Using the Improvement-Focused Model to Evaluate an Online Teacher Education Program

Abstract

The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the effectiveness of an online reading teacher and literacy instructor training program. A mixed-method research design was used in conjunction with the improvement-focused model of program evaluation to help the researcher identify strengths and weaknesses of the program. Overall, data showed the program was effectively preparing teachers to become literacy instructors and beginning reading specialists though literacy instructors felt more prepared. Results also showed that addressing the program objectives was not all teachers needed to feel confident in their teaching positions. Teachers identified four key areas where more information was needed. Additional key findings pertain to the needs of learners in the online environment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

(2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Bean

R. M.

Cassidy

Earle

Shelton

D. S.

Wallis

S. R.

(2002). What do reading specialists do? Results from a national survey. Reading Teacher, 55(8), 736–744.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fitzpatrick

J. L.

Sanders

J. R.

Worthen

B. R.

(2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Guskey

T. R.

(2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–750.

International Reading Association (IRA). (2000). Teaching all children to read: The role of the reading specialist. Newark, Delaware. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED438533).

International Reading Association (IRA). (2003). Standards for reading professionals—Revised 2003. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://www.reading.org/downloads/545standards/2003.com

Johnson

Christensen

(2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Kinnucan-Welsch

Rosemary

C. A.

Grogan

P. R.

(2006). Accountability by design in literacy professional development. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 426–435.

10.

Luo

Dappen

(2005). Mixed-methods design for an objective-based evaluation of a magnet school assistance project. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 109–118.

11.

Markwood

R. A.

(2005). Final Evaluation Collaborative Reading And Distance Education (CREADE) Project of The Oregon University System (OUS) funded by The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE).

12.

Morihara

(2007). ReadOregon data as of July 23, 2007. Western Oregon University, The Teaching Research Institute.

13.

Posavac

E. J.

Carey

R. G.

(2003). Program evaluation methods and case studies (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

14.

Quatroche

D. J.

Bean

R. M.

Hamilton

R. L.

(2001). The role of the reading specialist: A review of research. The Reading Teacher, 55(3), 282–294.

15.

Swan

(2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved May 7, 2008 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf

16.

Treacy

Kleiman

Peterson

(2002). Successful online professional development. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(1), 42–47.

17.

Zanville

Morihara

(2003). Proposal to the Oregon Teacher Standards & Practices Commission for the Initiation of a New Instructional Program Leading to a Reading Endorsement. Oregon University System.

18.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007). State Fact Sheets: Oregon. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/or.htm

19.

Zanville

(2005). 2002–2005 Final report (Grantee: P116B010637). Oregon University System.