Survey Questions -Hillary

Survey Design

Overview of the Program: The College Exploration Program (CEP) targets current high school students from grades 10 to 12, who are about to leave school and seeks to provide an experience of being in college. The program is also geared towards changing the myths about vocational education.

Targeted Audience: Students who participated in the C E P in 2008 and 2009

Sample Size: 100 students who participated in the program in 2008 and 2009

Survey Goal: The goal of the survey is to see how those students that participated in the programme benefited and how it can be improved.

Questions Before Modifications

Instruction: Answer all questions

1. Age: ▭ 15 years ▭ 16 years ▭ 17 years ▭ 18 years ▭ others (specify)_____

2. How did you hear about the programme?

▭ Internet

▭ School counsellor

▭ Friend

▭ Newspaper

▭ Flyers

▭ Others (specify) ______________

3. What are your views on Technical and Vocational education? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. How would you rate the overall performance of the program?

▭ Good ▭ Satisfactory ▭ Needs improvement ▭ Poor

5. Would you recommend this programme to other students? ____Yes ____No

Feedback on Survey Questions

Before the survey questions were designed, the target group was identified and the goal defined. Having that done, I had to decide what information was needed in order to design the survey questions. Suggestion for modifications varied as each person had a different view on the changes to be made to the survey questions. They are as follows: The first person recommended that the ‘s’ be removed from questions one and two. She person also suggested that another stem, “excellent” be added to question 4. The second person suggested that questions four and five be revisited. He also suggested that question 4 be reworded to “How do you rate the program?” instead of “How would you rate the overall performance of the program?” since the performance of the program would not be so measureable by the students, but by the actually superiors and resource personnel who worked on the program. The same individual suggested that question which would illicit more information be used instead of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses for question five. He recommends that the following be used instead, “Why would you recommend this program to another student?” The third person indicated that all the questions were fine, while the fourth person suggested that an age range be used for question one instead of using the exact year.

All four participants were satisfied with question three, as there were no suggestions for changes to be made. Modifications were done to questions four and five and the ‘s’ was removed from ‘others’ in questions one and two. I decided not to use an age range as was suggested for question one, since a range would not capture the type of feedback that I am looking for from students who participate in the program.

Modification done to Survey Questions after Feedback

Instruction: Answer all questions

1. Age: ▭ 15 years ▭16 years ▭17 years ▭ 18 years ▭ other (specify) ________

2. How did you hear about the programme?

▭ Internet

▭ School counsellor

▭ Friend

▭ Newspaper

▭ Flyers

▭ Other (specify) ______________

3. What are your views on Technical and Vocational education? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. How would you rate the program?

▭ Excellent ▭ Good ▭ Satisfactory ▭ Needs improvement ▭ Poor

5. Would you recommend this programme to other students? ____Yes ____No

State the reason(s) for your response _______________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Logi Model

Project Logic Model - The College Exploration Program

Description: The College Exploration Program provides high school students with the opportunity to become better acquainted with the field of vocational education and training. The program runs for three weeks during the summer. This is the second year of the program.

Target group: High school grade 10 to 12 students

Goal	Objectives	Activities	Outputs	Outcomes	Impacts
The goal of the program is to build awareness opportunities for high school students to gain exposure to advance study and career options in the tertiary level vocational environment	By participating in the programme students will be: Be better aware of career opportunities in the vocational fields Engage in activities aimed at changing the perception about vocational education and training. Be more aware and better able to take control of their own learning	Develop and train mentors to work on the program Plan training and sensitizing workshops Meet with schools and private sector Evaluate program Design and Set up tracking system Plan field trips to sensitize students of the vocational industries Seek funding for the program Provide facilities to host the program	Increase knowledge of the career opportunities in vocational fields Greater awareness of vocational education Increase in the number of persons access vocational training	More skilled personnel for the labour market Increase in enrolment in the College	Economic development Need for more vocational training colleges

Program Assessment

Assessment of the College Exploration Program

The College Exploration Program targets 100 current high school from grades 10 to 12, who are about to leave school and seeks to provide an experience of being in college. It also provides participants with the skills need to make the transition from secondary to tertiary level training. The program takes place over three weeks during the Summer Holidays and participants have the opportunity to interact socially and academically with tertiary students in addition to faculty in a vocational setting. Corporate Head Office provides funding for the program. The college and the Private Sector provide technical expertise and resource personnel.

The program is designed so that participants attend schedule sessions and learning activities. Where it is the responsibility of each participant to manage his time effectively and attend sessions planned on a daily basis. Students are placed in groups of twenty; each group is monitored and coached by a mentor. The program initially focuses on the areas Reading and reasoning for empowerment, Improving writing skills, Developing college readiness, Choosing the Institution for college, Young entrepreneur, The world of computers, Exploring the field of Vocational training, Young Scientist, and Career Guidance. In the second year of the program, Improving Math skill was introduced.

This is the second year of the program and a number of weaknesses were identified, some of which if improved will strengthened the purpose and function of the program. One of the weaknesses of the program is that mentors selected for the program should be persons who cable to provide guidance to participants in terms of their career path and persons who are informed about vocational education and training.

Secondly, there is no structure in place to track students after they complete the program to see whether, or not they pursue vocational training or attend the college. Thirdly, too many activities planned are craned in the three weeks and not enough effort being placed in the vocational training, which is one of the objectives of the program. Fourth, this could be strength and well as a weakness in that 60% of the participants are from inner city schools. The initial programme was geared towards students in the central city where the college is located and for the second year, the program was to target students from other parish, however this was not done, students from school in the western and eastern part of the island did not get to participate. Targeting students from the western and eastern part the country might provide some challenges in getting students into the city where the college is located. Finally, participants who assess the program are not final year high school students.

The College Exploration programme is quite feasible, especially when emphasis is now being place on students acquiring a skill before they leave school. In some instances there is a shortage of skill personnel, this programme will actually help to fill that void. The program would be more viable if students were targeted before their final year of high school, in that vocational education and training would be an option and not considered a last resort. Given that the Company has different location, the coordinator of the programme may consider changing its location to cater to students in the western region. In addition, the coordinator of the programme needs to set up a tracking system to see where participants end up.

Case Study Assignment 2-Hillary's Response

The CIPP Model to Evaluate-The Case Study on Student Service Program

The CIPP model would be most appropriate to evaluate the Student Service Program. CIPP was proposed by Daniel Stufflebeam in the 1969 and is an acronym for Context, Input, Process, and Product (Guskey, 2000). The model seeks to evaluate each section; context evaluation is used in planning decision and the identification of the problem, while, Input evaluation involves the steps and resources needed to meet goals and objectives of the program (Guskey, 2000). Process evaluation provides information on whether the focus program is being done according to plan and it provides information on how well the program is being implemented. Product evaluation focuses on the outcome, the success, and the need for modification or continuation of a program (Guskey, 2000).

This model is quite flexible in nature, as it can be use for formative as well as for summative evaluation (Stufflebeam, 2002). Because of its flexibility, the Student Services program will need continuously evaluation to see the progress of each student. Prior to acceptance into the program, assessment will have to be conducted to determine the eligibility of a child with severe disability. The program supervisors will be able to adjust the program, where they see it necessary, to meet the needs of each individual. The ability to make changes within the program is also important, since the evaluation process may require changes to be made and to track the progress of the program. Although the CIPP model is ideal for long-term program, I am of the view that three years is sufficient for this method to be used.

The CIPP Model uses a decision-focused approach to evaluation, as a result, communication will be a key factor in that given that teachers are expected to conduct home visits and have the parent involve in the process. Home visits documented and reports shared with parents. Information provided to the different stakeholders is considered important; in this case, it would be the parents and the funding agencies. In order for the CIPP model to be effective there has to be some form of contractual agreement between the stakeholders, especially since they will be working with students diagnosed with severe of profound disabilities.

References

Daniel L. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2002, June). CIPP Evaluation Model Checklist. A tool for applying the Fifth Installment of the CIPP Model to assess long-term enterprise

Retrieved September 18, 2009 from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/cippchecklist.htm

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Corwin Press.

Program Evaluation- Hillary's comments

An overview of the Program

The Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP) was a four-year, problem-based mathematics curriculum for secondary-school students. Its main approach to mathematics education was designed to prepare students for the future workplace. The IMP curriculum used a more interactive approach to teaching mathematics and focus on the use of manipulatives and calculators. The program was conceived for those students who were being prepared for college to fulfil the mathematics standards developed by the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (Reselk, 2007). The program was designed in 1989 and is currently being used in 250 high schools in 21 states in the United States. In the early stage of the program, it was funded by the California Postsecondary Education Commission and then later received funding from National Science Foundation for curriculum development, evaluation, and dissemination (Resek, 2007).

Evaluation overview

The evaluation of the Interactive Mathematics Program was done by Norman Webb at the Wisconsin Center of Educational Research (WCER) and was prepared for the American Educational Research Association (AERA) (Resek, 2007). In evaluating the program, tests were conducted at a number of IMP locations across the United States. Comparative data on student Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) performance, as well as performance on activities involving probability, statistics, quantitative reasoning, and problem solving were collected. Separate and apart from the comparative data that were collected several studies were conducted by researchers who compared IMP students against those who were not apart of the program (Resek, 2007). Students were compared based; high school grades and retention, students’ performance on standardized tests, performance comparison on other tests, comparison of attitudes, and comparison of performance after secondary schools (Resek, 2007).

Personal Feedback

The IMP seems like a good program, the extent to which it actually worked was not stated simply because they used large number of students from the IMP locations across the United States in conducting their assessment of the program. This made it difficult to get a true assessment of the actual progress of the mathematics students. There seems to be no means of tracking students’ performance in mathematics after they left high school. The feedback from evaluation of the program was not easily understood because of the numerical data and the complex explanation. The language used was not simple, as a result it made it difficult for comprehension. Feedback from the evaluation seems quite inconclusive as there were no clear indications of whether or not the program was able to achieve its objectives. From the evaluation, it would appear that the program did not produce much success. Clearer recommendations are needed for the improvement and evaluation of the program.

Despite this, I think it was a good to compare different groups to get an idea of how well students did. I like the interactive approach that they took toward the teaching of mathematics and think this is a method that I would use in my classroom.

Reference

Resek, D. (2007). Evaluation of the interactive mathematics program. Key Curriculum Press.

www.mathimp.org/research/AERA_paper.html