A Critical Analysis of Project L.O.V.E. Program Evaluation Report

This report provides a critical analysis of the evaluation of Project L.O.V.E., a program that utilizes older volunteers to assist children in schools with reading and life skills, serving as grandparent figures. The evaluation, as presented, is examined for its methodology, focusing on its informal approach, reliance on surveys, and limited scope due to budget cuts and classroom sizes. The report identifies missing perspectives, such as those of program organizers and parents, and suggests alternative evaluation methods, including mandatory discussions, grade comparisons, and parent-teacher evaluations. The critique highlights the program's benefits, including increased student attention, volunteer fulfillment, and teacher support, while emphasizing the need for more comprehensive and structured evaluations in the future to better assess the program's impact and effectiveness. The report also touches upon the importance of diverse teaching methods and hands-on learning to enhance the learning process and program involvement.

Running head: CRITIQUE OF THE EVALUATION OF PROJECT L.O.V.E. 1
Critique of the Evaluation of Project LOVE
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

CRITIQUE OF THE EVALUATION OF PROJECT L.O.V.E 2
Critique of the Evaluation of Project L.O.V.E
The evaluation chosen was Project L.O.V.E. It is a program where older people
volunteer to help children in school to promote reading and life skills. They also provide
a grandparent figure for the children. This helps students get the extra help in school as
well as much needed one on one attention that some students fail to receive. The mission
of Project L.O.V.E is "to provide students and teachers with a positive role model of
older persons thus, encouraging a change of attitude toward again; to develop
opportunities for older persons to do volunteer work with students in a meaningful way;
and, to facilitate inter-generational activities” (Project L.O.V.E., 2003, p.3).
This report was a prime example of the readings in the textbook. It was directed to
all parties involved. It also illuminated on the working of the project and the lessons
derived from project L.O.V.E in curriculums. This evaluation focused on children.
Therefore, it couldn't be extensive because of the teachers' age and opinions on how the
project went but also for what the volunteers learned during their time.
The formal evaluation was informal. It required participants to complete a survey
to which they had just under half of all participants participate. The intended audience
was other schools, classes, students, and school districts that could use this type of
program to help teachers give the one-on-one attention needed in the classroom.
However, due to budget cuts and classroom size, it could not be catered for.
There were many other ways of presenting this evaluation. For instance, issuing
questionnaires right after volunteer time, checking grades s students' grades at the
beginning of the year and then at the end of the year, and seeing the improvement, or lack

CRITIQUE OF THE EVALUATION OF PROJECT L.O.V.E 3
thereof, of improvement. Having a mandatory discussion with all volunteers, teachers,
and students and asking them questions about the program.
The voices heard in the program evaluation document are the teachers, students,
and volunteers. The views missing would be the people that put the volunteer program
together as well as principles and parents who would be able to see improvements at
home and in other settings. Confidence in these kids would show right away, and when
they get report cards, this would be another way to determine how effective the program
is. Having an evaluation from parents and teachers on each student may be helpful.
The context in the document is informal. It gives a happy vibe to the program and
does not ask questions that would be poorly received. There are very few questions asked
to each party of this program. There could be more insight into what programs they help
with, and how what they would like to see in the future as well as how can they
incorporate this program in different ways such as letting the teachers tell the volunteers
what would be helpful to the children to get extra help on. Seeing grades and working to
improve on the bad grades, having the volunteers spend time with children that need
more one on one attention. These volunteers are mostly older than 50 and should have a
particular area to bring the students. “It is a controlled & safe venue for both child and
volunteer" (Project L.O.V.E., 2003, p.13). Resources would be great to help them help
the children. Also, special time devoted to an online calendar would help all volunteers,
teachers, and students know when and who they will be working with next time.
For the next evaluation, there should be more questions. These should be
mandatory evaluations so that the data collected would give a better determination of the
project. It should be an email or formal evaluation sheet while everyone is in school.

CRITIQUE OF THE EVALUATION OF PROJECT L.O.V.E 4
The information provided has provided me with a lot of insight. Many programs
must be taught in many different ways because everyone's learning abilities are different,
and not everyone learns in the same way. Making the programs involved and exciting
promotes a better learning process and gets people excited about what they learn. For
example, having more hands-on learning instead of reading a powerpoint discussion.
This program has a lot of benefits in the community and provides both volunteer
and child with many benefits. The child gets attention and also gets help from aspects in
school they are lacking. The volunteer gets to feel needed and wanted. Has time to get
out. The teacher gets to give more one on one time to their students. Sometimes giving
extra help with a big class is hard to do. This program provides everyone with benefits.

CRITIQUE OF THE EVALUATION OF PROJECT L.O.V.E 5
References
Project L.O.V.E. (2003). Evaluation of Project L.O.V.E. Retrieved from
http://www.nald.ca/library/research/evaluat/cover.htm