Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

twin significances: procedural, easily adaptable to the types of replicatable actions typified within model construction; and the significance of process use as what Patton (2007) would deem a “sensitizing concept…as a container for capturing, holding, and examining these manifestations to better understand patterns and implications” (p. 102). The later idea is fluid, and as such is not as discrete in nature as what the study originally planned to address. Nonetheless priorities for The School District and tools for future program evaluations came about as a result of this study, even if, strictly speaking, a comprehensive, consistently replicable model did not. Priorities originated within each theme: procedural and process use. Within the procedural theme, several priorities emerged: (a) The School District must agree upon what constitutes a program; (b) the emergent tool or model must account for cost per unit of investment and/or return on investment; (c) the emergent model must eventually include a processes/policies/philosophies handbook. It was found that failure to provide for issues related to this theme have in the past and will continue in the future to result in negative complications within the four frames of the organization: human resources, structural, political, and symbolic. Within the process theme, five targeted benefits of program evaluation emerged: 1. Collaboration, process and results, can be engendered and promoted. 2. The School District’s vision, mission, goals, and values can be reified and promoted. 3. Organizational sacred cows can be assailed. 4. Program and organizational ownership can be increased at a variety of levels. 95
5. Organizational culture can be changed via knowledge creation and evaluation capacity building. Limitations The study contained several limitations. The study was limited because The School District is only in the first phase of professional program evaluation. The study was limited because it was based in large part upon the respondents’ perceptions. The study was limited because the researcher is the research instrument. The study was limited because it is subject to interpretation and analysis by the researcher who is employed by The School District. Overall Conclusions Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. These conclusions can be grouped according to the two dominant themes: procedural and process use, particularly in terms of evaluative capacity building. Procedural Conclusions. Because of the aforementioned limitations, it should come as no surprise that the study illuminated the need to implement clearly articulated processes, tools, and procedures. One very foundational conclusion, which The School District must address as soon as possible, is the idea that there is no general agreement among stakeholders regarding what constitutes a program, and therefore it is difficult for stakeholders to set program evaluation priorities. It is encouraging, however, that the analysis of programs mentioned in The School District’s Board policy resonates with those types of programs mandated in NCLB. This resonance could provide The School District with a starting point for creating its definition of a program and subsequent priorities for evaluation. Again, it bears repeating that expediency in accomplishing this 96
Page 1 and 2:
UTILIZATION-FOCUSED EVALUATION OF T
Page 3 and 4:
The undersigned, appointed by the D
Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The lessons I have
Page 7 and 8:
fearlessness, and reminded me of wh
Page 9 and 10:
Research Questions Research Methods
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Strong
Page 13 and 14:
UTLIZATION-FOCUSED EVALUATION OF TH
Page 15 and 16:
process-use within future evaluatio
Page 17 and 18:
One leader trained by this program,
Page 19 and 20:
Objectivation. Objectivation is the
Page 21 and 22:
developing, innovating, or changing
Page 23 and 24:
logical or sequential links among r
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 1. The School District’s p
Page 27 and 28:
Objectivation. This is the process
Page 29 and 30:
evaluation in general) is evaluatio
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE In
Page 33 and 34:
Objectivation Legitimation OVERVIEW
Page 35 and 36:
the profession: systemic inquiry, c
Page 37 and 38:
5. Eclectic Evaluation (1 approach
Page 39 and 40:
however, it is important to remembe
Page 41 and 42:
Figure 3. The Utilization-Focused E
Page 43 and 44:
eginning an evaluation this way ser
Page 45 and 46:
producing commonly understood evide
Page 47 and 48:
Institutionalization. A second proc
Page 49 and 50:
Legitimation. Legitimation, the thi
Page 51 and 52:
evaluation report was made to the s
Page 53 and 54:
experiences in finite provinces of
Page 55 and 56:
played into the use of electronic s
Page 57 and 58:
interaction and particular context:
Page 59 and 60: to achieve federal compliance (Ross
Page 61 and 62: as a valid, legitimate contribution
Page 63 and 64: principles (Patton, 1997) in order
Page 65 and 66: with other stakeholders (Appendix E
Page 67 and 68: Short interviews. Development of qu
Page 69 and 70: multidirectional thinking to integr
Page 71 and 72: Summary The School District had not
Page 73 and 74: experience. The topic for this case
Page 75 and 76: study; each signed an agreement of
Page 77 and 78: hoped the model would provide a pat
Page 79 and 80: according to page number, section,
Page 81 and 82: The School District’s vision, mis
Page 83 and 84: Figure 8. Step 1- Important concept
Page 85 and 86: Figure 10. A picture of “outgoing
Page 87 and 88: Short Stakeholder Interviews The ne
Page 89 and 90: This stakeholder went on to say tha
Page 91 and 92: (Budget Training Manual). A stakeho
Page 93 and 94: institutionally…very difficult to
Page 95 and 96: This argument, the focus of years o
Page 97 and 98: published meeting schedule. Another
Page 99 and 100: needs to be established and publish
Page 101 and 102: Figure 12. An organic reporting too
Page 103 and 104: explained, “that was all I knew
Page 105 and 106: CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION WITH CONCLU
Page 107 and 108: Discussion of Findings Three resear
Page 109: Figure 13. The level of involvement
Page 113 and 114: evaluator, but also the program sup
Page 115 and 116: Table Two. The research findings ca
Page 117 and 118: 3. The School District should compl
Page 119 and 120: 2. A follow-up study of the impleme
Page 121 and 122: The chief research question was whe
Page 123 and 124: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (200
Page 125 and 126: Nelson, M. & Eddy, R. M. (2008). Ev
Page 127 and 128: Starratt, R. (2003). Centering educ
Page 129 and 130: 22. Accreditation and certification
Page 131 and 132: Researcher’s Name: Laura Nelson R
Page 133 and 134: The Campus Institutional Review Boa
Page 135 and 136: Short Interview Protocol Appendix E
Page 137 and 138: Second Long Interview Protocol Appe
Page 139 and 140: Appendix I Affinity Diagram 124
Page 141 and 142: Appendix K NCLB Content Analysis Di
Page 143 and 144: Appendix M School District Vision,
Page 145 and 146: Appendix O Examples of Programs- Da
Page 147 and 148: Interviewee Effective (ness) (effec
Page 149 and 150: Interviewee Perceive perception Sup
Page 151 and 152: Program Mission CSIP Value Appendix
Page 153: VITA Laura Nelson earned a B.A. in
show all

Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?