March Summary

I agree with Katelyn, in that March was a much more productive month in terms of collaboration.  I am proud of the work we did in creation of our program design, and think that our evaluation by experienced adult educators confirms this sentiment.  I feel as though we were able to merge our personal experiences well into formulating a program that compliments both our perspectives.  We are going to work hard in putting the finishing touches on our group 'toolbox'.  The other day I was presented with an organization that I knew very little about in hopes that they would incorporate our curriculum.  Of course their first question was to ask how we would benefit their organization.  I drew upon this recent experience of program design formulation to help sell our nonprofit by speaking directly to what we do well, but more importantly, having them sell themselves to me so that I could best implement our strengths into their organization.  March was made easier for me personally due to having a less hectic personal life.  I've finally settled into my new job, and have a more stable daily life without having to run around tying up loose ends.  I think April is going to be a very fulfilling month as we work together to complete our group project.

March Monthly Summary

Neary- Commented on Group 1 & 3 Blogs.
The month of March has been very busy! Busy in a good way, for the most part. John and I were able to work together on the program design which turned out to be a great collaboration. I enjoyed working with John and feel that our Program Design would not have been as complete if we hadn’t worked together. The Program Design we constructed was based on use of the experiential learning theory with adult learners while highlighting Kolb’s four components of the theory. The program was designed using the Residential Property Management (RPM) program offered at Ball State. After creating the program, we had two evaluators critique the program design. Great recommendations were suggested by both evaluators to help strengthen our program. The month will require John and myself to ‘Bring it all together’ for the Project Demonstration. I am hoping he is more creative than me, because the Program Demonstration and I could greatly benefit from that! Overall, March has been a productive month and I hope April is as well! 

John Murray and Katelyn Neary

Ball State University

EDAC 634

Dr. Chang

Program Evaluation

After designing the program, “Experiential Learning Workshop and Immersion Course”, two educators from diverse backgrounds evaluated our program. Educators received a copy of the program and rationale to evaluate. Evaluators answered questions including, “What they liked about the syllabus design” and “What should be improved and why?”

BACKGROUND ABOUT EACH EVALUATOR

Suzan Davis, Evaluator One, has been an English and Communication Instructor for over 20 years. Currently, Suzan is an Adjunct English Communication faculty and professional development coordinator at Ivy Tech Community College. Numerous duties are performed as a professional development coordinator including; planning luncheons, workshops, and seminars.

Nick Nelson, Evaluator Two, has been the Deputy Executive Director for 10 years with The First Tee of Monterey County, as well as a “Master-Level Coach” who helps oversee professional development trainings for both The First Tee and out-of-network non-profits seeking to gain expertise in team-building and organizational development. He, along with the Executive Director, oversees a staff of nearly thirty full-time and part-time staff, and helps coordinate large-scale fundraisers and outreach initiatives.

Evaluator One: Suzan Davis

Occupation: Adjunct English and Communication facility and Professional Development Coordinator at Ivy Tech Community College.

Evaluator One Suggestions:

This evaluator Suzan Davis, is an author and teaches college-level English and Communication Studies.  I evaluate arguments, persuasion, and advanced English course material.  I also prepare students to write and prepare speeches.

SYLLABUS DESIGN:

What I liked about the syllabus design is that by reading the short introduction, the writers neatly let the reader, or potential student know, exactly what to expect, which is a hands-on experience.  This promise is followed by Aristotle's quote that uses few words to say volumes---"...we learn by doing them."

As someone who works with adult learners, non-traditional students and even baby-boomers, this teaching style works very well and aids in retention.  It is less intimidating to adult learners who are often anxious when they first come into a classroom.

The activities, ice-breakers, are explained well.  After the description of the activity, there is a small follow up that talks about what students will focus on after the experience.  I would recommend that the benefit of each experience be made a little clearer, like the first example where students see it is an exercise to be less self-conscious.  The third activity (blind walk) is commonly used and the description states the discussion will focus on how this translates to the workplace.  I suggest putting a sentence about the WHY this experience is important in the workplace.

The conclusion states why this program is important.  My translation is what students learn in the classroom and immediately be used in the real world, working environment.

ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT:

You can see I highlighted and bolded my editing suggestions/comments such as little mechanical nuances like the running head.  The biggest distraction for me was the use of the word "program".  I began to wonder what it meant.  Removing most instances would provide a dynamic syllabus.

Reflection of Evaluator One

The evaluator has many qualifications that provide her to be a reliable evaluator. The evaluator has taught many seminars with the participants being adult learners, she has been exposed to many of the activities mentioned in the program. The evaluator is not completely familiar with RPM so she offers fresh eyes and non-biased feedback.

I agree with the most of the evaluators suggestions. There are some that are just plausible for this course. One item being the over use of the word ‘program’. This is difficult to completely remove or rename because then it could confuse participants. I understand why this was pointed out as an issue, but again it is not going to be changed for this program design.

The evaluator provided very good insight and suggestions to help improve our program design. This is very much appreciated and helpful in creating the best program design possible.

I would improve the program design by following the Header rule. I did think that the title was too long, but wasn’t sure what to do about it. There are a few other edits (including switching out words to better describe a task).

Evaluator Two: Nick Nelson

Occupation: Deputy Executive Director

Evaluator Two Suggestions

I am the Deputy Executive Director for our local The First Tee chapter. As it pertains to this discussion, I have a great deal of knowledge when it comes to leading trainings, seminars, and interactive learning environments. In my daily activities I evaluate my coaching staff by a standardized evaluation form, or rubric, that aids in their growth as youth development professionals. I also assist in the organization and facilitation of our Level I, II, and III national coaches training, and serve as a resource for coaches and administrators throughout our network to ask for assistance.

SYLLABUS DESIGN EVALUATION:

I was happy that the syllabus was thorough in its breakdown and coordination of events. Utilizing the team-building program within the larger course itself I think was a wise decision, as it allows those involved to gain an initial understanding of one another first, and then grow upon this understanding with time still remaining to utilize this knowledge. Very important for me, was that it seems as though the entire program is rooted in active participation, or rather, doing as opposed to simply telling. This is the way I choose to engage my staff or trainees, and see a great deal of value in adopting this learning style.

I think that this format would benefit the students involved, but testimony or examples as to specifically how they benefit would be even more powerful for me. Perhaps this would need to be taken into consideration after the initial program (since I gather this was a hypothetical syllabus), and included in subsequent revisions of the syllabus.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT:

Again, I felt this was a fairly comprehensive overview of the program, and did a good job of laying out the activities and learning objectives. Any criticism is fairly superficial. I might add diagrams or pictures of the team-building activities since they might help clarify the instructions a little more. I might also add examples of resources prospective students might be able to review if they are unsure about property management details and requirements. Perhaps even a short video highlighting the benefits of this program with clips of previous students would probably be a good selling tool.

Reflection of Evaluator Two

The evaluator has a long history of activity-based programming, specifically with activities in the team-building workshop portion of our program design. His suggestions for improvement are all valid, as it seems he took a long view for the program's continued success. The suggestions made are all plausible given actual implementation of the program, e.g., having testimonials from previous students, or video footage as a marketing tool for the course.

As far as edits capable of being incorporated immediately, his idea to include diagrams would prove beneficial to our syllabus and create a greater degree of clarity. Moreover, having references for students to utilize would make the learning experience less stressful and greater access to proven resources. All totaled, these corrections would serve to empower both the facilitators and learners in completion of the program. His evaluation was very beneficial, not just in lending advice for immediate corrections, but also pointing out how this program could build upon itself moving forward.

CONCLUSION

The evaluators did a great job reviewing, “Experiential Learning Workshop and Immersion Course” program design. Each evaluator provided great recommendations and suggestions to strengthen our program. The evaluators come from various backgrounds and each provided a different view on the program design; furthermore, this gave our team a more well-rounded assessment. The evaluators identified the strong and weak components of our syllabus design and all suggestions will be considered to improve our design. The input from the various educators enhanced the importance and practice of our program, while providing great suggestions for improvement. The program creators would like to give much appreciation to all the evaluators and their helpful recommendations.

Program Design

Neary Commented on Group 1 & 3 Program Design.
Work Breakdown:

Katelyn- 8-week course, Rationale, Exhibits

John- One-Day Team-Building Workshop, Conclusion

Worked together: Introduction, References

Program Design-Experiential Learning Workshop and Immersion Course

Katelyn R. Neary

John Murray

Ball State University

Experiential Learning Workshop and Immersion Course - Program Design

Introduction

This program design is for adult learners participating in a course using the experiential learning theory. The contents and the course will revolve around enabling the adult learners to create meaningful experiences, in hopes to learn more efficiently. Aristotle exemplified this by attributing, “For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them” (Bynum, 2005).

Based on the programs that were researched, the program will incorporate ideas and concepts from each program. The concepts will assist program facilitators in using an ‘experiential’ learning approach for each learner. Each adult learner enrolled in this program will be exposed to use of experiential learning in the field of Residential Property Management. The program will help adult learners apply theory to practice in RPM courses.

A multi-faceted program has been designed to capture all of the extraordinary features identified by programs previously investigated and the literature that has been reviewed. This program is an experiential hybrid, blending developmental approaches centered around immersion and team dynamics. This full-circle program has been designed to recognize the importance of Kolb’s experiential learning theory.

The program has been designed for use in a course in the Residential Property Management (RPM) program at Ball State University. The program content uses Kolb’s experiential learning theory. Kolb’s experiential learning theory has four main components: Concrete Experience, Observation & Reflection, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation. Kolb’s model focuses on grasping and transforming these modes in a way to achieve learning through experience. The program was constructed to incorporate theory, application, reflection, and reconstruction; furthermore, exemplifying the experiential learning theory.

Objectives of the program include:

1. provide adult learners with the opportunity to work with property management professionals to develop ‘real world’ exposure,

2. enable students to apply their knowledge of property management outside of the classroom,

3. assist learners in understanding the value in their experience and its relation to learning,

4. identify and incorporate Kolb’s experiential learning theory into the program.

The program is offered to any Ball State University Residential Property Management that has junior or senior standing. The course will count as 3 credit hours in form of academic credit if completed entirely in good standing. An RPM professor will instruct the course and have office hours available weekly. The course will meet once a week for a total of 8 weeks.

The course requires time outside of the classroom to achieve the experiential learning on site with a property management professional. Students will be advised prior to course registration of this requirement. Failure to comply will result in withdrawal or removal from course roster.

Rationale

Three programs were investigated to overcome the limitations identified by the literature review. The first program, “Contracts in the classroom” used an exercise in an undergraduate course to replicate contract negotiation in a professional setting. The second program, “Beyond the comfort zone: A curriculum and assessment ‘immersion’ experience in graduate early childhood teacher education” provided graduate students an opportunity to combine coursework and fieldwork. The third program oversaw a Level II training program for The First Tee that sought to give coaches firsthand experience in simulating youth development programs, receiving feedback in real-time in order to gain deeper knowledge of the life-skills curriculum.

The programs investigated provide excellent features from which our group can build an effective program design. Attention to Kolb’s experiential learning theory components: Concrete Experience, Observation & Reflection, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation will be given while constructing our program.

There are also ideas from the reviewed literature that will be implemented in the program design in relation to experiential learning. Fenwick (2000) suggests that experiential learning relies on reflection as a key role and locates learning both within and under the control of the learner. Use of reflection in learning allows the individual more control internally and externally.

Action Plans

Action Plan for 8 Week Immersion Course

Program Schedule

Week 1:

Program Overview: Introduction, purpose, schedule, requirements, topics

Pre-assessment (EXHIBIT 1)

Assignment: Due Week 2: Assignment #1-Assign property manager professionals, Journal (EXHIBIT 3)

Week 2:

Topic: Discuss Assignment #1

Assignment #2: Meet property Management professional; spend at least 5 hours with get background information, introduced to property and staff, Journal (EXHIBIT 3)

Week 3:

Topic: Discuss and present assignment #2 to class

Assignment #3: Curb Appeal- examine the properties curb appeal without property manager AND then with property manager, compare findings. Journal (EXHIBIT 3)

Week 4:

Topic: Discuss and present assignment #3 to class

Class analysis on each property using open-ended discussion

Check in with students on course progress; make sure starting their final project

Assignment #4: Operations: financial, personnel, maintenance, etc. Journal (EXHIBIT 3)

One-Day Team-Building Workshop- This Saturday, located in normal classroom, (9am-5pm) Attendance required

Week 5:

Topic: Student presentations of operations, Discuss Assignment #4

Discussion on most effective way to operate property after hearing presentations

Assignment #5: Analysis/recommendations for property from your property manager and your individual opinion, Journal (EXHIBIT 3)

Week 6:

Topic: Discussion on Assignment 5 findings

Agreement with property manager, why or why not? Like/dislike about property and other students property operations

Assignment #6: Shadow property manager for 15 additional hours this week and document experiences, Journal (EXHIBIT 3)

Week 7:

Topic: Discussion of Assignment 6 findings- what happened at property, surprised?

Questions about Final project

Assignment #7: Final project DUE week 8 & binder of journal entries with graded assignments from professor, Journal (EXHIBIT 3)

Week 8:

FINAL PROJECT DUE & Project showcase

Showcase of all projects

Evaluation (EXHIBIT 4)

Post-Assessment (EXHIBIT 2)

Action Plan for One-Day Team-Building Workshop

Main Objective: To incorporate an activity-based agenda that helps develop leadership, communication, team-building, problem solving, and resiliency skills through experiential learning and immediate reflection.

Activity #1: “Dancing Nickname Ice-Breaker”

Skills Utilized: Interpersonal Communication and Team-Building

Duration: 12-15 minutes

Description/Overview:

Learners will begin with an ice-breaker situating them in a circle. Educators will inform them that the concept of the game is to move around the circle with each person coming up with a nickname that rhymes with their own name, e.g. 'Slick Rick', followed by a dance move to coincide. The next person to their right will then repeat the previous person's name and dance move and then incorporate their own. This will start the participants in feeling comfortable with communicating around their colleagues and build camaraderie. A brief reflection session about what made them feel comfortable/uncomfortable and why will be held. Learners will be asked to pinpoint the moment in the experience that made them feel certain emotions, e.g., 'when I saw Tim making a fool of himself I became less self-conscious.'

Activity #2: “Magic Carpet”

Skills Utilized: Problem Solving, Team-Building, Resiliency Skills

Duration: 35-45 minutes

Description/Overview:

Learners will situate themselves on top of a large blanket/carpet. The educator will present the challenge to flip the blanket over without anyone stepping off or touching the ground around them. Learners will have to work together to come up with a solution, moving in unison, and overcoming potential failure. A discussion will be held following this station, having them recognize specific aspects of the experience that frustrated them, made them feel uncomfortable, and who they thought stepped up as a leader and why.

Activity #3: “Blind Walk”

Skills Utilized: Communication and Leadership

Description/Overview:

Learners will be paired up together with one person being blind-folded and their partner directing them. Blind-folded participants will not be allowed to talk or ask questions, just simply trust in their partner and follow directions. They will switch positions following the first walk. Reflection will be held immediately afterwards to discuss differing communication styles, frustration with only being allowed to listen, and specific examples will be drawn out of the learners to help themselves and others grow in awareness of the significance of the challenge. Discussion will also be held about how this translates into the workplace.

Duration: 35-45 minutes

Activity #4: “River Crossing”

Skills Utilized: Problem Solving, Leadership, Resiliency, Team-Building, and Communication

Description/Overview:

Learners will be challenged with moving their team across an imaginary river, utilizing only three logs that the facilitators have strategically placed far apart. Learners will need to work together as a team to find a solution. Immediate reflection upon who the leaders were and how others either accepted leadership, or refused it, will be held following the challenge. Ideas will be fleshed out regarding how to gain others' trust in your leadership and ways to better one's leadership style. Connection to the workplace will also be examined.

Duration: 35-45 minutes

Lunch Break (1 hour): Challenge learners to sit with one person from the workplace that they do not know very well and find out more about them.

Activity #5: “King of the Mountain”

Skills Utilized: Communication, Team-Building, Resiliency

Description/Overview:

A large wall with a rope overhanging will be presented to the learners. Their challenge will be to get every team member to the top of the wall. Learners who feel uncomfortable with this challenge will be allowed to sit out, but encouraged to find alternative ways in which to assist their fellow team members. Immediately following the challenge, reflection will be held exploring how this challenged necessitated teamwork, and what emotions were evoked within the experience citing examples. Additional examination as to how certain strengths were utilized and how those devoid such strengths, and were able to be worthwhile contributions applicable to other facets. Translation to the workplace will be attempted.

Duration: 30-40 minutes

Activity #6: “Giant Teeter-Totter”

Skills Utilized: Leadership, Communication, Team-Building, Resiliency, Problem Solving

Description/Overview:

A large platform that is balanced on a central fulcrum will be presented to the learners with the objective of trying to balance all team members on the platform so neither side touches the ground. Learners will need to find a solution, and overcome repeated failures in order to successfully complete the challenge. Experiential learning will be explored by the educator throughout, probing participants to explore what emotions they are feeling toward themselves and their colleagues.

Duration: 35-45 Minutes

Wrap-up (30-40 minutes) The day will conclude with seeing if anyone from the group can complete the full ice-breaker, with all nicknames and dance-moves. Following this, a discussion regarding how they can adapt the leadership, team-building, resilience, communication, and problem solving into the following day's practicum. What have they learned about each other? What have they learned about themselves? What strengths have they discovered in themselves or their team members?

Conclusion

The resounding effect of this program design is to allow learners a two-fold benefit. The first benefit being the over-arching immersion practicum that affords learners an experiential learning platform in which to gain immediate professional input that can be parlayed into immediate occupational value. The second benefit includes subjecting learners to challenges that provide them insight into team dynamics and office-place politics that can be invaluable in personal development. Both approaches value Kolb's experiential learning model in that they seek to allow the learner to immediately build upon the lesson(s) learned within the experience itself, and apply this knowledge seamlessly to subsequent experiences.

References

Bynum, T.W. & Porter, R. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. Oxford University Press. (Vol. 21).

Denbo, S. M. (2005). Contracts in the classroom- Providing undergraduate business students with important “real life” skills. The Journal of Legal Studies Education, 22(2), 149-167.

Fenwick, T. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 243-272.

McNair, S., Sullivan, R., & Hill, D. (2002). Beyond the comfort zone: A curriculum and assessment “immersion” experience in graduate early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 23(1), 11-18.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood (3^rd ed.).

              San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 166-68.

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1

Pre-Assessment

Name:_________________

Year in school:__________

Experience in property management industry:

List courses taken related to property management (Ex. Accounting, economics)

Briefly describe the responsibilities of a property manager:

Describe the most difficult part about being a property manager:

What one specific thing do you want to get out of this course?

What concerns do you have about participating in this learning experience?

Additional comments:

EXHIBIT 2

Post-Assessment

Name:_________________

Year in school:__________

Experience in property management industry:

How previous courses taken related to property management helped in this program:

Briefly describe the responsibilities of a property manager:

Describe the most difficult part about being a property manager:

What one specific thing did you want to get out of this course? Did you get it? Why or why not?

What concerns did you have about participating in this learning experience?

Additional comments:

EXHIBIT 3

Journal Template

Name:________________ Week:______

1. What new thoughts, ideas, or insights have I gained from this program?

2. As a result of these new ideas, what specific thing(s) do I want to do differently if I were on the job?

3. What outside barriers or obstacles could keep me from doing these things?

4. What can I do to overcome these internal and external barriers?

5. What help do I need from others to overcome these obstacles?

Summary of weekly shadow experience:

EXHIBIT 4

Evaluation

Favorite Part of the course:

Least Favorite part of the course:

Most education part of the one-day workshop:

Least educational part of one-day workshop:

Recommendations to improve one-day workshop:

Recommendations to improve overall course:

Additional comments/suggestions: