What needs to be evaluated, then is whether the participants are benefitting in the intended manner from the program. The group seems to have not only been a Gestational Diabetes (GDM) education and prevention group, but also a support group for women in a similar situation. The participants in this program will see benefits other than the intended avoidance of Gestational Diabetes (GDM) because there was a social element incorporated.

I have chosen the Scriven model. I chose this model because I think it best fits the program. It would seem that this program was not for profit and was developed as a health and wellness initiative so I think a Scriven model evaluation would adequately assess whether or not the program met its objectives. Basically, this type of evaluation would assess whether the program succeed in meeting its goals. Since the program in question took place 15 years ago, the evaluation would be summative, although it could easily be formative too if the program was still operating.

Of course, since the program was offered free to participants but costs money to run, there is always the question of ‘will funding be affected as a result of this evaluation?’.  I think that in every program evaluation there will be stakeholders who look at the financial outlay vs benefit of the program. This is simply the nature of evaluation.

In evaluating the case study we were given I would want to know the following:

1. Was Gestational Diabetes (GDM) developed in any of the patients? If so, how many?
2. Was the program successful in reaching the patients at highest risk? If not, why not?
3. What aspects of the program attracted and maintained participants?
4. Was there a drop out rate? If so, what reasons were given?
5. In what ways could more participants have been attracted?
6. Are there financial stakeholders interested in the outcomes of this program?

From reading the case study, it would seem that the overt goals of the program are:

1. Reaching people at high risk for developing Gestational Diabetes (GDM).
2. Teaching participants how to prevent GDM through exercise.

It would seem that the program also developed a social element to it as well since the document describes after exercise snacks and beverages, visiting, door prizes, games, crafts, and parties. The program also seems to have attempted to remove barriers to participation by providing childcare, transportation, and even maternity bathing suits for participants.

I think it would be difficult to base an evaluation of a program like this solely on the number of participants who did or did not develop GDM. It is impossible to say whether or not they would have developed GDM without their participation in the program. It is only possible to know for sure whether or not the participants feel they benefitted from the program and if the staff involved feel that the participants truly bought in to the program and thereby developed healthier habits.

I chose this evaluation thinking that it would be evaluating computer-based education in Missouri schools. Unfortunately, this was not the case, but I am also not alone in thinking that something called “technology education” would centre around computer-based instruction since in the report it stated that many of the administrators who were surveyed answered the survey as though they were evaluating computer courses as well. What the state of Missouri calls “Technology Education is what we in Saskatchewan call “Practical and Applied Arts” and “Career Education”. Despite the misunderstanding, I still found the content of the report interesting.

This evaluation is a goal-based evaluation, although this was not explicitly stated, nor was an explicit goal outlined. This apparent goal of this evaluation was to asses three programs in relation to their current Technology Education offerings in middle schools in the district and to make recommendations in order to create equal opportunities for and quality of Technology Education amongst all middle schools in the division. It would also seem that this evaluation was meant to gather information on dropping enrollment in secondary level Technology Education courses. It was stated that The schools in question have seen enrollment in Technology Education drop overall except in their CASA-Columbia Aeronautics and Space Association, Theatre Technology, and Consumer Car Care courses (p. 9).

This evaluation surveyed students, parents, teachers within the Technology Education program and administrators of schools with Technology Education programs and included much disseminated data. I’m not sure if it is common to have such low levels of response from stakeholders but I was shocked to read that only 57% of Technology Education teachers and only 47% of administrators of Technology Education programs responded to the survey. This low level of response led me to question the usefulness of the data presented.

There were some weaknesses in thus report. When the information was being shared about the various programs under consideration, there seemed to be bias in the writing. Also, The report document contained a few grammatical errors such as “teacher that was employed” (p. 19) when it should have said “teacher who was employed” and and incorrect usage of an apostrophe stating “students’” (p. 9) when there was no possession required, simply pluralization and the correct grammar would have been simply “students”. As an educator, I find errors like this to be distracting and make me question the level of education of the author. I am especially disappointed to see simple errors like these in a document that has been prepared for a board of education.

There were also strengths within this report. The document was well laid out and formal, it provided ample background information from previous years, and there was much information about the programs so the reader was well informed.

In the end, the Program Evaluation made recommendation in four areas; Curriculum, Differentiation, Materials and Facilities, and Professional Development.

ECUR809 is supposed to give us, the students, the necessary background to determine the effectiveness of a program, suggest improvements to existing programs, recommend whether to continue or terminate a program, or to satisfy grant requirements. This should be interesting and practical; both characteristics I appreciate.

While sitting in this class, I am reminded of my recent thought process surrounding what I plan to do once I am done this degree. Will I just continue in my current job as a release teacher and take the (miniscule) increase in pay? Will I look to move within my school division into an out of classroom position? Will I leave my division altogether?

For some reason the thought of leaving the comfort zone of my school division scares me for some reason. I think it’s becuase I am a wife and mother and my job is a security blanket. It provides not only monthly income that provides for our family, but also healthcare benefits, life insurance, and retirement savings.

There could be benefits to leaving my safe zone of my school division. I could contract myself out and decide what I would be doing based on my interests or our family’s financial needs. I could spend more time at home with my kids instead of being at work during the week. This idea is VERY appealing to me but it would also require a paradigm shift and my husband and I would need to change the way we spend our evenings. I would likely be with the kids all day and working all evening and into the weekend. This would definitely change the way we spend family time. I could work for a different organization and shift my daily job description to something more technology oriented.

I’m really not sure where this degree will take me. After meeting face to face with some other students in my program (we’re online learners so we don’t see eachother often, if at all) we decided that one 0 credit course (990) should be scrapped for students within our program in favour of a series of meetings where we would learn about potential job opportunities for people in our program. THIS is what I need!

Sorry about my recent hiatus. I’ve taken a break from my Master’s program for the last 10 months or so. I had my second child in November and needed some time at home to just focus on my family.

I am currently taking ECUR 805, Issues in Education with a focus on Technology and Design. I have decided to approach the issue of using Social Media in the classroom to meet curriculuar objectives.

Please help me direct my research and paper by completing my survey.

I have thoughts running through my head for future technology integration opportunities. In the fall I am starting to teach at a different school. I am teaching release to grade 5-8 students. I will be teaching mostly Art & Social Studies with some time scheduled in the computer lab to integrate technology. I love that the administration blocked time in the lab for me to integrate technolgy!!!

Here are some thoughts. I was thinking of introducing blogging to the students quite quickly. Of course I would do an introduction to online safety and identity and send home a notification to parents about the project. If any parents take exception to their child being published online I will accomodate those students by having them write in Word and submit their “posts” to me via email. I will most likely have the students reflect on their Art projects, perhaps on their Social Studies unit, and on school itself.

All of the grade 6 classes I will be teaching, there are 3, are just beginning what is called Intensive French Immersion.  These students have little to no background in French language when they start school in August and will become fluent speakers of French. I’m thinking of having the blog be a reflection for the students on the new things they are learning and how they are feeling about the “intensive” immersion in which they are partaking.

I would LOVE to have some feedback on classroom blogging if anyone has tried it.

I’m sure this is a similar reaction my colleagues have when I show them how to do something on the computer.

Here’s the most recent blog post to prove that I can embed video! 

Oh yeah, and I’m supposed to be preparing for my ECMM802 final that is tomorrow but instead I’m blogging. How Edtech of me!

Here’s what I’m thinking. I would have the students blog instead of keeping an Art Journal. They could blog about the processes they used in creating their Art, their reactions to the products they have produced, post photos of their work. We could even do a digital photography unit. What a perfect way to integrate Art with technology.

I wish I had a little bit of a say in what exactly I would be teaching but with almost 700 students and about 40 teachers I can see why it will be dictated. Cross your fingers that I’ll get the right mix so that I can integrate my 2 loves; technology and Art.

I had a conversation with a friend about Facebook. We both recently had the same former student request to befriend us. I always ignore friend requests from former students. For me it doesn’t matter if the student is 11 years old or 25 years old or if I taught them grade 2 or grade 12. My personal rule is that I don’t befriend former students on Facebook. For me, it’s simply the division between my private life and my work life.

My friend and I discussed colleagues of ours who have befriended former students on Facebook. Some of these colleagues use their personal account and others have developed another, separate account for only befriending students. I, personally, can’t be bothered to take the time to maintain a whole separate account simply for former students. I don’t think there is a problem with children and adults who I taught as children to understand that there is a social boundary. For me, I am (or was) their teacher; not their friend.

I recently read an article in Canadian Teacher Magazine on the topic of Managing Student/ Teacher Online Relationships. It made me think about this very topic. It lays out some ground rules for teachers who are willing to have these types of relationships with students. Here are the basic rules outlined in the article;
1.   Accept friendship requests from students, but never initiate them.
2.   Use professional accounts and educational platforms to connect with your students.
3.   Use your privacy settings to protect your personal information and private life.
4.   Notify parents first before engaging in an online relationship with a student.
5.   Monitor what your students post.

I guess I’m wondering what other peoples’ comfort level is with this. I just think it’s a slippery slope for possible inappropriate (or accusation of inappropriate) relationships between teachers and students. If you’re not a teacher, how would you feel if your child befriended a teacher or former teacher online?

I do. I’ve had a few conversations in my new school about the difference (as I see it) between a geek and a nerd. Then last night while I was catching up on my posting for my course the TV was on in the background. The show was called “The Fabulous Life of Geeks”. The host continually used the terms geek and nerd interchangeably. It irked me.

To me a geek is a person who, aside from being interested and versed in technology and/or science, lacks fashion sense and doesn’t respond to social cues. To me a nerd is someone who has interest and experience in technology and/or science but by all outward appearances is “normal”. I’m not even going to get in to what is considered normal!

I decided to go to a few online resources; dictionary.com and urbandictionary.com. Although some may question the validity of the definitions found in these online sources, I thought it best to search my query in much the way a modern-day student would.

Dictionary.com says a geek is:
(click each definition to see its original page)

Dictionary.com says a nerd is:

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with these definitions, I’m just throwing them out there as a jumping off point for discussion.

Here’s what urbandictionary.com had to say about geeks and nerds.

Interestingly enough, the urbandictionary.com definition pits geek and nerd on directly opposite ends of my perception. I am offended when someone calls me a geek yet I am fine when I am called a nerd. I don’t know, maybe I’ve seen this all backwards and need to change my perception.

So, which one are you? Geek? Nerd? By whose standards? Which definition do you most closely adhere to? Help me figure out if I’m a nerd or a geek! I am suddenly having an identity crisis!