Tech Prep: Building a Framework for Future Research, Evaluation, and Program Practice. Focus Group Report.
Saved in:
| Title: | Tech Prep: Building a Framework for Future Research, Evaluation, and Program Practice. Focus Group Report. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Elliott, Barbara G., Research Triangle Inst., Research Triangle Park, NC. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 60 |
| Publication Date: | 2000 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Office of Vocational and Adult Education (ED), Washington, DC. |
| Contract Number: | ED-99-CO-0160 |
| Document Type: | Opinion Papers Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Articulation (Education), Data Collection, Employer Attitudes, Evaluation Criteria, Federal Legislation, Focus Groups, Methods Research, National Programs, Outcomes of Education, Postsecondary Education, Program Effectiveness, Program Evaluation, Research Needs, School Effectiveness, School Holding Power, Secondary Education, Student Evaluation, Tech Prep, Validated Programs |
| Geographic Terms: | U.S.; North Carolina |
| Abstract: | This document reports on three focus groups comprised of state officials, local practitioners and supporters, and researchers who were convened to provide input on strategies for assessing and validating the effects of tech prep. Part I provides a brief summary of the groups' discussions, including major points and broad themes in these four topic areas identified in a literature review: outcomes, measurement, how to define a tech prep student, and other design and data collection issues. The summary reports the following: (1) most agreed a national tech prep evaluation should focus on student outcomes but noted the program cannot impact students without first changing educational institutions; (2) a national evaluation should also consider these outcomes: participation and retention in secondary programs, transition to postsecondary education, and participation and retention in postsecondary programs; (3) measurement concerns included difficulty in tracking, delayed transition to postsecondary education, employer perspective in selecting student outcomes, and difficulty in defining a "program-related" career; (4) many believed a consensus definition for tech prep students that states could refine was reasonable; and (5) other design and data collection issues were the need to include input and contextual variables, how to coordinate a national evaluation with Perkins III requirements, relationship to state and local efforts, and state and local needs for technical assistance. Part II contains reports for each of the three focus groups, organized around the same four topics. (YLB) |
| Journal Code: | RIESEP2003 |
| Entry Date: | 2003 |
| Accession Number: | ED472606 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | This document reports on three focus groups comprised of state officials, local practitioners and supporters, and researchers who were convened to provide input on strategies for assessing and validating the effects of tech prep. Part I provides a brief summary of the groups' discussions, including major points and broad themes in these four topic areas identified in a literature review: outcomes, measurement, how to define a tech prep student, and other design and data collection issues. The summary reports the following: (1) most agreed a national tech prep evaluation should focus on student outcomes but noted the program cannot impact students without first changing educational institutions; (2) a national evaluation should also consider these outcomes: participation and retention in secondary programs, transition to postsecondary education, and participation and retention in postsecondary programs; (3) measurement concerns included difficulty in tracking, delayed transition to postsecondary education, employer perspective in selecting student outcomes, and difficulty in defining a "program-related" career; (4) many believed a consensus definition for tech prep students that states could refine was reasonable; and (5) other design and data collection issues were the need to include input and contextual variables, how to coordinate a national evaluation with Perkins III requirements, relationship to state and local efforts, and state and local needs for technical assistance. Part II contains reports for each of the three focus groups, organized around the same four topics. (YLB) |
|---|
