1. Program Evaluation Week 3

2. Tonight Name Tags Your Q’s Quant. vs. Qual Paradigms activity Evaluation developments Context-Adaptive Model HW

3. Name Tags Write first name is big, bold letters Bring your name tag to every class

4. Your Q’s Find a partner, and share your questions with her. We will share these as a class

5. Quant. vs. Qual The field of research and evaluation often categorizes projects/research into two types These two categories, often labeled qualitative or quantitative share some similarities but have stark differences.

6. Activity 1 Find a partner and then make 1 t-chart Then, categorize the following descriptors under qualitative or quantitative Mainstream research; subjective; product; positivistic; truths; interpretive; researcher involved; causal; objective; alternative research; top-down; bottom-up; grand theory; process; naturalistic; Truth; exploratory; researcher distanced; comparative; social construction; significant difference; confirmatory; particularization; generalization

7. Evaluation Purposes Summative– achievement; goals met Formative– processes; instructional recommendations Often more than one purpose

8. Paradigms Activity – Which paradigm used? Look at these articles, which paradigm(s) is the researcher working from? How do the data collected reflect this paradigm?

9. Evaluation developments What changes in program evaluation have occurred over the past 40 years? Why have these changes taken place? What does it mean for us?

10. What changes in program evaluation have occurred over the past 40 years? Performance outcomes to study of social processes P. 41 Four Generations of Evaluation Tyler’s Model p. 20 Experimental design p. 23-24 Why experimental design?

11. Why this change? Parlett & Hamilton (1972). P. 32 Illuminative evaluation p. 32-33, 34 Constructivism p. 42

12. Present P. 71 “The attention to issues of language here parallels our understanding set out in this chapter: from initial positions of evaluation as the measurement of predicated program outcomes, and language as a straightforward representation of meanings and positions, each has matured into a complex account of social life and human experience.”

13. Context-Adaptive Model One way to help prepare evaluations Consideration of how context guides design 4 steps: – Audience and goals – Context and themes – Selecting an approach – Selecting a design

14. 1. Audience and goals Who is requesting the evaluation? Who will be effected by its results? Why is the evaluation being conducted?

15. Context and Themes p. 19

16. Selecting an approach What type of evidence is required to make a convincing evaluation argument? P. 22– the basic concepts that link the evidence needed and paradigm include…

17. Selecting a design Is there a need for a large-scale evaluation beyond 1 classroom? Experimental or quasi-experimental? Is the primary focus on individual or group assessment?

18. Quantitative- Positivist Designs P. 23, 3 features of these designs Experimental design— random assignments and control group Quasi-experimental—non-random assignment and control group Pre-experimental– no control group, but pre vs. post with one group

19. Interpretivist Designs Emergent themes and categories Responsive model, illumination model, connoisseurship model

20. Mixed Designs Mixed strategies– using qualitative data to answer quantitative questions, or vice versa. Mixed designs or Mixed Model– using both qual and quant in the same evaluation.

21. Link between context and Design Look at vignette 1 Determine the design selected and then decide what contextual factors influenced that design choice.

22. p. 39 Act 1, 2

23. HW Read--4. a. Kiely & Rea-Dickens, Ch 5, Evaluating Teachers’ Competence b. Kiely & Rea-Dickens, Ch 6, Evaluating Language through Science Journal