This article addresses the construction of “critical friendships” within the practice of one particular program evaluation. It focuses on the evolution of relationships developed during one 2-year program evaluation study that examined a collaborative educational project. Findings show that a caring interest and mentoring rapport developed between program constituents and evaluator (the author of the study). Further, this study suggests that these relationships were essential to how formative and summative feedback was used. This article suggests that the interplay between evaluator and constituents is best practiced through what House and Howe call a methodological advocacy stance. Finally, it encourages further discourse and investigations into the ways that program evaluation is carried out in order to more thoroughly understand how relationships influence evaluation methodology and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). Ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
ChelimskyE. (1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 35—56.
3.
ClandininD. J., and ConnellyF. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
CohenS. B., and HickmanP. (1998, April). Statewide Implementation Program (SIP): Effective models for curriculum implementation: Center for the enhancement of science and mathematics education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED419683)
5.
DenzinN. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
DeweyJ. (1947). Education and experience. New York: Macmillan.
7.
DucanK., and StassioM. (2001). Surveying feminist pedagogy: A measurement, an evaluation, and an affirmation. Feminist Teacher, 13, 225—239.
8.
DymondS. (2001). A participatory action research approach to evaluating inclusive school programs. Focus on Autism, 16, 54—64.
9.
EisnerE. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
10.
EisnerE. (1998). The kind of schools we need. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
11.
EverhartN. (2000). Looking for a few good librarians. School Library Journal, 46(9), 58—61.
12.
GarmhamC., and KaletaR. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved April 10, 2002, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm
13.
GoodwinA. L. (Ed.). (1997). Assessment for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our children. New York: Routledge.
14.
GubriumJ. F., and HolsteinJ. A. (1999). At the border of narrative and ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28, 561—574.
15.
HawkinsD. (1975). The informed vision: Essays on learning and human nature. New York: Agathon Press.
16.
HeinG. (Ed). (1990). The assessment of hands-on elementary science programs. Grand Forks: North Dakota Study Group on Evaluation.
17.
HeinG. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.
18.
HouseK., and HoweE. (1998). The issue of advocacy in evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 3—12.
19.
HouseK., and HoweE. (2000). Deliberative democratic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 85, 3—12.
20.
KiskerE. E., and BrownR. S. (1997). Nonexperimental designs and program evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 541—566.
21.
LauritzenP. W. (1998). Supply and demand of educational personnel for Wisconsin Public Schools 1998: An examination of data trends (Research Report, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction). Retrieved June 17, 2002, from http://www.dpo.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsis/tel/supdem98.html
22.
Lawrence-LightfootS., and DavisJ. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
LeamnsonR. (1999). Thinking about teaching and learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
24.
LernerF. A. (1998). The story of libraries: From the invention of writing to the computer age. New York: Continuum.
25.
MaxwellJ. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
McNabbM., HawkesM., and RoukU. (1999). Critical issues in evaluating the effectiveness of technology. (Report on The Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology, Department of Education, Washington, DC). Retrieved April 10, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/confsum.html
27.
MelloR. (2001). Summative report 7/01. Unpublished research report, UWS-SLEC at the Department of Educational Foundations, University of Wisconsin, Whitewater.
28.
MelloR. (2002a). Summative report 7/02. Unpublished research report, UWS-SLEC at the Department of Educational Foundations, University of Wisconsin, Whitewater.
29.
MelloR. (2002b). “100 pounds of potatoes in a 25 pound sack”: Stress, frustration, and learning in the virtual classroom. Teaching with Technology Today, 9(7). Retrieved June 10, 2002, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/mello.htm
30.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). Schools and staffing survey 1999–2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and bureau of Indian affairs elementary and secondary schools (Research Report, NCES, Washington, DC). Retrieved from April 15, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002313
31.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110 (2001)
32.
PalmerP. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
PattonM. (1999). Grand Canyon celebration. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
34.
PattonM. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
PerezA. I. (and others). (1997). Forms of collaboration: The flexible role of the researcher within the changing context of practice. Report presented at American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410290)
36.
SchonD. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
37.
SchroederE. E., ZarinniaE. A., SlyghG., HopkinsD. M., RobbinsL., and CrossE.. (2001). Teaching with Technology Today, 8(3). Retrieved December 10, 2001, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/zarinnia.htm
38.
ShadishW., CookT. D., and LevitonL. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
StakeR. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523—540.
40.
StraussA. (1993). Continual permutations of action. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.
41.
StraussA., and CorbinJ. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
VygotskyL. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2001). Supply and Demand of Educational Personnel in Wisconsin Public Schools, 2001. Madison, WI: Author.
