确定改进美利坚合众国环境教育评价过程的领域和方法

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
K. C. Anderson, M. Stern, R. B. Powell
{"title":"确定改进美利坚合众国环境教育评价过程的领域和方法","authors":"K. C. Anderson, M. Stern, R. B. Powell","doi":"10.1080/00958964.2022.2122918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Evaluation has not been used to its fullest potential in environmental education (EE). Pressures from external stakeholders can cause organizations to focus on reporting requirements at the expense of conducting evaluations that support programmatic improvement. Understanding practitioners’ satisfaction with their evaluation processes and the drivers of this satisfaction may reveal strategies for improving evaluation processes in the field of EE. We administered an online survey to EE practitioners in the United States via email and social media. Our results indicate low satisfaction with evaluation processes overall, but greater satisfaction from organizations engaged in systematic formal evaluation, particularly processes focused on adaptive management and programmatic improvement, when compared to evaluations focused on satisfying external accountabilities or using informal evaluation processes based on nonsystematic observation and reflection. Our results also highlight current gaps in using evaluation for adaptive management and for furthering diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the field.","PeriodicalId":47893,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Education","volume":"53 1","pages":"290 - 303"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying areas and approaches for improving evaluation processes in environmental education in the United States of America\",\"authors\":\"K. C. Anderson, M. Stern, R. B. Powell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00958964.2022.2122918\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Evaluation has not been used to its fullest potential in environmental education (EE). Pressures from external stakeholders can cause organizations to focus on reporting requirements at the expense of conducting evaluations that support programmatic improvement. Understanding practitioners’ satisfaction with their evaluation processes and the drivers of this satisfaction may reveal strategies for improving evaluation processes in the field of EE. We administered an online survey to EE practitioners in the United States via email and social media. Our results indicate low satisfaction with evaluation processes overall, but greater satisfaction from organizations engaged in systematic formal evaluation, particularly processes focused on adaptive management and programmatic improvement, when compared to evaluations focused on satisfying external accountabilities or using informal evaluation processes based on nonsystematic observation and reflection. Our results also highlight current gaps in using evaluation for adaptive management and for furthering diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Education\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"290 - 303\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2022.2122918\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Education","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2022.2122918","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要评价在环境教育中尚未充分发挥其潜力。来自外部利益攸关方的压力可能导致各组织将重点放在报告要求上,而牺牲了进行支持方案改进的评价。了解从业者对其评估过程的满意度以及这种满意度的驱动因素,可以揭示改善EE领域评估过程的策略。我们通过电子邮件和社交媒体对美国的EE从业者进行了一项在线调查。我们的结果表明,总体上对评估过程的满意度较低,但参与系统正式评估的组织,特别是侧重于适应性管理和方案改进的过程,满意度更高,与侧重于满足外部问责或使用基于非系统观察和反思的非正式评价程序的评价相比。我们的研究结果还强调了目前在使用评估进行适应性管理以及促进该领域的多样性、公平性和包容性方面的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying areas and approaches for improving evaluation processes in environmental education in the United States of America
Abstract Evaluation has not been used to its fullest potential in environmental education (EE). Pressures from external stakeholders can cause organizations to focus on reporting requirements at the expense of conducting evaluations that support programmatic improvement. Understanding practitioners’ satisfaction with their evaluation processes and the drivers of this satisfaction may reveal strategies for improving evaluation processes in the field of EE. We administered an online survey to EE practitioners in the United States via email and social media. Our results indicate low satisfaction with evaluation processes overall, but greater satisfaction from organizations engaged in systematic formal evaluation, particularly processes focused on adaptive management and programmatic improvement, when compared to evaluations focused on satisfying external accountabilities or using informal evaluation processes based on nonsystematic observation and reflection. Our results also highlight current gaps in using evaluation for adaptive management and for furthering diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.90%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Any educator in the environmental field will find The Journal of Environmental Education indispensable. Based on recent research in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, the journal details how best to present environmental issues and how to evaluate programs already in place for primary through university level and adult students. University researchers, park and recreation administrators, and teachers from the United States and abroad provide new analyses of the instruction, theory, methods, and practices of environmental communication and education in peer-reviewed articles. Reviews of the most recent books, textbooks, videos, and other educational materials by experts in the field appear regularly.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信