Problem-Based Learning – Program Evaluation Proposal

Posted: January 5th, 2023

Problem-Based Learning – Program Evaluation Proposal

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Instructor

Due Date

Problem-Based Learning – Program Evaluation Proposal

Introduction

Most public schools in the U.S require that learners take one or more standardized test. The primary motive for taking the tests is to measure students’ or teachers’ ability, comprehension, understanding, knowledge, or capability in particular areas. Other than academics, standardized testing is used by professions and many other operators. Nevertheless, the idea of standardized testing continues to evoke sharp reactions among different stakeholders with some arguing that such practices are appropriate while others think that they are not as effective as others think, and that more must happen to eradicate the dissatisfaction surrounding the practice. The study is a proposal on cost-benefit analysis of standardized testing within public learning institutions in South Florida. It urges evaluators to consider the possible strengths and weaknesses of seeking information from secondary sources and performing a cost benefit analysis to acquire concrete derails about the social and cost effects of standardized testing in Florida’s public schools on teachers and students.

Background

Because of intellectual and social pressures that come with standardized testing, the chief objective for entering and sustaining a teaching career has been focused on accountability in results, or in other words those who perform better in the standardized testing appear to be the best. However, questions emerge whether such a form of assessment is fair for both instructors and learners considering that some teachers may have other motives of practicing as educators such as a result of intrinsic motivation or other factors (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Such concerns emerge at a time when standardized testing has evoked debates nationwide, especially in the recent years when both parents, learners, and teachers raise questions about its effectiveness. Meadows and Karr-Kidwell (2001) write that many parents and guardians feel understandably worried about their children being graded and judged based on the results of tests that, in some circumstances, do not appear to reliably correlate with actual learning content and activities or with successful career or school outcomes. In the U.S., both private and public learning institutions use standardized testing every academic year. In public learning facilities, for example, learners must undertake multiple examinations to make sure they achieve federal and state criteria (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Thus, it is essential to evaluate the social and cost values of standardized testing using effective approaches to know whether to keep the policy, make changes, or do away with it.

Objectives

The study aims at achieving various objectives. One key objective of the study is to illustrate the use of the cost benefit analysis approach in determining the effectiveness and efficiency of standardized testing in South Florida. The analysis approach also helps to understand the influential elements of standardized testing on teachers and learners. Another primary objective of the study is that it evaluates the benefits of the costs associated with applying standardized testing regulations that can help elevate existing educational techniques or formulate new ones.

Research Design

A suitable research design for the evaluation is a mixed-method (cost-benefit analysis) approach. The technique relies on secondary data gathered from the school systems of two counties; Miami-Dade County and Broward County, both in South Florida. The research design makes it possible to assess financial values of costs and benefits in addition to examining the intellectual and social implications stressors coming with standardized testing have on instructors and learners. Besides, the approach is the most suitable one for the evaluation because it offers the chance to understand which decisions those organizing standardized testing should take and forego. Being able to determine the total anticipated cost of an initiative contrasted with the total anticipated returns makes it easy to determine whether a program or policy as in this case is worthwhile for learners and instructors. The technique offers an opportunity to understand the possible benefits expected from a condition or practice while at the same time knowing the total costs associated with taking certain actions. The approach requires evaluators to assess then overall goals and requirements of a project and the contrast the priorities to possible setbacks to determine whether performing a cost benefit analysis is a worthwhile practice for available resources and time, and to evaluate social impacts.

A mixed-method analysis approach, which includes using cost benefit analysis is the most suitable approach because it will help to gain valuable information regarding why some people praise standardized testing while others feel that the present approach is inappropriate and more need to happen to improve teachers and student’s morale to engage in teaching and learning, respectively. Employing the research design, for example, helps to understand whether standardized testing is a suitable metric for learning progress. It is important to understand this factor because some learning institutions in South Florida use such tests to determine the quality and effectiveness of their curriculum (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Seeking information from secondary sources helps to understand whether the tests prepared and administered by an independent body and scores that come out from such exams are reliable or helpful considering that they emanate from a neutral organ and if it really provides data that learning institutions can compare to other public schools across South Florida, and possibly with other schools in the U.S. Furthermore, relying on secondary sources offers a suitable chance to know whether such tests makes it possible to identify areas for improvement (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Some learning institutions already use standardized testing to assess the effectiveness of their education programs, but utilizing an approach that permits acquisition of information from secondary sources offers a better chance to understand whether it is possible to use such tests to assess learners and instructor’s performance, but also to know whether the curriculum is effective enough and likely to meet the targeted goals (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Retrieving information from secondary sources makes it possible to decide whether utilizing data, it is possible to match learners to their fellows in other learning facilities to determine whether the institution is doing well with its teaching programs and where it needs to pay more attention (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Also, gaining information from secondary sources will make it possible to know whether standardized tests can assist learning institutions evaluate progress. Combing the generated information with cost benefit analysis helps to understand whether standardized testing is really effective and whether the benefits outweigh the costs for implementing such an exercise.

Besides, acquiring information from secondary sources will help to understand whether standardized testing has any adverse effects, and whether the costs incurred in implementing the program outweigh the benefits that come from the process. For example, evaluating approach will help to understand whether standardized testing impact on teachers and learners’ confidence (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Acquiring information from other sources may help to know whether with standardized testing it is possible to get misleading impression or judgement that a teacher’s or student’s score in the test reflects their ability (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). The technique will determine whether a student or teacher can still be competent and skilled in various areas despite failing a standardized test (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Moreover, using outside sources provides an opportunity to know whether failure in standardized testing impact on a learner’s or teacher’s confidence, and whether this could affect their future outcome. Similarly, the evaluation technique will make it possible to determine whether scores offer a true image of a student or teacher’s ability Meadows and Karr-Kidwell, 2001). The approach will help to confirm whether the argument by Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, (2001) that far too many individuals wrongly think that standardized testing offers a neutral authoritative evaluation of a learner’s intellectual capability is true or false. More fundamentally, using the mixed method approach will help to know the likely effects of sicknesses, test nervousness, newness with examination approaches, and ethnic factors on teachers’ and learners outcome in standardized tests. Thus, the information will help to identify whether there is need be more critical when looking at a teachers’ and pupils’ test outcomes, and to know whether a low score shows lack of abilities and acquaintance about a problem or matter.

Besides, collecting information from other sources offers a suitable chance to understand whether standardized testing put some pressure on teachers. It will help to acquire clear information concerning the argument that when standardized testing become part of a learning institution or district, it has a significant effect on learning and teaching (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Seeking information from various sources provides a suitable chance to know whether it is true or not that teachers usually begin to teach for the exam if they think their work and reputation largely depend learners’ performance. In addition, gaining relevant information from other sources offers a suitable chance to know whether enacted restrictions may derail how instructors try new teaching styles in the classroom with the fear that such new techniques may affect learners’ performance in the standardized testing (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Also, using secondary sources will help to know if instructors become apprehensive each time their students sit for exam that a skill they have not addressed in class may be tested resulting in poor results (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Employing cost benefit analysis in this instance provides an opportunity to understand whether the demerits or limitations associated with standardized testing are worth the costs administrators encounter in offering such tests.

Gaining information from secondary sources offers a suitable chance to know the social implications of standardized testing on both teachers and students in public schools in South Florida. The evaluation technique offers an opportunity to know whether standardized testing deters teachers’ from enjoying the pride that comes with the profession, and whether learners experience some social drawbacks by taking the tests. For instance, retrieving information from secondary sources allows evaluators to know whether or not standardized testing make teachers feel less competent and cannot refer to their professions in other settings when they fail the tests (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Besides, gaining relevant information from credible sources offers an opportunity to know whether or not teachers who fail in standardized testing reduce how they relate with instructors who excel in the test. In addition, assessing different secondary sources will help to understand whether standardized testing affect a teacher’s relationship with members of the family or not (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Reading and evaluating what other scholars write about standardized testing will help to understand whether learners face similar social issues occurring as a result of standardized testing, or whether the test does not have any social effects on students (Meadows & Karr-Kidwell, 2001). Consequently, assessing different credible sources helps to know whether it is worth to put financial investment in the program, or whether there is need to halt or transform the initiative.

Benefits of Using Secondary Sources

Evaluators should acquire information from various sources because this offers an opportunity to enjoy various benefits that come with using the technique. One of the merits for using secondary sources to evaluate the effectiveness of standardized testing is ease of access. The Internet has transformed the way people access secondary sources (Martins, Cunha & Serra, 2018). Nowadays, people have adequate information by just surfing the Internet and visiting particular sites (Martins, Cunha & Serra, 2018). Consequently, it would be easier to gain relevant information about the possible social effects of standardized testing and its cost benefits. Besides ease of access, one does not have to spend a lot of money to get secondary sources. Martins, Cunha, and Serra (2018) inform that most of secondary sources are either free or of low cost, especially when accessing them through the Internet. The advantage will save evaluators not only their money but their effort as well effort. Contrasted with primary research when a researcher must design and perform the entire study from the start, secondary research permits one to collect data without having to spend much on using relevant sources (Martins, Cunha & Serra, 2018). Secondary sources are advantageous in examining the social effects of standardized testing on learners and teachers because it permits a researcher to acquire new insight from past analysis taking into account that reanalyzing past data can foster unanticipated new comprehension and points of view or even new pertinent conclusions. The other reason why evaluators should use secondary sources is that the process does not require complex techniques and skills to acquire the relevant data. Martins, Cunha, and Serra (2018) assert that secondary data research be conducted by people who are not experts in the field. The many benefits that come with secondary sources should be enough reason why evaluators seeking to understand the possible effects of standardized testing should use the technique.

Benefits of using Cost Benefit Analysis

Using cost benefit analysis is advantageous because it helps to understand whether administrators of the policy because it has many benefits or make an alternative choice. The approach is beneficial because it is data-driven, which makes it easy to come up with the best solution (Hwang, 2016). For example, administrators may choose to withdraw financial investment from the policy when it is apparent that most teachers and learners do not support it because of its adverse social effects. On the other hand, investors may decide to put more investment in the policy when it proves to be effective in improving teachers and learners’ competence and skills. The other reason why implementers of the policy should embrace the cost benefit analysis is that it makes decisions simpler when faced with complex situations where decision-makers must settle on a choice that will have long-lasting impact (Hwang, 2016). The approach is suitable in this scenario because the issue of standardized generates debates from different stakeholders and decisions on this matter should be formulated carefully. Nevertheless, rushing with the decision could result in prolonged dissatisfaction and ultimate failure.

Important Factors to Consider

Effective use of the mixed-method requires evaluators to be conversant with various factors; otherwise, it may be difficult to achieve the targeted results. It is imperative to create a framework for the analysis and to be as precise as possible (Hwang, 2016). Using cost benefit analysis requires evaluators to identify the policy’s costs and benefits and to outline a clear guideline (Hwang, 2016). The team at this case can identify the indirect, direct, intangible, and opportunity costs that are likely to come up with the policy and relate them with benefits and challenges.

Limitations

Even though cost-benefit analysis offers a suitable chance to know the benefits or impact of standardized testing in relation to the cost incurred in organizing and implementing the tests, it has some limitations that evaluators must take into account to avoid unfavorable outcome. Hwang (2016) informs that although the evaluation technique is relatively straight forward, versatile, and easy to use, various oppositions exist against its use as a tool for making decisions. One limitation of performing a cost benefit analysis is that evaluators may experience inaccuracies in finding out and quantifying benefits and costs. The evaluation technique demands that all costs and benefits be recognized and adequately quantified (Hwang, 2016). Nevertheless, human blunders usually have certain cost benefit analysis mistakes such as unknowingly leaving out particular benefits and costs because of the inability to foretell or foresee indirect casual relationships. Besides, the uncertainty and ambiguity entailed in assigning and quantifying cost to immaterial items results in an imprecise cost benefit analysis. The possibilities for experiencing errors when evaluating the effectiveness and cost impact of standardized testing is likely to be high considering that such tests are intangible (Hwang, 2016). The likelihood of experiencing inaccuracies when using cost benefit analysis could result in increased risk for making inefficient decisions. Another possible implication of using the cost benefit analysis approach is the risk for heightened subjectivity evaluators may experience when recognizing, quantifying, and approximating different benefits and costs. Since some benefits and costs are non-monetary, such as increase or decrease in learner and instructor satisfaction with standardized testing, they often require an assessor to subjectively give a monetary estimation for purposes of comparing the overall costs contrasted to the entire financial gains of standardized testing. Such forecasting and estimation is often pegged on past anticipations and experiences, which may sometimes be biased. Such subjective measures may result in an imprecise and deceptive cost benefit analysis.  

It is imperative to consider other possible limitations of using cost benefit analysis to examine the effectiveness and cost of standardized testing in South Florida. Hwang (2016) asserts that since the evaluation technique estimates the benefits and costs for a program or practice over some time, it is essential to examine the present value. The approach equalizes all current and future benefits and costs by examining all practices or items inter of present-day significance, which eradicates the need to account for speculative financial benefits or economic down turns. However, this creates much disadvantage taking into account that even if one can precisely estimate the present values, there is no surety that the discount rate utilized for calculation is accurate (Hwang, 2016). However, evaluators may use a cost benefit analysis template that has been formed to help minimize the possibilities of imprecisely assessing and determining the present costs and benefits, which they can download online. Finally, it is essential to understand that using cost benefit analysis may transform into a budget. Newcomer, Hatry, and Wholey (2015) argue that another challenge with using cost benefit analysis is the likelihood that the evaluative strategies transform into a proposed budget. When the ones overseeing the creation and implementation of standardized tests they may view the projected costs as real rather than estimations, which may result in misappropriating funds and creating unrealistic objectives when approving and implementing the real budget. The challenge can put administrators in a difficult position when they try to regulate costs in order to maintain achievement of the targeted goals.

Taking information from secondary sources also has its limitations. One of the possible challenges is that since secondary sources do not necessarily pay attention to the topic under investigation, one may have to dig deeper into the source to acquire relevant information (Martins, Cunha & Serra, 2018). The process takes time and one may not complete the practice within the targeted framework if they do not increase their pace of assessing the source. However, reading through the source hurriedly could result in significant omissions that could affect the credibility of the research (Martins, Cunha & Serra, 2018). Another limitation with relying on secondary resources is that information may be presented by the researcher’s own perception and bias, thus creating a misguiding image. The evaluator should be able to determine whether the author presents information in a bias way, and determine the extent at which this affects the source’s credibility. Also, a notable limitation for using secondary sources is that such sources are likely to become outdated, especially when a subject transforms very fast (Martins, Cunha & Serra, 2018). Another important factor to consider when using secondary sources is that an evaluator seeking to know the effects of standardized testing is not the owner of the information. All these constrains require considerable attention to achieve the best results when examining the effects of standardized testing on learners and teachers in public schools.

Conclusion

The paper identifies the need to embrace effective evaluation techniques to understand the effectiveness of standardized testing on learners and teachers in South Florida’s public schools. The paper proposes using a mixed method, which entails gathering relevant information from secondary sources to know the social effects of the policy on the target population, and cost benefit analysis to know whether the developers and implementers should proceed with, change, or stop the initiative depending on its financial implications. However, determining the effectiveness and cost impact of standardized testing requires evaluators to be conversant with the possible strengths and weaknesses of using the various research methods. Besides knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the various evaluation techniques, it is imperative to consider other factors that would make an evaluation process successful to achieve the best results from the practice.

References

Hwang, K. (2016). Cost-benefit analysis: its usage and critiques: CBA: its usage and critiques. Journal of Public Affairs, 16(1), 75-80. doi:10.1002/pa.1565

Martins, F., Cunha, J., & Serra, F. (2018). Secondary data in research – uses and opportunities. Journal of Strategic Management, 17(4), 1-4. doi:10.5585/ijsm.v17i4.2723

Meadows, S., & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2001). The role of standardized tests as a means of assessment of young children: A review of related literature and recommendations of alternative assessments for administrators and teachers. Retrieved 2 August, 2021, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456134.pdf

Newcomer, K., Hatry, H., & Wholey, J. (2015). Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN-10 ‏: ‎ 1118893603