|
Session Title: Systems Thinking Approaches for Program Evaluation
|
|
Multipaper Session 581 to be held in Panzacola Section F4 on Friday, Nov 13, 3:35 PM to 4:20 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Systems in Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Margaret Hargreaves,
Mathematica Policy Research Inc, mhargreaves@mathematica-mpr.com
|
|
A Case Study of the iPlant Collaborative Evaluation Plan Development:
An Integrative Approach Using Outcomes-based and Systems Methods And
Concepts
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Barbara Heath, East Main Educational Consulting LLC, bheath@emeconline.com
|
| Jennifer Young, East Main Educational Consulting LLC, jyoung@emeconline.com
|
| Xiaodong Zhang, Westat, xiaodongzhang@westat.com
|
| Margaret Hargreaves, Mathematica Policy Research Inc, mhargreaves@mathematica-mpr.com
|
| Abstract:
Funded by the National Science Foundation, the iPlant Collaborative
(iPlant) is a distributed, cyber infrastructure-centered, international
community of plant and computing researchers. The goal of iPlant is to
bring together the community to (1) identify new conceptual advances
through computational thinking and (2) address an evolving array of the
most compelling Grand Challenges in the plant sciences and associated,
cutting-edge research challenges in the computing sciences. Our
presentation intends to provide a case study of how we changed the
evaluation approach from a traditional outcome-based model to an
integrative approach that includes both outcome-based and systems-based
methods and concepts. Several methodologies are being deployed for data
collection and analysis, i.e. outcome-based methods, social network
analysis, case studies, and consumer-oriented surveys.
|
|
|
Perspectives, Boundaries, and Entanglement: Using Systems Thinking in
the Evaluation of Programs Addressing the College Readiness Gap
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Mary McEathron, University of Minnesota, mceat001@umn.edu
|
| Abstract:
Context, the theme of this year's conference, is a well-acknowledged
component of every evaluation. Typically, an evaluation includes a
thorough description of a program and its sphere of influence. But what
do we do with the contextual factors that lie outside the program,
especially when the 'out there' has more influence on the issue than
the program itself? This paper presents a case study of the use of soft
systems methodology (SSM) to address this quandary. Based on an
evaluation of a community college program aimed at improving retention
for at-risk students, the study explores the program's attempt to
bridge the 'readiness gap.' The presentation will focus on the use of
SSM not only to clarify analysis of the situation but also to
facilitate a dynamic discussion with stakeholders, which created a
deeper understanding of the situation and the development of clearer
recommendations for change and action.
|
|