Development of a model for context evaluation of community college competency-based curricula Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/4t64gq648

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study was to develop and field test a model for context evaluation of objectives used in competency-based curricula at the community college level. The study: 1. Developed a decision and information matrix that identified objectives which should be considered for deletion from the given curriculum. 2. Determined whether each objective in the revised curriculum was an improvement over its counterpart in the original curriculum. 3. Determined, for each objective in the original curriculum as well as the revised curriculum, whether there were significant differences in ratings given by the five juries. Procedure: An overview of the procedure is as follows: 1. The research instrument was developed and then refined via field tests. 2. A competency-based community college course was selected for the study. The selected course was "Soils and Drainage'," which was a three-credit hour course in the first year of the Landscape Technology program at Portland Community College. 3. Five juries were used in this study. The juries were: a. Students' Jury b. Program Completers' Jury c. Non-Advisory Committee Experts' Jury d. Advisory Committee Jury e. Instructors' Jury 4. In April 1978, all five juries met at the College for a luncheon or dinner meeting to evaluate the 109 objectives in the Soils and Drainage course. 5. The following statistical data was computed on the Statistical Package for the Social_Sciences at Oregon State University: a. 218 Paired "t" Tests b. 218 One-Way Analysis of Variance Tests c. Five Least Significant Difference Tests (LSD Test) d. Five Student-Newman-Keuls Tests 6. Based on the statistical data and written comments made by the jury members, some objectives were added, deleted, or modified. The title of the course was also changed. 7. In October 1978, the revised curriculum was evaluated by the same juries. 8. The same statistical tests were run on the revised curriculum as were run on the original curriculum. In addition, the Wilcoxon Matched- Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was used to compare the original curriculum and the revised curriculum. 9. The study report was written. Conclusions: The conclusions listed below are based upon findings of the study. Such conclusions may, or may not, have applicability beyond this study. The conclusions of this study are: 1. Use of the context evaluation model developed in this study can identify objectives which are not appropriate for the stated purposes of a given curriculum. Elimination of such objectives has implications for all levels of education because errors in the selection of objectives can be costly in terms of staffing, facilities, equipment, materials, and can be a poor investment for the taxpayer as well as a waste of time and money for the students. 2. Knowledgeable individuals from outside the educational institution will reject few, if any, of the objectives for a given curriculum if the development and evaluation model presented in this study is utilized. 3. With respect to objectives developed by the model presented in this study, there will be no significant difference in the ratings given by instructors as compared to ratings given by other juries representing students and knowledgeable individuals from outside the educational institution. 4. Students' and instructors' ratings of the revised curriculum will be much closer to each other than were their ratings of the original curriculum. 5. The Matrix for Analysis of Rated Competencies (MARC) is an effective tool for organizing and displaying the statistical information regarding each objective, as well as for assisting the instructional team in making decisions regarding the objectives.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Degree Level
Degree Name
Degree Field
Degree Grantor
Commencement Year
Advisor
Committee Member
Academic Affiliation
Non-Academic Affiliation
Subject
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed
Language
Digitization Specifications
  • File scanned at 300 ppi (Monochrome, 256 Grayscale) using Capture Perfect 3.0.82 on a Canon DR-9080C in PDF format. CVista PdfCompressor 4.0 was used for pdf compression and textual OCR.
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-10-15T17:13:05Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 NoonanArthurBarry1979.pdf: 1665847 bytes, checksum: 451bac7c527ccd23f2ac8505da44d114 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Kirsten Clark(kcscannerosu@gmail.com) on 2013-10-25T18:43:49Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 NoonanArthurBarry1979.pdf: 1665847 bytes, checksum: 451bac7c527ccd23f2ac8505da44d114 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Kirsten Clark (kcscannerosu@gmail.com) on 2013-10-10T19:14:21Z No. of bitstreams: 1 NoonanArthurBarry1979.pdf: 1665847 bytes, checksum: 451bac7c527ccd23f2ac8505da44d114 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2013-10-25T18:43:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 NoonanArthurBarry1979.pdf: 1665847 bytes, checksum: 451bac7c527ccd23f2ac8505da44d114 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1979-03-26

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Last modified

Downloadable Content

Download PDF

Items