An Evaluation of the Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) Training Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of the trainees regarding the participatory learning and action training workshop which was held at Edamer Local Implementation Unit during the period of July 17-25/2011. The participants of the training workshop were selected individuals and groups. Twenty four trainees attended the training workshop. The questionnaire was developed by the researchers and covered selected statements related to perceptions of the trainees regarding overall activities of the training program. The data was collected from the trainees at the end of the training program. Information obtained from the questionnaires analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), means and standard deviation were used as statistical methods to determine the perceptions level of the trainees. The results of the study indicated that the trainees as a group agreed that the training program was very useful and interesting. They also indicated that the trainer was very friendly, helpful and used a variety of teaching methods and field work techniques. The results also indicated that the training program covered required technical and professional competencies in participatory learning and action approach. The study produced some recommendations and strategies for improving the present and future program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".