3. NetLit Steering Committee
• Anne Adrian
• Connie Hancock
• Sarah Baughman, Evaluation Specialist
• Amy Hays
• Bob Bertsch
• Karen Jeannette
• Peg Boyles
• Stephen Judd, Chair
• Kyleen Burgess
• Jim Langcuster
• Chris Canjar
• Kristen Mastel
• Thomas G. Coon, Administrative advisor
• Rich Phelps
• John Dorner, Vice-Chair
• Jerry Thomas
• Brent Elrod, National Program Leader
• Kevin Gamble • Terrence Wolfork
• Diana Hagan • Barbara Woods
Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/info_grrl/6862478946/in/set-72157629286123040/
4. How do we plan to measure outcomes when we aren't
sure where we are going?
Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kelvin255/3518359517/
5.
6. Developmental Evaluation adapts to
the realities of complex nonlinear
dynamics rather than trying to impose
order and certainty on a disorderly and
uncertain world.
– Michael Quinn Patton
7. Evaluation Progress
Steps along the way
internal evaluator with eval committee
establishing the framework
developing initial evaluation questions
surveying steering committee for
sensitizing concepts
reflective practice
8. Reflections to
move us forward
Participating in online
networks is an essential
skill for our increasingly
inter-connected world.
Network Literacy is the
ability to leverage
technology to create
connections with other
people and/or
organizations in a virtual
space.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foxypar4/
9. • Networks are powerful
• Participating in networks has opened opportunities for
creating stronger relationships resulting in
professional collaborations
• Learning, co-learning, and active learning all happen
with participation in networks
• Comfort level increases through active participation in
networks
• Need for recognizing barriers to participating in
networks
Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mag3737/
10. What role can we play?
• Role model good online teaching
• Leveraging individual CoP member networks to
create impact within the system
• Leader in defining, creating best practices for online
learning and extension education
• Serve as “technology stewards” for CES by showing
how tools and approaches can address challenges.
• Strategic efforts to leverage our networks around
specific events
11. Roles we can play
• Hold national level online conversations
about cooperative extension that are
open to the public to raise awareness
of cooperative extension programs.
• Support the efforts of others within
Extension working to build network
literacy.
12. Next Steps
• Discussion results of reflective practice
with the steering committee
• Engage entire CoP in more specific
plans to more forward
• Continue to document our work
13. What we’ve learned
• Time consuming, challenging approach
• Stakeholder involvement has been
difficult to get
• We are making progress in individual
learning networks
• Increasing engagement and interaction
outside of CoP membership
14. What we’ve learned
• Time consuming, challenging approach
• Stakeholder involvement has been
difficult to get
• We are making progress in individual
learning networks
• Increasing engagement and interaction
outside of CoP membership
16. Listening Session
• Offer a chance to invest
• Opportunity to identify themes
(sensitizing concepts to work from)
• Create opportunity to request specific
contributors/contributions
• Provide tighter direction for future
educational offerings (webinars, blog
posts, etc)
17. Themes can help identify contributors
and “community indicators”
• Can we provide programming that
responds to themes and increase:
– #new contributors
– # contributors from state systems
– # contributors from external learning
networks
– Repeat visitors, contributors
http://blogs.extension.org/militaryfamilies/military-families/ The purpose of the Military Families Learning Network is to serve military family service professionals through engaged online communities which identify and make use of the highest quality, best practices, research-and evidence-based information, educational and curriculum materials, and programming activities and efforts. The primary concentration areas for the Military Families Learning Network are Personal Finance , Child Care , Family Development , and Network Literacy . The Military Families Learning Network is made up of Cooperative Extension family specialists and military family service professionals from DoD, branch services, and non-governmental organizations. These online communities engage in various places, like Facebook facebook.com/militaryfamilies and Twitter twitter.com/milfamln , and on DoD authorized social sites. This learning network offers professional development opportunities through web conferencing [http://learn.eXtension.org ] and online asynchronous learning modules. eXtension.org/militaryfamilies serves as the hub for the online activities and engagement for the Military Families Learning Network. Military Families Learning Network Leaders Project Leader: Kyle Kostelecky, PhD CFLE Social Media Strategist: Anne Mims Adrian , PhD Evaluation Specialist: Sarah Baughman , PhD
Steering Committee Members Bob Bertsch - North Dakota State Peg Boyles - New Hampshire Kyleen Burgess - North Carolina State Chris Canjar - Kentucky John Dorner - North Carolina State - Vice-Chair Diana Hagan - Florida Connie Hancock - Nebraska Stephen Judd - New Hampshire - Chair Jim Langcuster - Alabama Coop Ext (Auburn Univ) - communications/marketing leader (added 7-05-2011) Kristen Mastel - University of Minnesota Libraries (liaison to Extension) Rich Phelps - Kentucky Terrence Wolfork , Fort Valley State University, Georgia (added 7-15-2011) Barbara Woods - Iowa State Department of Defense (DoD) representative Supporting members: Military Families Evaluation Specialist - Sarah Baughman Brent Elrod , National Program Leader - Military and Veteran's Programs, Institute of Youth, Family, and Community, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture - National Program Leader Administrative advisor - Thomas G. Coon , Director - Michigan State University Extension eXtension Representatives: Anne Adrian - Auburn - eXtension Kevin Gamble - North Carolina State - eXtension Amy Hays - Texas A&M - eXtension Karen Jeannette - Minnesota - eXtension Jerry Thomas - Ohio State - eXtension
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kelvin255/3518359517/ Like Star Trek - looking for the unknown, we couldn't use the logic model to measure what we didn't know we'd be teaching. We needed an evaluation tool that would give us the flexibility to adapt to a very rapidly changing environment. When we started, Google Plus didn't exist.
This is a traditional logic model for a program
Developmental evaluation aims to meet the needs of social innovators by applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Developmental evaluation focuses on what is being developed through innovative engagement. The Network Literacy CoP included an alternative evaluation plan in it’s plan of work to allow for the complexity of it’s innovations to be documented. Hallmarks of a developmental evaluation are including an evaluator on the leadership team who helps facilitate documentation of work, asks evaluative questions and marks decision points.
Initial evaluation questions: 1.What is developing or emerging as the work of the network literacy CoP expands and grows? 2.How is the Cooperative Extension system responding to the innovations? 3.What adaptations need to be made as the network evolves. 4.What’s missing?
Patterns in our work
Perspective from CoP member re this evaluation approach