1 / 18

RESPONSIVE EVALUATION

RESPONSIVE EVALUATION. By: Lani Pokrana January 30, 2008. What is it?. Central focus: Stakeholder audience “Observe and React” Orients to program activities rather than to program intent Responsive to realities of programs. Purpose. To determine the values of an audience

idalee
Download Presentation

RESPONSIVE EVALUATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RESPONSIVE EVALUATION By: Lani Pokrana January 30, 2008

  2. What is it? • Central focus: Stakeholder audience • “Observe and React” • Orients to program activities rather than to program intent • Responsive to realities of programs

  3. Purpose • To determine the values of an audience • Improve communication with stakeholders

  4. Events in Responsive Evaluation

  5. Comparison of Responsive and Preordinate Evaluations

  6. Advantages • Directs attention to the needs of those for whom an evaluation is being done. • Looks at program from different viewpoints • Flexible

  7. Disadvantages • Stresses complexity rather than simplicity • Subjectivity • Labor intensive

  8. Case Study A Qualitative Evaluation of a Project to Enhance Pupils’ Emotional Literacy Through a Student Assistance Programme By: Ros Carnwell and Sally Ann Baker

  9. The Case • Student Assistance Programme designed to enhance Emotional Literacy. • Emotional Literacy: “The ability to recognize, understand, handle and appropriately express emotions.”

  10. The Case • The Support Group element of the program: • Pupils (Ages 9 to 16) referred to the Group • Group lasts 8 weeks and runs during school hours. • Explores sharing, grief and loss, divorce, school transition, anger and bullying. • Study commissioned to evaluate effectiveness

  11. The Case • Aims of the Study • Illuminate changes in student behavior as described by themselves, facilitators, teachers and peers. • Identify wider implications of Group in terms of its effects on peers, teachers and family members

  12. Case Approach • Use of Responsive Evaluation for its Qualitative nature and focus on program activities rather than intents • Enables stakeholders to make decisions about program changes.

  13. Case Approach • Small sample size • Does not attempt to generalize findings • Illuminates participants’ experience

  14. Case Approach • Two researchers • Taped interviews • Qualitative content analysisfor emerging themes

  15. Results/Findings • Nature and Benefits of Group • Trust • Closer relationships • Behavior changes • Challenges and Difficulties • Expression of feelings • Session content • Differing boundaries in relationships • Practical issues (timing)

  16. Results/Findings • Resources and Sustainability • More resources needed • Facilitators with special qualities • Lack of funding • Need continued support after Group

  17. Quality of the Case • Provides helpful guidance to stakeholders on successes and challenges of the program • More research needed to determine improvement of emotional literacy and the wider implications of the effects on peers, teachers, family members

  18. The End

More Related