Evolution of Evaluation and Assessment in Diverse Audiences in the Digital Age

Abstract:

Over the past decades, researchers have learned more about how people think and act and about the social and political aspects of teaching and learning. This understanding has brought changes in researchers’ and practitioners’ interactions with diverse groups and individuals. This paper addresses evaluation, a process that measures the degree to which learning and project goals are met and factors contributing to or hindering outcomes. Parallels are drawn to learning assessment.

The concepts of inclusion, participation, and constructivism (Mertens, 1999; Mertens and Hopson, 2006) now drive best evaluation practices for projects with persons with disabilities (AEA, 2011). This is also true in cases of other people who have been marginalized in STEM fields, e.g. women and underrepresented groups. Inclusion of these stakeholders has important implications for the validity of an evaluation, including the accuracy of results (Jacobson et al, 2012; Gill, 1999; Lee, 1999). The American Indian Higher Education Consortium’s framework for indigenous groups incorporates their values and goals into evaluation design and implementation. It is feasible to include participant input in designing the questions and methods of obtaining data, ensuring that issues of access, opportunity, and power (Shuffelbeam, 2001) are taken into consideration.

Geoscience projects with u-learning and m-learning provide opportunities to test these theoretical models in innovative programs such as: field work for students with physical disability; underrepresented minority, secondary students using mobile devices in contextualized learning in informal settings; and graduate students using digital maps to enhance traditional field work. This study compares program evaluation methodology of tradition learning with that of programs for diverse groups of students using digital technology.

Ref: Mertens doi:10.1177/109821409902000102; Mertens and Hopson DOI: 10.1002/ev.177; AEA http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=92; Jacobson et al DOI 10.1177/1098214012461558; Gill DOI:10.1016/S1098-2140(99)00018-1; Lee DOI: 10.1177/109821409902000210; Shuffelbeam ISBN: 978-0-7879-5755-1