Review of Science Education Program Evaluation

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 943-963

  Lawrenz, Frances ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145511769     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-35     Document Type: Chapter

References (95)

1. Altschuld, J. W., and Kumar, D. (1995). Program evaluation in science education: The model perspective. In R. O’Sullivan (Vol. Ed.), New directions for program evaluation: No. 35. Emerging roles of evaluation in science education reform (Spring, pp. 5-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., and Mangione, T. L. (2002, October). Qualitative analysis on stage:Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.
3. Barley, Z. A., and Jeness, M. (1993, June). Cluster evaluation: A method to strengthen evaluation in smaller programs with similar purposes. Evaluation Practice, 14(2), 141-147.
4. Berliner, D. C. (2002, November). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.
5. Budick, S., and Iser, W. (Eds.). (1989). Languages of the unsayable. New York: Columbia University Press.
6. Byrk, A. S., and Radenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.
7. Caracelli, V. J., and Green, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J. C. Green and V. J. Caracelli (Vol. Eds.), New directions for evaluation: No. 74. Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (Summer, pp. 19-32). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
8. Cook, N. R., Dwyer, M. C., and Stalford, C. (1991). Evaluation and validation: Alook at the program effectiveness panel. New Hampshire: U.S. Government (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED333045).
9. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1997). Tool kit: Evaluating the development and implementation of standards. Washington, DC: Author.
10. Cousins, J. B., and Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In E. Whitmore (Vol. Ed.), New directions for evaluation: No. 80. Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (Winter, pp. 5-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11. Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Yoon, K., and Birman, B. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
13. Dillman, D. A. (2002). Mail and internet survey: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
14. Doran, R., Lawrenz, F., and Helgeson, S. (1994). Research assessment in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook f or research teaching and learning (pp. 388-442). New York: Macmillan.
15. Educational Research, Development, Dissemination and Improvement act of 1994. Public Law 103-227, H.R. 856, 103rd Congress, March 31, 1994.
16. Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965. Public Law 89-10, 89th Congress, 1st Session, April 11, 1965.
17. Erickson, F., and Gutierrez, K. (2002, November). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21-24.
18. Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 1-15.
19. Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Finely, F., Heller, P., and Lawrenz, F. (1990). Review of research in science education. Pittsburgh: Science Education.
21. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., and Worthen, B. R. (2003). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
22. Frechtling, J. (2002). User friendly handbook for project evaluations. Prepared under contract REC99-12175. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication.
23. Greene, J. C., and Abma, T. A. (Eds.). (2001). Editor’s notes. In New directions for evaluation: Responsive evaluation: No. 92 (Winter, pp. 1-5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24. Green, J. C., and Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixedmethod evaluation. In J. C. Green and V. J. Caracelli (Vol. Eds.), New directions for evaluation, advances in mixed-method evaluation: No. 74. The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (Summer, pp. 5-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. Hadi-Tabassum, S. (1999). Assessing students’ attitudes and achievements in a multicultural and multilingual science classroom. Multicultural Education, 7(2), 15-20.
27. Hanssen, C., Gullickson, A., and Lawrenz, F. (2003). Assessing the impact and effectiveness of the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Program. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation Center.
28. House, E. R. (1983). Assumptions underlying evaluation models. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, and D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
29. House, E. R., and Howe, K. R. (2000). Deliberative democratic evaluation in practice. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, and T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
30. Huberman, A. M., and Miles, M. B. (Eds.). (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Huffman, D., and Lawrenz, F. (2003). Vision of science education as a catalyst for reform. Journal for Elementary/Middle Level Science Teachers, 36(2), 14-22.
32. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1981). Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects and materials (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluations. (1994). The program evaluation standards:How to assess evaluations of educational programs (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
35. King, J., Stevahn, L., Ghere, G., and Minnema, J. (2001). Toward a taxonomy of essential evaluator competencies. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 229-247.
36. Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., St. John, M., Zucker, A. A., and Stearns, M. S. (1988). Recommendations to the National Science Foundation. An approach to assessing initiatives in science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED299145). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
37. Lawrenz, F., and Huffman, D. (2002). The archipelago approach to mixed method evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(3), 331-338.
38. Lawrenz, F., and Huffman, D. (2003). How can multi-site evaluations be participatory? American Journal of Evaluation, 24(4), 331-338.
39. Lawrenz, F., and Jeong, I. (1993). Science and mathematics curricula. In Indicators of science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
40. Lawrenz, F., Michlin, M., Appeldoorn, K., and Hwang, E. (2003). CETP core evaluation: 2001-2002 results. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research, University of Minnesota.
41. Lawrenz, F., Weiss, I., and Queitzsch, M. (1996). The K-12 learning environment. In Indicators of science and mathematics education, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
42. Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43. Mark, M. M., and Shotland, L. R. (1985). Stakeholder-based evaluation and value judgments: The role of perceived power and legitimacy in the selection of stakeholder groups. Evaluation Review, 9, 605-626.
44. Maruyama, G. (1998). Basic structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. McTaggart, R. (1991b). When democratic evaluation doesn’t seem democratic. Evaluation Practice, 12(1), 168-187.
46. Merrian, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (rev. ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
47. Moore, S. D. (2002). The basic practice of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
48. Moskowitz, D. A., and Hershberger, S. L. (Eds.). (2002). Modeling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49. National Research Council. (2001). I. Weiss, M. Knapp, K. Hollweg, and G. Burrell (Eds.), Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics science and technology education. Washington, DC: Committee on Understanding the Influence of Standards in K-12 Science Mathematics and Technology Education.
50. National Research Council. (2002). R. J. Shavelson and L. Towne (Eds.), Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: Committee on Scientific Principles of Educational Research, National Academy Press.
51. Newman, F. M. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
52. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107-110. H.R. 1. 107th Congress, 2nd Session (2001).
53. Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
54. Patton, M. Q. (1986). Utilization-focused evaluation (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
55. Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 5(3), 311-319.
56. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Patton, M. Q. (2000). Utilization-focused evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, and T. Kellaghan (Eds.). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
58. Pellegrino, J. W., and Goldman, S. R. (2002, November). Be careful what you wish for-you may get it: Educational research in the spotlight. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 15-17.
59. Rice, J. M. (1898). The rational spelling book. New York, NY: American Book Company.
60. Rossi, P. H., and Freeman, H. E. (1985). Evaluation: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
61. Rossi, P. H., and Freeman, H. E. (1989). Evaluation: A systematic approach (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
62. Rossi, P. H., and Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
63. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., and Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., and Rosenbaum, S. (1982). Evaluation: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
65. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., and Wright, S. R. (1979). Evaluation: A systematic approach (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
66. Sanders, W. L., and Horn, S. P. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS):Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(3), 299-311.
67. Scriven, M. (1974). Evaluation perspectives and procedures. In W. J. Popham (Ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchen.
68. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
69. Smith, E. R., and Tyler, R. W. (1942). Appraising and recording student progress. New York: McGraw-Hill.
70. Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523-540.
71. Stake, R. E. (1983). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, and D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 253-300). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
72. Stevens, F., Lawrenz, F., Ely, D., and Huberman, M. (1993). The user friendly handbook for project evaluation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
73. Stockdill, S., Baizerman, M., and Compton, D. (2002). Toward a definition of the ECB process: A conversation with the ECB literature. In D. W. Compton, M. Baizerman, and S. H. Stockdill (Vol. Eds.), New directions for evaluation: No. 93. The art, craft, and science of evaluation capacity building (Spring, pp. 27-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
74. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 5(1), 19-25.
75. Stufflebeam, D. L. (Vol. Ed.). (2001). Evaluation models. In New directions for evaluation (No. 89, Spring). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
76. Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman, H. O., and Provus, M. M. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision-making in education. Itasca, IL:Peacock (copyright 1971 by Phi Delta Kappa, Bloomington, IN).
77. Stufflebeam, D. L., and Welch, W. W. (1986). Review of research on program evaluation in United States school districts. Educational Administrators Quarterly, 22(3), 150-170.
78. Suter, L. (1993). Indicators of science and mathematics education, 1992 (1st ed.). Washington, DC:National Science Foundation.
79. Suter, L. (1996). Indicators of science and mathematics education, 1995 (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:National Science Foundation.
80. U.S. National Research Center for Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS). Retrieved May 27, 2003 from Michigan State University, College of Education Web site:http://ustimss.msu.edu
81. Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program effectiveness (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
82. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation research: Methods for studying program and policies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
83. Weiss, I. R. (1997). The status of science and mathematics teaching in the United States: Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to national standards. ERS Spectrum, (Summer), 34-39.
84. Weiss, I., Banilower, E., Crawford, R., and Overstreet, C. (2003). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement: Year eight cross-site report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
85. Welch, W. W. (1969). Curriculum evaluation. Review of Educational Research, 39(4), 429-443.
86. Welch, W. W. (1972). Review of research 1968-69, secondary level science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9(2), 97-122.
87. Welch, W. W. (1979a). Five years of evaluating federal programs: Implications for the future. Science Education, 63(2), 335-344.
88. Welch, W. W. (1979b). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In F. M. Berliner and R. M. Gagne (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 282-306). Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.
89. Welch, W. W. (1985). Research in science education: Review and recommendations. Science Education, 69(3), 421-448.
90. Welch, W. W. (1995). Student assessment and curriculum evaluation. In B. J. Fraser and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education: What do we know. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
91. Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
92. Worthen, B. R., and Sanders, J. R. (1973). Educational evaluation: Theory and practice. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones.
93. Worthen, B. R., and Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (1st ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
94. Wright, B. D., and Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: Mesa Press.
95. Yin, R. (2002). Study of statewide systemic reform in science and mathematics education: Interim report. Bethesda, MD: Cosmos.