Thesis equivalent (M.P.H.)--University of Michigan, 1947.

Diss. Universiẗat Klagenfurt, 2006.

Thesis equivalent (M.P.H.)--University of Michigan, 1947.

No description available.

No description available.

Evaluation is an integral part of instructional design. Formative evaluation, specifically, is a phase identified in many instructional design models and is recognized as an important step for program improvement and acceptance. Although evaluation has many models and approaches, very few deal specifically with formative evaluation. Further, no one set of guidelines has been found that provides a comprehensive set of procedures for planning and implementing a formative evaluation. Encapsulating such guidelines into a “tool” that automates the process was the author’s initial idea. The author’s intent in Chapter 2 was to find a model or checklist as a stepping off point for future formative evaluation tool development. In lieu of finding such a model, one was created (Chapter 3), pulling from several formative evaluation models and the author’s own experience. Chapter 3 also discusses the purpose behind developing a formative evaluation tool - to create an accessible, efficient, intuitive, and expedient way for instructional designers and developers to formatively evaluate their instruction or instructional materials. Chapter 4 focuses on the methodology selected to evaluate the tool, presented in prototype. Chapter 5 presents the results of the evaluation; comments received from the expert reviewers are presented and ideas for tool improvement are generated. Finally, the Appendices include the formative evaluation tool prototype as well as the documentation that accompanied the tool during its evaluation. The initial idea behind this developmental dissertation was the creation of a formative evaluation tool. The focus of the dissertation itself, however, was on the justification for such a tool, and the literature behind the making of the model and consequently the tool. The result of this developmental dissertation was the prototype of an evaluation tool that with improvements and modifications is deemed promising by the experts who reviewed it. Although designed with formative evaluation in mind, it was generally agreed that this tool could be utilized for both formative and summative evaluation. The expert review was successful not because the tool was without fault, but because the review truly achieved its purpose – to identify areas of strength, weakness, and to suggest improvements. / Ph. D.

The study aims to explore relevant issues concerning educational personnel¡¦s and students¡¦ parents¡¦ attitudes towards the elementary school principal evaluation in Kaohsiung County and to provide a basis for municipal administrators to conduct the principal evaluation in the future. Applying the method of ¡§literature analysis¡¨, both domestic and international studies on the evaluation of the principals were collected and analyzed. These studies included the role and ability of the principal, profession characteristics and pressure, the definition, criteria and purpose of the principal evaluation, and the implementation of principal evaluation in America and Britain. Based on the literature review, a questionnaire was designed to look into the viewpoints of the educational personnel and students¡¦ parents in Kaohsiung County. The questionnaire was distributed to 858 related subjects, including administrative staff, teachers, and students¡¦ parents in 51 elementary schools which were randomly selected. The response rate was 88% (757 specimens).Based on findings of this study, conclusions are drawn as follow: 1. School administrative staff, teachers, and students¡¦ parents all approved of the criteria of the principal evaluation and they placed great value on the aspect of fund management. 2. Senior school administrative staff and teachers had more positive attitudes towards the criteria of the principal evaluation. 3. Female and male parents had significantly different viewpoints on the aspect of the teaching leadership of the evaluation criteria. Females agreed with it more than males. 4. School administrative staff, teachers, and students¡¦ parents all approved of both the internal and external evaluators and they especially thought highly of the representatives of school teachers. 5. School administrative staff and teachers of different backgrounds had significantly different views about the representative evaluators from the Teachers¡¦ Association. 6. School administrative staff, teachers, and students¡¦ parents had a tendency to approve of applying both the quantitative and qualitative analyses to report the results of the principal evaluation. 7. Concerning the principal evaluation reports, school administrative staff, teachers, and students¡¦ parents had a tendency to approve of informing the principal individually instead of in public. 8. Concerning the implementation of the evaluation results, school administrative staff, teachers and students¡¦ parents had a tendency to approve that it would provide the reference for the principal to improve his/her practice and professional growth. 9. School administrative staff, teachers, and students¡¦ parents all thought that cooperating with academic institutes and providing opportunities for principal¡¦s further study to improve his/her professional growth was the most important relevant step of the principal evaluation. 10. School administrative staff, teachers, and students¡¦ parents agreed that having interviews with school teachers was the most important means of the principal evaluation. Based on findings of this study, recommendations are made for the municipal administrators, elementary school principals and further studies.

The primary purpose of this study is to compare the six models (cross-sectional, two-wave, and multiwave, with and without controls) and determine which of the models most appropriately estimates school effects. For a fair and adequate evaluation of school effects, this study considers the following requirements of an appropriate analytical model. First, a model should have controls for students' background characteristics. Without controlling for the initial differences of students, one may not analyze the between-school differences appropriately, as students are not randomly assigned to schools. Second, a model should explicitly address individual change and growth rather than status, because students' learning and growth is the primary goal of schooling. In other words, studies should be longitudinal rather than cross-sectional. Most researches, however, have employed cross-sectional models because empirical methods of measuring change have been considered inappropriate and invalid. This study argues that the discussions about measuring change have been unjustifiably restricted to the two-wave model. It supports the idea of a more recent longitudinal approach to the measurement of change. That is, one can estimate the individual growth more accurately using multiwave data. Third, a model should accommodate the hierarchical characteristics of school data because schooling is a multilevel process. This study employs an Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) as a basic methodological tool to analyze the data. The subjects of the study were 648 elementary students in 26 schools. The scores on three subtests of Canadian Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) were collected for this grade cohort across three years (grades 5, 6 and 7). The between-school differences were analyzed using the six models previously mentioned. Students' general cognitive ability (CCAT) and gender were employed as the controls for background characteristics. Schools differed significantly in their average levels of academic achievement at grade 7 across the three subtests of CTBS. Schools also differed significantly in their average rates of growth in mathematics and reading between grades 5 and 7. One interesting finding was that the bias of the unadjusted model against adjusted model for the multiwave design was not as large as that for the cross-sectional design. Because the multiwave model deals with student growth explicitly and growth can be reliably estimated for some subject areas, even without controls for student intake, this study concluded that the multiwave models are a better design to estimate school effects. This study also discusses some practical implications and makes suggestions for further studies of school effects. / Education, Faculty of / Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of / Graduate

To provide guidance to evaluators and stakeholders, evaluation scholars (i.e., those conducting research on program evaluation) have conducted numerous studies on the feasibility and effectiveness of using participatory and collaborative evaluation approaches in various contexts. While some participatory and collaborative evaluation approaches may involve youth in the evaluation of programs and interventions, few evaluations in this area have been formally documented and/or widely published. As a result, there remains a dearth of empirical research on participatory and collaborative evaluations involving youth. One such collaborative evaluation approach, empowerment evaluation (EE), appears to be well suited for engaging youth in program evaluation, as participants are co-evaluators. Using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, EE aims to teach program stakeholders, including beneficiaries, how to conduct their own evaluations. In this two-part mixed methods research project I sought to investigate and formally document: (a) the use of EE for programs targeting youth; and/or (b) the involvement of youth in EE of such programs. By investigating and documenting these areas, this study builds on the very limited body of empirical research on EE. As such, it provides important information to evaluators who are embarking on evaluations of programs targeting youth, so that they can make informed decisions about the use of EE and the involvement of youth in their evaluation activities. To address these goals, this study used a mixed methods case study approach and included two parts and multiple phases. Part 1 Phase 1 involved a survey of evaluators associated with particular Targeted Interest Groups (TIGs) of the American Evaluation Association (AEA) who are involved in evaluating programs that target youth. It determined the extent to which: (a) evaluators report using EE to evaluate youth programs; and (b) how evaluators report involving youth in EE of youth programs. Part 1 Phase 2 involved interviews with a select group of these evaluators and explored what factor(s) facilitate and hinder: (a) the use of EE to evaluate programs involving youth; and (b) the involvement of youth in EE of programs targeting youth. Part 2 then used observations from an EE with youth of their science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) focused educational outreach program to explore: (a) what an EE of a youth program might look like in practice; (b) how youth can be involved in an EE. Youth also took part in follow-up interviews to allow an examination of: (c) the strengths and limitations of using an EE to evaluate a program targeting youth; and (d) the strengths and limitations of involving youth in an EE of a program targeting youth. Overall, the findings show that the use of EE to evaluate programs involving youth may be limited, however, there are factors that can facilitate and hinder the use of EE and the involvement of youth in EE. The findings also demonstrate that an EE can be carried out in practice with youth acting as co-evaluators and that through EE youth may experience both positive and negative outcomes of using EE and of being involved in EE. In light of these findings, ways to improve the involvement of youth in the evaluation of programs that target youth using EE are discussed.

No description available.