MDDE+617+Discussions

Discussion Forum #1
Read the Request for Proposals (RFP) entitled Request for Proposals for an Evaluation of The Labrador Project in your Case Study Text. Read through the questions below, giving careful consideration before selecting one question and posting your thoughts to Discussion Forum #1. Be sure to support your thoughts with reference to your readings.
 * 1) What seems to be the purpose of this evaluation?
 * 2) Is this RFP reflective of formative evaluation, summative evaluation, or both?
 * 3) How does this evaluation, as described in the RFP, relate to the evaluation roots of scientific measurement? Or does it at all?
 * 4) Can you identify a theoretical framework for this evaluation, as described in the RFP?

Response to #2,

The Request for Proposal (RFP) is concerned with providing information to make judgments about not just a part of a program, but the whole program's overall worth; therefore, the RFP is reflective more of a formative evaluation. One of the project activities in the RFP is asking the question if the project, not a part of the project, is having the intended effects and impacts. Also, the RFP is concerened with the cost efficiency issues, again this information needed to make valuative conclusions. Scriven (as cited in Fitzpatrick, 2004) defines summative evaluation as, " evaluation done for, or by, any observers or decision makers who need valuative conclusion for any other reasons beside development."

However, the RFP asks the question, "Are the activities and outputs of the Project consistent with its objectives?" This to me appears to be more formative, as part of the evaluation's purpose is to provide information for program improvement.

Even though the RFP is weighted more to be a summative evaluation, there are elements of formative evaluation embedded in the report.

Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2004). // Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines  //. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Another Response for #2 but about the audience for program evaluations

The audience for the report also is an indication of whether the report is formative or summative. The audience for a formative assessment generally includes people delivering the program or those **close to it**, those responsible for development, training, or managing (Fitzpatrick, 2004). -p. 18

I imagine that most educational institutions don't have the finances to put out a tender for a proposal of this scale ($50 000) unless there was some other organization requesting feedback about a project - I very well could be wrong. The project is funded partly through a grant from CEIC, which is probably the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, and this organization is probably directly involved in policy making and requires feedback from this proposal that demonstrates the project's ability to meet its objectives.

For these reasons, it appears that the audience is not the audience one would expect for a formative evaluation; therefore, I would classify this proposal as leaning towards a more formative evaluation. (This doesn't mean the data/evaluation won't be used for formative purposes, but it is not the primary purpose.)

Another response

Your postings made me rethink of the roles of a program evaluator. Fitzpatrick at al (2004) define roles of the program evaluators, noting one role is to negotiate with stakeholder groups to define the purpose of evaluation (p. 13). Also, Schwandt (as cited in Fitzpatrick, 2004) describes another role as to help practitioners develop critical judgment (p. 12). Then I got thinking about the Migotsky paper, where one is urged to be mindful of how the messiness of human interaction pervades into the evaluation process (p. 5). With all this being said, two questions remain in my mind. Do the areas to be examined in the RFP really reflect the true purpose of what the Institute and the CEIC want from the evaluation? And since the purpose has not been made overtly clear or focused in the RFP, is the purpose clear in the minds of the management of the institute.

Is it arrogant or prudent to go into an organization with the belief that the purpose given, may not really be the purpose needed/wanted after studying the evaluand.