You are on page 1of 6

FRIT 7237 Fall 2016

Final Project

New State Standards for Mathematics and Problem-based Learning


A Grant Funded Project
Evaluation Team Members:
Whitney Gaddis
Carrie Gossett
Shavannah Newkirk
Dana Nunnery
Danita Sanders

FRIT 7237 Fall 2016


Final Project

Implementation Evaluation
Program impact in terms of results is important, however it is equally important to assess
how and to what degree a program is implemented to gain a deeper understanding of a program
as a whole, as well as to ensure the integrity of the program. Careful observation of program
implementation methods allows evaluators to more effectively assess observed outcomes
(Duerden & Witt, 2012).
The project at the focal point of this evaluation is a collaboration between Braxton
County Schools and Great Southern University. It consists of a professional development
experience designed to prepare teachers in grades 6, 7, and 8 in Braxton County, Georgia for the
implementation of the New State Standards for Mathematics (NSSM). The goal of the project is
for teachers to gain a deeper understanding of how mathematics is used in business and industry,
for teachers to learn new methods of learning, and to assist teachers with the use of instructional
technology. The Implementation Chart shows how the need for the project was assessed and a
plan for roll-out in the schools.

Implementation Evaluation
How was the need
of a project

determined?

Needs assessments were conducted using the following:


Survey of Braxton County Teachers to determine teachers perceptions of need and interest
in the project.
Student achievement results (CRCT) in grades 6-8 to determine need.

How were project


participants
determined?

Participants were to consist mainly of mathematics teachers in grades 6, 7, and 8 (targeted


grades) but was open to any math teacher in grades K-12, not to exceed a limit of 16
participants.
Administrators from each school as space allows.
Braxton County Director of Professional Learning, Ms. Carla Lawson worked along with

FRIT 7237 Fall 2016


Final Project

program director to recruit participants.

Was the project


implementation
planned
effectively?

Project Operation Plan was described in detail in Table 2 of the proposal.


Professional development for teachers
5 day summer workshop
Post-workshop meetings
Visits to local businesses and industries to see mathematics utilized

Summative Evaluation
Summative evaluation is often associated with more objective, quantitative methods of data
collection, is linked to accountability, and recommends using a balance of both quantitative and
qualitative methods in order to get a better understanding of what your project has achieved, and
how or why this has certain outcomes occurred. When conducting a summative evaluation on the
New State Standards for Mathematics and Problem-based Learning Grant Funded Project,
evaluators use and complete the following table and rubric to determine the quality and
effectiveness of activities, project goals, and specific objectives.
Summative Evaluation
When

Project implementation and post-project: The project is tentatively scheduled to


begin in June 2015 and end no later than January 2016.

What:
The goal of this project was to prepare teachers to create and utilize authentic,
What were the objectives mathematics learning experiences, which incorporate NSSM and available
and/or goals?
instructional technologies.
Who:
An assessment of need for this project was conducted, that included a discussion
Who are the program
with Braxton County Schools personnel, a survey of Braxton County mathematics
participants and how were teachers, and an examination of recent student CRCT data; Pool of Math teachers of

FRIT 7237 Fall 2016


Final Project

they recruited?

Why and How

(Results):
To assess the quality of
the initial program
activities, whether the
project has met its goals,
whether there were any
unintended consequences,
what were the learnings,
and how to improve.
Follow Ups:

Were the initial experience


and follow up activities
implemented as planned?
What is the quality of
follow up ands support
activities?
Data type

Pondering
Questions/Suggestions:

grades 6, 7, and 8, up to 16 participants, through a survey of Braxton County


mathematics teachers conducted in October 2011;Recruitment efforts will utilize
email and paper mailings to advertise the project
Create PBL modules for mathematics, integrate available instructional technology
into PBL experiences, implement and evaluate the learning modules
created;Timeline of project activities, associated personnel, and alignment with
project objectives with specified dates;Before creating problem solving modules,
project participants and project staff members will visit select local businesses and
industries to see the mathematics used in these contexts;Teachers will implement
the modules with their students and conduct self-evaluations of the implementation,
which will be shared with project staff members.

Two post-workshop meetings; Mid-implementation meeting to discuss questions


and concerns related to implementation of the PBL modules; Final meeting to
discuss the teacher-created self-evaluations, implementation, and to identify best
practices.

Quantitative
Questionnaires
Surveys
Observations

Qualitative
Focus Group
Assessments Given and Results
Self-Evaluations

How did this program affect students with disabilities? Failed to identify or Missing
important technology resources to implement for Americans with Disabilities. Was
technology required for teacher and students to use if so, what kind? Develop an
explicit needs assessment inventory for technology, equipment, or software needed.
This was a grant funded project, but how much was the grant for and what was it
suppose to cover. Funding resources are not mentioned.

Summative Evaluation Rubric: See editable rubric link below


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dCHL7TzL5Mi7PwFtN8D01jcLkDjqTHyEndY9E_Gddo/edit?usp=sharing

FRIT 7237 Fall 2016


Final Project

Data Collection Schedule

Data Set

Date of Collection

Instrument Already
Developed

Data Collected By

Students examination

May 2015

Yes

Project team

Math teacher Surveys

June 2015

No

Project team

Observations

Sept 2015

Yes

Project team

Questionnaires

Sept 2015

No

Project team

Focus Group

Oct 2015

No

Project team

Given Pre-Assessments

Oct 2015

Yes

Project team

Observations

Nov 2016-Jan 2016

Yes

Project team

Focus Group

Nov 2015

No

Project team

Given Post- Assessments

Dec 2015

Yes

Project team

Self-Evaluations

March 2016

Yes

Project team

CRCT scores

Data Collection Summary:


Teacher participants will complete a pre-project survey as well as a post-project survey to
determine the initial and final experience of the project. Great Southern University faculty will

FRIT 7237 Fall 2016


Final Project

examine PBL modules and implementation of technology by on site observations to ensure they
meet program objectives. External consultants will also review student work samples and their
alignment to NSSM and PBL. Great Southern University faculty and the external consultant
team will compare their findings in a summative evaluation for the implementation of the overall
project.

References:
Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2012). Assessing program implementation: What it is, why it's
important, and how to do it. Journal of Extension, 50(1), 1-8. Retrieved from
https://www.joe.org/joe/2012february/a4.php