Portfolio > 4b > 1. Assessment > Evaluation Questions
Search this site

4. A collaborative consultant with skills in:
(b) Evaluation and assessment

Evaluation Questions For Leadership Program

1. How is the University planning to meet the expanding needs of the program?

Methodology

  1. To learn needs
  2. To know institution's plan

2. What benchmarks are in place for monitoring students' progress?

Methodology

  1. IDP check off
  2. The institution sets up the following:

3. What has changed in the lives of participants?

Methodology

4. What has changed in the working environment of those who have concluded the program? How have graduates impacted others? How have others benefited from graduates of the program?

Methodology

  1. Questionnaire sent to customers/clients/superiors/subordinates
  2. Potential of having graduates join all Leadership faculty
    (summer, workshops, year-around)

5. How do goals of the leadership program contribute to and enhance the Andrews University mission statement

Methodology

  1. AU catalogue, Leadership Mission Statement, promotional pieces, Staff interviews, student interviews, survey graduates, Platform for Service -statement, NCAC accreditation report.
  2. If we have a mission statement .. why? How do you measure it??   Survey the board members of the AU board and administrators of the school and ask them to tell how graduates would apply the mission when they leave here. Observable criteria : then go out and measure responses of  graduates.  It is a hard thing to do, but can be done.

6. How does the flexibility of the program allow you to maintain: rigor, academic scholarship, reputation of instructors and the quality of the leaders it produces.

Methodology

  1. AU accreditation report, course analysis [minimum requirements for admissions], Accrediting report for the school of Ed. [NCAC], publications, consultations, awards, tenure, evaluations, national ranking of school, enhanced careers of graduates,

7. Do graduates of the program model servant leadership as promoted in the leadership curriculum.

Methodology

  1. description of servant leadership model in Platform for Service, assessment of graduates, student surveys, staff and student interviews, possible longitudinal study

8. How have graduates demonstrated the integration of faith and learning, Christian leadership and dedication to service through there dissertation and portfolio.

Methodology

  1. Methodology: copies of dissertations and portfolios, survey graduates and current students, survey of employers,

9. How does the program ensure that collaboration and cooperation are fostered among participants?

  1. Is the technology - email, bulletin board, newsgroups, internet meetings, web - integrated in such a way that it motivates collaboration?
  2. Is the rationale and structure of the regional groups designed to encourage collaboration and cooperation, both within the groups and across the groups?
  3. How is the individual nature of the measurement instruments (IDP and portfolio) reconciled with the collaborative nature of the Leadership program?

Methodology

  1. Determine through a literature survey an accepted definition of the terms collaboration and cooperation.
  2. In the context of the Leadership program, and in particular, the three modalities raised in the question, investigate whether collaboration and cooperation in the program can be demonstrated.
    For all 3 modalities:
    • Interview Dean and Program Coordinator re actions taken to foster this.
    • Interview faculty.
    • Interview/question students in the program.
    For collaboration via technology:
    • Collect usage data from system log files showing use of technology.
    For collaboration via Regional Groups:
    • Visit Regional Groups and observe meetings
  3. For each modality, evaluate its success in fostering collaboration and cooperation.
  4. Make recommendations.

10. What failsafe measures are used to ensure that the selection process for admission into the program chooses participants who are self-motivated?

Methodology

  1. Determine through literature survey the tried and true tests for measuring self-motivation?  What are the indicators of self-motivation?
  2. Determine what the current system is.
    • Interview Dean and Program Coordinator re selection criteria.  Request written material documenting internal procedures and public documents.
    • Interview faculty.
    • Interview/question students in the program.
    • Review student CVs and Statements of Purpose.
  3. Evaluate the success of the measures in use.
  4. Make recommendations.

11. In view of the fact that the portfolio demonstration of competencies replaces comprehensive exams, how is the acceptable degree of competency in each area determined?

Methodology

  1. Research via a literature survey accepted methods for determining whether competency has been achieved.
  2. Interviews
    • Interview Dean and Program Coordinator to determine their criteria and the methods used.
    • Interview faculty.
    • Interview students who have had signoff on competencies.
  3. Evaluate the consistency of application.
  4. Make recommendations.

12. Are the graduates of the Leadership Program exhibiting behaviors associated with Christian values?

Methodology

  1. Conduct self (pre- and post- program participation) evaluations
  2. Case study interviews of graduates
  3. Interview employers

13. Do the incoming participants of the program have the relevant experience necessary to learn within the flexible environment and successfully graduate from the program?

Methodology

  1. To establish what "relevant experience" is we propose to survey graduates and other participants who the faculty identify as making progress in the program.
  2. Survey inactive participants to determine cause for status and ascertain "relevant experience" that may have been lacking.

14. Is there adequate faculty to support individual and regional groups requests?

Methodology

  1. Survey participants to determine how often faculty meet/advise with them individually and in regional groups.
  2. Survey participants perception of how adequately faculty are meeting their needs.
  3. Survey faculty's perception of how adequately they are meeting the participants and regional groups needs.
  4. Ascertain the ratio of faculty visits to requests for faculty visits by regional groups.
  5. Record the number of attempts (a sample of) participants make to reach faculty to the number of contacts actually made.

Return to 4b1 EDUC689 Assessment and Evaluation

Created: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 05:15 PM
Last Modified: Saturday, May 10, 2003 10:28 PM