The Relationship between Program Evaluation Experiences and Stakeholder Career Satisfaction
Affiliation(s)
Department of Teacher Preparation, Arabic Language Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Department of Teacher Preparation, Arabic Language Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the relationship between program evaluation experiences and stakeholder career satisfaction. The study employs mixed paradigms, descriptive and correlational research, qualitative evaluation, interviews, rating-scales and the parametric Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation. Data analysis reveals differences between the descriptive and correlational findings. The descriptive findings show low faculty and program director career satisfaction at the beginning of program evaluation while concluding program evaluation experiences show a dramatically high career satisfaction. Correlational results, however, indicate not only a relatively low but also negative correlation between initial and final program evaluation experiences in career satisfaction. The study concludes a relationship exists between initial and final program evaluation experiences in stakeholder career satisfaction. The more program evaluation experiences stakeholders have, the less career dissatisfaction signs they show. Supportive program evaluation contexts lower program stakeholder negativity and encourage effective implementation and use of program evaluation.
This paper examines the relationship between program evaluation experiences and stakeholder career satisfaction. The study employs mixed paradigms, descriptive and correlational research, qualitative evaluation, interviews, rating-scales and the parametric Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation. Data analysis reveals differences between the descriptive and correlational findings. The descriptive findings show low faculty and program director career satisfaction at the beginning of program evaluation while concluding program evaluation experiences show a dramatically high career satisfaction. Correlational results, however, indicate not only a relatively low but also negative correlation between initial and final program evaluation experiences in career satisfaction. The study concludes a relationship exists between initial and final program evaluation experiences in stakeholder career satisfaction. The more program evaluation experiences stakeholders have, the less career dissatisfaction signs they show. Supportive program evaluation contexts lower program stakeholder negativity and encourage effective implementation and use of program evaluation.
Cite this paper
Shawer, S. & Alkahtani, S. (2012). The Relationship between Program Evaluation Experiences and Stakeholder Career Satisfaction. Creative Education, 3, 1336-1344. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.38196.
Shawer, S. & Alkahtani, S. (2012). The Relationship between Program Evaluation Experiences and Stakeholder Career Satisfaction. Creative Education, 3, 1336-1344. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.38196.
References
[1] Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2001). Reflection-in action: In defense of thoughtful teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 31, 217-227. doi:10.1111/0362-6784.00193 [2] Bell, J. (1993). Doing your research project (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press. [3] Bernhardt, E. B. (2006). Student learning outcomes as professional development and public relations. Modern Language Journal, 90, 588- 590. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_5.x [4] Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research. Cambridge: Polity Press. [5] Byrnes, H. (2006). Perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 574-576. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_1.x [6] Byrnes, H. (2008). Owning up to ownership of foreign language program outcomes assessment. ADFL Bulletin, 39, 28-30. doi:10.1632/adfl.39.2.28 [7] Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer. [8] Carsten-Wickham, B. (2008). Assessment and foreign languages: A chair’s perspective. ADFL Bulletin, 39, 36-43. doi:10.1632/adfl.39.2.36 [9] Chase, G. (2006). Focusing on learning: Reframing our roles. Modern Language Journal, 90, 583-588. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_3.x [10] Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. (2007). SPSS Version 14.0 for windows: Analysis without anguish. Milton: John Wiley & Sons. [11] Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 5-28. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00091-4 [12] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge. [13] Elder, C. (2009). Reconciling accountability and development needs in heritage language education: A communication challenge for the evaluation consultant. Language Teaching Research, 13, 15-33. doi:10.1177/1362168808095521 [14] Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [15] Gorsuch, G. (2009). Investigating second language learner self-efficacy and future expectancy of second language use for high-stakes program evaluation. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 505-540. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01034.x [16] Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press. [17] Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: A biographical perspective. Journal of curriculum studies, 26, 45-62. doi:10.1080/0022027940260103 [18] Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program evaluation in language education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230511224 [19] Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [20] Lester, J. D. & Lester, J. D. (2010). Writing research papers: A complete Guide (13th ed.). Boston: Longman, Pearson. [21] Lynch, P. K. (1996). Language program evaluation theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [22] Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of assessing student learning outcomes in college foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 576-583. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_2.x [23] Norris, J. M. (2009). Understanding and improving language education through program evaluation: Introduction to the special issue. Language Teaching Research, 13, 7-13. doi:10.1177/1362168808095520 [24] Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: sage. [25] Reynolds, A., Ross, S. M., & Rakow, J. H. (2002). Teacher retention, teaching effectiveness, and professional preparation: A comparison of teacher professional development school and nonprofessional development school graduates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 289-303. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00070-1 [26] Rosenholtz, S. (1991). Teachers’ workplace. New York & London: Teachers College Press. [27] Ross, S. J. (2003). A diachronic coherence model for language program evaluation. Language learning, 53, 1-33. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00209 [28] Rossi, P., Freeman, H., & Lipsey, M. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [29] Sapsford, R. (1999). Survey research. London: Sage. [30] Sch?n, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Hants: Aldershot. [31] Shawer, S. F. (2010a). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26, 173-184. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.015 [32] Shawer, S. F. (2010b). Classroom-level teacher professional development and satisfaction: Teachers learn in the context of classroom- level curriculum development. Professional Development in Education, 36, 597-620. doi:10.1080/19415257.2010.489802 [33] Shawer, S. F. (2011). Curriculum design. URL (last checked 3 March 2012). http:// oxfordbibliographiesonline.com [34] Shawer, S. F. (2012). Standardized assessment and test construction without anguish: The complete step-by-step guide to test design, administration, scoring, analysis, and interpretation. New York: Nova Science Publishers. [35] Shawer, S., Gilmore, D., & Banks-Joseph, S. (2008). Student cognitive and affective development in the context of classroom-level curriculum development. Journal of the scholarship of teaching and learning, 8, 1-28. [36] Stake, R. E. (2011). Program evaluation particularly responsive evaluation. Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 7, 180-201. [37] Sullivan, J. H. (2006). The importance of program evaluation in collegiate foreign language programs. Modern Language Journal, 90, 590-593. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_6.x
[1] Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2001). Reflection-in action: In defense of thoughtful teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 31, 217-227. doi:10.1111/0362-6784.00193 [2] Bell, J. (1993). Doing your research project (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press. [3] Bernhardt, E. B. (2006). Student learning outcomes as professional development and public relations. Modern Language Journal, 90, 588- 590. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_5.x [4] Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research. Cambridge: Polity Press. [5] Byrnes, H. (2006). Perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 574-576. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_1.x [6] Byrnes, H. (2008). Owning up to ownership of foreign language program outcomes assessment. ADFL Bulletin, 39, 28-30. doi:10.1632/adfl.39.2.28 [7] Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer. [8] Carsten-Wickham, B. (2008). Assessment and foreign languages: A chair’s perspective. ADFL Bulletin, 39, 36-43. doi:10.1632/adfl.39.2.36 [9] Chase, G. (2006). Focusing on learning: Reframing our roles. Modern Language Journal, 90, 583-588. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_3.x [10] Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. (2007). SPSS Version 14.0 for windows: Analysis without anguish. Milton: John Wiley & Sons. [11] Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 5-28. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00091-4 [12] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge. [13] Elder, C. (2009). Reconciling accountability and development needs in heritage language education: A communication challenge for the evaluation consultant. Language Teaching Research, 13, 15-33. doi:10.1177/1362168808095521 [14] Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [15] Gorsuch, G. (2009). Investigating second language learner self-efficacy and future expectancy of second language use for high-stakes program evaluation. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 505-540. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01034.x [16] Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press. [17] Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: A biographical perspective. Journal of curriculum studies, 26, 45-62. doi:10.1080/0022027940260103 [18] Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program evaluation in language education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230511224 [19] Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [20] Lester, J. D. & Lester, J. D. (2010). Writing research papers: A complete Guide (13th ed.). Boston: Longman, Pearson. [21] Lynch, P. K. (1996). Language program evaluation theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [22] Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of assessing student learning outcomes in college foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 576-583. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_2.x [23] Norris, J. M. (2009). Understanding and improving language education through program evaluation: Introduction to the special issue. Language Teaching Research, 13, 7-13. doi:10.1177/1362168808095520 [24] Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: sage. [25] Reynolds, A., Ross, S. M., & Rakow, J. H. (2002). Teacher retention, teaching effectiveness, and professional preparation: A comparison of teacher professional development school and nonprofessional development school graduates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 289-303. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00070-1 [26] Rosenholtz, S. (1991). Teachers’ workplace. New York & London: Teachers College Press. [27] Ross, S. J. (2003). A diachronic coherence model for language program evaluation. Language learning, 53, 1-33. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00209 [28] Rossi, P., Freeman, H., & Lipsey, M. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [29] Sapsford, R. (1999). Survey research. London: Sage. [30] Sch?n, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Hants: Aldershot. [31] Shawer, S. F. (2010a). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26, 173-184. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.015 [32] Shawer, S. F. (2010b). Classroom-level teacher professional development and satisfaction: Teachers learn in the context of classroom- level curriculum development. Professional Development in Education, 36, 597-620. doi:10.1080/19415257.2010.489802 [33] Shawer, S. F. (2011). Curriculum design. URL (last checked 3 March 2012). http:// oxfordbibliographiesonline.com [34] Shawer, S. F. (2012). Standardized assessment and test construction without anguish: The complete step-by-step guide to test design, administration, scoring, analysis, and interpretation. New York: Nova Science Publishers. [35] Shawer, S., Gilmore, D., & Banks-Joseph, S. (2008). Student cognitive and affective development in the context of classroom-level curriculum development. Journal of the scholarship of teaching and learning, 8, 1-28. [36] Stake, R. E. (2011). Program evaluation particularly responsive evaluation. Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 7, 180-201. [37] Sullivan, J. H. (2006). The importance of program evaluation in collegiate foreign language programs. Modern Language Journal, 90, 590-593. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_6.x