- About Us
- Statewide Resources
- Get Involved
- For Employees
- Find Us
Evaluation is an Everyday Activity
Program Evaluation Discussions
Updated: 3 days 19 hours ago
For years my criteria for a “good” conference was the following
- See three long time friends and spend some time catching up;
- Meet three people I didn’t know before and would like to continue to know;
- Get three new ideas that I can use.
I think this year’s conference was a success (despite the difficulty in identifying who was doing what when because the management corporation minimized the program in an attempt to be ecological, if excluding). If I were to ask my daughters to rate the conference on a scale of one (1) to 10 (ten), one being not “good”, 10 being “good”, I think they would have said an 8 – 8.5. (They have their own following of friends and their own interests.)
I saw and talked to three long time friends, although I missed those who have chosen not to attend AEA any more (I must be getting old) and those with whom I didn’t spend time.
I met more than three people I didn’t know before and I must say, if they are any indication (and I think they are) of the evolution of the association, the association is in good hands (even though I miss the intimacy I “grew up with”).
Most importantly, I did get at least three new ideas.
- Competencies is a topic that evokes a lot of discussion both pro and con. One cannot talk about accreditation, certification, and credentialing without talking about competencies (the skills and knowledge that make evaluators distinct).
- Blogging is challenging. (I keep at it, even though.) Folks who blog about evaluation are a special lot. Blogging is probably no easy task; blogging on evaluation is challenging. It is one way to get ideas “out there”. Chris Lysy (one of those folks I finally actually met–he is the cartoon guy) says it so eloquently in his blog post on Freshspectrum. He says it helps him stay connected with colleagues all year. He uses the metaphor of analog vs. digital (read his post). Being in the digital world is definitely challenging for a digital immigrant like me. Still I blog.
- I thought I knew a lot about focus groups (and I do). Yet I learned new things from Michelle Revels in her session on Focus Group Research. Although she talked about using focus groups for collecting research data, focus groups are a wonderful tool for gathering qualitative data for evaluation questions, too.
- Certainly, my thinking and knowledge about needs assessments (needs as a noun, not verb) was increased. I think the fallacy is that too many people want to get it done quickly and don’t think of strengths of the target audience. Every time I do a professional development session on needs assessment with my long time friend and colleague, Jim Altschuld , I learn something about the process. This year was no different. (I really must finish his new book…)
There were other things which I have used in the last three days, for sure, and although they need to be mentioned, I’ve exceeded my self-imposed limit of 500 words.
If you went to AEA, let me know what you thought. Did you have a good conference? If so, what did you learn?
Categories: OSU Extension Blogs
Recently, I drafted a paper about a capacity building; I’ll be presenting it at the 2014 AEA conference. The example on which I was reporting was regional and voluntary; it took a dedication, a commitment from participants. During the drafting of that paper, I had think about the parts of the program; what would be necessary for individuals who were interested in evaluation and had did not have a degree. I went back to the competencies listed in the AJE article (March 2005) that I cited in a previous post. I found it interesting to see that the choices I made (after consulting with evaluation colleagues) were listed in the competencies identified by Stevahn et al., yet they list so much more. So the question occurs to me is: To be competent, to build institutional evaluation capacity are all those needed? Or can an nascent evaluator function competently having reviewed only two categories of competencies listed by Stavahn et al? The two categories on which this capacity building program was based included Systematic Inquiry (2.0) and Situational Analysis (3.0). And even then, I only addressed 2.2, 2.3, 2. 13, 2.14, 2.16, 3.1, 3.2, 3.8. Yet these do not list logic modeling as one of the competencies, unless it is housed under 3.2 (Determines program evaluability).
So my question is to you, reader, is what I offered in the capacity building program (Logic Modeling, Implementation, Qualitative Data Analysis and Management, Quantitative Data Analysis and Management, Evaluation Use) essential? Is it enough? I’d really like to hear from you on this, because I really do not know. And although a summative evaluation was conducted after the program ended, I do not know what difference the program made in the lives of the participants. Whether the program had value, merit, worth? PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
Those of you who participated in the program, how has it helped you now that it has been almost two years since it ended (January 2013).
A new topic:
I will not be blogging until the week of October 20. I will be attending the Engagement Scholarship Consortium conference and AEA. I hope to see some of you at either or both.
Categories: OSU Extension Blogs