FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W313185752> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W313185752 startingPage "11" @default.
• W313185752 abstract "Assessing impact of Extension programs, stakeholder demands for accountability and reduction in funding from federal/state/local governments for all programs are a major concern. In addition, the demand for Extension educators to demonstrate the value and usefulness of programs and services they provide is sure to increase in the next 5 to 10 years. Such demand will create more opportunities for Extension educators to document impact of program outcomes and services to target authences. Higher education institutions, like all public agencies, have seen an increased emphasis on program performance and accountability from local, state, and federal agencies (Ladewig, 1997). This expanded requirement to document impacts of Extension programs calls for innovative ways to systematically evaluate Extension programs. The educational programs and services delivered by Extension professionals are more diverse than they have ever been and will continue to change to meet the changing needs of the clientele they serve (Radhakrishna & Martin, 1999). Today Extension educators face enormous challenges to conduct systematic evaluation of their Extension programs. These challenges have been well documented in literature: lack of time, lack of resources, limited expertise in evaluation design and methodology, instrumentation, and data analysis. Further, issues such as lack of support given to Extension evaluation, extensive reliance on simple or single methods to document program outcomes, and limited skills in interpreting and using evaluation results have accelerated the need for developing a comprehensive Extension program evaluation. Despite efforts made to conduct systematic evaluations of Extension programs, Extension evaluations do not withstand the test of scrutiny from other evaluation groups because of relevance, methodological rigor, interpretation and use. The purpose of this article is to provide a four-prong comprehensive program evaluation framework to document Extension program impact on targeted authences. Our effort here is to describe the framework in the context of an Extension program development-evaluation cycle. That is, first, a problem is identified and needs of people affected by the problem are assessed. Based on the needs assessed, an Extension program is developed, delivered, and evaluated. Figure 1 depicts the four-prong - relevance, capacity, impact, and utilizations-framework within the context of Extension program developmentevaluation cycle. Each of the four prongs of comprehensive program evaluation is briefly described in the following paragraphs. Relevance is the appropriateness of programs that address critical issues facing the nation, state, county. Key questions that one might seek to answer are: is this innovative program dealing with critical issues and concerns facing the nation, region, state, county? Have stakeholders and other groups provided input? Are program components based on recent up-to-date research-based information? Do the programs address the strategic goals? Simply put, relevance addresses the question: is Extension addressing critical issues facing society? Capacity is the ability of individuals and availability of resources to identify, develop, deliver, and evaluate programs that are relevant. Key questions related to capacity include: Is there sufficient expertise - personnel to deliver programs, especially new and emerging programs? Are there adequate enough educational resources available? Are there resources, both human and financial, to assess program outcomes and impact? Is there support and commitment from administration to develop, deliver and evaluate programs? Is there sufficient staff support to carry out the programs? Simply put, capacity addresses the question: Do we have the capacity, both human and financial to carry out Extension work? Impact refers to the effectiveness of Extension program efforts to the public good. In other words, did we make a difference? …" @default.
• W313185752 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W313185752 creator A5049725208 @default.
• W313185752 creator A5075512379 @default.
• W313185752 date "2009-05-01" @default.
• W313185752 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W313185752 title "A Framework for Comprehensive Program Evaluation" @default.
• W313185752 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W313185752 type Work @default.
• W313185752 sameAs 313185752 @default.
• W313185752 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W313185752 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W313185752 hasAuthorship W313185752A5049725208 @default.
• W313185752 hasAuthorship W313185752A5075512379 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C118518473 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C184356942 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C201305675 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C2776007630 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C2778029271 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C2778402112 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C5395021 @default.
• W313185752 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C118518473 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C17744445 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C184356942 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C18903297 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C199360897 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C199539241 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C201305675 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C2776007630 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C2776050585 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C2778029271 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C2778402112 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C3116431 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C39549134 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C41008148 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C5395021 @default.
• W313185752 hasConceptScore W313185752C86803240 @default.
• W313185752 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W313185752 hasLocation W3131857521 @default.
• W313185752 hasOpenAccess W313185752 @default.
• W313185752 hasPrimaryLocation W3131857521 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W1985335763 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W1985410131 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2019591093 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W205925222 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2060510673 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2060836849 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2074322099 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2139093807 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2145977594 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2185210583 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2271221196 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2339581195 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2571535982 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2595999102 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2605429144 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2946333717 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2955914135 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W3214438630 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2188912742 @default.
• W313185752 hasRelatedWork W2550203746 @default.
• W313185752 hasVolume "81" @default.
• W313185752 isParatext "false" @default.
• W313185752 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W313185752 magId "313185752" @default.
• W313185752 workType "article" @default.