Program Evaluation Standards:

To ensure that the evaluation is effective, ethical and responsibly performed, it is important to maintain prescribed standards.

This evaluation has been designed in line with The Program Evaluation Standards drawn from: The Joint Committee on Standards for Educations Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (ed.): The Program evaluation Standards, 2nd edition. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, USA, p.23-24; 63; 81-82, 125-126

The document referenced can be found here.

Utility Standards:

U1 Stakeholder Identification: Students, Canadian Teachers, Chinese staff (administrative, education assistants, homeroom teachers), Canadian Administration.

U2 Evaluator Credibility: Evaluator is a master's student currently taking a course in program evaluation. The evaluation is being developed transparently, and with feedback solicited from classmates and the course supervisor, Dr. Syer.

U3 Information Scope and Selection: Prior to data collection, stakeholders will be engaged in the evaluation, reflecting on the current effectiveness of the program and their own perceptions of it. From here, the evaluation will commence to highlight and emphasize perceptions, experiences and room for growth. The evaluation has been designed so as to be adaptable and satisificing (Shulha and Cousins, 1997).

U4 Values Identification: Grounding the program in a participatory evaluation approach, data will be collected and analyzed by representatives from each stakeholder group. As a result, all invested parties will contribute towards data analysis and as such all voices will be heard. Extra emphasis will be put on communication and appreciation for all stakeholder opinions.

U5 Report Clarity: Continued development of this program evaluation outlining current progress, and being accessible to all stakeholders as well as outside review (members of the Queen's GDPI/PME community).

U6 Report Timeliness and Dissemination: Use of website to reach all stakeholders. Development of evaluation timeline at the commencement of the evaluation to maintain accountability.

U7 Evaluation Impact: As mentioned above, and outlined in the evaluation impact section, found here.

Feasibility Standards:

F1 Practical Procedures: Holding interactive seminars during designated professional development time periods. Engaging with volunteers after-school during a designated time period.

F2 Political Viability: A focus on appreciative inquiry and participatory evaluation involving all stakeholder parties will assist in developing a collaborative atmosphere. Developing the evaluation with an intention to 'satisifice' so as to remain flexible in the face of political opposition from stakeholder groups.

F3 Cost Effectiveness: Conducting the evaluation with the co-operation of administrative staff so that any potential costs can be justified. In all likelihood, the evaluation will only take time and not money, and so by soliciting help from volunteers and proceeding with their assistance, time used will be easily justified and validated.

Proprietary Standards:

P1 Service Orientation: Including representatives from each stakeholder group throughout the entire project.

P2 Formal Agreements: Showing the evaluation plan to administrative staff before engaging in it. Outlining expectations clearly to volunteers at the first meeting. Co-created expectations and timetables that are committed to paper and signed before starting.

P3 Rights of Human Subjects: Developing a participatory evaluation based on appreciative inquiry so that all voices are heard and respected. Allowing for private discussion and anonymous feedback to develop a 'safe environment'.

P4 Human Interactions: As mentioned above, planning for collaboration and positive feedback, as well as private and anonymous ways to submit concerns.

P5 Complete and Fair Assessment: Developing the evaluation with all involved stakeholder groups, and collaboratively outlining experiences/presumptions regarding the program prior to data collection will allow for a wide survey to be conducted, taking into account all praise and concerns directed at the program. Stakeholders will be involved in each step of the evaluation.

P6 Disclosure of Findings: Recording of all findings that can be publicly distributed upon the website. Other information will be released to interested parties after legally required limitations and anonymizations have taken place.

P7 Conflict of Interest: Allowing for each stakeholder group to have a voice as well as private and anonymous feedback solicitation will help to highlight any latent conflicts of interest that exist. Once revealed, these can be dealt with openly and transparently.

P8 Fiscal Responsibility: All expenses will be anticipated, justified and accounted for prior to any money changing hands.

Accuracy Standards:

A1 Program Documentation: This website, as well as all information therein, will also be made available to involved parties as a digital PDF file. Print copies will be made available upon request.

A2 Context Analysis: The TAC program has been detailed extensively throughout this website, including logic models and conceptual frameworks.

A3 Described Purposes and Procedures: Clear documentation of procedures planned and undertaken will be made available to all involved parties and clearly represented.

A4 Defensible Information Sources: Information sources and data-collection methods will be collaboratively developed by stakeholders prior to commencement of information gathering. All invested parties will have a voice and opportunity to question unreliable sources.

A5 Valid Information: Information gathered will be made available in the raw, as well as compiled with relevant conclusions. The compilation and conclusions will be developed collaboratively by stakeholders and as such checked by multiple parties for validity.

A6 Reliable Information: Information gathering methods will be developed based on pertinent literature and the contribution of invested stakeholders.

A7 Systematic Information: Data collection methods will be collaboratively developed. The process of data collection will be collaboratively handled. Data analysis will be collaboratively undertaken. As a result, all information will pass through multiple sets of eyes and errors found will be dealt with in a formalized method. Errors will be documented by discoverer and corrections made (similar to Wikipedia policy).

A8-9 Analysis of Quantitative/Qualitative Information: Information analysis will proceed with reference to academic literary sources defining appropriate methods. Questions will be directed to knowledgeable and experienced parties prior to the collection of information.

A10 Justified Conclusions: Conclusions drawn will be presented to all interested stakeholder parties and explicitly justified. Criticism and comments will be encouraged at that time.

A11 Impartial Reporting: Final conclusions and reports will be read by members of all stakeholder parties, so that any prejudices may be revealed and confronted.

A12 Metaevaluation: The evaluation will take place transparently at every step, and any interested party or stakeholder will be able to formatively and summatively evaluate the effectiveness of the program.