There were multiple evaluation methodologies—formal and informal—utilized throughout my special project journey. Before implementation, I relied on informal feedback from my gatekeeper and SME, as well as self-evaluations anchored on this project's theoretical foundations. For formal evaluations conducted during and after the EduPREP training program, I used Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation to analyze and evaluate effectiveness based on four levels of criteria: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kurt, 2016). 

During the design and development phases, I realized only a few days before implementation that I had not yet created my evaluation materials, despite having already predetermined the tools I intended to use based on the principles of Kirkpatrick's theory. For the EduPREP Post-Session Feedback Survey, the questions were generated with the assistance of ChatGPT. I ensured the questions focused on participants' satisfaction and perceived value of the training, aligning with Level 1: Reaction of the theory. The survey aimed to gather feedback on content relevance, delivery, and next steps, using a mix of Likert-scale and open-ended questions. 

The EduPREP training program concluded with a QR code and link to this survey, which both participating and facilitating teachers were encouraged to complete. Not all participants were able to respond on the same day; therefore, I included the survey link in my June 16 email, along with their certificates of participation. A total of seven responses were collected for the following statements and questions: 

Level 2: Learning of Kirkpatrick's theory focuses on participants’ increase in knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In the EduPREP program, this was addressed through the rubric scoring activity and the micro-planning/activity design. As previously mentioned, three Filipino English teachers participated on-site, while one (Teacher #4) attended online via Google Meet. The three on-site teachers were able to fully engage in the activities, but I couldn’t confirm the online attendee's attentiveness or participation, as I hadn't prepared any online interaction strategies for this last-minute change. When I met her the following week during post-EduPREP classroom observations, she expressed her appreciation for my adjustment to her unavailability to attend in person. She also shared her concern about not being able to follow or participate in the activities but stated that she understood the circumstances.  

During the rubric scoring activity (Activity #2), the on-site attendees—both participating and facilitating teachers—chose to omit numerical scores and instead focused on identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the student speaking videos. They still used DOET's English Speaking Contest evaluation rubrics and criteria for judging (e.g., content, idea presentation and teamwork, creativity in message delivery, grammatical range/accuracy/lexical resource, vocabulary, pronunciation, intonation, fluency and coherence, performance, and technical audio and video quality). Participants generally shared similar feedback and comments for each video. Importantly, the facilitator, Teacher Elio, encouraged them to recommend classroom activities and instructional strategies that could help the students improve their English speaking proficiency and contest performance. Overall, the participants were able to comprehend the given videos, provide valuable rubric-based feedback, and suggest practical approaches for further speaking practice. The facilitator was quick to think of a way to ensure the activity still aligned with Learning Objective #3: Use the DOET speaking rubric to evaluate student speeches and align classroom instruction with contest expectations. 

The micro-planning/activity design (Activity #3) then allowed the participating on-site teachers (Teachers #1, #2, and #3) to apply their knowledge, skills, and attitudes—both existing and newly learned—to classroom practice, fulfilling Learning Objective #4: Design a level-appropriate speaking activity and formative assessment tools that support student proficiency and contest readiness. Teacher #1 presented his high-school-level activity, "Are You Smarter Than Grade 5 Students?" or "High Five" for short, describing it as a good starting point for preparing high school students for DOET's English Speaking Contest. Teacher #2 shared that she did not create a new activity but instead reflected on her current experience preparing her secondary students for an English speaking contest scheduled for the next day (June 15). She noted that "What I [She] Should Have Done" included providing more reading materials to expand students' knowledge, facilitating word practice to improve pronunciation and timed speech, and organizing mock contests to simulate competition conditions. Teacher #3 created "Photobook Presentation" for young learners, aimed at practicing animal vocabulary, prepositions, and singular/plural forms, aligning with DOET’s Picture Stories and Storytelling segments. 

Moving forward, Level 3: Behavior involved conducting post-EduPREP classroom observations to assess change in behavior or application of learning in the workplace. The observations of English summer classes happened on June 17 to 19. Similar to the observations conducted during the analysis phase, I observed two classes per teacher for a total of eight classes, and their designated subjects were Writing (Teacher #1), Public Speaking (Teacher #2), Phonics (Teacher #3), and Storytelling (Teacher #4). I used a different classroom teaching observation form from Samantha James on Education Walkthrough (2022), with a few modifications to fit the context at FIS. In summary, all observed teachers showed excellent teaching effectiveness, strong ability to engage diverse learners, and effective implementation of EduPREP strategies and alignment with the DOET English Speaking Contest goals. The observations affirm that the EduPREP-trained teachers were able to apply their training effectively in real classroom settings. 

Lastly, Level 4: Results was related to the training’s impact on the school’s goals or students’ learning outcomes, which is executed through peer sharing and discussion. Throughout the EduPREP training program, the participants were attentive, engaged, and taking notes. By the end of the session, they shared their feedback, reflection, and key takeaways. They described EduPREP as a valuable refresher course for teachers at FIS, a meaningful opportunity for them to learn from each other, a guiding framework for supporting students’ continuous improvement in English speaking skills, a starting point for preparing students to participate in contest environments, and a training initiative applicable to teaching English across all learner levels. On the side of the gatekeeper, she ticked 'Yes' on all fields of the EduPREP Training Program Evaluation Checklist. Ms. Tiffany evaluated that the program was clear, professional, and well-aligned with teacher needs, especially in preparing for competition and classroom contexts. For me, this showed that the effort I put into aligning objectives, designing materials, and integrating technology paid off, while also leaving room for flexibility and future improvements.