1

EDAC 634
Program Evaluation
African Indigenous Knowledge
Group 5 Members
Marlena Bertram
Jessica Schul-Solow
Kristin Wheeler

Reflection of Surveys
Marlena Bertram
Survey #1 Whitney Harden (Appendix A):
I felt Whitneys review was very balanced, trying to show the good and the bad. The review
stated that they liked the program overall in general but felt a few additions would be helpful. I feel that
using digital media aspects could be beneficial to the program as well, but for it to be successful it
would need to be formal yet informal at the same time due to accessibility, productivity, and
engagement. I did not understand Whitneys TRIO section and am not sure if she understood our
program completely in our storytelling aspect. Overall, I found the review useful.
Survey #2 Elizabeth Swisher (Appendix B):
This respondent seemed to really grasp, like, and understand the importance and usefulness of
Ubuntu. I think her idea of the stakeholders being found could be difficult to be spot on and important
to note. I think if we changed our timeframes and adjusted some timing aspects to allow relationships,
mentorships, and understanding to develop the stakeholders consent and engagement. Overall, I found
this respondents responses to coincide with some of my own concerns that I have developed over time.
Survey #3 Nina Tangman (Appendix C):
I felt the criticism was heavy in this review, but in a good way. Pointing out that workloads and
responsibilities need to be more strongly considered is important. I think that more than one facilitator
is necessary for the program to be successful. It is, also, important to make sure that the ideas of
Ubuntu are clear and utilized in the aspect. The respondents comments on TRIO and storytelling do not
make the most sense to me and I feel that our section we have in place should be sufficient for the
program, as Ubuntu is of the most importance, not TRIO and storytelling themselves.
Survey #4 Adam Campbell (Appendix D):
The idea of Ubuntu seems clearly understood by this respondent. The responses stated that more

3
time needs given for communication, which I can agree with. Once again, reviewing timeframes and
time management are important going further. Adam brings up a great point about the principal of
Ubuntu being a foreign concept to some people, which is why it would be important to make sure it is
clear to all participants to be successful. From reading this review, it coincides with others and with
small changes we can make drastic changes.
Highlights:
I loved the survey responses and while the positive feedback was great, I am one to focus on the
suggestions. I feel after reviewing the responses that time management in the program may need to be
evaluated further and possibly adjusted to encapture the African communal learning styles. I, also, feel
that it is possible that the stakeholders may need a bit more explanation or in depth information to fit
with the students, mentors, teachers, etc to work well together. Overall the feedback was great, we of
course just have to find that balance between the African culture and our western culture for it to be
successful. Overall the responses were great and helpful. Seeing these responses has reaffirmed me that
our project is not only great but the ideas of Ubuntu are great as well.
Process:
My portion of this evaluation was to aid in examining the responses from our surveys. In doing
this, I was able to see what needed improved, what was good, what needed more explanation, and what
was understood. The biggest thing that I learned was that our time frames needed work, but that the
idea of Ubuntu was not only understood, but well liked by our respondents. We need to allow time for
relationship and communal building in our design for the idea of Ubuntu to be complete in our work.
This is probably the best and most understanding group I have ever worked with. When one needs help
or has issues going on at home, there is room for understanding, yet we all still get work completed. We
use a lot of e-mail, conference calls, and discussion board posts to keep in contact and work together in
the best ways possible. We have tried to make our program well-rounded and well understood, and I

4
feel that we are accomplishing just that!

Reflection of Surveys
Jessica Schul-Solow
Survey #1 Whitney Harden (Appendix A):
I agree with the technical aspects of this review. I think that adding blogging or multimedia
resources would be helpful to the community cohort and their ability to reflect on their experience. I am
not sure how we would implement that in a formal way such as Blackboard but we may be able to
create a class blog or other social media site. This review did not take a critical eye to the formatting
and typically liked the program in general. I did get confused regarding the answers in which the
survey respondent talked about TRIO as if it was part of our program. I would take a second look at our
rational to ensure that we are being clear that neither TRIO nor the Storytelling Project are our main
program.
Survey #2 Elizabeth Swisher (Appendix B):
I like how well the aspects of Ubuntu translated over from our rationale which is apparent in
this review of the program. This respondent really liked how well we incorporated the principals of
Ubuntu into our program and could easily identify those aspects. I appreciated how the respondent also
identified that it might be harder to select and gain consent of community stakeholders than we had
originally thought. I would adjust our program to give more time for our workshop participants to build
relationships with each other and with community stakeholders to generate a more meaningful
experience for both parties. I would also change our program to more clearly define the role of the
facilitator and also how additional time to talk about how to effectively cultivate relationships with
community leaders and stakeholders.
Survey #3 Nina Tangman (Appendix C)
I appreciated the critical eye of this respondent. Many of the survey respondents generally liked

5
our program and did not have a lot of constructive criticism regarding the structure of our program
design. These survey responses were helpful because I had not thought about the workload and
responsibilities of the workshop being too much for just one facilitator. I would agree that more than
one facilitator is necessary for this program to be successful in addition to providing a thorough over
view and rationale of Ubuntu in the beginning of our workshop. There are also some areas of
improvement stated in the survey response about including some information regarding TRIO and the
Storytelling Project. I do not necessarily agree with the respondent in that regard. I would prefer to talk
about those projects in a briefer format or as a way to inspire the participants to embrace Ubuntu
practices of collaboration.
Survey #4 Adam Campbell (Appendix D)
The respondent of this survey stated that Ubuntu allows for everyone to be a stakeholder and
become active participants. This would lead me to believe that our program design rationale and
introduction does a great job of articulating the purpose of our program design. The survey responses
suggested that we allow more time for communication with the groups and toward building consensus.
I would agree that there might need to be a little bit more emphasis on allowing time to build
consensus. I do feel that we are already allowing time for communication and team building by
introducing time to socialize and eat during snack times. The respondent brings up a great point about
the principal of Ubuntu being a foreign concept to some people. Perhaps we can take a closer look at
the timeline of events and ensure that significant time is spent letting people know about the Ubuntu
Model and/or providing documents that further explain the concept.
Highlights
The most significant parts of the survey responses is that we will need to take another look at
the time allotment for each section and make some additional changes to ensure the participants have
enough time to take in the information. Another significant response was that we should consider

6
having more than one facilitator and that we should possible introduce stakeholders ahead of time and
coach a little on how to get those stakeholders on board, as this might be a huge challenge for those
who have never had to accomplish that feat before.
Process
This assignment was completed by obtaining as many survey responses as possible in hopes of
understanding what aspects of our program design could be improved and what aspects are well done.
One lesson that was learned during this process is that not all respondents seemed to fully understand
that the two programs (TRIO & Storytelling Project) were not in their entirety used in our program
design. Having a group that communicates what needs to be done has been very helpful. We have
utilized phone conferences, email, and posting in our class chat rooms to prepare our evaluation and
give feedback. I have learned that the more time that you give yourself and your group to brainstorm
and to put things together the better! Our group wanted as many responses as possible to give us a
larger spectrum of critiques to work with, this greatly influenced what changes we found that needed to
be made.

Reflection of Surveys
Kristin Wheeler
Survey #1 Whitney Harden (Appendix A):
I felt that this respondent thought that our program was designed to fit into a TRIO program
environment, which is not necessarily what we were going for, but I can understand this because TRIO
is probably a large part of her job. I really appreciated the suggestion for the uses of technology to be
integrated into the program. As this is more of a train the trainer environment to give the learners the
opportunity to see how this type of cohort would work in their own communities, it may not be feasible
given the timeline. The facilitators could offer this as a suggestion when they take the program back to
their own communities for long-term problem solving programs.

7
Survey #2 Elizabeth Swisher (Appendix B):
I could definitely understand this respondent's trepidation that there would not be enough time
to develop stakeholder relationships in the short amount of time of the training program. Again, this is
something that we should clarify as being a program that trains learners how to start these programs in
their own communities. This is not a full-scale implementation of the program, but is a training
program meant to plant the ideas and offer the opportunity to see how it would work in the real world.
That is why the facilitators would suggest bringing a family member or friend along as a stakeholder.
This would get the learners used to developing relationships with community members where they
would feel comfortable asking them to join the organization as a stakeholder and mentor.
Survey #3 Nina Tangman (Appendix C)
I definitely agree that we need to clarify how each segment of the program relates to the
principles of ubuntu as suggested by this respondent. The respondent also recognized a need for
clarification of the role of the facilitator (who is the actual instructor). Again, in reference to the
stakeholders, the purpose of this program is to show the learners how to create stakeholder
relationships within their own communities when they go back, so the intent of the twelve week
program is not to build a stakeholder relationship, but to get the learners used to the idea and the ways
it could be implemented in their own programs.
Survey #4 Adam Campbell (Appendix D)
This respondent focused on the potential that principles of ubuntu could be foreign to the
learners, and that more time should be focused on understanding those principles and practicing
consensus building. I do agree on this point, but I would also argue that introducing the concepts in 15
minutes does not mean that the principles would not be be further discussed and clarified through the
actual dialogue, storytelling, and consensus building in which the participants engage. The entire
program is set up to reflect the principles, as opposed to the banking method, where students absorb

8
and regurgitate.
Highlights
I felt that the survey responses were very informative and helped me look at the program design
and rationale with a more critical eye. The responses included suggestions that will help the team
clarify the ways that the principles of ubuntu have been modified to meet the experience and needs of
western learners, change some of the time components to include more clarification and direct
instruction, and possibly introduce the idea of having more than one facilitator. I do also feel that we
need to clarify that this program is intended to train people to take the design back to their communities
as opposed to trying to mount a full-scale community action organization within a twelve week training
program.

Process
Our group used old-fashioned tools to complete this assignment (Microsoft Word and face-toface interactions to solicit responses). We also utilized our trusted online free conference call software
to communicate with each other on a regular basis. The most important suggestion I could give is to
ask for responses as early as possible and keep reminding your volunteers to respond. I would also
suggest setting group deadlines for a few days before the actual due date in order for everyone to gain
consensus while proofing the finished product.

Evaluators

Ideas for improving

program design

Revisions/your responses

Whitney Harden (Appendix A)

Add a blogging
element to the
program

Great idea, would be

suggested by
facilitators for when
the participants take
the program back to
their own
communities. Would
probably not be able
to implement with the
twelve week training
due to time
constraints.

Elizabeth Swisher (Appendix

Give more time to

build stakeholder
relationships

As explained, this is a
training program for
learners to take back
to their own
communities.
Bringing the
stakeholders in is just
a way to show them
how it would be done
in their own
communities. The
time constraints of
the training program
do not allow for the
deeper mentorship
possibilities when
they return.

Suggested using more

than one facilitator,
needed facilitator
relationship to group
clarified
Give more time to
explain principles of

It would definitely be
possible to use more
than one facilitator,
depending on the size
of the cohort. Also,
the facilitator is the
teacher and that

B)

Nina Tangman (Appendix C)

10

ubuntu

Adam Campbell (Appendix D)

Allow more time for

the development of
the consensus
building, more
training on the
principles of ubuntu

should be clarified
that the teaching team
would be developing
the videos, etc. to
take back to the
group.
We agree that we should
definitely revise the
program design timeline to
allow for more instruction
in consensus building, but
feel that the principles of
ubuntu are also built into
other aspects of the program
and that the participants will
learn by doing.

11
Appendix A

Name (optional): Whitney Harden

Role/Position: Assistant Director of Student Success and Retention
Adult and Community Education Qualifications and Experience:
Community College administrative staff for over 4 years. That entire time has been with Ivy Tech
Community College.
What do you like most about the program design?
I like the sense of community the program is set to create amongst the TRIO participants. Our
culture is shifting to a very collaborative one and this will benefit the participants in their various career
fields in the future. I can also see how this will benefit them by being able to collaborative across
industries in the future.
When you create a supportive environment much like what the program is designed to create,
you create an atmosphere where students will support each others success in this program and in their
academics. I believes this creates a bond that will carrying on beyond TRIO and college. These
participants will likely want to stay connected professionally for future collaboration.
What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?
One thing I would encourage is the use of blogging (or video blogging) for each cohort where
they are able to reflect on their experience on a regular basis (i.e. weekly or monthly), as well as
speaking on things that are going on within the community in which the serve as it relates to their
focus. This should be shared amongst the cohort and community leaders that are partnering with the
cohort. The blog could be hosted on a Learning Management System such as Blackboard where they
offer the capability to produce blogs within an organization or class shell. These are typically easy to
set up by an organizer. This would further create a sense a collaboration as all are able to post articles

12
and respond to each others posts and comments to further the discussion which would also support the
storytelling piece of this program.
Any other comments or suggestions?
This is a great program design that many cohorts could benefit from.

13
Appendix B
Name (optional): Elizabeth Swisher
Role/Position: Student Success Advisor
Adult and Community Education Qualifications and Experience: M.S.Ed., Higher Education and
Student Affairs; 5+ years experience in higher education, including 2+ years working at a community
college
What do you like most about the program design?
I like the ways in which the aspects of Ubuntu are incorporated into the program design. The
concepts of group learning, community engagement, dialogue and storytelling, and consensus building
are clearly incorporated through activities such as the communal meal, group discussion, and bringing
in community stakeholders. Overall, the program design seems well thought-out.
What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?
The main aspect I wonder about is how program participants will identify the community
stakeholders and engage them in the project. In my experience, relationships with community
organizations tend to take time to develop, so I wonder whether or not the timeline for this aspect of the
program is realistic and would generate meaningful engagement with the stakeholders. I think the role
of the stakeholders could be more clearly defined.
Any other comments or suggestions? Nice job! I enjoyed reading your program design.

14
Appendix C
Name (optional): Nina Tangman
Role/Position: Associate Director, Academic Affairs
Adult and Community Education Qualifications and Experience:
Associate Director, Academic Affairs, Private Business and Vocational Schools Division 2 years
Assistant Director, Academic Affairs, Private Business and Vocational Schools Division 2 years
Masters Human Services Social Service Administration
What do you like most about the program design?
I feel this is great program design which encourages awareness, discourse, research, and
solidarity to work toward resolving an identified issue. Most often, individuals are aware of an issue
and how it affects a certain segment of population close to them, but others are not aware of the issue
due to ignorance/lack of exposure. Most group projects involve little to no personal interaction and
understanding of why a topic is relevant to specific populations. This program values the Ubuntu
exchange of information and learning from each other in order to educate and/or rectify a problem. The
program design allows for personal interaction among the group which helps to foster mutual respect
and understanding whereby people are more open to listen, learn and understand each other.
What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?
I actually think the program design flows nicely. If I had to make some suggestions on
improvements, I would focus on the following:
Week One: - There should be some time built in for the instructor to provide an overview of the
program and discuss goals/benchmarks and outcomes related to participation in the class and rationale
for utilizing the Ubuntu format. I think it is important for participants to understand each session is
formatted after an Ubuntu principle(s) which will be used by the group to work together toward
choosing an issue the group must address later in the program.

15
Week Four: - The homework assigned asks participants to bring a stakeholder to the next meeting. I
would suggest at this time participants also inform the stakeholder of the opportunity to become a
mentor as the project moves forward. This allows the stakeholder to reflect on the time and resources
available to commit to the project.
Weeks 6 11 A facilitator is mentioned that is responsible for documentation via video and
journaling. Is this the instructor, stakeholder/mentor, or a group member? This needs to be clarified.
My additional suggestion is this is a lot of responsibility (videoing, editing, journaling, and compilation
of a manual) for one individual to take on without the assistance of the group members. I think this
strays from the Ubuntu principles of community, shared responsibility, consensus, etc.
Any other comments or suggestions?
This suggestion relates more to actual formatting of the written program design. The written
design significantly explains TRIO and The Storytelling Project. It would be my suggestion to briefly
mention these projects in the introduction as examples to be discussed further.
The introduction specifically talks about American versus Ubuntu cultural differences in
education and the need to amend some practices. However, I could not locate where those differences
were in the proposed program design and how the Ubuntu practice was amended to align with
American Culture.
Overall, I think this was a unique program design to implement and could be very beneficial to
problem solving among varied groups.

16
Appendix D
Name (optional): Adam Campbell
Role/Position: Assistant Director, PBVS Division, Illinois Board of Higher Education
Adult and Community Education Qualifications and Experience:
I have worked with adult learners for over 10 years in both formal and informal academic settings. I
have developed multiple educational programs and engaged in various program reviews and
evaluations. Many of the programs I have worked with have centered on adult education, individual
improvement, and community development.
What do you like most about the program design?
The entire idea of collaborative learning has merit. Obviously, if an individual were to take a
greater ownership of his/her learning or community projects, there are far reaching benefits. I like that
the program focuses on actual problem-solving and outcomes rather than just problem identification.
Often times, in Western culture, we are quick to coalesce around what is seen as a community problem
but without taking the proper steps toward solutions. Community engagement and active problemsolving by all parties involved are necessary components in learning and community development. The
Ubuntu model allows for everyone to be a stakeholder, at some level, and allows for all involved to
become active participants in the community.
What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?
Looking at the program design, I would encourage allotting more initial time toward consensus
building and communication within the group. While Western culture does allow for consensus
building, it is not always at the forefront and it is not taught or encouraged within many demographics.
While I do think African Indigenous cultures are more communal in nature, we are not. That being
said, I feel that program participants can learn to become more centered on developing a consensus and
working proactively with other group participants. For example, a brief introduction to the Ubuntu

17
model and the idea of community problem-solving is a terrific start to the program. However, there
may be several program participants to whom this concept is foreign. Initially, within weeks one and
two of the program, more time could be allocated to learning and understanding consensus building
than the proposed 15 minutes or so. As the program develops and participants learn how to effectively
work within the group to problem-solve, the allotted time could be winnowed down.
Any other comments or suggestions?
The proposed program would be great in addressing local issues to begin with. Again, while I
feel Western culture does not always emphasize consensus building (primarily with whom we may
disagree), the Ubuntu model could be taught and implemented. As local problems are addressed and
the model outcomes trend to the positive, broader implementation could work.