ASSESSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INNOVATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM
| Pages | 107-118 |
| Date | 01 January 1976 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009748 |
| Published date | 01 January 1976 |
| Author | WILLIAM EVANS,JOHN W. SHEFFLER |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XIV, No. 1 May, 1976
ASSESSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN IN-
NOVATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM
WILLIAM EVANS AND JOHN W. SHEFFLER
Many evaluation paradigms consider three rather similar concepts: input; implementation;
and output. Until recently, little attention has been paid to the implementation phase of
evaluation, which seems to be a critical area in need of assessment by both administrators
and evaluators. The literature relating to implementation has tended to document the need
for implementation studies, but has not been very useful in describing, in practical terms,
how one may go about the process of assessing implementation or the subsequent use of
such data for administrative feedback. This paper discusses the development and use of an
implementation scale and describes basic characteristics of the instrument. Some obtained
data are presented and possible interpretations of
the
data offered. The data would seem to
indicate that instructional systems are not implemented fully in many schools. A second
section of the paper presents correlational data obtained from the implementation instru-
ment and variables that may be related to the degree of implementation of
a
classroom in-
novation. The innovative nature of the school, the climate established by the administrator,
the existence of continuous training programs and staff
and
student attitudes were found to
correlate significantly with degree of implementation.
INTRODUCTION
As the term implementation may have various connotations, it seems
best to provide the reader a frame of reference by relating the central
theme of this paper to a general evaluation paradigm. As Austin and
Panos1 note, an educational program can be conceived as comprising three
components: inputs; operations; and outputs. The three components of
this model closely resemble Stake's2 three evaluative components: antece-
dents;
transactions; and outcomes. Stufflebeam3 lists four evaluation com-
ponents: context; input; process; and product. Lindvall and Cox4 identify
four steps to be considered in the evaluative process: goal definition; plans;
operation; and assessment. In essence, all of these evaluation paradigms
consider identical concepts: input; implementation; and output. The focus
of this paper is on implementation.
Charter and Jones discuss some possible hazards of program evalua-
tion:
What is not standard practice in evaluation studies is to describe, let alone
measure, how the programs in "experimental" and "control" situations actual-
ly differ from one another—or even to certify that they do. A serious conse-
WILLIAM EVANS is with the School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Evans
holds the degrees of M.Ed. (Temple), M.S. and Ed.D. (Pennsylvania). JOHN W. SHEF-
FLER, who holds the degrees of B.S. (Indiana, Pa.) and M.Ed. (Pittsburgh) is Principal of
Godwin Elementary School, Midland Park, New Jersey.
To continue reading
Request your trial