Assignment 2

Provus’ Discrepancy model can be used to evaluate educational programs. It would be an appropriate model for the evaluation of the ESC Programming for Children with Severe Disabilities. Evaluators employing this model gather evidence of compliance with established standards, identify any discrepancies between the standards and actual performance, and recommend corrective actions if necessary (Regan, Triggs, Mitsopoulos, Duncan, Godley, & Wallace, 2000).

In order to begin an evaluation using the Discrepancy model, clear and specific program goals must be established. The school board in this case has so far failed to do so as it only mentions that a “child’s program must meet the child’s needs” and includes an inspirational quote that describes how “teachers should lead children to mystery” and help them “unlock the beauty” in what they see (Medicine Hat Separate Regional Division #20, 2009). These hints at the mission of the program are much too vague to be measured or to help define the success and direction of the program. Participating in a Discrepancy evaluation will force the school division to establish some explicit goals for this program.

In addition to determining clear objectives for the program, the first stage of the Discrepancy model is concerned with program design (Rose & Nyre, 1977). The school board has clearly delineated the students who are eligible for the program, the staff that need to be involved, the required time allotment, and the documentation necessary. The program has its regulations clearly outlined but neglects to include information on possible activities that should be engaged in to meet the program goals therefore in addition to program goals, program developers need to ascertain suitable learning activities that can be included in this program.

The second stage of the Discrepancy model involves ensuring that the implemented program is congruent with the school board’s plan (Rose & Nyre, 1977). The evaluators need to ensure that the programs’ regulations are indeed being followed. The evaluators should determine if all children in the division with severe disabilities are able to access the program, whether all children participating in the program do meet the eligibility standards, if staff is properly qualified, and if required time allotments and documentation are being completed.

The third stage is a formative evaluation as it focuses on the program’s process. At this point, the evaluator begins to examine the alignment between the program’s standards and its performance (Rose & Nyre, 1977) in order to refine the program to maximize its instructional effectiveness during the development process (Regan et al., 2000).

It is during the fourth stage that the product of the program is assessed by comparing student attainment with the standards and objectives of the program (Rose & Nyre, 1977). Any discrepancies are determined at this time and the reasons for these discrepancies are investigated (Regan et al., 2000). Steps are then taken to eliminate the discrepancies (Regan et al., 2000). If students’ academic and behavioural achievement has not increased according to the program’s standards then corrective actions can be taken (Regan et al., 2000). The Discrepancy model lends itself equally well to both quantitative and qualitative methods (Regan et al., 2000). In determining if the majority of children have benefitted from their participation, not only should academic and behavioural assessment scores be considered but the children, parents, teachers, and other professional staff should be interviewed to determine their satisfaction with the program.

Finally, stage five involves a cost-benefit analysis (Rose & Nyre, 1977). The program can be compared to other similar programs in order to determine if this program is cost-effective and whether the program needs to be modified in order to improve outcomes for students in the future.



References

Medicine Hat Catholic Separate Regional School Division No. 20. (2009). ECS

programming for children with severe disabilities. Retrieved from

http://www.mhcbe.ab.ca/ on September 12, 2009.


Regan, M. A., Triggs, T. J., Mitsopoulos, E., Duncan, C. C., Godley, S. T. & Wallace, P.

(2000). Provus’ discrepancy evaluation of the Drivesmart novice driver CD-Rom

training product. Retrieved from

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS000047.pdf?check=1 on September 12,

2009.

Rose, C. & Nyre, G. (1977). The practice of evaluation. Retrieved September 6, 2009,

from,

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019

b/80/35/ad/cc.pdf