Program Evaluation

                                       18-EDLD-814-001



                                Dr. Shana Go...
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
By reading the assigned course readings, attending class sessions, participating in course
activities...
Throughout the quarter, students are expected to come to class prepared by having read
assigned material and thinking refl...
It is expected that assignments will be completed on time and submitted no later
than the due dates listed in the syllabus...
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Students with disabilities needing academic accommodation should:
   1. Register with and provi...
COURSE SCHEDULE

     Date                             Topics                                         Readings Due        ...
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American
      Psychological ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

EDLD814 Program Evaluation

937 views
846 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
937
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

EDLD814 Program Evaluation

  1. 1. Program Evaluation 18-EDLD-814-001 Dr. Shana Goldwyn Educational Leadership Program College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services Class Information Instructor Information Spring Quarter, 2009 7140-D Edwards One Thursdays 7:00pm – 9:20pm E-mail: shana.goldwyn@uc.edu Teacher’s College 231 Office Phone: (513) 556-5111 COURSE DESCRIPTION AND RATIONALE Implementation of educational and related programs are expected to not only foster academic growth in students, but meet current accountability structures, district and school missions and visions, and foster a positive cohesive school or community environment. In order to determine the success of these programs, there needs to be strong evaluative methods that include a comprehensive examination of all elements of the program. Further, evaluators need to have a solid understanding of the various types of program evaluations to determine the most productive and appropriate evaluation method to use. This course provides an overview of basic program evaluation methods, including program evaluation standards, internal and external reviews, accreditation processes, and general small scale program reviews. 1
  2. 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES By reading the assigned course readings, attending class sessions, participating in course activities, and completing course assignments, it is expected that the student will: Be able to identify and describe several different types of program evaluation. Identify specific elements of an evaluation process, including those elements that are common across different methodologies Know where to locate and how to use specific program evaluation standards. Provide a practical application of a chosen program evaluation method COURSE ORGANIZATION The course will meet each week unless otherwise stated in the syllabus that there is an online assignment in place of a face-to-face class meeting. Each class will include one lecture/discussion, and one applied activity. Each week will have a predetermined topic as identified in the syllabus. However, these topics may vary according to the background, interests, and needs of students enrolled in the course. Students are encouraged to raise topics and/or questions for discussion at any time throughout the course. COMMUNICATING WITH THE PROFESSOR You may contact me via email or by phone when necessary. I will return all emails or phone calls within a 24-hour period. All electronic communication will be made through your UC email address or the blackboard system, so please check each of those frequently (suggested at least twice per week). Additionally, I will hold office hours on Tuesday afternoons from 3pm-5pm. During this time I will be in my office for you to come and talk with me if you do not have a scheduled appointment. If those hours do not work for you, you may schedule an appointment to meet with me at another time. REQUIRED TEXTS Fitzpatrick, J.L., Sanders, J.R., and Worten, B.R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Boston, MA: Pearson. EVALUATION Class Attendance/Participation (25 Points) Each class session will begin promptly at 7:00pm. Students are expected to attend each class session for the full class session period. If an emergency arises please contact the professor prior to the class session being missed. 2
  3. 3. Throughout the quarter, students are expected to come to class prepared by having read assigned material and thinking reflectively about assigned topics. Students are also expected to share their insights with the class by actively participating in class discussions and activities. Program Evaluation Overview (20 Points) Students will be asked to write a paper that provides an overview of each of the program evaluation methods discussed in class. Each method should include a thorough overview, strengths and weaknesses of each method, and provide an example. Papers should be 6-10 pages in length and be written in APA style. American Psychological Association (APA) Students are expected to use the American Psychological Association (APA) style of writing for this course. Please refer to the APA manual for guidelines in preparing your papers for submission: American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. You can also find information on APA style of writing online at: http://apastyle.apa.org/ Ethical Considerations Paper (15 points) Discuss the ethical considerations of program evaluation. Focus specifically on the need to have program evaluation standards, and how they address ethical issues in evaluative procedures. Comment further on the issues that you believe to be the most difficult/important when completing evaluations. Discuss how this would be different for internal and external program reviews. “Expert” Evaluation Project (20 points) Choose an existing entity that currently evaluates programs or organizations. Discuss in depth the procedures that they use to evaluate, both formal and informal. Discuss the standards used to guide the evaluation. The written portion of this assignment should be approximately 4-8 pages in length. In addition to the written portion, create an 8-10 minute presentation the entity that you have chosen to present to the class. Program Evaluation (20 points) Choose a program or an element of a program to do an informal program review of. You can do a practical review where you actually interact with the program, or a more hypothetical review where you focus on process. Further details of this assignment will be discussed in class and will be posted on the Blackboard system. 3
  4. 4. It is expected that assignments will be completed on time and submitted no later than the due dates listed in the syllabus. If you have a situation that warrants submitting an assignment late, you must inform the instructor prior to the due date of that assignment. Your request will be considered, provided it is reasonable and is not a regular occurrence. Credit will be deducted for late assignments that were not given prior approval. Reading reflections will not be accepted late. All work (excluding your weekly reading reflections) is to be handed in electronically through the Blackboard system prior to the start of class on the date that it is due. Letter grades will be assigned as follows: Grading Scale A A- B+ B B- C+ C F 93-100 90-92 86-89 83-85 80-82 77-79 73-76 72 points points points points points points points points or below ACADEMIC INTEGRITY It is expected that all work completed in this class is the original work of the student. Students are expected to follow the UC Student Code of Conduct guidelines related to cheating and plagiarism. The UC Code of Conduct defines plagiarism as: Submitting another’s published or unpublished work, in whole, in part, or in paraphrase, as one’s own without fully and properly crediting the author with footnotes, citations or bibliographical reference. Submitting as one’s own, original work, material obtained from an individual or agency without reference to the person or agency as the source of the material. Submitting as one’s own, original work, material that has been produced through unacknowledged collaboration with others without release in writing from collaborators. For a complete discussion on how to avoid plagiarism, consult the following website: http://www.libraries.uc.edu/research/plagiarism.html For more information on the student code of conduct, consult the following website: http://www.uc.edu/studentlife/conduct/conduct.html 4
  5. 5. STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Students with disabilities needing academic accommodation should: 1. Register with and provide documentation to the Disability Services Office; and 2. Bring a letter to the instructor indicating the need for accommodation and what type. This should be done during the first week of class. This syllabus and other class materials are available in alternative format upon request. For more information about services available to UC students with disabilities, contact the: DISABILITY SERVICES 210 University Pavilion 513 556-6823 513 556-3277 TTY; 513 556-1383 FAX Contact via relay by dialing 711 http://www.uc.edu/sas/disability 5
  6. 6. COURSE SCHEDULE Date Topics Readings Due Assignment Due 4/2  Introduction -- -- *online session* 4/9  Uses and Trends in Program Evaluation  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & -- Worthen – Ch. 1, 2 4/16  Different Types of Program Evaluation  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & -- Worthen – Ch. 3,4,5 4/23  Different Types of Program Evaluation (cont.)  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & -- Worthen – Ch. 6,7,8,9 4/30  Accreditation  TBD (On Blackboard) -- 5/7  Other Program Evaluation Methods  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Program Evaluation Overview Worthen – Ch. 19, 20  TBD 5/14  Developing Evaluation Criteria  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Expert Evaluation Project  Planning for Evaluations Worthen – Ch. 10,11,12,13 5/21  Conducting the Evaluation and Collecting Data  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & -- Worthen – Ch. 14, 15  TBD (on Blackboard) 5/28  Evaluation Reports  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & -- Worthen – Ch. 16  TBD (on Blackboard) 6/4  Ethical Considerations and Program Evaluation  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Program Evaluation Standards Worthen – Ch. 17,18  Program Evaluation Standards (On Blackboard) 6/11  Future Of Program Evalation  Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Ethical Considerations Paper Worthen – Ch. 21 Copyright © Syllabus: Shana Goldwyn 2009 6
  7. 7. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Desimone, L.M., Smith, T.M., & Ueno, K. (2006), Are teachers who need sustained, content-focused professional development getting it? An administrator’s dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 179-215. Glickman, C.D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Hoy, A.W., & Hoy, W.K. (2009). Instructional leadership: A research based guide to learning in schools (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota; Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, The University of Toronto;The Wallace Foundation. Accessed from http://www.wallacefunds.org/NR/rdonlyres/E3BCCFA5-A88B-45D3-8E27- B973732283C9/0/ReviewofResearchLearningFromLeadership.pdf. Marks, H. M., & Nance, J. P. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic reform: Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3-37. Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Stein, M.K., & Nelson, B.S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25(4), 423-448. United States Department of Education: Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, D.C.: Author. Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425. Zepeda, S.J., & Meyers, R.S. (2004). Supervision across the content areas. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. 7

×