IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v32y2009i3p187-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of linear and systems thinking approaches for program evaluation illustrated using the Indiana Interdisciplinary GK-12

Author

Listed:
  • Dyehouse, Melissa
  • Bennett, Deborah
  • Harbor, Jon
  • Childress, Amy
  • Dark, Melissa

Abstract

Logic models are based on linear relationships between program resources, activities, and outcomes, and have been used widely to support both program development and evaluation. While useful in describing some programs, the linear nature of the logic model makes it difficult to capture the complex relationships within larger, multifaceted programs. Causal loop diagrams based on a systems thinking approach can better capture a multidimensional, layered program model while providing a more complete understanding of the relationship between program elements, which enables evaluators to examine influences and dependencies between and within program components. Few studies describe how to conceptualize and apply systems models for educational program evaluation. The goal of this paper is to use our NSF-funded, Interdisciplinary GK-12 project: Bringing Authentic Problem Solving in STEM to Rural Middle Schools to illustrate a systems thinking approach to model a complex educational program to aid in evaluation. GK-12 pairs eight teachers with eight STEM doctoral fellows per program year to implement curricula in middle schools. We demonstrate how systems thinking provides added value by modeling the participant groups, instruments, outcomes, and other factors in ways that enhance the interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data. Limitations of the model include added complexity. Implications include better understanding of interactions and outcomes and analyses reflecting interacting or conflicting variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Dyehouse, Melissa & Bennett, Deborah & Harbor, Jon & Childress, Amy & Dark, Melissa, 2009. "A comparison of linear and systems thinking approaches for program evaluation illustrated using the Indiana Interdisciplinary GK-12," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 187-196, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:3:p:187-196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(09)00015-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    2. Cabrera, Derek & Colosi, Laura & Lobdell, Claire, 2008. "Systems thinking," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 299-310, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kirsi Hyttinen & Sampsa Ruutu & Mika Nieminen & Faiz Gallouj & Marja Toivonen, 2014. "A system dynamic and multi-criteria evaluation of innovations in environmental services," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(3), pages 29-52.
    2. Trevion S. Henderson & Jessica O. Michel & Alex Bryan & Emily Canosa & Clara Gamalski & Kelly Jones & Jeremy Moghtader, 2022. "An Exploration of the Relationship between Sustainability-Related Involvement and Learning in Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Morrow, Nathan & Nkwake, Apollo M., 2016. "Conclusion: Agency in the face of complexity and the future of assumption-aware evaluation practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 154-160.
    4. Kirsi Hyytinen & Faïz Gallouj & Marja Toivonen, 2014. "A multi-criteria and multi-actor perspective for the evaluation of sustainability services," Post-Print halshs-01133963, HAL.
    5. Sarah Chapman & Adiilah Boodhoo & Carren Duffy & Suki Goodman & Maria Michalopoulou, 2023. "Theory of Change in Complex Research for Development Programmes: Challenges and Solutions from the Global Challenges Research Fund," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 298-322, April.
    6. McConnell, Jesse, 2019. "Adoption for adaptation: A theory-based approach for monitoring a complex policy initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 214-223.
    7. Kirsi Hyytinen & Sampsa Ruutur & Mika Nieminen & Faïz Gallouj & Marja Toivonen, 2014. "Evaluation of services linked to the sustainability: a dynamic and multi-criteria approach," Post-Print hal-01111817, HAL.
    8. Morell, Jonathan A., 2018. "Systematic iteration between model and methodology: A proposed approach to evaluating unintended consequences," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 243-252.
    9. Lawrenz, Frances & Kollmann, Elizabeth Kunz & King, Jean A. & Bequette, Marjorie & Pattison, Scott & Nelson, Amy Grack & Cohn, Sarah & Cardiel, Christopher L.B. & Iacovelli, Stephanie & Eliou, Gayra O, 2018. "Promoting evaluation capacity building in a complex adaptive system," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 53-60.
    10. Guerra-López, Ingrid & Toker, Sacip, 2012. "An application of the Impact Evaluation Process for designing a performance measurement and evaluation framework in K-12 environments," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 222-235.
    11. Hassmiller Lich, Kristen & Urban, Jennifer Brown & Frerichs, Leah & Dave, Gaurav, 2017. "Extending systems thinking in planning and evaluation using group concept mapping and system dynamics to tackle complex problems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 254-264.
    12. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    2. Day Yang Liu & Wen Chun Tsai & Pei Leen Liu & Chung Yi Fang, 2021. "Determinants of sales revenue in innovation diffusion effects of Taiwan sports lottery during the FIFA World Cup 2018," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 10(4), pages 43-58, June.
    3. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    4. Katarzyna Tworek & Katarzyna Walecka-Jankowska & Anna Zgrzywa-Ziemak, 2019. "The role of information systems in shaping integrative logic for business sustainability," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 29(4), pages 125-146.
    5. Meri Duryan & Dragan Nikolik & Godefridus Merode & Leopold M. G. Curfs, 2015. "Reflecting on the efficacy of cognitive mapping for decision-making in intellectual disability care: a case study," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 127-144, April.
    6. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    7. Erik Pruyt & Jan H. Kwakkel, 2014. "Radicalization under deep uncertainty: a multi-model exploration of activism, extremism, and terrorism," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(1-2), pages 1-28, January.
    8. Sarah Gerritsen & Sophia Harré & David Rees & Ana Renker-Darby & Ann E. Bartos & Wilma E. Waterlander & Boyd Swinburn, 2020. "Community Group Model Building as a Method for Engaging Participants and Mobilising Action in Public Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, May.
    9. David C. Lane, 2012. "What Is a ‘Policy Insight’?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 590-595, November.
    10. Iván Barreda-Tarrazona & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Constantine Manasakis & Evangelos Mitrokostas & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2012. "Managerial compensation contracts in quantity-setting duopoly," Working Papers 2012/17, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    11. Katarzyna Ostasiewicz & Michal H. Tyc & Piotr Goliczewski & Piotr Magnuszewski & Andrzej Radosz & Jan Sendzimir, 2006. "Integrating economic and psychological insights in binary choice models with social interactions," Papers physics/0609170, arXiv.org.
    12. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    13. Wang Xiao-jun & Zhang Jian-yun & Wang Jian-hua & He Rui-min & Amgad ElMahdi & Liu Jin-hua & Wang Xin-gong & David King & Shamsuddin Shahid, 2014. "Climate change and water resources management in Tuwei river basin of Northwest China," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 107-120, January.
    14. Igor Krejčí & Pavel Moulis & Jana Pitrová & Ivana Tichá & Ladislav Pilař & Jan Rydval, 2019. "Traps and Opportunities of Czech Small-Scale Beef Cattle Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, August.
    15. Benjamin L. Turner & Melissa Wuellner & Erin Cortus & Steven Boot Chumbley, 2022. "A multi‐university cohort model for teaching complex and interdisciplinary problem‐solving using system dynamics," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 185-199, March.
    16. Nicholas C. Georgantzas & Evangelos G. Katsamakas, 2008. "Information systems research with system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 247-264, September.
    17. Cleotilde Gonzalez & Jose Quesada, 2003. "Learning in Dynamic Decision Making: The Recognition Process," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 287-304, December.
    18. Iñigo Capellán-Pérez & David Álvarez-Antelo & Luis J. Miguel, 2019. "Global Sustainability Crossroads : A Participatory Simulation Game to Educate in the Energy and Sustainability Challenges of the 21st Century," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-23, July.
    19. Benjamin L. Turner & Hector M. Menendez & Roger Gates & Luis O. Tedeschi & Alberto S. Atzori, 2016. "System Dynamics Modeling for Agricultural and Natural Resource Management Issues: Review of Some Past Cases and Forecasting Future Roles," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-24, November.
    20. David I. Waddington & Thomas Fennewald, 2018. "Grim FATE: Learning About Systems Thinking in an In-Depth Climate Change Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(2), pages 168-194, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:3:p:187-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.