I believe that the process evaluation approach would be the most appropriate approach to evaluate the ECS Programing for Children with Severe Disabilities. Using a process evaluation would help assure that the funding provided for the program is being utilized in the expected manner. In other words, using a process evaluation would give surety to those funding the program that all children taking part meet the necessary requirements for the program. Using a process evaluation would also ensure that the children’s individual needs are being met as the program implements program plans made by each teacher to address each child’s goals and objectives. A process evaluation would demonstrate that the program is employed properly and provides the intended services. In employing a process evaluation for this program, how the ECS Programing for Children with Severe Disabilities functions and how systematic the programs is would be demonstrated.
Another approach that could be taken in evaluating the ECS Programming for Children with Severe Disabilities would be the goals-oriented approach. Had the program description provided more detail on the specific purpose of the program, perhaps the goals-oriented approach would have been the primary model of choice. However, in utilizing a goals-oriented approach, it would be possible to view the effectiveness of current goals and make sufficient changes to assist in making the program stronger in the future. Taking note of the children’s progress throughout the program or doing a pre-test and then post-test would be an effective way to determine if the program was achieving its goals. Verifying whether or not the ECS Programming for Children with Severe Disabilities makes a difference in these children’s lives would be critical in evaluating this program. Therefore, if clear goals were defined, I believe a goals-oriented approach would be very effective in evaluating this program.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Assignment #1
Assignment #1 – Carmel Hill Fund Education Program http://www.carmelhill.org/images/Carmel%20Hill%20Final.pdf
The Carmel Hill Fund Education Program introduced Renaissance Learning’s Accelerated Reader reading management software into disadvantaged schools across Harlem, Denver, and Louisiana in hopes of increasing reading levels. The Accelerated Reader program allows users to complete quizzes on books and other materials and immediately view their results after completion. Teachers are also able to create individual student goals based on reading and comprehension level though the Accelerated Reader program.
What model was used?
The evaluation of the Carmel Hill Fund Education Program utilized a summative model. The evaluators took a large sample size, 10,617 students from 43 schools across Denver, Louisiana, and Harlem, and tracked their reading achievement at the end of the 2005-2006 school year. The goal of the Accelerated Reader program was to increase reading achievement. According to the evaluator’s findings, the program was effective in doing so. The evaluators used multiple measures to reach their findings. In Colorado the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) was used to determine where students were scoring as compared to state standards. In Louisiana, LEAP(Louisiana Educational Assessment Program) tests were used to compare to state standards.
What are the strengths of this evaluation?
A major strength of this evaluation was the effective demonstration of how successful the Accelerated Reader program was. Statistically, it was shown that there was an improvement of 4 percentiles overall of reading achievement. Through the use of the STAR Reading program, which tracks reading achievement, the evaluators were able to determine gain in achievement at every grade level. Another strength of this evaluation was the use of multiple measures to determine results. Not only were scores within the Accelerated Reading program analyzed, scores from the STAR Reading program as well as the CSAP and the LEAP tests were also analyzed and compared to state standards.
In using a summative approach to evaluating the Carmel Hill Fund Education Program, the evaluators efficiently demonstrated the effectiveness of this program. Using a quantitative approach, the reading achievement of over 10,000 students was successfully assessed.
What are the weaknesses of this evaluation?
A weakness of this evaluation was seen in the findings that very high and high comprehension level readers achieved more than those who read more poorly. No suggestions were made as to why the poor readers were not improving as much or what could be done to help these readers. Perhaps in the future, students could be separated into levels based on reading ability and comprehension. Through this, it may be possible to adjust the Accelerated reader program to assist lower reading levels better. Another weakness of this evaluation was that not all teachers had to or did become certified in using the Accelerated Reader program. Evaluators stated that students who learn from teachers who have been certified in the Accelerated Reader program perform better than those students in classes with uncertified teachers. In having mandatory certification it is possible that more achievement would be seen in student overall.
The Carmel Hill Fund Education Program introduced Renaissance Learning’s Accelerated Reader reading management software into disadvantaged schools across Harlem, Denver, and Louisiana in hopes of increasing reading levels. The Accelerated Reader program allows users to complete quizzes on books and other materials and immediately view their results after completion. Teachers are also able to create individual student goals based on reading and comprehension level though the Accelerated Reader program.
What model was used?
The evaluation of the Carmel Hill Fund Education Program utilized a summative model. The evaluators took a large sample size, 10,617 students from 43 schools across Denver, Louisiana, and Harlem, and tracked their reading achievement at the end of the 2005-2006 school year. The goal of the Accelerated Reader program was to increase reading achievement. According to the evaluator’s findings, the program was effective in doing so. The evaluators used multiple measures to reach their findings. In Colorado the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) was used to determine where students were scoring as compared to state standards. In Louisiana, LEAP(Louisiana Educational Assessment Program) tests were used to compare to state standards.
What are the strengths of this evaluation?
A major strength of this evaluation was the effective demonstration of how successful the Accelerated Reader program was. Statistically, it was shown that there was an improvement of 4 percentiles overall of reading achievement. Through the use of the STAR Reading program, which tracks reading achievement, the evaluators were able to determine gain in achievement at every grade level. Another strength of this evaluation was the use of multiple measures to determine results. Not only were scores within the Accelerated Reading program analyzed, scores from the STAR Reading program as well as the CSAP and the LEAP tests were also analyzed and compared to state standards.
In using a summative approach to evaluating the Carmel Hill Fund Education Program, the evaluators efficiently demonstrated the effectiveness of this program. Using a quantitative approach, the reading achievement of over 10,000 students was successfully assessed.
What are the weaknesses of this evaluation?
A weakness of this evaluation was seen in the findings that very high and high comprehension level readers achieved more than those who read more poorly. No suggestions were made as to why the poor readers were not improving as much or what could be done to help these readers. Perhaps in the future, students could be separated into levels based on reading ability and comprehension. Through this, it may be possible to adjust the Accelerated reader program to assist lower reading levels better. Another weakness of this evaluation was that not all teachers had to or did become certified in using the Accelerated Reader program. Evaluators stated that students who learn from teachers who have been certified in the Accelerated Reader program perform better than those students in classes with uncertified teachers. In having mandatory certification it is possible that more achievement would be seen in student overall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)