The evaluation of the project in 2007-2010

1.1. Information technology equipments

Simo Veis­to­la in­ter­vie­wed the he­ad­mas­ters in 9th May 2010 to stu­dy the si­tu­a­ti­on in in­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy of the schools in the end of the year 2009. Pent­ti As­pi­la and Veis­to­la vi­si­ted in both schools in May 2010. In the vi­sits, they ob­ser­ved the use of com­pu­ters and as­ked the use of com­pu­ters from the te­ac­hers and stu­dents. In Anin Se­con­da­ry School, 12 te­ac­hers and 15 stu­dents were in­ter­vie­wed and 00 te­ac­hers and 30 stu­dents in Chep­las­kei Se­con­da­ry School, res­pec­ti­ve­ly. In May 2010, the­re were 19 te­ac­hers, one hi­red it-te­ac­her and 370 stu­dents (245 girls and 125 boys) in Anin Se­con­da­ry School. In Chep­las­kei Se­con­da­ry School, the num­ber of te­ac­hers was 10 (inc­lu­ding hi­red IT-te­ac­her). The num­ber of stu­dents was 170 (all boys).

Tab­le 1. In­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy equip­ments in May 2010 (si­tu­a­ti­on in May 2007 in brac­kets. The base line stu­dy was made in May 2007 by Pent­ti As­pi­la and Simo Veis­to­la. They spent two days in both schools and in­ter­vie­wed the prin­ci­pals and the te­ac­hers. As­pi­la and Veis­to­la also stu­died stu­dents’ know-how of in­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy by in­qui­ries).

• Num­ber of com­pu­ters 61 (5 old ones in 2007)
• Co­pyp­rin­ters 2 (none in 2007)
• Di­gi­tal ca­me­ras 2 (none in 2007)
• Be­a­mers (data pro­jec­tors) 2 (none in 2007)
• In­ter­net con­nec­ti­on pre­paid wi­re­less (no in­ter­net con­nec­ti­on in 2007)

1.2. The know-how to use information technology

In Chep­las­kei Se­con­da­ry School, all stu­dents are able to use com­pu­ters un­der the it-te­ac­her su­per­vi­si­on, and the ma­jo­ri­ty of them has used in­ter­net at school. In Chep­las­kei, the com­pu­ters are used main­ly for the pro­ces­sing of word and ex­cel do­cu­ments. The speed of the in­ter­net con­nec­ti­on is too slow to use in­ter­net or e-mail re­gu­lar­ly. The re­a­son for the poor speed is the si­tu­a­ti­on of the school. The speed of the con­nec­ti­on will imp­ro­ve in the near fu­tu­re.

The stu­dents of Chep­las­kei Se­con­da­ry School were very sa­tis­fied with the school, the it-te­ac­her, the te­ac­hers and the he­ad­mas­ter. They told that they use com­pu­ters most­ly in mat­he­ma­tics and che­mist­ry les­sons. The use of com­pu­ters is free du­ring wee­kends, they told to Veis­to­la in May 2010. The 4th form stu­dent told that “not eve­ryo­ne is good in use of com­pu­ter but most are”. Laak­so & Nie­mi­nen (2010) re­por­ted that the gap bet­ween the most com­pu­ter li­te­ra­te and tho­se with les­ser skills was re­mar­kab­le.

2. Sub-projects

The aims of sub-pro­jects were to le­ar­ning group work, pro­ject work and prob­lem-ba­sed le­ar­ning. The the­mes were se­lec­ted so that the re­sults of the sub-pro­jects will help in the de­ve­lo­ping of the com­mu­ni­ties ne­ar­by the schools.

The sub-pro­ject in Anin Se­con­da­ry School was eco­tou­rism, and in wa­ter and sa­ni­ta­ti­on in Chep­las­kei Se­con­da­ry School. The sub-pro­jects were the main re­a­son for three Fin­nish te­ac­hers vi­sit in both schools in 2009. The Ke­nyan and Fin­nish te­ac­hers plan­ned to­get­her how the the­mes were stu­died.

Anin Se­con­da­ry School is si­tu­a­ted in whe­re the eco­tou­rism is known one of the best op­por­tu­ni­ties to imp­ro­ve le­vel of li­ving. Thus, ac­cor­ding to the he­ad­mas­ter, eve­ry­bo­dy at school knows the sub-pro­ject. In prac­ti­ce, twen­ty stu­dents stu­died the the­me. The stu­dying hap­pe­ned out­si­de of nor­mal les­sons un­der Eve­lyn Chem­jor’s su­per­vi­si­on. The re­port of the sub-group hand­led the pos­si­bi­li­ties of  eco­tou­rism in Keiyo.
Wa­ter and Sa­ni­ta­ti­on is an im­por­tant is­sue in Chep­las­kei area. Both is­su­es were also hand­led in FYL. The edu­ca­ti­o­nal ma­te­ri­als con­cer­ning on the sub-pro­jects have been plan­ned by Fin­nish and Ke­nyan stu­dents, but they are not yet re­a­dy.

3. Intercultural activity

The co-ope­ra­ti­on bet­ween the he­ad­mas­ters has wor­ked fair­ly well in 2009. In spi­te of that, the conc­lu­si­on of the he­ad­mas­ter’s eva­lu­a­ti­on (in May 2010) was that the he­ad­mas­ters’ are able to imp­ro­ve their co-ope­ra­ti­on in many ways.

The co-ope­ra­ti­on of Fin­nish and Ke­nyan te­ac­hers star­ted in 2009. Four Fin­nish te­ac­hers are clo­se com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons with four Ke­nyan te­ac­hers. In 2009, only some Fin­nish-Ke­nyan stu­dent pairs com­mu­ni­ca­ted re­gu­lar­ly. The dif­fi­cul­ties in the re­gu­lar com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on were dis­cus­sed in May 2010, and the re­forms in the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on pro­to­cols will take pla­ce in 2010.

The un­ders­tan­ding of the fo­reign cul­tu­res has imp­ro­ved es­pe­ci­al­ly by sub-pro­jects and e-mail com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons.

4. The effects of the project on school performance in general

• The he­ad­mas­ters of Anin Se­con­da­ry School and Chep­las­kei Se­con­da­ry School eva­lu­a­ted in May 2010 that the pro­ject has inf­lu­en­ced very po­si­ti­ve­ly in the school per­for­man­ce. The main chan­ges are the fol­lows:
•  The at­mosp­he­re in both schools is very good.
•  The num­ber of app­li­cants has inc­re­a­sed. In Anin the­re were 145 app­li­cants (85 ac­cep­ted), and in Chep­las­kei 160 pu­pils app­lied and 40 ac­cep­ted. In the near fu­tu­re, Chep­las­kei Se­con­da­ry School will build new class­rooms, and the size of the school will inc­re­a­se (from 170 stu­dents to 300 stu­dents). Mr. Jo­seph Ron­go­ei, the he­ad­mas­ter in Chep­las­kei, eva­lu­a­ted, that app­li­cants and their pa­rents are in­te­res­ted in the school be­cau­se of the suc­cess­ful in­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy pro­ject.
• KCSE (na­ti­o­nal exam) re­sults have imp­ro­ved re­mar­kab­ly.  In Anin 2009 KCSE fi­nal exams were gre­at suc­cess and 36 stu­dents out of 100 got gra­de C+ or bet­ter,and the ave­ra­ge imp­ro­ved from 4.3 to 6.25.. In ear­lier ye­ars only few of stu­dents have pas­sed le­vel C+ as their ge­ne­ral re­mark. In Chep­las­kei the re­sults imp­ro­ved by 0.8 points (from 4.3 to 5.1).
•  The te­ac­hing met­hods have chan­ged in 2009 from te­ac­her-di­rec­ted le­ar­ning to­wards more ac­ti­ve com­pu­ter use in le­ar­ning.
•  E-le­ar­ning is the key aim in the Ke­nyan cur­ri­cu­la. E-le­ar­ning met­hods have been eva­lu­a­ted and have been used in both schools. For ins­tan­ce, e-le­ar­ning con­cepts were stu­died in the re­port made by Jus­tus Kosk­ei in Anin Se­con­da­ry School.

5. The effects of the project on the community

The ef­fects of the pro­ject on the com­mu­ni­ty were as­ked from the he­ad­mas­ters and also from the mem­bers of the bo­ards in May 2010. As­pi­la and Veis­to­la met 00 mem­bers of Anin bo­ard, and 00 mem­bers of Chep­las­kei bo­ard in May 2010.

The com­mu­ni­ties are well awa­re about the pro­jects. For ins­tan­ce in Anin Se­con­da­ry School, the pa­rents were able to use com­pu­ters in the pa­rents’ day. The com­mu­ni­ties have been very com­mit­ted to the pro­ject. The­re are at le­ast two re­a­sons for that. First, the com­mu­ni­ties have un­ders­tood the sig­ni­fi­can­ce of the aims and the re­sults of the pro­ject for the stu­dents and for the com­mu­ni­ties. Se­cond­ly, the com­mu­ni­ties have been very com­mit­ted to the pro­ject. For ins­tan­ce in Anin Se­con­da­ry School, the ins­tal­la­ti­on of elect­ri­ci­ty in the school, the buil­ding of the com­pu­ter lab room, the own li­a­bi­li­ty of the schools for new com­pu­ters have nee­ded high com­mit­ted. The good re­sults of the­se sac­ri­fi­ces have seen in 2009. Thus, the com­mu­ni­ties are very sa­tis­fied for the pro­ject, and they are re­a­dy to con­ti­nue the de­ve­lo­ping of the edu­ca­ti­on in the two schools.

Both he­ad­mas­ters eva­lu­a­ted that pa­rents’ sa­tis­fac­ti­on to edu­ca­ti­on of the schools is very high.