Markus Professional Visions Group

Evaluation of Determining Instructional Purposes Course

A Proposal for contract submitted to Far West Laboratory

Erin C. Markus6/15/2010

Introduction

Far West Laboratory for Educational and Research Development (FWL) of Seattle, WA has requested a proposal for the evaluation of its Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP) training program. The proposal request was made on June 1, 2010 and the program is expected to be introduced to school districts in the Greater Seattle area at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. This proposal has been created by the Markus Professional Visions Group (MPV), located in Redmond, WA.

Purpose of the Proposal Request

Far West Laboratory is making the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purpose of:

Providing information and recommendations for use in making decisions regarding dissemination of the course.

Providing information that is useful to school administrators in making decisions about purchasing the course.

Determining whether or not FWL should create and market the DIP training program package to school districts.

Description of Program being evaluated

The Determining Instructional Purposes training program was developed by Far West Laboratory for the purpose of training school administrators and graduate students in educational administration in skills related to planning of effective school programs. The DIP training package consists of a Coordinator’s Handbook and three training units of instruction:

1. Setting Goals2. Analyzing Problems3. Deriving Objectives

Each unit contains four to six modules which provide training on a limited number of instructional objectives. The modules contain learning material that assists the coordinator and trainees in individual and small-group activities, in which the trainees practice using their skills and feedback on the practice activities. The modules also contain reading materials for further knowledge. In many of the practice activities, the trainees are organized into planning teams in order to apply the skills covered in the module to hypothetical problems that may be encountered in a real-world school setting.

The units were designed so that either one unit only or any combination of the three units could be used with a group of trainees. Because the units were created to be self-contained, the step-by-step progression through the materials and activities in each unit should result in attainment of the desired outcomes required by a participant. The training materials are designed to be conducted by a coordinator

2

following the Coordinator’s Handbook. The coordinators role involves the organization, guidance, and monitoring of the activities and lessons. It is suggested by the developers that the program coordinator be relatively knowledgeable of the materials, either by working through the units on their own or attending as a trainee. No other prior knowledge is required of the coordinator.

The course units may be administered either in short-term concentrated workshops or in individual training sessions scheduled over a period of several days or weeks. FWL’s estimate of the training time required for the units is 10-15 hours each for Units 1 and 3, and 12-18 hours for Unit 2. Further details about the coordinator’s role and the specific unit breakdown are contained in the Coordinator’s Handbook, which is part of the training package.

Evaluation Method

Purpose of the Evaluation

The evaluation requested by FWL will be a summative report that will be beneficial in the decision of the lab to continue their endeavor in the creation and dissemination of the training package. The results of the evaluation will be presented with specific data concerning the value of the program, based on administration and participant review of their experience. Qualitative and quantitative data will be presented by the evaluation team and will be used to analyze the program for effectiveness, thus allowing FWL to determine if their program will be successful and they should continue on their current path of production and marketing of the program.

Reporting of Results

The results of the evaluation will be provided to Far West Laboratory and any of their subsidiaries that require knowledge of the results. FWL may choose to use the results in whichever manner they choose, whether it be for further research and development of this program or apply the information towards future programs.

Information Requirements

Information will be gathered by analyzing the following aspects of the complete program:

3

Course Materials and Media Methods of content delivery Evaluation Methods Cost of the program Return on Investment

The following information will be collected during the evaluation process:

1. Opinions and feedback from customers, training specialists, students, and administrators. This information will be gathered using surveys created by MPV and results will be compiled into the project completion report.

2. Participant reaction to the course. It is critical to the evaluation process to discuss qualitative experience information from persons that have implemented or completed the program. This information will be collected utilizing an interview process conducted by members of the MPV evaluation team.

3. Quantitative Training Results. Training participants will be assessed to see if the objectives of the course are being met. The tests will be a created by a coordinated effort between FWL and MPV. The quantitative results will be compiled as part of the project completion report.

Proposed Task Schedule

Task Agency DeadlineMeet with FWL to discuss proposal and preliminary data requests

MPV/FWL June 30

FWL provides data and FWL July 5

4

lists of contacts for the completion of the evaluationSubmit plans for data collection to FWL. (surveys, interview questionnaires, and tests)

MPV July 20

Meet to discuss data collection procedures and materials

MPV/FWL July 25

Final revisions of materials submitted to FWL for approval

MPV Aug 5

Schedule of sample group courses submitted to MPV

FWL Aug 15

Courses begin in sample-group school districts

FWL/Districts Sep 1

Complete qualitative and quantitative data collection after sample-group courses completed

MPV Sep 15-Nov 1

Summarize final data collected from sample-groups and compile into final project completion report

MPV Dec 1

Submit final completion report to FWL

MPV Dec 22

Project Personnel

Erin Markus is the founder and owner of Markus Professional Visions Group. She holds a BS in Business from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and a Masters of Educational Technology from Boise State University. Mrs. Markus has been involved in several evaluation projects during her years as an educational technologist. She was the project manager for a major evaluation project of a new K-3 reading curriculum designed and marketed by Imaginative Reading in 2008. Since creating

5

MPV, Mrs. Markus has completed many evaluation projects throughout the Pacific Northwest with great success and positive feedback from clients.

Christopher Markus is the co-founder of MPV with his wife, Erin Markus. He has been in the Educational Technology field for over 15 years and holds a BS in Curriculum Development from the University of Arizona and a Masters degree in Educational Technology from the University of Maryland. Christopher’s role in the company is the lead creator of survey, interview and testing instruments used during the evaluation process. Mr. Markus’s surveys and testing tools have been used by several companies and school districts. His most notable project was the creation of evaluation tools for the Employee Training Program for the Nike Corporation in Beaverton, Oregon.

Maggie O’Leary is the executive assistant for MPV. Her roles in the company include written and oral correspondence with clients, accounts payable and receivable, and coordination of evaluation materials to be used for current and previous projects. Maggie will go into the field with Christopher and/or Erin to assist them in on-site evaluations and interviews. She holds a BS degree in Business Administration from California State University, Long Beach. She has been with the company since 2009.

Proposed Budget Estimates

Personnel Salaries Estimated Cost Erin Markus: 40 days at $400/day $16,000Christopher Markus: 30 days at $300/day $9,000Maggie O’Leary: 30 days at $200/day $6,000

Total Personnel Costs:

$31,000

Travel and Per Diem Estimated Cost

6

Estimated mileage at $.30 per mile for 1 carMaximum driving distance: 100 miles round-trip

$1,200

Daily Per Diem for incidental costs (food, fuel, tolls, etc.)at $50/day $2,000 Total Travel

and Per Diem: $3,200

Communications Estimated CostTelephone (average $200/month for 6 months)

$1,200

Computer and Internet Fee at $6/day $240Postage $100

Total Communications Cost:

$1,540

Supplies and Other Required Materials

Estimated Cost

Printed Materials $500Printing and Photocopying $200Audio and Video Recording $200Office Supplies $100

Total Supplies Cost: $1,000

Estimated Total Budget: $36,740

7