Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

References AEA Task Force on Guiding Principles for Evaluators. (1995). Guiding principles for evaluators. New directions for program evaluation, Summer, pp. 19-34. Alkin, M. C. (2004). Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baumgartner, L. (2001). An update on transformational learning. Merriam, S. ed. The new theory on adult learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. L. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2 nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brassard, M. B. (1996). The memory jogger plus. Salem, NH: GOAL/QPC. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2 nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Carden, F. & Earl, S. (2007). Infusing evaluative thinking as process use: The case of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Process use in theory, research, and practice: New directions for evaluation, 116, 61-73. Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your organization (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 107
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eddy, R., & Berry, T. (2007, November). No Child Left Behind and the discipline of evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Baltimore, MD. Ehlers, D. C. (2004). The impact of a campus ministry based internship program on vocational choice: A case study. Dissertation (Ed.D.) University of Missouri- Columbia. Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Flaherty, J. (1999). Coaching - evoking excellence in others. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Freeman, H. E. (1977). The present status of evaluation research. In Guttentag, M.A. & Saar, S. (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual, 2, pp. 17-51). Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Garavalia, L. & Gredler, M. (2004). Teaching Evaluation through Modeling: Using the Delphi Technique to Assess Problems in Academic Programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 375. Hansman, C. A (2001). Context-based adult learning. Merriam, S. ed. The new theory on adult learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harner, M. A., & Preskill, H. (2007). Evaluators’ descriptions of process use: An exploratory study. Process use in theory, research, and practice: New directions for evaluation, 116, 27-44. 108
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 and 110: Figure 13. The level of involvement
Page 111 and 112: 5. Organizational culture can be ch
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: The chief research question was whe
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?