IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v54y2016icp41-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

SWOT analysis to evaluate the programme of a joint online/onsite master's degree in environmental education through the students’ perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Romero-Gutierrez, Miguel
  • Jimenez-Liso, M. Rut
  • Martinez-Chico, Maria

Abstract

This study shows the use of SWOT to analyse students’ perceptions of an environmental education joint master's programme in order to determine if it runs as originally planned. The open answers given by students highlight the inter-university nature of the master's, the technological innovation used as major points, and the weaknesses in the management coordination or the duplicate contents as minor points. The external analysis is closely linked with the students’ future jobs, their labour opportunities available to them after graduation. The innovative treatment of the data is exportable to the evaluation of programmes of other degrees because it allows the description linked to its characteristics and its design through the students’ point of view.

Suggested Citation

  • Romero-Gutierrez, Miguel & Jimenez-Liso, M. Rut & Martinez-Chico, Maria, 2016. "SWOT analysis to evaluate the programme of a joint online/onsite master's degree in environmental education through the students’ perceptions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 41-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:41-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915001093
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.10.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Costa, António Firmino da & Pegado, Elsa & Ávila, Patrícia & Coelho, Ana Rita, 2013. "Mixed-methods evaluation in complex programmes: The national reading plan in Portugal," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Bowe, Anica G., 2015. "The development of education indicators for measuring quality in the English-speaking Caribbean: How far have we come?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 31-46.
    3. Carleton-Hug, Annelise & Hug, J. William, 2010. "Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 159-164, May.
    4. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    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. Manuel Rodríguez-Martín & Diego Vergara & Pablo Rodríguez-Gonzálvez, 2020. "Simulation of a Real Call for Research Projects as Activity to Acquire Research Skills: Perception Analysis of Teacher Candidates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Katerina Kabassi & Anastasia Papadaki & Athanasios Botonis, 2023. "Adapting Recommendations on Environmental Education Programs," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.

    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. Kroufek, Roman & Cincera, Jan & Kolenaty, Miloslav & Zalesak, Jan & Johnson, Bruce, 2023. "“I had a spider in my mouth”: What makes students happy in outdoor environmental education programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Allred, Shorna & Stedman, Richard & Heady, Laura & Strong, Karen, 2021. "Incorporating biodiversity in municipal land-use planning: An assessment of technical assistance, policy capacity, and conservation outcomes in New York’s Hudson Valley," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    3. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    4. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Kumar Chaudhary, Anil & Diaz, John & Jayaratne, K.S.U. & Assan, Elsie, 2020. "Evaluation capacity building in the nonformal education context: Challenges and strategies," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    7. Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    8. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Jan Činčera & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Bohuslav Binka & Luis Calafate & Cristina Calheiros & Alexandra Cardoso & Marcus Hedblom & Michael Jones & Alex Koutsouris & Clara Vasconcelos & Katarzyna Iwińska, 2019. "Managing Diversity: The Challenges of Inter-University Cooperation in Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Issa Ibrahim Berchin & Ana Regina de Aguiar Dutra & José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra, 2021. "How do higher education institutions promote sustainable development? A literature review," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1204-1222, November.
    12. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    13. Lim, E.A & Manohar, M. & Aziz, Azlizam & Zakaria, M., 2016. "Influencing secondary school STUDENTS’ conservation behavior intention through an interpretive education program on the malayan tapir," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 60-69.
    14. Kirsten M. M. Beyer & Elizabeth F. Heller & Jessica M. Bizub & Amy J. Kistner & Aniko Szabo & Erin E. Shawgo & Corey J. Zetts, 2015. "More than a Pretty Place: Assessing the Impact of Environmental Education on Children’s Knowledge and Attitudes about Outdoor Play in Nature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Crohn, Kara & Birnbaum, Matthew, 2010. "Environmental education evaluation: Time to reflect, time for change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 155-158, May.
    16. Picciotto, Robert, 2019. "Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 88-96.
    17. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    18. Shih-Yeh Chen & Shiang-Yao Liu, 2020. "Developing Students’ Action Competence for a Sustainable Future: A Review of Educational Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, February.
    19. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    20. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.

    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:54:y:2016:i:c:p:41-49. 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.