| Annotations |
Report Excerpts |
|
| |
Excerpt 1
[Girls Inc. of Alameda County]
|
|
Evaluation
Purposes
|
This evaluation process was designed to determine the
long-term impact of the Eureka Teen Achievement Project
on future math and science course choices, college enrollment
and math and science career options. The process was
designed to meet the need for long-term program impact
data and also provide Girls Inc. with information regarding
the effectiveness of the program.
Evaluation Objectives:
The objectives of the evaluation process were
to:
- Determine the long term impact of the Eureka Teen
Achievement Project on the future math and science
course choices, college enrollment and mathematics
and science career options of participants.
- Assess the level of continued participant support
required of Girls Inc. of Alameda County.
- Determine the effectiveness of the program in
encouraging girls to take risks and/or challenge
themselves.
- Identify factors contributing to program cohort
attrition rates and the impact of the program on
their mathematics and science career
options.
|
|
| |
Excerpt 2
[University of Washington]
|
|
Evaluation
Purposes:
Describes evaluation objectives
|
The goal of the study was to conduct a national evaluation
of existing Women in Engineering Programs in the United
States in 1991. The National Science Foundation funded
the University of Washington, a co-founder of WEPAN
(Women in Engineering Program Advocates Network),
a national association dedicated to increasing the
participation of women in engineering.
In order to assess the efficiency and effectiveness
of these programs, the specific objectives were
to:
- Identify characteristics of successful WIE
programs;
- Identify "conditions" for
success;
- Identify innovative programs;
- Provide feedback to funding agencies and
educational institutions; and
- Disseminate the findings nationally.
|
|
Presents evaluation hypotheses
|
Brainard (1989) proposed that a number of prerequisite
conditions were critical to insuring the successful
implementation of intervention programs such as Women
in Engineering Programs, including: a) commitment and
support from the top or Dean; b) a designated director
of the program; c) reasonable and adequate budget; d)
assistance in fundraising; e) faculty commitment and
involvement; f) system of accountability; and g) student
involvement. A few years later, Brainard (1991) proposed
a generic strategy for implementing mentoring programs,
which provided a generalized strategic plan for implementing
most intervention programs. The validity of these prerequisites
as conditions of success was investigated in
this study.
|
|
| |
Excerpt 3
[Northwest Indian College]
|
|
Evaluation
Purposes:
Articulates focus on examining outcomes in relation to fidelity of implementation
|
Evaluation Plan
The evaluation of the second cycle of the Northwest Indian College's Tribal Environmental
and Natural Resources Management (TENRM II) program has two major facets. The first is to
test the "theory of change" underlying the program, the second is to assess the implementation
of the program. The theory of change is important, because the program design is based on
basic assumptions that the program, if implemented correctly, will make a difference. However,
even perfectly implemented programs might not attain their goals. When this happens, often the
"failure" can be in the program's theory, rather than its execution. The following evaluation plan
makes the underlying theory explicit and will continually assess its merits as the implementation
of the program is evaluated.
|
|
| |
Excerpt 4
[Northwest Indian College]
|
|
Evaluation
Questions:
Lists questions that bridge implementation and outcome issues
|
Major Evaluation Questions
There are four overarching questions that guide
the evaluation over the life of the project. These
questions are designed to assess the underlying
theory of change as well as the implementation
of the program.
- How has TENRM become more sustainable within
the setting of a tribal college, while maintaining
the essential qualities of a faculty and student
learning community and multidisciplinary curriculum?
- Can the program demonstrate the multidisciplinary
approach and learning community design enhances
critical thinking skills and encourages cooperation
and community building among students?
- How successful was the program in recruiting
and retaining students over three cohorts (with
two of those cohorts in the second grant cycle)?
- How successful was the program in preparing
students for transfer to four-year institutions
and/or natural resource management positions?
|
|
Presents evaluation questions and suggests relating them to progress made in implementing project components
|
The major evaluation questions are addressed
in the descriptions of progress made implementing
the five major components of TENRM:
- Multidisciplinary Curriculum and Faculty/Student
Learning Community;
- Student Recruitment, Retention, Achievement;
and Satisfaction;
- Sustainability Redesign;
- Educational and Tribal Institutional Partnering;
and
- Project Management.
This evaluation describes progress in all of
these areas. However, some of the data required
to assess issues of sustainability are still being
collected. The findings for these will be included
in the 2001-2002 report.
|
|
| |
Excerpt 5
[Anonymous 4]
|
|
|
Project A has a two-fold mission: to
open science and technology to youth who are underrepresented
in these fields by increasing awareness of this
career trajectory; and, to raise youth's fluency
and literacy level in smart technology. Discussion
about the digital divide typically focuses on
the gap between users and non-users — between
those who consume technologies and those who do
not have access or basic know-how. Project A attends
to another aspect of the digital divide, specifically
the gulf in fluency between technology users and
technology creators. Technology creators engage
in novel problem-solving activities. This contrasts
with users more limited acquisition and use of
program control structures. To advance its goal
of promoting literacy in smart technology, the
Project A summer academy provides students with
opportunities to engage with technology as creators.
|
|
Evaluation
Purposes:
Describes general evaluation focus
|
The evaluation component of the summer academy focused on understanding how
the academy experience is meaningful to students who participated — including
their sense of connection between robotics and their past and present lives,
their openness to future engagement with robotics-related subjects, and their
thinking about how robotics or related fields figure into possible academic
and career trajectories. The extent and nature of students' substantive
learning was not attended to because it has been the focus of previous
Project A research. Instead, a series of experiential and programmatic
questions guided this investigation:
|
|
Evaluation
Questions:
Presents specific evaluation questions
|
- How does the summer academy figure into students' thinking of themselves as
learners generally and as learners of science and technology in particular?
- What evidence is manifest about the influence of the academy model for
cultivating students' awareness of science and technology career trajectories
and for enhancing students' problem-solving skills and technology fluency?
- How do variations in program context and model influence the student
experience, especially with regard to 1) the gender mix of sessions,
2) the inclusion of teachers as learners in the sessions, and
3) the general size and composition of sessions?
- What are the implications of the accomplishments and continuing
challenges associated with the summer academy for future programming
and curricular development?
The findings reported here are drawn from the three academy sessions held
in June and July 2001. These sessions are part of ongoing project efforts to
infuse robotics-related science and technology into schools. The majority of
students who participated in the three summer sessions attend schools in which
some form of robotics-related science and technology learning will be available
next year. Findings can therefore serve as a baseline for tracking individual
students over time and for analyzing the capacity of each school's robotics
programming for building on students' summer experiences through a variety
of strategies.
|
|
