Methodology for the evaluation of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program.
Methodology for the evaluation of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program.
复制标题
斯蒂芬妮·亚历山大厨房花园项目的评估方法。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Elizabeth G Waters
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lisa Gibbs;Petra K. Staiger;Mardie Townsend;Susie Macfarlane;Lisa Gold;K. Block;Britt Johnson;J. Kulas;Elizabeth G Waters
述问题
社区和学校的烹饪和园艺项目最近在国际上有所增加。然而，尽管有令人鼓舞的迹象，但其有效性的证据有限。本文介绍了评估框架和方法的谈判和开发，以满足所有利益相关者的信息需求斯蒂芬妮亚历山大厨房花园（SAKG）计划，结合烹饪和园艺计划在选择性资助的小学在澳大利亚各地实施。
方法
评价使用了多种统一的理论框架和模型，包括公共卫生生态方法、有效促进健康的原则和经验学习模型。该评估是对澳大利亚维多利亚城市和农村地区接受该计划（干预）的六所学校和六所比较学校（所有政府资助的小学）的非随机比较。采用混合方法，依靠定性措施来了解学校文化的变化以及对儿童、家庭、教师、家长和志愿者的经验影响，并在基线和1年随访时采用定量措施来提供有关变化模式的支持信息。
结果
评估研究的设计解决了许多现有的烹饪或园艺项目的评估研究的局限性。混合方法的多股办法保持了各自方法的严格性，并提供了一个探讨调查结果复杂性的机会。一些量化措施的敏感性有限，以及开放式问题的编码可能存在偏差。
结论
SAKG评估方法将解决以学校为基础的厨房花园计划的适当评估方法的需要。它展示了一个有意义的，全面的校本课程评价的可行性，也展示了定性方法在混合方法评价中的核心作用。那又怎样？本文有助于辩论适当的评估方法，以满足所有利益相关者的信息需求，并将支持共享的措施和潜在的比较方案的结果，可比的人口群体和设置。
ISSUES ADDRESSED
Community and school cooking and gardening programs have recently increased internationally. However, despite promising indications, there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. This paper presents the evaluation framework and methods negotiated and developed to meet the information needs of all stakeholders for the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden (SAKG) program, a combined cooking and gardening program implemented in selectively funded primary schools across Australia.
METHODS
The evaluation used multiple aligned theoretical frameworks and models, including a public health ecological approach, principles of effective health promotion and models of experiential learning. The evaluation is a non-randomised comparison of six schools receiving the program (intervention) and six comparison schools (all government-funded primary schools) in urban and rural areas of Victoria, Australia. A mixed-methods approach was used, relying on qualitative measures to understand changes in school cultures and the experiential impacts on children, families, teachers, parents and volunteers, and quantitative measures at baseline and 1 year follow up to provide supporting information regarding patterns of change.
RESULTS
The evaluation study design addressed the limitations of many existing evaluation studies of cooking or garden programs. The multistrand approach to the mixed methodology maintained the rigour of the respective methods and provided an opportunity to explore complexity in the findings. Limited sensitivity of some of the quantitative measures was identified, as well as the potential for bias in the coding of the open-ended questions.
CONCLUSION
The SAKG evaluation methodology will address the need for appropriate evaluation approaches for school-based kitchen garden programs. It demonstrates the feasibility of a meaningful, comprehensive evaluation of school-based programs and also demonstrates the central role qualitative methods can have in a mixed-method evaluation. So what? This paper contributes to debate about appropriate evaluation approaches to meet the information needs of all stakeholders and will support the sharing of measures and potential comparisons between program outcomes for comparable population groups and settings.
影响因子：
5
作者：
Hanley, JA;Negassa, A;Forrester, JE
通讯作者：
Forrester, JE