QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
Discussion Of Results
The post-it activity was undertaken before the directed group discussion
and without reference to the project. Possibly because of this both
conceptual and experiential learning were heavily weighted to immediate
environmental concerns, i.e. litter. In conceptual learning, for example,
66% of related responses were to do with this and yet a specific lesson on
litter at this stage in the project had not taken place. When questions were
related to project inputs in the recorded discussion a wide variety of
environmental issues were identified, both conceptual and experiential,
which did not include litter. Arguably, although the percentage of the
total sample was smaller, in the recorded group discussions the responses
were fuller because children were identifying how they could change their
behaviour. This only occurred to a small extent with the post-it activity.
In both activities (more so in the recorded discussion) children gave more
responses, and in greater depth, in the second experiential learning outcome,
compared to the first. That is, they were able to communicate more effectively
the concrete actions they were currently undertaking, compared to possible
future actions.
Control Group
In the control group post-it activity there was less variation compared to the
project groups, although it needs to be noted that it was a smaller sample.
The issue of litter, similar to the project group, was predominant. The trend
of less variety in the control group compared to the project group continued
in the recorded group discussion. In addition the project group were seemingly
more specific in what they were actually doing in relation to environmental concerns.
For example, using a bike more, turning off water. This compared to responses from
the control group which were arguably more general, such as ‘make people
stop throwing litter’.
Limitations
In terms of qualitative evaluation:
- Positive comments relating to both understanding and individual application of
this knowledge need not relate to children's actual behaviour. In addition the very
nature of the evaluation potentially involved children feeling in a position where
they attempted to give the ‘right’ answer
- Conversely, comments which did not make sense, or seemed not to address the areas
of change identified could have simply been a lack of articulation or more general
misunderstanding that did not represent the child’s position. For example, the
response "my footprint, the world" may have hidden a knowledge that because of
time limitations could not be investigated.
- The sample was so small that issues of gender and ability cannot be excluded from
effecting the results.
- Because of the size of groups general extrapolation of the
results cannot be completely relied upon and this includes results
from the control group. Therefore, analysis and subsequent
conclusions are only justified when this limitation is taken
into account.
Conclusion
Overall it can be argued that this qualitative evaluation begins to show that
the project has had a
successful impact even when the above limitations are taken into account.
This is supported through a qualitative ‘snapshot’ of
attitudes, understanding and behaviour of a majority of a sample of children in
learning outcome areas identified at the beginning of the project, in addition
to quantitative data.