 |
Below is the Introduction, and the Summary of Key Findings from this report. The complete report can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.
Community Mapping Program
2004-05 Evaluation
Survey Report
Prepared for
the Institute for
Technology Development
Prepared by
Michael Duffin, George Tremblay, & PEER Associates, Inc.
November 6, 2005
The Community Mapping Program (CMaP) is designed to “motivate communities and young minds through mapping.” The program web site (at www.iftd.org/cmap/) goes on to say that “CMaP supports youth, educators and community partners in a process of discovery and learning about their community and its resources. Together they tackle authentic issues using hands-on resources and mapping technologies, including geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning systems (GPS) and satellite imagery to actively investigate social, economic and ecological systems, identify and solve local problems, and develop enduring connections.” Further description of CMaP and associated program evaluation efforts can be found in the 2003-04 CMP Evaluation Report, available at http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Reports/S000FDD55.
This report presents an analysis of findings from CMaP surveys administered to date as summarized in Table 1 below.
Survey |
# Collected in 2003-04 (source) |
# Collected in 2004-05 (source) |
Educator |
34 (all VINS) |
19 (9 VINS, 6 Texas, 4 Utah) |
Student |
163 (all VINS) |
57 (54 VINS, 3 Texas) |
Community Partner |
10 (all VINS) |
4 (3 VINS, 1 Texas) |
Institute |
76 (5 institutes) |
97 (8 institutes) |
Coordinator/Institute Instructor Reflection Form |
- |
4 (2 VINS, 2 Texas) |
Summary of Key Findings from CMaP Surveys, 2003-2005
· Nearly all institute participants (164 out of 175, or 94%) reported feeling well prepared to implement a CM project after attending an institute. This pattern was consistent across virtually all institute survey items, including narrative statements to open response items.
· Positive, significant correlations were found between CMaP dose and educator reports of use of local places, service learning, student engagement in learning, and student civic engagement.
· CMaP surveys included items about four national learning standards: National Geography Standard #1 (presenting information from a geographic, spatial perspective); National Geography Standard #18 (using geography to interpret the present and plan for the future); National Science Education Standard (science as inquiry); and International Society for Technology in Education Standard #6 (using technology for problem solving). Nearly all educators (85% or more) reported having recently witnessed their students demonstrate mastery of each of these standards. However, for only one of these standards (NGS #1), was a positive, statistically significant
correlation found between educator outcome reports and CMaP dose.
· Very nearly all educators (47 out of 48, or 98%) either tended to agree or strongly agreed that CM projects and/or teaching about local topics improved their teaching. Further, the correlation between educator dose of CMaP and the outcome index about Educator engagement/growth was positive and marginally statistically significant (p < .10).
· Adding results from educator surveys in 2004-05 to previous educator survey data from 2003-04 increased the confidence in measured effect sizes, despite resulting in generally smaller effect sizes and fewer instances of statistical significance.
· Interpretation of primarily null findings for student survey results suggested important refinements that should be made to the evolving dose-response measurement strategy in future rounds of survey administration and analysis.
· Despite notable organizational challenges during 2004-05, important progress was made toward developing and refining survey infrastructure and administration protocols. However, more continuity and greater investment is needed in order to fully embed continuous learning through evaluation into the fabric of the CMaP program.
| |
