ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø

Description

EVAL 6000 is a course in the interdisciplinary Ph.D. in evaluation program at ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø Michigan University.

With 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 are used to illustrate foundational concepts. Throughout the course, critical thinking and active learning are emphasized.

Syllabus

Syllabus

Instructor

Dr. Chris L. S. Coryn

Required textbooks

• Alkin, M. C. (Ed.). (2012). Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Mathison, S. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, & applications (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Required and supplementary readings

These readings are for instructional purposes only.

• Chelimsky, E. (1985). Comparing and contrasting auditing and evaluation: Some notes on their relationship. Evaluation Review, 9(4), 483-508.
• Chelimsky, E. (1997). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21^stcentury: A handbook (pp. 53-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Chelimsky, E. (1998).The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 35-55.
• 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.
• Christie, C. A. (2007). Reported influence of evaluation data on decision makers’ actions. American Journal of Evaluation,28(1), 8-25.
• Conlin, S., & Stirrat, R. L. (2008). Current challenges in development evaluation. Evaluation, 14(2), 193-208.
• Cook, T. D., Scriven, M., Coryn, C. L. S., & Evergreen, S. D. H. (2010). Contemporary thinking about causation in evaluation: A dialogue with Tom Cook and Michael Scriven. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 105-117.
• Cooksy, L. J., & Caracelli, V. J. (2005). Quality, context and use: Issues in achieving the goals of metaevaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 31-42.
• Coryn, C. L. S., & Hobson, K. A. (2011). Using nonequivalent dependent variables to reduce internal validity threats in quasi-experiments: Rationale, history, and examples from practice. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Really new directions in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 131. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schröter, D. C., (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(3), 199-226.
• 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.
• Cousins, J. B. (2004). Commentary: Minimizing evaluation misuse as principled practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(3), 391-397.
• Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397-418.
• Cousins, J. B., & Leithwood, K. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56(3), 331-364.
• Cullen, A. E., Coryn, C. L. S., & Rugh, J. (2011). The politics and consequences of including stakeholders in international development evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation.
• Datta, L-E. (2011). Politics and evaluation: More than methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 273-294.
• 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.
• Fleischer, D. N., & Christie, C. A. (2009). Evaluation use: Results from a survey of U.S. American Evaluation Association members. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(2), 158-175.
• 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.
• Heberger, A. E., Christie, C. A., & Alkin, M. C. (2010). A bibliometric analysis of the academic influences of and on evaluation theorists’ published works.American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 24-44.
• Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (pp. 69-80). New Directions for Evaluation, 97. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Johnson, K., Greenseid, L. O., Toal, S. A., King, J. A., Lawrenz, F. & Volkov, B. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 377-410.
• . (2011). The program evaluation standards (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Mark, M. M. (2007). Building a better evidence base for evaluation theory: Beyond general calls to a framework of types of research on evaluation. In N. L. Smith & P. R. Brandon (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation (pp. 111-134). New York: Guilford.
• Mathison, S. (2007). What is the difference between research and evaluation—and why do we care? In N. L. Smith & P. R. Brandon (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation (pp. 183-196). New York: Guilford.
• Miller, R. L. (2010). Developing standards for empirical examinations of evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 390-399.
• Miller, R. L., & Campbell, R. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 296-319.
• Newman, D. L., Scheirer, M. A., Shadish, W. R., & Wye, C. (1995). . In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators (pp. 19-26). New Directions in Evaluation, 66. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Patton, M. Q. (2001). Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality lessons learned. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 329-336.
• Picciotto, R. (2003). International trends and development evaluation: The need for ideas. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 227-234.
• Picciotto, R. (2007). The new environment for development evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 509-521.
• Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29-48.
• Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 5-14). New Directions for Evaluation, 87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Shulha, L. M., & Cousins, J. B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. American Journal of Evaluation, 18(1), 195-208.
• Scriven, M. (1986). New frontiers of evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 7(1), 7-44.
• Scriven, M. (1994a). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 367-382.
• Scriven, M. (1994b). The fine line between evaluation and explanation. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 75-77.
• Scriven, M. (1994c). Product evaluation—The state of the art. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 45-62.
• Scriven, M. (1998). Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 57-70.
• Scriven, M. (2001). Evaluation future tense. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 301-307.
• Scriven, M. (2007). Key evaluation checklist (KEC). Kalamazoo, MI: ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
• Shadish, W. R. (1994). Need-based evaluation theory: What do you need to know to do good evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 15(3), 347-358.
• Shadish, W. R. (1998). Evaluation theory is who we are. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 1-19.
• Smith, N. L. (1993). Improving evaluation theory through the empirical study of evaluation practice. Evaluation Practice,14(3), 237-242.
• Stevahn, L., King, J. A., Ghere, G., & Minnema, J. (2005). Establishing essential competencies for program evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 43-59.
• Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001a). The metaevaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 183-209.
• Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001b). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Tourmen, C. (2009). Evaluators’ decision making. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(1), 7-30.

Assignments

• Critical reading papers
• Application paper
• Thought paper

Grading rubrics

Critical reading assignments

Lecture notes

• Lecture 1
• Lecture 2
• Lecture 3
• Lecture 4
• Lecture 5
• Lecture 6
• Lecture 7
• Lecture 8

Videos

• Coryn, C. L. S. (2009, September). . Kalamazoo, MI: ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
• Datta, L-E., (2007, March). . Kalamazoo, MI: ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
• Rugh, J. (2007, November). . Kalamazoo, MI: ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
• Rugh, J. (2009, September). . Kalamazoo, MI: ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
• Scriven, M. (2005, September). . Kalamazoo, MI: ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
• Scriven, M. (2006, September). . Kalamazoo, MI: ÃÛÌÒÉçÇø Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.

Self-assessments

Ten Questions About Evaluation Theory

Essential Competencies for Program Evaluators Self-Assessment

Supplementary materials

Key Evaluation Checklist