Graduate Course Proposal Form Submission Detail - EDF7485
Edit function not enabled for this course.
Approved, Permanent Archive
Submission Type: Change
Course Change Information (for course changes only): Change title to: Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation Change abbrev Title to Theory/Prac Prog Evaluation Change Pre-req to EDF 6481
Comments: GC reviewed- pending correction to objectives; recd. GC approved 2/21/11; USF System notification 3/11/11; to SCNS 3/17/11. SCNS denied - course already exists. Resubmit as CHANGE 6/1/11. GC appr 6/6/11; to Sys 6/23/11; to SCNS 7/1/11. Appd. Eff 8/1/11.
- Department and Contact Information
Tracking Number Date & Time Submitted 2403 2010-11-03 Department College Budget Account Number Educational Measurement and Research ED 171100000 Contact Person Phone Liliana Rodríguez-Campos 9741163 firstname.lastname@example.org
- Course Information
Prefix Number Full Title EDF 7485 Theory and Practice of Educational Evaluation Is the course title variable? N Is a permit required for registration? N Are the credit hours variable? N Is this course repeatable? If repeatable, how many times? 0 Credit Hours Section Type Grading Option 3 C - Class Lecture (Primarily) R - Regular Abbreviated Title (30 characters maximum) Theory/Prac ED Evaluation Course Online? Percentage Online C - Face-to-face (0% online) 0
In-depth study of contemporary program evaluation theory, models and methods; standards of quality for professional evaluation practice; evaluation ethics; appropriate evaluation uses; and impact of evaluation on decision making.
A. Please briefly explain why it is necessary and/or desirable to add this course.
Needed for new program/concentration/certificate
B. What is the need or demand for this course? (Indicate if this course is part of a required sequence in the major.) What other programs would this course service?
Given the widespread application of program evaluation in education and related fields, it is anticipated that many students in the program and from other programs and colleges will choose this course.
C. Has this course been offered as Selected Topics/Experimental Topics course? If yes, how many times?
Yes, 3 or more times
D. What qualifications for training and/or experience are necessary to teach this course? (List minimum qualifications for the instructor.)
Doctoral degree in Educational Measurement and Research or related field; specialization coursework in evaluation methods; experience conducting evaluations and metaevaluations; and meet the Department criteria for teaching doctoral level courses in the area of evaluation.
- Other Course Information
1. Define terms and concepts frequently used in program evaluation. CF 2; AEAGP B.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of the history of program evaluation. CF 2; AEAGP B.
3. Review and critique current program evaluation literature. CF 2, 4; AEAGP B.
4. Compare and contrast various approaches and models for program evaluations. CF 2; AEAGP A.
5. Apply several conceptual approaches to designing program evaluations. CF 4; AEAGP A.
6. Recognize and address key issues in the implementation and management of program evaluations. CF 2, 4; AEAGP A, E.
7. Demonstrate knowledge of the professional standards for program evaluation. CF 2; AEAGP B, C, D.
8. Demonstrate knowledge of the AEA Guiding Principles. CF 2; AEAGP B, C, D.
9. Analyze the benefits and drawbacks of various techniques used in program evaluation. CF 4; AEAGP A.
10. Identify the means for reporting and using program evaluation findings. CF 2, 4; AEAGP A, B, E.
11. Justify selection of specific techniques and processes for a planned program evaluation. CF 2, 4; AEAGP A.
12. Demonstrate ability to develop a program evaluation proposal. CF 2; AEAGP A, B, E.
*CF denotes the College of Education Conceptual Framework and AEAGP denotes the American Evaluation Association Guiding Principles for Evaluators.
B. Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of this course, students will be able to:
1.Define terms and concepts frequently used in program evaluation.
2.Demonstrate knowledge of the history of program evaluation.
3.Review and critique current program evaluation literature.
4.Compare and contrast various approaches and models for program evaluations.
5.Apply several conceptual approaches to designing program evaluations.
6.Recognize and address key issues in the implementation and management of program evaluations.
7.Demonstrate knowledge of the professional standards for program evaluation.
8.Demonstrate knowledge of the AEA Guiding Principles.
9.Analyze the benefits and drawbacks of various techniques used in program evaluation.
10.Identify the means for reporting and using program evaluation findings.
11.Justify selection of specific techniques and processes for a planned program evaluation.
12.Demonstrate ability to develop a program evaluation proposal.
C. Major Topics
1.Fundamentals of program evaluation
2.History of program evaluation
3.Philosophy and approaches to program evaluation
4.Program evaluation models
5.Components of the program evaluation proposal
6.Multiple-site evaluation studies
7.Program evaluation standards
8.AEA Guiding Principles
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2010). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
E. Course Readings, Online Resources, and Other Purchases
Alkin, M. C. (2004). Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davidson, E. J. (2004). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Owen, J. M. (2006). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications, Inc
Preskill, H. & Catsambas, T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Rodríguez-Campos, L. (2005). Collaborative evaluations: A step-by-step model the evaluator. Tamarac, FL: Llumina Press.
Royse, D., Padgett, D.K., Thyer, B. A., & Logan, T. K. (2009). Program evaluation: An introduction (5th ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning .
Scriven, M. (1991) Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stufflebeam, D. L. & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
For additional information, you may also visit: http://www.eval.org/Resources/ bibliography.asp
F. Student Expectations/Requirements and Grading Policy
Class Activities 5 % 5 points
Presentations 15 % 15 points
Midterm Examination 20 % 20 points
Evaluation Proposal 50 % 50 points
Final Presentation 10 % 10 points
Total: 100 % 100 points
Grades will be assigned on the following basis:
A 90 – 100
B 80 – 89
C 70 – 79
D 60 – 69
1.Class Activities: Periodically students will be given the opportunity to practice the material learned in class. These in-class assignments are designed to simulate and replicate real-life problems, challenges, and decisions related to the course topics.
2.Presentations: Students working individually or in groups (four members maximum) will present and discuss issues inherent to evaluation. This will help identify literature bases (e.g., journal articles, evaluation reports) in order to frame, design and conduct your own evaluations. The maximum time for these presentations is two minutes with unlimited time for questions/comments afterwards from the audience (PowerPoint presentation is not necessary). Please provide a copy of any relevant material to the audience.
3.Midterm Examination: Students working individually will write a review of an evaluation book. (1) Summarize major arguments of the literature being reviewed, and then reflect upon: (2) how its content relates to your experience, and (3) does the content make sense (and why)? Please write a four-page report and make a presentation to the class (e.g., PowerPoint, posters). The maximum time for this presentation is five minutes with additional time for questions/comments. Please submit an electronic-copy (e.g., pdf, Word document).
4.Evaluation Proposal: Students working individually or in groups (three members maximum) will develop a specific evaluation proposal of interest to them. The length of this report is about fifteen to twenty double-spaced pages (content). Please submit an electronic-copy (e.g., pdf, Word document) of this evaluation proposal. An example of the outline for this type of proposal will be distributed the first day of classes.
5.Final Presentation. For the presentation of the evaluation proposal, students are encouraged to use visual aids (e.g., PowerPoint presentations, posters) to enhance the quality of their presentations. The maximum time for this presentation is five minutes with unlimited time for questions/comments afterwards from the audience. I will be glad to advice students with little experience in this area.
G. Assignments, Exams and Tests
Introduction to evaluation, uses, basic distinctions (e.g., formative, summative), history, and evaluation today.
Philosophy and different approaches to evaluation. Objectives and management-oriented approaches.
Consumer and expertise-oriented evaluation approaches.
Adversary, participant, and other alternative evaluation approaches.
Models (e.g., Logic Model, CIPP, MCE).
Clarifying the evaluation request and responsibilities. Setting boundaries and analyzing the evaluation context.
Identifying and selecting evaluation questions and criteria.
Discussion about the evaluation proposal.
Planning and dealing with evaluation aspects.
Quantitative and qualitative information.
Reporting and using evaluation findings.
The Program Evaluation Standards.
AEA Guiding Principles.
Discussion about the evaluation proposal
American Evaluation Association Conference.
Conducting multiple-site evaluation studies.
Evaluating training programs.
The future of evaluation.
Discussion about the evaluation proposal.
Presentation of the Evaluation Proposal (Part 1).
Presentation of the Evaluation Proposal (Part 2).
Evaluation Proposal Due
H. Attendance Policy
Course Attendance at First Class Meeting – Policy for Graduate Students: For structured courses, 6000 and above, the College/Campus Dean will set the first-day class attendance requirement. Check with the College for specific information. This policy is not applicable to courses in the following categories: Educational Outreach, Open University (TV), FEEDS Program, Community Experiential Learning (CEL), Cooperative Education Training, and courses that do not have regularly scheduled meeting days/times (such as, directed reading/research or study, individual research, thesis, dissertation, internship, practica, etc.). Students are responsible for dropping undesired courses in these categories by the 5th day of classes to avoid fee liability and academic penalty. (See USF Regulation – Registration - 4.0101,
Attendance Policy for the Observance of Religious Days by Students: In accordance with Sections 1006.53 and 1001.74(10)(g) Florida Statutes and Board of Governors Regulation 6C-6.0115, the University of South Florida (University/USF) has established the following policy regarding religious observances: (http://usfweb2.usf.edu/usfgc/gc_pp/acadaf/gc10-045.htm)
In the event of an emergency, it may be necessary for USF to suspend normal operations. During this time, USF may opt to continue delivery of instruction through methods that include but are not limited to: Blackboard, Elluminate, Skype, and email messaging and/or an alternate schedule. It’s the responsibility of the student to monitor Blackboard site for each class for course specific communication, and the main USF, College, and department websites, emails, and MoBull messages for important general information.
All students have a right to expect that the University will reasonably accommodate their religious observances, practices, and beliefs. Students are expected to notify the instructor in writing by the second class if they intend to be absent for a class or announced examination, in accordance with this policy.
I. Policy on Make-up Work
I believe that we are all held accountable for meeting deadlines, so I will be firm in my requirement to get work in on time. An assignment is late when it is submitted one day or later beyond the due date. Your grade on any late assignment will be reduced 10 percent for each day it is late. If an unexpected emergency does arise and you cannot get your assignment in on time, it is your responsibility to contact me in advance of the due date, as feasible, to avoid a reduction in your grade.
J. Program This Course Supports
Measurement and Evaluation, Ph.D. and Ed.S
- Course Concurrence Information
• Adult Education
• Educational Leadership
• Higher Education
• School Psychology
• Special Education
• Instructional Technology
• Secondary Education