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