Open Collections

Educational evaluation : two theoretical models in a corporate based application

University of British Columbia

The Provus Discrepancy Evaluation Model (1973) and the Stufflebeam et al. C.I.P.P. Evaluation Model (1973) are examined against the backdrop of two evaluations that were conducted by unskilled evaluators in a corporate based setting by a large corporation. Differences between the two theoretical models and the two corporate evaluations revealed that there are factors, not considered in the theoretical models, which can impact their effectiveness when practically applied. The Provus Discrepancy Evaluation Model and the Stufflebeam et al. C.I.P.P. Evaluation Model were in some ways appropriate and both committees would have benefited from utilizing similar evaluation models. Failure of these two committees to address significant aspects of formal evaluation might have been remedied by the application of formal evaluation models. Educational evaluation models also have significant "gaps" including personal investment of committee members, corporate agendas, cost and financial impacts, bias and stall points (the point where the evaluation model ceases to be effective in the current context). Corporate evaluations are an ongoing process and require different types of evaluation models, depending upon current need (Stall Point Theory). Two evaluations that were conducted by task force committees in a corporate setting were examined. One task force committee examined how corporate training was being carried out and the second task force committee examined adherence to how corporate policy was being carried out. Using a formal evaluation model would have provided structure, objective clarification, and greater confidence in the results and recommendations of the corporate evaluations. The development of educational evaluation models would be enhanced by considering the needs of the end users of the models, making the models more dynamic by increasing flexibility for general/specific application and acknowledging the models' limitations.

Thesis/Dissertation

application/pdf

2009-05-04

For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/7860

Language and Literacy Education

University of British Columbia

UBCV

DSpace