Cooperatives are special because the members not only own the cooperative, but also patronize it. CEO’s decision has an impact on the overall members’ interests. Understanding how CEOs differ from members regarding their evaluations on cooperative performance and what causes the differences, is valuable for CEOs to best serve the members. This paper evaluates the difference between CEO and member evaluation regarding their cooperatives, and further examines the role of governance in predicting the evaluations and differences in evaluations, based on a set of first-hand data containing Chinese agricultural cooperatives (240 CEOs and 543 members). Cooperative performance is measured by three indicators: member profitability, social influence in the local community, and overall performance. The results show that members have higher scores than CEOs regarding member profitability and overall performance, while CEOs have a higher evaluation regarding social influence. “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in 'The Social Science Journal' on 27 Jan. 2020 available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.01.006. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/xiao-peng-20466772/
MULTIFILE
Learning activities in a makerspace are hands-on and characterized by design and inquiry. Evaluation is needed both for learners and their coaches in order to effectively guide the learning process of the children and for feedback on the effectiveness of the after-school maker activities. Due to its constructionist nature, learning in a makerspace requires specific forms of evaluation. In this paper we describe the development of an instrument that facilitates and captures reflection on the activities that children undertook in a library makerspace. Our aim is to capture learning in this context with multiple instruments: analysis of the artifacts that are made, observation of hands-on activities and interviews - which all are time consuming methods. Hence, we developed an easy to use tool for self-evaluation of maker learner activities for children. We build on the design of a visual instrument used for learning by design and inquiry in primary education. The findings and results are transferable to (formative) assessment and evaluation of learning activities by learners in other types of education and specific in maker education.
Background: The Nurses in the Lead (NitL) programme consists of a systematic approach and training to 1) empower community nurses in implementing evidence, targeted at encouraging functional activities of older adults, and 2) train community nurses in enabling team members to change their practice. This article aims to describe the process evaluation of NitL. Methods: A mixed-methods formative process evaluation with a predominantly qualitative approach was conducted. Qualitative data were collected by interviews with community nurses (n = 7), focus groups with team members (n = 31), and reviewing seven implementation plans and 28 patient records. Quantitative data were collected among community nurses and team members (N = 90) using a questionnaire to assess barriers in encouraging functional activities and attendance lists. Data analysis was carried out through descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results: NitL was largely executed according to plan. Points of attention were the use and value of the background theory within the training, completion of implementation plans, and reporting in patient records by community nurses. Inhibiting factors for showing leadership and encouraging functional activities were a lack of time and a high complexity of care; facilitating factors were structure and clear communication within teams. Nurses considered the systematic approach useful and the training educational for their role. Most team members considered NitL practical and were satisfied with the coaching provided by community nurses. To optimise NitL, community nurses recommended providing the training first and extending the training. The team members recommended continuing clinical lessons, which were an implementation strategy from the community nurses. Conclusions: NitL was largely executed as planned, and appears worthy of further application in community care practice. However, adaptations are recommended to make NitL more promising in practice in empowering community nurse leadership in implementing evidence.
