ECUR 809 – Assignment #2
I was rather disappointed and confused in regard to what part of this programme was being evaluated. Given the number of possible goals for the programme, the goals I choose to focus on are: 1. exercise could be a primary way to prevent type 2 diabetes; 2. that as First Nations women have a higher average of GDM than non-Aboriginal women, it would be beneficial to see if a prenatal exercise programme offered to First Nations women would positively reduce the level of GDM, and type 2 diabetes in Canada’s First Nations population.
The Stufflebeam CIPP model could effectively evaluate the success of this programme with the collection of more quantitative data by tracking the GDM results of the participants in the study as well as a test group who were not. The Stufflebeam model looks at the broad picture, systematically collecting information (I-input) about activities and outcomes, which give relevance to information. Programme content (C), there was a plethora of that, was thoroughly outlined in the document, as was the process (P). Formative evaluation could occur during the programme, promoting accurate, prompt GDM testing results. Summative evaluation would need to be ongoing for several years as type 2 diabetes often shows up several years after birth. Data organization, or product (P) found in the results, could be used to make improvements during the course of the programme.
Stufflebeam’s model is based on making decisions. Even though no decisions were actually given in the example, it would be the next step taken after evaluating data. Positive or negative findings of the programme would require a decision to maintain, improve or cancel the programme.
Including the Provus-Discrepancy characteristics of improving the model and giving greater accountability to educators and public, would also be an important part of this evaluation. Increased public knowledge of results would hopefully lead to wiser and better decisions by health administrators. A cost analysis should be done to determine whether programme costs were less than original health costs, all features of the Provus-Discrepancy model.
If the Stufflebeam and Provus-Discrepancy model were used together, the exercise programme could be effectively evaluated to see if there was indeed a benefit to continuing the programme to reduce GDM and type 2 diabetes in the First Nations population .
Hi Kate,
ReplyDeleteI like the point you make when you say "Stufflebeam’s model is based on making decisions. Even though no decisions were actually given in the example, it would be the next step taken after evaluating data. Positive or negative findings of the programme would require a decision to maintain, improve or cancel the programme." Makes logical sense to me.
Stufflebeam's model seems so comprehensive, doesn't it? The logic model of CIPP just makes so much sense.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right to be confused about the goals and the focus because I don't think the evaluation part of the program was well thought out (or even thought out at all!). Have a great Sunday!
Great job! I thought about using Stufflebeam, but didn't know if it fit. You did an excellent job of making me view how the evaluation could be done using the Stufflebeam model.
ReplyDeleteKate you have done an excellent job of identifying how the two models work well together. I agree with your decision to put emphasis on cost-benefit as this is a major consideration for offering programs.
ReplyDeleteIn response your initial points yes most of the programs that require evaluation are often unsure of what their true purpose or goal is.YOu did well be making your own determination and using the goals you felt were important to guide your approach to the evaluation.
Jay