Exploring the Suitability of an English for Health Sciences Program: Model and Report of a Self-Evaluation Process
Keywords:Evaluation, program self-evaluation, self-evaluation models, CBI, curriculum
Program evaluation is a process of carefully collecting information in order to make informed decisions to strengthen speci c components of a given program. The type of evalua- tion an institution decides to undertake depends on the purpose as well as on the information the institution wants to nd out about its program. Self-evaluation represents a tool that institutions can rely on to follow up on the quality and pertinence of their programs. This tool can provide important information in relation to the relevance of outcomes, content, methodology, materials, and assessment along with the perceptions of the program from stakeholders such as students, teachers, and administrators. The results of a self-evaluation can guide the decision-making process in an institution to strengthen each of the components of a set curriculum. This paper presents the self-evaluation process conducted by an English for Health Sciences program to determine the suitability of the curriculum in place. It rst presents models through which a program can self-evaluate. Then, it elaborates on the model chosen and the steps followed in the self-evaluation process of the English for Health Sciences Program as well as the results obtained from the experience and the subsequent adjustments made to the program. The readers may use this experience as a point of reference to implement a similar process in their own contexts.
Alstete, Jeffrey W.. College Accreditation: Managing Internal Revitalization and Public Respect. New York, US: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 3 September 2016.
Bowen, Glenn A. (2009). 'Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method', Qualitative Research Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 27-40. DOI 10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Clarke, J. (1996). Managing Better 03: A Guide to Self-Evaluation. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.
Developing an effective evaluation report: Setting the course for effective program evaluation. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, 2013.
Fernández, N. (2003). Higher Education, Quality Evaluation and Accreditation in Latin America and MERCOSUR. European Journal of Education, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 253-269 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1503502 Accessed: 02-09-2016 22:44 UTC
Fitzpatrick, J., J. Sanders, and B. Worthen. (2004). Program Evaluation. Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Boston: Pearson.
Guerra-López, Ingrid J.. Research Methods for the Social Sciences: Performance Evaluation: Proven Approaches for Improving Program and Organizational Performance (1). Somerset, US: Jossey-Bass, 2012. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 29 September 2016.
Katrina L. Bledsoe, and Graham, J. The Use of Multiple Evaluation Approaches in Program Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 26 No. 3, September 2005 302-319 DOI: 10.1177/1098214005278749 © 2005 American Evaluation Association
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, Donna M., and Wilson, Amy T.. Program Evaluation Theory and Practice : A Comprehensive Guide. New York, US: The Guilford Press, 2012. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 4 September 2016.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rennekamp, R., & Nall, M. (2008). Using focus groups in program development and evaluation. UK Cooperative Extension Services. Retrieved September 30, 2016.
Spaulding, Dean T.. Research Methods for the Social Sciences : Program Evaluation in Practice : Core Concepts and Examples for Discussion and Analysis (2). Somerset, US: Jossey-Bass, 2014. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 4 September 2016.
Schaeffer,D.R. and Dillman, D.A. (1998). development of a standard E-mail methodology: Results from an experiment. Public Opinion Quartely. 62, 378-397.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L., and Coryn, Chris L. S.. Research Methods for the Social Sciences : Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications (2). Somerset, US: Jossey-Bass, 2014. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 7 September 2016.
Taylor-Powell, E., & Hermann, C. University of Wisconsin Extension, Cooperative Extension. (2000).Collecting evaluation data: Surveys. Retrieved September 30, 2016.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
This journal and its papers are published with the Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). You are free to share copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format if you: give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made; don’t use our material for commercial purposes; don’t remix, transform, or build upon the material.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).