Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Education, August, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

No description available.

The Major Problem of the StudyThe major problem of the study was to conduct a systematic evaluation to judge whether administrators, school districts or teachers have undergone or implemented change one year after participating in a curriculum evaluation project.Methods and Procedures of the StudyThe study attempts to provide an accurate description of the impact of the Evaluation Project on the professional conduct of those who participated in data collection and to collect the judgments of these professionals of the impact of the evaluation on the behavior of teachers, administrators and central office personnel. A teacher-administrator questionnaire and an interview guide were used to gather data to form the descriptive aspect of this study.ConclusionsConclusions were based on the findings of the study, on the literature and research reviewed as part of the study and on the writer's experiences in conducting the study.1. The Evaluation Project as judged by teachers, central office administrators and building administrators have led classroom teachers to use evaluation data to make changes in their instructional methods.2. In each of the participating school districts, administrators in some buildings have expressed a desire to help teachers implement change in their classrooms.3. Professionals who responded to the interviews and questionnaires reported that administrators in their respective school districts have attempted to make changes in the decision-making procedures for their buildings.4. Data collected from professionals who participated in the Evaluation Project indicate that teachers and administrators did not give examples of parents asking questions about schools.5. Professionals who responded to the interviews and questionnaires reported that central office administrators have not used the Evaluation Data to make changes in curricula in several school districts.6. In some instances there is evidence to substantiate that school boards have used Evaluation Data to make curricula changes.7. One-half of the students reported that they have had the opportunity to participate in designing learning experiences in their classrooms.8. Professionals who participated in the data collection for the Evaluation Project indicated that the process of systematic data collection has been beneficial to them.9. There is some evidence to substantiate that systematic data collection is important for educational purposes as the professionals who participated in the data collection for the Evalaution Project reported that their participation helped them to identify needs for their corporations.10. The researcher judges that the impact of the Evaluation Project was most beneficial to those professionals who participated in the collection of data for the Project. Recommendations for Further Study1. The Evaluation Project has succeeded in developing a systematic format for the collection of data. The next step might be to let other professionals who did not participate in the collection of data for the Project to have the opportunity to do so in future, Evaluation Projects.2. Presently, pupils are making decisions about learning experiences for their classroom environment. Further research needs to be done concerning pupil involvement in the learning-designing experiences that classroom teachers provide pupils.3. Develop both pre-service and in-service programs where parents can contribute to the development of a curriculum that reflects the communities' needs. Further study is essential to the. types of in-put that parents have in the decision-making alternatives offered parents in regard to the curricula of the school.4. More time should be spent on developing, communication skills among school boards, central office administrators and building principals so that a consensus might be achieved when a decision needs to be made. Further study needs to be done so that a total committment on the part of the administration and professional staff in regard to decision-making can be accomplished without mis-direction. 5. Enlarge the effort to allow for further instrumentation and data process of information to continue to give feedback to school corporations so they might be able to devise a process of data collection which would help them to resolve their needs.

The purpose-of this study was to organize a set of criteria which were appropriate for use in the evaluation of inservice teacher education programs. After a review of research and literature was conducted, the advocated criteria were organized according to an adaptation of a basic model of evaluation designed by Stufflebeam, CIPP (Context - Input - Process - product).Organized in three categories of 1) Conceptual Rationale cf Evaluation, 2) Administration of Evaluation, and 3) Procedural Methodology of Evaluation, the components were criticized by experts, revised, and listed in questionnaires as fifty-one individual items, proposed for use as criteria in evaluating in-service teacher education.During the summer of 1971, a random sampling of sixty Indiana public school administrators and 275 public school teachers judged the criteria on two measures: 1) contribution to the improvement of instruction, and 2) feasibility in actual practice. A five-point response scale was used ranging from strongest to weakest. Items which were judged to be both a contribution to the improvement of instruction and feasible in practice by more than fifty percent of administrators and teachers were acceptable. Total responses of the two strongest categories on the five-point scale had to total fifty percent in order to meet this standard.Thirty-five of the original fifty-one criteria were judged to be both a contribution to the improvement of instruction and to be feasible in practice. Items which were accepted in the first section, Conceptual Rationale, concerned: the need for evaluating in-service; a focus on constructive behavior; establishing the relationship between evaluation and improved instruction; the use of cost/benefit analysis; a systematic collection of information; assessment of specific practices; the use of evaluative information in decision-making; developing self-evaluation competency; and, evaluation prior to, during, and following in-service activities.Acceptable items involving Administration of an evaluation, the second section, included: participant involvement during the evaluation process; developing a commitment to organizational purposes; relationships between evaluation activities, the organization, and purposes of in-service activities; quarterly progress reporting; implementing the evaluation findings; establishing a flow chart of evaluation activities; and, annual revision of the evaluation plan.The acceptable items for the third section concerning Procedural Methodology of evaluation were: reflection of local needs in the design; projection of anticipated decisions; specification of information needed; the use of written, behavioral program objectives; the use of needs assessment as the basis for the development of objectives; data collection prior to the evaluation; communication of the purposes and methods of data collection; training for data collectors; analysis of the data; identification of strengths and weaknesses with specific personnel; limitation of the conclusions; stating implications from the evaluation; identification of information users; effective reporting; overall evaluation effectiveness; and, producing the final report.Twelve of the original fifty-one criteria were judged by administrators and/or teachers to be a contribution, but as having uncertain feasibility in actual practice. The twelve items related to: the use of programmed scheduling of evaluation activities; the use of data retrieval systems; generation of alternatives for decision situations; the use of both experimental and descriptive research designs; behavior modification of personnel involved; intergroup relations training; the use of outside consultants; and, setting aside specific facilities and materials for the evaluation. Both administrators and teachers were uncertain about the feasibility of: the use of systems analysis; staff involvement in policy-making; the need for weekly face-to-face contact of all participants; and, required professionally-conducted encounter sessions.Six items were judged uncertain on both contribution and feasibility. Administrators felt uncertain on both counts about the use of outside consultants, the use of reference research and literature, and disseminating evaluation results outside the local system. Teachers were uncertain on both counts about inhibiting destructive behavior through an evaluation and the use of programmed scheduling. Both administrators and teachers felt uncertain about whether assigning ten percent of the in-service budget for evaluation would be contributory or feasible. No items were judged to be totally unacceptable by having fifty percent of responses in the weakest two categories of the scale for both counts. Administrators and teachers agreed on judgments in twenty-two (seventy-nine percent) of the twenty-eight items which they both judged.The study concluded that appropriate criteria were available and recommended for use in the evaluation of in-service teacher education programs.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2007. / Title from title screen (site viewed Feb. 22, 2008). PDF text: 107 p. : ill. ; 813 K. UMI publication number: AAT 3275063. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in microfilm and microfiche formats.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Nevada, Reno, 2006. / "December, 2006." Includes bibliographical references. Online version available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (ED. D.)--Temple University, 1939. / Photoprinted. Bibliography: p. 93.

Thesis PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 1972. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: William P. Anderson. Dissertation Committee: Thurston A. Atkins. Includes tables. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 174-193).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio state University, 1929. / Bibliography: p. 121-122.