| In a 90 minute Roundtable session, the first
rotation uses the first 45 minutes and the second rotation uses the last 45 minutes.
|
| Roundtable Rotation I:
The Good, the Bad and the Unanticipated: Exploring the Consequences of Changing an Evaluation Plan Midstream |
|
Roundtable Presentation 894 to be held in Santa Barbara on Saturday, Nov 5, 9:50 AM to 11:20 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Evaluation Use TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kate Golden, University of Nebraska, kgolden@unmc.edu
|
| Jill Kumke, University of Nebraska, jkumke@unmc.edu
|
| Megan Borer, University of Nebraska, mborer@unmc.edu
|
| Lisa St Clair, University of Nebraska, lstclair@unmc.edu
|
| Abstract:
When a program struggles with the quality and implementation of its model, evaluators weigh the risk and reward of modifying evaluation designs. The decision to change, even slightly, can present significant challenges but may also yield surprising benefits. We faced this when evaluating an early childhood coaching program for childcare centers. We responded by adding a qualitative component to a primarily objectives focused quantitative design. Reflective of an evaluation approach that incorporates continuous improvement principles, this change provided a forum for reviewing the coaching model and considering improvements. This simple, yet effective adjustment provided a surprising range of benefits and raised new challenges. Impacts are noted on funders, program staff and the evaluation team. This roundtable presentation will encourage discussion around the unexpected effects of modifying evaluation designs. Questions presented will weigh the roles of context, evaluator/client relationship and resources when considering whether to alter the evaluation design.
|
| Roundtable Rotation II:
Perspectives on Conflicts Between Policy Makers' and Evaluator's Values When Using Evaluation Research on Mentoring Programs |
|
Roundtable Presentation 894 to be held in Santa Barbara on Saturday, Nov 5, 9:50 AM to 11:20 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Evaluation Use TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Laura Lunsford, University of Arizona, lglunsfo@email.arizona.edu
|
| Abstract:
This roundtable proposes to examine the conflict in values that arises when an intervention, championed by a highly visible policy maker, is at odds with evaluation research. A case study of an undergraduate mentoring program for low-income students will be presented to frame the discussion. Mentoring is a valued activity, but research suggests that mentoring is a voluntary relationship, that it does not benefit all students, and negative outcomes are possible. However, many programs require mentoring, assume mentoring will benefit all students, and have few or no controls for managing bad relationships. Staff may be unwilling to 'rock the boat' with program champions to make needed changes. What is the role and professional obligation of the evaluator when these value conflicts occur? The audience will share thoughts about value conflicts between evaluators and program administrators and suggest ways to resolve such conflicts.
|