1 / 11

Bringing Theory to Practice Evaluation: What do we know after 2 years?

Explore the thematic findings and commonalities across project campuses, delving into program effectiveness, challenges, and next steps in assessing engaged learning and civic engagement initiatives after thorough evaluation. With a focus on reflection, student perspectives, mental health, time constraints, and practical implementation barriers, this comprehensive evaluation provides insights into the impact of these programs on student well-being and community engagement. Recognize the advancements made, the remaining complexities, and the ongoing efforts to enhance these initiatives further.

fryd
Download Presentation

Bringing Theory to Practice Evaluation: What do we know after 2 years?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bringing Theory to Practice Evaluation: What do we know after 2 years? Ashley Finley Dickinson College

  2. Major Findings & Commonalities Across 7 Project Campuses • Where have we been? • How far have we come? • Overview of thematic findings after Year 1 • How have those changed after Year 2?

  3. We Are Not Wasting Our Time Programs are helpful and well-liked Reality Check Students gain realistic perspective on what it means to be “civically engaged” – time commitment, lose romantic notions of involvement Questions = More Questions Complexities of variables, measurement, and campus environments Time is Key Untangling relationships Stabilizing variation in engagement programs Increasing participation across campus constituencies Year 1: 4 Major Thematic Findings

  4. What we knew then & what we know now…

  5. Theme 1: Why do these programs work? • Institutional Perspective: • Growth across constituencies on project campuses • Faculty • Administrators – at all levels • Community Partners • Growth = sustainability & the potential for change • Student Perspective • Enriches learning exp. • Creates (+) interax with faculty • Builds social networks • Faculty Perspective • Students are better learners/do better work • Meaningful interax with students • Opportunity for collaboration

  6. What do we know about engaged learning & civic engagement? • Engaged learning = (+) Process of Self-Discovery • Most enhanced by living-learning & Civic Eng. • Self-reflection upon individual behaviors & others’ behaviors • Helps challenge stereotypes and/or re-enforces attitudes toward social justice • BUT Reflection = uncomfortable reality

  7. What do we know about engaged learning, civic engagement & well-being • Alcohol Use • Living-learning &/or civic eng. = recurring link with lower alcohol use • Self-reflection linked with modification of behaviors assoc. with alcohol use • Consideration of care-taking behaviors • What do students say about this connection? • Mental Health • Mixed results for depression, self-esteem, optimism • BUT stress recurring issue • Esp. civic eng. programs • How big of a problem is a little stress? • Tipping point • Social networks promote better mental health • Well-being is individual AND social

  8. Theme 2: Putting Practice into Place • Similar obstacles for program implementation reported across campuses • Variation across courses/Faculty • Strain on resources • Time • Administration • Student Recruitment/getting the word out • Response rates • Sustainable funding • Though less reporting of logistical issues

  9. Theme 3: Time has been kind… • Still learning complexities & shortcomings but… • Selection bias • Do students “select” in and why? • Who else selects in? • Intensive site institutions = Intended to directly assess selection issues • Evaluation • Is an additive approach enough? • Development of a BTtoP “toolkit” instrument • Inclusive assessment of multiple dimensions of engaged learning, well-being & substance use, and civic engagement

  10. What is next for BTtoP evaluation? • Collection of data from 4 demonstration sites and 2 intensive sites through 2009 • Further assessment of complexities with emphasis on identifying outcomes • Continued discussion of best practices

More Related