Modern Blanket Toss: Findings and Observations

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2016 FINDINGS Analysis: For each construct, we calculated a scale score for each respondent. The scale score is the average of the response to items included in the scale. For “Content Knowledge,” respondents rated their own knowledge from 1 (low level of knowledge) to 10 (high level of knowledge), so the scale score also has a range of 1 to 10. For the “Communication Skills” items, respondents chose “not comfortable at all” (equal to 1), “somewhat comfortable” (equal to 2), “moderately comfortable” (equal to 3), or “very comfortable” (equal to 4). The scale score is an average between 1 and 4. All other items asked respondents to “strongly disagree” (equal to 1), “disagree” (equal to 2), “agree” (equal to 3), or “strongly agree” (equal to 4), so those scales also range from 1 to 4 with 4 as a more positive score. We used a paired samples t-test to test whether the mean scale scores were significantly different (P < 0.05) between an individual’s first survey and last survey. Sample: During the three year project there were 234 responses to the survey from 90 individual students. As the survey was designed to give pre/post information, only surveys from those students who completed both a pre and a post-survey were included. In all, 57 students completed the surveys at least two times; Chefornak had the greatest number of individuals complete the survey and Shishmaref had the least (Table 2). Table 2 Count, by school, of individual students who completed two or more surveys. School Total Individuals May 2014 July 2014 Sept 2014 April 2015 May 2015 Note: In total these students completed 199 valid surveys; some students completed the survey more than two times. 2. Student Weekly Survey July 2015 Sept 2015 April 2016 May 2016 July 2016 Total Bethel 11 7 7 5 7 3 2 7 7 2 2 49 Chefornak 19 6 6 12 13 6 6 13 14 4 3 83 Nikiski 13 2 2 4 8 0 0 10 5 1 0 32 Seward 5 0 0 4 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 12 Shishmaref 4 1 1 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 13 Chevak and Saint Mary’s Table 3 Student weekly survey satisfaction scale Cronbach's alpha results Scale n Items Item Mean Min Max Range Variance Cronbach’s Alpha Satisfaction 205 10 3.16 2.74 3.43 0.693 0.047 0.81 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 10 Total 57 16 16 29 36 16 16 30 26 8 6 199 The Student Weekly Survey was designed to measure, over the course of the summer program, changes in participating students’ 1) content knowledge and science practices related Modern Blanket Toss content and 2) their satisfaction with the summer program activities, as well as to provide immediate feedback to course instructors. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix A. The survey included 10 Likert-scale items that we combined to make a satisfaction scale. To measure the reliability of the satisfaction scale, we calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficient for each scale using SPSS. The Cronbach's alpha for the satisfaction scale was 0.810; a Cronbach’s alpha that is greater than 0.7 is considered evidence that the items included measure an underlying construct (George and Mallery, 2003). Results of the reliability analysis are summarized in Table 3. 39
2016 FINDINGS Administration: The weekly survey was administered on paper to students at the end of each week of the summer program (six weeks in years one and two and three weeks in year three). Analysis: Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (with the year as the explanatory variable and satisfaction scale score as the response variable), and content analysis. Table 4 Count of individuals who completed weekly summer satisfaction surveys by week Week Number 2014 (N=17) 2015 (N=18) 2016 (N=9) 1 17 17 9 2 17 17 8 3 15 18 8 4 15 18 0 Sample: In total, 96 surveys were completed in year one, 102 in year two, and 25 in year three. Table 4 illustrates the number of surveys completed by week and year. 3. Student Interview 5 6 16 16 16 16 0 0 The purpose of the student interview was to gather indepth feedback from participants about the Modern Blanket Toss program and students’ perceptions about the program’s impact on their future plans for college and career. The interview was divided into three sections: what students learned; how their participation impacted their future plans; and how their participation impacted their communication and leadership skills and whether they will use those skills in the future. Students were offered a $10 i- tunes gift card as an incentive to participate in the interview. Administration: Interviews were conducted in person with students and recorded with students’ permission. Only students with positive parental/ guardian permission were interviewed. Analysis: Interviews were coded and analyzed using both a priori and emergent codes using ATLAS.ti software. Sample: In total, 29 unique students were interviewed during the course of the program. Some students were interviewed more than once (i.e., if participating in two or more summer sessions), resulting in 39 interviews. 4. Student Academic Data Table 5 Count of interviews by year The evaluation compared academic data of Upward Bound students participating in the Modern Blanket Toss program to Total Interviews 39 similar Upward Bound students not participating in the Modern Blanket Toss program. Academic data included GPA, number of science and math courses taken and grades in those courses, and on-track for graduation. We also looked at the availability of courses offered by the high schools. Academic data was provided to the evaluation team by the Upward Bound program. Analysis: A paired t-test was used to test for difference in the means of GPA, science grades, and math grades pre and post program. Analysis of variance was used to test for differences in the mean pre and post GPA, science, and math grades between the Modern Blanket Toss participants and the Upward Bound control group students. Sample: For the purpose of the evaluation, we used academic data for students who entered the Modern Blanket Toss program in the summer of 2014 Year Count of Interviews 2014 (N=17) 14 2015 (N=18) 17 2016 (N=9) 8 40
Page 1 and 2: BOOK THREE MODERN BLANKET TOSS FIND
Page 3 and 4: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS The evaluatio
Page 5 and 6: CHAPTER 1 Findings Welcome to the f
Page 7 and 8: 2014 FINDINGS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The
Page 9 and 10: 2014 FINDINGS Sample Eighteen stude
Page 11 and 12: 2014 FINDINGS 2014 Both surveys ask
Page 13 and 14: 2014 FINDINGS Survey respondents ra
Page 15 and 16: 2014 FINDINGS Items can be grouped
Page 17 and 18: 2014 FINDINGS The UAV aircraft kind
Page 19: 2014 FINDINGS I think it should be
Page 22 and 23: 2015 FINDINGS PRE/POST STUDENT SURV
Page 24 and 25: 2015 FINDINGS There was a significa
Page 26 and 27: 2015 FINDINGS Table 14 Content Know
Page 28 and 29: 2015 FINDINGS Items can be grouped
Page 30 and 31: 2015 FINDINGS I liked learning abou
Page 32 and 33: 2015 FINDINGS Nothing it's getting
Page 34 and 35: 2015 FINDINGS Week 12 Concept Count
Page 36 and 37: 2016 FINDINGS The mission of Modern
Page 38 and 39: 2016 FINDINGS INTRODUCTION The Univ
Page 42 and 43: 2016 FINDINGS and who participated
Page 44 and 45: 2016 FINDINGS LIMITATIONS OF THE EV
Page 46 and 47: 2016 FINDINGS primarily Yup’ik mi
Page 48 and 49: 2016 FINDINGS There was a range of
Page 50 and 51: 2016 FINDINGS Table 17. Average sur
Page 52 and 53: 2016 FINDINGS Students also clearly
Page 54 and 55: 2016 FINDINGS Figure 5. Leadership
Page 56 and 57: 2016 FINDINGS 6) Student academic d
Page 58: 2016 FINDINGS Courses offered by Hi
Page 61 and 62: 2016 FINDINGS The Modern Blanket To
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER 2 Observations This chapter
Page 65 and 66: CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED Teac
Page 67 and 68: SECTION 2 Analysis of Modern Blanke
Page 69: ANALYSIS OF MODERN BLANKET TOSS Wha

Modern Blanket Toss: Findings and Observations

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?