Program Plan for Ecoquest (also see the Appendices below)
Appendix A - Life Effectiveness Questionnaire Version H (copied with permission)
Appendix B: Descriptions of the Life Effectiveness Questionnaire scales
Appendix C: The Connectedness to Nature Scale
Appendix D: Health and Fitness Survey
Appendix E: Assessment Rubric
Appendix F: Overall Growth Student Self-Assessment
Appendix G: Parental Assessment of Overall Student Growth
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Survey Rationale
Ever since I learned of the concept of integrative curriculum, also known as subject integration, in my undergraduate studies, I have always been somewhat fascinated by it. During my studies there, The University of Saskatchewan was very much in favour of this approach and tried to instil its importance in its students at all costs. Likewise, school boards also seemed excited about this initiative and often claimed the need for subject integration as the main reason for getting away from subject specialization.
Upon graduating and entering into the work field, I noticed a large departure and disconnect from those ideals. Teachers often complained about being over tasked and frustrated by having to teach so many subjects instead of being able to focus on one or two. When I presented them with the argument of subject integration in defence of teaching so many different subjects, I quickly came to realize that many, if not most, of my colleagues had never heard of this concept.
In the academic world, support of the effectiveness of integrative curriculum is overwhelming, however; without teachers jumping on board with this initiative, little impact will be made in our students’ classrooms. The aim of this survey was to provide a means of collecting information about teacher views and attitudes towards subject integration and perhaps to gain some insight into the understanding or the lack thereof that teachers may have of this concept. Having information of this nature would provide a good starting point to developing a program aimed at promoting the use of subject integration in the elementary and middle years education.
Upon graduating and entering into the work field, I noticed a large departure and disconnect from those ideals. Teachers often complained about being over tasked and frustrated by having to teach so many subjects instead of being able to focus on one or two. When I presented them with the argument of subject integration in defence of teaching so many different subjects, I quickly came to realize that many, if not most, of my colleagues had never heard of this concept.
In the academic world, support of the effectiveness of integrative curriculum is overwhelming, however; without teachers jumping on board with this initiative, little impact will be made in our students’ classrooms. The aim of this survey was to provide a means of collecting information about teacher views and attitudes towards subject integration and perhaps to gain some insight into the understanding or the lack thereof that teachers may have of this concept. Having information of this nature would provide a good starting point to developing a program aimed at promoting the use of subject integration in the elementary and middle years education.
Assignment 5 con't - Revising Survey Questions
Analyzing the answers and feedback that were provided by the four teachers who completed the original draft shed light on a fundamental problem with my survey. Question #2 revealed that there was a wide disparity in what teachers believed the term “integrated curriculum” to mean. Their definition, of course, affected most of the remaining answers, making the survey ineffective and futile. Although my original intent behind having teachers provide their own definition of the term was to get a feel for how familiar they were with this concept, the negative repercussions soon outweighed the benefits of this approach.
Having learned from this mistake, my final draft addressed this issue in two ways. First, I replaced the term “integrative curriculum” with a more obvious synonymous choice of “subject integration,” and second, I provided a working definition near the beginning of the survey to help my participants to better focus their answers.
The rest of the changes I instituted were aimed at making the survey more comprehensive, focused, clearer and user-friendly. Consistency in formatting was also something that I considered as I made my revisions. The following is a breakdown of the changes that were made and the line of thinking that spurred them:
- The Title
I changed the title to make it more focused by adding the level of education – elementary and middle years. Since secondary education is so vastly different from that in the elementary and middle years, I did not want teachers to get overwhelmed by trying to consider what subject integration may or may not look like at the high school level. It is also more in line with what Saskatchewan Learning had in mind when they introduced this concept.
- Question 2
Integrative curriculum was changed to subject integration and a definition was provided.
The final version also included a question on the position of Saskatchewan Learning when it comes to subject integration, in order to get a feel of how informed teachers are with Saskatchewan Learning’s initiatives.
- Question 3
An “I am undecided” option was added for individuals who may have mixed feelings on the topic. I found “yes” and “no” options to be overly constraining.
Also, I no longer ask for an explanation since I found the answers to be redundant with the answers in Question 9 where participants are asked to list advantages and disadvantages of subject integration.
- Question 4
Deleted the zero from the rating scale for consistent formatting.
- Question 5
Changed wording for improved clarity.
- Question 6
Added the option, “I am undecided”. Same reasoning as in Question 3.
- Question 7, 8, and 10 (in Revised Survey)
These questions were added to provide some more feedback on teacher views of subject specialization and its believed impacts on subject integration.
- Question 11 (in Revised Survey)
Added the option, “I do not recall receiving any training in this area” in case an individual is not quite sure.
The wording was also changed somewhat for improved clarity.
- Question 12 (in Revised Survey)
Revised the question from “Based on the training you received, how prepared do you feel to use an integrative curriculum in your classroom?” to Based on your training (including self-study), how prepared do you feel to use subject integration in your classroom?
This minor change was made because I noticed that this question did not follow up well with Question 11. Specifically, a couple of my participants had indicated in Question 11 that they received no training on subject integration, but then they went on to indicate that they felt very prepared for using it in their classrooms due to the training they received. After questioning them about this further they informed me that it was because of their own preparation and study and not due to any outside training. I concluded that adding the phrase “including self-study” will eliminate this disconnect between the two consecutive questions.
Questions 13, 14, and 15 (in Revised Survey)
- were developed to gain a better understanding of how much teachers already use subject integration in they classrooms and whether there is any interest to increase that frequency. I felt that Question 10 in the original draft addressing the satisfaction level didn’t effectively target this that information.
Having learned from this mistake, my final draft addressed this issue in two ways. First, I replaced the term “integrative curriculum” with a more obvious synonymous choice of “subject integration,” and second, I provided a working definition near the beginning of the survey to help my participants to better focus their answers.
The rest of the changes I instituted were aimed at making the survey more comprehensive, focused, clearer and user-friendly. Consistency in formatting was also something that I considered as I made my revisions. The following is a breakdown of the changes that were made and the line of thinking that spurred them:
- The Title
I changed the title to make it more focused by adding the level of education – elementary and middle years. Since secondary education is so vastly different from that in the elementary and middle years, I did not want teachers to get overwhelmed by trying to consider what subject integration may or may not look like at the high school level. It is also more in line with what Saskatchewan Learning had in mind when they introduced this concept.
- Question 2
Integrative curriculum was changed to subject integration and a definition was provided.
The final version also included a question on the position of Saskatchewan Learning when it comes to subject integration, in order to get a feel of how informed teachers are with Saskatchewan Learning’s initiatives.
- Question 3
An “I am undecided” option was added for individuals who may have mixed feelings on the topic. I found “yes” and “no” options to be overly constraining.
Also, I no longer ask for an explanation since I found the answers to be redundant with the answers in Question 9 where participants are asked to list advantages and disadvantages of subject integration.
- Question 4
Deleted the zero from the rating scale for consistent formatting.
- Question 5
Changed wording for improved clarity.
- Question 6
Added the option, “I am undecided”. Same reasoning as in Question 3.
- Question 7, 8, and 10 (in Revised Survey)
These questions were added to provide some more feedback on teacher views of subject specialization and its believed impacts on subject integration.
- Question 11 (in Revised Survey)
Added the option, “I do not recall receiving any training in this area” in case an individual is not quite sure.
The wording was also changed somewhat for improved clarity.
- Question 12 (in Revised Survey)
Revised the question from “Based on the training you received, how prepared do you feel to use an integrative curriculum in your classroom?” to Based on your training (including self-study), how prepared do you feel to use subject integration in your classroom?
This minor change was made because I noticed that this question did not follow up well with Question 11. Specifically, a couple of my participants had indicated in Question 11 that they received no training on subject integration, but then they went on to indicate that they felt very prepared for using it in their classrooms due to the training they received. After questioning them about this further they informed me that it was because of their own preparation and study and not due to any outside training. I concluded that adding the phrase “including self-study” will eliminate this disconnect between the two consecutive questions.
Questions 13, 14, and 15 (in Revised Survey)
- were developed to gain a better understanding of how much teachers already use subject integration in they classrooms and whether there is any interest to increase that frequency. I felt that Question 10 in the original draft addressing the satisfaction level didn’t effectively target this that information.
Assignment 5 - Final Survey (Revised)
Teacher Survey: Subject Integration in Elementary and Middle Years Education
1. List your teaching assignments over the last 3 years including subjects and grade levels taught.
If your assignment(s) did not fit the descriptors above, please explain below.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2. Subject integration involves teaching across disciplinary boundaries or teaching content from a variety of subjects in the same unit. In this way, multiple areas of study are taught simultaneously.
In your opinion, what is the position of Saskatchewan Learning on using this approach in elementary and middle years education? Check the most applicable option.
____In favour of
____Opposed to
____Neutral
____I do not know
3. Do you believe that using subject integration is important? Check the most applicable option.
____ Yes
____ No
____ I am undecided
4. In your opinion, how much encouragement or pressure do you experience to use subject integration in your everyday teaching practices? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Immense
1 2 3 4 5
5. From where does most of the pressure to integrate come? Use numbers to rank the options below from greatest to least or check the most applicable option.
____ School Board
____ In-school administrators
____ Fellow teachers
____ Parents
____ Students
____ Self
____ I have not experienced any pressure
____ Other (Explain: __________________________________)
6. Would you like to see subject specialization (teaching only one or two subjects based on your area specialization) return to schools? Check the most applicable option.
____ Yes
____ No
____ I am undecided
Explain the reasons for your selection.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
7. Subject specialization would limit the degree to which teachers are able to integrate subjects. Circle the most applicable option.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
8. Subject specialization would make integration across subject areas easier.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
9. Complete the table below by listing a few advantages and disadvantages of subject integration.
10. Complete the table below by listing a few advantages and disadvantages of specialized teaching.
11. Have you received any training on integrative teaching practices that you can recall? Check the most applicable option.
____ Yes
____ No
____ I do not recall receiving any training in this area.
If you checked “Yes,” please identify the source of your training, i.e. university course(s), workshop, professional development seminar, self-study, etc.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
12. Based on your training (including self-study), how prepared do you feel to use subject integration in your classroom? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Perfectly
1 2 3 4 5
13. Based on your teaching practices within the last week, how often did you integrate subjects in your classroom? Check the most applicable option.
___ Every day
___ 3 to 4 days
___ 1 to 2 days
___ Never
14. Ideally, how often would you like to integrate subjects in any given week? Check the most applicable option.
___ Every day
___ 3 to 4 days
___ 1 to 2 days
___ Never
15. If your answer in Question 14 is different than your answer in Question 15, please explain what factors or changes would allow you to integrate as much as you would like. If your answers are the same, please go on to question 16.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
16. Has the process of completing this survey changed your view of using an integrative curriculum in your classroom?
___ Yes
___ No
If yes, please explain how your view has been affected.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey!
1. List your teaching assignments over the last 3 years including subjects and grade levels taught.
If your assignment(s) did not fit the descriptors above, please explain below.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2. Subject integration involves teaching across disciplinary boundaries or teaching content from a variety of subjects in the same unit. In this way, multiple areas of study are taught simultaneously.
In your opinion, what is the position of Saskatchewan Learning on using this approach in elementary and middle years education? Check the most applicable option.
____In favour of
____Opposed to
____Neutral
____I do not know
3. Do you believe that using subject integration is important? Check the most applicable option.
____ Yes
____ No
____ I am undecided
4. In your opinion, how much encouragement or pressure do you experience to use subject integration in your everyday teaching practices? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Immense
1 2 3 4 5
5. From where does most of the pressure to integrate come? Use numbers to rank the options below from greatest to least or check the most applicable option.
____ School Board
____ In-school administrators
____ Fellow teachers
____ Parents
____ Students
____ Self
____ I have not experienced any pressure
____ Other (Explain: __________________________________)
6. Would you like to see subject specialization (teaching only one or two subjects based on your area specialization) return to schools? Check the most applicable option.
____ Yes
____ No
____ I am undecided
Explain the reasons for your selection.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
7. Subject specialization would limit the degree to which teachers are able to integrate subjects. Circle the most applicable option.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
8. Subject specialization would make integration across subject areas easier.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
9. Complete the table below by listing a few advantages and disadvantages of subject integration.
10. Complete the table below by listing a few advantages and disadvantages of specialized teaching.
11. Have you received any training on integrative teaching practices that you can recall? Check the most applicable option.
____ Yes
____ No
____ I do not recall receiving any training in this area.
If you checked “Yes,” please identify the source of your training, i.e. university course(s), workshop, professional development seminar, self-study, etc.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
12. Based on your training (including self-study), how prepared do you feel to use subject integration in your classroom? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Perfectly
1 2 3 4 5
13. Based on your teaching practices within the last week, how often did you integrate subjects in your classroom? Check the most applicable option.
___ Every day
___ 3 to 4 days
___ 1 to 2 days
___ Never
14. Ideally, how often would you like to integrate subjects in any given week? Check the most applicable option.
___ Every day
___ 3 to 4 days
___ 1 to 2 days
___ Never
15. If your answer in Question 14 is different than your answer in Question 15, please explain what factors or changes would allow you to integrate as much as you would like. If your answers are the same, please go on to question 16.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
16. Has the process of completing this survey changed your view of using an integrative curriculum in your classroom?
___ Yes
___ No
If yes, please explain how your view has been affected.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey!
Assignment 5 - Survey (1st Draft - Unrevised)
Teacher Survey: Using an Integrative Curriculum in Schools
1. List your teaching assignments over the last 3 years including subjects and grade levels taught.
If your assignment(s) did not fit the descriptors above, please explain below.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2. Describe briefly what the term “integrative curriculum” means to you.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
3. Do you believe that using an integrative curriculum is important?
____ Yes
____ No
Explain the reasons for your selections.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
4. In your opinion, how much encouragement or pressure do you experience to use integration in your everyday teaching practices? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Immense
0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Where does most of the pressure to integrate come from? Check the most applicable option or rank the options below by placing numbers beside them. (# 1 meaning the most pressure).
____ School Board
____ In-school administrators
____ Fellow teachers
____ Parents
____ Students
____ Self
____ I don’t feel any pressure.
____ Other (Explain: __________________________________)
6. Would you like to see subject specialization (teaching only one or two subjects based on your area specialization) return to schools?
____ Yes
____ No
Explain the reasons for your selection.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
7. Complete the table below by listing a few advantages and disadvantages of integrative curriculum.
8. Have you received any training on integrative teaching practices?
____ Yes
____ No
If you checked “Yes,” please elaborate on your training. (University course(s), workshop, professional development seminar, self-study, etc.)
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
9. Based on the training you received, how prepared do you feel to use an integrative curriculum in your classroom? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Perfectly
0 1 2 3 4 5
10. How satisfied are you with your integrative practices? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Extremely
0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Has the process of completing this survey changed your view of using an integrative curriculum in your classroom? Please explain.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey!
1. List your teaching assignments over the last 3 years including subjects and grade levels taught.
If your assignment(s) did not fit the descriptors above, please explain below.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2. Describe briefly what the term “integrative curriculum” means to you.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
3. Do you believe that using an integrative curriculum is important?
____ Yes
____ No
Explain the reasons for your selections.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
4. In your opinion, how much encouragement or pressure do you experience to use integration in your everyday teaching practices? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Immense
0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Where does most of the pressure to integrate come from? Check the most applicable option or rank the options below by placing numbers beside them. (# 1 meaning the most pressure).
____ School Board
____ In-school administrators
____ Fellow teachers
____ Parents
____ Students
____ Self
____ I don’t feel any pressure.
____ Other (Explain: __________________________________)
6. Would you like to see subject specialization (teaching only one or two subjects based on your area specialization) return to schools?
____ Yes
____ No
Explain the reasons for your selection.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
7. Complete the table below by listing a few advantages and disadvantages of integrative curriculum.
8. Have you received any training on integrative teaching practices?
____ Yes
____ No
If you checked “Yes,” please elaborate on your training. (University course(s), workshop, professional development seminar, self-study, etc.)
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
9. Based on the training you received, how prepared do you feel to use an integrative curriculum in your classroom? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Perfectly
0 1 2 3 4 5
10. How satisfied are you with your integrative practices? Circle the most applicable option.
Not at all Extremely
0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Has the process of completing this survey changed your view of using an integrative curriculum in your classroom? Please explain.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey!
Friday, October 16, 2009
Assigment 3: Logic Model
ECOQUEST Outdoor Classroom Program (Grade 8)
Resource: http://ecoquest.ca/
Situation and Background
I spent four months being directly involved in the Ecoquest program as I spent the Internship phase of my teacher training there. During this time, I came to realize that this program provides students with unique and often superior opportunities as compared to traditional classroom learning.
This outdoor education program is built around three main theme pillars: A Sense of Place, A Sense of Time and A Sense of Quality which seamlessly integrate all of the required academic subjects in settings which bring the learning to life for students.
In light of my obvious admiration of this program, I would be very interested to conduct an outcome-based evaluation to substantiate my suspicions of this program’s effectiveness.
This program targets Grade 8 students from the public school system in Saskatoon. A class is comprised of 14 male and 14 female students.
Outcomes
(What are the results)
Short-Term
Students in the Ecoquest (Grade 8) Outdoor Classroom develop:
-A strong sense of community with fellow classmates, teachers, and community partners.
-A greater knowledge and appreciation of the History of Saskatchewan and its relationship to Canadian and global issues.
-A greater awareness of Social Justice issues.
-Cultural awareness and appreciation.
-Greater knowledge and appreciation of the fragility of Saskatchewan's natural environment and ecological regions.
-A heightened sense of accomplishment, confidence, and self worth.
-Leadership, risk management, and cooperative group skills necessary in adventure education.
-A responsible attitude towards learning and problem solving.
-Growth in positive communication and observational skills.
-Improved research, writing, and presentation skills.
-A dedication to physical fitness and healthy lifestyles.
-Skills that underlie academic excellence and achievement in all subject areas.
-An ability to think critically about ecological, cultural, and community issues.
-A dedication to physical fitness and healthy lifestyles.
Medium-Term
-Student becomes a part of a learning community that fosters mutual respect through environmental and socially responsible activism.
-Student engages in environmental and socially responsible activism.
-Student seeks out opportunities to learn more about the natural world and different cultural groups.
-Student tackles new challenges with confidence and a positive attitude.
-Student participates in health-enhancing activities including exercise and good nutrition.
Long-Term Impacts
Student reaches his or her full intellectual, emotional, social and physical potential.
Student engages in life-long learning and enjoyment of the natural world and its inhabitants including different cultural groups.
Student receives satisfaction from his or her connection to and appreciation of the natural world.
Student spends quality time in outdoors in nature.
Student’s value system incorporates a need to protect and enjoy the natural world.
Student maintains a healthy life style.
Student maintains a sense of:
• Challenge
• Adventure
• Leadership
• Community
• Teamwork
• Reflection
• Commitment
• Independence
• Responsibility
Resource: http://ecoquest.ca/
Situation and Background
I spent four months being directly involved in the Ecoquest program as I spent the Internship phase of my teacher training there. During this time, I came to realize that this program provides students with unique and often superior opportunities as compared to traditional classroom learning.
This outdoor education program is built around three main theme pillars: A Sense of Place, A Sense of Time and A Sense of Quality which seamlessly integrate all of the required academic subjects in settings which bring the learning to life for students.
In light of my obvious admiration of this program, I would be very interested to conduct an outcome-based evaluation to substantiate my suspicions of this program’s effectiveness.
Inputs
(What is invested)
Staff: Instructors, In-school Administrators, Superintendents, Board of Directors
Partners: Community Leaders, Various cultural organizations, Sponsors (Private and Corporate), guest speakers and various topic experts
Money: Program funding for activities, equipment, transportation, and facility is provided by the Saskatoon Public School System as well as private and corporate sponsors. The facility is provided by Buena Vista Public School.
Research: The program is based on Scott Thompson’s Graduate Studies Thesis in Outdoor Education.
Outputs
Activities (What is done)
The program’s activities revolve around the following three challenges:
1. Academic Challenge:
Relevant and meaningful learning takes place through first hand experience and exploration in the best place possible. Students work independently or in small groups to complete challenging projects. They are given increased responsibility for their learning and they are expected to manage their time and to make decisions that enhance achievement. The teachers facilitate and guide this learning process.
2. Physical Challenge:
This program provides a strong physical challenge as students are very active in outdoor pursuits on a daily basis. Cycling, running, walking, paddling, nordic skiing, snowshoeing, wall climbing and camping in the outdoors requires an excellent fitness level and Ecoquest supports improved fitness and healthy attitudes as a way of life.
3. Emotional Challenge:
This program provides a unique and dramatic emotional challenge. Students form a close-knit community as they work together to solve problems academically, socially, and physically in a variety of challenging environments. Students take immense pride in their independence, responsibility, and success in the face of real life outdoor challenges (in all types of weather) Their confidence grows with each new accomplishment, their self-esteem is greatly enhanced and they develop emotional resilience.
Participation (Who is reached)
(What is invested)
Staff: Instructors, In-school Administrators, Superintendents, Board of Directors
Partners: Community Leaders, Various cultural organizations, Sponsors (Private and Corporate), guest speakers and various topic experts
Money: Program funding for activities, equipment, transportation, and facility is provided by the Saskatoon Public School System as well as private and corporate sponsors. The facility is provided by Buena Vista Public School.
Research: The program is based on Scott Thompson’s Graduate Studies Thesis in Outdoor Education.
Outputs
Activities (What is done)
The program’s activities revolve around the following three challenges:
1. Academic Challenge:
Relevant and meaningful learning takes place through first hand experience and exploration in the best place possible. Students work independently or in small groups to complete challenging projects. They are given increased responsibility for their learning and they are expected to manage their time and to make decisions that enhance achievement. The teachers facilitate and guide this learning process.
2. Physical Challenge:
This program provides a strong physical challenge as students are very active in outdoor pursuits on a daily basis. Cycling, running, walking, paddling, nordic skiing, snowshoeing, wall climbing and camping in the outdoors requires an excellent fitness level and Ecoquest supports improved fitness and healthy attitudes as a way of life.
3. Emotional Challenge:
This program provides a unique and dramatic emotional challenge. Students form a close-knit community as they work together to solve problems academically, socially, and physically in a variety of challenging environments. Students take immense pride in their independence, responsibility, and success in the face of real life outdoor challenges (in all types of weather) Their confidence grows with each new accomplishment, their self-esteem is greatly enhanced and they develop emotional resilience.
Participation (Who is reached)
This program targets Grade 8 students from the public school system in Saskatoon. A class is comprised of 14 male and 14 female students.
Outcomes
(What are the results)
Short-Term
Students in the Ecoquest (Grade 8) Outdoor Classroom develop:
-A strong sense of community with fellow classmates, teachers, and community partners.
-A greater knowledge and appreciation of the History of Saskatchewan and its relationship to Canadian and global issues.
-A greater awareness of Social Justice issues.
-Cultural awareness and appreciation.
-Greater knowledge and appreciation of the fragility of Saskatchewan's natural environment and ecological regions.
-A heightened sense of accomplishment, confidence, and self worth.
-Leadership, risk management, and cooperative group skills necessary in adventure education.
-A responsible attitude towards learning and problem solving.
-Growth in positive communication and observational skills.
-Improved research, writing, and presentation skills.
-A dedication to physical fitness and healthy lifestyles.
-Skills that underlie academic excellence and achievement in all subject areas.
-An ability to think critically about ecological, cultural, and community issues.
-A dedication to physical fitness and healthy lifestyles.
Medium-Term
-Student becomes a part of a learning community that fosters mutual respect through environmental and socially responsible activism.
-Student engages in environmental and socially responsible activism.
-Student seeks out opportunities to learn more about the natural world and different cultural groups.
-Student tackles new challenges with confidence and a positive attitude.
-Student participates in health-enhancing activities including exercise and good nutrition.
Long-Term Impacts
Student reaches his or her full intellectual, emotional, social and physical potential.
Student engages in life-long learning and enjoyment of the natural world and its inhabitants including different cultural groups.
Student receives satisfaction from his or her connection to and appreciation of the natural world.
Student spends quality time in outdoors in nature.
Student’s value system incorporates a need to protect and enjoy the natural world.
Student maintains a healthy life style.
Student maintains a sense of:
• Challenge
• Adventure
• Leadership
• Community
• Teamwork
• Reflection
• Commitment
• Independence
• Responsibility
• Initiative
• Comfort Zone
• Respect
• Confidence
• Excitement
• Wonder
• Cooperation
• Caring
• Safety
• Comfort Zone
• Respect
• Confidence
• Excitement
• Wonder
• Cooperation
• Caring
• Safety
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Assignment 2 - Case Study
As with any evaluation, a number of key factors determine which approach would best suit a program such as the time, personnel and funding available. Assuming that these are substantial, my pick here would be to utilize a combination of an outcome-based or goal- oriented summative approach as well as a process-based formative evaluation. Using both these approaches would provide the most comprehensive and, hence, the most beneficial evaluation.
Firstly, a Michael Scriven’s outcome-based approach is appropriate in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in addressing the children’s needs as determined by their Individual Program Plans (IPP). Once clear parameters defining these needs are provided, the evaluation can then focus on determining which of them were effectively fulfilled by the ECS program, as well as to identify any shortcomings. Indicators of the program’s effectiveness could include the children’s improvement in skill, behaviours, independence, quality of life, and other areas identified in the IPP. In order to assess the level of change, a pre-test and post-test would be required.
The formative process-based approach would compliment this initial evaluation by examining the services rendered to the participants of the ECS program. As both the center-based programs and in-home programs form an integral link to the overall effectiveness of the program, evaluating them closely would certainly be worthwhile.
Focus areas of this approach could include examining how these services are provided in terms of the average number and duration of home visits or centre-based participation, the personnel involved during each session, how the participants’ levels of functioning are assessed, the process involved in determining the children’s needs for the IPP, the level of stress (if any) exhibited by the participants during the transportation to and from the centres, the level of involvement or interaction required from the children during different activities, the methods used and the reaction towards them as apparent in the actions of the participant, etc. Data collection in both approaches would involve a battery of questionnaires, observations as well as interviews with all involved participants including parents, care providers and specialists.
Once all information is gathered, the evaluators could then look for correlations between process and outcomes and hence be better equiped to draw conclusions regarding the overall effectiveness of the program. Accordingly, the combined approach evaluation has the potential to provide a very comprehensive and sound base for decision-making regarding the future direction of the program.
Firstly, a Michael Scriven’s outcome-based approach is appropriate in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in addressing the children’s needs as determined by their Individual Program Plans (IPP). Once clear parameters defining these needs are provided, the evaluation can then focus on determining which of them were effectively fulfilled by the ECS program, as well as to identify any shortcomings. Indicators of the program’s effectiveness could include the children’s improvement in skill, behaviours, independence, quality of life, and other areas identified in the IPP. In order to assess the level of change, a pre-test and post-test would be required.
The formative process-based approach would compliment this initial evaluation by examining the services rendered to the participants of the ECS program. As both the center-based programs and in-home programs form an integral link to the overall effectiveness of the program, evaluating them closely would certainly be worthwhile.
Focus areas of this approach could include examining how these services are provided in terms of the average number and duration of home visits or centre-based participation, the personnel involved during each session, how the participants’ levels of functioning are assessed, the process involved in determining the children’s needs for the IPP, the level of stress (if any) exhibited by the participants during the transportation to and from the centres, the level of involvement or interaction required from the children during different activities, the methods used and the reaction towards them as apparent in the actions of the participant, etc. Data collection in both approaches would involve a battery of questionnaires, observations as well as interviews with all involved participants including parents, care providers and specialists.
Once all information is gathered, the evaluators could then look for correlations between process and outcomes and hence be better equiped to draw conclusions regarding the overall effectiveness of the program. Accordingly, the combined approach evaluation has the potential to provide a very comprehensive and sound base for decision-making regarding the future direction of the program.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Assignment 1 - Evaluation Critique
An Evaluation of an Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education School Program on the Life Effectiveness Skills of Middle School Boys:
A Deconstructive Analysis
By Zofia Gehl
September 12th, 2009
A complete copy of the evaluation can be found at
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/oent/OE_conference_2004/papers/mcLeod.pdf
Introduction
An analysis of an evaluation of an Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education school program on the Life Effectiveness skills of middle school boys reveals a number of strengths and limitations. The purpose of this paper is to deconstruct this evaluation in order to reveal these factors in respect to the evaluation model and approach followed, the methods used for collecting and analyzing data, as well as the process of reporting the findings and drawing conclusions.
The document used in this analysis was written by Beth McLeod and Sandy Allen Craig and was entitled, “An evaluation of an Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education school program on the Life Effectiveness skills of middle school boys.” It was published in May, 2009. Both authors have extensive background in studying and teaching Outdoor Education and Physical Education. Craig is a lecturer in Outdoor Education for the school of Exercise Science at the Australian Catholic University, while McLeod has recently completed Honors in this program and is currently working on her Graduate Diploma of Education and Physical Education.
It is noteworthy to note however, that despite their knowledge and familiarity with outdoor education, their credentials presented at the end of the evaluation document, show neither specific qualifications nor specialized training in the field of evaluation.
Background and Purpose of Evaluation
The evaluation in question was conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of the Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education school program and to determine whether the program was achieving its outcomes. The program’s goals were to “enable (middle school aged) boys to develop life effectiveness skills in the areas of time management, social competence, achievement motivation, intellectual flexibility, task leadership, emotional control, active initiative and self confidence” (McLeod & Craig, 2009, p. 1). The program is targeted at boys in Grade 9 in a private boys school in Melbourne, Australia.
In the introduction section of the evaluation document, the authors suggest that there is a dire need for a program of this nature due to the difficult psychological, emotional and social challenges faced by boys in this age group. This program was developed in an attempt to help boys cope with these age-specific issues.
The participants of this evaluation were comprised of a sample of 104 grade 9 boys out of a total of 169 who attended the school. Unfortunately the process of selecting the participants was not described in the report.
A further weakness of this evaluation is that it fails to identify the participating boys’ backgrounds, social economic statuses, parental support, as well as program preconceptions and attitudes. Without this information, it is difficult to understand all of the key factors which may have acted to influence the findings of this evaluation. Consequently the correlations noted by the evaluators may be caused by extraneous factors that were not accounted for. It is valuable then to be reminded that correlation does not necessarily equal causation!
Evaluation Approach and Methodology
This evaluation follows Scriven’s model of outcome-based summative evaluation as it considers the effectiveness of the program as measured by the achievement of outcomes. In other words, this evaluation aims to find out whether this program actually does what it intended to do.
The results were formulated using two separate questionnaires: the Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (LEQ) and a Social Validation Questionnaire (SVQ). The LEQ provided the evaluators with quantitative data measuring change, while the SVQ provided a more comprehensive insight into participant responses as it contained open-ended questions. Participant SVQ answers were used to enrich the data collected via the LEQ. Implementing measurement tools which provide both quantitative and qualitative data is a definite strength of this evaluation.
One limitation of the methodology however, has to do with the level of evaluation. While the goal of this evaluation was to investigate the success of the program in regards to the development and improvement of “life effectiveness skills,” the data used in the assessment dealt exclusively with reactions and feelings. A criticism of this approach is that feelings are considered to be poor indicators of the program’s level of impact over an extended period of time. Perhaps a test where the participants have the opportunity to demonstrate actual learned skills rather than just reporting their feelings and perceptions would have been a better measure of the effectiveness of this program. Furthermore, the measure of outcome utilized here only includes the initial stage as it looks exclusively at attitudes and feelings rather than striving for the intermediate and final measures by analyzing behaviour and long-term outcomes.
Additional Strengths and Limitations
This program evaluation contains a number of factors which make it a valuable document. Namely, the introduction section and purpose behind conducting the evaluation are very comprehensive and consequently provide the reader with a good overview of the issues involved in outdoor education as well as its need. Furthermore, this study is based on fairly current research as evident in the citations and references throughout this document. As sound theoretical foundation is essential in avoiding evaluation pitfalls, the recency of research definitely plays a big role. Combining quantitative data with qualitative data also serve as an asset in this evaluation. This blended methodology serves to make the results more credible and comprehensive. Finally, the simple language with which this evaluation was written can also be deemed an asset as it makes this document accessible to a wide audience including not only academics and scholars but also the students involved as well as their families and other interested parties with little background in scholarly writing.
As with most evaluations, it is difficult to completely eliminate all limitations and pitfalls. This document’s limitations are most obvious in its omission to address a number of key factors. Information regarding the following questions is missing entirely from the report:
- where the evaluation funding is coming from
- who asked for the evaluation to be completed
- what is the evaluator-stakeholder relationship (resulting potential biases)
- what stage is the program development in/how old is the program
- how were participants selected for the sample
- what are the students’ backgrounds, level of parental support, motivations for completing this program and social economic status
- what extraneous factors may have affected the results
In addition to the above stated factors, the report also mentions that not being able to use a control group due to the nature of this program is a further limitation of this evaluation.
Finally, when discussing an evaluation’s limitations it is also important to consider the party or parties who conducted the evaluating and the impacts this could have made on the results of the study. In this case, the evaluators, McLeod and Craig are passionate proponents of outdoor education as reflected in their professional and educational backgrounds. Avoiding a biased perspective in their desire for this program to be deemed a success would indeed be a difficult task. A vested interest of this nature is definitely a factor that would have to be considered when considering the results of this study as well as their presentation. An evaluation conducted by educational traditionalists or opponents of outdoor education would undoubtedly look a little differently.
September 12th, 2009
A complete copy of the evaluation can be found at
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/oent/OE_conference_2004/papers/mcLeod.pdf
Introduction
An analysis of an evaluation of an Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education school program on the Life Effectiveness skills of middle school boys reveals a number of strengths and limitations. The purpose of this paper is to deconstruct this evaluation in order to reveal these factors in respect to the evaluation model and approach followed, the methods used for collecting and analyzing data, as well as the process of reporting the findings and drawing conclusions.
The document used in this analysis was written by Beth McLeod and Sandy Allen Craig and was entitled, “An evaluation of an Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education school program on the Life Effectiveness skills of middle school boys.” It was published in May, 2009. Both authors have extensive background in studying and teaching Outdoor Education and Physical Education. Craig is a lecturer in Outdoor Education for the school of Exercise Science at the Australian Catholic University, while McLeod has recently completed Honors in this program and is currently working on her Graduate Diploma of Education and Physical Education.
It is noteworthy to note however, that despite their knowledge and familiarity with outdoor education, their credentials presented at the end of the evaluation document, show neither specific qualifications nor specialized training in the field of evaluation.
Background and Purpose of Evaluation
The evaluation in question was conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of the Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education school program and to determine whether the program was achieving its outcomes. The program’s goals were to “enable (middle school aged) boys to develop life effectiveness skills in the areas of time management, social competence, achievement motivation, intellectual flexibility, task leadership, emotional control, active initiative and self confidence” (McLeod & Craig, 2009, p. 1). The program is targeted at boys in Grade 9 in a private boys school in Melbourne, Australia.
In the introduction section of the evaluation document, the authors suggest that there is a dire need for a program of this nature due to the difficult psychological, emotional and social challenges faced by boys in this age group. This program was developed in an attempt to help boys cope with these age-specific issues.
The participants of this evaluation were comprised of a sample of 104 grade 9 boys out of a total of 169 who attended the school. Unfortunately the process of selecting the participants was not described in the report.
A further weakness of this evaluation is that it fails to identify the participating boys’ backgrounds, social economic statuses, parental support, as well as program preconceptions and attitudes. Without this information, it is difficult to understand all of the key factors which may have acted to influence the findings of this evaluation. Consequently the correlations noted by the evaluators may be caused by extraneous factors that were not accounted for. It is valuable then to be reminded that correlation does not necessarily equal causation!
Evaluation Approach and Methodology
This evaluation follows Scriven’s model of outcome-based summative evaluation as it considers the effectiveness of the program as measured by the achievement of outcomes. In other words, this evaluation aims to find out whether this program actually does what it intended to do.
The results were formulated using two separate questionnaires: the Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (LEQ) and a Social Validation Questionnaire (SVQ). The LEQ provided the evaluators with quantitative data measuring change, while the SVQ provided a more comprehensive insight into participant responses as it contained open-ended questions. Participant SVQ answers were used to enrich the data collected via the LEQ. Implementing measurement tools which provide both quantitative and qualitative data is a definite strength of this evaluation.
One limitation of the methodology however, has to do with the level of evaluation. While the goal of this evaluation was to investigate the success of the program in regards to the development and improvement of “life effectiveness skills,” the data used in the assessment dealt exclusively with reactions and feelings. A criticism of this approach is that feelings are considered to be poor indicators of the program’s level of impact over an extended period of time. Perhaps a test where the participants have the opportunity to demonstrate actual learned skills rather than just reporting their feelings and perceptions would have been a better measure of the effectiveness of this program. Furthermore, the measure of outcome utilized here only includes the initial stage as it looks exclusively at attitudes and feelings rather than striving for the intermediate and final measures by analyzing behaviour and long-term outcomes.
Additional Strengths and Limitations
This program evaluation contains a number of factors which make it a valuable document. Namely, the introduction section and purpose behind conducting the evaluation are very comprehensive and consequently provide the reader with a good overview of the issues involved in outdoor education as well as its need. Furthermore, this study is based on fairly current research as evident in the citations and references throughout this document. As sound theoretical foundation is essential in avoiding evaluation pitfalls, the recency of research definitely plays a big role. Combining quantitative data with qualitative data also serve as an asset in this evaluation. This blended methodology serves to make the results more credible and comprehensive. Finally, the simple language with which this evaluation was written can also be deemed an asset as it makes this document accessible to a wide audience including not only academics and scholars but also the students involved as well as their families and other interested parties with little background in scholarly writing.
As with most evaluations, it is difficult to completely eliminate all limitations and pitfalls. This document’s limitations are most obvious in its omission to address a number of key factors. Information regarding the following questions is missing entirely from the report:
- where the evaluation funding is coming from
- who asked for the evaluation to be completed
- what is the evaluator-stakeholder relationship (resulting potential biases)
- what stage is the program development in/how old is the program
- how were participants selected for the sample
- what are the students’ backgrounds, level of parental support, motivations for completing this program and social economic status
- what extraneous factors may have affected the results
In addition to the above stated factors, the report also mentions that not being able to use a control group due to the nature of this program is a further limitation of this evaluation.
Finally, when discussing an evaluation’s limitations it is also important to consider the party or parties who conducted the evaluating and the impacts this could have made on the results of the study. In this case, the evaluators, McLeod and Craig are passionate proponents of outdoor education as reflected in their professional and educational backgrounds. Avoiding a biased perspective in their desire for this program to be deemed a success would indeed be a difficult task. A vested interest of this nature is definitely a factor that would have to be considered when considering the results of this study as well as their presentation. An evaluation conducted by educational traditionalists or opponents of outdoor education would undoubtedly look a little differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)