Introduction
This program is intended to help children who have been diagnosed with a severe or profound disability. A teacher will develop a plan, containing goals and objectives that are based on individual student need. There are a number of requirements that the in-home visits must include. The students may participate in an in-home or center-based program or use a combination of the two.
An evaluation of this program should answer a number of questions: 1. Did the in-home visits meet the necessary requirements? 2. Did the students meet the set goals and objectives set by their teacher? 3. Were there any advantages for students who participated in either the in-home or center-based program?
Question One: Did the In-Home Visits Meet the Necessary Requirements?
These questions can be answered with the use of the Stake-Countenance model. This would be the most straightforward and effective means of studying the program. There are a number of standards that the program description has outlined. The descriptive nature of this model would be an adequate means of determining whether the program is successful in maintaining these standards. Descriptive data can be collected from the division folders/special education forms. This would tell us if the in-home visits were adhering to the outlined requirements. The parent/guardian could also be interviewed about the in-home visits. This would provide additional descriptive information about the nature of these visits.
Question Two: Did Students Meet the Set Goals and Objectives?
The Stake-Countenance model is also generally used to examine whether a program in question was able to create the outcomes it had intended. This program intends to help children with disabilities reach various goals after spending productive learning time with their teachers. This evaluation would focus on whether these intentions were successful. The teachers can complete surveys at the beginning of the program regarding the goals and objectives they had developed for the students. Another survey can be administered at the end of the program that would investigate whether they were met. This would give us valuable insight into the effectiveness of the program.
Question Three: Advantages For Students Who Participated in Either In-Home or Center-Based Program?
Finally, this evaluation would investigate whether there is any relationship between the variables. The current program has one significant variable; whether students participated from home or in a center. It would be interesting to analyze whether students’ were more successful in fulfilling their goals when they were primarily studying at home, when compared to students were studying in a center, or vice-versa. If there were significant differences, this might suggest that one method may be more favorable than the other for future programs.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Assignment 1
The model that was used in the evaluation “Report on a program evaluation of a telephone assisted parenting support service for families living in isolated rural areas” (Cann, Rogers & Worley, 2003) most closely resembles Robert Tyler’s model of objectives and outcomes. The objectives of this program were to influence various factors (i.e. reduce depression, increase parental satisfaction). The researchers measured these factors pre- and post-project and evaluated the outcomes (changes in levels of depression and parental satisfaction). There results were definitely in the predicted direction, with parents showing significantly reduced levels of depression, anxiety, stress and inter-parent conflict. There were also significant improvement in parents’ reports of their children’s behavior, parenting styles as well as parent satisfaction and efficacy. From this the authors concluded that this program had influenced both the parents and the children’s behavior, and the overall well being of the parents.
This model was a very simple means of measuring the changes in these factors, before and after participating in the program. However, do the results mean that the program directly influenced both behavior and feelings of the parents? Not necessarily. It only tells us that self-reported levels of these variables changed after participation. This doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the effectiveness of the program, only that the changes occurred. For example, parents reported lower levels of stress, anxiety and depression after participation. It’s hard to say which part of the program, if any, led to these changes.
If the researcher had employed a CIPP model, more attention would have been given to the actual process of the program, thereby providing us with more feedback about potential direct relationships between participating in the program and the variables measured. A qualitative approach provides richer data, and would be a more reliable means of determining whether participation in the program had a direct impact on the variables. Interviews could have been conducted during the course of the program, which could have easily been done during the weekly conversations participants had with counselors. The researchers could have evaluated how feelings and behaviors evolved over the course of the program, rather than merely measuring changes from point A to point B.
As noted by the authors, future research ought to consider using a control group. This would increase the confidence that participation in the program led to changes in the variables measured. In addition to a control group, additional experimental groups could also be looked at, and various components (i.e. the addition of more or less self-help materials, amount or type of contact with counselors) could be manipulated, which would allow one to evaluate which parts of the program are effective, and which are expendable.
There are some strengths in the simplicity of the evaluation design. It was a straight forward approach that easily showed the reader that a large number of variables significantly changed after participating in this program. They also conducted a satisfaction survey, which revealed that the participating families were very satisfied with the content and results of the program. It is a very good starting point, and the researchers provided a number of limitations and directions for future research that can be used to further evaluate this program.
Here is a link to the online article:
http://auseinet.flinders.edu.au/journal/vol2iss3/index.php
This model was a very simple means of measuring the changes in these factors, before and after participating in the program. However, do the results mean that the program directly influenced both behavior and feelings of the parents? Not necessarily. It only tells us that self-reported levels of these variables changed after participation. This doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the effectiveness of the program, only that the changes occurred. For example, parents reported lower levels of stress, anxiety and depression after participation. It’s hard to say which part of the program, if any, led to these changes.
If the researcher had employed a CIPP model, more attention would have been given to the actual process of the program, thereby providing us with more feedback about potential direct relationships between participating in the program and the variables measured. A qualitative approach provides richer data, and would be a more reliable means of determining whether participation in the program had a direct impact on the variables. Interviews could have been conducted during the course of the program, which could have easily been done during the weekly conversations participants had with counselors. The researchers could have evaluated how feelings and behaviors evolved over the course of the program, rather than merely measuring changes from point A to point B.
As noted by the authors, future research ought to consider using a control group. This would increase the confidence that participation in the program led to changes in the variables measured. In addition to a control group, additional experimental groups could also be looked at, and various components (i.e. the addition of more or less self-help materials, amount or type of contact with counselors) could be manipulated, which would allow one to evaluate which parts of the program are effective, and which are expendable.
There are some strengths in the simplicity of the evaluation design. It was a straight forward approach that easily showed the reader that a large number of variables significantly changed after participating in this program. They also conducted a satisfaction survey, which revealed that the participating families were very satisfied with the content and results of the program. It is a very good starting point, and the researchers provided a number of limitations and directions for future research that can be used to further evaluate this program.
Here is a link to the online article:
http://auseinet.flinders.edu.au/journal/vol2iss3/index.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)