|
The Glass is Half Full and Half Empty: The Effect of No Child Left Behind Evaluation Policies on a College/Public Middle School Physics and Engineering Partnership Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jeanne Hubelbank,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
jhubel@evalconsult.com
|
| Abstract:
While there are issues with No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB) policy emphasis on "evidence-based” evaluations, the policy is a reality that evaluators must address. Despite our initial concerns, during an evaluation of a Title II, Part B Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) program, we found that NCLB’s evaluation policies were both a help and hindrance to the practices of the evaluation and the program. We discuss how five components of the legislation affected the program and its evaluation. These components are: emphasis on “developing evidence-based outcomes,” pre- and post-testing requirement, annual reporting requirements, use of state tests to assess student learning, and liaison with a state external evaluator. NCLB grant policy guided our decisions and actions as we interweaved it with our evaluation views (based on the Program Evaluation Standards) to plan and implement the program and its evaluation. We discuss implications for our program, higher education, and other programs.
|
|
Assessment and the Program Evaluation Standards
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Rick Axelson,
University of Iowa,
rick-axelson@uiowa.edu
|
| Arend Flick,
Riverside Community College,
arend.flick@rcc.edu
|
| Abstract:
It has often been argued that there are important distinctions between assessment and evaluation practices. Given the conceptual, methodological, and political challenges that have hampered assessment in higher education, it is understandable that it is the differences between assessment and evaluation that have received the most attention. Yet, it is increasingly evident that there are also important similarities between them as well. As assessment efforts mature, practitioners often encounter many of the issues faced by evaluators (i.e., utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy). Drawing upon the evaluation literature can provide valuable insight into these challenges. In particular, we believe that the Program Evaluation Standards (http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/) offer a helpful framework for addressing many of the thorny assessment issues encountered on campuses. In this session we will outline how some of the most commonly used arguments against assessment can be effectively addressed by the practices outlined in the Standards.
|
|
The Evaluation in Russian Higher Education on the Base of New Version of the State Educational Standards
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Victor Zvonnikov,
State University of Management,
zvonnikov@mail.ru
|
| Marina Chelyshkova,
State University of Management,
mchelyshkova@mail.ru
|
| Abstract:
Signing by Russia the Bologna’s declaration has served as the precondition of introduction the two-level preparation in Russian high schools. Instead of specialists with 5 years training high schools will prepare bachelors and masters during 4 and 6 years. This changes require the significant processing of content, State educational standards and assessment system for certification of graduates In this report the new approaches to evaluation of higher education’s graduates knowledge and competences are presented. The evaluation is based on the new version of the State educational standards employing the competence model of graduate’s training, the measurement theory and variety of assessment procedures and instruments.
The authors of the report suggest the competence model of graduate’s training in Russian high schools, the structure of competences and approaches to constructing multiple measures for assessment on the way of combining evaluation data from multiple sources when making decisions about quality of graduate’s achievements.
|
|
Changing Evaluation Policy and Practice: Exploring Evaluation's Potential Role in Facilitating Accreditation Within a Canadian University
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Stanley Varnhagen,
University of Alberta,
stanley.varnhagen@ualberta.ca
|
| Brad Arkison,
University of Alberta,
brad.arkison@ualberta.ca
|
| Jason Daniels Varnhagen,
University of Alberta,
jason.daniels@ualberta.ca
|
| Abstract:
Traditionally, evaluation has been narrowly defined and has typically occurred either in a constrained – primarily summative environment or in addressing specific, mandated, evaluative requirements. Additionally, existing post-secondary evaluations are seldom proactive with well defined criteria. Relatively new requirements around accreditation may require these traditional approaches to change, this will require a shift of existing evaluation policies and practice. . The capacity needed to address the required changes cannot be adequately addressed within the current internal Faculty structure and the process cannot be completely external to the Faculty. More systemic changes are required that will take time, require appropriate support, and will continually evolve. In addition, the process needs to recognize and adapt to specific discipline requirements. Done properly the evaluation process can better facilitate improvement in post-secondary education and allow a more proactive approach that could be helpful in a number of ways, including facilitating accreditation.
|
| | | |