EVAL 6000: FOUNDAITONS OF EVALUATION
DescriptionWith an emphasis on constructing a sound foundational knowledge base, this course is designed to provide an overview of both past and contemporary perspectives on evaluation theory, method, and practice. Course topics include, but are not limited to, basic evaluation concepts and definitions; evaluation as a cognitive activity; the view of evaluation as a transdiscipline; the general and working logic of evaluation; an overview of the history of the field; distinctions between evaluation and basic and applied social science research; evaluation-specific methods (e.g., needs assessment, stakeholder analysis, identifying evaluative criteria, standard setting); reasons and motives for conducting evaluation; central types and purposes of evaluation; objectivity, bias, and validity; the function of program theory in evaluation; evaluator roles; core competencies required for conducting high quality, professional evaluation; audiences and users of evaluation; alternative evaluation models and approaches; the political nature of evaluation and its implications for practice; professional standards and codes of conduct; and emerging and enduring issues in evaluation theory, method, and practice. Although the major focus of the course is program evaluation in multiple settings (e.g., education, criminal justice, health and medicine, human and social services, international development, science and technology), examples from personnel evaluation, policy analysis, and product evaluation also will be used to illustrate foundational concepts. The course will conclude with how to plan, design, and conduct high quality evaluations using a contingency-based and situational approach, including evaluation purposes, resources (e.g., time, budget, expertise), uses and users, competing demands, and other relevant contingencies. Throughout the course, active learning is emphasized and, therefore, the instructional format consists of instructor-led presentations, discussions, and application exercises. Audiences for this course include those who have familiarity with social science research, but are unfamiliar with evaluation, and evaluators who wish to review current theories, methods, and practices.
Dr. Chris L. S. Coryn
Draft chapters of the forthcoming book.
Chapter 1 PDF
LECTURE NOTES
Placeholder
READINGS
Placeholder
Chelimsky, E. (1985). Comparing and contrasting auditing and evaluation: Some notes on their relationship. Evaluation Review, 9, 483-508. PDF
Chelimsky, E. (1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 35-55. PDF
Christie, C. A. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (pp. 7-35). New Directions for Evaluation, 97. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. PDF
Coryn, C. L. S. (2006). A conceptual framework for making evaluation support meaningful, useful, and valuable. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6(1), 45-51. PDF
Coryn, C. L. S., Gugiu, P. C., Davidson, E. J., & Schröter, D. C. (2008). Assessing needs in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 7(2), 3-11. PDF
Coryn, C. L. S., Schröter, D. C., & Hanssen, C. E. (2009). Adding a time-series design element to the Success Case Method to improve methodological rigor: An application for non-profit program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(1), 80-92. PDF
Dewey, J. D., Montrosse, B. E., Schröter, D. C., Sullins, C. D. & Mattox II, J. R. (2008). Evaluator competencies: What’s taught versus what’s sought. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(3), 268-287. PDF
Fournier, D. M. (1995). Establishing evaluative conclusions: A distinction between general and working logic. In D. M. Fournier (Ed.), Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps (pp. 15-32). New Directions in Evaluation, 68. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. PDF
Iriti, J. E., Bickel, W. E., & Awsumb Nelson, C. (2005). Using recommendations in evaluation: A decision making framework for evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(4), 464-479. PDF
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality lessons learned. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 329-336. PDF
Scriven, M. (1994). The final synthesis. American Journal of Evaluation, 15(3), 367-382. PDF
Scriven, M. (1998). Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 57-70. PDF
Scriven, M. (2001). Evaluation future tense. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 301-307. PDF
Scriven, M. (2007). Key evaluation checklist (KEC). Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, The Evaluation Center. PDF
Shadish, W. R. (1994). Need-based evaluation theory: What do you need to know to do good evaluation? Evaluation Review, 15(3), 347-358. PDF
Shadish, W. R. (1998). Evaluation theory is who we are. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 1-19. PDF
Stevahn, L., King, J. A., Ghere, G., & Minnema, J. (2005). Establishing essential competencies for program evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 43-59. PDF
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). The metaevaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 183-209. PDF
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. PDF