Shanda Veatch Ed Tech 505 Program Evaluation Proposal Response to RFP
1. Title of Proposal Evaluation of Determining Instructional Purposes
2. Statement of whom the proposal is submitted to and who is submitting it Request for Proposal generated by Far West Laboratory for Educational and Research Development (FWL) Proposal by Shanda Veatch, Evaluator and team
3. Introduction Far West Laboratory for Educational Research has requested an evaluation of the Determining Instructional Purposes Training program. The main objective is to determine whether or not FWL should create and market the DIP training package to a larger market. The purpose of this evaluation is three-fold. Recommendations for program improvement and program implementation are of primary interest to the stakeholder. The program will also be evaluated for streamlining purposes as well as allowing the stakeholder to highlight information that will assist school administrators in making DIP training purchase decisions.
4. Description of Program being Evaluated Far west Laboratorys Determining Instructional Purposes training program is a series of three units designed to train school administrators and graduate students of educational administration in skills related to the planning of effective school programs. The units, setting goals, analyzing
problems, or deriving objectives, within the Determining Instructional Purposes training program are delivered in three to six modules. These modules are designed around specific instructional objectives and include reading material, individual skills practice, group work and feedback protocols for the given skill set.
It is FWLs recommendation that facilitators or coordinators for the DIP training sessions be conducted by former students of the course. The training course provides all the relevant printed material in the Coordinators Handbook to ease facilitation. The cost of the Coordinators Handbook is $4.50 per copy, while the units, which range from 155 to 259 pages, cost $8.95 per unit, or $24.95 for a set of all three units.
The units are available for instructional delivery individually or as a package. Much of the learning takes place in a problem-based learning model in which student planning teams are organized in order to address issues confronted by a hypothetical school district. The training time for units 1 and 3 are approximately 10-15 hours, while the training time required for Unit 2 is approximately 12-18 hours to completion.
5. Evaluation Method The purpose of this proposal is to determine: The marketing potential of the Determining Instructional Purposes training program. Best practices for delivery of the content
Streamlining the program selection process for education administrators, the primary DIP market
In addition to Farwest Laboratory, the primary stakeholder for the DIP program, this information will be critical to future sponsors of the program. This evaluation will determine the potential for future marketing of this program. Is this program worthy of capital investment? Additional audiences for this evaluation include program developers, program facilitators, and graduate students of education administration.
Qualatative data collected for this evaluation will include sampling assessments of attitude of DIP coordinators, program developers and students, both former and present. In order to make certain that the sample reflects a range of participants; the assessments will be conducted by the evaluator in the form of interviews, surveys and obtrusive classroom observations.
Quantative data gathering tools will rely heavily upon information already available within Far West Laboratory. These include program costs, both development and delivery. Other information that will need to be investigated which will lead to increased adaptability of the units within school administrative settings are: o How much does it cost to fully fund each of the three DIP units? o How much does the program need to generate in order to make a profit? o Are any of the three units in more demand than the other two? If so, what is this difference? o How much demand is there for combined unit delivery (all three units)?
This evaluation will also include all available student achievement data from the past fiscal year. This will provide the stakeholders with a quantitative review of the data which will give insight into the success rate of the students as they progress through the program. This, coupled with the above mentioned attitude assessments, will inform the stakeholders as to the long range impact of the program on its client base. Has their performance improved as a result of this training?
The Systems Analysis Model will be used to evaluate this program. As this is a funding based evaluation (ie: How to streamline effectiveness for future marketing), we will be examining the input with a concise cost analysis. The throughput of this program will be evaluated by gathering data on past student assessments as well as current student assessments. We will be gathering past instructional evaluations provided by both student and administrators. How are the learning goals being met in the classroom? What is the effectiveness of delivery? The Evaluator will also be conducting classroom observations in order to assess the effectiveness of the training in the classroom.
6.
Task Schedule TASK AGENCY RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE DATE
Meet with FWL staff to discuss proposal and modify existing proposal if necessary Submit a data-collection plan. Submit all surveys and interview questions
Evaluator/FWL
Jan. 24
Evaluator
Feb. 1
To FWL Review Data collection tools Provide FWL with a summary of feedback on the data-collection plan Revise data collection plan and tools and resubmit to FWL for final approval. Conduct interviews and observations Collect data surveys and financial data Collect Student achievement data Present a summary of all interviews, observations, Financial and student achievement data to FWL and discuss the findings. Write final report and submit to FWL
Evaluator FWL
Feb. 22 Feb. 23
Evaluator
Feb. 25
Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator
March 5 June 1 June 15 July 1
Evaluator/FWL
Sept. 1
Evaluator
Nov. 1
7. Project Personnel
Shanda Veatch is a graduate of the Boise State University Masters of Education Technology program. She has extensive classroom experience with a background in collaborative teaching methods and Professional Learning Communities. She has been the leader of many evaluation projects the most notable of which are: Tumwater School Districts Making Learning Fun program, The Archdiocese of Washingtons After School for Free program as well as the Kelso School Districts Take a Year to Turn it Around. Shanda Veatchs leadership in
spearheading each of these evaluation projects led to increased funding for these programs, which are still running strong in all three of these districts to date.
Charlene Shea has also spent many years as a classroom teacher. Her Thesis Reciprocal Teaching in Math and Science for Secondary Learners has earned critical acclaim in several nationally peer reviewed publications. As a professional evaluator for 10 years, she continues her career as a middle school science and math teacher and has proven to be an effective leader in implementing Vancouver School Districts Professional Learning Communities project.
Dr. Michael Lane has been a long time administrator for the Vancouver School District. He has successfully managed to balance his evaluative research with his administrative credential by incorporating his experience into the world of educational program evaluation.
Chad Young, a graduate of Emerson Colleges Technical Writing program is a technical writer who has brought his educational background to our organization. In addition to being a successful media arts instructor, he has also spent many years as a news reporter for the Spokanes KXLY television news station. He also has worked in Japan as an educator and news reporter.
8.
Budget Evaluation of Far West Laboratorys Determining Instructional Purposes program
salaries, expenses and costs.
Salaries Shanda Veatch Charlene Shea Mike Lane Chad Young Travel Materials Expense budgets Lodging (60 days @ 171.25 per day) 10, 275 (22 days @ 166 per day (24 days @ 317 per day (26 days @ 212 per day (PDX to Ancorage) 3,652 7,925 5,512 4,014 2,500 5,000 10,000
__________________________________________________________________________ Total $48,818
