Model 1: Logic Model (theory based evaluation) – The logic model is based on two elements: a theory of how the program causes the intended outcomes, and an evaluation that is guided by theory. The logic model is developed by the evaluator using input from other team or program developers. Evidence and information is gathered to test the validity of the logic model in a kind of qualitative way, such as observations (although qualitative and quantitative information can be used). The model can be developed before using hypothesis and theory or after using information gathered from the program. Logic models usually are expressed in a flow chart or a similar diagram, and for evaluation or assessment purposes might include categories of resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes. The flow chart may contain a sequence of steps from implementation to attainment of outcomes (Cooksy, 2000).
My use of this model to evaluate my program/training would include meeting and conversing with other interested or involved faculty to form a plan of intended outcomes of the training. After a plan was developed I would then observe every aspect of the training from beginning to end and then create a flow chart or diagram, also from start to finish to evaluate whether the training has met the goals or projected outcomes or determine where the training should be improved.
Model 2: Seven Principles for Good Practice evaluates teaching with technology in higher education and suggests what faculty should do to encourage learning with technology – Although this model was created in 1987, it is still widely used today to measure effectiveness of teaching with technology in higher education (from a faculty member’s point of view). The model was updated in 1996 to reflect more recent technology, but the principles have remained the same. The principles are learner centered in nature. This model is popular because it is cost efficient and effective. The seven principles all begin with “Good Practice”, 1) Encourage contact between students and faculty; 2) develop reciprocity and cooperation among students; 3) encourage active learning techniques; 4) give prompt feedback; 5) emphasize time on task; 6) communicate high expectations; and 7) respect diverse talents and ways of learning (Chickering & Gamson 1987).
My use of this model to evaluate my program/training would be from a faculty perspective and whether the course was online or lecture would implement all of the seven principles. The seven principles are more or less an expected way to teach college courses because the principles are so effective. The seven principles may be easier to implement in online courses because of the ease and convenience of technology, such as the instant grading, contact between students, for example, chat, blogs, and other collaboration sites, online surveys, online syllabus, and electronic communication of the instructor to student, and student to instructor. The program can be evaluated through surveys, teacher/student communication, and student outcomes (grades).
Because there was a lag time in receiving requests for inquiry for services through our US Mail system and through electronic mail, our business implemented electronic mail boxes that requests could be sent directly to a E-box address and any employee given access to the E-box could retrieve the request and begin work on it right away. This E-box innovation has been very successful. The relative advantage of this innovation is that it saves time and assures receipt of important information. Because the E-box is part of our Electronic mail system, is very compatible with our existing mail system. In addition to being part of the existing mail system, the E-box has exactly the qualities as far as inbox, outbox, deleted mail, and special folders, therefore no training is needed because the E-box is works in the manner the employee is used to. The system has been in place for several months now and appears to be an accepted and well working part of the work. This system works great and everyone appears to appreciate that time it saves and the E-box seems to be a very welcome part of our business.
3. Project Management / Situational Leadership Facilitation
Once the situation of what we have to work with is clear, a rough estimate is made of team, material, and resource needs. Then a framework is done to start the project process. Hopefully there is enough staff to hand pick a team, however if a team is assigned to this project, in a position of project manager I would meet with the team to get to know the team and explain what the project was all about. I would also assure the team of an open door policy and encourage the team to ask questions and make recommendations if they thought something could be done better. I think it would depend on the situation, however if time allows, a weekly meeting would be great to spear head any bumps encountered. The team would know that I oversee the project but rely heavily on them for the projects progress and outcomes however, since I am ultimately responsible, I would need to be involved in any problems that arise. The team also needs to know what is in it for them and the incentives and rewards would be explained. It is important to know the different personalities of the team members because everyone is different. Some team members are a little more independent and some members may be more creative, but for sure I would not expect that everyone was the same. If the budget is small, I would try to work out the numbers and staff as many team members as possible without teaming up too much and therefore leaving some team members with nothing to do. Working with a team should go well as long as communication with everyone is often and team roles, project needs, and rules and expectations are up front.
No comments:
Post a Comment