Lesson Topic
Our topic is program evaluation. We choose it because RTH 456/556 is a core foundation course where students learn a program design model to guide the therapeutic recreation process of client and program assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation. The Therapeutic Recreation Program is accredited by National Recreation and Park Association/American Association of Leisure and Recreation (NRPA/ AALR) and is therefore required to address the following standards as learning outcomes:
· Ability to formulate, plan for implementation, and evaluate extent to which goals and objectives for the leisure service and for groups and individuals within the service have been met. (Standard 8.27)
· Ability to apply programming concepts, including conceptualization, planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive and specific therapeutic recreation services. (Standard 9D.13)
We recognize the importance of these goals and want to understand if the students are actually learning to "think like an evaluator."
Learning Goals
Terminal Performance Objective 1: The student will demonstrate the ability to use specific evaluation instruments.
Enabling Objective 1: The student will demonstrate knowledge of when to choose a specific type of evaluation instrument.
Performance Measure 1: After reading the STAR Toolkit chapter and reviewing a rationale for choosing a specific type of evaluation instruments, each student will be able to accurately match a data collection instrument with an appropriate method for the program observed 4/27/2005 at least 80% of the time on an in-class worksheet as judged by the instructor and lesson study team members.
Enabling Objective 2: The student will demonstrate the ability to use Stumbo and Peterson’s (2000) Post-Session Analysis Form to evaluate a specific therapeutic recreation program session.
Performance Measure 2: After observing an innovative activity program session in the prior class session, each student will have completed the Post-Session Analysis Form as homework with at least 80% accuracy as measured by inter-rater reliability among all class members as judged by the instructor and lesson study team members.
Enabling Objective 3: To demonstrate the ability to develop an evaluation instrument appropriate to a specific program plan.
Performance Measure 3: After participating in a lecture/discussion of the readings (Project Star Instrument Development Chapter and Stumbo & Peterson [ 2000] Chapter 11) and the previously identified class activities, the students will create 6 evaluation questions for their Specific Program Plans using at least 3 different question types (e.g. yes/no, ratings, checklists, categories, multiple choice) to at least 80% accuracy as judged by the instructor and lesson study team members.
Enabling Objective 4: The student will demonstrate the ability to analyze a program session that has been evaluated using Stumbo & Peterson's (2000) post-session analysis form.
Performance Measure 4: After in-class discussion of completed Post-Session Analysis Forms (Stumbo & Peterson, 2000) from observation of an innovative activity, each student will demonstrate the ability to analyze program results as judged by the instructor and lesson study team by compiling a program evaluation report that includes the following information with at least 80% accuracy:
· Who conducted the analysis?
· Who wrote the report?
· What was evaluated?
· When was it evaluated?
· Where did the event take place?
· How the data was collected & why was that instrument used?
· Any problems or limitations in the data collection or analysis?
· What were the findings of the evaluation?
· What are the conclusions or recommendations?
Long-term Qualities
The long-term qualities we expect this lesson will support revolve around the students
"thinking like an evaluator." In the long-term the students will retain the skills to:
· plan for evaluation
· complete a post-session evaluation form
· develop program evaluation questions
· value the evaluation process in program design and development
Contact: Robin Yaffe Tschumper
Previous Log: 1
Comments