Research: Representing multiple perspectives: Collaborative‐democratic evaluation in distance education

Tovar, Mariela

doi:10.1080/08923648909526663

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include Gooler's () model, the Clark () two‐level framework, the Bunderson () quality assurance approach, and the unfolding model proposed by Ruhe and Zumbo (). The Gooler () model suggests that the evaluation of a distance education program is similar to other training evaluation but notes that certain characteristics of distance education influence the design and criteria used for evaluation, specifically the distance of the learner from the source of instruction and the technology itself; as such, these elements should be measured separately (Tovar, ). Similarly, Clark's () two‐level framework proposes that objectives for program instruction and program delivery be developed and evaluated separately (Ruhe & Zumbo, ).…”

Section: Evaluation and Distance Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Cost Justification: Evaluation Frameworks in Corporate Distance Training

Keen¹,

Berge²

2014

Perf. Improv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation remains one of the biggest challenges for workplace training professionals today. Few organizations have mastered training evaluation, with even fewer moving beyond assessing learner reaction and satisfaction. The introduction of technology‐based distance training, coupled with large initial investments in technologies that are needed to support distance training programs, has further exacerbated evaluation efforts for training organizations. This article looks at the changing environment of training evaluation and the application of evaluation methodology in corporate distance training.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation and Distance Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Cost Justification: Evaluation Frameworks in Corporate Distance Training

Keen¹,

Berge²

2014

Perf. Improv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since then, researchers have developed several approaches for guiding this collaboration. The two collaborative approaches most commonly applied to the evaluation of education programs in the United States and Canada have been srukeholder-based evaluation (SBE) (e.g., Bryk, 1983;Donmoyer, 1990;Henry, Dickey, & Areson, 1991;Tovar, 1989), in which stakeholders are involved somewhat in the beginning and ending phases of evaluations, and practical participatory evaluation (PPE) (e.g., Cousins & Earl, 1992, in which stakeholders are heavily involved as evaluation partners in all evaluation phases. ' SBE was the first collaborative approach to be widely studied, and PPE is one of the most recent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder participation for the purpose of helping ensure evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-collaborative evaluations

Brandon

1998

The American Journal of Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative evaluations, in which program stakeholders participate extensively, typically are conducted for the primary purpose of enhancing the use of evaluation findings, and non-collaborative evaluations, in which stakeholders do not participate extensively, typically are conducted for the primary purpose of generating valid findings. This article shows how the gap can be bridged between these two types of evaluations. The article synthesizes, and elaborates on, a small body of recent research that showed that considerable interaction with stakeholders during the evaluation of small education programs helped achieve the raison d'etre of non-collaborative evaluations-that is, to enhance validity. It is also shown that theories and methods of stakeholder participation for the purpose of enhancing validity, which by and large have been ignored in the collaborative evaluation literature, can improve the quality of collaborative studies.

show abstract

“…Issues important to be addressed in evaluation of distance education are satisfaction of students and perceptions of faculty (Tovar, 1989). Feedback from participants can help in redesigning the program (Jorgensen, 1986;Reed & Sork, 1990) and making instruction more effective (Alaska University, 1990).…”

Section: The Importance Of Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of two-way interactive television for community college instruction: development of an instrument and assessment of student attitudes

Sorensen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research: Representing multiple perspectives: Collaborative‐democratic evaluation in distance education

Cited by 8 publications

References 5 publications

Beyond Cost Justification: Evaluation Frameworks in Corporate Distance Training

Beyond Cost Justification: Evaluation Frameworks in Corporate Distance Training

Stakeholder participation for the purpose of helping ensure evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-collaborative evaluations

Evaluation of two-way interactive television for community college instruction: development of an instrument and assessment of student attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About