Assignment 2

 As I read through this case study many evaluation models come to mind. I believe that the purpose of evaluating this program is to get feedback on the effectiveness and if it is meeting the intended goal-that being to prevent type 2 diabetes in pregnant Aboriginal women through exercise. Certainly some evaluation theories can be ruled out – Levine being one example.

I would use the Scriven model to evaluate this program. Obviously the purpose of the exercise program is very well intentioned and serves a definite need. Use of the Scriven model:

·         Would allow the evaluator to describe the goals of the program

·         The evaluator could look at the roles of those involved and the motivation to improve

·         Is set up well to give both formative and summative feedback.

In the Scriven model I believe it would be the formative and summative feedback given that is crucial to the program and its effectiveness.

I do believe that one could also utilize the Stake – Countenance model. As indicated above, the purpose of the program is very well intentioned, however those delivering the program would like to also measure the effectiveness of it as well as the participants in the program would also benefit from observing their fitness gains.

The Stake model allows for this as it provide a good description, however the judgement of the program and its effectiveness is the crucial feedback necessary. The Stake model also looks for congruence between what is intended and what is observed. This is critical and one of the main reasons for using the Stake model. This exercise program has an intended purpose and it is hoped that would be observed in the evaluation.  

In essence either of the two approaches would work in the evaluation of the program however I believe the better choice would be the use of the Stake - Countenance model due to what I would see as the logical connection between the event (exercise classes) and their intended purpose (prevention of Type 2 diabetes).

Assignment 1

OVERVIEW

For this assignment I have chosen an in-house evaluation our school leadership team performed on an existing (and continuing) program in our school. Each year struggling primary students in our school have the opportunity to bring their reading skills up a number of levels through engaging in a Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) program. The program is delivered by a dedicated staff member who daily takes small groups (no more than four)of students from grade 1-2 in for 30 minutes of intensive, targeted  instruction.  The program is also overseen by our school’s Literacy Coach who meets regularly with the instructor and provides feedback and direction. The students are enrolled in the program for 16-20 weeks. Upon entry they are assessed and given a reading level using the Fountas and Pinnell system. Following the 16-20 week period the students are given final assessment and released to their respective classrooms typically showing improvements of 1-3 reading levels (using the A-Z benchmarks).

In the evaluation of the program the school based leadership team (Principal, Assistant Principal, Literacy Coach, and Program Support Teacher) meet regularly to evaluate the LLI program (and other programs) as well as determine the effectiveness of the program, as well as to look for ways to improve the program.  In the evaluation of the program, the team looks at factors such as number of students targeted, level of increase in reading level, transfer of information back into the classroom and subsequently the continuation of growth after release from the LLI program. The leadership team feels that the program is effective, meeting the needs of the target group, and providing instruction that is instrumental in student growth.  Annually for each of the last three school years the program has been extended based on its level of success.

EVALUATION MODEL

In this case I believe that the evaluation model used is a combination of the Stake – Countenance Model and the Scriven model.  The feedback given by the leadership team (LT) is anecdotal during weekly and monthly meetings but also relies on written data from the teacher as well as summative observations given to the Superintendent’s office.  Program description is given in the evaluation and the team makes judgements based on student growth.  I believe the Scriven model also comes out in the fact that the program is given regular (formative) feedback as well as annual (summative) review and recommendations.

Some of the strengths of the evaluation process is that of ongoing evaluation and monitoring in order that the teacher can make change as necessary. This may be anything from changing group dynamics to student release from the program. One obvious weakness is that the evaluation is conducted in-house, and not by review from an outside party however there is monitoring of the program by the school board office in their research practices to ensure best (research proven) programs are utilized in the schools in the region. 

Blog Fire Up

This is Craig's initial post for ECUR 809.3 - Program Evaluation.