Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Spring Break Challenge March 11-15, 2013

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Spring Break Challenge March 11-15, 2013"— Presentation transcript:

1 Spring Break Challenge March 11-15, 2013
Evaluation Findings Prepared by Lynsie Ranker

2 Executive Summary

3 Spring Break Challenge: A Valuable, Real-World Experience
The program was seen as an innovative, valuable chance to have a “real-world” experience. Many appreciated the opportunity to engage with the BCC staff and South End community. The majority request more time at BCC and interacting with the South End community The interdisciplinary aspect of the program resonated with many students, and was frequently listed as one of the program’s major strengths. Many were drawn to the program initially as an opportunity to engage with students outside their school Students feel each school brings a unique and valuable perspective However, SSW and Sargent students note the program was very SPH focused and that their role may be as program developers at a later stage Learning new skills was often considered most valuable, rather than learning about a specific topic. Many felt it filled a gap in their classroom learning, allowing them to go and do

4 Participants Often Identified Common Program Strengths.
Gaining real-world experience Learning and applying new skills Working in interdisciplinary teams Engaging with community members These strengths appear to be a major contributor to overall satisfaction with the program Many feel any future programming should include and build upon these key strengths

5 Yet Many Feel there is Room for Improvement in Some Aspects of the Program
Opportunities for Improvement Invitations/Outreach -Clarifying what the program is and what skills will be offered in invitations and outreach -Earlier notice on the program so they can clear their schedules Representation -Increasing representation and capitalizing on the skill sets of SSW and Sargent Fully utilizing SSW and Sargent skill sets - Feedback from SPH students suggests they would have liked to see their teammates be able to take on a greater role - Sargent and SSW feedback suggests they felt they could have offered more, but the task was largely geared toward SPH Creating more time for community engagement -Shortening the amount of “background” lectures on Monday -Allowing students to engage and meet with community members earlier in the week -Increasing the number of FGs and KIs that are run Division of labor -Consider having groups do different projects, to cover more ground during the week

6 Students are Excited about the Future of Blackstone
Students feel they play a critical role, both in bringing their skill sets and giving their time. Students see this as a location for future practicums, more long term research projects and site placements (for Nutrition, PT, SSW) moving forward Many want to be involved in discussion and planning of “next steps” and kept informed. Feedback from student interviews frequently suggest future tasks focus beyond the use of FitWell, to the major barriers and drivers for accessing BCC. Recommendations include: Creating programming that will encourage individuals to visit the center Organizing communications campaigns and outdoor activities to increase visibility Assisting BCC in becoming a center for advocacy within the community to address some of the major barriers to eating right and staying fit Several encourage the Practice Office to set clear time tables and milestones to maintain momentum and excitement.

7 Objectives and Methodology

8 Spotlight on Obesity Objectives
In Fall 2012, the Practice Office implemented the Spotlight on Obesity campaign. The overall program objectives are as follows: Address a perceived gap in the offerings regarding a relevant and “hot” topic to meet student demand. Create a common thread surrounding a single health issue through implementation of new programming as well as adaptation of existing programming. To encourage core course professors to include obesity case studies, or other discussions relevant to the topic, within their course. To highlight the interdisciplinary nature of public health research, education and practice. To provide students with practice-based, “real-world” experiences beyond the classroom setting. To explore the topic in the context of the broader BU and Boston community.

9 Spring Break Challenge was Designed to be in Line with that of Spotlight on Obesity
The key purpose of the week-long event was to allow students to engage with the local community and gain a real-world experience in community assessment. Address a perceived gap in the offerings regarding a relevant and “hot” topic to meet student demand. Create a common thread surrounding a single health issue through implementation of new programming as well as adaptation of existing programming. To encourage core course professors to include obesity case studies, or other discussions relevant to the topic, within their course. To highlight the interdisciplinary nature of public health research, education and practice. To provide students with practice-based, “real-world” experiences beyond the classroom setting. To explore the topic in the context of the broader BU and Boston community.

10 Spring Break Challenge: An Overview
Who: Teams of students from BUSPH, BU School of Social Work and Sargent College 34 students participated (23 SPH, 8 Sargent, 3 SSW) What: A week-long, intensive interdisciplinary program Students worked in interdisciplinary teams to address a specific public health problem related to obesity within the local community To acquire skills necessary to complete the task, students attended workshops and skill sessions led by experts Final products: 10-minute oral presentation of their findings and final report including a draft survey When: Over Spring Break 2013 Where: The students worked with the Blackstone Community Center (BCC) located in the South End

11 Evaluation Research Objectives
To identify who participated, as well as the common drivers and barriers to participation To assess overall satisfaction with the program and program components To evaluate whether new knowledge and skills were obtained through the program To assess the value of the program from the perspective of students To identify key strengths and potential areas for improvement moving forward To identify any differences in the Spring Break Challenge experience by school or SPH concentration To explore, from the student perspective, how Spring Break Challenge fits into the objectives of Spotlight on Obesity

12 Research questions were developed using the program research objectives
To identify who participated, as well as the common drivers and barriers to participation Who participated ? What attracted individuals to the program? Were there any commonly identified drivers or barriers to participation? To assess overall satisfaction with the program and program components Were participants satisfied with the program? Why or why not? To evaluate whether new knowledge and skills were obtained through the program Did participants acquire new knowledge and/or skills? What components facilitated learning? To assess the value of the program from the perspective of students Was the experience valuable and relevant? To identify key strengths and potential areas for improvement moving forward What are the major strengths of the program What about the program could be improved? To identify any differences in the Spring Break Challenge experience by school or SPH concentration Was there any variability in student feedback based on school affiliation or area of study? To explore, from the student perspective, how Spring Break Challenge fits into the objectives of Spotlight on Obesity Did the program support any of the objectives of Spotlight on Obesity? What would student like to see moving forward?

13 Methodology The evaluation used a mix methodology including both quantitative and qualitative feedback to help answer the research questions. A mixed methodology was favored in order to allow us to explore not only the “what” but also the “why”: Quantitative feedback allowed for an objective assessment of what the experience was like for participants It also allowed for some pre and post evaluation of the major learning objectives and outcomes the team was interested in exploring As the program was new, including qualitative feedback was important to the Practice Office. Including detailed feedback allowed the research to better understand the value of the program to students, the program’s major strengths and potential areas for improvement moving forward

14 Methodology: Quantitative
Pre and post-program surveys were distributed to participants. Pre-program surveys were filled out prior to the start of lectures on Monday Post-program surveys were filled out prior to the final presentations on Friday Metrics measured included: Perceived “preparation” to fulfill learning objectives on a 5-point likert scale where 3 is neutral (measured pre and post) Overall satisfaction (post) Beliefs and attitudes surrounding the experience, as measured by level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale where 3 is neutral (measured post) Open ends regarding expectations (pre), strengths of the program (post) and areas for improvement (post) Basic demographics (pre) 31 of the 34 students completed the post-program survey. Small sample size limited the use of complex analysis techniques or significant testing between pre and post ratings for the learning objectives

15 Methodology: Qualitative
45 minute interviews were conducted with 7 program participants. Students were recruited from across the three participating schools 1 Sargent (nutrition), 1 SSW and 5 SPH students were interviewed Each of the six teams was represented as well, to ensure experiences across potential differing team dynamics were captured Interview flow included: What attracted them to the program and what their expectations were Overall experience A walk-through of the weeks major events If and how the program fit into their course of study The programs strengths and areas for improvement Perceptions regarding the potential role of students moving forward

16 Attendance Research Objectives Research Questions
To identify who participated, as well as the common drivers and barriers to participation Who participated ? What attracted individuals to the program? Were there any commonly identified drivers or barriers to participation?

17 The Majority of Participants were SB and EPI Concentrators from SPH
23 out of 34 participants were exclusively SPH students, 8 were from Sargent, and 3 were from SSW One SSW student was a dual degree MSW/MPH Concentration* SB 11 EPI 7 EH 2 IH 4 HPM MCH *Note sums to greater than 23 because of dual concentrations School Designation SPH 23 Sargent 8 SSW 2 SSW/SPH 1 Half were Nutrition and half were Physical Therapy PhDs

18 How Students heard about the program varied by school
The majority of SPH students report hearing about the program through the Student Insider or some other communication. None report seeing signs, recommendations from a friend, communications from professor/faculty, or Facebook as channels for hearing about the program Qualitative feedback suggests professor/faculty recommendations may carry some weight in the future to garner broader participation across concentrations All Sargent students report hearing about the program from a professor/faculty member. Nutrition students used the experience as their community rotation, so they heard of the placement through the faculty in charge of organizing rotations They note this individual as a powerful communication tool within the school SSW students heard about the program through Qualitative feedback suggests word-of-mouth or professor recommendations might be a strong communication channel to capitalize on in the future

19 Regardless of How Participants Heard About the Opportunity, Most Note Details were Vague
Almost all those interviewed mentioned they had no idea what to expect when the signed up. Most note the orientation dinner helped set some expectations All would have liked more clarity on what the goals of the week would be, what skills would be taught, and what the end product would be. Most felt this would have put them more at ease going into the week Some would have liked to better evaluate whether or not to participate Some feel their colleagues may have been discouraged from participating due to this lack of transparency.

20 Main Drivers to Participation were Similar Across Schools.
Most frequently mentioned drivers: Working in Interdisciplinary teams Ability to Engage with the Community engagement Chance to Learn and practice new skills Gaining a Hands on, Real-world experience Participation

21 For Nutrition Students, Earning Class Credit Was an Additional Incentive to Participate
Most frequently mentioned drivers: Working in Interdisciplinary teams Ability to Engage with the Community engagement Chance to Learn and practice new skills Gaining a Hands on, Real-world experience Participation Drivers that were often inferred should also be considered Availability/ Convenience (for Nutrition) Class Credit

22 Potential Barriers Often Surround Scheduling Conflicts or Competing Priorities
Most frequently mentioned drivers: Working in Interdisciplinary teams Ability to Engage with the Community engagement Chance to Learn and practice new skills Gaining a Hands on, Real-world experience Participation Potential Barriers: Lack of transparency: Invitations not clear on what the week entails Already having plans for Spring Break (invites sent too late) Wanting a chance to rest over Spring Break Availability/ Convenience (for Nutrition) Class Credit Drivers that were often inferred

23 Some of These Barriers May Have Limited Greater Participation, Particularly Among SSW and Sargent.
Qualitative feedback suggests many felt the invitations lacked transparency. Many feel this limited participation across schools Particularly for SSW and Sargent students who have no experience with the Practice Office, this may have made some wary of participating Scheduling conflicts were often mentioned by SSW and Sargent students. SSW and Sargent students have regimented rotations, and often have to make their schedules far in advance. An interview with an SSW student revealed many of her colleagues had already planned to stay at their placements over Spring Break Even SPH students mention the invitation came a late, likely limiting participation from those who had already made plans to go home or on vacation for Spring Break.

24 Satisfaction Research Objectives Research Questions
To assess overall satisfaction with the program and program components Were participants satisfied with the program? Why or why not?

25 Overall, participants were satisfied with the program
Post-program surveys suggest participants were moderately to strongly satisfied (ratings out of 5, where 5 = strongly satisfied; mean = 4.15, SD = 0.70, mode = 4, range: 3-5) Qualitative feedback confirms the experience was overwhelming positive Many felt it was a fulfilling and meaningful way to spend their spring break All were excited about the prospect of future programming with the community center

26 Yet, feedback reveals some areas of dissatisfaction with areas of the program
Most students interviewed were dissatisfied with the level of background information provided on Monday. Many felt it took time away from the workshops and community engagement aspects Some suggested this is knowledge a student should already have Others suggest the background information should have been learned prior (at meetings prior to the week, available online, or assigned reading material) Students with prior experience in community assessment had hoped to delve deeper. Many wanted more time with community, as this was a particularly satisfying aspect. Some felt their final products were missing critical information Students in Sargent often reflected that their skill sets were not fully utilized, leading to some disappointment.

27 Knowledge and Skills Research Objectives Research Questions
To evaluate whether new knowledge and skills were obtained through the program Did participants acquire new knowledge and/or skills? What components facilitated learning?

28 Results Suggest Increases in Perceived Knowledge due to the Program
Not at all prepared Neutral Extremely prepared

29 Results Suggest Increases in Perceived Skills due to the Program
Not at all prepared Neutral Extremely prepared

30 Program Value Research Objectives Research Questions
To assess the value of the program from the perspective of students Was the experience valuable and relevant?

31 The Program Compliments the Educational Experience for Students
On average, students feel the program added to their degree program SPH students report feeling it was a chance to practice outside the classroom SSW and Sargent saw real value in seeing a different way to approach problems they deal with in their rotations “It was positive, I think I took more away from it than I thought I would in terms of getting to know the South End community a little bit better.” – SSW, Clinical Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

32 Participants Agree the Program is Applicable and Would Recommend to a Friend
While the average reveals participants agree with the applicability of the program… Interviews suggest the program may not have been as applicable for Sargent students Interviews suggest students would be more likely to recommend this experience if there were minor changes in scheduling and greater communication regarding goals. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

33 Participants Agree the Program is Applicable and Would Recommend to a Friend
Interviews reveal students had few expectations going into the program Many report they were left “wanting more” from the experience Some felt there should have been more emphasis and effort on the survey design Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

34 Strengths & Areas for Improvement
Research Objectives Research Questions To identify key strengths and potential areas for improvement moving forward What are the major strengths of the program What about the program could be improved?

35 Participants Often Identified Common Program Strengths.
Real-world experience Learning and applying new skills Working in interdisciplinary teams Engaging with community members These strengths appear to be a major contributor to overall satisfaction with the program Many feel any future programming should include and build upon these key strengths “Working with the different schools was such a great exposure to aspects of health promotion I would not have known.” – Sargent, PT “I think showing us instead of telling us what is going on in a community is a huge strength.” – Sargent, Nutrition

36 Yet Many Feel there is Room for Improvement in Some Aspects of the Program
Opportunities for Improvement Invitations/ Outreach -Clarifying what the program is and what skills will be offered in invitations and outreach -Earlier notice on the program so they can clear their schedules Setting Expectations -Clearly communicating goals and objectives for the week and for the final products Representation -Increasing representation and capitalizing on the skill sets of SSW and Sargent Fully utilizing SSW and Sargent skill sets - Feedback from SPH students suggests they would have liked to see their teammates be able to take on a greater role - Sargent and SSW feedback suggests they felt they could have offered more, but the task was largely geared toward SPH “Some of the material presented came from an almost exclusive public health point of view, which weakened the interdisciplinary approach--which is otherwise a strength.” Sargent, PT

37 Yet Many Feel there is Room for Improvement in Some Aspects of the Program
Opportunities for Improvement Creating more time for community engagement -Shortening the amount of “background” lectures on Monday -Allowing students to engage and meet with community members earlier in the week -Increasing the number of FGs and KIs that are run Division of labor -Consider having groups do different projects, to cover more ground during the week “It might be valuable to conduct an initial poll to gauge how much background information is needed for future challenges. I feel that more time could have been freed up to do more community engagement and final project work” – Sargent, PT

38 Post-Program Surveys Suggest Strengths as Well as Areas for Improvement
In addition, qualitative feedback suggests the workshops were valuable. Some request more workshop time as a substitution for some of the background on Monday Many found the binders helpful. Some feel it could have been used to provide more background in lieu of some Monday content Many enjoyed the opportunity to “re-teach” what they learned in workshop to their colleagues. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

39 Post-Program Surveys Suggest Strengths as Well as Areas for Improvement
Feedback suggests participants would have liked more clarification on the week’s objectives. Qualitative feedback supports that many were unsure what the final product was supposed to be Many felt more time could have been set aside for analysis and reporting. Interviews support this result. Some feel their products could have been more polished “I would have liked to have more instruction on survey design because that was the focus of this activity and I did not feel like I had the tools necessary to complete that task” – SPH, EPI Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

40 Differences in Experience by School & Concentration
Research Objectives Research Questions To identify any differences in the Spring Break Challenge experience by school or SPH concentration Was there any variability in student feedback based on school affiliation or area of study?

41 There may be differences in overall experience by school
The activity was heavily public health focused, and both SPH as well as SSW and Sargent students felt skills of the other schools could have been utilized more effectively Skill Utilization SSW and Sargent may have spring break conflicts that limit participation as some choose to stay at their placement or internships As many are highly scheduled throughout the year they may also be more likely to be averse to participating over spring break Scheduling/Availability Students at SSW and Sargent may be more responsive to recommendations from faculty or administrators rather than Channels of Communication Although the program made space for more SSW and Sargent students, actual participation rates were quite low. Particularly among SSW which only have 3 students Participation

42 The Bigger Picture Research Objectives Research Questions
To explore, from the student perspective, how Spring Break Challenge fits into the objectives of Spotlight on Obesity Did the program support any of the objectives of Spotlight on Obesity? What would student like to see moving forward?

43 Spring Break Challenge was Designed to Address Four Spotlight Objectives
Address a perceived gap in the offerings regarding a relevant and “hot” topic to meet student demand. To highlight the interdisciplinary nature of public health research, education and practice. To provide students with practice-based, “real-world” experiences beyond the classroom setting. To explore the topic in the context of the broader BU and Boston community.

44 Survey Results Show the Program Provided a Real-World, Interdisciplinary Experience
Feedback suggests this was one of the major take-aways from the program Inter-professional collaboration was one of the most frequently listed strengths of the program To provide students with practice-based, “real-world” experiences beyond the classroom setting. To highlight the interdisciplinary nature of public health research, education and practice. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

45 Yet, Many Felt there Could Have been more Community Engagement…
To explore the topic in the context of the broader BU and Boston community. While this objective appears to have been met, based on qualitative feedback, many students still felt there could have been more interaction Many would have liked to see greater participation from SSW and Sargent, as well as under-represented concentrations within SPH, to increase inter-professional and interdisciplinary interaction Almost all mention wanting more time at BCC interacting with the community. Many recommend conducting more FGs and KI interviews or a community dinner to allow for more casual interaction

46 …and Most Note the Topic of Obesity was not Emphasized
Address a perceived gap in the offerings regarding a relevant and “hot” topic to meet student demand. Interviews and Survey feedback suggest the emphasis was overly narrow. Many would have preferred to focus on obesity in the community The task required focus on use of FitWell which limited the discussion to physical activity, leading groups to not prioritize other contributors to obesity such as nutrition

47 Spring Break Challenge: Next Steps
Qualitative feedback suggests many felt the invitations lacked transparency. Many feel this limited participation across schools Particularly for SSW and Sargent students who have no experience with the Practice Office, this may have made some wary of participating Scheduling conflicts were often mentioned by SSW and Sargent students. SSW and Sargent students have regimented rotations, and often have to make their schedules far in advance. An interview with an SSW student revealed many of her colleagues had already planned to stay at their placements over Spring Break Even SPH students mention the invitation came a late, likely limiting participation from those who had already made plans to go home or on vacation for Spring Break.

48 Spring Break Challenge: Next Steps
Student interviews reveal a chance for re-framing Frequently suggest future tasks focus beyond the use of FitWell Focus instead on drivers and barriers to obesity in the community Many mention it felt too narrow, too early Student recommendations for next steps include: Creating programming that will encourage individuals to visit the center Organizing communications campaigns and outdoor activities to increase visibility Assisting BCC in becoming a center for advocacy within the community to address barriers to eating right and staying fit Setting clear time tables and milestones to maintain momentum and excitement.


Download ppt "Spring Break Challenge March 11-15, 2013"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google