D4_Building+Aligned+Evaluation+Criteria

Prompt

1. First initial post includes examples of intended results. The examples may be related to the program you are evaluating, another program, or even fictitious. Give an example of an intended result at each of the three levels of results --- Mega, Macro, and Micro. Next, give an example of the current result at each of the three levels.

My program evaluation will look at the “dissertation process” of the School Improvement Program, a doctoral program at UWG, and I will be using it in my example for this first initial post. This is probably obvious, but please note that in completing this exercise, the “current results” is of course fictitious. I, of course, have no idea what the “current results” are yet. :)
 * ** Level from the OEM Model ** || ** Intended Results ** || ** Current Results ** || Gaps ||
 * ** Mega/Outcomes—Society **


 * University System of Georgia **

“. . . contribute to the educational, cultural, economic, and social advancement of Georgia” “first-rate programs leading to. . . professional, and doctorate degrees” (USG, 2010) || School Improvers/Change Agents potentially make the world of education a better place through initiatives that improve education, for students and their communities. || Fewer students are contributing to the “educational. . . advancement of Georgia” as a result of the publicly-funded program. ||  ||
 * ** Macro/Outputs—Organization **


 * University of West Georgia **

“. . . commitments culminate in educational experiences that foster the development of thoughtful and productive leaders and citizens who make a positive impact throughout an increasingly global society” (UWG, 2011) || An improved dissertation process makes students in the program more likely to graduate from UWG. The student and the university have completed the task of educating the student to respond to an identified societal need (school improvement). This output strengthens the value of the program by demonstrating to society (taxpayers and stakeholders) that the organization is committed to ensuring that the students complete the process. || Fewer students graduate from the program. As a result, faculty lines and resources are taken from the program over time, threatening the long-term health of the program. Faculty are discouraged by their failed efforts to help students. Potential students decline to enroll in the program, limiting the applicant pool, causing a lowering of standards. ||  ||
 * ** Micro/Products— **


 * School Improvement Program/COE **

“. . . advanced preparation of professionals for a variety of learning settings. . . ” (COE, 2009)

“. . . who initiate sustainable and systemic improvements in P-12 education” (SIP, 2011). || Students pass their coursework; students pass their proposal defense; students pass their dissertation defense. The total combined “products” result in professionals who are prepared for “a variety of settings” and “who initiate sustainable and systemic improvements in P-12 education.” || Some students do not pass their dissertation defense. Until they do so, they may be less likely to “initiate sustainable and systemic improvements in P-12 education.” ||  ||
 * **Process**—


 * "The Dissertation Process" ** || When internal processes, such as “the dissertation process” run smoothly, students are better able to fulfill their commitment to society, both by completing the publicly-funded degree program, and by adding value to the educational landscape in accordance with the missions of the USG, the UWG, the COE and the SIP. || The dissertation process is chaotic and confusing. Students get lost in the process. Some stop working on their dissertations. || Process--The dissertation process needs to be clarified. ||
 * ** Inputs ** || All necessary inputs feed into the respective processes that make up the organization. Funding, equipment, staff and other resources are found in perfect quantities. || Some necessary inputs are lacking or are misused, causing a disruption to the functioning of the dissertation process. || Inputs--the program needs more inputs better applied. ||

References College of Education (COE). (2009). Welcome to the College of Education. Retrieved from http://coe.westga.edu/mission.asp University of West Georgia (UWG). (2011). Mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/1874.php School Improvement Program (SIP). (2011). Mission of the program. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/eddsi/index_12916.php University System of Georgia (UWG). (2010). Vision, mission, and goals statement: Board of regents. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.usg.edu/regents/vision_mission_goals/


 * Note: This discussion question is based on the Conceptual Guide for Evaluating Alignment (see page 56 in your textbook.) **

2. Second initial post includes your answer to the questions below based on your first initial post.

a. What are the gaps between the intended and current results? This is difficult to describe from my fictional situation above. Because what this question is asking me to describe, I think, is the "results" of the evaluation. That would depend on what the data (which I don't have yet) say. Looking at my initial post with the intended and current results, there is indeed a difference, or gap, between the two. At the process and input levels, I am able to say something fairly concrete. However, I don't know what to say as I rise up to micro, macro, and mega. Obviously, in such a situation, the problematic process needs to be fixed, so that the process works to allow the organization to achieve its objectives. In terms of Process, the dissertation process needs to be clarified. In terms of inputs, the program needs inputs to be more judiciously applied.

b. What means may have been effective or ineffective in reaching the intended results? Forms are not updated, which causes confusion; the program lacks the administrative support needed to fix this problem. The expectations from students and faculty are partially, but not entirely, available, leaving important details open to interpretation (risking failure). Faculty are not trained properly in chairing dissertations. This may be a sensitive area because faculty may resent the idea that you can be trained. Every dissertation process is unique, they might say. And on the other hand, they may be resistant to training because they think they already know how a dissertation process works; after all, they went through one themselves as students.

3. You are expected to actively interact and respond to your peers’ postings. You can do this by using the following interactive strategies ---

• Sharing additional evidence that support the position stated by another student (A) • Giving an example of the concept being discussed (B) • Asking for clarification (C) • Restating a position in different words (D) • Introducing a nuance that enriches the original formulation (E) • Offering a different opinion (F)

You are expected to do one of each response strategy. Make sure you change the subject heading to reflect your last name and the designated letter (e.g., Baylen-A for a response using a "sharing additional evidence that support the position stated by another student")

4. Finally, post a third initial post about the status of your evaluation project. Where are you in the process? What issues have you encountered as you finalize your evaluation plan? What have you learned so far?