|
Session Title: Internal Evaluation TIG Business Meeting and Paper Presentations: Internal Evaluation - Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities
|
|
Business Meeting and Multipaper Session 420 to be held in Capistrano B on Thursday, Nov 3, 2:50 PM to 4:20 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Internal Evaluation TIG
|
| TIG Leader(s):
|
|
Boris Volkov, University of North Dakota, boris.volkov@med.und.edu
|
|
Kimberly Hall, Los Angeles Universal Preschool, kimberly.m.hall@gmail.com
|
|
Wendi Kannenberg, Southcentral Foundation, wkannenberg@scf.cc
|
| Chair(s): |
| Imelda Castaneda-Emenaker,
University of Cincinnati, castania@ucmail.uc.edu
|
| Discussant(s): |
| Stanley Capela,
HeartShare Human Services, stan.capela@heartshare.org
|
|
Examining Critical Issues in Internal Evaluation Practice
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Boris Volkov, University of North Dakota, boris.volkov@med.und.edu
|
| Abstract:
This presentation will illuminate critical issues for developing and practicing internal evaluation in organizations. It will provide an overview of organizational, societal, and professional demands on internal evaluation function. Illuminated in a context of modern organizations influenced by various traditions and movements, critical issues for internal evaluation include potential ethical dilemmas, internal evaluator role clarification, and developing evaluation capacity.
It has become more evident that the internal evaluation is not just about using appropriate evaluation methodology or building complex M&E systems but increasingly about dealing with intra-organizational obstacles to quality evaluation. Modern internal evaluation practice certainly requires reconfigured, unorthodox methods and styles of work to effectively meet the needs of the emerging learning organizations and other stakeholders. The importance of building evaluation capacity across the entire organization while cultivating independence and credibility of internal evaluation will be highlighted. Implications for future research on internal evaluation will be suggested.
|
|
"Rough Road" Evaluation: The Benefits and Consequences of Supporting the Primacy of Stakeholders' Interests
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Imelda Castaneda-Emenaker, University of Cincinnati, castania@ucmail.uc.edu
|
| Kathie Maynard, University of Cincinnati, sundk@ucmail.uc.edu
|
| Thaddeus Fowler, University of Cincinnati, fowlertw@ucmail.uc.edu
|
| Abstract:
Beyond concerns of evaluating a professional development program in science, the presenters share the internal evaluation process that evolved in their practice where the primacy of stakeholders' interests was given foremost importance. The practice centered on day-to-day reflections and feedback about stakeholders' situations and what they needed as the professional development program implementation progressed. This project was part of a state-wide program evaluation, which led to negotiations of tensions involving different expectations of the state external evaluators. Priorities and timelines in the implementation of specific evaluation activities were not in sync with the state-wide intent; thus, the 'rough road' evaluation.
|
|
Problems and Possibilities While Evaluating a Field Trip Program on an Ongoing Basis
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Heather Harkins, Connecticut Science Center, hharkins@gmail.com
|
| Abstract:
This presentation discusses the process used to evaluate a school field trip program at a science center in the Northeast United States during its first two years of operation. The process included an internal evaluator and staff from across the institution (educational programs, visitor services, exhibits) in data collection. This evaluation evolved from a process orientation toward an outcome evaluation. Changes during the course of the evaluation were based on institutional needs and capacities, as well as interim findings and discussions. This presentation reports on both the process used to work internally with this diverse group and some of the results relevant to the larger evaluation community. It also raises the discussion of how to manage stakeholder demand for immediate feedback in the form of raw data. The presentation will highlight the lessons learned from this evaluation, and how the process has impacted the science center's overall evaluation program.
|
| | |