Assignment 2-GDM Study

             While reading this article, I was able to make some definite personal connections.  Close friends of mine have experienced this condition so I understand how important it is to identify and educate pregnant women of risks and methods of prevention.

There was so many things to look at in this study.  I was curious about how they got everyone to the facility.  I am thinking that transportation was paid for and it was included in the program.    I was also intrigued at how they supplied participants with materials to take home or read there.  For this study I chose to goals to focus on:

1)   First Nations women have higher rates of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) than non-First Nations Women.

2)   Exercise should be used as a primary prevention strategy for type 2 diabetes.

Looking at a study where exercise is being used to help prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes will benefit other Aboriginal women not only in Saskatchewan but those across Canada as well.

Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model is an effective tool that can be used in order to evaluate this program.   It is a very thorough model and very easy to follow.  The graphic organizer he uses to explain his model, mirrors that of Saskatchewan Curriculum by centralizing his model around the goals.    

            I like that the purpose of Stufflebeam’s model is not to “prove but improve” (P. 4) I do say that statement with a bit of caution as There is plenty of information provided to the evaluator for the context (C) of the program.   Researchers recorded excellent data (I) around what was occurring in the study.  While documenting this, the researchers would have information to measure the effectiveness what the participants were doing.   The process (P) was clearly outlined in the document as far as formatively evaluating the program.   For longitudinal data to occur, participants would have to be monitored for years after they finished the program (summative evaluation).   Stufflebeam’s model allows for a product (P) where improvements can be made during the program.

            I feel the information gathered during this study would be invaluable to not only Aboriginal women but all women of child bearing age regardless of race or ethnicity.  The Provus-Discrepancy Model would contribute in the delivery of this program to the public. Health officials would be made aware of effectiveness of the program and using this model will compare whether preventative care is a more cost effective treatment than to treat post childbirth issues.

            Using this two-model method one would establish if the program is beneficial to continue or what changes to make.   

           

Assignment 1-Program Evaluation

Assignment 1-Program Evaluation

I had heard of a program called One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) through a pilot project I am part of with our school division.  I know that this program is meant for students who live in countries where technology is not easily attainable.  I do think that the goals of my program are similar in that we are trying to engage students, and improve their education.  I found a program evaluation done on the OLPC in Peru that was published in 2010.

Nicholas Negroponte was the founder of OLPC whose goal was to create affordable laptops to put into the hands of students in least developing countries.  He wanted to give them the opportunity to use technology to improve their education.

            Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) published a report in 2010, evaluating a program adopted by the Peruvian Government called One Laptop Per Child (OLPC).  IDB is “the largest source of development financing for Latin America and the Caribbean, with a strong commitment to achieve measurable results” (http://www.iadb.org/en/about-us/about-the-inter-american-development-bank,5995.html

            I believe Scriven’s model was used in this program evaluation.  My only reservation around this is that it is not clear whether or not the authors knew beforehand the goals of the Peruvian government in relation to this project.  An assessment was developed in agreement between IDB and the Peruvian Ministry of Education (MINEDU).

            The program evaluation had both formative and summative evaluation as it had developed surveys to see how the program had impacted various groups of people including, teachers, students, parents and administrators.  It also investigated how to improve the program in Peru. 

            As in Scriven’s model, formative assessment was used through qualitative and quantitative data analysis. 

            The qualitative study provided information three months into the program from both schools that had and had not received laptops.  The information obtained provided the ability “to explore the impact on the attitudes, practices, and perceptions of the principals, teachers, students, parents, as well as to document the implementation process and explore the experiences, reactions and results of the distribution of computers.”(p.4)

            The quantitative study compiled data gathered from students, parents, teachers and principals.  The information was obtained through student testing and interviews, family, teacher and school principal questionnaires, as well as classroom observations. 

            In 2009 surveys were used to evaluate the program in selected schools that had been designated for the OLPC program.  As this was done in November, the majority of the schools that were being used in the evaluation process had only received their computers three months prior.  Therefore, the authors used the survey to gather data for short-term results to be used for future visits scheduled in October and November of 2010. 

            Through summative evaluation, strengths and weaknesses of the program were defined.  They found students and families were scared to take the laptops home in case they were to cause damage. Teaches initially felt inadequately trained and through the evaluation additional training could be provided.

            I found the evaluation to be very thorough.  By having its own objectives, the authors were able to create a document that will be useful for the program in Peru as well as other programs like this one, in South America.  The evaluators created a logical way to measure what affect the program had on those schools chosen and how those objectives were or were not being met.  Not only did the evaluation allow for an analysis into whether or not objectives were being achieved, but also how to initiate improvements to the program for future school involvement and improving the experience of those currently participating in the program.

            As far as weaknesses, I was not able to identify very many in the evaluation.  One concern I would have would be the possible premature analysis and evaluation. Is three months enough time to properly work with computers?  Another would be around the technology piece.  I felt that there should have been a stronger emphasis placed on technical support.

References

Inter-american Development Bank: http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35422036
Click here for evaluation