Group Six "Reminiscence" Program Evaluation

       James Brunson commented on Program Evaluations for Groups 1, 2 and 4

Reminiscence Program Evaluation

 EDAC 634 Group Six

Aaron Bean – Educator Evaluation #1

Wilisha Scaife – Educator Evaluation #2

James Brunson – Paper Writing and Submission

Abstract

Evaluations from two educators of the Group Six narrative learning program, Reminiscence, are included in this report. The educators’ roles and positions are described. Also, each educator answered the following two questions:

1.      What did you like most about the program design?

2.      What do you think should be improved, why, and how?

Group Six team members’ responses to the following questions are also contained herein:

1.      Do you agree with the educators’ evaluations, why or why not?

2.      How would you improve your program design?

Educators’ original evaluation documents are appended to the end of this paper.

Body

      Deringer Dietz is a high school Language Arts teacher in California with thirteen years of experience. He was interviewed by Group Six team member Aaron Bean. Mr. Dietz thought the Reminiscence narrative writing program was interesting and progressive. He admired its plausibility and accessibility for adult learners, and noted its similarity to the journal writing that was once common for high school students.

       Mr. Dietz liked the overall idea for Reminiscence and noted especially its therapeutic potential. He referred to the joy that can be obtained by writing in order to express one’s thoughts. He suggested caution, however, concerning grammar and spelling exactness, noting that too much attention paid to mechanics can inhibit students’ freedom of expression. He particularly appreciated the guidance provided by the steps of the program, such as use of graphic organizers and mind maps, and observed that organizational skills for life can be acquired through use and mastery of such steps.

      Mr. Dietz had helpful ideas for improvement of the Reminiscence program. He focused upon Step 3-Write, and expressed concern about Reminiscence fundamentally changing the life narratives of the adult students. Step 3-Write provides for editing and refining of participants’ narratives. He noted that editing can actually change the context of a narrative and suggested that vagueness about editing purposes be eliminated. Mr. Dietz stated that “…good editing is just as important as the story being told.”

      Group Six appreciated Mr. Dietz’ thoughtful evaluation of the Reminiscence narrative writing program and agrees that vagueness should be eliminated within Step 3-Write, and that assurances concerning editing being done solely for clarity be provided to adult learners participating in the program.

      Dr. Eva Zygmunt is an Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education at Ball State University, where she has worked for over nine years. She was interviewed by Group six team member Wilisha Scaife.

      Dr. Zygmunt, in responding to the question ”What does the evaluator like most about your program design?”, referenced “The Healing Power of Personal Narrative” (Benatar, 2011) and these sentences, among others, “To construct a story of our life is to make meaning of it. To compose memory, emotion, and internal experience, as well as autobiographical facts, into a story helps us become who we are.” She then went on to connect Reminiscence to the concepts set forth in Benatar’s work. Facilitating personal meaning making was one of the significant strengths in the Reminiscence program in her view.

      Like Mr. Dietz, Dr. Zygmunt was appreciative of the organizational tools the Reminiscence Program provides that help adult learners be truly reflective in an organized sense, in order to reap the greatest benefit from the narrative writing experience. She thought that purposes and objectives of the program were clearly stated and that the instructional sequencing was logical and appropriate. She thought the opportunity to share narratives with classmates was especially noteworthy, and helpful in aiding adult learners in cultivating their individual identities.

      Dr. Zygmunt had some suggestions for Team Six and it’s Reminiscence Program. She suggested researching benefits of personal narrative and strengthening the authority of the program by incorporating results in the Reminiscence Program instructional plan. Also like Mr. Dietz, Dr. Zygmunt recognized the need for more clarity within the program, especially as it pertains to outlined program processes such as mapping and voicing.

      Team Six is grateful to Dr. Zygmunt for her review and the expert insights she provided. Team members agree that authoritative research for the purpose identified above, and more clarity, would improve the Reminiscence program a great deal.

References

Deringer Dietz Original Evaluation Document – Aaron Bean’s Invited Educator

1.   What is your name, role, and current position?

My name is Deringer Dietz, I am a Language Arts Teacher, and teach Language Arts Honors classes at Paramount High School. I have been teaching public high school for 13 years.

2.   Upon your first read, what was your impression of the program?

I thought the program was an interesting and progressive idea. Most adults seek avenues to have their voice be heard, this seems plausible and easy for someone to try. I personally think this idea reminds of the journal writing students “used” to do in high school, and that seemed to be some of the most freeing and openly personal stories that students wrote.

3.   What did you like most about the program design?

Overall I like the whole program’s idea of writing for the purposes of therapy. It seems, (as adults), we lose the ability, time, or joy of writing to express our thoughts. This form of communication is a powerful tool that nowadays seems to get lost in the mix. I mean people would rather talk about something or themselves rather than write. When I learned to have students just write, and not be concerned with grammar and spelling errors is when I read the most intriguing pieces imagined. That one barrier being lifted gave the students confidence to be a “writer”, and I feel that is what is being touted in your program.

I also liked the guidance of the steps of the program. For example, helping the student learn to use graphic organizers and mind maps, (Step 1), is something students can use not only for the purposes of writing, but also to help with organization of other avenues of their life. 

4.   What do you think needs improvement? Why? And how?

If there were anything that I would change, or modify (or would like to know more about), it is Step 3-Write. More specifically, does Reminiscence change the delivery of the story? You mention that you help refine reflections, and that you help edit with a critical eye. I personally know that editing can actually change the context of a story, so if this is their story to tell does the program edit to fix grammatical mistakes, or edit to “sharpen” the details of the story? This part seems vague as to how it will be accomplished, and honestly, good editing is just as important as the story being told.

Dr. Eva Zygmunt Original Evaluation Document – Wilisha Scaife’s invited Educator

1.      Evaluator role and positions

Dr. Eva Zygmunt

Associate Professor

Early Childhood Education

Ball State University Teachers College

Dr. Eva Zygmunt is an Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Department of Elementary Education at Ball State University.  Her research interests relate to education for social justice, culturally relevant pedagogy, family and community relations, and poverty.  She teaches courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels in multicultural education, family and community relations, and creativity.  Along with colleagues and members of the community, she is currently co-directing an immersion semester for early childhood and elementary education majors, emphasizing community context as a critical cognizance for educators.

2.      What does the evaluator like most about your program design?

In The Healing Power of Personal Narrative, Benatar (2011) states,

“Our stories may not be our own; we may have adopted the stories of our parents, grandparents, siblings or some other authority figure rather than developing an account of our own experience as we felt and perceived it. ….To construct a story of our lives is to make meaning of it. To compose memory, emotion and internal experience as well as autobiographical facts into a story helps us become who we are.”

The Memoir Reminiscence Writing Program speaks directly to the quote above in its design to facilitate personal meaning making.  The program is structured in such as way as to encourage the personal reflection necessary to tailor an organization of the events of our lives in order to tell our story – and in doing so – know better who we are.  This process privileges our own voice – our own interpretation of our life events, and how these have shaped the architecture of our lives. 

The purpose and objectives of the program are clearly stated, and the outlined steps of reminiscing, voicing, writing, and sharing provide a concrete roadmap through which to negotiate the process of personal narrative in the program.  Of particular note is the opportunity to share one’s story.  The culture of the classroom community can certainly be enriched through a shared heritage of stories, which contribute to a collective, as well as individual identity. 

3.      What does the evaluator think should be improved? Why? And how?

The program proposal could be strengthened with the addition of pertinent research to support the benefits of personal narrative.  Additionally, providing further definition to the processes outlined would assist the reader in visualizing the process of mapping, voicing etc.  These changes would provide a more compelling rationale for the program, as well as lend clarity to the steps integral to the process of personal narrative.