The Auburn University Educational Leadership Team and its K-12 practitioner and community partners collaboratively developed a comprehensive, on-going evaluation plan to assess a newly implemented field-based graduate program. The purpose of the present manuscript was to describe the evaluation guidelines and plans. The leadership team and partners designed the assessment and evaluation plan to incorporate and integrate components from a variety of evaluation approaches to address various program, stakeholder, and governing body data needs. By drawing on a variety of evaluation approaches the team and partners generated an array of data or sources of knowledge to better inform decisions about program implementation processes and outcome effectiveness and, thereby, enhance the team's ability to reform and reshape the program to meet on-going and changing stakeholder and participant needs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettB. G.MuthR. (2008). Using action-research strategies and cohort structures to ensure research competence for practitioner-scholar leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(1), Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://www.ucea.org/storage/JRLE/pdf/vol3_issue1_2008/BarnettFinal.pdf
2.
Cambron-McCabeN. (2003). Rethinking leadership preparation: Focus on faculty learning communities. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2(4), 285–298.
3.
Cambron-McCabeN.McCarthyM. M. (2005, January/March). Educating school leaders for social justice. Educational Policy, 19(1), 201–222.
4.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods: Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
5.
Darling-HammondL.LaPointeM.MeyersonD.OrrM. T. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs (School Leadership Study executive summary report commissioned by the Wallace Foundation). Stanford Educational Leadership Institute
6.
EisnerE. W. (1991). Taking a second look: Educational connoisseurship revisited. In McLaughlinM. W.PhillipsD. C. (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (pp. 169–187). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
FettermanD. M. (2002). Empowerment evaluation: Building communities of practice and a culture of learning. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 89–102.
8.
FitzpatrickJ. L.SanersJ. R.WorthenB. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternatives, approaches, and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
9.
GoodwinR. H.CunninghamM. L.EagleT. (2005). The changing role of the secondary principal in the United States: An historical perspective. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(1), 1–17.
GuskeyT. R. (1999, April). New perspectives on evaluating professional development. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
12.
GuskeyT. R. (2001, September). Helping standards make the grade. Educational Leadership, 20–27.
13.
HartA. W.PounderD. G. (1999). Reinventing preparation programs: A decade of activity. In MurphyJ.ForsythP. (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform (pp. 115–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
JacksonB. L.KelleyC. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 192–212.
16.
KottkampR. B.SilverbergR. P. (2003). Leadership preparation reform in first person: Making assumptions public. Leadership and Poolicy in Schools, 2(4), 299–326.
17.
KirkhartK. E. (2000, Winter). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 5–23.
18.
LeithwoodK.LouisK. S.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. St. Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
19.
McCarthyM. M. (1999). The “changing” face of the educational leadership professoriate. In MurphyJ.ForsythP, (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform (pp. 192–214). Thousand Oaks, CA:.
20.
MurphyJ. (1999). Changes in preparation programs: Perceptions of department chairs. In MurphyJ.ForsythP, (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform (pp. 170–191). Thousand Oaks, CA:
21.
MurphyJ. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 176–191.
22.
MurphyJ. (2006). Some thoughts on rethinking the pre-service education of school leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education1(1). Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=some+thoughts+on
23.
MurphyJ.ElliottS. N.GoldringE.PorterA. C. (2007, April). Leadership for learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 179–201.
24.
OrrM. T. (2006, March) Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our Nation's schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 492–499.
25.
PattonM. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
26.
PattonM. Q. (1996, Spring-Summer). A world larger than formative and summative. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 331–345.
PophamJ. W. (1993). Educational evaluation (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
29.
PreskillH.TorresR. (2000, Winter). The learning dimension of evaluation use. New Directions in Evaluation, 88, 25–37.
30.
ReedC.KochanF.RossM. E.KunkelR. C. (2001, Spring). Designing evaluation systems that inform, reform, and transform professional development schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision16(3), 188–205.
31.
RossM. E.NarayananN. H.HendrixT. D.MyneniL. S. (2009). Evaluation of an NSF Supported Grant: Guidelines and Paradigms. Roundtable discussion presented at the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association, 2009 Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
32.
SandersJ. R. (2001). A vision for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 363–366.
33.
ScrivenM. (1999). The nature of evaluation part I: Relation to psychology. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 6(11), Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=11
34.
ScrivenM. (1998). The new science of evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 7, 79–89.
ScrivenM. (1996, Spring/Summer). Types of evaluation and types of evaluator [Electronic version]. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 151–161.
37.
ScrivenM. (1994). Evaluation as a discipline. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 207, 147–166.
38.
ScrivenM. (1991). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In McLaughlinM. W.PhillipsD. C. (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (pp. 19–64). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
39.
ScrivenM.CorynC. L. S. (2008, Summer). The logic of research evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 118, 89–105.
40.
StufflebeamD. L.ShinkfieldA. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
41.
SwaffieldS.MacBeathJ. (2005). School self-evaluation and the role of a critical friend. Cambridge Journal of education, 35(2), 239–252.
42.
TinekeA.A.StakeR. E. (2001). Stake's responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evolution. New Directions for Evaluation, 92, 7–21.
43.
TylerR. W. (1991). General statement on program evaluation. In McLaughlinM. W.PhillipsD. C. (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (pp. 1–2). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
44.
Van MeterE. J. (1999). The persistent saga: Changing instruction and curriculum to better prepare school leaders. In MurphyJ.ForsythP. (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform (pp. 151–169). Thousand Oaks, CA:
45.
Wallace Foundation. (2008). Becoming a leader: Preparing school principals for today's schools. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
46.
WigginsT. (1992). The mythology of reform in educational administrator preparation: Antecedents of paradigms lost. Reform in Administrator Preparation: Myths, Realities and Proposals. Austin, Texas: University of Texas – Austin, University Council for Educational Administration. Monograph series of the University Council for Educational Administration, 4–12.
47.
YoungM. D.PetersenG. J.ShortP. M. (2002, April). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 137–175.
