Difference between revisions of "Section 2.3.3.1 Models of Programme Evaluation"
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
[[File:2.3.3.1 (b) models of prog development.jpg]] | [[File:2.3.3.1 (b) models of prog development.jpg]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <span class="back-step-link">[[Section_2.3.3_Programme|Back To Section 2.3.3]]</span> | ||
| + | <span class="next-step-link">[[ Section_2.3.3.2_Conducting_Programme_Evaluation|Continue to Section 2.3.3.2]]</span> | ||
| + | <span class="back-step-link">[[Section_2:_What_Is_SET?|Back To Section 2]]</span> | ||
| + | <br class="clear"/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category: Evaluation]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 11 September 2011
Section 2.3.3.1 Models of Programme Evaluation
Section 2.3.3.1 Models of Programme Evaluation
While there is no simple or universal set of criteria to effectively evaluate a programme, several theoretical frameworks can be employed, such as Armitage, Bryant, & Dunhill’s (1990) 5 Stage Model, Neary’s (1996) Framework for Curriculum Evaluation, or the very accessible form developed by the University of Wisconsin (see http://learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/G3658-1W.PDF).
Arguably the most useful for programme-level evaluation in Tertiary education (Reece & Walker, 2002) is Stufflebeam’s (1971) Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Model which posits that evaluation should be considered in terms of 4 main headings:
|
Context: The setting of the course. Relates to the aims of the curriculum Input: Relates to students, staff, & resources used Process: The appropriateness of what happens on the course – how the input elements are used to achieve the aims and objectives Product: Relates to the outcomes – the students who have gone through the course and what they’ve learned |
Questions relevant to each heading are listed below:
_models_of_prog_development.jpg)
_models_of_prog_development.jpg)
