Here is a link to my original survey, explanation, and feedback:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrl89tuz7hli3kt/ETAD%20809%20-%20Assignment%205.pdf
Here is a link to the revised, electronic survey:
fluidsurveys.com/surveys/aaron-biberdorf/weiner-award-survey/
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
Friday, 7 March 2014
Assignment 4 - Logic Model
I will be making a plan to evaluate the Sun West Distance Learning Centre (DLC), the school I work for. The Sun West DLC is an online school based in Kenaston, SK. It shares the same building and staff as Kenaston School, which makes a very interesting dynamic. The DLC has 28 teachers and over 2000 students (that is, a student taking 5 courses would be counted as 5 students).
The DLC has 3 administrators (a Principal and two Vice-Principals), an administrative assistant, and 2 clerical support staff members.
The DLC is a bit of a hybrid 'online school' as its teachers teach both Kenaston School students as well as their online kids. The online students do not do a whole bunch of strictly online activities. Instead, they watch lesson videos created by their instructors, then usually do an activity (which tends to be either pen and paper, or online). The vast majority of assignments and exams are still done with pen and paper, scanned, and email in. We are continuously trying to become more online, but it is a slow process.
Here is a link to my Logic Model:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4o64lscwilu1t2l/ETAD%20809%20-%20Logic%20Model.pdf
The DLC has 3 administrators (a Principal and two Vice-Principals), an administrative assistant, and 2 clerical support staff members.
The DLC is a bit of a hybrid 'online school' as its teachers teach both Kenaston School students as well as their online kids. The online students do not do a whole bunch of strictly online activities. Instead, they watch lesson videos created by their instructors, then usually do an activity (which tends to be either pen and paper, or online). The vast majority of assignments and exams are still done with pen and paper, scanned, and email in. We are continuously trying to become more online, but it is a slow process.
Here is a link to my Logic Model:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4o64lscwilu1t2l/ETAD%20809%20-%20Logic%20Model.pdf
Thursday, 6 March 2014
Assignment 3 - Evaluation Plan
Here is a link to my assignment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nzhmv485bnye4wz/ETAD%20809%20Evaluation%20Plan.pdf
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
Assignment 2 - Evaluating a... Program!
Although I wanted to apply Scriven's model to this case study, I decided to
give another model a try. For this case study, I will try to apply
Stake's Countenance Model.
Stake's model basically has the evaluator investigate the relationships between the "antecedents, transactions, and outcome variables" in a program. The antecedents in the case study would be the data collected before the exercise program is implemented. This data would show the relationship between the exercise level of pregnant aboriginal women and the number of these women who contracted GDM.
The transactions in this program would be the all of the great aspects to this exercise program. This would obviously include the muscle toning and child birth preparation exercises, but also the self monitoring "talk test", water aerobics, line dancing, free child care, bus tickets, and bathing suits, snacks, beverages, weekly door prizes, special events (like crafts and parties), and free educational material (on birth, nutrition, exercise, etc).
The outcomes in this case would be a reduced rate of GDM amongst pregnant aboriginal women.
An evaluator would use a matrix that fits with the Stake Countenance Model, much like the one found on page 19 of the document found here.
I think this model is a good fit for this case because there is a clear intent, and the observations made (especially regarding the outcomes) would be clear to almost any evaluator. Therefore, I feel like this model would reproduce similar results regardless of who the evaluator is. Once the program runs long enough to collect data about its effectiveness, judgments can then be made.
I also believe that this model allows for a summative angle during this evaluation. Since there is a clear intent with the program, and the only way to know if it is working or not is to wait until the participants give birth, a summative angle will help determine the effectiveness of the program. There is no need to do a formative evaluation since we want to know the link between exercise and GDM. If changes are made during the program we may not know what factors affect the contraction of GDM.
The judgments made after the Stake Countenance Model is applied to the program evaluation could help create better exercise programs for pregnant women in the future.
Stake's model basically has the evaluator investigate the relationships between the "antecedents, transactions, and outcome variables" in a program. The antecedents in the case study would be the data collected before the exercise program is implemented. This data would show the relationship between the exercise level of pregnant aboriginal women and the number of these women who contracted GDM.
The transactions in this program would be the all of the great aspects to this exercise program. This would obviously include the muscle toning and child birth preparation exercises, but also the self monitoring "talk test", water aerobics, line dancing, free child care, bus tickets, and bathing suits, snacks, beverages, weekly door prizes, special events (like crafts and parties), and free educational material (on birth, nutrition, exercise, etc).
The outcomes in this case would be a reduced rate of GDM amongst pregnant aboriginal women.
An evaluator would use a matrix that fits with the Stake Countenance Model, much like the one found on page 19 of the document found here.
I think this model is a good fit for this case because there is a clear intent, and the observations made (especially regarding the outcomes) would be clear to almost any evaluator. Therefore, I feel like this model would reproduce similar results regardless of who the evaluator is. Once the program runs long enough to collect data about its effectiveness, judgments can then be made.
I also believe that this model allows for a summative angle during this evaluation. Since there is a clear intent with the program, and the only way to know if it is working or not is to wait until the participants give birth, a summative angle will help determine the effectiveness of the program. There is no need to do a formative evaluation since we want to know the link between exercise and GDM. If changes are made during the program we may not know what factors affect the contraction of GDM.
The judgments made after the Stake Countenance Model is applied to the program evaluation could help create better exercise programs for pregnant women in the future.
Tuesday, 28 January 2014
Assignment 1 - Evaluation of... an evaluation!!
I found the following program evaluation online for a student transit pass at the University of Wisconsin-Milwakee (UMW) called... wait for it... the UPASS.
The goal of the UPASS implementation was to increase the number of transit riders which would decrease the number of students that drive to the university which would have a positive impact on the environment. Furthermore, the evaluators also found after they collected the data that the implementation of the UPASS had a positive impact on student enrollment and retention with UMW.
This evaluation follows Scrivin's goal based evaluation model as all the data collected helps the reader identify the several ways that the goal was met (or not met). Each section of the evaluation compares data from before the implementation of the UPASS to afterward. The evaluators must have known what the goal of the UPASS was before the evaluation began, making this model differ to Scriven's goal free evaluation model. In this case, I think it was imperative that the evaluators know the goals of the UPASS so they can assess the effectiveness of the UPASS itself (comparison of data).
One of the strengths of this evaluation is the number of ways the evaluators were able to compare data before and after implementation. For example, the evaluators look at obvious comparisons like "increased transit ridership" and more specific comparisons like how "freshman students... showed high rates of transit usage compared to other students." Other pieces of data were also examined like what factors cause students to choose transit like how close their residence is to a pick up area. Considering all of the data presented, I feel they did thorough data collection.
Another strength for this evaluation is that it is simple, concise, and easy to understand. The program was explained at the beginning of the evaluation and the immediate goals were discussed early on. As you read through the evaluation, the data becomes more complex yet is still easy to relate back to the initial goals of the program. This makes it easy for someone to use this evaluation if they were wanting to implement a UPASS for their own school.
One of the weaknesses that I can see is that all of the data is presented as a percentage. This does not give me an idea of how many students are involved. Therefore, if I were to use this evaluation to determine if my university could use a UPASS I would have no frame of reference in that sense. I am also curious as to whether all of the students were forced to be part of this program, or if they had the opportunity to opt out (and how flexible that opt out process was).
This evaluaiton, although simple, was concise and to the point. I am left with an understanding of how data was used to evaluate the UPASS program at UWM. After reading the evaluation, I get an overwhelming feeling that the program was a success for this university.
The goal of the UPASS implementation was to increase the number of transit riders which would decrease the number of students that drive to the university which would have a positive impact on the environment. Furthermore, the evaluators also found after they collected the data that the implementation of the UPASS had a positive impact on student enrollment and retention with UMW.
This evaluation follows Scrivin's goal based evaluation model as all the data collected helps the reader identify the several ways that the goal was met (or not met). Each section of the evaluation compares data from before the implementation of the UPASS to afterward. The evaluators must have known what the goal of the UPASS was before the evaluation began, making this model differ to Scriven's goal free evaluation model. In this case, I think it was imperative that the evaluators know the goals of the UPASS so they can assess the effectiveness of the UPASS itself (comparison of data).
One of the strengths of this evaluation is the number of ways the evaluators were able to compare data before and after implementation. For example, the evaluators look at obvious comparisons like "increased transit ridership" and more specific comparisons like how "freshman students... showed high rates of transit usage compared to other students." Other pieces of data were also examined like what factors cause students to choose transit like how close their residence is to a pick up area. Considering all of the data presented, I feel they did thorough data collection.
Another strength for this evaluation is that it is simple, concise, and easy to understand. The program was explained at the beginning of the evaluation and the immediate goals were discussed early on. As you read through the evaluation, the data becomes more complex yet is still easy to relate back to the initial goals of the program. This makes it easy for someone to use this evaluation if they were wanting to implement a UPASS for their own school.
One of the weaknesses that I can see is that all of the data is presented as a percentage. This does not give me an idea of how many students are involved. Therefore, if I were to use this evaluation to determine if my university could use a UPASS I would have no frame of reference in that sense. I am also curious as to whether all of the students were forced to be part of this program, or if they had the opportunity to opt out (and how flexible that opt out process was).
This evaluaiton, although simple, was concise and to the point. I am left with an understanding of how data was used to evaluate the UPASS program at UWM. After reading the evaluation, I get an overwhelming feeling that the program was a success for this university.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)