Difference between revisions of "Evaluation"
From Learning and training wiki
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{Term|EVALUATION|Is an in-depth study which takes place at a discrete point in time, and in which recognized | + | {{Term|EVALUATION|Is an in-depth study which takes place at a discrete point in time, and in which recognized research procedures are used in a systematic and analytically defensible manner to form a judgment on the value of an intervention. It is an applied inquiry process for collecting and synthesizing evidence to produce conclusions on the state of affairs value, merit worth significance or quality of programmes, projects, policy, proposal or plan. (Fournier: 2005) |
− | research procedures are used in a systematic and analytically defensible manner to form a judgment on the value of an intervention. It is an applied inquiry process for collecting and synthesizing evidence to produce conclusions on the state of affairs value, merit worth significance or quality of programmes, projects, policy, proposal or plan. (Fournier: 2005) | + | |
Conclusions arising from an evaluation encompass both an empirical aspect (that something is the case) and a normative aspect (judgment about the value of something). The value feature in evaluation differentiates it from other types of inquiry such as investigative journalism or public polling for instance. | Conclusions arising from an evaluation encompass both an empirical aspect (that something is the case) and a normative aspect (judgment about the value of something). The value feature in evaluation differentiates it from other types of inquiry such as investigative journalism or public polling for instance. | ||
Line 33: | Line 32: | ||
* Training Validation System (TVS) Approach (Fitz-Enz, 1994) | * Training Validation System (TVS) Approach (Fitz-Enz, 1994) | ||
* Input, Process, Output, Outcome (IPO) Model (Bushnell, 1990) | * Input, Process, Output, Outcome (IPO) Model (Bushnell, 1990) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | [[Image:Approaches_to_Training_Evaluation.pdf]] | ||
Line 43: | Line 45: | ||
− | Training Evaluation Tools: | + | '''''Training Evaluation Tools:''''' |
+ | |||
Flow chart to determine if Level 1 evaluation is required | Flow chart to determine if Level 1 evaluation is required | ||
Line 53: | Line 56: | ||
− | {{Addmaterial|[[Media:Approaches_to_Training_Evaluation.pdf|Approaches to Training Evaluation]]}} | + | |
+ | |||
+ | {{Addmaterial|[[Image: pdf.png]] [[Media:Approaches_to_Training_Evaluation.pdf|Key Trainning Evaluation Approaches]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Image: pdf.png]] [[Media:Level_I_Evaluation_Flow_Chart.pdf|Flow chart to determine if Level 1 evaluation is required]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Image: pdf.png]] [[Media:Level_II_Evaluation_Flow_Chart.pdf|Flow chart to determine if Level 2 evaluation is required]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Image: pdf.png]] [[Media:L1_Evaluation.pdf|Steps for conducting Level 1 Training Evaluation (for UNITAR training events)]]}} | ||
Revision as of 09:16, 19 July 2011
EVALUATION |
Is an in-depth study which takes place at a discrete point in time, and in which recognized research procedures are used in a systematic and analytically defensible manner to form a judgment on the value of an intervention. It is an applied inquiry process for collecting and synthesizing evidence to produce conclusions on the state of affairs value, merit worth significance or quality of programmes, projects, policy, proposal or plan. (Fournier: 2005)
Conclusions arising from an evaluation encompass both an empirical aspect (that something is the case) and a normative aspect (judgment about the value of something). The value feature in evaluation differentiates it from other types of inquiry such as investigative journalism or public polling for instance. Evaluation can be conducted for purposes of:
Characteristics of evaluation can be summarized as follows:
Flow chart to determine if Level 2 evaluation is required Steps for conducting Level 1 Training Evaluation (for UNITAR training events) |