Kimberly M. Robertello, Ph.D., ATC
WSKW Dr. G. Arthur Broten Young
        Scholars Program
1960’s:

    Cronbach, Stufflebeam, Tyler, and
    others
    Evaluation curricula


    National Science Foundation & J...
“… a study designed and conducted

    to assist some audience to assess
    an object’s merit or worth”
    (Stufflebeam...
Program theory

     Is the program grounded in a
      validated theory?
     Is the theory reflective of recent
     ...
Shaped
Expectations        Reinforcement     Consequences    behavior




        Expectations: if people enroll in a weig...
Why is this so difficult for

    practitioners?

     Lack of control
     Applying theory to different
      problems...
Mission – a short narrative which describes

    general program goals
    Goals – broad statement, long-range program

...
Mission statement

        The mission of ABC is to provide a wide variety of
    
        primary prevention activities...
Alcohol treatment


     An  assessment of program theory,
      mission, goals, and objectives
     Alcohol treatment
...
Implementation of evidence-based

    practices
    No formative or summative

    evaluation processes in place
Assessment and implementation is

    essential!
Implementing evaluation into

    kinesiology and the classroom
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A Philosophic Approach To Program Design And Evaluation

463 views

Published on

Presented at the 2008 Western Society for Kinesiology and Wellness, Dr. G. Arthur Broten Young Scholars Award

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
463
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A Philosophic Approach To Program Design And Evaluation

  1. 1. Kimberly M. Robertello, Ph.D., ATC WSKW Dr. G. Arthur Broten Young Scholars Program
  2. 2. 1960’s:  Cronbach, Stufflebeam, Tyler, and others Evaluation curricula  National Science Foundation & Joint  Committee Program Evaluation Standards Education and social sciences 
  3. 3. “… a study designed and conducted  to assist some audience to assess an object’s merit or worth” (Stufflebeam, 2001, p. 11)
  4. 4. Program theory   Is the program grounded in a validated theory?  Is the theory reflective of recent research?  Are the program’s beneficiaries, design, operation, and intended outcomes consistent with the guiding theory?
  5. 5. Shaped Expectations Reinforcement Consequences behavior Expectations: if people enroll in a weight loss  program, they expect to lose weight Reinforcement: Giving verbal encouragement  to those who have acted in a healthy manner Consequences: I have more energy since I  have lost weight.
  6. 6. Why is this so difficult for  practitioners?  Lack of control  Applying theory to different problems/populations  Academic preparation
  7. 7. Mission – a short narrative which describes  general program goals Goals – broad statement, long-range program  purpose Objectives – measureable, short-term steps to  reach program goals
  8. 8. Mission statement  The mission of ABC is to provide a wide variety of  primary prevention activities for residents of the community. Goals  To reduce incidence of CV disease in the employees  of X Company. Objectives  By May 1st, two different heart disease brochures will  be distributed to all residents in the county.
  9. 9. Alcohol treatment   An assessment of program theory, mission, goals, and objectives  Alcohol treatment  Client recidivism
  10. 10. Implementation of evidence-based  practices No formative or summative  evaluation processes in place
  11. 11. Assessment and implementation is  essential!
  12. 12. Implementing evaluation into  kinesiology and the classroom

×