This page is updating
(a) Meaningful engagement
In order to remain aligned with and anchored in the community, PISSAM has established a Pacific reference group.
On March and a date to be schedule, 2010, PISSAM has plan on organizing a seminar where PISSAM Principal Researcher, it's members which covered the various profession will speak on awareness and issues relating to Pacific Islanders issues and disadvantages in educating our community in ways to alleviate these issues to take us forward. . Hopefully PISSAM will be able to educate and bring awareness to the Pacific Islanders' communities about the presence and the urgent needs of people with special needs and who are disadvantage, in order to create inclusive environments for them. Also, Kalo says as a teacher, counsellor, social worker, musician and educator herself, her colleagues/specialising in various field in their capacity as service providers will be connected to each person identified under their care to support them according to their needs to get results. Kalo is convinced that increasing access to education and research in Pacific Islanders' genetics to people in Australia and abroad who can make the difference between despondency and hope.
The group is named PISSAM GRASSROOTS SPECIALISTS, literally
meaning 'the voice of PISSAM in SAMOAN, TONGAN, FIJIAN and other Pacific Islanders nation.
PISSAM GRASSROOTS SPECIALIST is an advisory body for issues related to developing and implementing the projects and related work of THE PISSAM NETWORK..
PISSAM’S GRASSROOTS SPECIALISTS will provide advice, cultural leadership and community perspectives to PISSAM NETWORK and also provide feedback to Pacific communities and enhance awareness of mental health, workforce development, community development, age care, legal issues, education & research and information issues in the sector.
PISSAM’S GRASSROOTS SPECIALISTS REFERENCE GROUP
- EDUCATION: PhD RESEARCHER KALO SIKIMETI
- AGE CARE: RAMONA JOHANSSON (TONGAN & SAMOAN) Director of Nursing
- LEGAL: REGISTERED NURSE: ATEHIFOILEVA MANUFEKAI (TONGAN)
- MEDICAL; DR PANIANI PATU (SAMOAN)
- GRIEF COUNSELLING: ANNE LATU (TONGAN)
- IPOLITO LASALO CPA AASA
- Regan Buckland (University Representative)
- SEA CAPTAIN ; VILI HAANGANA (TONGAN)
- DAVID SWANN; COACH/RECREATION (SAMOAN)
- MOHINI PRASAD:MENTAL HEALTH (FIJIAN)
- MICHAEL TER-HORST POLICE OFFICER (TONGAN)
- ANNE LATU COMMUNITY/INTERPRETER/TRANSLATOR COURT SUPPORT GRIEF COUNSELLOR
- Pelenatita Mafi (Tax Officer) Tongan
The availability of DIRECT high quality, and reliable research and information is important for PISSAM.. There is currently a dearth of published information and research into PACIFIC EDUCATION wants to be instrumental in changing this.
Research is an effective way to explore and present new ideas and CURRENT models for analysis and review, to translate into tangible and effective initiatives and tools to enhance the lives of Pacific Islanders CALD Australian people experiencing urgent needs in the whole spectrum of what affected their lives in the community..
Kalo’s research programme aims to translate research into action! Check out our projects and the Knowledge Exchange web resource - an area where you can access information about who is who in the PISSAME network.
A good planning and knowing what the people needs is a good way in reaching out
to Pacific Islanders in need.
Kalo’s research is designed to help service providers and users, children, family members, and services identify the things that will help someone address their recovery or to identify issues in the best way possible. The tool has been around since 2007 and the website is just developing slowly and will take on full speed by early 2010. Still some has acknowledged that they have used it well…and we want to ensure that we share information about how it can be used across a range of services - with the ultimate aim of supporting people with enduring issues in the whole spectrum of the community in the best possible way.
Even by just visit the PISSAME website, a story to inspire, a warning sign story, or looking for current news, activities, events, sport and Recreation or the 2010 Calender, or our homework classes, or a death in the family and you do not know where to start or who to contact to solve any issues or the Pacific islanders' Directory, or needed urgent help in emergency situation
Knowing what the needs of the Pacific Islanders People in a direct research is a practical approach to assist their needs is a great start. A good plan to provide service to meet the needs of disavantage, long-term offenders, someone to talk to where you can share your problem with. This toolkit/website, based on t key features that were identified following extensive consultation with service users, their families, and service providers by the researchers and her team.
- An easy to use toolkit will be delivered by the above people in each of their specialist areas on this website..
- Rapid feedback of results to both individuals and teams on air website, telephone, newsletter or on workshops.
- use of real time data to inform team and service level planning
- service planning based on identified offenders and service user needs
- a flexible tool that can be adapted to local needs, beyond and issues
The toolkit and website have been enhanced to make it even easier for service providers, service users and teams to use. The toolkit supports services to better understand long-term service offenders and users with experience of enduring their problems.
If your service has high caseloads, a significant number of long-term offenders and service users, or is concerned about delays in discharge from community care, or service providers do not meet your particular needs then may be a useful toolkit for you. PISSAM offers a practical approach to assess service providers and user needs, identify and implement initiatives to meet these needs, and then evaluate the results.
SUMMARY AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING THIS REPORT
The purposes of this study were (1) to document the constructs measured in studies of a delimited group of character education programs; (2) to develop a framework for systematically describing and assessing measures of character education outcomes; and (3) to provide a resource for evaluators to help identify and select measures of the outcomes of character education programs. The first section below summarizes the findings of our review of outcome measures in studies of various character education programs, which addresses the first two of these three objectives. The second section suggests considerations for future research on the outcomes of character education programs, as researchers identify and select measures of the outcomes of character education programs. While representative of measures used to evaluate character education outcomes in a delimited set of programs, the outcome measures reviewed are not necessarily the best ones for use in specific character education studies.
A. SUMMARY OF REVIEW FINDINGS
In documenting the constructs measured in studies of the sample of character education programs, we can find out the real meaning of why Pacific Islanders students are not performing in the levels as others.
•
My Research will measure a wide variety of student-level outcomes in
cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. Among these, behavioral
outcomes were assessed most often, in studies of various programs; affective
outcomes to be assessed for various programs; and cognitive outcomes will be assessed.
•
Researcher/Assitants assessed outcomes at other levels with less frequency than
student-level outcomes. School-level outcomes will measure in studies
of various programs; parent or community level outcomes will be assessed for varous
programs; and teacher/administrator outcomes will also be assessed for these
programs.
Our framework for describing and assessing measures of character education outcomes calls attention to several points:
•
Researchers/Assistants used direct and indirect assessments of student outcomes,
and they solicited information about outcomes from students, teachers,
administrators, and parents.
•
Measurement approaches to assess outcomes included scales and
subscales, standalone items, and non-scaled measures. Studies of all programs employed scaled measures.
•
Among the scaled measures employed research assistants across studies of these programs,
were newly developed for the study at hand; programs had been developed prior
to the study and were employed “off the shelf” by the studies’ authors;
an additional program scales were formed by adapting previously developed
measures marrying the current measures.
•
. Among these, all scales had demonstrated reliability
over .70; 27 demonstrated mixed reliability; and 5 had reliability
below .70. Information on validity was not available for individual
measures, but studies of all programs either made general claims about
their measures’ validity or used measures with previous research
addressing validity.
B. CONSIDERATIONS WHEN USING THIS REPORT
This study does not represent a comprehensive examination of all
outcomes measured in research on all character education programs.
Still, it provides a framework for categorizing measures used in
evaluations of character education programs and a resource for
identifying potentially useful, existing measures as other researchers plan
future studies. It also highlights several caveats as researchers
consider which outcomes to measure and how best to measure them.
1. Considering Outcomes to Measure
As our taxonomy of outcome measures indicates some, character
education programs address a wide variety of outcomes in diverse
domains (cognitive, affective, behavioral) and for different actors
(student, teacher, school, parent, community). This classification
system can serve as a point of departure for researchers considering
which constructs, in which domains, and for which individuals or
entities a particular character education program might be expected to
affect.
As in any research enterprise, studies of character education would
benefit from articulation of a formal theory of change linking specific
program components to the key outcome or outcomes that might result
from them. Myr review of research on this limited sample of character
education programs leaves unclear whether, in their approach to
measurement, researchers are beginning with a well-developed theory of
change. This is evidenced, in part, by the relatively few programs that
assessed knowledge of the concepts and content that the program sought
to convey—the most proximal outcome and one which, logically, would
precede changes in how students feel or behave. Studies of in all
programs assessed knowledge of program content (as detailed in the
program-specific appendix tables). If the theory of change for a
program is not well developed, our classification of outcomes may allow
researchers to “work backward” from our categories to identify the
outcomes they believe are most relevant for a particular program, and
then to consider which program components might affect each of these
outcomes.
2. Considering How to Measure Outcomes
In describing outcomes assessed and approaches to measurement, this
review prompts researchers to consider several factors in selecting
appropriate measures for assessing outcomes of character education
programs. Depending on the outcome of interest, researchers should
first determine which type of assessment might be most
appropriate—direct, indirect, or report and, in the latter case, who
the most appropriate reporter might be. Next, a review of available
measures for the outcomes of interest—whether they are scales,
individual items, or non-scaled measures—can help researchers to avoid
“reinventing the wheel.” At the same time, it can provide them with a
sense of whether they are conceiving of the outcome in a way that is in
line
with prior research. Such alignment is not necessarily a requirement,
but consistency among researchers in the conceptualization and
measurement of outcomes may support cross-study and cross-program
comparisons and help to advance character education as a field.
Future research on character education outcomes could also benefit from
careful attention to alignment between the conceptualization and
measurement of constructs. Reliability and validity demonstrate some
level of this alignment. My review, however, revealed two ways in
which measurement methods may lack such alignment: (1) there may be
misalignment between items in a particular scale (they do not “hang
together”); and (2) there may be a mismatch between the domain or
construct a measure actually captures and the domain or construct the
researcher conceptualizes or, at least, discusses. The first problem is
demonstrated in scales with low internal consistency reliability, and
possibly among those scales for which reliability was not reported.
Reference to measures with demonstrated reliability—such as those
presented in Table 4—could help researchers to avoid the problem of
misaligned scale items. The second problem is perhaps more difficult to
document, as it arises primarily in the particular language that
researchers use to discuss their findings. The outcome taxonomy and
related measures presented here can serve as a resource for researchers
seeking to articulate a clear theory of change and to properly align
conceptualization and measurement of character education outcomes.
The owner of this website and publication is PISSAM NETWORK, which is under the umbrella of Canterbury Harmony group Inc. auspice by Riverwood Community Centre and its working partner. Content may not be reproduced in any format or changed, sold or used to promote or endorse any product or service, inappropriate or misleading context.. Acknowledgment to the PISSAM NETWORK & Its auspice body Riverwood Community Centre
PISSAM NETWORK MANAGED BY ANNE SIKIMETI LATU
