Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Claremont Graduate University, United States;2. California State University, Los Angeles, United States;1. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, United States;2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, United States;3. Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, United States;1. Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;2. Gilling School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;3. Kilimanjaro Clinical Research Institute, Moshi, Tanzania;4. Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania;5. Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Moshi, Tanzania;6. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK;7. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;1. Reproductive Health Division, Center for Population Research, National Institute of Public Health. Mexico, Av. Universidad 655, Col. Santa María Ahuacatitlán, CP 62100, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico;2. CONACYT – Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, 7a. Cerrada de Fray Pedro de Gante #50, Col. Sección XVI, Tlalpan, C.P. 14080, Ciudad de México, Mexico;1. Miyazaki International College, Miyazaki, Japan;2. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, United States;1. School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia, 6845, Australia;2. Collaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health (CERIPH), School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia, 6845, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | This article conceptualises the problem of selecting teaching content that supports the practice of programme evaluation. Knowledge for evaluation practice falls within one of three categories of knowledge that are defined by the different roles they play in supporting practice. First, core knowledge relates to the defining activity of evaluation practice, i.e., that it informs the intellectual task of the determination of a programme’s value. Second, accessory knowledge informs activities that support and facilitate the concretisation of the previous activity in a delivery context (e.g., stakeholder participation, evaluation use, project management, etc.). Third and finally, supplementary knowledge informs activities that may, on occasion, occur during evaluation practice, but without relating to the determination of value, either inherently or in a support role. The selection of knowledge for the teaching of evaluation must match the knowledge needed for the pursuit of effective evaluation practice: core, accessory, and supplementary knowledge. The specifics of these three needs ultimately depend on the characteristics of a given practice. The selection of content for the teaching of evaluation should ideally address these specific needs with the best knowledge available, regardless of its disciplinary origins. |
| |
| Keywords: | Evaluation teaching Evaluation practice Evaluation knowledge Evaluation theory |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
