Of the approximately 500 Aboriginal women the authors estimated who were pregnant in Saskatoon during the 2 years of the program only 11% inquired about the program and 7% actively participated.

In looking at a possible model for evaluation there are obviously several choices. As a means of “objective” evaluation the Stufflebeam – CIPP model is the one I chose to look at the program. The Stufflebeam approach looks at the Context of the program, the Inputs involved, the Process and the Product or output.

The specific context of the Aboriginal prenatal fitness project is easy to delineate. Who qualifies for the program is easy to sort out. The participants are selected based on gender, ancestry and predilection to a particular condition. The larger the sample size, possibly 500 at the time of the program, creates the possibility of seeing if the goals of the program are met.

The inputs to the program are the actual prenatal exercise classes. Their location, their leaders and the resources needed to achieve these are all part of the inputs. Additional resources were part of the actual location that was used in the program. Swimming, low impact aerobics and exercise equipment was available and part of the program. As well, paraprofessional personnel and outside supports are well documented within the program.

The process can be well defined. Where the classes were held, who took them and how they were conducted are detailed within the program’s description. As well, additions dues to participant requests are also detailed in the description.

Lastly, is the product. The end goal of the program was to address particular health concerns within a target population. After evaluating the context, inputs and process, a judgment could be made regarding the product. Did the program result in a reduction of pregnant Aboriginal women contracting either GDM or Type II diabetes? There are other outcomes or products that might result from a program like this that could be outlined, but the end goal of the program is to prevent disease. If that is happening the program could be deemed successful. If not, perhaps not as successful and steps to correct this within the program could be outlined.

I think this model works well for a program like this because it objectively looks at the various parts and passes a judgment on whether it is effective or not. All the components of the Stufflebeam model are met in the program’s description and background material. The “product” is not delineated, but presumably would be something that would be available for the evaluator to access.

A potential problem in this model of evaluation is that there are other products that are less objective oriented than simply whether participants reported less instances of disease. Increased social interaction, good use of public facilities and classes and the possible reasons why a good portion of pregnant Aboriginal women don’t participate in the program may not be examined.

1. Choose a completed evaluation; any kind, your choice. Determine the model used and identify in your mind the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation and the approach that was taken.

I had a great deal of difficulty tracking down an actual program evaluation to write anything about. It seems like an easy Google search, but in reality it was harder than that. However, I found one I thought was interesting.

http://www.mts.net/~nacm/pe.html

This comes from the Native Addictions Council of Manitoba. (NACM) They have a variety of programs ranging from an addictions treatment home, Pritchard House, to women and youth substance addictions programs and gambling and outreach programs.

There are a wide variety of program evaluation models that could be used to analyze the efficacy of such programs. These evaluations could be summative or formative. Summative evaluations are those that typically come at the end of a particular program and “wrap-up” the program. The evaluation looks at whether or not the program met its targets or goals. Formative evaluation is processed based and helps guide a program towards its goals and aims. The goal is improvement or feedback on how the program is progressing.

A wide variety of models of evaluation could be employed.

The NACM program evaluation seems to be very cursory. It is one web page in length and there are essentially six questions that are asked of participants within the program. “Program evaluations are filled out by clients after completion of their programs”. (N.A.C.M) The model that seems to be used here is Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation Model. The questions asked of students deals with their reaction to the program, why they chose the program and how they would rate it. The evaluation seems to fall down on looking at behaviours and the results. A rating scale of how clients score their treatment program seems a little lacking in “punch”, if nothing else. As well, for the range of addictions treatments that NACM offers, their program evaluation seems to be sorely lacking. If you were donating money to their cause, I would expect to see more detailed program evaluations.

The model is effective in that people who participate in the programs have input into the evaluation of what is actually in their program and its perceived efficacy.

Now, it may be that in the context of this website, which reports on NACM’s activities and programs, the actual program evaluations are not exhaustively itemized. As well, their privacy policy may not allow complete program evaluations to be released in this sort of public forum. However, the privacy document is not accessible from the website to confirm this.

All in all, while the programs that NACM provides may be effective or valuable, their own release of program evaluation materials is sorely lacking in both scope and depth.

Clark, D. R. (2012, january 14). Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.html

N.A.C.M. (n.d.). Native alcoholism council of manitoba – program evaluations. Retrieved from http://www.http://mts.net/~nacm/pe.html

Overall the MiFi 2372 from Novatel is a pretty nifty little device. I’d like the ability to configure a router with more options, like something I’d do to a Linksys WRT-54G, but it allows the devices I want to connect wirelessly around the house to do just that. Failing that I can fire up the WiFi hotspot on my iPhone and serve any other wireless needs. Connection is zippy both uploading and downloading. I must admit to being a bit confused by exactly how much data I am downloading as the device reports only 5GB since April has been downloaded and I my bill said I downloaded 28GB last month alone. That’s a bit of a discrepancy. With a new tower going up on Whitefish I may actually get over 2 bars of connection!

So, stay tuned, there will be more “edumacation” content posted here during the next few months.

A colleague at work got a Novatel mobile broadband USB Internet stick. With an unlimited plan of $75 I thought it might be worth a shot to upgrade my connection as well. I was in Prince Albert on Wednesday, got the USB stick, headed home and went to set up. All worked okay. Very nice connection speed when it was in HSUPA mode, which allows up to 7.5 MBps download. Even in EDGE mode it is still 2.5MBps. My Xplornet connection maxed out at 1.7MBps.

All seemed okay. I phoned SaskTel to get a SaskTel e-mail account, since I hadn’t had one for about six years and that got set up. The cheery service person said that she would cancel my Xplornet account on Thursday. So, I got busy changing e-mail account logins all over the Internet. Somewhere in that process I thought I would log on to my shiny new SaskTel e-mail account. Nope. Not working. So, I called SaskTel and spend another hour with tech support. By 10 p.m. working okay.

Today I expected my Xplornet account to be cancelled, but that did not happen. At about 7 p.m. SaskTel called to ask me if I wanted to cancel my Xplornet account even though it would cost me $450 to cancel my contract early. I didn’t think I had a contract as I merely switched from Xplornet’s billing to SaskTel’s billing in March of this year. Oh no, you have a contract and if you want to opt out, you need to pay. So, I thought about this for awhile and then phoned back. Could this charge be reduced? Could it be waived? After all, it wasn’t like I was moving to Rogers, or Bell, or some other telco. I was simply moving from one SaskTel service to another. Nope. Different departments and didn’t I know I was financing a cheaper price on a device if I took a contract and …. blah blah blah.

The long and the short of it was I cancelled my Xplornet contract and they halved my “early termination” of contract fee. So, I guess I paid $225 to upgrade my Internet experience. We’ll see if that happens.

I was told I could get a MiFi card when they became available, and that’s what I’m really hoping for. With an iPad and game console to go on the Internet with I really need some wi-fi coverage and a single card will not work. ‘Til then I will be forced to move the device between my computers. Too bad, iPad. I’m hoping to purchase a small cell phone signal booster so I can get more than 2 bars from my device. I’ll post more about that when I get it.

Until then, Merry Christmas and to all a good night.

It’s the end of the year, and I feel fine. Really. I do.

Many things are up in the year, as usual, but as with most things, life goes on. Got some cool summer plans and 51 days to execute them. Let’s go!

Wow. Wouldn’t I like to be that guy?

No awkward moments? No scrambling to try to make my classes more interesting or cool? That would be something.

The more I read about the student-centered universe the more I feel like a dinosaur. It’s sort of like in Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and being put in the Infinite Perspective Vortex. The Vortex gives you the perspective of seeing yourself against the backdrop of the infinite cosmos and has a tiny sign pointing to your position indicating “You are Here”. Most people, upon realizing how mind-numbingly small and insignificant they are in relation to the universe go insane.

Now, picture yourself in the Infinite Education Perspective Vortex. Yoowza. I think I’ll totter off and be a daffodil or something.

I read a fantastic article by David Warlick about the United States Secretary of Education’s comments regarding competing with India and China. Warlick’s blog post, found here, made me pretty much laugh out loud, but was a pretty sad indictment of America’s education system. Perhaps most of North America’s as we in Canada increasingly buy into that system.

The particular folly that people like America’s Secretary of Education fall into regarding his understanding of Friedman’s “The World is Flat” is that he mis-reads the implications. Yes, it is scary that India is producing 1000 top level engineers for every one that is produced in America, but that isn’t the point. Making students stay in school longer won’t make more engineers. Making students take standardized tests doesn’t make them perform any better. What is needed, however, is teachers who are passionate about their areas of teaching, curriculum that is relevant and sound and freedom to work within that framework.

I like Warlick’s comment about apple pie. “First of all, you’re not going to win the blue ribbon at the county fair by leaving your apple pie in the oven longer.”

Exactly. You make good apple pie with great ingredients and attention to detail, not extra time in the oven. Now, we’er talking about children’s lives here and overdoing them in the oven of school isn’t going to do them any good either.

While this might sound interesting, it lead to some very creepy, if not disturbing results. Which got me thinking.

If I Tweet, blog, Flickr and geotag every activity I do, aren’t I opening myself up to a whole host of nastiness? Worse yet, if my students to the same thing aren’t they asking for trouble?

Recent cautionary tales about Facebook picture tagging aside, while I want to be open, maybe being too open isn’t so good either? (I think I’ll have to ask Alec Couros about how this might work better.)

I’ve always felt that technology was there to help our students and not to shackle them. Now I feel like the story where school administrators removed the fences from their playground only to find the children huddling in the middle of the schoolyard. It was the fences that gave the children the security and freedom to play within their prescribed limits. Maybe that’s the moral of this story.

Open up the field, but make sure everyone knows the rules so that there is a sense of boundaries that everyone feels comfortable in.

Gromit lived a long life with us. She was much loved and we know she loved us. Ask our colleague, Tarah Thomson-Schwan, about how much Gromit loved to kiss! Even at the end, when I asked her for one final kiss, she was more than willing to oblige.

What a great dog!

I have a great deal of difficulty writing about Gromit because she was so special to us. Her greatest desire in life was to make us feel good. Whenever we were down she did her best to try and cheer us up. That usually meant slobbery Boston kisses, but I find now that is what I miss the most.

Gromit has a special place on our bookshelf. Our other Boston, Fergie, who passed away a few months before Gromit has her place in the outdoors, but Gromit belonged inside. She loved curling up to you when you were reading and her place on the bookshelf is an apt one. Now she gets to rest from all the hard work of being a dog.

Good bye, Gromit. I loved you, and still do. You will always live on in our hearts.