UNDERSTANDING PEER EDUCATION:

INSIGHTS FROM A PROCESS

EVALUATION

HSCI 615 ARTICLE CRITIQUE #2

Dorian Johnson

California State University of San Bernardino | DR. MSHIGENI

Introduction
This article is about the Fife project and how it relates to peer education. This group
believes the best way to educate people is through peer education. The purpose of this project is
to make young people more knowledgeable about sexual health and drug use and how it
correlates with HIV/AIDS. The goal is for young people to make informed and smart decisions if
they decide to use drugs or became sexually active.
Methodology
For the project to run correctly, recruitment had to be done to have young people
participate in the program. There were two different coordinators, and each operated differently.
The coordinator found a more willing and selective approach. The coordinator would go to
schools and give a presentation about the program, and whoever was interested would join. They
found that there could be academic hurdles because the ones that joined were on a broader
academic scale than their classmates.
The coordinator relied upon preparing almost every aspect of the program, which was
recruitment, setting up training sessions for the educators that join, and where will the educators
provide this information. Relying on young peer educators lead to difficulty. They might not
have been as experienced, or the issue in the first year in which the young children did not want
to teach at the same school they were attending. This project is solely based on young people,
and if their enthusiasm is not met, then the project is doomed to fail.
Process of Evaluation
For this evaluation, the project was focused more on the process rather than the
outcomes. The evaluator was a key component to this project; for the project to work qualitative
evaluation methods were used to evaluate. The evaluator relied on connections with the project
and the coordinator. The coordinator would then have to meet with the liaison, and if the
evaluator requested something specific, then the coordinator would have to negotiate with the
liaison. The authors understood that this made for an excellent long term evaluation because the
information that the evaluator received from the young peer educators they were able to decide
what is working and not working at the moment. Working with the coordinator made it easy for
them to request certain things from the liaison.
Results
The results were pretty positive, and it was due to the way the young people talked about
sex to people their age versus parents communicating the information. They found that young
children became more experienced and were able to give formal presentations on their own with
no guidance. In addition to the formal presentations, they felt comfortable having informal
conversations as well. They can have more detailed discussions with their family and friends.
Pros
The pros of this article are the peer education standpoint. Young children primarily
benefited from this is the biggest pro. Young children benefited because they became more
confident when conducting presentations and speaking to friends and family members. Young
children that attended these presentations felt more comfortable talking about sex with people
their age.
Cons
 I wouldn't say I liked the communication tree that the evaluator had to go through with
communicating and trying to improve the program. Evaluator was too reliant on the coordinator
to try and get the required materials. I believe the evaluators should have a post-survey after each
presentation to see how well they comprehend the material.