Question:
We are two graduate students, both working on dissertations in the College of Education of different institutions. Both are looking at the difference between practice and formal theory in adult higher education. One is concentrating on adult degree completion programs, and the other on Foreign Language instruction. Coincidentally, both of us are interested in the "underpinnings" of programs (which we refer to as either "program theory" or "models"). Basically, our questions concern the relationship between program underpinnings and evaluation of the program: does a relationship exist at all, and if it does exist, how would that relationship effect the work of the evaluator/evaluation?
Mr A is using Patton's conceptualization of program theory (espoused theory and theory-in-use) as a way to look a a program holistically, then address issues related to the link between formal theory and practice in adult higher education. "Theory' used in such a delineation can be one of three configurations: formal, espoused, in-use.
Where Mr A conceptualizes "theory", Mr B thinks of its embodiment: the "model", and is looking at an association whose members are using a unique, non-traditional way to deliver academic courses in Foreign Language. The members tend to use the term "format" and avoid "model" as the procedural embodiment of a theory. The question then becomes: Does the insistence on using "format" and resistance to using "model" imply a lack of theoretical underpinnings to what is being done? If so, is it of consequence? And, what are the implications of such a lack for evaluators of such programs?
Answer:
A couple of references you might find useful: One is a volume I co-edited of - if you like - a case study of an initial teacher training programme for English (foreign language) teachers> Medgyes, P. & A. Malderez [1996] Changing perspectives in Teacher Education Oxford: Heinemann the other - you probably know on Evaluation Rea-dickens, P. Oxford University Press
Or another way, you can search on google .
