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.