A Comparison of Methodological Approaches for Evaluating the Quality of Basic Skills Programs. AIR Forum 1982 Paper.

Autor/inn/en	Dumont, Richard G.; und weitere
Titel	A Comparison of Methodological Approaches for Evaluating the Quality of Basic Skills Programs. AIR Forum 1982 Paper.
Quelle	(1982), (32 Seiten)Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Accountability; Basic Skills; College Programs; Comparative Analysis; Compensatory Education; Developmental Studies Programs; Educational Assessment; Educational Quality; Evaluation Criteria; Higher Education; Institutional Research; Outcomes of Education; Program Evaluation; Remedial Mathematics; Remedial Programs; Research Design; Research Methodology; State Universities + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Verantwortung; Basic skill; Grundfertigkeit; Studienprogramm; Kompensatorischer Unterricht; Developmental studies; Developmental psychology; Study; Studies; Entwicklungspsychologie; Studium; Education; assessment; Bewertungssystem; Quality of education; Bildungsqualität; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Institutionelle Forschung; Lernleistung; Schulerfolg; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Förderprogramm; Forschungsdesign; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Staatliche Universität
Abstract	A multiple-indicator and multiple-design approach for evaluating the quality of basic skills programs in reading, writing, and mathematics that has been implemented within a statewide system of higher education in the southeastern United States was assessed. Several of the evaluation methodologies are compared in order to determine whether results are mutually supportive or contradictory and whether they are suggestive of interchangeability or complementarity as regards indicators and evaluative designs. Data are derived from a project designed to evaluate the effectiveness of developmental studies programs at a regional university and community colleges. Attention is focused upon a program in remedial mathematics at the regional, public university. The multiple-indicator and multiple-design strategy utilized both short-range and long-range post-program measures. The results of applying the following three designs are considered: single-group pretest-posttest comparison, the remediated-exempted comparison, and the cross-program comparison. Findings indicate that the application of the single-group pretest-posttest comparison suggested program effectiveness. While the findings were less clear, program effectiveness was also generally supported by the remediated-exempted comparison. Implementation of the cross-program comparison provided negative data regarding program performance on both short-range and long-range postprogram measures; however, this finding is qualified. It is suggested that the choice of the evaluative design is likely to have a greater effect upon the results of the evaluation than the choice of either the postprogram measure or the grouping statistic. (SW)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC