ECUR809:  Assignment Two

Stufflebeam: Not simply a super cool name



As if any kind of diabetes isn’t scary enough, what about gestational diabetes?  A woman, carrying her unborn child, develops gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and then she is at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes herself, as well as her child developing type 2 diabetes, and at a younger age.   With aboriginal women being at a greater risk of developing GDM, it does seem only logical, in fact also responsible, to develop an exercise program for prenatal aboriginal women to hopefully decrease the chances of developing GDM.   This program provided women with monitored exercise, education, nutrition, and camaraderie.   If I were to evaluate this program, I would use Stufflebeam`s CIPP model to look at the context, input, process and product of the program.  Since the CIPP model is comprehensive and summative, and this program has already been completed, I believe it would be the most effective model with which to conduct a program evaluation of this specific program. 

The context of this prenatal exercise program would therefore acknowledge the program goals and priorities to assess whether or not the outcomes of the program were reaching those goals. I believe this would be very effective as the goals of the program are clear: the long-term goal is to decrease  type 2 diabetes in aboriginal populations, and the short-term goal to decrease GDM in active participants.   Input evaluations for this program would certainly look at budgets, as it was not mentioned in the case study, as well as staffing and competing action plans.  Is this program cost-effective in relation to its goals and priorities?  The program is free for participants, so there is a greater need/ accountability to maintain cost-effectiveness and goals.  The process evaluation would look at the weekly implementation of the exercise program, how the staff are carrying it out, and ask the participants to judge the effectiveness of the program.  However, in this case the participant judgement could possibly not be related to the program goals, as the participants may not know whether their chances of developing GDM have been decreased.  Although they may receive many other benefits from the program, which would relate to the possible short-term goals, and may still affect other areas such as staffing or budget.   Similarly, the product evaluation would assess the short and long term outcomes of the program.  The questions of whether or not the needs were addressed and if the effort succeeded would be a summative report using the findings of the context, input, processes and products of this program.  I would be very interested in looking at the sustainability of the program as well, and that would be part of the CIPP evaluation.

Assignment One

Let’s PARTY:  ECUR 809 – Assignment One

A program evaluation of the P.A.R.T.Y. (Prevent Alcohol and Risk-Related Trauma in Youth) Program prepared by the Public Health Observatory and Acquired Brain Injury Outreach Team,

October, 2010

Grade 10 students from in and around Saskatchewan participate in the P.A.R.T.Y.  program each year; specifically students from the school where I am currently teaching, Centennial Collegiate, have also participated in the program.  Therefore, I chose to look at this evaluation because it has relevance to my school.  After reading over the evaluation I have concluded that the model that the Public Health Observatory and Acquired Brain Injury Outreach Team used is the Naturalistic Lincoln and Guba approach.  The purpose of the program evaluation was to assess whether the students who attended P.A.R.T.Y. would change their attitudes and actions when it comes to risk taking behaviour after their participation in the program.

Naturalistic Lincoln and Guba includes non-experimental, constructivist, and qualitative approaches that focus on social interactions of those involved in the evaluation.  In the P.A.R.T.Y. program evaluation students were given two identical questionnaires: one before and one after their participation in the program.  Non-experimental research comes into play with the self reporting in the questionnaires.  The students were asked questions based on their experience, knowledge, and attitudes.  Constructivism is seen with the students’ reflection in the post participation questionnaire.  The evaluation showed that the students’ attitudes towards risk taking behaviour had significantly decreased while answering more knowledge-based questions correctly after the program, thereby proving they had learned something from their experience in the program.  Furthermore, the qualitative portion included open-ended questions asked of the students.  Since the program is meant to change students’ attitudes for risk-taking behaviour, the social interactions of the students is of primary interest. 

The strengths of the evaluation include comparisons to P.A.R.T.Y. programs in Ontario and Australia.  The results in Ontario did include a ten year analysis that found a reduction in alcohol related offences among students who had completed the program. Also, the evaluation included a table of results of the knowledge-based questions that compared the urban schools and the rural schools.  I believe it is beneficial to see the differences and/or similarities across Saskatchewan.  They also included actual student examples and direct quotations from the students to showcase student learning. 

The weaknesses of the evaluation, as noted in the evaluation, are that the post questionnaire is only done a week after participation in the program.  Therefore, the long-term effects of the program have not been evaluated.  As well, my concern is simply with the target group and how honest the grade 10 students will be.  Will they follow through on what they have written?  It would be interesting to see the statistics from SGI after the program has run for a few years (similar to the evaluation done in Ontario).  I think an evaluation examining the long-term results would be beneficial to see if the goals of the program have been achieved.

The P.A.R.T.Y. program is still currently available for Saskatoon students.  According to the program evaluation conducted using the Naturalistic Lincoln and Guba theory, the program is achieving its short-term goals.  I believe it would be beneficial to see long-term results to gauge whether the self reporting that the participants conducted has been brought to fruition.