A Critical Appraisal Model of Program Evaluation in Adult Continuing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a critical appraisal model of program evaluation that was developed specifically for a university continuing education context (i.e., credit and non-credit programs designed to meet the personal and professional development needs of adult learners). The articulation of this model is a result of the first Prairie Symposium on Research on University Continuing Education, held in June 1999, and of ensuing discussions about the need for a proactive, research-based, and adult learner-oriented approach to evaluating programs. The paper begins with a brief overview of the conceptual framework of the model, followed by a discussion of the process and content issues deemed important within a university continuing education context. The model is then illustrated in detail through a case study of the approach used by one university faculty of continuing education to evaluate its graduate program in workplace learning. The paper closes with a discussion of the applicability of this model to other adult continuing education programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.276 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".