1 / 16

Betzavta-Together

Betzavta-Together. Research project on Evaluation 2001-2002 Evaluation team: Michael Bommes and Ulrike Wolff-Jontofsohn (University of Education Freiburg). Betzavta-Evaluation. The Research Process: The Programme The Funders: Demands and Expectations

lita
Download Presentation

Betzavta-Together

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. Betzavta-Together Research project on Evaluation 2001-2002 Evaluation team: Michael Bommes and Ulrike Wolff-Jontofsohn (University of Education Freiburg)

  2. Betzavta-Evaluation • The Research Process: • The Programme • The Funders: Demands and Expectations • The Research team: basic assumptions about evaluation • The Evaluation Design • Main Findings and Conclusions • Programme • Implementation –the Organisational Framework • Training Quality: Staff and Multipliers • Success and/ or Failure??

  3. Betzavta-Together • Betzavta-a Democracy and Human Rights education Programme -Developed by the Adam-Institute in Jerusalem/Israel(1986) • Closely connected to the Israeli Situation • Educational Goals: educate democratic citizens, educate all members of a community to accept equality and freedom as basic democratic principles • Approach: Social and moral education by creating dilemmas and conflictual situations(Piaget, Kohlberg) • Facilitation Techniques: focus on group dynamics and conflict elaboration

  4. Betzavta-Methods:Two Types of Activities • Type 1: Creating a Dilemma Structure: • group-dynamic activity • Perception and reflection • Conflict elaboration within normative aspects • Type 2: Learning the Democratic Discourse Structure: • individual task of opinion forming • Search for consent in small groups • Market Place - Exchange of Opinions

  5. German Version of Betzavta-Together • 1996: Adaptation initiated by the Bertelsmann-Foundation and the University of Munich (CAP) • Modular combination of three different programs: • Betzavta (1886), • Peace Education Program (1995) • Building Blocks of Democracy (1996). • Since 1997: Training of multipliers • Implementation Process

  6. The Funders: Demands and Expectations • Target Group: “ The Multipliers from 1997 to 2001” • Innovative Research • Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods • A democratic and participatory process of evaluation corresponding to the spirit of the programme • Valid assessment of progress or failure • Inherent Definition of Success: cognitive learning, socio-moral education, attitude change, action planning, systemic changes

  7. Basic assumptions about evaluation of the research-team (Part I) • Complexity-Learning processes are complex phenomena • Validity:Control groups are limited in their testimony • Reliability: Effects and effect-attribution are not identical

  8. Our Basic assumptions -Part II Systemic View: Evaluation is an attempt to measure the outcomes and effects of an individual learning experience within a specific system Perception of effects and effect-attributions are context-related • Interpretation of Goals is dependent on the occupational environment • Interpretation of Effects/Outcomes dependent on the definition of progress and failure in a certain milieu

  9. Evaluation design Database: 250 addresses • Partly standardized questionnaires- • 11 individual interviews • Group discussion • Cooperation with a practitioner’s group • Interviews with experts

  10. Main results (Part I) • Programme : • enthusiastic acceptance of its methodology and interactive learning strategies • Effect-attributions are very positive • But: positive judgment did not depend on duration of the personnel and/or professional experience • Modest degree of distribution and implementation • Circularity in specific milieus and institutions

  11. Main results (Part II) • Trainers and multipliers: majority from pedagogical and psychological occupations • One Third complain about training quality • High commitment to the issues-certain lack of professionalism • Rare use of the whole Programme • Preference for group-dynamic activities • Modest integration into school curricula • Educational practice shows tendancy towards a specific interpretation of the programme • Rather depoliticized usage as programme for Social Learning;

  12. Recommendations and conclusions • Improvement of staff and organisation • Theory-input • Clarification of goals and objectives • Monitoring and consulting • Context-orientation -different trainings for different target groups • Improvement of implementation- strategies

  13. Discussion: What might be useful for us?? • Our understanding of political education? • Our goals and expectations concerning our work with a specific programme? • Do we pay attention to needs and requirements of different target group? • Long-term or short- term intervention? Follow-up? • Our indicators for success or failure?

  14. Obstacles and conflicts during the evaluation process • The practitioner‘s group • Fluctuation of members • Collisions of interests • Problems with solidarity • Negotiation processes • Different perspectives of Stakeholders • Conflict of interests

  15. Preconditions for Success • Quality of the programme • Quality of the facilitators • Structure of the learning process • Reference to the Participants´context • Integration into Curricula • Learning arrangements • Long-Term Intervention • Continuity of the process • Follow-up

  16. Workshop in Feldafing-Overview • Introduction • Evaluating a Peace Education Programme:” Betzavta-Together” • Evaluation Process and Main Findings • Discussion • Closing round

More Related