Program Evaluation

Angela Britton commented on Group 3’s program evaluation.

Rayla Dawalt commented on Group 4’s program evaluation.

Deborah DeJesus commented on Group 1 and Group 6’s program evaluation.

Javita Johnson commented on Group 1’s program evaluation.

Katherine Ritter commented on Group 3 and Group 5's program evaulation.

Group Member Roles/Tasks for this assignment:

Angela asked Mr. Craddock to evaluate the program design and wrote his remarks. Rayla obtained an evaluation from Ms. Kieckbusch, and wrote the first draft of the Evaluator Two Profile and Feedback sections. Debi wrote the Professor Feedback section, created the Table, co-wrote with Kathy the Reflection & Conclusion sections and Revision ideas in the Table, and proofed & edited Draft One.  Javita wrote the Introduction section; Kathy wrote the Evaluator One Profile and Feedback sections,  co-wrote the Reflection, Conclusion sections and  Revision ideas in the Table, and proofed & edited Draft Two.

An Evaluation of a Challenge Education Program Design

Angela Britton

Rayla Dawalt

Deborah DeJesus

Javita Johnson

Kathy Ritter

EDAC 634 - The Adult as a Learner

March 28, 2015

Dr. Bo Chang, Professor

An Evaluation of a Challenge Education Program Design

Adult learning can occur “in everyday workplace tasks and interactions, home and family activity, community involvement, and other sites of non-formal education (Fenwick, 2000, p. 243). The following program evaluation will review Group Two’s Challenge Education program design.  The program was developed by utilizing the experiential learning theory to help adult math students solve mathematical problems through the transfer of knowledge learned from actual life experiences.  Bough and Calder (2014) have discussed the advantage of incorporating real life experience into mathematical learning.  The authors have stated, “…using real-life problems also allows students to explore what might otherwise be abstract, disconnected concepts in an engaging, meaningful manner” (p.9).  According to the program design, students complete four phases of the program utilizing the following experiential learning techniques:  cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and reflective learning. 

Furman and Sibthrop (2013) described the above terms as the following: Cooperative learning “deals with creating environments rich in learning between students that typically occur in learning environments that encourage “discourse, observation, and interaction with peers.”  Problem-based learning “may use the students’ interest in a problem to (a) create an experiment to answer a question or (b) develop a course of action that helps in resolving the problem.”  Lastly, reflective learning “allows students to make connections between theory and practice and allows the principles learned in a classroom to be applied elsewhere” (p. 19).

Group Two selected two adult educators from different organizations to review the Challenge Education program design. The reviewers were challenged to critically evaluate the program design and provide constructive feedback and suggestions as to its effectiveness for adult learners. This paper will share the comments and results provided by each reviewer as well as the class Professor, Dr. Bo Chang, and will conclude with Group Two’s critical reflection concerning these critiques.

Evaluator Roles and Positions

Group Two selected Greg Craddock, program director of Graphic and Web Design at the Art Institute of Indianapolis, Indiana and Amy Kieckbusch, Lead Coach at the Excel Center in Kokomo, Indiana to review the Challenge Education program design.  Members of Group Two were interested in Mr. Craddock’s opinion and insights since they had examined the Art Institute of Indianapolis during the program investigation phase of their project. Because Ms. Kieckbusch facilitates the type of classroom environment that the Challenge Education program design was intended for, Group Two members agreed her input could prove beneficial for their reflection and revisions.

Evaluator One Profile

            Mr. Gregg Craddock currently serves as the program director of Graphic and Web Design at the Art Institute of Indianapolis. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in secondary education from Ball State University, and a Master’s Degree in educational leadership from Argosy University. Mr. Craddock has thirty-nine years of experience in education as an instructor and program administrator with twelve of those years in the field of adult education.  He has also been involved in athletics and other types of high-risk teaching environments. Members of Group Two have found his comments valuable and appreciated his feedback for their Challenge Education program revisions.

Evaluator Two Profile

     Ms. Amy Kieckbusch is presently a lead coach at the Excel Center for adult learning in Kokomo, Indiana.  Ms. Kieckbusch, who earned a counseling degree from Ball State University, started working at one of the first Excel Centers that opened to adults seeking a high school diploma on Franklin Road in Indianapolis, Indiana.  When the Kokomo center was in the developmental stages, Ms. Kieckbusch was asked to transfer and open the new school.  She was a member of the original development team to open the Kokomo Excel Center and has been the lead coach since the opening in August of 2013.

Evaluator Critiques

            The evaluators were asked to read the program design and provide their opinions regarding what features they liked most about the program, what aspects they thought may need to be improved, and any suggestions for how to improve the program.

Evaluator One Feedback

 Upon reviewing the action plan and layout of the Challenge Education program, Mr. Craddock found it to be innovative and very thorough in concept and design. He elaborated further that “solving problems using physical activity promotes hands-on learning where the learner can receive immediate feedback on performance while building relationships with other participants” (G. Craddock, personal communication, March 23, 2015).  Due to his athletic background, Mr. Craddock was glad to see that the program design involved safety training and certification to ensure the safety and well-being of our participants.

            Mr. Craddock stated he found the four phases of the program to be very detailed, and the reflection component to be very valuable.  He further elaborated on the activities to develop trust and camaraderie as being a necessary part of pre-planning for these types of challenge activities.   He found that the physical activities followed by reflection activities were well thought out, and would encourage shy participants to be more involved.

            In conclusion, Mr. Craddock stated that he felt the final program component involving transfer of learning was the most valuable.  The inclusion of transferring knowledge learned in solving challenge course problems to solving math problems was found to be well organized and relevant to the learners.  Mr. Craddock added that regarding suggestions for improvement, the design should include alternative indoor activities in the event of inclement weather, and provide more time to complete the technology project planned for the transfer of learning component.

Evaluator Two Feedback

Upon reading the Challenge Education program design, Ms. Kieckbusch provided positive feedback as well as constructive criticism (A. Kieckbusch, personal communication, March 23, 2015).  She liked the idea of problem solving through the translation of physical activities to classroom activities and found this to be an interesting concept.  The tiered approach to learning was seen to be valuable because of the opportunity to establish relationships among students.  She was impressed with the transition of the activity-based problem solving activities into reflection concerning what was learned and could envision how this type of program might help students to think differently about the many challenges they face.

            In conclusion, Ms. Kieckbusch questioned the timing of initiating the Challenge Education program.  She observed that beginning the program at the onset of the school term would make forming relationships more difficult, while initiating it later in the term might interfere with previously established relationships.  In relation to the reflection and processing components of the program, she expressed concern that the students might struggle with the clear identification of the successful techniques they used on the challenge course.  She indicated that the facilitator would need to be highly engaged in leading the reflection stage so that students would make accurate transfer of learning.

Professor Feedback

            After examining the Challenge Education program design, Dr. Chang shared on the group’s blog that she was pleased with the detailed information, and the format in which the activities and procedures were presented. Furthermore, she remarked that she liked the four components of the design, which she thought were very clearly described, and demonstrated an understanding of the experiential learning theory.

            Dr. Chang provided several constructive criticisms and suggestions for improving the program design. First, she did not understand the purpose of including interviews of Excel students in the paper. Second, she noticed the sample schedule did not include rest periods and suggested ten-minute breaks be added throughout the day. Also, Dr. Chang recommended the program design direct the students to reflect on specific areas of math rather than asking students to randomly talk about math problems. Furthermore, she advised providing basic guidelines and learning materials for the students before starting the activities to give students some background knowledge about the areas of math they will be studying throughout the semester.    

Reflection

            The members of Group Two believe each of the individuals who provided feedback on the program design were qualified to do so because of  their educational accomplishments and work experiences with adult learners. The members welcomed each evaluator’s remarks, agreeing with the identified strengths and most of the suggested areas of improvement. Like the evaluators, the group members believe the program design provides specific details, and the reflection component is a valuable piece of the experiential learning Challenge Education program. Group Two wondered if perhaps the concern expressed about the timing of the Challenge Education activities was due to a lack of understanding regarding the purpose of using these activities or their adaptability to any environment in which team building skills, camaraderie, and trust would prove beneficial for a group of adults.

Conclusion

Each of the three individuals who shared feedback regarding the Challenge Education paper provided practical ideas for improving the program design, which Group Two members appreciated and have taken into consideration. In light of the suggestions for improvement, Group Two would make revisions, reflected in the following table.

Evaluator	Idea for Improving                      Program Design	Revision
Mr. Greg Caddock	Plan alternative, indoor activities in the event of inclement weather	Group Two would develop lesson plans reflecting indoor activities that accomplish the same objectives as the outdoor activities; Group Two would include contact information for reputable organizations such as Culver whose experienced staff could be hired to plan & implement either outdoor or indoor activities (Culver’s cost includes all necessary materials &equipment, set up and tear down).
Dr. Bo Chang	Include rest periods throughout the day	The schedule would be revised to reflect the inclusion of ten-minute breaks during both the morning and afternoon sessions.
Dr. Bo Chang	Provide guidelines and learning materials before start of activities to give students some background knowledge about the areas of math they will be studying throughout the semester	Time would be allocated on the first day to introduce class materials, review the class syllabus, and explain the types of math problems the students will encounter during the semester.
Ms. Amy Kieckbusch	Supporting students in clearly identifying successful techniques used in the Challenge activities	The lesson plans would be revised to emphasize the importance of helping students identify and describe the techniques found most effective.
Mr. Greg Caddock	Provide more time for completing the technology project planned for the transfer of learning component	The allotted time for completion will be increased to an additional half-day or full day to allow for ample planning and preparation time.
Ms. Amy  Kieckbusch	Consider the timing of completing the Challenge Education activities	The question regarding the best time to utilize the challenge activities would be presented to the Excel Center’s lead team as well as experts at the Culver organization.

References

Bough, C. & Calder, N. (2014). Making mathematics meaningful. Australian Primary

     Mathematics Classroom. 19(1), 9-13

Fenwick, T.J. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five

     Contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly. 50(4), 243-272

     doi; 10.1177/07417130022087035

Furman, N. & Sibthorp, J. (2013). Leveraging experiential learning techniques for transfer.

     New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2013(137), 17-26

Per the syllabus instructions on page 16, the evaluation feedback shared  with group members via email by Angela and Rayla from the evaluators is below:

Program Design Evaluation #1

The evaluator of the group’s experiential learning program is Greg Craddock, program director of Graphic and Web Design at the Art Institute of Indianapolis.

Upon review of the action plan and layout of the Challenge Education program design I found it to be very thorough and innovative in concept and design; ” Learn by doing” or Experiential Learning. Solving problems using physical activity promotes hands-on learning where the learner can receive immediate feedback on his/her performance while building relationships and connections with the other participants.

The pre-planning stages are very important and having been involved in athletics and high risk teaching environments it was good to see the detailed training and certification of the facilitators and the orientation of the learners to safety protocols to minimize any liability issues.

The planning and structure of the four phases of the program is very detailed and provides an opportunity for reflection and interaction. I also found the teamwork concept to be a meaningful experience for the learners; starting off with the ice breakers and thrust activities and allowing the team members to make a connection and then assist each other on the challenge courses building trust and comradery. The physical activities followed by the reflection and processing segment is well thought out and provides even the shy introverted learner to become involved and provide feedback with the support of the group.

The final component which I feel is the most important and meaningful is the transfer of knowledge of with the problem solving and math activities. The procedures were organized very well and the problems presented seemed relative to the learners.

In areas of improvement I feel there should be a contingency plan(s) for the outdoor activities in case of inclement weather? Is there a gym available where the outdoor stations could be moved inside? In the transfer of learning outline there is a technology project. Would the student learners have enough time to complete the reflection activities and the transfer of learning activities in the hour after lunch?

Program Design Evaluation #2

Amy Kieckbusch is the lead coach at The Excel Center in Kokomo, Indiana. Amy started working at one of the first Excel Centers that opened on Franklin Road in Indianapolis. When the Kokomo Excel Center was in the making, Amy was asked to transfer to open the new school. Amy was part of the team that started the Kokomo Excel Center and she has been the lead coach since they opened in August, 2013.

After reading and evaluating Group 3’s; Challenge Education Experiential Learning Program Design, Amy gave positive feedback and constructive criticism. Amy liked the idea of problem solving translating from physical activities thought to classroom activities; she thought this concept was interesting. She   liked the tiered approach of the program because it establishes relationships among the students. Amy was impressed with the transition of the activity based problem solving activities, into reflection, ending with transfer of learning.  Amy liked the idea of turning problem solving or team-based activities into fun challenges. She thought it may help the students to think differently about all kinds of challenges they face.

Amy asked when the program would begin for a group of students. Her observation was that if the program started at the beginning of a term, the students may need more time to establish relationships. If the program occurred at the end of a term, the working relationships may already be strained.

In regards to the reflection and processing stage, Amy’s thoughts were that the Math A students would really struggle with clearly identifying successful techniques they used. She said the facilitator would really need to be involved and lead during this stage. A similar challenge she noted, was the students may have a difficult time transferring skills from one setting to the next. Amy wrapped up her evaluation, stating the facilitator would really have to challenge the students to apply their new learned skills.

The insight Amy gave Group 3 was welcomed and appreciated. Group 3 does agree with Amy’s overall feedback. If the program design was implemented, the questions and challenges Amy noted would be proposed to the uLead team. During the uLead interview, Ms. Bontrager said the uLead team would be able to work with The Excel Center team to come up with a challenge course design that would fit the needs of the Math A class. Group 3 is confident that, if implemented the challenge course design would be a great opportunity for the Math A class at The Excel Center.