Evaluating LSP-TEOC.Pro: What we did and what we found out
Journal cover Glottodidactica, volume 52, no. 1, year 2025
PDF

Keywords

LSP
realist
evaluation
theory of change
mechanisms

How to Cite

Cullen, J., & Holloway, G. (2025). Evaluating LSP-TEOC.Pro: What we did and what we found out. Glottodidactica, 52(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2025.52.1.6

Abstract

This article presents an evaluation of the LSP-TEOC.Pro project. It sets out the evaluation methodology applied, how it was implemented and the key evaluation findings. Given the exploratory nature of the project, the range and complexity of the intervening variables involved and logistical constraints, it was not possible to use an experimental evaluation approach. Instead, the evaluation used an approach based on a ‘realist’ and ‘theory-driven’ framework to test whether the ‘mechanisms’ implicit in the project theory of change were supported by the evidence. The evaluation showed that LSP-TEOC.PRO has progressed significantly along its ‘change journey’, although further effort is required going forward to support scaling up and out, so that the project has an impact at the macro level.

https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2025.52.1.6
PDF

Funding

the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union (Reference Number: 2020-1-DE01-005687). Project title: LSPTEOC. Pro (Language for Specific Purposes Teacher Education Online Course for Professional Development)

References

Astbury, B. / Leeuw, F.L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010371972

Befani, B. (2012). Models of causality and causal inference. In: E. Stern / N. Stame / J. Mayne / K. Forss / R. Davies / B. Befani (eds.), Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations (DFID Working Paper 38) (pp. Annex to the report). London: Department for International Development. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79d0d240f0b66d161ae57c/design-method-impact-eval.pdf

Campbell, D.T. / Stanley, J.C. (1973). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Chen, H.-T. / Rossi, P.H. (1989). Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4), 299–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(89)90046-3

Ferraro, P. (2009). Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 75–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.297

Guba, E.G. / Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.

Loi, M. / Rodriguez, M. (2012). A note on the impact evaluation of public policies: The counterfactual analysis. Seville: JRC Scientific and Policy Reports.

LSP-TEOC. Pro website: https://lsp-teoc-pro.de/

Pawson, R. / Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.

Weiss, C (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: J. Connell / A.C. Kubisch / L.B. Schorr / C.H. Weiss (eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65–92). Washington: Aspen Institute.

Themes by Openjournaltheme.com