PLT is a developing initiative at our school that was first proposed and piloted in 2018. It was refined and continued in the 2019-2020 school year, though it ceased with the Covid-19 pandemic and the closure of in-person learning. It did not run the next school year due to the pandemic. It has not run since, though there are many informal and formal conversations about its value and whether it should be brought back.
I am not a particularly opinionated person, though I often feel obliged to become one. Thus, when I've been asked for my opinion, I often didn't really know what to say. But, having had some time to think, I feel like perhaps my stance is more a reflection of the fact that I didn't have the tools to really reflect upon the success (or stretches) of PLT. I feel self-conscious in writing this, but my goal is to (selfishly?) use this Program Evaluation Design to come to a more founded assessment on the value and purpose (or lack thereof) in re-introducing this program to the school.
Specifically, my guiding questions will be:
To this end, I will prepare an impact evaluation of the PLT program as it has been run from 2018-2020. Of the typical models of program evaluation (Chen 2005)*, this will be a goal-oriented evaluation. Module 1 has assisted me in beginning to frame my understanding of PLT through Herman et. al's (1987) five general program aspects: setting/ context information, demographic of participants, characteristics of/ processes in delivery model, program results and cost factor.
- What percentage of students in Grade 10 perceived that they were engaging in productive learning during this period? (Then, for the researcher: were there trends to be observed based on grade level?)
- What percentage of teachers perceived the students to be engaging in productive learning? Did they notice any trends?**
- PLT has not run in the last ~1.5 years. Do teachers notice a difference in students' ability to demonstrate curricular competencies and/ or complete coursework? **
- To what extent, if at all, has PLT reduced the amount of hours that teachers dedicated to after-school or before-school tutorials?
* Here, I refer to Chen's (2005) discussion on the following models: goal-oriented, decision-oriented, responsive, evaluation research, goal-free, advocacy-adversary, utilization-oriented evaluation (p.3).
** I recognize here that this is a direct request for qualitative, anecdotal evidence; however, I fall upon Herman et. al (1987), who recognize qualitative methods to be a kit component of outcome studies.
References
Chen, H. (2005). A practical evaluation taxonomy. In Practical program evaluation (pp. 44-70). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www-doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.4135/9781412985444
Herman, J. L., Morris, L. L. & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1987). Establishing the parameters of an evaluation. In Evaluator's handbook (pp. 9-25). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www-doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.4135/9781412984188
Sept. 30, 2021
Updated Oct. 16, 2021
Comments
Post a Comment