
%
f
%
2 2.47 15 18.52
3 3.70 11 13.58
3 3.70 14 17.28
1 1.23 7 8.64
3 3.70 15 18.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 1.23
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 1.23
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 1.23
0
0
1 1.23
0
0
0
0

4.94

1.23

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
1

1.23
1.23

0
0

0
0

1
0

1.23
0

1.23

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
1
0
1
0

0
1.23
1.23
0
1.23
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
0

1.23
1.23
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 1.23
0
0

1
2
1
2
2
1

1.23
2.47
1.23
2.47
2.47
1.23

Evaluation activities in schools are most often conducted by guidance

counselors and school administrator, who may be are not properly trained in
evaluation and measurement. The public and private schools in Luzon and
Visayas, the principal is mostly conducting the evaluation. In Mindanao, the
public schools have different evaluators such as the teachers, principals, and

Essentials on Counseling and Education

208

coordinators. In the private schools, the guidance counselor and the principal
conducts most of the evaluation.
Table 6
Data Gathering Procedures for Evaluations
Luzon
Public
Procedures
Inventory/Questionnaire
s
Focus Group Discussion
Surveys
Personal Interview
Observation
Tests
Experiments
Workshop
Extent Document
Visitors
School Community
Feedback
Meetings

f
9

%
11.1
1

Private
F
2
6
1
3

%
32.1
0
16.0
4

3.70

6.17

9.87

1
2
1
4
1
0
3
0
0
0

14.8
1
17.2
8
12.3
4
3.70
0
0
0

1
3
2
3
1
4
4
0
0
0

16.0
5
28.4
0
17.2
8
4.93
0
0
0

Visayas
Publi
Private
c
f % f
%
1 18.5
0 0
5
2

Mindanao
Public
f
3

Private

%
3.7
0
2.4
6

f
1
8
1
1

%
22.2
2
13.5
8
17.2
8

2.4
6

1
4
1
0
1
6

12.3
5
19.7
5

8.64

1
0
0
0

1.23
0
0
0

9.87

1
0

12.3
4

1
2
1
2

14.8
1
14.8
1

3.70

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1

1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23

0
0
0
0

3.7
0
2.4
6
2.4
6
0
0
0
0

1.23

1.23

1.23

1.23

1.23

3
2

The top 5 data collection methods in evaluation commonly used by

schools are inventory/questionnaires (n=71.87%), observation (n=67,
82.72%), personal interview (n=50, 61.73%), surveys (n=39, 48.15%), and
tests (n=36, 44.44%). These data collection tools seem appropriate to use
considering that most often evaluation being practiced is focused on teacher
performance. FGDs and community feed back are rarely used in evaluation of
schools.
In the public schools in Luzon, observation is the most
common technique of gathering data while the private schools uses mostly
inventories and questionnaires. In Visayas, the private schools also
commonly use inventories and questionnaires. In Mindanao, the public
Essentials on Counseling and Education

209

schools commonly use inventories and personal interview while in the

private schools, majority uses inventories and questionnaires in gathering
information for evaluation.
Table 7
Technical Needs on Evaluation
Luzon

Visayas
Public
Private
M S
M
SD
D
3.2 .66
5
2

Public
M
SD

Private
M
SD

Planning the
evaluation

2.9
4

1.12
4

2.8
2

1.18
8

Conceptualizatio
n
Instrumentation
(constructing
assessment
forms, etc.)
Data Analysis

3.0
0
3.4
4

1.09
5
.629

2.8
2
2.7
5

1.05
6
1.07
6

3.4
3
3.2
7

3.2
5
2.7
5
2.6
9
2.5
6

.931

2.8
9
2.8
2
2.8
6
2.7
1

.994

3.4
6
3.0
9
3.4
6
2.8
5

Report Writing
Utilization of
results
Dissemination of
results

1.23
8
1.25
0
1.09
4

.905
1.14
5
1.11
7

Mindanao
Public
Private
M
SD
M
SD
3.0
0

.00

3.1
3

.74
3

.75
6
.79
9

2.6
7
3.0
0

.577

3.1
4
3.2
7

.66
3
.70
4

.66
0
.70
1
.77
6
.68
9

3.5
0
2.5
0
2.5
0
2.0

.707

3.0
0
2.5
3
3.1
2
2.4
7

.86
6
.51
6
.69
7
.74
3

1.41
4

.707
.707
.000

Schools highly need technical assistance mostly in instruction and

data analysis, implying a need for more expertise in the field of evaluation.
Most of the public school in Luzon has a high need on instrumentation in the
evaluation process, for the private schools they have a moderate need on
data analysis of evaluation results. In Visayas, high need came out on almost
all areas but data analysis and conceptualization has the most need. In
Mindanao, public schools has a high need also in data analysis while for the
private schools, they have a high need on instrumentation.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

210

Table 8
Comparison of Public and Private Schools in their Technical Needs in
Evaluation
Planning
Conceptualization
Instrumentation
Data analysis
Report writing
Utilization
Dissemination
Total

df

p value

Mean Difference

SE

-0.20
-0.42
1.53
0.92
-0.30
-1.45
-0.68
0.38

71
73
74
74
70
74
72
79

0.83
0.67
0.12
0.35
0.76
0.15
0.49
0.69

-0.05
-0.10
0.37
0.22
-0.07
-0.40
-0.17
0.69

0.27
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.27
0.26
1.77

Numerically, it appears that public and private schools rating of

needs differ in instrumentation and utilization. The public and private school
were compared on the factors on the technical needs of schools on evaluation
using the t-test for two independent samples. The comparisons on all factors
did not reach significance. This means that the technical needs of public and
private schools on evaluation are in the same level.
For the public schools in Luzon, the most of the schools have the
discussion group as a source of information in conducting evaluation while
the private schools have the seminar and workshops as the venue in learning
about evaluation. In Visayas, private schools commonly use books and
seminars and workshops in learning about evaluation. In Mindanao, public
schools use journals and discussion groups and school based experts as a
source of learning about evaluation while private schools have seminars and
workshops as the source of information.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

211

Table 9
Source of Information when conducting Evaluation
Luzon
Public
Source of Information

Visayas

Private

Public

Mindanao

Private

Public

TOTAL

Private

Public

Private

Total

Books

12

75

16

57

13

87

67

15

79

14

74

44

71

58

72

Journals

10

63

11

39

11

73

100

14

74

13

68

36

58

49

60

Internet

10

63

16

57

60

33

14

74

11

58

39

62

50

62

Discussion Groups

11

69

18

64

10

67

100

11

58

14

74

39

62

53

65

School-Based Experts

56

18

64

12

80

100

16

84

12

63

46

74

58

72

External Experts

25

14

50

10

67

67

37

32

31

50

37

46

Seminars/Workshops

14

88

21

75

13

87

67

19

100

16

84

53

85

69

85

Colloquia
Inter-school
Collaboration/Consortiu
m

18

27

67

16

16

12

19

15

19

31

17

61

47

33

47

32

33

53

39

48

31

14

50

12

80

67

15

79

37

41

66

48

59

Accreditation/Certificatio
n
Documents/Manuals
Formal Education
Number of Cases

10

28

15

19

19

62

81

Note. N=91

Institutionalization of evaluation is important in school improvement.

Theres a high need to improve the technical aspects of evaluation,
particularly the methods. The responses from the comments and suggestions
on improving the evaluation process in schools were listed then clustered
into emerging themes on where each strand would fall under. The strands
were grouped into four clusters: personnel, practice, relational, and study.
The cluster on personnel refers to the characteristics of people who will
perform the evaluation which includes qualification, training, expertise and
open mindedness. The practice refers to strands on consistency of
evaluation, areas that needs to be improved, and specific courses of actions.
The relational cluster emerged where respondents indicated having a
discussion and involvement will improve the evaluation practice. The study
cluster is based on suggestions such as training, workshops and observations
on how evaluation is done. This basically refers to learning the system of
evaluation.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

212

Table 10
Suggestions to Improve the Practices of Evaluation
Personnel (f =
Practice (f = 41)
Relational (f =
18)
4)
Evaluation must be
done by a qualified
personnel
Evaluators in
schools must be
trained how to do
evaluation
Leaders should
know if their
performance is
effective
People who
evaluate must be
experts
The administrators
needs to be open
minded
Skills, Training,
Study
Attitude
Number, Staffing

Always do
assessment
Conduct needs
assessment
do it on a regular
basis
evaluation must be
consistent
evaluation results
should be well
utilized
evaluation should be
done with sincerity
evaluation should be
implemented
properly
evaluation should be
planned highly
hire extra personnel
for such function
lessen the load of
guidance counselors
to do evaluations
minimize school
contests to
concentrate on
evaluation
needs
conceptualization
Provide materials for
improvement
should be objective
rather than
subjective
use data as basis for
improvement

Note. f=frequency of responses

Essentials on Counseling and Education

Group discussion
involvement

Study (f = 8)
Have seminars to
make more
teaching effective
observation
seminar about
question technique
seminar on Table
of Specifications
seminars and
workshops

213

The respondents recommendations in order to improve the practice

of evaluations in schools are categorized into three main themes, namely,
personnel, practice and relational. The first category, i.e., personnel, is
further sub-categorized into skills/training/study, attitude and
number/staffing. On the other hand, the second category, i.e., practice, is
further sub-categorized into (a) institutionalization, (b) instrumentation, (c)
focus/purpose, (d) social marketing, (e) utilization, (f) dissemination, (g)
methodology, (h) planning, and (i) meta-evaluation. Among the three main
categories, it appears that the practice of evaluation in schools is the most
problematic. It also appears that if program evaluation is institutionalized,
technical areas such instrumentation will be improved, as well as the school
communitys overall acceptance of this practice.
Discussion
Areas Evaluated
Previous studies point to five dimensions (or attributes or correlates),
namely, teacher quality, learning climate, school leadership, school identity,
and curriculum and student outcomes. These attributes of effectiveness are
the very expectations from schools. When schools conduct evaluation, do
they give priority to these areas? The results indicate that they do it
partially. With 75 out of 81 of these schools conducting evaluation of teacher
performance and teacher training programs, it appears that they are mindful
of their accountability in terms teacher quality. The same could be said with
regard to school leadership, with 59 out of 75 schools evaluating the
performance of directors, principals, coordinators and other personnel in
leadership position. However, there is inadequate data to conclude that
these schools actually assess their accountability in terms of the learning
climate, school identity, and curriculum and student outcomes.
Areas for Improvement
The schools sense of responsibility is still apparent as far as teacher
quality and school leadership are concerned when they prioritized teacher
training programs and teacher/administrative performance among the areas
for improvement. They even indicated the need to improve the evaluation of
Essentials on Counseling and Education

214

support staff performance. It implies the respondents awareness of the

complementary roles that teachers, administrators and staff play in having
effective schools. It is also interesting to note the possible implication of the
need to improve student organizations and their evaluation. It is an
indication that schools would like to explore this area as part of their
accountability in terms of curriculum and student outcomes.
Evaluators
It is alarming to note that principals, coordinators and guidance
counselors primarily conduct evaluations in schools. School personnel are
reported to have more than a handful of tasks to do. They prioritize peopleoriented tasks such as listening, encouraging, inspiring, mentoring, coaching,
enabling, and empowering the other members of the school community. The
issue is having enough time to conduct real program evaluation, assuming
that they are already engaged with people-oriented tasks. The respondents
have shown a different notion of the term evaluation compared to the
researchers intended meaning.
There is a need to expose the basic skills and expertise of school
personnel who conduct program evaluation, as well as the consumers or
users of the results for making data-grounded decisions. There is also a need
for a more positive attitude toward evaluation, especially on the part of
school administrators. The following recommendations imply the need to
institutionalize program evaluation in schools like Evaluation task should be
part of the program and of the schedule,Evaluation should be done at a
regular basis to identify early problems about the program.., and The
administrators must be evaluation-oriented such that a Research and
Development/Evaluation Office must be established with qualified persons or
experts.
Institutionalization of program evaluation in schools therefore may be
accomplished through the review/revision of the organizational structure,
mainstreaming in the schedule and having a more positive orientation or
mindset about this practice. It is recommended that existential issues such
as the what and the why of program evaluation should be addressed too.
After this has been done, the technical aspect may follow. Both quantitative
and qualitative data support the need to enhance the way program
evaluation is being conducted in schools, particularly evaluation planning,
Essentials on Counseling and Education

215

instrumentation, methodology, report writing, utilization, dissemination and

meta-evaluation.
Data Gathering Methods Used
There is a need to intensify the use of qualitative data gathering
methods like observation, interview and focus group discussion in order to
enrich the data being collected through the prevalent use of questionnaires.
This may be particularly true for the schools in Visayas and Mindanao. There
may be a need to review how schools in general use observation as a way to
gather data, particularly all Luzon schools.
Sources of Information Regarding Evaluation
A good project for school networks and consortia is the listing of
locally-published and foreign authored reading materials on educational
program evaluation. Better yet, these organizations may develop and publish
a practical handbook on the conduct of evaluation in the Philippine setting.
Other prevalent modes of transferring evaluation know-how may be
maximized such as seminars/workshops. Another area that may be explored
is the improvement of the Educational Measurement and Evaluation subject
in teacher training institutions in terms of breadth and depth of coverage
this could have a greater impact and multiplier effect. There could also be a
need to enhance the conceptual knowledge and technical skills of the
professors handling this subject.
When the conduct of program evaluation is institutionalized, maybe
through the creation of a separate office manned by equipped personnel (or
the schools internal expert in evaluation), it will be a clear manifestation of
the schools seriousness in assuring their accountabilities for both its internal
and external clients.
Implications
As adult learners, the respondents prefer primarily tacit sources of
knowledge such as seminars/workshops, maybe because not everything can
be captured in written sources of information about evaluation. There is a
need to review of the measurement and evaluation subject in the
Essentials on Counseling and Education

216

undergraduate course in education since they only emphasize on test

construction and neglect the part on the concept and nature of evaluation.
There is a growing need to teach the concept of evaluation in the undergrad
Evaluation centers may be strategically located maximize school
organizations; tap graduates of the on educational evaluation.
Is evaluation growing in the Philippines? How well are we doing it?
Measurement focuses on test construction. It does not go beyond what
teaching and learning is all about. Universities need to invite more enrollees
on their measurement and evaluation programs. There is a great call on
institutionalization of program evaluation in schools.
Recommendations
1. Explore the institutionalization of accreditation among public schools
to make them more conscious of program evaluation.
2. Intensify information dissemination and training on evaluation
through school consortia and in-house trainings facilitated by external
experts.
3. School organizations should consider seminars/workshops as a highly
potential source of information, particularly on program evaluation.
Well-planned and high-level interaction among the participants may
be really helpful in developing internal experts.
4. External experts may conduct in-house training for school
administrators, teachers and counselors to maximize the transfer of
knowledge.
5. Consortia of schools may be a good venue for the sharing of
knowledge and development of practical tools on evaluation in the
Philippine context.
6. Provide funding for faculty development in school to provide school
personnel engaged in evaluation to gain technical knowledge in the
field.
7. Upgrade technical skills on evaluation of those currently handling
evaluation activities, especially the guidance counselors and school
administrators.
8. For school administrators, to tap school based experts to train
potential faculty and staff evaluation and measurement. Resource
sharing through consortium and inter-school collaboration.
Essentials on Counseling and Education

217

References
Astin, A. W. (1993). Assessment of excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. Arizona: The Oryx
press.
Clarke, A., & Dawson, R. (1999). Evaluation Research: An Introduction to
Principles, Methods and Practice. London: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Evaluations basic
purpose, uses, and conceptual distinctions. In Program evaluation
alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.) (p. 21). New
York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kaufman, R., & English, F. W. (1976). Needs assessment: A guide for
educational managers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. Wiley, New
York.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry
methodologies? In D.M. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to
evaluation in education (pp. 89-115). NY: Praeger.
Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T. & Julnes, G. (1999). Toward an integrative
framework for evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 20
(2), 177-198.
McKillip, J. (1998). Need analysis: process and techniques. In L. Bickman & D.
J. Rog (eds.), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand
Oakes, CA: Sage.
Nickens, J.M., Purga, A.J., & Noriega, P.P. (1980). Research methods for needs
assessment. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998). Conducting a
comprehensive
needs
assessment.
[on-line]
Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/pd/needs.htm
Patton, M. (2000). Utilization-focused evaluation. In K. Lellaghan, D.
Stufflebeam, & L. Wingate (Eds.), International Handbook of
Educational Evaluation (pp 223-242). NY: Kluwer International
Handbooks of Education.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

218

Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2003). The assessment of need. In Program

evaluation methods and case studies (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M.
Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp.
39-83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 134-164). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). The metaevaluation imperative. American Journal
of Evaluation, 22(2), 183-209
Weiss, C. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater
headway?. Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501-524.

Essentials on Counseling and Education

219

Dr. Carlo Magno is presently the Vice President for

Research and Testing in the Asian Psychological Services
and Assessment. He finished his PhD in Educational
Psychology major in Measurement and Evaluation. He has
over 80 published scholarly works in international,
refereed and abstracted journals. His research interest
would include self-regulation, metacognition, learnercenteredness, parental involvement, and language
learning. He was recognized in 2011 by the National
Academy of Science and Technology as the Outstanding
Young Scientist and in the same year by the Global Science
Academy as one of the renowned 200 Global Scientists in
the world.
Ms. Marife Mamauag is presently a faculty and director of
the Testing Center in Help University, Malaysia. She
finished her academic requirements for PhD in
Educational Psychology major in measurement and
evaluation at De La Salle University, Manila. She also
earned her MS in Educational Measurement and
Evaluation from the same university. Her research interest
includes test development, particularly on scaling noncognitive measures and program evaluation.
Mr. Neil Parias presently the director of the Center for
Learning and Performance Assessment of the De La SalleCollege of Saint Benilde. He has finished his academic
requirement for PhD in Educational Psychology major in
Measurement and Evaluation at De La Salle University. As
a test specialist, he was involved in the development and
standardization of a number of aptitude tests. He used to
be the Assistant Executive Director of the Catholic
Educational Association of the Philippines.

Essentials on Counseling and Education