| Session Title: Integrating Evaluation Education With Theory: A Practice-Based Approach |
| Multipaper Session 253 to be held in Capitol Ballroom Section 6 on Thursday, Nov 6, 10:55 AM to 12:25 PM |
| Sponsored by the Teaching of Evaluation TIG |
| Chair(s): |
| Sherri Lauver, University of Rochester, slauver@warner.rochester.edu |
| Abstract: Working evaluators must have knowledge of the evolving theoretical knowledge of the field and practical knowledge of appropriate methodologies, ultimately relating it all to their real-world evaluation practice (Lee, Wallace, & Alkin, 2007). Yet coursework often involves mostly direct instruction of evaluation concepts and theory (Alkin & Christie, 2002; Patton & Patrizi, 2005). This session will focus on the benefits of participating in real-world evaluation activity first, followed by evaluation theory coursework. First, the instructors will present the strengths and challenges of teaching graduate students using a client-requested evaluation. Second, students will share their experiences as novices who must 'learn by doing' in a local evaluation context. The presentation will focus on the positive learning experience of addressing unexpected issues related to last minute obstacles and stakeholder concerns. Students will reflect on their personal experiences and discuss the merits of teaching evaluation theory after an introductory program evaluation course. |
| The Benefits of Teaching Program Evaluation Through Real-World Experiences: The Instructor Perspective |
| Sherri Lauver, University of Rochester, slauver@warner.rochester.edu |
| Tia Neely, Pacific Research and Evaluation LLC, tia@pacific-research.org |
| Many evaluation programs teach evaluation via direct instruction. We will argue that experiential learning activities are an effective and appropriate means to help students understand the real world of evaluation practice. Evaluations do not occur in a rigidly controlled environment, and scaffolded, authentic experiential learning activities offer students the opportunity to address the common hurdles we face every day - convincing stakeholders to allow to use suitable methodological designs or types of data collection, working on tight timelines, presenting results that may be controversial, and working with difficult partners. By involving students in real-world evaluation, student interest and engagement remains high. Yet real-world evaluation is demanding on an instructor's time and requires the evaluation client to be especially flexible and understanding of the novice evaluators' needs. We will discuss how to maximize the use of a classroom of student evaluators and minimize the burdens on the instructor and the evaluation client. |
| The Benefits of Teaching Program Evaluation Through Authentic Experiences: The Student Perspective |
| Gail Evans, University of Rochester, gaile810@gmail.com |
| Lisa Hiley, University of Rochester, lmelsemo@orion.naz.edu |
| Students gain a deeper understanding of evaluation research by participating in an authentic evaluation, rather than simulated scenarios. This method of instruction allows students to construct knowledge from contextualized experiences in order to gain deeper understanding. The unique nature of this approach to learning evaluation requires consideration for feasibility, which includes time pressure and previous knowledge, as well as collaboration, which includes the interactive nature of authentic evaluation. Authentic evaluation situates student learning in a real-life context where students must address unexpected issues related to human error, last minute obstacles, stakeholder concerns and emotional responses. This method for teaching evaluation allows students experience situations that one could not simulate in a case-study approach (e.g., stakeholder withholding information from students). The skills to navigate these situations are typically not taught, but are only learned through the experience. Dealing with these factors makes the authentic evaluation experience worthwhile from the student perspective. |
| 'But is it Authentic?': Evaluation Education Praxis and the Mythic Split Between Theory and Practice |
| Alfred Vitale, University of Rochester, avitale@warner.rochester.edu |
| Amy Sherma Steed, University of Rochester, asteed@warner.rochester.edu |
| For students of Program Evaluation, commencing coursework with immersion in an actual evaluation provides an anchor point for subsequent study of Evaluation theories and helps avoid the conflation of evaluation theory as a toolkit. Theory without practice may constrain the possibility for students to gain their own understandings of evaluation or develop novel and innovative solutions to evaluation issues encountered in the field. The value of a theory-first approach is also questioned by the fact that theories of evaluation are often highly contested within the field itself, and without field experience students may have a more difficult time assessing the merits of different evaluation theories. In addition, a theory-first approach presupposes homogeneity in student learning styles and presumes theories will be retained weeks or even months after introduced. A practice-first approach gives substance to theories studied introduced along the way and studied in depth later, providing critical opportunities for reflection. |