Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There is common understanding and wide agreement for practical experiences in evaluation training programs. The argument for this idea is that practical training will provide students the real world experiences needed for preparation as professional evaluators and that these experiences are not possible in didactic course work. Several strategies for providing practical evaluation experiences can be found in the literature. They are limited by their short-term nature, typically bound by a semester time frame. This paper offers another possibility for providing practical evaluation training; namely, university-supported, long-term funded evaluation projects. These projects are managed through a university center that provides assistance to clients in student assessment and program evaluation. After a description of the center, the benefits and challenges of providing these experiences for students are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altschuld, J. W. , & Thomas, P. M. (1991). The teaching of evaluation: 25 years of growth and change. Theory Into Practice, 30, 22-29.

Brown, R. D. (1985). Supervising evaluation practicum and intern students: a developmental model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7, 161-167.

Chelimsky, E. (1997). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. In E. Chelimsky , & W. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century (pp. 53-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cronbach, L. J. , & Associates (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Eastmond, J. N., Jr. , Saunders, W. , & Merrell, D. (1989). Teaching evaluation through paid contractual arrangements. Evaluation Practice, 10, 58-62.

Gredler, M. E. , & Johnson, R. L. (2001). Lessons learned from the directed evaluation experience. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 97-104.

Kelley, J. M. , & Jones, B. J. (1992). Teaching evaluation by doing it: a multiple-utility approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 15, 55-59.

Leviton, L. C. (2001). Building evaluation’s collective capacity. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 1-12.

Mark, M. M. , Henry, G. T. , & Julnes, G. (1999). Toward an integrative framework for evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 177-198.

10.

McKillip, J. (1986). Applied research consultants (ARC): the consulting firm as a model for applied research training. Evaluation Practice, 7, 37-40.

11.

Mertens, D. M. (1994). Training evaluators: unique skills and knowledge. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 62, 17-27.

12.

Morris, M. (1992). Field experiences in evaluation courses: increasing their value to students and sponsors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 15, 61-66.

13.

Moxley, D. P. , & Visingardi, R. J. (1989). Teaching evaluation through the practicum experience. Evaluation Practice, 10, 54-58.

14.

Preskill, H. (1992). Students, clients, and teacher: observations from a practicum in evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 13, 39-46.

15.

Weeks, E. C. (1982). The value of experiential approaches to evaluation training. Evaluation and Program Planning, 5, 21-30.

16.

Willer, B. S. , Barlett, D. P. , & Northman, J. E. (1978). Simulation as a method for teaching program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1, 221-228.

17.

Worthen, B. R. , Sanders, J. R. , & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.

18.

Wortman, P. M. , Cordray, D. S. , & Reis, J. (1980). Training for evaluation research: some issues. New Directions in Program Evaluation, 8, 19-38.

Enhancing Practical Evaluation Training Through Long-Term Evaluation Projects

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References