 |
 |
The MSU evaluation team submitted six reports over the course of the project. These reports are available in PDF format from the links below. The team's comments are also available.
Appendices to each full report include the survey instruments used for that year as well as data results and other information. The reports are bookmarked for ease of navigation. After you open each file, click the “Bookmarks” tab at the left of the screen to bring up a navigable table of contents for the report and its appendices.
| Phase I | During Phase I, teachers wrote pieces for the curriculum, adapted to using technology for curriculum development, and began classroom testing of the materials. At the same time, the LTG project staff began analysis of Michigan standards for K-12 education. The evaluation was primarily formative. |
Final Evaluation Report: Phase 1 1997 - 2000 Utilizing teacher surveys and journaling, this phase of the evaluation focused on the impact of participation on the teachers who developed and tested the materials and interviewed administrators and other stakeholders about their expectations for the project. |
|
| Phase II | During these three years, while curriculum development continued, the project focused on defining student learning objectives and pilot testing among a diverse group of Michigan schools. |
|
2000 - 2002 As LTG turned its attention to recruiting whole schools and districts to use the curriculum across grade levels, the evaluation was expanded to include measures of impact on students’ understanding and on their participation in philanthropic activities. |
|
Final Evaluation: Executive Summary (view in full) 2000 - 2003 The 2000-2003 report integrated evaluation data from the two focal areas of student learning and teacher experience and made recommendations about issues for further study in Phase III. |
|
| Phase III | The project became increasingly complex during the final phase, demanding an increasingly complex evaluation methodology. Still focused on student learning as well as teacher experience, the evaluation also worked toward more sophisticated understanding and behavior by students as well as development of testing materials. Test standards, curriculum infusion, use of the Web site for dissemination, learning and behavior outcomes, and some projection of long-term outcomes were woven into a number of approaches. |
Year- End Evaluation Report: Executive Summary (view in full) 2003 - 2004 The 2004 year-end report summed up the first seven years of evaluation activity and looked forward to the final two years of planning. It incorporated these elements into an overall assessment strategy for documenting the project’s successes and challenges. |
|
Final Evaluation Report: Executive Summary 1997 - 2005 As the project moved into its current phase of expansion to the national level, MSU’s final major report documented the lessons learned from the pilot phase in Michigan and summarized the evolution of the project. |
|
| Addendum |
An addendum to the final report was issued in 2006, summarizing the evaluation tasks that were designed to be completed at the end of the 2004-2005 school year and closing with a few reflections on the evaluation process and the overall findings. |
It is clear from the data collected that teachers are enthusiastic about using the LTG lessons and believe that they affect student behavior positively. Their responses indicate their deep commitment to having their students learn about how to contribute to community and their belief that the LTG materials offer an effective way of fostering that learning through the larger curriculum, everyday lesson plans, and student-community activities. High proportions of students display mastery of the LTG concepts; students in classrooms using those lessons tend to be more involved in service to their school or community and in giving of their time, talent, and treasures to others than is true of students in the national sample. They also appear more committed to continuing those patterns into adulthood.
As evaluators we carry away the sense of how deeply this program has influenced some of those we surveyed and spoke with. No evaluation can predict how today’s students will behave as adults; however, our findings suggest strongly that the LTG approach is building a strong foundation in students and in the schools where it has been implemented. These results encourage the evaluators to believe that the program can be successfully propagated nationally, where it will continue to generate the enthusiasm and commitment that so impressed us throughout the evaluation process.