Last one

Here goes the final assignment for 809. 809Finalproject.April2011.DeanLoberg

Assignment 5

Well here is the first draft of my survey.

I have some feedback, but I am waiting for others before I post the revised version.

I don’t think it will change much.

After looking at it a few times I think I would like to add some more specific questions about each program. That would be easier to do using a web based survey tool, where I could add branches based on responses to the first question, but I would get much better response if I just took a paper copy to the schools and ‘made’ the staff do it during their staff meetings.  Maybe some hybrid where I take the simplified version to the schools, but provide a link to a more in depth version for those that want to have more input.

I didn’t ask any demographics questions because I’m not sure that they are of  value in this case  and they may make some respondents less likely to be completely honest. But I waffled on this a few times.

I have a “are you really reading this document” question in for my test group. I have already removed it from the revised version.

As always feedback is appreciated.

EDCUR809.Survey.April6.2011

 

My revisions are primarily wording and format. ie put check boxes on the Likert scale, put the programs in alphabetical order, fix numbering of questions.

So here is the revised form.

EDCUR809.Survey.April6.revision1.2011

Assignment 3 and 4

LogicModel Dean Loberg 2011

Evaluationsteps assement Dean Loberg 2011

Possible Job Posting

Well there may be a job posting for an Educational Technology and / or Science Coordinator in my school division soon. I officially accepted an offer to be the Assistant Superintendent, and technically started in that position 6 hours prior to accepting it. I don’t know what the plans are for my old/current position, but if there is a job posting I will post it here.
Anyone have resources for a assistant superintendent? Do I have to redo my Twitter network?

Assignment 2 – Model Program Evaluation

My greatest concern with this program on initial review is the vague goals. I thought I was missing something until I read a couple of other reviews and found that other reviews did not even agree on what the goals of the program were. If the goal was to reduce the incident of gestational diabetes mellitus then their own stats indicate that they have failed.

“Among multiparous participants, 8% reported a history of GDM; 9% of participants with information available developed GDM during the index pregnancy.” (pg. 2)

Unfortunately the review does not explore what the possible cause of this negative result is.  Alternate goals, based on the description of the program could be; long term reduction of the incidents of type 2 diabetes, awareness of GDM and/or type 2 diabetes and the causes, or promotion of healthy lifestyles. Without very clear goals it is difficult to determine the success or failure of the program.

Given the uncertainty about the goals of the program it is difficult to know if it is suffering from just implementation failure or if the theory behind the implementation is also flawed, or even if it is actually very successful. In order to address all aspects of the program, including the actual needs of the target group and setting goals a very thorough model needs to be used.  To meet this need I would recommend a blended or mixed model called Triphase evaluation.  Triphase evaluation is a blend of Stufflebeam’s Decision-Making Model (CIPP), Scriven’s Goal Free Model, and Tyler’s Objective Model

The reason I would choose this blended model is its holistic approach. An evaluator using this model would need to determine the needs of the community, the appropriateness of the programs goals in meeting those needs, the implementation of the program, the outputs and outcomes of the program. All while providing constant feedback to the program staff in an effort to improve the program as it progresses. Most of the other models seem to emphasize the inputs, process or the outputs, but rarely all three. Nor do other models include such an emphasis on determining whether the entire purpose of the program is valid.

Of course, given how close this model works with the program itself it must be done in conjunction with the program, and essentially runs as a parallel program. This would be rather expensive for a non-profit program such as the one being discussed, but could provide very good results moving forward.

Triphase Model?

Has anyone seen anything about the Triphase model described in this article. I’ve ‘Googled’ it, but I’m not finding much other then the original document.

It’s a modification of Stufflebeam’s Decision Making Model (CIPP) with a nod to Scriven’s Goal-Free Model and Tyler’s Goals-Oriented/Objectives-Based Model.

ECUR 809 – Program Evaluation Assignment 1

Exploration of the 2009 Exxon Mobil Bernard Harris 4‐H Summer Science Camp Program Evaluation Report

Program background

The 4-H Summer Science Camps funding agreement states that it will serve  “48 Oregon middle school students who were members of populations traditionally underrepresented in science and technology fields or who lived in underserved areas”   (pg. 3).

The author identifies the Camp goals (pg.4) as

• Be student centered
• Provide hands-on, real world learning experiences and opportunities for connections
• Provide team-oriented, collaborative learning
• Develop science processing skills
• Build decision-making and critical thinking skills
• Enhance positive youth development (PYD)
• Increase student interest in science

Over the course of two weeks 47 students were led by 14 pre-service teachers who had been specially trained for one week in “teaching math and science lessons and in using the 4‐H Science Inquiry Model” (pg. 4). Students are taken on filed trips and classroom activities focusing on areas such as marine biology, veterinary medicine, wildlife rehabilitation, mechanical and chemical engineering, and computer programming.

The Evaluation

The evaluation process started with a pre-test administered to participating students on the first day of the program. This was followed up with questions at the end of the camp. This focus on the students’ attitudes and skills at the end of the camp indicates that this is a summative evaluation with a focus on the initial outcomes of the camp. There is some formative aspect to the report as results can be used to inform design and implementation decisions for the following years camp.

There were three separate types of surveys that students respond to. The Science Process Skills Inventory, the Science Opinions Survey, and questions developed by the evaluator and the funding agency designed to survey students’ “interest in science, their future intentions with science classes and careers, their experience with science and others during the camp’… “educational presentations, camp activities; camp field experiences; and research team experiences.” (pg.6)

While much of the math and statistical analysis that is presented in the results section is completely gone from my memory (if it was ever there in the first place) it is obvious that the evaluator has spent considerable time ‘crunching the numbers’. With good results. The data and accompanying graphs lend credibility to the report and show how effective the program is with just a quick survey of the document. I’ll trust that the math and numbers are accurate, but I do question the author’s method of using a group of students who did not attend the camp as the base line.  It does prove that the program is better then doing nothing, but I would hope that most educational programs have slightly higher goals then ‘Well, it’s better then nothing.’ It was also interesting that the group of students who did not attend were better in both the pre and post tests then the students that attended in the Science Process Skills Inventory test. The author indicates that these students applied but were not selected for the camp. It is possible, given the funding agreement statement, that these students were not selected because they were over qualified which may account for their significantly better results. In future studies it may be interesting to have students do the pretest when applying for the program. This would provide a larger sample for the pretest and ensure that students answers are not skewed as a result of being selected for the program and therefore spending more time thinking, reading, or talking about science before attending.

In the end the report does suggest that program coordinators may want to give more thought to some specific issues that surfaced in the results, such as the differences between boys and girls, and ages in their feeling of belonging and satisfactions levels etc. However, overall, very few recommendations were made and none of them specific. This may be common for program evaluations, but it seems to limit the value of the review.

While this program evaluation does not seem to fit precisely into any one model that we talked about in class I would classify it as the Stake – Countenance Model. It could be goal oriented Scriven also, but the heavy reliance on testing and data seems more in line with Stake – Countenance. It does not, however, follow Stake’s matrix for data collection. This modified model does work reasonably well in this instance, but I would like to see more research done on the long-term outcomes of the program, with feedback from other interested parties. Teachers or parents for example may be asked to indicate whether they believe participants’ attitudes and skill levels have changed in the long run.  Similar to teacher professional development, immediate outputs from this type of program are probably fairly easy to obtain, but long term lasting changes are much harder to effect, and probably harder to evaluate also.

I think I can, I think I can, I think I can

Ok. I am forcing myself to write a post. I don’t know why I have so much trouble writing a blog post. I certainly have no problem commenting on our assignments or on a classmates blog post. I think it’s like standing up in front of the class. As a student I could participate in a class discussion, but never stand in front of the class and talk. It’s too much in the spotlight.

So this is blog is supposed to be about inquiry (or enquiry) based learning and technology, so maybe I should start with what that means. Problem is, like many things in education the definition depends on who you talk to and may add confusion. This one is not bad …

Inquiry-based learning is a process where students are involved in

their learning, formulate questions, investigate widely and then

build new understandings, meanings and knowledge. That

knowledge is new to the students and may be used to answer a

question, to develop a solution or to support a position or point of

view. The knowledge is usually presented to others and may

result in some sort of action.  – Focus on Inquiry 2004, Alberta Learning

Of course, for me, this does not help much and if it  was my first  introduction to inquiry I would probably just keep right on going and never look back.  Luckily my first introduction to IBL was this video by Project Foundry

I don’t know anything about, or endorse, Project Foundry, but the cell phone project the students talk about really caught my attention and peaked my interest into what IBL is. It sure looks much more interesting then the definition.

My question here is, outside of the Project Foundry Software, how would this project look with no ‘modern’ technology? Would the students be as engaged?

New Look?

Playing with themes and colours. Not sure if I’ve found the right one yet. What do you think of the logo I created using Aviary?

My First Blog Post – Again

Alright. A new blog with a new name, and a fresh start.

Every couple of years I try blogging. It lasts a few months, or less, and I get too busy and move on. This time is going to be different. No, …it really is. I am blogging for a class now, so I have to do it. I have no choice. That always helps.

I am working towards a MEd in Educational Communications and Technology from the University of Saskatchewan. My current class, ECMM 802 – Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology with Dr. Richard Schwier, has a blog vs paper option, and obviously I am taking the blog route. I have not committed yet, but I think I will be writing on the intersection of Educational Technology and Inquiry Based Learning. Both areas are of great interest to me and they can work very well together, particularly in remote communities. If you have any resources; websites, research papers, blogs, etc. that you think would be valuable please share.