Talk:Program evaluation

Adding in line references

I added a couple of citation, but didn't know how to put the link on the citation, so I added them to the external links. Could someone put these external links into the citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.112.211 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation vs. Analysis

Someone should make the difference clear, if there is one, and back it up with citations. RedHouse18 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Substantive Edits to Address Tone and References

Because this article was identified as lacking clear references and having an inappropriate tone/style, I made substantive changes to the initial block of text. I divided this text into main headings, leaving a somewhat coherent and useful introduction. Then I formalized the language in the text. I also re-organized much of the previous information into a common framework used in program evaluation (the 5 dimensions of evaluation). I included an in-text citation for this framework, referencing one of the definitive books on program evaluationby Peter Rossi.

I did not address the issue of evaluation vs. analysis. Although this is an important distinction, I was focused on the broader aspects of tone, references, and organization.

Visuals

What if someone added a visual chart to the page? Perhaps looking at a section like the paradigms, and comparing them in a format other than straight up text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4303:8F0:FD35:A57E:9095:BC30 (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Reorganization of page

I was looking at this page and I thought that with some reorganization it could be made clearer for people who are completely unfamiliar with program evaluation. My proposed changes would be the following:

1. Brief History of Evaluation

2. Evaluation Models

  2.1 Empowerment
      2.1.1	Establishing a mission
      2.1.2	Taking stock
      2.1.3	Planning for the future
  2.2 CIPP Model of evaluation
     2.2.1	History of the CIPP model
     2.2.2	CIPP model
     2.2.3	Four aspects of CIPP evaluation
     2.2.4	Using CIPP in the different stages of the evaluation

3. Conducting Evaluations

  3.1 Types Of Evaluators
  3.2 Choosing an Evaluation Design
     3.2.1	Assessing needs
     3.2.2	Assessing program theory
     3.2.3	Assessing implementation
     3.2.4	Assessing the impact (effectiveness)
     3.2.5	Assessing efficiency
  3.3 Methodological constraints and challenges
     3.3.1	The shoestring approach
     3.3.2	Budget constraints
     3.3.3	Time constraints
     3.3.4	Data constraints
     3.3.5	Five-tiered approach
     3.3.6	Methodological challenges presented by language and culture
  3.4 Utilization/Reporting
     3.4.1	Persuasive utilization
     3.4.2	Direct (instrumental) utilization
     3.4.3	Conceptual utilization
     3.4.4	Variables affecting utilization
     3.4.5	Guidelines for maximizing utilization

4. See also

5. References

6. Further reading

7. External links

The one thing I am not sure where it fits is the discussion on paradigms. I am thinking that it could go either in the brief history or the discussion of models. Most of this information is already in the article and would just need to be rearranged and have references updated.

Efarmosa (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)efarmosa

History of Program Evaluation

Program evaluation is often regarded as its beginning from the late 1960s with the infusion by the federal government of large sums of money into a wide range of human service and education programs. However, program evaluation continues to mature as a profession since the nineteenth century. Madaus, Scriven, and Stufflebeam (1983) provide six periods of the history of the program evaluation from the nineteenth century to the present.

The first period, from 1800 to 1900, is the age of reform. The second period of the evaluation is from 1900 to 1930, which is called as the age of efficiency and testing. Next period is Tylerian age, from 1930 to 1945. The fourth period is the age of Innocence, from 1946 to about 1957. The fifth, from 1958 to 1972, is the age of Expansion, and the last period, from 1973 to the present, is the age of professionalization.

The age of reform (1800-1900) Many local districts attempted to evaluate educational programs and performance of schools. In the late 1890s, the United States presidential commissions had focused on evaluations of human service of programs with the examination of evidence.

The age of efficiency and testing (1900-1930) Evaluators during ‘the age of efficiency and testing’ sought to eliminate waste in social and education programs in accordance with scientific management. During this period, the surveys were commonly used to measure large school systems focusing on school and teacher efficiency and a precise set of instructional objectives (Madaus, Scriven, and Stufflebeam 1983). Large districts, department or a bureau, focused on improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the programs or organizations by using standardized achievement tests.

The Tylerian Age (1930-1945) Ralph W. Tyler has had significant impacts on education in general and educational evaluation. Tyler began with a broad view of both curriculum and evaluation. Tyler believed that curriculum, as a set of learning experiences with the educational objectives, can help children to get their educational needs and specific behavioral outcomes. He introduced the term ‘educational evaluation’ which is to assess the extent that valued objectives had been achieved as part of an instructional program.

The Age of innocence (1946-1957) In this period, local or small school districts consolidated with others to provide the broad range of educational services including public health services, mental health, food services, and community education (Madaus, Stufflebeam, & Scriven, 1983). During the age of innocence, technical aspects of assessment were developed. Objective-based and comparative experimental evaluation were initially designed in this period.

The Age of expansion (1958-1972) The evaluations in the age of innocence made an issue about assessments of a large-scale curriculum development projects with federal money. The program evaluations during 1958 to 1972 emerged from four approaches: Tyler approach in accordance with defining and assessing objectives, nationally standardized tests, professional-judgment approaches to check periodically on the efforts of contractors, and the field experiments.

The Age of professionalization (1973-present) From 1973, the importance of evaluation has been crystallized and emerged as a distinct profession. However, the identity of evaluators was shaken in this period. Some evaluators regarded themselves as researchers. Before the 1970s, most evaluations had focused on outcome accountability. However, from the 1970s many evaluators, such as (Daniel Stufflebeam’s CIPP model), have focused on process accountability as well as goal accountability toward the improvement of the program or institutional performance.

BangsilO (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Very good presentation and clearly demonstrates why project evaluation should not be redirected to program evaluation. Risk Engineer (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Evaluation Use and the Role of The Community Dissonance Theory

The community dissonance theory moves beyond Caplan’s (1979) Two Communities Theory, Shonkoff’s (2000) Three Cultures Theory, and the Elaborated Multi-Cultural Theory to a new conceptual framework in an attempt to further explain the underutilization of evaluative findings/research in policymaking to that of a lack of communication between the knowledge producers (researchers/evaluators) and knowledge consumers (policymakers). This dissonance, or lack of agreement, can be attributed to the differing professional and institutional cultures with which the knowledge producers and knowledge consumers reside. These cultures influence how one thinks, acts and perceives the world. Jillramey (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

References

What is a 'program'?

This article seems to assume that the reader is already familiar with the particular meaning of 'program' in this context, but given that 'program' is a very polysemous word in English, it would be good to avoid the assumption that the reader shares the article authors' understanding of what 'program' here is taken to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.164.62.94 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How do I keep myself safe and I am dealing with identity theft and some other issues at this time

And you set up my phone and I can't get it set up because it don't even have United States English and I need to set it up I never been anywhere but Arkansas and it don't have an email or Yahoo and I need to download that and can't open Google Play and I'm going to Google Play store? 2001:5B0:4ACF:E1B8:718D:AED2:A110:C36F (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mills College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Many problems with lead

I made a big edit to lead addressing many problems simultaneously. See edit summary.

The largest changes involved walking back a pair of fairly large edits by one-and-done editor Feviejoy27 from late January 2023. The prose is broken in places, the diction is not entirely encyclopedic, there are no citations, it's not clear this belongs in the lead at this length, and it mostly reads as OR.

Program Evaluation The problem of limited resources remains unresolved and serious implications for the future of many government programs. Within the context of knowing how the government could maximize its limited resources in attaining its planned goals, it developed a technique known as evaluation.

The problem of limited resources remains unresolved and serious implications for the future of many government programs. Within the context of knowing how the government could maximize its limited resources in attaining its planned goals, it developed a technique known as evaluation.

Evaluation is an integral part of the administrative process. In the administrative process, important matters affecting the organization are considered. As two American authors point out: Decisions are made about policies and plans, programs embodying these decisions are implemented, the results achieved are evaluated, and then, based on this information, new decisions are made and the cycle is repeated.

Moreover, evaluation may be considered as "a method for determining how far an activity has progressed and how much further it should be carried to accomplish objectives". It is the comparison of actual conditions with desirable conditions. It answers the question: "To what extent are we doing what we are trying to do?"

Evaluation is also a process of systematic appraisal. As a process, it is used to determine the value, worth, or meaning of something. It may refer to a program, a method, an approach, or a situation. An evaluation of a program, for example, is called program evaluation.

A program is the totality of activities of an organization which include the plans of the organization for its immediate operation as well as its future development. A project is a part of the program.

In program evaluation, the key question is: "Did the program achieve its goals?" To succeed in its purpose, evaluation should take place at various levels of the organization. It should "be placed in the organizational structure at a level consonant with a mission."

With citations, it might be possible to buff this up into something worth keeping. Without citations, it's perhaps a useful draft for further consideration on the talk page. — MaxEnt 21:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Note also that this is a huge article, and the current lead serves as a soft introduction, making no effort to summarize the bulk of the article, as a proper lead should do. I haven't read the article, and I'm certainly not equipped to take that on. — MaxEnt 21:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)