D3_Fundy+Tools+and+Principles+of+Eval

PE_D3_Spring2011_FundyTools

**Objectives**


 * Discuss the five principles of evaluation published by the American Evaluation Association (AEA)
 * Describe the four phases of the Evaluation Action Plan
 * List examples of evaluation questions
 * Identify key evaluation stakeholders
 * Identify reasons for conducting evaluations
 * Explain the concept of Mega
 * Define formative evaluation
 * Define summative evaluation
 * Describe evaluation models
 * Identify evaluation leaders


 * First initial post** includes a reaction to the readings including the "Guiding Principles for Evaluators from the American Evaluation Association, and the Stufflebeam's article on evaluation models.

Stufflebeam's 2001 monograph //New Directions for Evaluation// provides an in-depth analysis of 22 different types of program evaluation. I like how clearly and objectively Stufflebeam writes. You can tell that he really knows about evaluation, or at least he studies it a great deal. As I read through the monograph, I wanted to see which model of evaluation I thought I would be pursuing in my own project. I decided that I am about to undertake a quasi-evaluation study. In particular, mine will be a "questions-oriented" study with its two or three narrowly defined questions. According to Stufflebeam, the "questions-oriented [approach] [stresses] that it is usually better to answer a few pointed questions well then to attempt a broad assessment of a program's merit and worth" (p. 17). Further, in Table 5, this approach is shown to have "common sense appeal," and be " widely known and applied" (p. 50).

I believe that Kaufman et al. encourages the reader to pursue one of the "improvement/accountability-oriented evaluation approaches," which emphasize the use of needs assessment and more rigorous methods. For the purpose of our own learning of the concept of evaluation, I am very glad to be pursuing a study with "common sense appeal." It's more manageable and appropriate to our level.

Starting on page 63, Stufflebeam (2001) describes "Responsive Evaluation," or "Client-Centered Studies." I can see some similarities between my budding evaluation and the approach described here. I feel as if my own study will be too small in scale and has too few clients to warrant this label. From this section, though, I have gleaned some good ideas for what my front matter needs to do: "Concomitant with the ongoing conversation with clients, the evaluator attempts to obtain and present a rich set of information on the program. This includes its philosophical foundation and purposes, history, transactions, and outcomes." (Stufflebeam, 2001, p. 69).

I find the tables throughout this article to be helpful in discerning some common traits of various models of studies.

As I read through the Guiding Principles, I could see how the contract that we had to complete does a good job of ensuring that we uphold most of these principles. By completing the contract (properly, that is), we display "competence." And throughout the document, we are making statements that support, encourage, and reinforce the need for "integrity and honesty." The detail into which the contract forces us to go takes a step towards promoting our "systematic inquiry" of the questions we have posed. Through the use of informed consent measures, we display "respect for people." Overall, I think the purpose of our evaluations are the "responsibilities for general and public welfare." In our own small ways, we may find something to make better in our respective worlds.

American Evaluation Association guiding principles for evaluators. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/Publications/aea06.GPBrochure.pdf

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. //New Directions for Evaluation//, (89).

On page 38 in your textbook, review Table 2.3 Organizational Elements Model (OEM) Examples by Element and Level.

2. **Second initial post** includes your a nswer to the questions for number 4. on page 47 of the textbook.

a. In what ways are you adding value to your organization?

b. To your external clients?

c. To our society/community?

d. What could you be doing and contributing?

So i n this discussion, you are not required to answer this question about yourself personally (although you may). You may answer this question as if you are answering it for your intended evaluation client. Think of how your evaluation client may answer these questions. You may even go ahead and ask your client these questions and post the responses you receive. .

3. You are expected to actively interact and respond to your peers’ postings. You can do this by using the following interactive strategies ---
 * Sharing additional evidence that support the position stated by another student (A)
 * Giving an example of the concept being discussed (B)
 * Asking for clarification (C)
 * Restating a position in different words (D)
 * Introducing a nuance that enriches the original formulation (E)
 * Offering a different opinion (F)

**You are expected to do one of each response strategy.** Make sure you change the subject heading to reflect your last name and the designated letter (e.g., Baylen-A for a response using a "sharing additional evidence that support the position stated by another student")

4. Finally, post a **third initial post** that contains ideas on how the readings and discussions enhance your thinking about your own evaluation project.