The Challenges and Opportunities of Peace Education Assessment and Evaluation

• In Event: Peaceable Action: Shaping and Strengthening 21st-Century Resilience Pedagogy

Abstract

Objective:
Elevated rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are particularly common in vulnerable groups suffering from multiple or continuous trauma, such as former child soldiers or tortured refugees (Bertram & Dart, 2009). However, there is a glaring lack of follow up with the intervention programs cited in the scholarly literature. Comparing these findings with other peace education programs reveals relatively few systematic attempts to evaluate peace education programs. Patterns indicate the participants are measured and assessed during treatment, with most programs lasting less than six months. Only a small percentage of programs report delayed post-test study designs. While some programs assume full recovery after treatment and supports diminish thereafter, other initiatives struggle to keep their program doors open let alone conduct ongoing research. This paper will address some of the reasons why short-term care and limited assessment are so prevalent, paying particular attention to the challenges programs in Africa face (Klasen & Adam, 2010).

Modes of Inquiry:
Through the lens of social reconstructivism (Freire, 2006) and wellness therapy, this paper reviews a compilation of articles on intervention programs that were implemented, pointing closely to the programs lacking follow up measures needed to validate the efficacy of such programs. The majority of reports are limited to data from surveys, observations and questionnaires administered during the program. Within this exhaustive literature review, the author points to an overwhelming lack of self-reflection literature. In this paper, the authors will highlight the importance of participant reflection and wellness models in peace intervention programs, all the while recognizing the obstacles faced by programs operating in rural and impoverished communities.

Data Sources:
Data includes an extensive literature review of peace education program evaluations and assessments from the following three categories: 1) PTSD treatment programs for child soldiers, war veterans, and survivors of domestic violence, 2) peace education programs focused on equality and human rights, and 3) violence prevention in schools.

Findings:
While there are a number of agencies that receive funding for programs geared towards re-integrating ex-combatants back into their society, indicators such as specific measurable behaviors that enable one to determine whether or not the outcomes of a program have been successfully achieved are lacking. In regard to violence prevention programs, results provide evidence of variation in adherence among teachers and schools and that teacher’ attitudes may have affected adherence. Prospective analysis demonstrated dose-effect relations to teacher adherence with students attitudes about and responses to bullying, particularly their tendency to assist survivors.

Scholarly Significance:
This paper calls on peace educators and peace studies programs to reposition their assessment and evaluation techniques within a wellness framework. The authors highlights the importance of comparing baseline data with post-treatment data, as well as delayed post-treatment data. This paper also suggests the integral role post-treatment case studies and focus groups have in bringing data to life and giving it a human face. Suggestions are all set within a framework of understanding the complications related to war-torn and impoverish regions.

Authors

• Meredith Shockley-Smith, Northern Kentucky University

• Florence Nyemba, University of Cincinnati