|
Session Title: Constructing Relevant Guidelines for Disability Program Evaluations
|
|
Panel Session 289 to be held in MISSION B on Thursday, Nov 11, 1:40 PM to 3:10 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Special Needs Populations TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Mary Moriarty, Picker Engineering Program, Smith College, mmoriart@smith.edu
|
| Abstract:
This panel brings together a team of experts in program evaluation and disability to discuss critical challenges in providing high quality evaluation of disability-based programs. Our intent is to identify and discuss challenges in meeting quality standards, measures, and evidence in disability evaluations from three perspectives: a governmental agency, a disability program director, and an evaluator. Dr. Linda Thurston from the National Science Foundation will provide an overview of NSF/Research in Disability Education evaluation expectations and guidelines. Dr. Joan McGuire from the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability at the University of Connecticut will discuss the postsecondary institutional perspective, and Dr. Mary Moriarty from the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College will talk about strategies from an evaluator’s perspective. The presentation will incorporate a discussion of critical factors in disability program evaluation. Included are such issues as utilizing research-based practices, incorporating an understanding of contextual factors, confidentiality, and standards-based frameworks.
|
|
Challenges and Expectations in Evaluating the National Science Foundation (NSF) Funded Disability Education Programs
|
| Linda Thurston, National Science Foundation, lthursto@nsf.gov
|
|
The National Science Foundation funds programs that build interest, academic success, and degree-completion in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education of students with disabilities. Formative and summative evaluation is a crucial component of these programs. In addition to significant student outcome data, the Research for Disability Education (RDE) program within NSF requires examination of collaborative efforts at the institutional level, student transition points, and impacts of specific activities and interventions. The panelist, who is an NSF program officer in RDE, will discuss these challenges, and NSF expectations for meeting these challenges.
|
|
|
Evaluating Postsecondary Disability Programs: Answering Questions and Monitoring Outcomes
|
| Joan McGuire, University of Connecticut, joan.mcguire@uconn.edu
|
|
While postsecondary disability services including accommodations are required under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, there is no federal or state requirement for the evaluation of such services. Whether it be conducted by internal staff or by an independent program evaluator, or whether it be a component of a grant, targeted evaluation of specific elements of disability services is paramount. Data gathered through a systematic process that documents program services can be used to answer questions from administrators (e.g., how many requests for course substitutions were approved), consumers (e.g., how frequently do students take a reduced course load), and faculty (e.g., what comprises a “reasonable” accommodation). Data relating to outcomes for students with disabilities (e.g., retention, graduation) may be a component of more comprehensive institutional efforts or of grant funded interventions. Practical considerations will be addressed by the presenter who has been a disability program director for 20 years.
| |
|
Ensuring Cultural Relevancy: Disability and Quality Evaluation
|
| Mary Moriarty, Smith College, mmoriart@smith.edu
|
|
The evaluation process can be envisioned in three interrelated phases: development, implementation, and reporting. In each phase incorporating a contextual awareness of disability will lead to improved quality and utility of evaluation results for disability-based projects. In the development phase one formulates a theoretical model, creates evaluation questions, and establishes a methodological approach. Understanding the disability community, applicable literature in the field, and requirements of funding sources will allow for the construction of a plan that meets the needs of all stakeholders. The implementation phase incorporates data collection and analysis. In this phase there are a number of challenges (e.g., confidentiality issues, accessibility concerns, sample sizes, and communication constraints) that are critical to the reliable collection of data. Attention to these challenges will facilitate effective communication in the reporting phase. The presenter who has been a disability grant manager and evaluator for over 15 years will address these issues.
| |