Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires K-12 organizations to perform numerous program evaluations, despite the fact that few of these organizations have the professional capacity to support program evaluations beyond the minimum level required to achieve federal compliance (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004; Scriven, 1996). Since the K-12 arena is not populated with professional program evaluators, evaluations typically emphasize outcomes at the expense of process assessment while also prioritizing compliance needs ahead of other stakeholder interests (Eddy & Berry, 2007). As early as 2002, the Department of Education expressed concerns that “evaluation studies are not as helpful as they could be to practitioners at the local level, nor can they answer questions of causation” (New Directions, 2004). The selected Missouri school district, hereafter referred to as The School District, has not yet determined how to implement program evaluations that are routinely capable of maximizing the use of stakeholder time, overcoming geographic constraints, and providing anonymity where necessary while still promoting organizational knowledge creation. Increasingly, leadership graduate programs are striving to provide their students with the tools to redress the imbalance of compliance and knowledge creation. At least one major university and its partners have intentionally trained their students on the practice of one form of collaborative evaluation: the utilization-focused approach, particularly as it is used within a paradigm designed to promote organizational development and knowledge creation. 1
One leader trained by this program, the superintendent of The School District, created a department of assessment and program evaluation as a mechanism to comply with federal, state, and local mandates while at the same time engendering organizational development and knowledge creation. The superintendent, in conjunction with her cabinet, sought to address the challenge of reconciling what evaluation meant under NCLB with what it meant within the utilization-focused/organizational knowledge creation paradigm. In addition to the superintendent, the cabinet consisted of eight administrators who lead the district’s chief areas of service: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment; Elementary Education; Secondary Education; Human Resources; Community Relations; Finance; Special Education; and Technology and Operations. The superintendent and her team recognized it is not cost effective to organize the district’s program evaluation model, which heretofore had been non-existent, around a participatory evaluative model heavily predicated upon multiple stakeholders’ meetings. Program stakeholders in the K-12 arena are comprised of district level personnel and building administrators. Stakeholders for this study believed only the highest priority program evaluations should rely upon convening high paid people to function as a think tank (personal communication, September 19, 2007). Conceptual Underpinnings of the Study Conceptual underpinnings are the principles that will be used to help explain cause and effect processes within the research and facilitate interpretation of research observations resulting from data analysis. This section articulates the research paradigm, the conceptual framework- social construction of reality theory- and the particular evaluative design, the utilization-focused approach. 2
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: process-use within future evaluatio
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?