Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Evaluate: 2003 version
Ähnlich wie Evaluate: 2003 version (20)
Mehr von Johan Koren
Mehr von Johan Koren (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Evaluate: 2003 version
- 1. Evaluate ! Evaluating School Media Services LIB 620 Library Management Fall 2009
- 2. Preemptive Action : The busy librarian’s guide to program evaluation Based in part on: A workshop developed by the Pennsylvania School Librarians Association Professional Development Committee ( No longer available online) indicates the slide was originally from the above presentation
- 48. Action Plan Example: Target Indicator: Curriculum development is modeled and promoted Objective Activity Documentation Participants New Resources Completion Date Review barriers preventing librarians from participating in curriculum sessions. Review policies School Council minutes School Council & admin. None projected Sept. 1 Secure schedule Post schedule in lib. & faculty rm. Principal None Sept. 10 Participate in mtgs. Meeting minutes Librarians None projected June 1 Report back Faculty mtg. minutes Librarians None Monthly Written material In professional library Librarians None Within 5 days of mtg
Hinweis der Redaktion
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ## Activity #1: OPENING ACTIVITY. Ask how many in the audience have designed a program evaluation (show of hands). Ask various people to share the focus of their evaluation—was it a total program evaluation, an evaluation of the collection, a facility or services evaluation, etc.? Most groups should respond with some of these topics. Make the point that most of the topics shared will fit within the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) Rubric categories of: Teaching and Learning; Information Access and Delivery; and Program Administration . Presenter asks participants to turn to rubric. Go to page 35 of the book A Planning Guide for Information Power, Building Partnerships for Learning . Divide the participants into small groups. If the set-up is one with tables, each table can be a group. Give each group three index cards or post-it notes. Somewhere in the room ( wall/chalk board/flip charts), post the three headings from the rubric: Teaching and Learning Information Access and Delivery Program Administration Give the following directions: Each group has three votes. Take ten minutes to review the rubric and identify the three target indicators you believe represent the most important elements to evaluate in a school library media program to determine whether it is positioned to influence student achievement. Post your votes under the appropriate heading. Highlight the target indicators in each category. Ask the group for some feedback on why the elements were selected. Summarize with a statement such as, “The majority of us believe the target indicators under Access are most important with particular emphasis on collection.” or “Most groups seem to think the target indicators under Teaching and Learning are most important. (Note to Presenter: Keep the flipcharts/wall/chalk board results. There will be an ENDING ACTIVITY that will build on this OPENING ACTIVITY . At the end of the workshop, participants will go back to the same groups. You will be asking if anyone wants to change his or her vote and why. More instructions are under the last slide.)
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: Everyone in Pennsylvania is aware of the impact of PSSA scores. The move to greater accountability has placed a new emphasis on assessment and evaluation based on educational research. Studies and research are important because all federal grant programs are requiring research based justifications for use of funds.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: These findings are from the Keith Curry Lance Colorado study. Read slide. Lance did a number of other studies as well in Alaska, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa and Michigan. In addition, Esther G. Smith, EGS Research and Consulting, conducted a study in Texas: “Texas School Libraries: Standards, Resources, Services, And Students’ Performance.” All these studies have similar findings. Of course we all know about Pennsylvania’s study, “Measuring Up to Standards,” by Keith Curry Lance. The Pennsylvania study showed that full time librarians with aides made a difference. Please note, however, research shows that a full time school librarian isn’t enough. The school librarian must be collaborating with teachers. The presence of an aide enables the school librarian to collaborate with teachers.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: The studies have shown a number of other attributes also contribute to quality school library programs . [Read the bullets.]
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: [Show first bullet.] In this workshop, we’ll investigate ways to collect baseline data about your program. [Show second bullet.] For example, emergent literacy programming in schools are requiring classroom collections. Rather than fighting classroom collections, librarians should provide leadership in selecting, developing and circulating quality classroom collections. [Show third bullet.] When opportunities for better support present themselves, it’s better to have the data than to have to collect it on the spot. For example, when grant opportunities arise, you can use the evaluative data to serve as your needs assessment in the grant application. Remember, you may be building a case for better support that doesn’t involve funding proposals. You may need administrative support to change a school practice. For example, to extend school library hours after school, you may need administrative support to relieve the school librarian of bus duty. Another example would be needing administrative support to increase collaboration with teachers to bring reluctant teachers into the collaborative planning.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: Nancy Everhart is the author of the book “Evaluating the School Library Media Center.” She’s a professor at St. John’s University, NY and was previously a school librarian in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. Her point is that an evaluation provides the data you need to determine success in all these areas. Read the bullets.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: The remainder of the workshop will focus on three examples of evaluation on components identified as critical by the research. This is a good time to take questions concerning the background information on the topic of evaluation.
- * 07/16/96 * ## [Show the bulleted words one by one. As you do, read the following DEFINITIONS.] Formal: Typically this kind of evaluation would be highly structured; the data collection instruments would be carefully vetted; the result would be a detailed, public report including recommendations. Formal evaluations are more likely to be summative but they often include both quantitative and qualitative data. Formal evaluations are more likely to be evaluations of the entire program. Informal: Typically an informal evaluation is less structured. The data collection instruments will provide useful information, but may not be so carefully vetted and therefore may have a lower level of accuracy than a research study or a formal evaluation. Informal evaluations are more likely to be formative, although they also use both quantitative and qualitative data. External: An evaluation that includes feedback and assessment from individuals external to the school district. An outside consultant might be involved. If an advisory committee is involved, it will include members external to the administration, teaching staff and librarians of the school district. Internal: An evaluation that solicits data from sources within the school such as administrators, teaching staff and librarians of the school or district. If an advisory committee is involved, it will include only members of the faculty or staff of the school. Summative: An evaluation designed to document the current status. This evaluation would “sum up” the current state of the library. Formative: An evaluation designed to determine the current status for the purpose of planning improvement. This workshop emphasizes formative evaluation because we advocate continuous improvement.
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ## [First, Read definitions below before clicking to start the list.] Presenter: Quantitative: Numerical data, such as circulation statistics, collection and equipment counts, number of classes using the school library media center, number of lessons planned with teachers, etc. Qualitative: Data that involves perceptions, opinions or judgments, such as could be collected through surveying or interviewing users about satisfaction with the services, collections and facilities of the school library media center. [Go through the slide bullet by bullet. First show the quantitative measure and ask the participants what a corresponding qualitative measure would be. Then show the bullet for the qualitative measure on the slide. Continue down the list.] [The following chart, from Nancy Everhart’s book Evaluating the School Library Media Center, provides more examples, if needed, to illustrate the point:] Quantitative Measure Qualitative Measure Circulation of fiction books Students’ success rate in finding a desired fiction book # of periodical titles % of library’s titles cited in student research papers Library attendance Students’ satisfaction with library hours
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: We are now going to demonstrate the use of an evaluation model focused on this research finding: “ Students whose school librarian plays an instructional role tend to achieve higher than average test scores. This is also dependent on collaboration between school librarians and teachers and the inclusion of the library materials in the curriculum.” This research came from the Lance studies mentioned earlier that show a positive correlation between student achievement and strong library programs where the school librarian plays an instructional role and collaborates with teachers.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: Here is the evaluation model. [Read the bullets as they appear on the screen, one by one.]
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: The first step in our model is to define the question. In this example, we are defining the question based on the research finding.
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ## [Read the slide because this is an important point:] Presenter: “ According to Information Power, the instructional role is determined by collaboration between school librarians and teachers that results in the inclusion of library materials in the curriculum”
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: These are the target indicators in the Rubric. [Refer participants to pages 35-36. of the Planning Guide for Information Power .]
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: The next step in the evaluation model is to collect data. Our choice in this example is going to be a questionnaire based on the Teaching and Learning rubric.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: While a group’s perception may not be accurate, that information is good data for the school librarian because perception drives action. For example, if a teacher believes no information literacy standards document exists, even though one does, the teacher obviously will not use it in planning or consult the librarian in planning. An easy corrective action is to meet with the teacher and use the standards document to suggest ways to incorporate library materials in content area instruction as well as to offer to help with that work. One way to collect data to determine whether or not the school librarian plays an effective instructional role in the school is to use the Information Power Teaching and Learning Rubric as a questionnaire to administer to the following groups: · School Library Staff · Administrative Staff · Teaching Staff Summarize each group’s responses separately to determine where perceptions differ and where they agree.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: These data are qualitative because the responses indicate attitude about the role the school librarian plays. For example, the principal puts the librarian on the weekly faculty meeting agenda to encourage faculty to use the school library and to promote new materials purchased to support the curriculum. The librarian spends considerable time preparing weekly presentations. The math teacher does not see an easy connect for his curriculum and tunes the presentations out, often correcting papers during this time. When responding to the second Target Indicator, he checks none of the boxes which reflects his attitude that he does not have discussions with the librarian about math lessons and curriculum. The librarian and the principal check Exemplary because they believe the faculty meeting provides common planning time. The conflicting data identify an area where the program can be improved.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: The third step in our evaluation model is to analyze the data. How can the data collected in the questionnaires be analyzed? Identify areas of agreement and disagreement among the groups that responded to the questionnaire. Use the questionnaire responses to identify areas of strength and areas that need improvement. Use the questionnaire responses to identify where more data is needed. The slides that follow will demonstrate how to analyze data from a questionnaire based on the rubric.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: The good news here is that the school community is in 96%* agreement that the Information Literacy Standards exist and provide a strong base for curricular integration. The bad news is that this target indicator is absolutely essential to the remaining 7 target indicators in the rubric and should be at the Exemplary level. So, even though it is an agreement area, it is also an area that warrants improvement. [96% is the average of the scores in the proficient category.]
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: Those who provide the service and those who use it are pretty much in agreement that curriculum development is functioning at a basic level while the administrative staff believes that it is functioning at a proficient level. Going back to the rubric, we find that proficient requires school policies that enable the librarian to participate in building and district meetings. These data indicate a review of school policy as well as practice is appropriate.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: Having 100% agreement in the school that collaborative planning is occurring at a proficient level is a strong statement given the research. However, the proficient rubric descriptor says some teachers collaboratively plan and teach. Therefore, even strength areas provide opportunities for continuous growth.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: For this example, let’s say the library staff consistently sponsors high interest contests to bring students into the library media center to see new acquisitions with particular emphasis on fiction, which does not have a high circulation. The staff spends time preparing the displays and planning the contests; the students respond positively. The library staff’s perception is that the programming meets the proficient criteria. However, administrators and teachers see the programming as promotion, not motivation that is generated by special literary events. Given the overall emphasis on reading and information literacy in evaluating the effectiveness of schools and the research on the correlation between effective school library programs and reading achievement, the responses indicate this is a weak area that warrants improvement. The responses from the administrators and teachers also suggests librarians may want to divert some of the time spent on contests to planning author visits and working with teachers to develop reading and writing assignments based on the author’s work.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: The good news is that the total school community believes that the library staff models and promotes effective teaching. The interesting news is that the descriptor for exemplary performance specifies authentic assessment. The bad news is that the total school community, including the library staff, believes the librarians do not assess student work. Obviously, more data are needed to determine what improvement is needed.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: After Step 3, analyzing the data, it may become necessary to return to Step 2 and collect more data. To help resolve any contradictory data collected from questionnaires, collect more data by convening a focus groups of teachers. Tape record the sessions and analyze the tape for themes. Ask: How are student products and performances assessed in units that involve use of the library media center and resources? Look for: Use of rubrics; involvement of library staff in assessment; use of panels (peer, adult, specialist). How do you determine the products and performances students will complete to demonstrate mastery of content in units that involve use of the library media center and resources? Look for: Library staff involvement in determining; affirmation of authentic assessments. What is the role of reflection in student work that involves the use of the library media center and its resources? Look for: Affirmation of role in all instruction; focus on evaluation of search strategy used in library-media based units. [If time permits, these questions can be posed to the group and elicit responses for what you look for in the focus group’s discussion.] When analyzing the responses to the questions, determine whether or not authentic assessment and reflection are used consistently in teaching. If yes, determine whether that use does or does not carry over into the library media based units. The data may suggest a school-wide need for improvement that includes the library media program rather than one specifically focused on the library media program.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: We are now moving to Step 4 of the evaluation model. When the data has been collected and analyzed, it may be time to involve an advisory committee. An advisory committee is made up of stakeholders. In the case of this example, which is using the Teaching and Learning Rubric, the stakeholders are internal—teachers, administrators, and library staff. It’s the technical nature of this rubric that keeps the stakeholder group more limited than it would normally be. The advisory committee can help the librarian review the data analysis and formulate recommendations. For example, they can review the research data, the responses to the rubric questionnaire and the analysis of the focus groups. They see from the research that there is a strong correlation between the school librarian’s instructional role and student achievement. They see from the responses to the rubric-based questionnaire on the school librarian’s instructional role, that their school is only at a basic or proficient level. They gain further understanding from the focus group analysis. The advisory committee decides to set a goal that over the next three years the school will reach the exemplary level in all target indicators in the Teaching and Learning Rubric.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: Here is an example of recommendations that the advisory committee might make for the first year, based on the research, the data collected in the rubric-based questionnaire and the data collected in the focus groups.
- * 07/16/96 * ## More examples of recommendations.
- * 07/16/96 * ## More examples of recommendations.
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: We are now at the last step in the evaluation process. When developing an action plan, it is important to get investment by the stakeholders because many of the changes that need to occur go beyond the school library and affect the whole school. For example, the common planning time issue will affect teacher prep periods to some extent. Any modifications to teacher prep periods requires effective administrative leadership.
- * 07/16/96 * ## [There is a handout of this slide for participants to use. Go over the components of an action plan. Note: Participants will also get a blank action plan for use later when they complete one.]
- * 07/16/96 * ## Presenter: This example of an evaluation was formal because it generated a written summary that was to be made public and that resulted in an action plan developed by an advisory committee. It was internal because feedback was solicited from within the organization and the advisory committee was from within the organization. It was formative because the purpose of the evaluation was to identify areas for continuous improvement. The data used in the evaluation were both quantitative and qualitative . The research provided quantitative data, that is, numerical data, including student scores on standardized tests, size of library collections, number and work hours of staff, library hours open, number of lessons planned with teachers, etc. The rubric-based questionnaire and the focus group both yielded qualitative data, that is, data that involves perceptions, opinions or judgments.
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##
- * 07/16/96 * ##