Assignments and Final Evaluation Plan

Assignment 3- Evaluation Steps

Assignment 4- Logic Model

Final Evaluation Plan

Hello Jay,

I sincerely apologize for my long overdue of my assignments 3 and 4, because unlike other students who are currently working or having some projects at hand, I had totally no idea where to start. I wanted to choose the Chinese National English proficiency exam the College English Test, but that program is too big and complicated to handle. Finally I contacted my previous co-worker Mr. Yang and he recently agreed to let me draft an evaluation plan on one of his programs at hand.

Mr. Yang and I were working in New Oriental School, the largest private training provider in China. Its programs are so popular that every summer and winter holidays, parents register their kids and students register themselves in various short-term training programs. Some parents register their kids in New Oriental School holiday camps because they are too busy to take care of their children during the holidays and they wish their children spend the holidays meaningfully.

Teachers contracted with New Oriental School are not like public school teachers. They are often perceived funnier with better teaching quality than public school teachers. They are paid much higher, and they are more under the pressure of teaching quality, because teaching quality matters whether they could still have good training programs to teach and whether they could continue teaching in New Oriental School. New Oriental School currently has a teacher evaluation system, but no evaluation on any specific programs.

The “Cool Learn English Vocabulary Building Summer/Winter Camp” first initiated in January 2014. It is a nine day program to boost students’ English vocabularies. This summer, the Vocabulary Summer Camp will start from June 22 to June 30, 2014. There will be 24 camp classes located in 4 campuses, and each camp class will have 30 students of a same educational grade level, under the instruction of two teachers, one teaching assistant, as well as one camp life counsellor.

Two courses, namely core and high-frequency vocabularies and vocabulary memorizing methods, are taught in the day, while a series of vocabulary-related activities are carried out during off-class time every evening. At the start of the camp, each student will be given a vocabulary test; at the end of the camp, another vocabulary test will be conducted, to motivate and track the improvement of students. Starting every morning will be a revision of what have been learned the day before, and before instructions end every day, a daily quiz testing all vocabularies learned today will be given.

Based on this program, I accomplished my assignments 3, 4, and the final evaluation plan for this course.

Thank you very much for your hard work in teaching and rating our assignments during this term!

 

Standard

Assignment #5

Assignment Five:  You will design and test a short survey. Include a variety of question types such as scale rating, short answer, and open-ended. You will submit the original version and the modified version based on the testing of the survey with four individuals. You will post your information on your blog.

 

Continue reading →

Standard

Assignment 2

According to the description of the prenatal exercise program, the CIPP evaluation model fits best for this case.

To determine the most appropriate model for evaluation, we shall first look at why we need to evaluate. One reason for this evaluation shall be determining the effectiveness of the outcome. Consequently, it examines the cost-effectiveness of this program. Therefore, the product shall all be focused on for a summative report, and the process shall be evaluated to validate the product.

Another reason for this evaluation shall be deciding whether this program could be repeated or repeated elsewhere. Accordingly, apart from examining whether the program outcome was successful, the product evaluation shall be partitioned into impact, effectiveness, and transportability, which also falls into CIPP model.

Thirdly, this evaluation will serve stakeholders of program organizers, fund-providing governors, Aboriginal population, and tax payers. To this end, the context and the input shall be especially analyzed in comparison with the outcome (product), to let the organizers learn their program effectiveness and possible improvement, help decision makers determine whether to repeat or expand this program, and inform and convince the Aboriginal people and tax payers of the benefit and support of the program.

According to Stufflebeam (2003, p. 36), the CIPP model for a summative evaluation summarizes the merit, worth, probity, and impact of a program, and its evaluation on product is an interpretation of results is an “interpretation of results against the effort’s assessed context, inputs, and processes”. Therefore, according to the reason and purpose of this evaluation, the CIPP model is the most proper approach for this program.

Reference

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31-62). Springer Netherlands.

Standard

Assignment 1

For educators, industrial persons, businessmen, politicians, and even fanclubs, communicative events such as conferences, symposiums and other activities are commonly held to exchange ideas and to help develop varied undertakings. Evaluation reports for such communicative events, then, are important for the organizers to learn how to improve their next event by learning the satisfaction of the participant, the outcome compared with the cost, among other strengths and shortcomings.

An evaluation task as such might not seem hard, but meeting the expectancy of the organizing heads is not quite easy. An evaluation report could easily end up to be like the product of the Symposium Evaluation Report for EFPPEC Symposium III (Educating Future Physicians in Palliative and End-of-Life Care ), which reveals limited focus though evaluation forms completed by participants were generally summarized.

Using summative model, this EFPPEC symposium evaluation report is designed to examine the satisfaction of its participants, though this objective was not explicitly spelled out. Evidences are shown in the questionnaire questions and answers, such as “how well did we meet our objectives” and the answer options of 1to 5 point scales resembling from poor to excellent.

The evaluation process included a questionnaire form to participants before participants left the event, an initial calculation of average excellent satisfaction feedback rate, and comment lists. Therefore, approaches involved included questionnaire surveys and initial analysis of data.

The five-page evaluation report mirrored many problems that an office staff might too often be blamed for. First, the investigation approach of questionnaires could have been finished unconcernedly or with hypocrisy. Therefore, question forms sometimes could not tell the whole story, and some observations might fill the gap. Second, the question only cared if participants think the event had met the goal of the organizer, instead of caring for the participants’ goals. A prior inquiry of participants’ expectation and a follow-up after the event could better examine whether the event satisfies its participants.

Third, the report simply listed the comments. To be more exact, it just copied what the interviewed wrote in the comment column. This is one of the two biggest problems of this report, that the percentage points of excellence satisfaction and dissatisfaction were not well interpreted in an organized, focused, and logical form. Therefore, this report did not effectively reveal the reasons of its shortcomings. A solution for this loophole is to synthesize the comments and analyze them in a concise and focused way, to effectively interpret what topped up the satisfaction of participants and what led to poor experiences of them.

The fourth is the other biggest problem, that the report observed the absence of a summary. Without a summary, this report failed to point out the advantages and rooms for improvement for future reference. Therefore, the report is far from achieving the aim of providing suggestions for future improvement.

Moreover, the audience for this report was neither explicitly nor implicitly implied. This may be the reason why essential components such as analysis and summary were missing. With its audience unclear, this evaluation is weakly targeted.

Despite all the blemishes discussed above, this evaluation report does carry some merits. First, the 1-5 point scales in the questionnaire did give a room for participants to express their extent of satisfaction. Secondly, the evaluation was done on separated symposium sessions, which could unveil to the organizer the quality of different sections perceived by participants.  Last but not least, questions were considerate and thoughtful when it came to inquiries about the facility of the symposium venue and the quality of simultaneous interpretation.

 

Original link of the evaluation report: https://www.afmc.ca/efppec/docs/pdf_2007_symposium_evaluation_report.pdf

More information about this symposium: https://www.afmc.ca/efppec/pages/main.html

Standard