Evaluation of the Cooperative Demonstration Program (High Technology): First Year Report.

Autor/inn/en	Bateman, Peter; und weitere
Institution	COSMOS Corp., Washington, DC.
Titel	Evaluation of the Cooperative Demonstration Program (High Technology): First Year Report.
Quelle	(1991), (127 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Continuing Education; Cost Effectiveness; Curriculum Development; Demonstration Programs; Disabilities; Disadvantaged; Education Work Relationship; Educational Cooperation; Educational Innovation; Federal Programs; Grants; Job Training; Labor Force Development; Postsecondary Education; Program Design; Program Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Program Implementation; School Business Relationship; Technological Advancement; Vocational Education + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Weiterbildung; Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse; Kosten-Nutzen-Denken; Curriculum; Development; Curriculumentwicklung; Lehrplan; Entwicklung; Handicap; Behinderung; Education; cooperation; Kooperation; Instructional innovation; Bildungsinnovation; Grant; Finanzielle Beihilfe; Berufsqualifizierender Bildungsgang; Arbeitskräftebestand; Post-secondary education; Tertiäre Bildung; Programme design; Programmaufbau; Programmplanung; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Technological development; Technologische Entwicklung; Ausbildung; Berufsbildung
Abstract	Twenty-three projects funded by the Cooperative Demonstration Program (High Technology) in Fiscal Year 1988 were evaluated. The evaluation focused on project logic and design, implementation, and costs and benefits. Thirteen of the 23 applications were found to present clear and coherent design for their projects. Success was predicted for eight projects selected for site visits and then compared with actual success based on numbers of students trained. Clarity and coherence of the application were not a good predictor of success. The success in implementation was measured by the extent to which the project met its goals and objectives regarding student training, partnership development, and curriculum development. Projects emphasized one or more of four different activities, each with different outcomes: direct training services to students, curriculum development, staff development, and curriculum or other dissemination. The lack of innovation within and across projects might have been due to the absence of a priority for it in the regulations or points rewarded for it in the scoring of applications. Five of the eight projects visited were able to implement their proposed plan. For seven of the eight projects, project costs were reasonable in relation to project outcomes. Changes in the study design and procedures were recommended for the second year. (YLB)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC