Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Heacock, P. (2003). Cambridge international dictionary of idioms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation & research: A guide for students in the helping professions. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Horton, D. (1999). Utilization-Focused Evaluation, by Michael Q. Patton- a review. American Journal of Evaluation, 20; 399-401. Kilgore, D. W. (2001). Critical and postmodern perspectives on adult learning. Merriam, S. ed. The new theory on adult learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass King, J. A. (2007). Developing evaluation capacity through process use. Process use in theory, research, and practice: New directions for evaluation, 116, 45-59. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. Merriam, S. ed. The new theory on adult learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (2001). The new update on adult learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 109
Nelson, M. & Eddy, R. M. (2008). Evaluative thinking and action in the classroom. In Berry, T. & Eddy, R. M. (Eds). Consequences of No Child Left Behind for educational evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation. 117 (37-46). Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2004). Meeting the need for site- specific program evaluation approaches: An introduction. In Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E. (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation. (pp. xxxiii-xliv). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. New directions for program evaluation at the U.S. Department of Education. (2004, October, 15). Retrieved January 27, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/04/evaluation.html Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: The Oxford University Press. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2007). Process use as usefulism. Process use in theory, research, and practice: New directions for evaluation, 116, 99-112. Podems, D. (2007). Process use: A case narrative from South Africa. Process use in theory, research, and practice: New directions for evaluation, 116, 87-97. Preskill, H., & Donaldson, S. I. (2008). Improving the evidence base for career development programs: Making use of the evaluation profession and positive psychology movement. Advances for Developing Human Resources, 10, pp. 104-121. 110
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 and 122: The chief research question was whe
Page 123: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (200
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?