Week 13: Student Generated Post #2 - Your own question and your own answer. Comment on one of your classmate's post.
Question #1: What is meant by "The Flat Classroom"?
I recently came across this concept of a flat classroom and I decided to look into how a flat classroom differs from the traditional classroom. Traditionally, I was told that we teach within the walls of our classroom, providing our students with the tools to focus on concept-based knowledge with a few skills thrown in. Over the past few years education a movement has emerged that is demanding a change in how we teach our students. This new world of education focuses on positive learning experiences and enduring understandings. The goal is to make our students into lifelong learners with critical thinking skills. Simultaneously, the Partnership for 21st century exposed us to the need for 21st century skills. Out of all of these changes,the flat classroom was born. The concept of a 'flat classroom' is based on the constructivist principle of a multi-modal learning environment that is student-centered and a level playing field for teacher to student and student to teacher interaction. Taken from the brochure "The Flat Classroom Project is a global hands-on working together project for middle and high school students". The wikipage discussing this concept was founded by Vicki Davis (Westwood Schools, USA) and Julie Lindsay (Qatar Academy, Qatar) in 2006. The Project uses Web 2.0 tools to make communication and interaction between students and teachers from all participating classrooms easier. It creates a classroom with no walls so students have global access to other students. One of the main goals of the project is to 'flatten' or lower the classroom walls so that instead of each class working isolated and alone, 2 or more classes are joined virtually to become one large classroom. This is usually done through the Internet using sites such as Wikispaces, for example. The topics studied and discussed are real-world scenarios based on 'The World is Flat' by Thomas Friedman. Although I have not as yet read the book it does look interested for my summer reading. Check it out - more information can be found in the following article and brochure.
ISTE's Learning and Leading magazine article: Davis, V. & Lindsay, J. (2007). Flat Classrooms. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(1), 28-30. Available for download from this wiki - Flat_Classroom_LL_August07.pdf
Flat Classroom Project Brochure (updated January 2009) - Brochure_Jan09.pdf
Question #2:
In discussing implementation strategies, both the schools I interviewed used the CIPP evaluation model. Of all the models we reviewed I found this one to be the one I knew the least about. It was because I knew very little about the CIPP Model that I decided to do a little research. My question and answer for this post have been taken from my work.
What exactly is the Daniel Stufflebeam's CIPP Evaluation Model?
My Answer:
The CIPP Evaluation Model Daniel Stufflebeam introduces in his work “Educational Evaluation and Decision Making” provides uses with a conceptual framework for evaluating various educational programs, institutions, systems and even personnel using various methodologies (Stufflebeam, 1977; 2002). Stufflebeam focuses on effecting sustainable improvements in the educational system that may be enjoyed over the long rather than the short term. Stufflebeam’s early model, introduced in 1966 and later revised in 1977 suggests that the need for process and product evaluations were important; later models emphasizes goal setting as important toward contextual evaluation including needs assessment, with even later models illustrating product evaluation in various subparts including through input evaluation, needs assessment, context evaluation and alternative program strategies (Stufflebeam, 2002). The primary focus of the model includes providing timely evaluation reports that are designed to evaluate various programs long term goals and results. The CIPP model is based on the notion that the merit, worth and significance of a given entity must be evaluated using systematic methods (Stufflebeam, 2002). Context, input, product and process evaluation are all critical concepts related to Stuffelbeam’s model. This innovation suggests that the context evaluation can be met by making the decision to adopt or utilize a specific program; the input evaluation may be accomplished by providing goals and objectives for restructuring a model or system; process evaluation may be met through monitoring a defined program during implementation; product evaluations is considered informally or informally based on whether the goals and objectives of a given program are actually achieved (Furner, 1998). Product evaluation may consider multiple components of a system in the educational context, which may include statistical evidence of attendance or achievement rates and other factors directly related to educational program success.
Stufflebeam’s model is unique in that not only does it define the procedures that educational facilities and administrators can adopt to effectively select, implement and evaluate the outcomes of a proposed method or procedure, but also later provides administrators and teachers with the tools necessary to evaluate how successful they are at each stage of the modeling process. This is evidenced by Stufflebeam’s later development of a checklist to assess or complement the CIPP model. The checklist designed by Stufflebeam may be used in conjunction with the model to provide the best possible outcome to educational administrators and authorities (Stufflebeam, 2002).
Stufflebeam’s model has been around for decades, and has been used in many fields including management, though it is most popular within the field of education (Payne, 1994). Most simply it can be defined as a systems model that one can apply to program evaluation. The system that Stufflebeam suggests includes input, process and output, as well as context (Pane, 1994). CIPP in short refers to each stage of the evaluation process, namely context, input, process and product. These varying forms of evaluation may be viewed separately or as stages and steps in the comprehensive evaluation process. During the context stage examination and description of the context of a program must be considered, including conduction of needs and goals assessment. Input evaluation includes describing program resources, inputs and comparing how a program might perform in relation to other similar programs (Payne, 1994). It acts as a sort of checks and balances or benefit cost assessment. Using input evaluation administrators can determine whether the benefits of a program will outweigh any risks including extreme costs associated with implementation and maintenance of a program (Payne, 1994). This step is vital toward determining program structure (Payne, 1994).
Process evaluation will include throughout examination of program implementation, including routine monitoring of the program and auditing to ensure that a program consistently meets regularly and ethical guidelines (Payne, 1994). Process evaluation may also help program administrator’s correct defects in the procedural design or those that occur during implementation (Payne, 1994). Process evaluation is a tool that users can use to implement decisions. Product evaluation requires determination of specific goals, objectives or simply defined, outcomes of the program (Payne, 1994). During this stage of the evaluation process participating will measure the anticipated outcomes of a program with the intent of identifying any outcomes that may be unanticipated (Payne, 1994). This stage may also help evaluate whether a program is cost effective and hence worthy of future consideration or continuance.
The CIPP Model developed by Stufflebeam is best reserved for formative evaluations but may also be useful for summative evaluations (Payne, 1994). The model is comprehensive and useful for comprehensive as well as single analysis of programs and procedures. Administrators and program directors can use the model to help evaluate primary issues and questions as well as consider alternate courses or programs related to a specific set of objectives (Payne, 1994).
References: (a few)
Furner, J.M. (1998). “Curriculum innovation interview: The four period day.” Education,1: 31.
Payne, D.A. (1994). “Chapter 4: Evaluation Models” In, Designing educational project
and program evaluations: A practical overview based on research and experience. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/dr_johnson/660lectures/Lect2.doc
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1977). Educational evaluation and decision making. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2002, June). CIPP Evaluation Model Checklist.” The Evaluation
Center. Available: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/cippchecklist.htm
____________________________________________________________________--
Great Question from Erin:How do you make it all work? How do you teach every subject, address all of the NJCCCS, and get it all in within a 10 month time period? With pullouts, differentiated lessons, and constant distractions to your schedule, how do you get it all in and make sure you're reaching every child?
Erin, I agree and often wonder how to bring it all together myself. Flexibility and adaptability is key, but sometimes that is not enough. The last thing I would ever want to do is leave a child behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment