The CIPP Model Lens
This model breaks down the evaluation process into a series of evaluation points. The model as presented in Olvia is rather complex. In a search for a more understandable means of implementing this model for evaluation, I found the url: www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/cippchecklist_mar07.pdf
I am taking my information for this model's evaluation from this checklist. The checklist itself is extensive, covering twelve pages in length. I did not use all of it, but I have used what I thought were the most pertinent questions. Questions selected are what I consider to be the most important questions for this curriculum.
This particular model was not considered for the initial stages of the development of this curriculum by the College due to time constraints.
Context Evaluation:
Assess program goals in light of beneficiaries' assessed needs and potentially useful assets. The needs statement comes in part from the Colleges' own mission statement and the areas for improvement uncovered in the CCSSE Student Engagement survey.
Input Evaluation:
Assess the programs strategy against pertinent research and development literature. This step has not been fully completed. There were two community college staff development programs that were used as models for this program. The full implementation of the community of learners model for both faculty and students is still under consideration.
Process Evaluation:
In collaboration with the program's staff, maintain a record of program events, problems, costs, and allocations. This is ongoing and is part of the documentation that is kept by the College of the process.
Impact Evaluation:
Determine the extent to which the program reached an appropriate group of beneficiaries. This step will be accomplished in the annual CIPP survey at from faculty focus groups.
Effectiveness Evaluation:
Engage a goal-free evaluator to ascertain what the program actually did and to indentify its full range of effects-positive and negative, intended and unintended. As one of the person's charged with evaluation, I should state that as the program is just starting, the full and unintended effects are not yet known. But the focus of the evaluation would lead me to believe that the intent of the evaluation may not have the intended effect.
Sustainability Evaluation: Interview program beneficiaries to identify their judgements about what program successes should be sustained. This step will be done each year at the time of the annual survey and at the time of the CCSSE evaluation survey. This program is scheduled to continue for a three year period. It is hoped that it will become a part of the learning culture of the College.
Transportability Evaluation: If relevant survey a representative sample of potential adopters. Ask them to 1. review a description of the program's relevance to their situation; 2. judge the program's relevance to their situation; 3. judge the programs quality, significance, and replicability; and 4. report whether they are using or plan to adopt all or parts of the program. This particular part of the evaluation will come near the completion of the second of the three year planned project. It is very possible that this project will be considered on other regional campuses of the College.
The curriculum from this view point may be considered a success as long as it shows improvement in the areas that are outlined in the CCSSE survey.
This particular model was not considered for the initial stages of the development of this curriculum by the College due to time constraints.
Context Evaluation:
Assess program goals in light of beneficiaries' assessed needs and potentially useful assets. The needs statement comes in part from the Colleges' own mission statement and the areas for improvement uncovered in the CCSSE Student Engagement survey.
Input Evaluation:
Assess the programs strategy against pertinent research and development literature. This step has not been fully completed. There were two community college staff development programs that were used as models for this program. The full implementation of the community of learners model for both faculty and students is still under consideration.
Process Evaluation:
In collaboration with the program's staff, maintain a record of program events, problems, costs, and allocations. This is ongoing and is part of the documentation that is kept by the College of the process.
Impact Evaluation:
Determine the extent to which the program reached an appropriate group of beneficiaries. This step will be accomplished in the annual CIPP survey at from faculty focus groups.
Effectiveness Evaluation:
Engage a goal-free evaluator to ascertain what the program actually did and to indentify its full range of effects-positive and negative, intended and unintended. As one of the person's charged with evaluation, I should state that as the program is just starting, the full and unintended effects are not yet known. But the focus of the evaluation would lead me to believe that the intent of the evaluation may not have the intended effect.
Sustainability Evaluation: Interview program beneficiaries to identify their judgements about what program successes should be sustained. This step will be done each year at the time of the annual survey and at the time of the CCSSE evaluation survey. This program is scheduled to continue for a three year period. It is hoped that it will become a part of the learning culture of the College.
Transportability Evaluation: If relevant survey a representative sample of potential adopters. Ask them to 1. review a description of the program's relevance to their situation; 2. judge the program's relevance to their situation; 3. judge the programs quality, significance, and replicability; and 4. report whether they are using or plan to adopt all or parts of the program. This particular part of the evaluation will come near the completion of the second of the three year planned project. It is very possible that this project will be considered on other regional campuses of the College.
The curriculum from this view point may be considered a success as long as it shows improvement in the areas that are outlined in the CCSSE survey.