2. Four Purposes of Evaluation
Mark, Henry & Julnes (2000)
• Assessment of Merit & Worth - (Summative)
3. Four Purposes of Evaluation
Mark, Henry & Julnes (2000)
• Assessment of Merit & Worth - (Summative)
• Program & Organizational Improvement (Formative)
4. Four Purposes of Evaluation
Mark, Henry & Julnes (2000)
• Assessment of Merit & Worth - (Summative)
• Program & Organizational Improvement (Formative)
• Oversight/Compliance
5. Four Purposes of Evaluation
Mark, Henry & Julnes (2000)
• Assessment of Merit & Worth - (Summative)
• Program & Organizational Improvement (Formative)
• Oversight/Compliance
• Knowledge-Generation
11. Questions for clarifying
Goals
• What are you trying to achieve with your
program participants?
• If you are successful, how will participants be
different after the program than they were
before?
12. Questions for clarifying
Goals
• What are you trying to achieve with your
program participants?
• If you are successful, how will participants be
different after the program than they were
before?
• What kind of changes do you want to see in
program participants or social conditions?
13. Questions for clarifying
Goals
• What are you trying to achieve with your
program participants?
• If you are successful, how will participants be
different after the program than they were
before?
• What kind of changes do you want to see in
program participants or social conditions?
• What would we see in them that would tell
us that they are different?
14.
15.
16. “What is important…is that
there is a clear statement of
the targeted change in
circumstances, status, level of
functioning, behavior, attitude,
knowledge, or skills.”
Patton (2008, p.244)
17. The Goals Grid
Nickols (2003)
No Achieve Avoid
Do we have it?
Yes Preserve Eliminate
Yes No
Do we want it?
18. Outcome Examples
Type of change Illustration
Change in circumstances Children safely reunited w/ families
Change in status Unemployed to employed
Change in behavior Truants will regularly attend school
Change in functioning Increased ability to care for oneself
Change in attitude Greater self-respect
Change in knowledge New understanding of links between inequality & achievement
Change in skills Increased reading level; able to parent more effectively
Maintenance Continue to live safely at home (e.g. elderly)
Prevention Teenagers will not initiate drug use
Change in conditions Better organizational climate; New living wage policy
Patton (2008, p. 245)
20. Indicators
• Not the outcome, but rather
evidence that the outcome has
been achieved.
• (e.g. reading ability [outcome];
score on reading test
[indicator])
• a premature focus on indicators
may limit a program to attempt
only those things we already
know how to measure.
21. Indicators
• Not the outcome, but rather
evidence that the outcome has
been achieved.
• (e.g. reading ability [outcome];
score on reading test
[indicator])
“The key is to make sure • a premature focus on indicators
that the indicator is a may limit a program to attempt
reasonable, useful, and only those things we already
meaningful measure of know how to measure.
the intended client
outcome”
Patton (2008, p. 246)
23. • Specifies the amount or level of
program attainment that is
expected
Performance
Targets
24. • Specifies the amount or level of
program attainment that is
expected
• Can be articulated as
• % of participants reaching goal
or
• % gain in all participants, or
often
Performance • % gain in % of participants
• E.g. 75% of program
Targets participants will achieve a
15% gain in reading scores.
26. “Which program components,
goals, and objectives should be
evaluated to produce the most
useful information for program
improvement and decision-
making?”
Patton (2008, p. 260)
Editor's Notes
•Mark, Henry & Jules outline four general purposes for evaluation (they leave out “needs assessment”\noOversight & compliance – extent to which a program is following a set of imposed standards\noKnowledge development – testing of general theories•Mark, Henry & Jules outline four general purposes for evaluation (they leave out “needs assessment”\noOversight & compliance – extent to which a program is following a set of imposed standards\noKnowledge development – testing of general theories\n\n\n
•Mark, Henry & Jules outline four general purposes for evaluation (they leave out “needs assessment”\noOversight & compliance – extent to which a program is following a set of imposed standards\noKnowledge development – testing of general theories•Mark, Henry & Jules outline four general purposes for evaluation (they leave out “needs assessment”\noOversight & compliance – extent to which a program is following a set of imposed standards\noKnowledge development – testing of general theories\n\n\n
•Mark, Henry & Jules outline four general purposes for evaluation (they leave out “needs assessment”\noOversight & compliance – extent to which a program is following a set of imposed standards\noKnowledge development – testing of general theories•Mark, Henry & Jules outline four general purposes for evaluation (they leave out “needs assessment”\noOversight & compliance – extent to which a program is following a set of imposed standards\noKnowledge development – testing of general theories\n\n\n
•Mark, Henry & Jules outline four general purposes for evaluation (they leave out “needs assessment”\noOversight & compliance – extent to which a program is following a set of imposed standards\noKnowledge development – testing of general theories•Mark, Henry & Jules outline four general purposes for evaluation (they leave out “needs assessment”\noOversight & compliance – extent to which a program is following a set of imposed standards\noKnowledge development – testing of general theories\n\n\n