1

EDAC 634

Program Evaluation

African Indigenous Knowledge

Group 5 Members

Marlena Bertram

Jessica Schul-Solow

Kristin Wheeler

2

Reflection of SurveysMarlena Bertram

Survey #1 Whitney Harden (Appendix A):

I felt Whitney’s review was very balanced, trying to show the good and the bad. The review

stated that they liked the program overall in general but felt a few additions would be helpful. I feel that

using digital media aspects could be beneficial to the program as well, but for it to be successful it

would need to be formal yet informal at the same time due to accessibility, productivity, and

engagement. I did not understand Whitney’s TRIO section and am not sure if she understood our

program completely in our storytelling aspect. Overall, I found the review useful.

Survey #2 Elizabeth Swisher (Appendix B):

This respondent seemed to really grasp, like, and understand the importance and usefulness of

Ubuntu. I think her idea of the stakeholders being found could be difficult to be spot on and important

to note. I think if we changed our timeframes and adjusted some timing aspects to allow relationships,

mentorships, and understanding to develop the stakeholders consent and engagement. Overall, I found

this respondents responses to coincide with some of my own concerns that I have developed over time.

Survey #3 Nina Tangman (Appendix C):

I felt the criticism was heavy in this review, but in a good way. Pointing out that workloads and

responsibilities need to be more strongly considered is important. I think that more than one facilitator

is necessary for the program to be successful. It is, also, important to make sure that the ideas of

Ubuntu are clear and utilized in the aspect. The respondents comments on TRIO and storytelling do not

make the most sense to me and I feel that our section we have in place should be sufficient for the

program, as Ubuntu is of the most importance, not TRIO and storytelling themselves.

Survey #4 Adam Campbell (Appendix D):

The idea of Ubuntu seems clearly understood by this respondent. The responses stated that more

3

time needs given for communication, which I can agree with. Once again, reviewing timeframes and

time management are important going further. Adam brings up a great point about the principal of

Ubuntu being a foreign concept to some people, which is why it would be important to make sure it is

clear to all participants to be successful. From reading this review, it coincides with others and with

small changes we can make drastic changes.

Highlights:

I loved the survey responses and while the positive feedback was great, I am one to focus on the

suggestions. I feel after reviewing the responses that time management in the program may need to be

evaluated further and possibly adjusted to encapture the African communal learning styles. I, also, feel

that it is possible that the stakeholders may need a bit more explanation or in depth information to fit

with the students, mentors, teachers, etc to work well together. Overall the feedback was great, we of

course just have to find that balance between the African culture and our western culture for it to be

successful. Overall the responses were great and helpful. Seeing these responses has reaffirmed me that

our project is not only great but the ideas of Ubuntu are great as well.

Process:

My portion of this evaluation was to aid in examining the responses from our surveys. In doing

this, I was able to see what needed improved, what was good, what needed more explanation, and what

was understood. The biggest thing that I learned was that our time frames needed work, but that the

idea of Ubuntu was not only understood, but well liked by our respondents. We need to allow time for

relationship and communal building in our design for the idea of Ubuntu to be complete in our work.

This is probably the best and most understanding group I have ever worked with. When one needs help

or has issues going on at home, there is room for understanding, yet we all still get work completed. We

use a lot of e-mail, conference calls, and discussion board posts to keep in contact and work together in

the best ways possible. We have tried to make our program well-rounded and well understood, and I

4

feel that we are accomplishing just that!

Reflection of SurveysJessica Schul-Solow

Survey #1 Whitney Harden (Appendix A):

I agree with the technical aspects of this review. I think that adding blogging or multimedia

resources would be helpful to the community cohort and their ability to reflect on their experience. I am

not sure how we would implement that in a formal way such as Blackboard but we may be able to

create a class blog or other social media site. This review did not take a critical eye to the formatting

and typically liked the program in general. I did get confused regarding the answers in which the

survey respondent talked about TRIO as if it was part of our program. I would take a second look at our

rational to ensure that we are being clear that neither TRIO nor the Storytelling Project are our main

program.

Survey #2 Elizabeth Swisher (Appendix B):

I like how well the aspects of Ubuntu translated over from our rationale which is apparent in

this review of the program. This respondent really liked how well we incorporated the principals of

Ubuntu into our program and could easily identify those aspects. I appreciated how the respondent also

identified that it might be harder to select and gain consent of community stakeholders than we had

originally thought. I would adjust our program to give more time for our workshop participants to build

relationships with each other and with community stakeholders to generate a more meaningful

experience for both parties. I would also change our program to more clearly define the role of the

facilitator and also how additional time to talk about how to effectively cultivate relationships with

community leaders and stakeholders.

Survey #3 Nina Tangman (Appendix C)

I appreciated the critical eye of this respondent. Many of the survey respondents generally liked

5

our program and did not have a lot of constructive criticism regarding the structure of our program

design. These survey responses were helpful because I had not thought about the workload and

responsibilities of the workshop being too much for just one facilitator. I would agree that more than

one facilitator is necessary for this program to be successful in addition to providing a thorough over

view and rationale of Ubuntu in the beginning of our workshop. There are also some areas of

improvement stated in the survey response about including some information regarding TRIO and the

Storytelling Project. I do not necessarily agree with the respondent in that regard. I would prefer to talk

about those projects in a briefer format or as a way to inspire the participants to embrace Ubuntu

practices of collaboration.

Survey #4 Adam Campbell (Appendix D)

The respondent of this survey stated that Ubuntu allows for everyone to be a stakeholder and

become active participants. This would lead me to believe that our program design rationale and

introduction does a great job of articulating the purpose of our program design. The survey responses

suggested that we allow more time for communication with the groups and toward building consensus.

I would agree that there might need to be a little bit more emphasis on allowing time to build

consensus. I do feel that we are already allowing time for communication and team building by

introducing time to socialize and eat during snack times. The respondent brings up a great point about

the principal of Ubuntu being a foreign concept to some people. Perhaps we can take a closer look at

the timeline of events and ensure that significant time is spent letting people know about the Ubuntu

Model and/or providing documents that further explain the concept.

Highlights

The most significant parts of the survey responses is that we will need to take another look at

the time allotment for each section and make some additional changes to ensure the participants have

enough time to take in the information. Another significant response was that we should consider

6

having more than one facilitator and that we should possible introduce stakeholders ahead of time and

coach a little on how to get those stakeholders on board, as this might be a huge challenge for those

who have never had to accomplish that feat before.

Process

This assignment was completed by obtaining as many survey responses as possible in hopes of

understanding what aspects of our program design could be improved and what aspects are well done.

One lesson that was learned during this process is that not all respondents seemed to fully understand

that the two programs (TRIO & Storytelling Project) were not in their entirety used in our program

design. Having a group that communicates what needs to be done has been very helpful. We have

utilized phone conferences, email, and posting in our class chat rooms to prepare our evaluation and

give feedback. I have learned that the more time that you give yourself and your group to brainstorm

and to put things together the better! Our group wanted as many responses as possible to give us a

larger spectrum of critiques to work with, this greatly influenced what changes we found that needed to

be made.

Reflection of SurveysKristin Wheeler

Survey #1 Whitney Harden (Appendix A):

I felt that this respondent thought that our program was designed to fit into a TRIO program

environment, which is not necessarily what we were going for, but I can understand this because TRIO

is probably a large part of her job. I really appreciated the suggestion for the uses of technology to be

integrated into the program. As this is more of a “train the trainer” environment to give the learners the

opportunity to see how this type of cohort would work in their own communities, it may not be feasible

given the timeline. The facilitators could offer this as a suggestion when they take the program back to

their own communities for long-term problem solving programs.

7

Survey #2 Elizabeth Swisher (Appendix B):

I could definitely understand this respondent's trepidation that there would not be enough time

to develop stakeholder relationships in the short amount of time of the training program. Again, this is

something that we should clarify as being a program that trains learners how to start these programs in

their own communities. This is not a full-scale implementation of the program, but is a training

program meant to plant the ideas and offer the opportunity to see how it would work in the real world.

That is why the facilitators would suggest bringing a family member or friend along as a “stakeholder”.

This would get the learners used to developing relationships with community members where they

would feel comfortable asking them to join the organization as a stakeholder and mentor.

Survey #3 Nina Tangman (Appendix C)

I definitely agree that we need to clarify how each segment of the program relates to the

principles of ubuntu as suggested by this respondent. The respondent also recognized a need for

clarification of the role of the facilitator (who is the actual instructor). Again, in reference to the

stakeholders, the purpose of this program is to show the learners how to create stakeholder

relationships within their own communities when they go back, so the intent of the twelve week

program is not to build a stakeholder relationship, but to get the learners used to the idea and the ways

it could be implemented in their own programs.

Survey #4 Adam Campbell (Appendix D)

This respondent focused on the potential that principles of ubuntu could be foreign to the

learners, and that more time should be focused on understanding those principles and practicing

consensus building. I do agree on this point, but I would also argue that introducing the concepts in 15

minutes does not mean that the principles would not be be further discussed and clarified through the

actual dialogue, storytelling, and consensus building in which the participants engage. The entire

program is set up to reflect the principles, as opposed to the banking method, where students absorb

8

and regurgitate.

Highlights

I felt that the survey responses were very informative and helped me look at the program design

and rationale with a more critical eye. The responses included suggestions that will help the team

clarify the ways that the principles of ubuntu have been modified to meet the experience and needs of

western learners, change some of the time components to include more clarification and direct

instruction, and possibly introduce the idea of having more than one facilitator. I do also feel that we

need to clarify that this program is intended to train people to take the design back to their communities

as opposed to trying to mount a full-scale community action organization within a twelve week training

program.

Process

Our group used “old-fashioned” tools to complete this assignment (Microsoft Word and face-to-

face interactions to solicit responses). We also utilized our trusted online free conference call software

to communicate with each other on a regular basis. The most important suggestion I could give is to

ask for responses as early as possible and keep reminding your volunteers to respond. I would also

suggest setting group deadlines for a few days before the actual due date in order for everyone to gain

consensus while proofing the finished product.

9

Evaluators Ideas for improving program design

Revisions/your responses

Whitney Harden (Appendix A) • Add a blogging element to the program

• Great idea, would be suggested by facilitators for when the participants take the program back to their own communities. Would probably not be able to implement with thetwelve week training due to time constraints.

Elizabeth Swisher (Appendix

B)

• Give more time to build stakeholder relationships

• As explained, this is atraining program for learners to take back to their own communities. Bringing the stakeholders in is just a way to show them how it would be donein their own communities. The time constraints of the training program do not allow for the deeper mentorship possibilities when they return.

Nina Tangman (Appendix C) • Suggested using morethan one facilitator, needed facilitator relationship to group clarified

• Give more time to explain principles of

• It would definitely be possible to use more than one facilitator, depending on the sizeof the cohort. Also, the facilitator is the “teacher” and that

10

ubuntu should be clarified that the teaching teamwould be developing the videos, etc. to take back to the group.

Adam Campbell (Appendix D) • Allow more time for the development of the consensus building, more training on the principles of ubuntu

We agree that we should definitely revise the program design timeline to allow for more instruction in consensus building, but feel that the principles of ubuntu are also built into other aspects of the programand that the participants willlearn by doing.

11

Appendix A

Name (optional): Whitney Harden

Role/Position: Assistant Director of Student Success and Retention

Adult and Community Education Qualifications and Experience:

Community College administrative staff for over 4 years. That entire time has been with Ivy Tech

Community College.

What do you like most about the program design?

I like the sense of community the program is set to create amongst the TRIO participants. Our

culture is shifting to a very collaborative one and this will benefit the participants in their various career

fields in the future. I can also see how this will benefit them by being able to collaborative across

industries in the future.

When you create a supportive environment much like what the program is designed to create,

you create an atmosphere where students will support each other’s success in this program and in their

academics. I believes this creates a bond that will carrying on beyond TRIO and college. These

participants will likely want to stay connected professionally for future collaboration.

What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?

One thing I would encourage is the use of blogging (or video blogging) for each cohort where

they are able to reflect on their experience on a regular basis (i.e. weekly or monthly), as well as

speaking on things that are going on within the community in which the serve as it relates to their

focus. This should be shared amongst the cohort and community leaders that are partnering with the

cohort. The blog could be hosted on a Learning Management System such as Blackboard where they

offer the capability to produce blogs within an organization or class shell. These are typically easy to

set up by an organizer. This would further create a sense a collaboration as all are able to post articles

12

and respond to each other’s posts and comments to further the discussion which would also support the

storytelling piece of this program.

Any other comments or suggestions?

This is a great program design that many cohorts could benefit from.

13

Appendix B

Name (optional): Elizabeth Swisher

Role/Position: Student Success Advisor

Adult and Community Education Qualifications and Experience: M.S.Ed., Higher Education and

Student Affairs; 5+ years experience in higher education, including 2+ years working at a community

college

What do you like most about the program design?

I like the ways in which the aspects of Ubuntu are incorporated into the program design. The

concepts of group learning, community engagement, dialogue and storytelling, and consensus building

are clearly incorporated through activities such as the communal meal, group discussion, and bringing

in community stakeholders. Overall, the program design seems well thought-out.

What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?

The main aspect I wonder about is how program participants will identify the community

stakeholders and engage them in the project. In my experience, relationships with community

organizations tend to take time to develop, so I wonder whether or not the timeline for this aspect of the

program is realistic and would generate meaningful engagement with the stakeholders. I think the role

of the stakeholders could be more clearly defined.

Any other comments or suggestions? Nice job! I enjoyed reading your program design.

14

Appendix C

Name (optional): Nina Tangman

Role/Position: Associate Director, Academic Affairs

Adult and Community Education Qualifications and Experience:

Associate Director, Academic Affairs, Private Business and Vocational Schools Division – 2 years

Assistant Director, Academic Affairs, Private Business and Vocational Schools Division – 2 years

Masters Human Services – Social Service Administration

What do you like most about the program design?

I feel this is great program design which encourages awareness, discourse, research, and

solidarity to work toward resolving an identified issue. Most often, individuals are aware of an issue

and how it affects a certain segment of population close to them, but others are not aware of the issue

due to ignorance/lack of exposure. Most group projects involve little to no personal interaction and

understanding of why a topic is relevant to specific populations. This program values the Ubuntu

exchange of information and learning from each other in order to educate and/or rectify a problem. The

program design allows for personal interaction among the group which helps to foster mutual respect

and understanding whereby people are more open to listen, learn and understand each other.

What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?

I actually think the program design flows nicely. If I had to make some suggestions on

improvements, I would focus on the following:

Week One: - There should be some time built in for the instructor to provide an overview of the

program and discuss goals/benchmarks and outcomes related to participation in the class and rationale

for utilizing the Ubuntu format. I think it is important for participants to understand each session is

formatted after an Ubuntu principle(s) which will be used by the group to work together toward

choosing an issue the group must address later in the program.

15

Week Four: - The homework assigned asks participants to bring a stakeholder to the next meeting. I

would suggest at this time participants also inform the stakeholder of the opportunity to become a

mentor as the project moves forward. This allows the stakeholder to reflect on the time and resources

available to commit to the project.

Weeks 6 – 11 – A facilitator is mentioned that is responsible for documentation via video and

journaling. Is this the instructor, stakeholder/mentor, or a group member? This needs to be clarified.

My additional suggestion is this is a lot of responsibility (videoing, editing, journaling, and compilation

of a manual) for one individual to take on without the assistance of the group members. I think this

strays from the Ubuntu principles of community, shared responsibility, consensus, etc.

Any other comments or suggestions?

This suggestion relates more to actual formatting of the written program design. The written

design significantly explains TRIO and The Storytelling Project. It would be my suggestion to briefly

mention these projects in the introduction as examples to be discussed further.

The introduction specifically talks about American versus Ubuntu cultural differences in

education and the need to amend some practices. However, I could not locate where those differences

were in the proposed program design and how the Ubuntu practice was amended to align with

American Culture.

Overall, I think this was a unique program design to implement and could be very beneficial to

problem solving among varied groups.

16

Appendix D

Name (optional): Adam Campbell

Role/Position: Assistant Director, PBVS Division, Illinois Board of Higher Education

Adult and Community Education Qualifications and Experience:

I have worked with adult learners for over 10 years in both formal and informal academic settings. I

have developed multiple educational programs and engaged in various program reviews and

evaluations. Many of the programs I have worked with have centered on adult education, individual

improvement, and community development.

What do you like most about the program design?

The entire idea of collaborative learning has merit. Obviously, if an individual were to take a

greater ownership of his/her learning or community projects, there are far reaching benefits. I like that

the program focuses on actual problem-solving and outcomes rather than just problem identification.

Often times, in Western culture, we are quick to coalesce around what is seen as a community problem

but without taking the proper steps toward solutions. Community engagement and active problem-

solving by all parties involved are necessary components in learning and community development. The

Ubuntu model allows for everyone to be a stakeholder, at some level, and allows for all involved to

become active participants in the community.

What do you think should be improved? Why? And how?

Looking at the program design, I would encourage allotting more initial time toward consensus

building and communication within the group. While Western culture does allow for consensus

building, it is not always at the forefront and it is not taught or encouraged within many demographics.

While I do think African Indigenous cultures are more communal in nature, we are not. That being

said, I feel that program participants can learn to become more centered on developing a consensus and

working proactively with other group participants. For example, a brief introduction to the Ubuntu

17

model and the idea of community problem-solving is a terrific start to the program. However, there

may be several program participants to whom this concept is foreign. Initially, within weeks one and

two of the program, more time could be allocated to learning and understanding consensus building

than the proposed 15 minutes or so. As the program develops and participants learn how to effectively

work within the group to problem-solve, the allotted time could be winnowed down.

Any other comments or suggestions?

The proposed program would be great in addressing local issues to begin with. Again, while I

feel Western culture does not always emphasize consensus building (primarily with whom we may

disagree), the Ubuntu model could be taught and implemented. As local problems are addressed and

the model outcomes trend to the positive, broader implementation could work.