Project Evaluation

Processes, Procedures, Instrumentation & Findings

Overview of Evaluation

CAPRA’s four broad goals and sixteen objectives, when implemented across three colleges with six rural campuses, resulted in mounds of data requiring analysis. A team of external evaluators assisted by project staff and facilitators designed forms, collected and aggregated data, and reported results. As the goals suggest, input on personal satisfaction with and overall effectiveness of CAPRA activities was sought from facilitators, faculty, and students. The grant’s main goal was to train 200 adjunct and full-time faculty members to make their course content, materials, activities, assignments and evaluation procedures accessible to anyone regardless of their age, ethnicity, ability or disability. The assumption that students with disabilities would achieve greater academic success leading ultimately to improved employment opportunities as a result of increased accessibility was a realistic extrapolation of CAPRA training outcomes.

Processes, Procedures & Instrumentation

Multiple sets of data were gathered for each of the three stakeholder groups. The instruments and procedures developed answered these five research questions:

1. Course Completion Rate: What are the differences between the rates at which students with documented disabilities complete courses taught by faculty trained in project activities compared to the rates at which other students complete those courses? (GPRA1 – Federal Requirement)
2. Faculty Implementation of Concepts: What percent of faculty trained in project activities incorporate elements of training into their classroom teaching? (GPRA2 – Federal Requirement)
3. Student Satisfaction: Are students with documented disabilities more satisfied with their classroom experiences for courses taught by faculty trained in project activities than those taught by faculty who have not been trained in project activities?
4. Increased Enrollment: Have the number of students with disabilities enrolled in courses increased on campuses involved in project activities?
5. Building Participant Capacity/Participant Satisfaction: How effective were the technical assistance and training in increasing the capacity of faculty to support students with disabilities in their classroom?

The data gathered for each group are listed in the table below and are associated with the project’s research questions. Copies of the instruments are in Years 1 & 2 Formative Evaluation Report.

.

Groups	Instrument	Research Question
Students	a. Accommodations & Confidentiality Form	RQ4/RQ3 - Enrollment/Satisfaction
	b. Course Completion Rate	GPRA1/RQ1–Course Completion Rates
	c. Student Survey of Courses	RQ3 – Student Satisfaction GPRA2/RQ2 – Faculty Implementation
Faculty Members	a. Workshop Evaluation	RQ5 – Effectiveness/Satisfaction
	b. Syllabus Review Checklist	GPRA2/RQ2 – Faculty Implementation
	c. Post-Training Survey (annually)	GPRA2/RQ2 – Faculty Implementation
Facilitators	a. Workshop Evaluation	RQ5 –Effectiveness/Satisfaction

CAPRA Formative Evaluation Report (Yrs 1 & 2)

Executive Summary

In 2005, the Center for Human Development introduced College Access Project for Rural Alaska (CAPRA) with funding from the US Department of Education, Office of Post secondary Education. This three year project (October 1, 2005-September 30, 2008) was developed to increase the capacity of small rural university campuses to provide students with disabilities a quality higher education. CAPRA is a collaborative project between University of Alaska’s (UAA) Disability Support Services (DSS) and the Center for Human Development (CHD).