School-Level Implementation of Indigenous Peoples Education in the Division of Davao Del Norte

This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study examined the school-level implementation of Indigenous Peoples Education (IPEd) in integrated schools in the Division of Davao del Norte. Guided by the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) Evaluation Model and interpreted through the lens of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, the study determined the extent of implementation in terms of goals, plans, actions, and outcomes, and explained the quantitative trends through the viewpoints of school heads. The quantitative phase involved 177 teachers selected from integrated IPEd-implementing schools through stratified and cluster sampling. The qualitative phase involved six school heads selected purposively using geographic and leadership-category stratification. Data were gathered through a validated survey questionnaire and in-depth interviews, then analyzed using descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, and joint display integration. Findings showed a very high overall level of IPEd implementation (M = 4.35, SD = 0.75). The goals domain received the highest mean (M = 4.43), followed by actions (M = 4.35), plans (M = 4.32), and outcomes (M = 4.30). Qualitative results explained that implementation was strengthened by culturally responsive curriculum development, collaborative Indigenous governance, stakeholder engagement, elder-guided teacher formation, evidence-based monitoring, and community-embedded partnerships. The findings indicate that IPEd implementation in Davao del Norte is not merely policy-driven but is increasingly embedded in school planning, classroom practice, cultural validation, and community participation. Sustained support is recommended for formal partnerships, teacher capacity-building, feedback-based policy improvement, localized learning resources, and culturally responsive monitoring mechanisms.

Indigenous Peoples Education; IPEd; CIPP Evaluation Model; Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy; mixed methods; Davao del Norte

1. Adenike, M.D. (2024). Global Challenges in Cultural and Indigenous Education. Educational Perspectives [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adler, R. H. (2022). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 38(4), 598–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344221116620 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aguayo, D., Santiago, R. T., Boddie, D., McCree, N., Gunasekaran, S. D., Venkat, S., & Herman, K. C. (2025). Parents’ perspectives of culturally responsive practices for teachers and school administrators. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 34, 2333–2347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-025-03118-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Al-Shanawani, H. M. (2019). Evaluation of Self-Learning Curriculum for Kindergarten using Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model. SAGE Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018822380 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ancheta, O. J., & Casem, R. Q. (2024). Navigating Educational Crossroads: An In-Depth Analysis of the Indigenous Peoples Education (IPED) program in Santol, La Union, Philippines. Diversitas Journal, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.48017/dj.v9i2.2998 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Beever, G. (2022, August 28). Context, input, process, product (CIPP) evaluation model. AgriFutures Extension Practice. https://extension-practice [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2020). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Burke, E., & Hennessy, M. (2021). Evaluation of an early career clinical academic training programme using the CIPP model. BMJ Open, 11(11), e052965. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052965 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Casamayor, F., & Plaga, E. (2025). Perceptions, Implementation of Indigenous Peoples Education program and School Practices, Governance, and Performance in Socsargen. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Viewpoints, 1(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.64612/ijiv.v1i2.15 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Chanthalangsy, P., Yeh, B., Choi, S. J., & Park, Y. C. (2024). Program evaluation of postgraduate obstetrics and gynecology training in Lao people’s democratic republic - using the CIPP model. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04942-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Charlton, E., Clarke, J., Teal, R., Hamilton, S., Fisher, C., & Millar, L. (2025). Approaches that support Indigenous children and families in the transition to school: A systematic review. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52(6), 4581–4609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-025-00911-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Chavez, R. C., & Nam, E. W. (2020). Process evaluation of a school-based program aimed at preventing obesity in adolescents from Lima and Callao, Peru. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 4804. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134804 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Clement, Mateo. (2024). Cultural Bias in Curriculum Design and Its Impact on Global Education Standards. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Da Silva, C., Pereira, F., & Amorim, J. P. (2023). The integration of indigenous knowledge in school: a systematic review. Compare a Journal of Comparative and International Education, 54(7), 1210–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2023.2184200 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Dalengga, G. & Naanep, N. D. (2025). Implementation of National Indigenous People’s Education Policy Framework and the Level of Indigenous Knowledge System Practices of Blaan Tribe in Sultan Kudarat. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 40(10), 1255-1265. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.401001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-Methods Research: A Discussion on its Types, Challenges, and Criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. DeCarlo, M. (2018, August 7). 13.2 Qualitative interview techniques. Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. https://pressbooks.pub/scientificinquiryinsocialwork/chapter/13-2-qualitative-interview-techniques/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Department of Education. (2011, August 8). DepEd Order No. 62, s. 2011: Adopting the National Indigenous Peoples (IP) Education Policy Framework. Department of Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Department of Education. (2015, July 29). DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2015: Adopting the Indigenous Peoples Education Curriculum Framework. Department of Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Donatille, B., Emmanuel, C. B., Uwimana, J. L., & Niyobuhungiro, E. (2025). The role of stakeholder collaboration and community engagement in enhancing curriculum implementation and adaptation in schools. East African Journal of Education Studies, 8(4), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.8.4.3913 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Duong, L. T., & Khuong, P. D. (2025). Culturally responsive assessment practices in ethnic minority semi-boarding primary schools in Vietnam: A mixed-methods study. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1670277. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1670277 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Eduardo, J. P., & Gabriel, A. G. (2021). Indigenous peoples and the right to education: the Dumagat experience in the provinces of Nueva Ecija and Aurora, in the Philippines. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211009491 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. ERiley, T., Meston, T., Cutler, C., Low-Choy, S., McCormack, B. A., Kim, E. A., Nakar, S., & Vasco, D. (2024). Weaving stories of strength: Ethically integrating Indigenous content in Teacher education and professional development programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 142, 104513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104513 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Esparrago-Kalidas, A. J. (2025). Challenges in implementing a culturally sustaining pedagogy in Indigenous formal education. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 13(3), 141–174. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/jisd.v13i3.81550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Fernandes, V., Carvalho, G., Pereira, V., & Bernardino, J. (2024). Analyzing Data Reduction Techniques: An Experimental perspective. Applied Sciences, 14(8), 3436. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14083436 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Foulds, H. J. A., Ferguson, L. J., Baillie, C. P. T., King, A., Lévesque, L., McGuire-Adams, T., McHugh, T. F., Storey, K., & Delormier, T. (2025). A journey of partnership: Supporting Indigenous science in Western, colonial-grounded academic institutions. PLoS ONE, 20(10), e0334949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334949 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Gempes, G. P. (2008). Locus of control and work commitment of baby boomers and generation X. https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=1536 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Gierus, B., Du, T., Maduforo, A. N., Gilbert, B., & Koh, K. (2025). Prevalence and Quality of Mixed Methods Research in Educational Subdisciplines: A Systematic review. SAGE Open, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251335171 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Gulam, E. R., & Hordista, A. (2024). Implementation of Indigenous people education in Sarangani Province. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14018756 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Hall, M. (2025, May 15). Simple random sample vs. stratified random sample: What’s the difference? Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-difference-between-simple-random-sample-and-stratified-random-sample.asp [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Hawkins, N., Jeong, S. Y., & Sim, J. (2025). Navigating Integration in Mixed‐Methods: A Practical guide for novice nursing researchers. Research in Nursing & Health, 49(2), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.70048 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Henry, M. (2024, February 13). Stratified sampling: The benefits & how it works. InMoment. https://inmoment.com/blog/stratified-sampling/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Imperial, J. (2024). Evaluation of Indigenous Peoples Educational (IPED) Program in South Central Mindanao. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(10), 1153-1164. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13730120 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Karim, M. Z. (2025). Applying CIPP model for syllabus evaluation: Assessing the MA in ELT syllabus of a private university in Bangladesh. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, IX(II), 1406–1414. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.9020114 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Kazembe, D. M., Woldeamanuel, Y., & Abay, S. M. (2024). Researchers experience and views on participants’ comprehension of informed consent in clinical trials in Malawi: a descriptive qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 25(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01100-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Khan, A., Nazari, Q., Walizada, R., Fahim, S., Qazizai, M., & Rozizada, H. (2025). A literature review on types of questionnaires. Clinical Medicine and Health Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.18535/cmhrj.v5i02.451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2020.1755030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Kituuka, O., Mwaka, E. S., Munabi, I. G., Galukande, M., & Sewankambo, N. (2024). A qualitative study on informed consent decision-making at two tertiary hospitals in Uganda: Experiences of patients undergoing emergency surgery and their next of kin. SAGE Open Medicine, 12, 20503121241259931. https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121241259931 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the Remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Larsson, J., & Larsson, L. (2020). Integration, application and importance of collaboration in sustainable project management. Sustainability, 12(2), 585. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020585 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. LeCrom, C. W., & Smith, K. M. (2025). The opportunities and challenges of virtual coach education in rural and remote communities. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, 1644718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1644718 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Lestari, F., Hadriana, H., Mahdum, M., Hermandra, H., & Putra, Z. H. (2025). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Inclusive Education: A Systematic Review of Global Practices (2019–2024). PPSDP International Journal of Education, 4(2), 1427–1440. https://doi.org/10.59175/pijed.v4i2.856 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Linneberg, M. S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-12-2018-0012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Lionunion. (2023). Davao del Norte map. https://www.lionunion.com/comprehensive-guide-to-davao-del-norte/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Liu, T. F., Fan, S. C., & Jiang, X. L. (2025). How can qualitative in-depth interviews optimize cross-cultural measurement of academic resilience? Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1444978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1444978 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Lugatiman, R. C., & Bauyot, M. M. (2024). The experiences of school leaders in Indigenous People Integrated schools in Talaingod, Davao del Norte: a phenomenological study. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, VIII(VI), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.806023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Manuel, M., & Queroda, P. (2018). Implementation of the Indigenous Peoples (IP) Education Framework in Mapita Integrated School, Philippines. Southeast Asian Journal of Science and Technology, 3(1), 207–217. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. McCombes, S. (2023) Descriptive Research | Definition, Types, Methods & Examples. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Mercado, M. G. M. (2021). Culturally responsive curriculum: A case study of IP school in the [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Miole, G. L. (2024). Cultural Interface in Action: A case study of Philippine Indigenous educational policy. IAFOR Journal of Education, 12(3), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.12.3.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Nantin, S. L., & Morales, L. G. (2025). Looking into the Indigenous People Education Program Implementation Through the Lens of School Heads. Psychology and Education a Multidisciplinary Journal, 38(6), 574–589. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.380602 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Nganga, L., & Kambutu, J. (2024). Culturally Responsive Professional Development Programs for Teacher Educators Using Community-Based Collaborative Learning: Lessons Learned from a Native American Community. Education Sciences, 14(7), 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070787 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Norberte, N. (2024). Implementation and responsiveness of indigenous people education program in Socsargen. Journal of Social Humanity and Education, 4(4), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.35912/jshe.v4i4.1990 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Nyimbili, F., & Nyimbili, L. (2024). Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with Their Examples and Application in Qualitative Research Studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies, 5(1), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Ogodo, J. A. (2024). Culturally responsive pedagogical knowledge: An integrative teacher knowledge base for diversified classrooms. Education Sciences, 14(2), 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020124 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. P, N., & Areekkuzhıyıl, S. (2020, March 30). A Phenomenological Study on the Lived Experiences of Student Teachers https://ijrte.inased.org/makale/1382 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Panyasai, P., & Ambele, E. A. (2025). Developing Interview Guide in Qualitative Research: Problems and Solutions from a Needs Analysis Doctoral Study. rEFLections, 32(1), 576–594. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v32i1.280411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12441244 Philippines. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Quilaqueo, D., & Torres, H. (2024). School contextualization with indigenous group’s socio-educational methods and pedagogies. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1425464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Rana, K., & Chimoriya, R. (2025). A guide to a Mixed-Methods approach to Healthcare research. Encyclopedia, 5(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Robinson, O. C. (2023). Probing in qualitative research interviews: Theory and practice. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 20(3), 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2023.2238625 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Saelua, N. (2022, September 1). Culturally responsive instruction: Using Indigenous principles in the Pacific region. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/learn/blog/culturally-responsive-instruction-using-indigenous-principles-pacific-region [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Safitri, W. D., Halim, A., & Ibrahim, I. (2025). The impact of culturally responsive materials on student motivation and language learning outcomes. Curricula: Journal of Curriculum Development, 4(2), 1107–1122. https://doi.org/10.17509/curricula.v4i2.86915 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Sankaran, S., & Saad, N. (2022). Evaluating the Bachelor of Education program based on the context, input, process, and product model. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.924374 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Sharma, L. R., Bidari, S., Bidari, D., Neupane, S., & Sapkota, R. (2023). Exploring the mixed methods research design: types, purposes, strengths, challenges, and criticisms. Global Academic Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 5(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.36348/gajll.2023.v05i01.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Shih, Y. (2024). Culturally responsive curriculum: A systematic overview. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 6917–6925. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i6.3493 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Slater, P., & Hasson, F. (2024). Data measurement, instruments and sampling. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 32(3), 680–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.13142 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP evaluation model: An overview of the development and use. Oregon Program Evaluators Network. https://goeroendeso.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cipp-modeloregon10-031.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2007). CIPP evaluation model checklist: A tool for applying the CIPP model to assess projects and programs. Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Sweeney, A. M., Wilson, D. K., Zarrett, N., Simmons, T., Mansfield, M., & Decker, L. (2024). Using formative process evaluation to improve program implementation and accessibility of competitive group-based physical activity in the TEAM-PA trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01635-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Team, C. (2025, January 21). Cluster sampling. Corporate Finance Institute. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/data-science/cluster-sampling/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Tingson, S. T., & Quines, L. A. (2025). Implementation of Indigenous Peoples Education (IPEd) Program and Academic Resilience of Teachers: Basis for a Proposed S.I.P.E.T.R. Program. TWIST, 20(4), 44-52. https://twistjournal.net/twist/article/view/932 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Toyon, M. a. S. (2021). Explanatory sequential design of mixed methods research: Phases and challenges. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 10(5), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i5.1262 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Tual, J. & Capacio, L. (2025). Difficulties of Non-Indigenous Teachers in Teaching Indigenous People Learners and Learners’ Academic Achievement. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 40(9), 1240-1254. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.400910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Verdinelli, S., & Scagnoli, N. I. (2013). Data display in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Wadu, D. I., & Ismanto, B. (n.d.). CIPP evaluation model - The agreement of the five ministers: Arranging and organizing junior high school teachers. UNY Journal Collections. https://scholarhub.uny.ac.id/jpep/vol25/iss2/7/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Washington, S. A., & Johnson, L. (2023). Toward culturally sustaining/revitalizing Indigenous family-school-community leadership. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1192095. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1192095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Winata, F., & McLafferty, S. L. (2025). 43. Survey and questionnaire methods. In Open Book Publishers (pp. 577–584). https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0418.43 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Yip, S. Y., & Chakma, U. (2024). The teaching of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in initial teacher education: a scoping review of empirical studies. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 48(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2024.2327029 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Yusof, M. Y. P. M., Teo, C. H., & Ng, C. J. (2022). Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00849-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C. M., & Misulis, K. E. (2011). Using the Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of service-learning programs. Journal of Higher Education Outreach & Engagement/Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement., 15(4), 57–84. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ957107.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar