Cultivating Inclusive and Supportive 
Learning Environment Program 
(CISLE) 
Summative Evaluation 
22nd of July, 2015 
2 | P a g e
Contents 
Abbreviations: ................................................................................................................................. 3
Executive Summary: ........................................................................................................................ 4
About the Program .......................................................................................................................... 6
Evaluation Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation Audience ........................................................................................................................ 7
Evaluation Questions: ...................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation Limitations: .................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................................................. 8
Evaluation Results ........................................................................................................................... 9
First question: “To what extent did the program’s activities help teachers deliver inclusive 
education?” ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Second Question: To what extent did the program’s activities help MCS develop dynamic 
community partnerships in the targeted areas and how did the level of partnerships change due 
to the program’s interventions? ................................................................................................... 17
Third Question: To what extent were the beneficiaries able to implement the new practices? . 20
Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 27
Appendixes .................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 1: Training Program Evaluation Questionnaire (Pedagogy - Psychosocial Education) . 28
Appendix 2: Questions given to focus groups on the pedagogy and psychosocial program ........ 33
Appendix 3: Training Program Questionnaire (Reading Clubs) ..................................................... 34
Appendix 4: Questions to Focus Group discussions (Reading Clubs) ............................................ 39
Appendix 5: Training Program Evaluation Questionnaire (Arabic Literacy Training) .................... 41
Appendix 6: Questions to Focus Groups (Arabic Literacy Training) .............................................. 46
Appendix 7: QRTA (CISLE) -Teacher’s Questionnaire .................................................................... 48
Appendix 8: QRTA (CISLE) - Feedback Form .................................................................................. 52
Appendix 9: QRTA (CISLE) - Syrian students’ satisfaction with school environment questionnaire
....................................................................................................................................................... 55
3 | P a g e
Abbreviations: 
QRTA :Queen Rania Teacher Academy
MOE: Ministry of Education 
CISLE: Cultivating Inclusive & Supportive Learning Environments 
USAID :United States Agency for International Development 
MCS: Model Community Schools 
CPSC: Community Parents Schools Collations 
CoP: Communities of Practice 
CBO: Community Based Organization
4 | P a g e
Executive Summary: 
Queen Rania Teacher Academy (QRTA) implemented a twenty two months program “Cultivating 
Inclusive and Supportive Learning Environment” (CISLE) in cooperation with the Ministry of 
Education (MoE) to support MoE’s efforts in ensuring that all children– local residents and 
Syrian refugees – are afforded an equal opportunity to acquire a purposeful and meaningful 
education in a safe, inclusive and supportive learning environment. The program, supported by 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), targets public schools which host 
Syrian refugees in the northern and central governorates and has four (4) objectives: enhancing 
the capacity of teachers to integrate and increase the participation of displaced refugee 
student’s in Jordan’s public schools, increasing local community awareness, responsibility, 
advocacy and participation in the target schools, promoting supportive and inclusive learning 
environments in Model Community Schools (MCS), strengthening Community-School Support 
Connections (CPSCs) through Lifelong Learning and Extra-Curricular Projects. 
To accomplish these objectives, the program was divided into four phases: establishment, 
professional development, building MCS.s, gradual exit, and sustainability. The program was 
implemented in 348 public schools, including 20 that were selected as Community Schools and 
60 neighboring schools to enable experience transfer, community of practice and reach out 
more beneficiaries. The program was implemented in two tracks: First Track: To build teachers 
capacities to promote safe, inclusive and supportive learning environment for displaced refugee 
students in Jordan’s public schools through psycho-social support and interactive pedagogy. 
Second Track: To create supportive and inclusive learning environments in Model Community 
Schools (MCS) by implementing:: reading clubs, Arabic Literacy Training, and Community Parent 
School Coalition (CPSC), that aims to strengthen the partnership and mutual responsibility 
between the school and the community to enhance the inclusion of refugees in different 
activities.
This evaluation, conducted by the external evaluation team of CONSULTUS Company, is a 
summative evaluation of the program that used a mixed method approach in evaluation using 
both quantitative and qualitative data and a variety of evaluation tools (questionnaires, focus 
group discussions, open-ended questions and reports) to highlight the achieved results, to 
showcase the role of the activities under the program in building meaningful education in an 
inclusive and supportive environment and to apply the results of the program to other similar 
emergency environments. QRTA, USAID, and MoE will be provided with the results to be used if 
the program will be extended or to improve the implementation of any other future programs. 
The quantitative and qualitative results clearly show that the program has been highly effective 
in building a safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environment. Mean results were good for 
all sub-activities within the two tracks of CISLE in public schools. The objectives of the First Track
(Building teachers capacities to promote safe, inclusive and supportive learning environment for 
displaced refugee students in Jordan’s public schools through psycho-social support and 
interactive pedagogy) were 83% accomplished. Teachers’ skills and application of the principles 
of this track has increased from 68% to 88%. The Majority of participants said that they greatly 
benefited from the program especially in the psychosocial side, where they confirmed that it 
helped them better engage the Syrian students and motivate group work. The satisfaction level 
of Syrian students with the school environment has increased from 71% to 80% and their 
5 | P a g e
satisfaction with teachers’ support from 74% to 82%, while satisfaction with peers and 
colleagues from 71% to 76%. The pre survey results showed that 37% of teachers face problems 
dealing with psychological, behavioral and academic issues of Syrian refugees, while the 
percentage went down to 28% after the program interventions. 
The objectives of the Second Track, Model Community schools, were also largely accomplished: 
reading clubs 89% and Arabic Literacy Training 74%. Teachers’ skills increased from 67% to 87% 
in the Reading Club and from 59% to 82% in the Arabic Literacy Training. Most teachers stressed 
the importance of these two components in providing attractive learning environment and in 
establishing and maintaining an effective reading society, where students discuss and indulge in 
activities related to their readings. Reading clubs has increased the quality and quantity of 
students’ extracurricular readings. Most participants said that the workshop helped them in 
motivating Jordanian and Syrian students to read more and to develop their handicraft skills. 
The results of the Community- Parent School Coalition (CPSC) component indicated that the 
local community, parents, teachers, and students are actually aware of the objectives of CPSC. 
This element helped in building positive relations; based on the values of cooperation, respect, 
and mutual responsibility; between the school and the community. The diverse activities helped 
to interactively engage different community groups and develop skill-sets in areas of project 
management, strategic planning and handicrafts. As for the sustainability of the (CPSC) 
activities, beneficiaries indicated that they mastered the skills they were trained on, yet the 
chance to sustain them needs QRTA continued support. 
Recommendations marked that the activities of the program should start at the beginning of 
the school year in order to give ample time to implement the program’s activities during the 
academic semester and to allow proper evaluation of the program success. Training workshops 
should consider teachers’ experience as new teachers need a different training content 
comparing to the experienced teachers especially in pedagogy. Training hours should be 
increased, time for practical implementation should be provided during training and time 
between one training workshop and another should be extended to allow practical 
implementation in the field. Certain elements should be added to the workshops also such as 
conversation skills and dealing with learning difficulties. It is also advisable for QRTA trainers to 
provide demo implementation in the field to better understand the application challenges and 
to organize some supportive sessions that showcase some education problems through videos. 
The establishment phase should also include a comprehensive vision of all the forms of 
coordination and cooperation needed between the Ministry and QRTA at all levels 
(administrative coordination, follow-ups, incentive schemes, and certificates of recognition) and 
to be sorted out early enough before implementation. School cotillions on the other hand 
should be institutionally formed through MoE and within its legislations, systems and 
instructions, in a way that gives more to the members of the community committees. In 
addition, a good incentive scheme that motivates the targeted teachers and administrators 
should be devised. A Needs’ Assessment Survey should be prepared to identify the 
infrastructure and the education environment the program needs before starting any activity 
and the establishment phase should also include a certain budget to solve any logistical 
problems in the school and to enable the implementation of activates. A comprehensive plan, 
with a clearly stated performance and evaluation methodology, should also be available, in line 
with the executive plan and linked to implementation tools and objectives. 
6 | P a g e
About the Program 
In response to the political crisis in Syria, the Government of Jordan and the Ministry of 
Education (MoE) have put several measures in place to support and accommodate the Syrian 
refugees, including allowing refugee children to enroll in Jordan’s public schools. In relation to 
this, there is a pressing and dire need among Jordan’s public schools to develop safe and 
supportive learning environment within the public school system. Therefore, QRTA has adopted 
the implementation of the CISLE program which is funded by the USAID to tackle such needs. 
The program is divided into two main tracks, where the first track of the program utilizes a 
teacher training package and resource materials for a 30 - hour training program to build the 
capacity of teachers in delivering quality education to Syrian refugee students and local 
students. Building on the existing QRTA, UNESCO, MoE partnership, these training materials 
include elements of how teachers can offer psycho-social (PS) support, and utilize interactive 
teaching pedagogies, effective classroom management techniques and academic and behavioral 
assessment strategies to enhance students’ engagement and promote safe, supportive, healthy 
and inclusive learning environments in schools. Teachers have been introduced to basic 
principles of child rights and protection against abuse and will be trained on how to detect early 
signs of psychosocial problems which will benefit Syrian and Jordanian students. The premise for 
the training is to ease the stress and tension which may exist in schools with significant refugee 
populations and provide skills for teachers to more successfully deliver inclusive education. 
In addition to the psychosocial and interactive pedagogy training, the second track of the 
program incorporates, a two pronged approach to further enhance the capacity of teachers by 
cultivating Model Community Schools (MCSs) in 20 of the 200 schools from track one. The first 
strategy will integrate QRTA’s Arabic Reading and Writing program by developing teachers’ 
literacy training and language arts instruction to encourage Syrian students’ engagement and 
participation in classroom activities. Reading clubs and literary activities centering on students 
ability to express themselves freely will address the challenging behaviors of post trauma. The 
Arabic Reading and Writing program aims to build the capacity of generalist (Grades 1-3) and 
Arabic Language teachers by introducing teachers to the most effective methodologies of 
teaching reading and writing skills to students. To promote the Arabic training program, the 
libraries in the MCSs will be enhanced with reading materials and resources that focus on Arab 
culture and identity as inclusive and supportive elements uniting Jordanian and Syrian students 
in the schools. Furthermore, Reading Clubs will be established in all the MCSs as essential 
components to promote authentic reading and expressive writing to enhance student 
engagement in the classroom as well as confront persistent challenging behavioral problems. 
Reading and writing activities are recognized as effective interventions involving children in 
learning tasks that help them to internalize basic concepts, values and skills necessary for their 
intellectual, emotional and social growth. 
The second strategy incorporates QRTA’s partnership with 20 Community-Parent School 
Coalitions (CPSCs) in the 20 MCS over the course of the project. In order to create an improved 
learning environment, integrate Syrians into the Jordanian school system, and to support 
dialogue and peaceful coexistence between the host and Syrian refugee communities, QRTA will 
7 | P a g e
implement Community Mobilization for Participation in Schools (CMP) program in the 20 MCS. 
The program will establish Community-Parent School Coalitions in order to mobilize 
communities and to create a sense of ownership and responsibility for community education, 
and serve as new models of community engagement. The program focuses on building dynamic 
community-school partnerships to support participatory approaches to education; create a 
sense of ownership and responsibility among all stakeholders within the schools hosting a large 
number of Syrian refugee students; and promote innovative and sustainable use of school space 
by staff, students, parents and community. 
To extend the professional development activities to a larger community of schools, each MCS 
will be expected to carry out communities of practice (CoP) and outreach activities with three 
neighboring schools. The application of CoP will involve structured exchange of new experiences 
and classroom activities. Never the less, Students from neighboring schools will also be invited 
to use the MCS library and to participate in the Reading Club activities. 
Evaluation Purpose 
The purpose of the evaluation is to measure the results achieved by the project, and assess the 
extent to which the program’s activities contributed to ensure that all children – local residents 
and Syrian refugees – are afforded an equal opportunity to acquire a purposeful and meaningful 
education in a safe, inclusive and supportive learning environment. 
Evaluation Audience 
The results of this evaluation will be used QRTA to enhance future implementation of Education 
in Emergency interventions as well as providing USAID and MoE with the results achieved. 
Evaluation Questions: 
This study was conducted to answer the following questions (set by donors and implementers): 
1. To what extent d id the program’s activities help teachers to deliver inclusive education? 
2. To what extent did the project’s activities help MCS develop dynamic community 
partnerships in the targeted areas and how did the level of partnerships change due to 
the program’s interventions? 
3. To what extent were the beneficiaries able to implement the new practices? 
Evaluation Limitations: 
Results of the evaluation are limited to: 
 Timing of the summative evaluation: the implementation of the program started in June 
during school summer holiday and as a result the program activities were not seen in 
practice. 
 Existing evaluation tools developed and used by QRTA: although the existing tools were 
not designed to help answer the questions of the summative evaluation, the external 
evaluation team used some of the developed tools in some aspects to serve this 
evaluation study. 
8 | P a g e
 Consistency and reliability of the tools built and used by QRTA: this summative 
evaluation relied on some available data and some notes were made on these tools 
regarding their structure and type of questions included. 
Evaluation Methodology 
a. Evaluation design: 
A combination of qualitative and quantitative research within Mixed Method Research Design 
was applied to this study. Creswell & Plano Clark model was used, in which all data (quantitative 
and qualitative) is used in explaining the results of the study, utilizing all data collected before, 
during or after the implementation of the program. 
However, since this Summative Evaluation and the Outcomes-Based Evaluation were prepared 
after the full implementation of the program, raw quantitative and qualitative data in two 
categories were used: 
First category: raw quantitative and qualitative data collected by QRTA during the 
implementation phase (workshop feedback questionnaires, pre and post teachers’ surveys, pre 
and post Syrian students’ satisfaction survey). In addition to quantitative and qualitative 
data\results from reports of external evaluators who were hired by QRTA to evaluate some 
components of the program after their implementation and during the period of the program; 
such as the pre and post Syrian students satisfaction baseline report and CPSC post assessment 
reports. 
Second category: Quantitative and qualitative data collected by the external evaluation team of 
CONSULTUS company who conducted this study. The team held focus group discussions to cross 
validate the data collected by QRTA team, in addition to collecting data in other areas that were 
not covered by QTRA including data related to the Arabic Literacy Training and reading clubs. 
b. Evaluation Data and Tools:
The evaluation results are based and categorized based on the above mentioned two categories: 
 Data collected by the implementer QRTA: 
1. Data from the Teacher’s Survey which was implemented before and after the 
implementation of the program. A random sample representing all targeted 
governorates was selected. The sample consisted of 9% of teachers targeted by the 
program (4164 teacher). The pre-survey sample consisted of 438 teachers: 351 female 
and 87 male. The post survey covered 400 teachers: 323 female and 77 male. 
2. Data resulting from implementing the Teacher’s feedback form on the training program. 
A random sample representing all targeted governorates was selected. The sample 
consisted of 10% of the teachers targeted by the program (4164 teacher). The sample 
consisted of 423 teachers: 352 female and 71 male. 
3. Data resulting from the Syrian students’ satisfaction survey which was implemented 
before and after the program. All surveys were used was as a sample representing all 
targeted governorates. The pre surveys were 819 and the post surveys were 810. 
9 | P a g e
4. The data and results of QRTA reports and studies provided through external evaluators 
aimed to evaluate some components such as CPSC and to baseline some performance 
indicators such as the satisfaction level of Syrian students. 
 Data collected by the external evaluation team of CONSULTUS: 
1. Data collected through a Multi-Dimensional Survey Tool (Appendix 1), which covered a 
sample of 90 teachers (69 female and 21 male), randomly selected from trained 
teachers. This tool is related to the accomplishment of the program’s expected results, 
training workshops, the ability of teachers to apply the program before and after the 
training, the changes needed to enhance the program, the main challenges the program 
faced, and recommendations. 
2. Data collected through a tool (Appendix 3) covering a sample of 40% of librarians (total 
of 8: 6 female, 2 males) regarding their opinion on the reading clubs training and and 
the extent of achieving its objectives. 
3. Data collected through a tool (Appendix 5) covering a sample of 50% of Arabic teachers 
(total of 32: 21 female and 11 male) regarding their opinion on Arabic literacy training 
and the extent of achieving its objectives. 
4. Data collected through Focus Groups of teachers, librarians, and Arabic Literacy training 
teachers; regarding their opinion on the training workshops, the ability of CISLE to 
create inclusive and supportive learning environment , understanding the psychosocial 
needs of Syrian students and ability to engage them, marking opportunities and 
challenges of the program, highlighting accomplishments, and any suggested 
recommendations. Tools are mentioned in Appendixes 2, 4, and 6. The sample sizes 
were the same as in items 1, 2, and 3 above (respectively). 
Evaluation Results 
Results will be listed according to the sequence of the evaluation questions. Each evaluation 
question will be answered according to the type and source of information used. Analysis and 
conclusions will be directly related to the designated information for easier reading and to 
simplify structure as much as possible. 
First question: “To what extent did the program’s activities help teachers deliver 
inclusive education?”
The results of this question indicate the effectiveness of the first track of CISLE, Teachers 
professional development. Answering the question will be presented through the quantitative 
and qualitative sources data and information collected by the external evaluation team, 
CONSULTUS, through focus groups; and the data collected through the pre and post surveys 
conducted by QRTA throughout the program. 
a. Quantitative and qualitative data and information collected by the external evaluation 
team, CONSULTUS, through focus groups 
As a primary source of information on the program’s ability to build supportive and inclusive ( 
environment (Psychosocial and Interactive Pedagogies), different samples (trained teachers) 
10 | P a g e
were randomly selected to be interviewed within focus groups. These samples covered all 
directorates to guarantee a good representation of all trained teachers. At the beginning of 
each focus-group session, a questionnaire was distributed to collect quantitative data on the 
goals of the training program, the training workshop, and the ability of participants to 
implement the program before and after the training. After that, one hour and a half focus 
group discussion took place, where CONSULTUS team asked certain pre-set questions. At the 
beginning of the focus group, members of the evaluation team introduced themselves clarified 
the discussion points and objectives were identified, and emphasized on the confidentiality and 
the importance of notes and opinions. 
The external evaluation team of CONSULTUS conducted 6 focus group discussions with trained 
teachers from different directorates of MoE in the governorates of Amman, Irbid, Mafraq, 
Jarash, Zarqa, Ajloun, Madaba, and Balqa. The sample consisted of 93 teachers representing the 
program and responding to the study tool of Appendix 1. Three dimensions were covered in the 
questionnaire: the extent to which the objectives of the program were accomplished, their 
opinion on the program and the trainers, and the change in their ability to implement the 
content of the program before and after training. 
This was followed by a focus group that lasted for an hour and a half in which questions of 
Appendix 2 were asked. These questions relate to how the program developed the participants’
ability to understand the psychosocial needs of the students and their ability to implement the 
activities and skills of learning and teaching. Question also helped in showing the effect the 
program had in the inclusion of Syrian students, the main challenges and recommendations. 
The quantitative analysis of this data (table 1), showed that the mean results related to the 
objectives (ability to apply the main psychosocial aspects, ability to apply the 5E’s of 
Constructive Approach to Learning, and ability to apply the principles of evaluation), reached to 
4.18 or 83% (without gender differences), which are very good results. As for the satisfaction 
level of teachers with the training workshop, results show that it reached to 4.38 or 88% 
(without gender differences), as shown in the table below, which is also high. Table 
demonstrates that there are differences in the mean of all abilities targeted by the program 
before and after the training. It was higher after the training, which clearly proves the 
effectiveness of the program in enabling teachers better understand the academic and 
psychosocial needs of Jordanian and Syrian students, better include the Syrian students in the 
schools, support interactive learning in classroom, apply the enquiry teaching approach, 
contribute to building a safe and supportive school environment, and ability to resolve 
classroom conflicts and evaluate students’ performance. 
11 | P a g e
Table 1: Means of questionnaire items implemented during the focus group discussion related 
to psychosocial education (Total=90, M=21, F=69) 
Domain Domain
Program Objectives Mean
(out of 5)
Ability to apply the 
content of the training
Mean
before 
training 
(out of 5)
Mean after 
training
(out of 5)
Ability to apply main 
aspects of psychosocial 
education
4.04
Ability to understand the 
academic needs of Syrian 
students
3.10 4.26
Knowledge of child’s 
rights and protection 4.42
Ability to understand the 
psycho social needs of 
Syrian and Jordanian 
students
3.36 4.34
Ability to manage the 
classroom 4.55 Ability to Include Syrian 
students with Jordanians 3.10 4.27
Ability to use the 5E’s
3.91
Ability to support 
interactive learning in 
the classroom and to 
implement teaching by 
enquiry
3.46 4.46
Ability to apply 
principles of Formative 
Assessment 3.96
Ability to contribute to 
building a safe and 
supportive learning 
environment
3.55 4.48
Total Mean
Total Females
Total Males
4.18
4.19
4.17
Ability to resolve 
conflicts 3.61 4.46
Training workshop Ability to evaluate 
students 3.65 4.55
Clarity of workshop 
objectives 4.48
Mean of total domain
Females Mean
Males Mean
3.40
3.41
3.40
4.40
4.46
4.39
Achievement of 
workshop versus 
expectations
4.06
Skills and expertise of 
trainers 4.47
Trainers’ communication 
and motivational skills 4.50
* Mean of total domain
 Females Mean
 Males Mean
4.38
4.20
4.43
* There are no statistical differences between the means of males and females in the three domains (α=0.05)
12 | P a g e
Most participants in the focus groups said that the workshop helped them in understanding 
students’ psychosocial needs, which in turn improved students’ inclusion and reduced dropout. 
One participant said “this training is one of the best supportive activities on the personal and 
educational level. It focused on the psychological side that we miss.” However, some said that it 
was good for new teachers only and added nothing to the experienced ones, and that it was 
very idealistic and lacked realistic envisioning of what is really happening in the field. 
On the psychosocial level, most participants said that the program helped them develop some 
important skills including communication skills, student empowerment, and ability to distinguish 
between right and wrong practices, conflict resolution, organizational skills, role distribution, 
tolerance and dealing with specific psychological issues among students. 
On the teaching and learning level, most participants said that the program enabled them to 
deal with some teaching situations, though it was hard to apply the 5E’s. It also helped in putting 
strategies into action, as one said: “we knew the strategies, but now we know how to apply 
them.” While another said: “when the psychosocial pressure is decreased, the teacher can 
function and manage the classroom more effectively. The psychosocial improvements positively 
affected the teaching process.”. Some pointed out that the 5E’s raised students’ participation, 
increased role distribution and generally motivated distinguished Syrian students. It also helped 
students express themselves, showcased democracy, helped in dealing with individual 
differences and in discovering students’ creativity. 
Some of the challenges participants faced included the timing of the training workshops which is 
after school’s hours , on another side, participants pointed out the difficulties of applying new 
strategies due to the large number of students, short classes’ duration, intensity of the 
curriculum and age group of the first 3 grades’ students the unsuitability of some strategies for 
application for grades 1-3), in addition to some administrative issues such as delays in receiving 
formal letters (MoE’s circulations) to the field. 
Participants said that they had the opportunity to exchange experiences and initiate dialogues 
between each other’s. Transferring their best practices to colleagues in the same and 
neighboring schools, reducing dropout, dealing with conflicts, managing time, increasing 
inclusion, helping Syrian students to take part in school activities and discovering talents and 
creative sides were some of the main accomplishments teachers said the program helped them 
in reaching. 
Most participants agreed on these recommendations: training should start with the beginning of 
the academic school year, implementation should take place right after the theoretical training, 
, consider training needs for newly hired and experienced teachers training period should be 
extended, more practice is needed, topics related to learning disabilities and students’ academic 
achievement should be added, better coordination between the ministry and the academy is 
needed (administrative cooperation, follow-up, incentive schemes, and certificates), and that 
trainers should provide applied lesson to assess real challenges on the ground. They said that 
the training process should also include substitute teachers and those who are concerned with 
Syrian students. 
13 | P a g e
b- Results of QTRA Pre and Post Survey on Teachers 
Pre and post surveys’- that were implemented by QRTA- results indicate that there is an 
increase in teachers’ ability to create a supportive and inclusive environment (psychosocial & 
interactive pedagogies training). Mean before the program was 3.46; while after the program 
3.68. Table 2 shows the total mean and the different means before and after the training 
intervention for the entire sample disaggregated per gender. 
Table 2: Total means and the items’ means before and after the program implementation 
implemented by QRTA 
No. Item Pre-program 
mean
N=400
Post program 
mean
N=438
1 Understanding the refugee community 3.22 3.33
2 Realizing the benefits of supportive communication to 
Syrian students 3.11 3.38
3 Ability to manage behavior in the classroom 4.07 4.41
4 Knowledge of child rights and protection from 
violence and abuse 4.23 4.37
5 Ability to support an interactive classroom 
environment 4.07 4.24
6 Use of the 5E.s 2.52 3.18
7 Ability to indicate primary symptoms of psychosocial 
issues with the refugee students 3.43 3.68
8 Ability to enquire for primary symptoms of 
psychosocial issues 3.46 3.59
9 Ability to use alternatives to punishment 4.21 4.21
10 Ability to apply Formative Evaluation for students 
performance 3.67 4.03
11 Arabic writing skills among Syrian students 3.34 3.46
12 Your school participation in local community activities 4.03 4.03
13 Local community participation in school activities 3.76 3.88
14 Amount of extracurricular activities implemented by 
your school in cooperation with the local community 3.54 3.80
*Means for males 3.41 3.58
 Means for females 3.49 3.73
 Total Means 3.46 3.68
* The sample size is 9% of the targeted group for the pre and post evaluation. The sample was randomly selected. 
* There are no statistical differences between the means of males and females in the three items (α=0.05)
14 | P a g e
The table shows that all items apparently increased after implementing the program and 
teachers’ improved their ability to create inclusive and supportive learning environment. Results 
show that the female sample achieved higher means than the male sample. However, we could 
not show if those differences are statically significant or not as we couldn’t run T-Test for two 
compatible samples because the implementation of the pre and post surveys by QRTA was not 
applied to pairs. 
As for the academic, behavioral, and psychological issues of the Syrian students, pre-survey 
results state that 37% of teachers face trouble dealing with these issues, while only 28% do after 
the program according to the post survey. The nature and type of these issues are detailed in 
Table 3 below, with the percentage of teachers facing them before and after the 
implementation of the program. 
Table 3: Percentage of teachers facing challenges and issues resulting from Syrian asylum that 
limit the education process (before and after the program) (N=423)*.
No. Item Pre-program 
mean
N=400
Post program 
mean
N=438
1
Increase of the number of students in the classroom 
due to Syrian asylum %36 %29
2 Student behavioral issues %32 %24
3 Student emotional problems %26 %19
4 Student academic problems %27 %12
5
Teacher lack of understanding for the methods of 
supportive interactive learning environment %20 %14
6
Teacher is not aware of the importance of the 
psychosocial culture and supportive communication 
for the refugee student
%19 %12
7
Teacher lacks understanding of Syrian refugee 
community in Jordan 16% %7
* The sample size is 9% of the targeted group for the pre and post evaluation. The sample was randomly selected. 
In answer to a question in the survey about the efforts teachers make to include Syrian 
students, 55% think they make these efforts before the program, while the percentage went 
down to 52 after the program. This indicates that the program, with its activities, follow-ups and 
interventions, helped teachers overcome obstacles and challenges, which in turn decreased the 
amount of efforts needed. 
The participation level of students, whether Syrians or Jordanians, did not change before and 
after the program (Syrians: 2.87 before and 2.8 after, Jordanians: 2.0 before and 2.1 after). The 
means of Syrian students’ participation is higher than that of Jordanian students because Syrian 
students are new and try to show more activity to prove themselves and to attract their 
teachers’ attention.
15 | P a g e
The results pointed out a slight decrease in the percentage of teachers who make efforts to 
increase the classroom participation level (from 85% before the program to 82% after). This 
decrease means that the program helped in motivating students to participate without the extra 
push from teachers. 
The training aimed to promote the psychosocial culture, support the inclusion of Syrian-refugee 
students, direct behavior and help understand refugee community, manage diversity, cultivate a 
supportive and safe environment, raise awareness on conflict management and define violence 
and abuse. 
The program was evaluated using a tool designed by QRTA (Appendix 8). The results indicate 
that the total mean of teacher knowledge has increased (3.39 out of 4- 84.75%), as table 4 
below shows. 
Table 4: Total mean and means of different items for feedback form on QRTA training (N=423).
No. Item Mean
1 Main components of the psychosocial culture and its role in the 
self-acceptance of the refugee student 3.72
2 Supportive communication and the role it plays in the self￾acceptance of the refugee student 3.53
3 Main features of refugee community and how to manage 
difference with local community 3.46
4 Principles of behavior management 3.45
5 Principles and methods of building a caring, safe, healthy, and 
supportive environment, and related factors. 3.50
6 Types of violence and abuse child could face at school, and related 
factors. 3.43
7 Conflict management principles 3.32
8 enquiry teaching, the 5E’s, and interactive learning methods 3.37
9 Principles of Formative and Behavioral evaluation. 3.34
*Total Mean
 Mean for males
 Mean for females
3.38
3.32
3.39
* There are no statistical differences between the means of males and females in the three items (α=0.05)
The teacher’s ability to better understand the psychosocial needs of the student has increased 
as the table shows, which in turn led to better student inclusion. Item no. 1 has the highest 
mean (3.72 or 93%), while the lowest mean was in applying conflict management principles to 
the classroom and school with mean of (3.32 or %83). In general, the table shows that most 
items got percentages above 80%, which clearly indicates the effectiveness of the program in 
enhancing teachers’ abilities, skills, and knowledge in dealing with Syrian refugee students in 
Jordanian public schools. 
To examine the satisfaction level of the Syrian refugee student with the school environment, 
QRTA has commissioned an external evaluator to conduct a baseline study for student 
satisfaction. Post satisfaction surveys were also implemented by QRTA to the same sample in 
16 | P a g e
the baseline study after the implementation of the First Track (teachers’ professional 
development, psychosocial and interactive learning). To compare the results of the pre and post 
satisfaction level among the Syrian refugee students, CONSULTUS external evaluation team 
utilized the available data and analyzed it to spot the change in the satisfaction level. 
The selected sample covered 200 public schools in seven governorates in the middle and 
northern parts of the kingdom. 819 Syrian students from grades 2 to 12 were randomly selected 
from 32 different schools to answer a four-part questionnaire: general information, satisfaction 
level with school environment, satisfaction level with teachers’ support and satisfaction level 
with peers (Appendix 9). A four point Likert Scale was used (strongly agree, agree, disagree, and 
strongly disagree). The validity and reliability of the tool was investigated before the tool 
application. The factor analysis of the results of the initial experimentation on the try out sample 
showed that 17 items (out of the total 18 items of the tool) are in fact loaded under one factor, 
proving that it is a uni-dimensional tool. The reliability of the tool was investigated using 
Cronbach's (alpha) coefficient which reflects the internal consistency of the tool. The values 
extracted for the domains were (0.79; 0.82, 0.54), respectively, while the alpha coefficient for 
the tool was 0.88, which is a good reliability coefficient. 
Table 5 shows that the means of students satisfaction were close in three domains before the 
program (around 2 out of 5), and they were also close after the program in the three domains 
(around 3 out of 5). 
Moreover, there is an increase in the satisfaction level after the program implementation as 
follows: satisfaction with teacher’s support increased from 74% to 82%, with peers; 71% to 76%, 
and with school environment; 71% to 80%- highest with a 9% increase. 
Table 5: Means of satisfaction level with school environment, teacher’s support, and peers 
before and after the program
Domain
Before the program
N=819
After the program
N=810
Mean Standard 
Deviation
Mean Standard 
Deviation
School Environment 2.82
)71%( 0.59 3.21
80% .60
Teacher’s Support 2.96
)74%( 0.63 3.28
82% .59
Relation with Peers 2.83
)71%( 0.58 3.07
76% .53
The increase in the satisfaction level was not high relatively as it ranged from 5-9% only. This is 
because the satisfaction level before the program was already high and did not go below 70% in 
the three domains. QRTA pre study pointed out that this level of satisfaction is already high and 
it will be hard to increase the satisfaction level under the tough socioeconomic circumstances 
that definitely affect the dynamics of the classroom and classmates’ relations and behavior. 
However, the teacher in this case is the biggest change factor and therefore a recommendation 
is made to continue training the teachers to empower them and provide them with the skills 
17 | P a g e
needed to apply the methodologies and activities that help create a supportive and an equal￾opportunity learning environment. 
The post results show that the increase in satisfaction is below expectations. Reasons include 
the high pre-study satisfaction level which might be due to intervention of other projects since 
the beginning of the Syrian crisis, as stated earlier, and the over exaggeration of the teacher’s 
role in satisfying the student as satisfaction factors require financial and logistical support. 
Therefore the increase in the satisfaction level was minimal and came from individual efforts 
made by the teachers themselves without support from other entities. In addition, having to 
stay away from a war-torn home, a refugee feels bitter and uncomfortable, even if surrounded 
with a supportive environment. Thus, it would be almost impossible to achieve higher 
satisfaction levels than these results with a sad refugee. 
We can conclude from the above that the quantitative and qualitative data collected by 
CONSULTUS and QRTA clearly indicate the effectiveness of the First Track (teacher professional 
development) in Cultivating Inclusive and Supportive Learning Environment (CISLE). Mean for 
achieving the objectives of the First Track were high for pedagogy and psychosocial component 
(83%); at the same time, the level of targeted skills incredibly increased from 68% to 88%, 
despite many challenges. Results also show that the interventions of the program noticeably 
helped in decreasing the amount of problems and issues facing teachers due to the program’s 
interventions. The Satisfaction level with the three measured domains (school environment, 
teacher support, and peers) has also improved with great effort. However, asylum and war in the 
home country will always hinder the satisfaction of a refugee. 
Second Question: To what extent did the program’s activities help MCS develop 
dynamic community partnerships in the targeted areas and how did the level of 
partnerships change due to the program’s interventions? 
To achieve an effective partnership between the school and the local community, the program 
implemented “Community Parents School Coalition” (CPSC) component where high 
concentration of Syrian Refugees exists. The program component was implemented for one 
year, 2014-2015 in six governorates in the middle and the northern parts of the kingdom 
(Amman, Irbid, Zarqa, Jerash, Ajloun, and Mafraq). CPSC component depends on the approach 
of community participation, whereby all the segments of the community work together to 
improve the school environment and help in the inclusion of Syrian refugees students in specific 
and Syrian communities in general. Shared responsibility towards education is also promoted in 
the targeted community through raising community awareness and capacity building of the local 
community, teachers, and students at targeted schools. CPSC component aims to build 
community partnerships that help in institutionalizing work in the targeted communities, in 
addition to creating a sense of ownership and shared responsibility towards the school; while 
strengthening the relationship between Syrians and Jordanians. 
The program is based on establishing 20 MCSs at the previously mentioned governorates to 
encourage parents, schools, and local community members surrounding each MCS to 
strengthen the relationship between the Jordanian and the Syrian community. It also help 
develops Communities of Practice to transfer knowledge and promote partnerships between 
each MCS and three neighboring schools. 
18 | P a g e
Each MCS established a school coalition to reach to all community members surrounding it, 
through developing awareness programs that target Jordanian and Syrian students and their 
families; and through creating a sense of ownership and responsibility for all stakeholders inside 
the school and in the local community in general. The relationship between the MCS and the 
surrounding community is also strengthened to implement sustainable learning and execute the 
extracurricular activities in each MCS, focusing on inclusion mechanisms. 
The framework of “Community Parents School Coalitions” was designed in a way that 
encourages the participation of local communities, and builds the capacities of the local 
community through the participation of parents, teachers, students, and members of the local 
community in achieving certain shared goals. 
Teachers, students, and community members were trained on each of the following: strategic 
planning, fundraising, media, homework villages and Income Generating Projects; in addition to 
training teachers to better understand students’ needs. After that, School coalition members 
developed a 6-month implementation plan and started to work on activities accordingly. 
CONSULTUS evaluated the CPSC component through analyzing the qualitative report prepared 
by an external party hired by QRTA, to assess this component in accordance with the program’s 
plan. Evaluation was also carried out depending on the outcomes of the focus group discussions 
that were implemented by CONSULTUS evaluation team on samples representing trainees, 
reading clubs, and Arabic literacy training under the MCS track. 
The external report of evaluating the CPSC component shows that the evaluation criteria are 
based on four main categories (effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and effect). Effectiveness 
refers to the degree to which the program was successful in achieving its desired results and the 
degree of clarity of vision and objectives that the program adopts with the targeted segments. 
Efficiency refers to implementing the program in the right manner throughout the phases of 
planning, organizing, monitoring, and follow-up. Sustainability refers to the ability to continue 
the program and to continue using the skills which were developed throughout the program. 
Effect is the program ability to make a change in the opinions and attitudes of the individuals 
targeted under the program. 
The study relied on the Qualitative Approach to examine the program’s ability to achieve the 
desired goals through knowing participants’ opinions and the effect achieved by after they 
participated in the activities and the projects of the program. To achieve this, 23 focus group 
discussions were held that included representatives of the local community members, parents 
(men and women), teaching staff and administration members of community committees, and a 
number of students who took part in the program. 6 interviews were held with representatives 
of related Community Based Organizations (CBO.s) actively worked for the related component 
of the program, making sure that the study sample covered all related stakeholders who had a 
key role in the program. 
By analyzing the report, we concluded that the objectives of the “Community Parents School 
Coalition” were clearly understood by the local community/parents and teachers and students. 
The program helped in building positive relationships between teachers / students and the local 
19 | P a g e
community/ parents based on the values of cooperation, respect, and shared responsibility 
between the school and the local community. In addition, the diverse activities succeeded in 
involving some local community segments in different activities in an interactive and meaningful 
manner. Most participants said that they were able to make small projects through the planning 
skills they gained for that side. Discussions with participants also revealed that they were able to 
gain the skills they were trained on through their participation in Community Committees. This 
was made clear by referring to a number of projects that they applied in addition to 
strengthening the cognitive skills of some of them in topics related to communication, 
interaction, fundraising, and small-project management. 
On the level of efficiency and action mechanisms, results showed that the preparation phase 
well-fitted the program’s objectives, and that the training program helped develop teachers’ 
skills in areas related to project management, strategic planning, and handicraft. 
As for the sustainability of the CISLE program and the extent to which the community can 
continue to carry the components of CISLE, it has been found that the beneficiaries gained the 
needed skills through training, however, there is a weak chance for sustainability, since many 
confirmed that in order to keep performing the activities of the program, the Academy’s support 
is needed. 
On the effect side, teachers declared that the program made positive changes, especially on the 
level of their relationship with one another. It also increased the awareness regarding the 
importance of community members’ participation in school activities, through the different 
types of support that community members give to improve the whole community. 
As for the most significant recommendations, the report included a number of 
recommendations including the need to activate the role of the local community/parents and 
students, in cooperation with the teaching staff and administration members, through 
community committees overseen by QRTA and continuing to implement CPSC component. 
However, the positive results still in fact need support and development to guarantee their 
sustainability. In addition, CPSCs should be implemented within MoE’s institutional and legal 
framework. MoE should issue legislations and systems that give wider authorities to the 
members of the community committees. An incentive scheme that motivates the teaching staff 
and administration members, and takes their interests into consideration, should also be 
designed. Programs to build self-confidence and other life-skills should be developed to make 
larger positive effects on change in the community. The program should better stress and clearly 
encourage knowledge and experience transfer among all public and private schools through 
designating specially designed activities. 
Focus group discussions held by the evaluation team of this study marked a noticeable change in 
the relationship between the school and the local community. The activities and events of the 
program helped develop this relationship and improve the partnership with the local 
community. More parents were visiting the school where more events were taking place (open 
days, sports events, and art, food and agriculture activities). Some schools received huge 
financial and moral support from community individuals through community committees 
formed for this program; while some schools reported that the program didn’t largely improve 
their partnership between the school and the local community. 
20 | P a g e
Accordingly, we can conclude that the “CPSC” component helped in achieving a good level of 
partnership between schools and local community including Syrian community. There also were 
some good practices that really deserve recognition and could create a small beginning for 
future experiences, taking into consideration that the fruits and returns of this program could be 
better seen on the long run. The relatively short period of implementation in addition to the 
existing legal and legislative challenges that need solutions limit the work of community 
committees, especially that these committees function outside official-working hours, and 
require legal coverage to collect in-kind and cash donations. 
Third Question: To what extent were the beneficiaries able to implement the new 
practices? 
1. Reading Clubs Component 
The external evaluation team from CONSULTUS conducted a focus group discussion with a 
group of librarians (8 librarians comprising 40%) who were trained on Reading Clubs 
representing the governorates of Amman, Irbid, Mafraq, Jerash, Zarqa, and Ajloun. Participants 
answered a questionnaire specially designed for this study (Appendix 3), that had three 
dimensions (the first on the extent to which the objectives of the program that they were 
trained on were achieved, and the second on their opinion regarding the training program and 
the trainers, and the third on the change in their ability to apply and put into practice the 
domains before and after the program). Following this, a one hour-and-a half session was 
conducted and questions (in Appendix 4) were asked. Questions were related to how the 
program developed their ability to increase Jordanian and Syrian students’ motivation to read 
and increased students’ love for books, how did the program help librarians build and sustain 
effective reading communities that run discussions and hold activities related to the books they 
read, and how did the program help break the psychosocial barriers between the Jordanian and 
Syrian students to reach to better tolerance and acceptance, in addition to some of the 
challenges that limited the implementation of the program and the main recommendations they 
propose. 
The quantitative data related to the questionnaire (table 6) implemented by the external 
evaluation team of CONSULTUS on Librarians (Reading Clubs), indicated that the training 
program achieved its objectives for students (the first three items in the table), which were 
represented in the program’s ability to (encourage reading and the love for books, ability to 
encourage team and cooperative work and ability to break psychosocial barriers between 
students) which achieved a mean of 4.45 (89%). They also highlighted the fact that the training 
program was effective since it accomplished a mean of 4.21 (84%) in the items of (the clarity of 
the workshop objectives, the degree to which the workshop objectives were achieved, the 
degree to which the trainers possessed the needed training skills and the cognitive experience 
related to the topics of the workshop, and the degree to which trainers were able to 
communicate and motivate participants). Results also show that there are differences in the 
means before and after the training in the items related to the ability to execute the content of 
the training program, since all means were higher after the training. The results of the T-Test 
conducted to examine the differences between the total means before and after the training 
(3.36 and 4.43 respectively), also pointed out a significant statistical difference between the two 
21 | P a g e
means in favor of the post training, which proves that the program was able to make a positive 
change in the role of librarians. 
Table 6: Means for the questionnaire items answered by the librarians during the focus group 
session, related to the objectives and role of Reading Clubs. (Total-8, M=2, F=6) 
Domain No. Domain
Program Objective Mean Ability to apply the 
content of the program
Mean 
before 
training 
(out of 5)
Mean 
after 
training
(out of 5)
Encourages reading and the 
love for books 4.50 1 Ability to motivate 
students to read 2.88 4.50
Encourages team and 
cooperative work 4.50
2 Ability to encourage 
students choose the right 
book
3.75 4.50
Breaks psychosocial barriers
4.38
3 Ability to help students 
understand the elements 
of the story
3.25 4.75
Mean of total domain
Males mean
Females mean
4.45
4.50
4.44
4 Ability to help students 
imagine the events and 
characters of the story
3.50 4.62
The training workshop
5 Ability to help students 
identify the main events 
and characters of the 
story
 
 3.50 4.38
The clarity of the workshop 
objectives 4.25 6 Ability to help students 
imagine main characters 3.50 4.25
Achieving workshop 
objectives compared to 
expectations
3.88
7 Ability to help students 
re-order information in 
the story
3.13 4.00
Trainer possesses the 
needed training skills and the 
cognitive knowledge related 
to the topics of the 
workshop
4.37
8 Ability to help students 
understand what they 
read 3.38 4.38
Trainers’ ability to 
communicate and motivate 
participants
4.37
9 Ability to help students 
re-tell the story 3.38 4.50
Mean of total domain
4.21
10 Ability to create an 
atmosphere that 
encourages discussion 
and knowledge exchange
4.62 3.50
Males mean
Females mean
2.77
4.29
11 Ability to distinguish 
between truth and 
opinion
4.25 3.25
Mean of total domain
Males mean
Females mean
4.43
4.45
4.42
4.43
4.45
4.42
22 | P a g e
* There are statistical differences in the training workshop field in favor of females (α=0.05), which means that 
females are more satisfied with the program than males.
As for the focus group discussion with the librarians, most participants said that the workshop 
was useful since it developed teachers’ ability to improve the reading and writing level of 
students through training on story writing and reading, analyzing (breaking down) the story 
elements through drawings, character role playing (acting), and doing some activities like 
making masks and puppets. The workshop also contributed to breaking the ice between 
students and to motivating students to read and gain more knowledge through books. 
Most participants pointed out that the workshop enhanced their abilities to motivate the 
Jordanian and Syrian students to read and to love books. It was also useful to their ability to 
direct students to do activities, read, gain handicraft skills, and run dialogue and discussions. 
Someone said: “I started to make dialogues with the students the same way Arabic teachers do, 
and I started to make use of other workshops; such as linking the Arabic Literacy Training to the 
reading club”. 
Regarding the way the component contributed to helping Librarians establish and sustain an 
effective reading community that runs dialogues and performs activities related to the books 
students read; most participants said that the component encouraged them to read the books 
provided by the Academy and to bring books from outside. Students started to come to the 
library to study and discuss the content of their textbooks. In addition, a number of curriculum 
activities were applied on the students of the reading club during the “Independence Day”. 
“Library classes, where teachers give classes in the library, were also organized to utilize the 
sources available at the library and to break the classroom routine.” “Starting a puppet theatre 
boosted teaching through acting and role-playing”.
Most participants stressed the importance of the program in developing their ability in breaking 
the psychosocial barriers between Jordanian and Syrian students; towards achieving tolerance 
and acceptance, through dialogue, communication, encouragement of group work, and 
discovering some talented students after having dialogues with them. 
As for the contribution of the component in increasing the partnership between the school and 
the community, the program did not largely help in increasing the level of partnership between 
the school and the local community. However, there was a limited participation from some 
mothers who attended the reading club with their daughters, some humble prize-donations to 
encourage female students, and some fans for the library at one school only. 
Main challenges that faced participants while implementing the program were mostly due to 
female students attending reading clubs at male schools or vice versa. Some female participants 
said “some male students need to behave and they caused troubles”. In addition, the activities 
of the reading club were conducted after school hours and that the distance between homes 
and schools in some areas is long. Lack of legal coverage for the teacher and the student to do 
activities after school hours posed a real challenge as well. The high turnover in school 
principals, and having to deal with some cooperative and other uncooperative principals did also 
affect the program. Some participants pointed out that the duration of the training was 
insufficient and that “one day” was not enough to work on the activities that would need more 
time communicate and cover the courses. Infrastructure challenges included the limited 
sources, the small space and the poor equipment of libraries. 
23 | P a g e
As for the achievements made by the participants in the Reading Clubs, most participants 
indicated the establishing the reading clubs is a major achievement in addition to enhancing 
students’ desire to visit the library, attend the puppet theater and increasing the chances of 
cooperation between different schools. 
In recommendations, most participants agreed that a larger number of schools should be 
included in the program, the program should be sustainable and supported by QRTA, the 
reading club should be within the official school hours, MoE should give better attention to the 
libraries and their sources in a way that supports reading clubs, incentives, motivation and 
Certificates of Appreciation should be granted to students who participate in the reading clubs, 
reading clubs should not be limited to MCS.s, reading clubs at female schools should be for 
females only, and those at male schools should be for males only. 
2. Arabic Literacy Component 
The external evaluation team from CONSULTUS Company conducted 4 focus group discussions 
with the concerned Arabic teachers representing the involved educational directorates for the 
governorates of Amman, Irbid, Mafraq, and Jerash. The sample consisted of 32 teachers (males 
and females) who responded to the study tool in Appendix 5. The tool covered three dimensions 
(the first on the extent to which the goals of the program that they were trained on were in fact 
achieved, the second on their opinion regarding the training program and the trainers, and the 
third on the change in their ability to apply and put into practice before and after the program). 
Following this, an interview that lasted for an hour-and-a half was conducted and questions (in 
Appendix 6) were asked. Questions were related to the way the program developed 
participants’ ability to motivate Jordanian and Syrian students to reading and writing fiction and 
non-fiction, and the way the program helped in improving the quality and quantity of students’ 
extracurricular reading, in addition program implementation challenges and the main 
recommendations participants suggest. 
The quantitative data related to the questionnaire (Table 7) marked that the program achieved 
its objectives with the students from the point of view of teachers (the first eight items), scoring 
a mean of 3.70 (74%). It also showed that the training program was effective and achieved a 
mean of (4.49), (89%) in the items related to the clarity of the workshop objectives, the degree 
to which the objectives of the workshop were achieved, the degree to which the trainers 
possessed the needed training skills and the cognitive experience related to the topics of the 
workshop, and the degree to which trainers were able to communicate and motivate 
participants. Results also show that there are differences in the means before and after the 
training in the items and the whole domain related to the ability to implement the content of 
the training program, in favor of the post-training means for all items. The results of the T-Test, 
to examine the differences between the total means before and after the training for two 
connected samples (2.95 and 4.13 respectively), also pointed out a statistically indicative 
difference on the level of (α=0.05) between the two total means, in favor of the post-training 
mean, which proves that the program was able to make a positive change in the role of the 
Arabic teachers. 
24 | P a g e
Table 7: Means for the items of the questionnaire answered by the Arabic Teachers during the 
focus group discussion, related to the objectives and the role of Arabic Literacy. (Total=32, 
M=11, F=21) 
Domain No Domain
Program Objective Mean Ability to apply the content of the 
program
Mean 
before 
training 
(out of 5)
Mean 
after 
training
(out of 5)
Fiction and non-fiction reading 3.84 1 Use of strategies that engage students in 
reading 2.96 4.28
Fiction and non-fiction reading 3.78 2 Use of strategies that engage students in 
writing 2.84 4.34
Fiction writing 3.68 3 Planning mini-lessons 2.84 4.37
Non-fiction writing 4.03 4 Satisfying students different learning need 
and giving appropriate feedback 3.53 4.46
Article writing to express opinion and 
support it with appropriate evidence 4.12
5 Establishing professional communities of 
practice at the school level to work as a 
team in teaching and supporting reading 
skills
2.78 3.78
Development of students’ positive 
trends towards reading 3.43
6 Supporting the implementation of 
communities of practices between the 
students in the class and between 
teachers.
2.81 3.71
Students practice to extracurricular 
reading 3.34
7 Supporting and encouraging the quantity 
and quality of reading inside and outside 
the class room
2.90 3.96
Students use the needed skills and 
strategies in reading non-fiction 3.40
8 Building and supporting in- class reading 
communities to start a group of readers 
who support one another. 
2.84 3.93
Development of the positive trends in 
creative writing 3.84 9 Ability to teach the reading skills for fiction 
and non-fiction. 3.06 4.34
Total mean
Males mean
Females mean
3.70
3.86
3.62
10 Total mean for the domain
2.95 4.13
Training workshop Males mean 2.87 4.32
The clarity of the workshop objectives 4.75 Females mean 2.99 4.03
The degree to which objectives of the 
workshop were achieved compared to 
expectations
4.12
Trainer possesses the needed training 
skills and the cognitive knowledge 
related to the topics of the workshop
4.53
Trainers’ ability to communicate and 
motivate participants 4.56
Mean of total domain
Males mean
Females mean
4.49
4.68
4.39
25 | P a g e
* There are no significant statistical differences between the means of males and females in the three domains 
(α=0.05)
Most participants in four focus group discussions said that the workshop was positive and 
helped them acquire new skills “it is a quality and a practical program”. They also stressed the 
fact that it gave students the freedom to write “a student learns to write without having to 
abide to one topic and without having one certain type of reading or writing imposed on 
him/her”. “The program enabled the student to write his/her own personal fiction” and they 
learnt to interact with the stories and its characters and to express what they have learnt. 
Most participants also marked that the program developed their ability to help Syrian and 
Jordanian students in reading and writing fiction and non-fiction through modeling fiction￾reading and writing, and finding introductions to writing “I am glad that the students became 
participants”. The program was effective in developing students’ critical and analytical skills and 
enhancing the cooperative work between the teacher, the librarian and the student in selecting 
books. It also helped in developing the student ability to communicate and make dialogues and 
contributed to the inclusion of Syrian students, while giving them the opportunity to express 
themselves and break the ice with others during Arabic classes. 
As for the program’s contribution to enhancing the quality and quantity of extracurricular 
reading; most participants pointed out that the amount of books a student reads has increased, 
but the quality of reading has slowly developed in general and the quality of reading for the 
lower grades was not affected, mainly because younger students were mostly attracted to 
pictures. However, there was an increase in the number of students participating in the reading 
and writing competitions “the student is self-driven to go to the library” which indicates the 
increased desire to read due to diversification of readings and giving students the freedom to 
choose what they want to read. 
As for the books that QRTA made available, most participants said that most of the books the 
Academy provided to libraries were attractive to students and helped them distinguish between 
fiction and non-fiction. Students also linked what they read with the school radio and confirmed 
that the program supported the reading club. Everybody confirmed that it helped in improving 
students’ level of reading and writing; while few said that the books are not suitable for the 
culture of the society. 
Most participants agreed on the main challenges that they faced during the training on the 
program to be: the inappropriate timing of the workshop, the short duration of the training 
program relative to its content (most said that the few days of the training were insufficient to 
cover the rich information of the program). The challenges they faced during the program 
implementation, as seen by most, were mainly about the applying new practices: the large 
number of students, some uncooperative school principals, delay in receiving official circulars 
(letters) regarding attending the training workshops, the number of classes provided do not fit 
the intensity of the training material “both the curricula and the training material are packed 
with information”, the absence of linkages between the training material and the school 
curricula, discouragement from some parents “a student is used to go to school jut to memorize 
the curricula”, and some parents’ disapproval of the whole program. The administrative 
challenges that most participants highlighted were the absence of the role of the Directorates of 
26 | P a g e
Education who should be responsible for the follow-up and evaluation, the poor infrastructure 
available that is not enough to implement the program, lack of a pre-survey that would help in 
prioritizing processes, lack of a needs assessments according to which the program should be 
designed. 
Participants identified the achievements of the Arabic Literacy component by: the improvement 
of the teacher’s performance and the increased ability to control and manage the classroom, 
which in turn leads to higher self-confidence, and getting the chance to meet new colleagues 
and share experiences. 
As for the program’s contribution to building professional communities of practice at the level of 
the school and the Arabic literacy training, where teachers would work as a team to teach and 
support reading skills; some participants said that teachers exchanged classes and shared 
experience within the same school, while training and sharing experience with the neighboring 
schools was limited. 
Most participants agreed that recommendations included the need to: extend the training 
duration, motivate teachers and students taking part in the program (through increasing 
allowances, organizing trips, giving prizes, publishing their work in the newspapers, and reducing 
the number of classes of targeted teachers); improve the coordination between the Academy 
and the Directorates of Education, and improve follow-ups and take them more seriously 
through evaluating students and teachers before and after the program. 
Recommendations also included the need to expand the project to cover more schools and 
teachers in order to be able to continue with the student as he/she moves to higher grades, and 
to cover conversation skills in the program and add the training material to the Teacher’s Guide 
after reconsidering its order and sequence. 
It can be concluded from the above that the quantitative and qualitative data mentioned earlier, 
either gathered by the external evaluation team from CONSULTUS Company or by QRTA, clearly 
indicates the effectiveness of the two components (Reading Clubs and Arabic Literacy). The 
objectives of the reading club were approximately 89% achieved and of the Arabic literacy 
training 74%. Teachers’ skill-sets and their implementation increased from 67% to 87%in the 
reading club component, and from 59% to 82% in the Arabic literacy component. 
Most teachers stressed the importance of these two components in creating a attractive￾learning environment and in building and sustaining effective reading communities that perform 
book-related dialogues and activities. They also said that the two components helped them 
improve the quantity and quality of students’ extracurricular reading. Most participants marked 
the clear development in their ability to motivate Jordanian and Syrian students to read, to love 
books and to develop their handicraft skills. 
In light of the second and third questions that represent the second track of the program (MCS), 
results generally indicated that this track was good in achieving its objectives. Most teachers 
stressed the importance of the three components of the track (CPSC, Reading Clubs, and Arabic 
Literacy Training). They pointed out that these components succeeded in building positive 
relationships and partnerships between the community and the school, and that they could be a 
small beginning for other experiences, to be continued and built-upon in the future. 
27 | P a g e
Recommendations 
In light of the results of the Summative evaluation as a whole, with its two tracks: the 
professional development of teachers and the MCSs, recommendations could be provided as 
follows: 
- The need to start the program at the beginning of the academic school year, and to 
implement it right after the training in order to allow ample time to judge its success. 
- The need to direct the training programs according to the experience of the teacher. 
New teachers need different content from experienced ones, especially in areas related 
to learning and teaching. 
- Increasing the number of training hours and expanding the practical side, while making 
space between hours to enable immediate application. New dimensions should be 
added to the workshops such as conversation skills, learning difficulties, and academic 
achievement. The trainer has to apply practical lesson to assess the real challenges. 
He/she also needs to hold supportive classes for each educational situation -videos. 
- Program’s establishment phase should include a comprehensive overview of all the 
needed coordination between the Ministry and QRTA at all levels (administrative, 
follow-up, incentives, certificates of recognition). 
- Implementing CPSC through an institutional framework set by MoE. Work should be 
carried out under the legislative frameworks and the instructions of MoE. Through this, 
more authority is given to the members of community committees. In addition, an 
incentive scheme that motivates faculty members and administrators should be 
developed. 
- A needs-assessment survey should be prepared to identify the educational environment 
and the infrastructure needed to implement the program before starting to execute any 
activity. The establishment phase should include a clearly defined budget that would be 
used to overcome any logistical problems that could arise while implementing the 
activities of the program in schools. 
- Providing transportation to participants in future projects, to make the participation of 
the students and teachers in the activities outside official working hours easier. 
- Motivating teachers and students taking part in the program through “organizing 
educational\Entertainment trips, prizes, and publishing work in newspapers...” and 
decreasing the number of classes of targeted teachers. 
- The need to include a comprehensive plan to evaluate the phases of the program and 
the summative evaluation right from the very beginning of the program, as a plan 
parallel to the implementation plan, and in a way that guarantees that the tools are well 
directed to measuring the desired results. 
28 | P a g e
Appendixes 
Appendix 1: Training Program Evaluation Questionnaire (Pedagogy - Psychosocial Education)
Dear Teacher, 
This questionnaire is designed to know your opinion regarding the opportunities and the 
challenges related to Cultivating Inclusive and Supportive Learning Environment (CISLE) program 
in public schools/pedagogy- psychosocial education, implemented by Queen Rania Teacher 
Academy. This questionnaire has five parts: 
Part one: general information 
Part Two: Items related to the objectives of the program (5 items) 
Part Three: Items related to the training workshops (4 items) 
Part Four: Items related to your ability to implement the content of the training program (7 
items) 
Part Five: Open ended questions (3 items) 
Please answer these items and we thank you for your cooperation in developing the program. 
Your answers will be treated with strictest confidentiality. 
Part One: General Information
Gender: 
 Male □
 Female □
Number of years of experience:
 Less than Five Years □
 More than five years □
Name of MoE directorate:……………………………………………….
29 | P a g e
Part Two: Items related to the objectives of the program (5 items) 
After your participation in “CISLE” program, to what degree each of the following objectives was 
achieved? 
No. Item Degree
Very 
high 
high medium low Very low
1 Ability to implement 
the main dimensions of 
the psychosocial 
culture
2 Knowledge of child 
rights and protection 
ways
3 Ability to manage 
classroom
4 Ability to apply the 5Es
5 Ability to apply the 
principals of the 
Formative and 
Behavioral evaluation
30 | P a g e
Part Three: Items related to the training workshop (4 items) 
After your participation in the workshop related to the CISLE program, to what degree do you 
agree on the following: 
No. Item Degree
Very high high medium low Very low
1 Clarity of workshop 
objectives
2 Workshop objectives 
achieved compared 
to your expectations
3 Trainers aquire the 
cognitive experience 
related to the topics 
of the workshop
4 Trainers aquire the 
training skills and 
able to communicate 
and motivate 
participants
Part Four: items related to your ability to implement the content of the training program (7 
items) 
Through your application of the content of the training program that you took, what is the 
degree of achieving each of the below before and after the training: 
Before Training No. Item After Training
Very 
high
high medium low Very 
low
Very 
high
high medium low Very 
low
1 Ability to 
understand the 
academic needs 
of Syrian 
students
2 Ability to 
understand the 
psychological 
needs of 
Jordanian and 
Syrian students
3 Ability to 
include Syrian 
with Jordanian 
students
4 Ability to 
support 
31 | P a g e
interactive 
learning in the 
classroom and 
apply enquiry 
teaching
5 Ability to 
contribute to 
building a safe 
and supportive 
school 
environment
6 Ability to 
manage and 
resolve 
classroom 
conflicts
7 Ability to 
evaluate 
students’ 
learning 
progress
32 | P a g e
Part Five: Open ended questions (3 items) 
1. What are the main challenges that you have faced during your participation in the 
program? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
2. What are the improvements/amendments that should be made to the program in your 
opinion? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
3. Write one sentence to express your opinion regarding your participation in the program. 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
Thank you for your cooperation 
33 | P a g e
Appendix 2: Questions given to focus groups on the pedagogy and psychosocial program
These questions are given to the participants in CISLE program at the public schools/ pedagogy -
psychosocial education implemented by QRTA 
1. What is your opinion on the pedagogy and psychosocial strategies training that you 
took? Justify. 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
2. How did the program develop your ability to understand the psychosocial needs of the 
students? How did that help in the inclusion of Syrian students? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
3. How did the program develop your ability in pedagogy? How did that help in the 
inclusion of Syrian students? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
4. What opportunities and challenges did you face in implementing the objectives of the 
program? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
5. What are the main accomplishments you think you have achieved through your 
participation in the program? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
6. What recommendations do you propose to develop and improve the program? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
End 
34 | P a g e
Appendix 3: Training Program Questionnaire (Reading Clubs)
Dear Librarians 
This questionnaire is designed to know your opinion on CISLE program, implemented by QRTA 
to train librarians. This questionnaire is divided into five parts as follows: 
Part One: General information 
Part Two: items related to the objectives of the program (3 items) 
Part three: items related to the training workshops (4 items) 
Part Four: items related to your ability to apply the content of the training program (11 items) 
Part Five: open-ended questions (4 items) 
Please answer these items and we thank you for your cooperation in developing the program. 
Your answers will be treated with strictest confidentiality. 
Part One: General Information 
Gender: 
 Male □
 Female □
Number of years of experience:
 Less than Five Years □
 More than five years □
Name of MoE directorate:……………………………………………….
35 | P a g e
Part Two: items related to the objectives of the program (3 items) 
After your participation in the program related to Reading Clubs, to what degree did the 
students achieve each of the below objectives: 
No. Item Degree
Very 
high
high medium low Very low
1 motivated to read and 
loves books
2 Encouraged to work in 
a team and to be 
cooperative
3 Breaking psychosocial 
barriers
36 | P a g e
Part Three: items related to training workshops (4 items). 
After your participation in the training workshops related to Reading Clubs program, to what 
degree do you agree on the following? 
No. Item Degree
Very high high medium low Very low
1 Clarity of workshop 
objectives
2 Workshop objectives 
achieved compared 
to your expectations
3 Trainers acquire the 
cognitive experience 
related to the topics 
of the workshop
4 Trainers acquire the 
training skills and 
able to communicate 
and motivate 
participants
37 | P a g e
Part Four: items related to your ability to apply the content of the training program (11 items). 
Through your implementation to the content of the training program that you took, what is the 
degree of achieving each of the below before and after the training: 
Before Training No. Item After Training
Very 
high
high medium low Very 
low
Very 
high
high medium low Very 
low
1 Ability to motivate 
students to read
2 Ability to help students 
select the right book
3 Ability to help students 
understand the 
elements of a story
4 Ability to help students 
imagine the events and 
the characters of a 
story
5 Ability to help students 
identify the main 
events and characters 
6 Ability to help students 
analyze characters
7 Ability to help students 
reorder information in 
a given story
8 Ability to help students 
understand what they 
read
9 Ability to help students 
re-tell a given story
10 Ability to create an 
atmosphere that 
encourages discussion 
and knowledge sharing
11 Ability to distinguish 
between reality and 
opinion
38 | P a g e
Part Five: Open-ended questions (4 items) 
1. What are the main challenges that you have faced during your participation in the 
program? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
2. What are the improvements/amendments that should be made to the program in your 
opinion? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
3. Write one sentence to express your opinion regarding your participation in the program. 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
4. Did the program help you build and sustain effective reading communities that perform 
dialogues and activities related to the books read? And how? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
Thank you for your cooperation 
39 | P a g e
Appendix 4: Questions to Focus Group discussions (Reading Clubs)
These questions are directed to the participants in “CISLE/ Reading Clubs” implemented by 
QRTA 
1. What is your opinion regarding the Reading Clubs training workshops that you were trained 
in? Justify. 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
2. How did the program develop your abilities to motivate Syrian and Jordanian students to 
read and to love books? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
3. How did the program help librarians in building and sustaining effective reading clubs that 
perform dialogues and activities related to books read? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
4. How did the program develop your ability to break psychological and social barriers 
between Jordanian and Syrian students and help them accept one-another? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
5. What opportunities and challenges did you face in implementing the objectives of the 
program? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
40 | P a g e
6. What are the main achievements you accomplished through your participation in the 
reading club component? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
7. What recommendations do you propose to develop and improve the program? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
End 
41 | P a g e
Appendix 5: Training Program Evaluation Questionnaire (Arabic Literacy Training)
Dear Teacher 
This questionnaire is designed to know your opinion on the opportunities and challenges
related to “CISLE/ Arabic Literacy Training” implemented by QRTA. This questionnaire is divided 
into four parts as follows: 
Part One: General Information 
Part Two: items related to the objectives of the program (8 items) 
Part Three: items related to the training workshops (4 items) 
Part Four: items related to your ability to implement the content of the training program (9 
items) 
Part Five: open-ended questions (3 items) 
Please answer these items and we thank you for your cooperation in developing the program. 
Your answers will be treated with strictest confidentiality. 
Part One: general information
Gender: 
 Male □
 Female □
Number of years of experience:
 Less than Five Years □
 More than five years □
Name of MoE directorate:……………………………………………….
42 | P a g e
Part two: items related to the objectives of the program (8 items) 
After your participation in “CISLE/ Arabic Literacy Training”, to what degree did the students 
achieve each of the below objectives: 
No. Item Degree
Very 
high
high medium low Very low
1 Fiction and non-fiction 
reading
2 Writing personal 
stories
3 Non-fiction writing
4 Article writing and 
supporting it with 
suitable justifications
5 Students developed 
positive tendencies to 
read
6 Students perform 
extracurricular reading
7 Students practice non￾fiction reading skills 
and strategies
8 Students developed 
positive tendencies to 
creative writing
43 | P a g e
Part Three: items related to the training workshops (4 items) 
After your participation in the training workshops related to “CISLE/ Arabic Literacy Training”, to 
what degree do you agree on the following? 
No. Item Degree
Very 
high
high medium
1 Clarity of workshop 
objectives
2 Workshop objectives 
achieved compared 
to your expectations
3 Trainers possess the 
cognitive experience 
related to the topics 
of the workshop
4 Trainers possess the 
training skills and 
able to communicate 
and motivate 
participants
44 | P a g e
Part Four: items related to your ability to apply the content of the training program (9 items). 
Through your application of the content of the training program that you took, what is the 
degree of achieving each of the below before and after the training: 
Before Training No. Item After Training
Very 
high
high medium low Very 
low
Very 
high
high medium low Very 
low
1 Using strategies that help 
engage students in reading
2 Using strategies that help 
engage students in writing
3 Mini-lessons planning
4 Satisfying students’ different 
learning needs and giving 
appropriate feedback
5 Establishing professional 
communities of practice at 
the school and the network 
levels to work together in 
teaching and supporting 
reading skills. 
6 Supporting communities of 
practices between students 
in the classroom and 
between teachers.
7 Encouraging and supporting 
the quality and quantity of 
extracurricular reading inside 
and outside the classroom
8 Building and supporting 
learning communities to 
create a community of
readers who support the 
work of one another
9 Ability to teach reading skills 
through fiction and non￾fiction methods
45 | P a g e
Part Five: Open-ended questions (3 items) 
1. What are the main challenges that you have faced during your participation in the 
program? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
2. What are the improvements/amendments that should be made to the program in your 
opinion? 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
3. Write one sentence to express your opinion regarding your participation in the program. 
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................. 
Thank you for your cooperation 
46 | P a g e
Appendix 6: Questions to Focus Groups (Arabic Literacy Training)
These questions are directed to the participants in “CISLE/ Arabic Literacy Training” 
implemented by QRTA 
1. What is your opinion of the Arabic Literacy training workshops that you trained in? Justify. 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
2. How did the program develop your abilities to motivate Syrian and Jordanian students to 
read and write fiction and non-fiction? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
3. How did the program help increase the quantity and quality of students’ extracurricular 
reading outside the classroom? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
4. What did students achieve through implementing the program? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
5. What opportunities and challenges did you face in implementing the objectives of the 
program? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
47 | P a g e
6. What are the main achievements you made through your participation in the Arabic Literacy 
Training component? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
7. What recommendations do you propose to develop and improve the program? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................... 
8. Did the program contribute to building professional communities of practice at the level of 
the school and the Arabic Literacy Training that work together to teach and support reading 
skills? And how? 
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
End 
48 | P a g e
Appendix 7: QRTA (CISLE) -Teacher’s Questionnaire
Queen Rania Teacher Academy (QRTA) 
Cultivating Inclusive and Supportive Learning Environment (CISLE) Program at Public Schools 
Teacher’s Questionnaire
Dear Teachers, 
This questionnaire is directed to all teachers participating in CISLE program at public schools, 
organized by QRTA and funded by USAID. The questionnaire items cover three pages and aim 
to know the learning environment in your classrooms and the main challenges you face. 
Thus, we kindly ask you to carefully read each item, and answer it if you want to. Your 
answers will help us improve and further develop the activities of the program. Your answers 
will be treated with strictest confidentiality and reservation. None of the teachers or schools 
will be mentioned in the summaries of the study related to the program. 
With our sincere thanks and appreciation for your effort and your cooperation in filling this 
questionnaire. 
49 | P a g e
a. General Information 
Name: 
……………………………………………………………………………
School: 
……………………………………………………………………………..
b. Teacher experience 
1. Number of years of teaching experience 
less than 5 years 6-10 years 11-16 years more than 16 years
2. Did you previously participate in professional development programs related to the 
inclusion of refugee-students in Jordanian public schools? 
Yes No
If you answered YES, mention the program below: 
…………………………………………………………………………………
3. Did you use the tools you have learnt in the professional development programs 
related to the inclusion of refugee-students in Jordanian public schools? 
Yes No
If you answered yes, mention the grades you taught/ tools you used: 
………………………………………………………………………………
4. Did you previously participate in Arabic language teaching and remedial support? 
Yes No
If you answered yes, mention these programs: 
………………………………………………………………………………
c. Students Inclusion 
1. What is the average number of Syrian-refugee-students in your classes? 
less than 5 students 6-10 students 11-20 students more than 20 student
2. Generally speaking, are there problems caused by the enrollment of Syrian students 
in school (academic, behavioral, or emotional problems)? 
Yes No
If you answered no, move to questions (6 and 7) 
50 | P a g e
3. What are the problems that you face with students at school (academic, behavioral, 
emotional…)?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Which of the following challenges you think limit the teaching process in the 
classroom (you can choose all if they apply): 
I. The increase in students number with the Syrian refugees 
II. Behavioral problems of students 
III. Emotional problems of students 
IV. Academic problems of students 
V. Lack of teachers’ knowledge in supportive methods to interactive learning 
environment 
VI. Lack of teachers’ knowledge in the effect of the psychosocial culture and 
supportive communication on the refugee-student. 
VII. Lack of teachers’ understanding for the Syrian-refugees community in 
Jordan. 
VIII. All of the above 
IX. None of the above 
5. On a scale of 5, how do you rate each of the following statements, where 1 is the 
lowest rate, and five is the highest 
No. Item 1 2 3 4 5
1 Your understanding of the Syrian-refugee community
2 Your knowledge of the effects of supportive communication on Syrian 
students
3 Your ability to manage behavior in the classroom
4 Your knowledge of children’s rights and protection from violence and 
abuse
5 Your ability to support the interactive environment in the classroom
6 Your application of the 5Es 
7 Your skills in identifying the primary indicators of refugee-students’ 
psychosocial problems
8 Your skills in enquiring (investigating) the primary indicators of refugee￾students’ psychosocial problems
9 Your ability in using punishment alternatives with students
10 Your ability to apply formative evaluation to students’ performance
11 Syrian students’ Arabic writing skills
12 Your school’s participation in the activities of the local community
13 The community’s participation in school activities
14 Percentage of extracurricular activities carried out by your school in 
cooperation with the local community
51 | P a g e
6. Are there efforts from your side, as a teacher, to embrace and include the Syrian 
with the Jordanian students? 
Yes No
If you answered no, move to question (8). 
7. What are the methods and ways that you apply to embrace and include the Syrian 
with the Jordanian students? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. How do you evaluate the participation of:
Jordanian Students? 
Very high High Fair Weak Very weak
Syrian Students? 
Very high High Fair Weak Very weak
9. As a teacher, were there any efforts from your side to increase the level of 
participation in the classroom? 
Yes No
10. If you answered yes, what are the methods that you use? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for the time you gave to in answer the questionnaire. 
52 | P a g e
Appendix 8: QRTA (CISLE) - Feedback Form
Workshop……../ Feedback Form
Date: ……/……./………
1. Please identify the extent to which you agree or disagree on each of the below 
mentioned statements related to the training workshop:
No. Item Agree Agree to 
some 
extent
Disagree to 
some extent
Disagree
1 The workshop was organized
2 The workshop included 
practical activities that suited 
the content
3 I was given enough chance to 
take part in the discussions of 
the workshop
4 The topics matched my 
expectations on the training.
2. Please identify the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the below 
statements related to the trainers/ facilitators:
No. Item Agree Agree to 
some 
extent
Disagree to 
some extent
Disagree
1 Trainers/ facilitators showed 
great ability in 
communicating with trainees.
2 Trainers/ facilitators 
encouraged participants to 
share experiences and give 
suggestions.
3 Trainer effectively managed 
the workshop time
4 Trainers/ facilitators 
effectively managed the 
discussions and motivated 
participants
5 Trainer used diversified 
training strategies
53 | P a g e
3. Please identify the level that each of the below was supported by the end of the 
workshop: 
No. Item Knowledge Application Very high high low Very low Very high high low
Very low
1 The main psychosocial 
dimensions and their role in 
supporting the self-acceptance 
of the refugee-student and 
directing his/her behavior
2 The elements of supportive 
communication and their role 
in supporting the self￾acceptance of the refugee 
student and directing his/her 
behavior
3 The main elements of the 
refugees community and their 
utilization in managing its 
differences with the local 
community
4 Principles of behavior 
management in the classroom 
and the school environment
5 Principles and methods for 
building a caring, supportive, 
safe, and healthy classroom 
environment
6 Types of violence and abuse a 
child could go under in the 
school environment and 
related factors.
7 Conflict management 
principles in classroom and 
school environment 
8 Conflict management 
principles in classroom and 
school
9 Formative and behavioral 
evaluation principles.
54 | P a g e
4. What did you mainly learn from the workshop? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Any other suggestions/notes? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
End 
55 | P a g e
Appendix 9: QRTA (CISLE) - Syrian students’ satisfaction with school environment 
questionnaire
The questionnaire aims to know the degree of Syrian students’ satisfaction with the 
school environment targeted by “Cultivating Inclusive and Supportive Learning 
Environment (CISLE)” implemented by Queen Rania Teacher Award (QRTA) and funded 
by United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
This questionnaire is confidential. Your answers will be added to the answers of other 
students from your school and other schools. No one from your school will see your 
individual answer.
Date:
Researcher Name:
Date:
School:
Directorate:
National No.:
School Category:
No. of Students:
No. of Syrian Students:
1. What grade 
are you in?
Second grade Third grade Fourth grade
Fifth grade Sixth grade Seventh grade
Eighth grade Ninth grade Tenth grade
2. Regarding your school, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the 
following?
Strongly 
agree
agree disagree Strongly 
disagree
I feel welcomed
Most of the school staff (principal, teachers, 
advisors) know my name and who I am
Teachers and advisors give me attention 
personally
The staff (principals, teachers, advisors) help 
in my inclusion with other students
I can use all school facilities (playgrounds, 
library, cafeteria, and restrooms) freely
I can go to the psychosocial advisor at school 
to ask for help when I face psychosocial 
problems
I can participate in the activities that the 
school organizes or takes part in (cultural 
training, sports competitions, or celebrations)
56 | P a g e
End 
3. Regarding the support and direction you get from your teachers, to what 
extent do you agree or disagree with the following?
Strongly 
agree
agree disagree Strongly 
disagree
My teacher always encourages me to ask
My teacher gives me information on my 
academic level and helps me improve it.
I can ask the teacher when I need to.
My teacher treats me equally with all other 
students (Jordanians and Syrians)
My teacher helps me overcome any 
academic/educational difficulties’
My teacher helps me overcome any 
psychological/ social difficulties’
1. Regarding the relation with students, to what extent do you agree or 
disagree with the following?
Strongly 
agree
agree disagree Strongly 
disagree
I can ask my colleagues for help in 
overcoming some educational/ academic 
difficulties
I can build friendships with my Syrian and 
Jordanian colleagues
I share practical activities with my colleagues 
(experiments, research, making learning aids)
I am subjected to harassment/ verbal and 
physical abuse by my colleagues
I get the appreciation and respect of my 
colleagues when I do a good job
57 | P a g e
Prepared by 
CONSULTUS for Development Consulting
The Study Team 
Dr. Hassan Al Omari Haddel Abu Shama
Maysoon Al A’alem Rania Al Sweity
22nd of July, 2015