Evaluation Model Selection Assignment #2

ECUR 809

Evaluation Model Selection Assignment #2

Monika MacKenzie

1)      Program Description

The case study involves design and implementation of a prenatal exercise program targeting Aboriginal women in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan with the efforts of preventing and reducing type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes mellitus (GEM) in future generations and optimizing healthy pregnancies.  The program functioned as a means and an end to address health-related issues in the participants.    

2)      Evaluation Model & Justifications

With the provided information on the program, I would choose to design a program evaluation using a combined approach.  According to Stufflebeam, the purpose of program evaluation is to improve not prove.  This program comes from a community perspective with hopes of improving the stake-holders life long-term.  The aims of any program evaluation should be to identify if it is doing what was hoped.  From this explanation it leads to Stake’s Countenance Model and Questions;

1)      Is there congruence between what is intended and what is observed?

2)      What is the relationship between the variables?

3)      Is there a logical connection between an event and its purpose?

These questions would guide a very effective program evaluation of the prenatal exercise program as laid out in the case study.

Going beyond these first questions I would chose to implement a Summative Process and Product Evaluation, taken from Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model.

The summative process model seeks to assess implementation of plans and help the users judge the program performance & interpret outcomes.  The evaluation would be strengthened by combing it with the summative product model which seeks to identify and assess the outcomes intended & unintended. 

The benefit to using a summative evaluation is that it seeks to asks key questions;

1)      Were important needs addressed?

2)      Was the effort guided by a defensible plan and budget?

3)      Was the service design executed competently and modified as needed?

4)      Did the effort succeed?

In answering the final question of success, the evaluation process would describe the program impact, effectiveness, sustainability and transportability.  All of these factors would add credibility, validity and worthiness to the program for future applications. 

Evaluation Assessment Assignment #1

ECUR 809

Evaluation Assessment Assignment #1

Monika MacKenzie

1)      Chosen Program Evaluation

Breaking a spell of silence: The Tasmanian evaluation of the 2006 Pride & Prejudice program: The evaluation is written by Doug Bridge, who is a senior lecturer in Education at the Institute for Inclusive Learning Communities at the University of Tasmania.  The institute works with schools and colleges to develop inclusive practices, with a particular focus on students with special needs. 

2)      Evaluation Model & Process

The Tasmanian Department of Education commissioned the University of Tasmania (Faculty of Education) to undertake a formal evaluation of the effects of the Pride & Prejudice program on students’ attitudes towards gay men and lesbians. 

Three key questions guided this aim -

1)      How, if at all, did taking part in the program change the way students see themselves, gays and lesbians, and others who might be different from them?

2)      How might the program be improved?

3)      How did the students find taking part in the program?

The data collection allowed for some tentative responses to be made on extended questions -

1)      Is homophobia linked to other prejudices, such as racism?

2)      How might self-esteem be related to homophobia?

3)      How might social conformity be linked to homophobia?

4)      Are sex roles related to homophobia?

3)      Evaluation Model

This particular evaluation is described as a formal evaluation but I perceive mixed components from various theorist and models.  The formal aspect of the model makes reference to Stake’s countenance model; which includes intents, observations and judgments.  This model seeks to find congruence between intended objectives of the program and observed outcomes. Due to the intended aim of the program, the evaluation model used incorporates Scriven’s model that examines the reasons behind the goals of the program and addresses the political/social justice threads in context to the program. 

The evaluation process from a research perspective was highly quantitative in data collection by using Individual Behavior Measurement Tools, such as: Modern Racism Scale (modified), Social Interaction Questionnaire, Homosexuality Attitudes Scale (HAS modified), Australian Sex Role Questionnaire, Marlowe-Crowne Social Disability Scale, and the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale.

4)      Evaluation Strengths and Weaknesses

The program evaluation stands out as an effective and successful report in that it acknowledges specifically about the program stakeholders, program description, evaluation purpose, illustrates possibilities for future use/users, determined key questions and highlights outcome indicators.  The evaluation report concludes with an extensive discussion regarding extending implications of the program; cultural complexities, problematic ethics, issues within school systems, the curriculum as politics, future research questions and final recommendations. 

From a critical lens this program evaluation report reads as an academic paper in format.  I would have liked to see more charts and tables showing the data and results of the program. As well, the evaluation does not clearly identify that the program is addressing student health and identity issues rather general student perceptions of gay and lesbian identities in society. 

The benefit and extended use of the program evaluation is that other countries, including Canada, have used the evaluation report for positive justification for implementation of the Pride & Prejudice program within local health and school agencies.  This was observed through an on-line search of the program name. 

 http://eprints.utas.edu.au/4547/1/4547.pdf