The program’s overall aim is to enhance students’ learning and help them gain valuable skills that will benefit their future education and career. To evaluate whether this goal is being achieved through a qualitative lens, we will employ several assessment methods to capture important subjective data.
One of the key measures we will use is student feedback gathered through structured interviews. Around 6 months after the program concludes, we will conduct individual interviews with 15-20 students who participated. The interviews will be 30-45 minutes long and focus on open-ended questions about the students’ experience in the program. Some sample questions include: What aspects of the program did you find most useful or engaging? What skills or knowledge do you feel you gained? How do you think what you learned will influence your future? Have your views on education/career paths changed as a result of participating? The interview responses will be analyzed for common themes to gauge student perceptions of whether the program enhanced their learning and skill development.
To get an instructors’ perspective, we will also survey the 10 teachers who were involved in delivering the program content. The survey will use a combination of open-ended questions for narrative answers along with some five-point Likert scale questions to rate different factors. For example, teachers will be asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 how much the program objectives around skill-building and career preparation were addressed during the course delivery. Open-ended questions will probe what instructional aspects seemed to most effectively promote student learning and interest. Teacher feedback will help evaluate whether program goals were appropriately translated into classroom activities and lessons.
In addition to interviews and surveys, we will carefully analyze student portfolios and capstone projects developed during the program. Around 15 portfolios/projects will be randomly selected and reviewed by an external assessment panel consisting of 2-3 educational experts not involved in program delivery. The panel will use a rubric to score how well each portfolio demonstrates competency in key skill areas targeted by the program like collaboration, communication, research skills and creative/critical thinking. Scores will indicate the depth and quality of skill development exhibited through the portfolios.
As another qualitative element, we will conduct focus groups with 8-10 business/industry representatives from fields related to the program content areas after completion. A moderator will pose questions to elicit perceptions on whether the types of skills and knowledge promoted in the program align well with current needs of their sector. Responses will help validate whether the program objectives appropriately focused on developing relevance for further education/career aspirations.
To gauge broader community impact, we will interview 5 parents of student participants and 2 school administrators 6 months after the program ends. Questions will center on observed changes in factors like student engagement, motivation, self-confidence and educational/career goals. Responses will offer an outside perspective on longer term influence of the program experience beyond just student self-report.
When analyzing all qualitative data sources together, we aim to identify essential themes around the program’s influence on skill and career development, enhancement of student learning, and alignment with stakeholder needs. Identification of both positive outcomes and any areas for potential improvement will allow for a rich, nuanced understanding of the program’s success in meeting its overall aims from various subjective viewpoints. The extensive qualitative measures outlined here, capturing data through diverse assessment methods, will provide robust validation of the program’s impact from multiple critical angles.
Andrew Stroud