Program Evaluation

Group Members	Roles	Commented On
DeArtha Chambers	Group reflection & highlights, final edit, post to blog	Group 2 Narrative Learning Group 4 Humanist Learning
Tashina Manuel	Unified student response section, reviewed final edit	Group 1 Experiential Learning Group 4 Humanist Learning
Terry Rood	Professional review, task master, and final edit
Raeanne Schlotterbeck	Professional review, professional evaluation section, table, and reviewed final edit	Humanist Learning Narrative Learning

DeArtha Chambers

Tashina Manuel

Terry Rood

Raeanne Schlotterbeck

Educational Services for the Graduate Student Program Design Evaluation

Ball State University

Dr. Bo Chang

 

Professional Evaluations

Link to Program Design (https://selfdirectedlearningedac634.blogspot.com/p/program-design.html )

Our group sent our program design to three professionals in a variety of educational fields. All three responded with helpful feedback that will help guide our demonstration. All three evaluators agreed that the program would fill a need for adult learners returning to grad school.

Lianne Lockhart (Original Evaluation in Appendix)

About Lianne

Lianne is an Operations Analyst at a utility company and has over 10 years of experience in the field of financial operations. Lianne has had a lot of educational experience including receiving her Bachelors of Science as well as a Masters of Arts in Executive Development.

Lianne’s Evaluation

Strengths

Lianne agreed that our self-directed learning program is a much needed program and would have been nice to have when she returned to school for her Masters after 8 years of not being a student. She also agreed that there are always new changes happening in education, so having extra guidance to help learn new skills in technology would be beneficial to the learner. Therefore, this review verified that our program is necessary.

Weaknesses

Lianne suggested an extra review and revision to fix grammatical errors and Internet link concerns throughout the paper. She also advised that we give an explanation of a Likert scale survey for people who are not familiar with this type of instrument.  Lianne also asked for clarification of the length of our program.

Dr. SP (Evaluator chose to remain anonymous) (Original Evaluation in Appendix)

About Dr. SP

Dr. SP is the director of Disability and Adaptive Technology Center at UWSP. Dr. SP has a Bachelor of Science, Master of Arts, Master of Science, and a Doctorate in Education.

Dr. SP’s Review

Strengths

Dr. SP explained that the program contains relevant literature and is very strong pedagogically. SP believes we have created a unique program that has taken the foundation of our research and made it into an accessible and interactive teaching and learning approach. SP also agreed that this program is needed for students returning to a graduate program to acquire needed skills that will help them with their degree. SP ended with stating, “This is an exceptional program.”

Weaknesses

Dr. SP’s evaluation of our program pointed out that the weakness is simply the alternative to the strength, which is that it is self-directed. If students have “a low tolerance for ambiguity, a low tolerance for investigation, or a frustration they may be put off by the program.” Therefore, if a student finds the program to be a hindrance, this could leave the student feeling unsatisfied. SP suggested that adding other academic supports or scaffolds would be helpful and would allow the student learners to have necessary support to complete this program.

Angela Witham (Original Evaluation in Appendix)

About Angela

Angela Witham obtained a Business degree as well as a Master’s in Education with a vocational education endorsement. Angela currently teaches in the career center at Richmond High School. She is also an Accreditation Specialist for PJ’s College of Cosmetology.

Angela’s Review

Strengths

Angela, like the other two evaluators, agrees that this self-directed learning program is necessary for students returning to school. She feels that we justified the needs of this program through our research of other self-directed learning program described in our paper.

Weaknesses

Angela pointed out that facilitating more communication within the self-directed learning groups in the program would be helpful. A cohort group, advisors, and any additional support staff should support this communication. Angela also pointed out that while this program can be helpful, it should be user friendly so that it is very doable for students. It must also be organized in a way the self-directed learner can still incorporate everyday responsibilities.

Students’ Responses

            Overall, we agree with the evaluations.  It appears that our professional evaluators thoroughly reviewed our program design.  Their reviews and suggestions were well-thought out and help us to see the strengths and weaknesses in our program design.  Our evaluators even went above and beyond, by checking grammar errors and an error in one of our links.  We are grateful for this.  One of the strongest commentary we received back on our reviews was the attachment to pedagogy and theory, specifically self-directed learning theory. As stated by DR. SP this makes our program unique, accessible and interactive. Several of the student reviews agreed in their assessment of their own needs as returning adult graduate students. Even those students who did not take a break in between their undergraduate and graduate degree commented of our programs utility.  All of our reviewers agreed that this program will serve students well, and is a great program to have in place.

            While we received positive comments, we also now realize there is room for improvement in this program design. First, we need to make sure this program is a help not a hindrance to the learner. The program should be completely laid out and monitored by a professional who can scaffold and facilitate a positive learning experience. While this is a goal of ours, we should look at how we can display this more in our demonstration. We could possibly have a “help” or “Q&A” or “Contact us” section for students who need extra guidance in the program. We could also create an “orientation” video for new students. 

We can also improve the program by listing the courses available and clearly identify that the APA is an exemplar of the other programs, ensure the accessibility and adaptability for each student (e.g. working with own academic advisor, ensure online instructors are available as needed, and work with student’s existing assignments), and adapting the program for high school students as well.  Furthermore, we need to make sure that it is clear in our design that students will be scaffolded as much as they require.  Students scoring very low on the SDRS will be given every opportunity to interact with faculty who can help them find and understand the sections they need while steering them toward becoming more independent learners.  Including a more specific plan as to how students will be able to incorporate this program into their everyday busy lives will also be helpful.  This can be done by creating a schedule of activities to include in an appendix, or in our Implementation section of our Program Design.  The schedule of activities will include the days of meetings, the meeting formats, and due dates of the assignments.

Group Reflection

Highlights

Our program is unique for three reasons, the target audience combined with the practicality of the program, the pedagogical theoretical basis of the program. The first of these is the target audience of graduate students combined with the practicality of our program design’s focus on academic skill sets. Overall there are many strengths and weaknesses to our program design. Responses provided by both professionals and students was positive, accepting, and excited at the notion of our program designed to assist the SD learner in their academic career. Issues with clarity, detailed assignments and events, as well as support provided were observed difficulties with our program we will address by clarifying our language, providing additional details of our program’s nuances, and building a schedule of assignments and activities.

Process

            Beginning early, having a plan, and regular communication are key to the success of this project. For the program evaluation, upon submission of the Program Design assignment, individual group members sent the program design to professionals to review; of the reviews sent our three of four were returned completed. Similar to our previous assignments, we first had group meeting on ‘gotomeeting’ to review the group plan and schedule. Next, we divided the work between group members per the group plan and then went to work on our individual parts. Communicating through emails after the meeting, we shared the professional reviews between all group members, as well as our personal feedback from the reviews (professional and student). Finally, all drafts were sent to one member and a final draft was written and presented to the group for edit before posting.

           

APPENDIX

LIANNE LOCKHART

Summary of your role and position and your qualifications (Work, Education, Experience)

Bachelors of Science in Finance

Masters of Arts in Executive Development

Currently working as an Operations Analyst at an utility company with over 10 years of experience in finance/operations fields

What do you like most about our program design?

Definitely a good topic to discuss. As an adult learner, something like this would have been great to have in place when I returned to school from being out for about 8 years.  Many things had changed and a program like this will allow the adult learner to better understand what is needed of them and how to go about learning those skills needed to succeed.

What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?

Please review for grammatical errors. Describe what a Likert scale survey is (this is the first time I have heard of it!). Is this the self-directed readiness scale that is talked about throughout the paper?  The following link either needs to be fixed or removed https://www.blogger.com/null in the Goals section. Will all programs be 6-weeks at length or just the graduate student programs?

Dr. SP - Director of Disability and Adaptive Technology Center, UWSP

BS, MA, MS, Ed.D.

Strengths of program

The foundation of this program is grounded in relevant literature and is very strong pedagogical.  Taking that foundation and wrapping it in an accessible and interactive teaching and learning approach makes this program unique.  Students are able to access and engage with the material when and how they are able which is a factor necessary for students returning to the educational setting. The self-directed format is highly desirable for working professionals as they attempt to gain new skills or polishing existing skills.

Weaknesses of the program

The weakness of the program is the alternative of the strength; it is self-directed.  Student who have a low tolerance for ambiguity, who have a low tolerance for investigation or frustration may be put off by the program or unsatisfied.  A number of other academic supports or scaffolds would be helpful and would allow the student to feel they have the support necessary to complete the program.  Overall this is an exceptional program

Angela Witham

1.       What is your profession?   High school educator. Adult ed instructor, Accreditation specialist for PJ’s College of Cosmetology

2.       What schooling have you been through? Undergraduate, a business major; M.Ed. in Education, vocational endorsement

3.       What do you like about the Self-Directed Learning program design that Group 3 came up with?  I completely agreed with the SD Learning program and believe that an adult learning returning to school needs additional support and assistance.  You have thoroughly addressed these needs in a manner which if providing direct support to the learner.

4.       What improvements could this group make and how?  Communication with their cohort group as well as from advisors and additional support staff.  The program must be doable and must be organized in a manner in which the SD learner can still incorporate every day responsibilities.