Some evaluators envision evaluation as a catalyst for learning in the workplace (Preskill & Torres, 1999). Evaluation criteria and issues are decided by organization members. This evaluation is ongoing and incorporated into all work practices.
This type of evaluation model is present in our collaborative learning communities for teachers who are trying to reach the same goals for their students. These communities are always trying to improve their evaluations. These collaborative groups can be created for specific subjects or the same grade levels for self-contained classrooms. Each member's contribution is vital to the success of the model.
B) Empowerment Evaluation Model
Define by Fetterman (2001), this approach is the "use of evaluation concepts, techniques, and findings to foster improvement and self-determination." The short term goals include intermediate objectives, intermediate outcomes, and benchmarks. the empowerment model focuses on self-determination, capacity building, and collaboration.
This model, I believe is already present in evaluating my instruction. The instruction I give is based on student data received from benchmark testing. After a benchmark is given, I disaggregate the results to create small group interventions and guide my instruction. Benchmarks are given three times a year beginning in October, for a baseline, then again in January to evaluate progress. The last benchmark is given a couple of weeks before the state assessment to further evaluate the students' progression. Each time, the data is assessed and changes are made to intervention groups and instruction.
2) My social system is an elementary school that recently adopted SMART Boards. While most perceived the innovation as a burden, I was ecstatic. I literally taught myself how to use the SMART Board to further benefit my students.
Relative advantage: interactive
Compatibility: student engagement
Complexity: user-friendly
Trialability: experiment independently before implementation
Observability: immediate engagement and results
3) I have been involved in training new staff and reluctant staff on use of the SMART Boards. The Situational Leadership approach involves phases that are present when designing the professional development sessions for this technology implementation in the classrooms. Phase 1 would require an overview or introduction to the SMART Board. This would include installing the software and providing direct instruction on how to access and register the software, how to use the pen tray, and all the features/buttons of the program. Phase 2 would be the introduction of the SMART Exchange program, which is an online help tool that provides teachers with pre-created lessons on numerous grade levels and topics. Teachers could use these lessons at the beginning until familiarity increases. Phase 3 will focus on allowing teachers to create their own material for an interactive lesson. Different examples and methods can be introduced on how to incorporate outside resources, such as pictures, music, videos, and backgrounds. Phase 4 will allow the teachers to venture on their own to create their own lessons pertaining to their criteria. I can be available for questions or concerns.
Videos, like the following can be created for Phase 1 of this approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment