Course Syllabus
Contact Information
Course Details
Course Prerequisites
Students must have graduate standing in the Human Relations program.
Course Materials
Required:
There are no required textbooks to purchase for this course. Required readings and videos are available on the Required Resources page of each module.
Recommended (not required):
- Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines, 4th edition. Pearson. ISBN: 978 0 205 57935 8
- Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Handbook of practical program evaluation, 4th edition. John Wiley & Sons.
Note: Many of the course readings for weeks 3–8 are taken from the second and third editions of the Newcomer et al. (2015) text. The citations for the earlier editions are below:
- Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E., (2004). Handbook of practical program evaluation, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons.
- Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E., (2010). Handbook of practical program evaluation, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons.
Grades
Breakdown
| Graded Assignments & Activities |
Description | Individual Points |
Total Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly Live Sessions | Synchronous Zoom meetings | 8 Live Sessions × 10 points each | 80 |
| Discussion Board Participation | Asynchronous Discussion topics | 8 Discussions × 10 points each | 80 |
| Written Assignment #1 | Program Statement Memo | 50 | 50 |
| Written Assignment #2 | Evaluation Questions & Measurement Memo | 50 | 50 |
| Proposal Presentation | Present Evaluation Proposal | 50 | 50 |
| Final Evaluation Proposal | Evaluation Proposal—Final Paper | 100 | 100 |
| |
Total |
410 |
Scale
| Percentage | Letter Grade |
|---|---|
| 90–100% | A |
| 80–89% | B |
| 70–79% | C |
| 60–69% | D |
| Below 60% | F |
Course Components
Weekly Live Sessions
There will be eight Live Sessions (10 points each). Each student will participate in weekly Live Sessions over the course of the semester. The primary purpose of these Live Sessions is build an online community of learners.
Discussion Board Participation
There will be eight threaded discussion topic assignments (10 points each). Students will participate weekly in the online discussion board on Canvas. Questions will be based on assigned readings. For example, discuss the main features of each theory and identify two strengths and two weaknesses of each theory.
To receive full credit for a weekly Threaded Discussion assignment, students must answer all the questions posed, as well as comment on the response of at least two other classmates for each question posted. Additional expectations regarding original and response Threaded Discussion are provided below:
- Original posts must:
- Fully address the question(s) posed
- Be written in complete sentences and at least 200 words in length
- Include reference information for any unassigned learning resources cited
- Draw connections with observations of and/or experiences with transitioning theory to practice, when possible
- Response posts must:
- Be written in complete sentences and at least 100 words in length
- Be reasonable and courteous
- Include reference information for any unassigned learning resources cited
- Go beyond the general sentiments of “I disagree” or “I agree,” and specifically address why another post differs from or resonates with previous experiences and/or observations
Here are some questions to consider when formulating your responses to the weekly readings:
- What do you see as the most valuable contribution, thesis, or idea from this material?
- What aspects of the author’s findings or argument do you find especially useful, well-argued, problematic, confusing, or unconvincing?
- How does this connect to some of our key ideas or themes in the course?
Written Assignments
The written assignments for this course provide an evaluation of learning over the course content material that may not be adequately reflected in the standard format of an exam. The assignment descriptions here are not enough to complete assignments. Detailed instructions are provided on the assignment pages.
Program Statement Memo
Submit a short (3–4 page) description of a selected program that addresses the following:
- The problem/need addressed by the intervention
- The intended beneficiaries of the program
- The intended benefits
- The causal model/program theory underlying the program.
This memo is a preliminary step in writing the final evaluation proposal.
Evaluation Questions & Measurement Memo (3–4 pages)
Using the program model developed in the first memo, develop and present a logic model, specify the evaluation questions, operational definitions, and specific measures you would use in an evaluation of the program. This memo is a second step towards writing the final evaluation proposal.
Presentations & Peer Review Feedback
Using the program model and evaluation questions and measures developed in earlier assignments, each student presents an evaluation design proposal (a brief draft of the final project) and receives peer critique with the instructor's supervision. Presentations include program theory and descriptions and outcome measures from earlier assignments, as well as design rationale, and data collection strategies. Clarity, application of concepts discussed in class, and the rationale behind your evaluation design choices are emphasized.
Final Paper / Evaluation Proposal
The final paper builds on earlier assignments. Students will design a comprehensive evaluation proposal for a chosen program. The design proposal will focus on the outcome or impact of evaluation, with a strong emphasis on process evaluation and measurement strategies. Detailed instructions for the final paper/evaluation proposal are available on Canvas, including criteria for the project and assignment milestones.
Follow APA style in citing references that you use. The final paper should be typed and meet the following requirements:
- Use 12-point font
- Use double spacing
- Contain a title page
- Contain no more than 20 pages (not counting title page and references
Pay close attention to your writing style and carefully edit your papers.
Tentative Course Schedule
The topical course outline below presents the content topics that will be presented in the course and the approximate dates on which those topics will be presented. Specific readings will be assigned for each topic.
| Week |
Topics |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Basic purpose of evaluation and assessment, uses, and conceptual definitions |
| Week 2 | Alternative evaluation approaches |
| Week 3 | Clarifying the evaluation request and responsibilities |
| Week 4 | Practical guidelines for planning evaluations; logic models |
| Week 5 | Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative data |
| Week 6 | Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting qualitative data |
| Week 7 | Reporting and using evaluation information |
| Week 8 | Conducting multi-site evaluation studies |
Core Reading Assignments by Topic
(Additional readings may be added in Resources for each module)
Purpose and use of evaluation and assessment
- Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. New directions for evaluation, 89, 7-98.
Alternative evaluation approaches
- Reichardt, C. S. (1994). Summative evaluation, formative evaluation, and tactical research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 275-281.
- Scriven, M. (1996). Types of evaluation and types of evaluators. Evaluation practice, 17(2), 151-161.
- Shadish, W. R. (1994). Need-based evaluation theory: What do you need to know to do a good evaluation? Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 347-358.
- Stufflebeam, D. L. (1994). Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the future of evaluation should not go and where it needs to go. Evaluation practice, 15(3), 321-338.
Clarifying the evaluation request and responsibilities
- Davies, R., & Payne, L. (2015). Evaluability Assessments: Reflections on a review of the literature. Evaluation, 21(2), 216-231.
- Fitzpatrick, J. L., & Bickman, L. (2002). Evaluation of the Ft. Bragg and Stark County systems of care for children and adolescents: A dialogue with Len Bickman. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 67–80.
- Stake, R. (1976). Checklist for negotiating an agreement to evaluate an educational programme. Western Michigan University - The Evaluation Center.
- Stufflebeam, D. L. (2004). Evaluation plans and operations checklist. Western Michigan University - The Evaluation Center.
-
Wholey, J. S. (2004). Evaluability assessment. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 2, 33-62.
Practical guidelines for planning evaluations
- McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2004). Using logic models. In Handbook of practical program evaluation, 2, 7-32.
- Love, A. (2004). Implementation evaluation. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 2, 63-97.
- Poister, T. H. (2004). Performance monitoring. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 2, 99-125.
Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting quantitative data
- Newcomer, K. E., & Wirtz, P. W. (2004). Using statistics in evaluation. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 2, 439-478.
- Nightingale, D. S., & Rossman, S. B. (2010). Collecting data in the field. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 3, 321-346.
Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting qualitative data
- Caudle, S. L. (2004). Qualitative data analysis. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 2, 417-438.
- Rogers, P. J., & Goodrick, D. (2010). Qualitative data analysis. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 3, 429-453.
Reporting and using evaluation and assessment information
- Grob, G. F. (2010). Providing recommendations, suggestions, and options for Improvement. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 3, 581-593.
- Grob, G. F. (2010). Writing for impact. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 3, 594-619.
Multi-site evaluation studies
- Leff, H. S., & Mulkern, V. (2002). Lessons learned about science and participation from multisite evaluations. In J. Herrell & R. Straw (Eds.), Conducting multiple site evaluations in real-world settings. New Directions for Evaluation, 94, 89-100.
- Rog, D. J. (2010). Designing, managing, and analyzing multisite evaluations. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 3, 208-236.
Course Policies
Communication
If you need to email me, I normally respond to emails within 24 hours during the week and within 48 hours on a weekend. If you email me over a weekend, holiday break, or semester break, there may be a longer response time.
If you have questions about grades or your performance in this class, I am happy to schedule a Zoom conference with you. First, email your request for a meeting, then we will schedule a date and time to talk
University Academic Policies and Student Support
Course Catalog
Search the OU Course Catalog.
Student Handbook
Please familiarize yourself with the OU Student Handbook.
Online Library
Access digital materials and other resources at OU Libraries.
Academic Misconduct
In addition to the course conduct policies outlined by your professor in the Course Syllabus in the online classroom, please review the Graduate Student Handbook.
It is the responsibility of each student to be familiar with the definitions, policies, and procedures concerning academic misconduct. The Student Code is available from the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs and is contained in the Student's Guide to Academic Integrity.
This site also defines misconduct, provides examples of prohibited conduct, and explains the sanctions available for those found guilty of misconduct.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the most common form of academic misconduct at OU. There is basically no college-level assignment that can be satisfactorily completed by copying. OU's basic assumption about writing is that all written assignments show the student's own understanding in the student's own words. That means all writing assignments, in class or out, are assumed to be composed entirely of words generated (not simply found) by the student, except where words written by someone else are specifically marked as such with proper citation. Including other people's words in your paper is helpful when you do it honestly and correctly. When you don't, it's plagiarism.
For more information about plagiarism, watch this video and then take this short course offered by University Libraries.
Reasonable Accommodation for Disabilities
The University of Oklahoma is committed to providing reasonable accommodation for all students with disabilities. Students with disabilities who require accommodations in this course should contact their professor as early in the semester as possible.
Students with disabilities must be registered with the Disability Resource Center before receiving accommodations in this course.
If you have a disability and you would like to request reasonable accommodation, please see the Graduate Student Handbook or get in touch with the Accessibility and Disability Resource Center.
Adjustments for Pregnancy/Childbirth Related Issues
Should you need modifications or adjustments to your course requirements because of documented pregnancy-related or childbirth-related issues, please contact me as soon as possible to discuss your options. Generally, modifications will be made where medically necessary and similar in scope to accommodations based on temporary disability. Learn more about the rights of pregnant and parenting students by consulting the FAQ sheets provided by the Institutional Equity Office.
Title IX Resources
For any concerns regarding gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, stalking, or intimate partner violence, the University offers a variety of resources, including advocates on-call 24/7, counseling services, mutual no-contact orders, scheduling adjustments, and disciplinary sanctions against the perpetrator. Please contact the Sexual Misconduct Office at 405-325-2215 (8-5, M-F) or OU Advocates at 405-615-0013 (24/7) to learn more or to report an incident.
Religious Holidays
It is the policy of the University to excuse absences of students that result from religious observances and to provide for the rescheduling of examinations and additional required classwork that may fall on religious holidays without penalty. It is the responsibility of the student to make alternate arrangements with the instructor at least one week before the actual date of the religious holiday.
Copyright Policy
It is illegal to download, upload, reproduce, or distribute any copyrighted material, in any form and any fashion, without permission from the copyright holder or his/her authorized agent. The University of Oklahoma expects all members of its community to comply fully with federal copyright laws. If such laws appear to have been violated by any user, the university reserves the right (1) to terminate that user’s access to some or all of the university’s computer systems and information resources and (2) to take additional disciplinary actions as deemed necessary or appropriate. Repeat offenders will be sanctioned and their privileges terminated.
Registration and Withdrawal
If you choose to withdraw from this course, you must complete the appropriate University form and turn the form in before the deadline. If you stop attending the course and doing the coursework without doing the required paperwork, your grade will be calculated with missed homework and examination grades entered as zero. This could result in receiving a grade of F in the course. Deadlines are shown in the Academic Calendar, which is available from the Office of the Registrar.
Student Grievances
In addition to any policies outlined related to submitting an informal or formal grievance by your professor in the Course Syllabus in the online classroom, please review the Graduate Student Handbook for more information about the process of submitting a formal grievance.
Course Summary:
| Date | Details | Due |
|---|---|---|