1. Evaluation Design
Curriculum Evaluation (EDU 5352)
Mina Badiei (GS31016)

2. What Is Evaluation Design?
• The plan for an evaluation project is called a
"design“.
• It is a particularly vital step to provide an
appropriate assessment.
• A good design offers an opportunity to
maximize the quality of the evaluation, helps
minimize and justify the time and cost
necessary to perform the work.

3. Design Process
• 1. Identifying evaluation questions and issues
• 2. Identifying research designs and
comparisons
• 3. Sampling methods
• 4. Data collection instruments
• 5. Collecting and coding qualitative data

4. Evaluation Design Approaches
Mixed-
Quantitative Qualitative
Method

5. Quantitative approach
• Quantitative data can be counted, measured, and
reported in numerical form and answer questions
such as who, what, where, and how much.
• The quantitative approach is useful for describing
concrete phenomena and for statistically
analyzing results.
• Data collection instruments can be used with
large numbers of study participants.
• Data collection instruments can be
standardized, allowing for easy comparison
within and across studies.

6. • Experimental designs tend to be rigorous in that they control
for external factors and enable you to argue, with some
degree of confidence, that your findings are due to the
Experimental effects of the program rather than other, unrelated, factors.
• They are rarely applicable in educational settings where
there is a chance that students may be denied an opportunity
to participate in a program because of the evaluation design.
• Quasi-experimental designs are those in which participants
are matched beforehand, or after the fact, using statistical
Quasi- methods
• These studies offer a reasonable solution for schools or
Experimental districts that cannot randomly assign students to different
programs, but still desire some degree of control so that they
can make statistical statements about their findings.
• it is intended to demonstrate trends or changes over time.
Time-series Study • the purpose of the design is not to examine the impact of an
intervention ,but simply to explore and describe changes in
the construct of interest.
• Time series offer more data points, but because there is little
control over extraneous factors.

7. • it is intended to show a snapshot in time.
• it might be used to answer questions like:
Cross-sectional • -what do parents think about our school?
• -what do parents see as the strengths and
weaknesses the school environment?
• case studies are those which seek to follow
program implementation or impact on an
individual, group, or organization, such as a
school or classroom.
Case-studies • However, case studies are an excellent way to
collect evidence of program effectiveness, to
increase understanding of how an intervention is
working in particular settings, and to inform a
larger study to be conducted later.

8. Types of Experimental Design
Post-test only design Pre-post design
• the least complicated of the • it is employed when a
experimental design.
pretreatment measure can
• it has three steps:
1) decide what comparisons are supply useful information.
desired and meaningful. • in Field-trial stage this
2) the students in two or more design in common to use.
comparison groups must be
similar.
3) collect the information after
the posttest to determine
whether the differences
occurred.

9. Example:
• Equilibrium Effects of Education Policies: A Quantitative
Evaluation
By : Giovanni Gallipoli, Costas Meghir, Giovanni L. Violante
The paper compares partial and general equilibrium effects of alternative education
policies on the distribution of education and earnings. The numerical counterpart of
the model, parameterized through a variety of data sources, education enrollment
responses which are broadly in line with reduce-form estimates. Through numerical
simulations, they compare the effects of alternative policy interventions on optimal
education decisions, inequality, and output. It’s a king of Quasi-Experimental design.

10. Qualitative Approach
• Qualitative data are reported in narrative form.
• Qualitative approach can provide important insights into how well a
program is working and what can be done to increase its impact.
• Qualitative data can also provide information about how
participants – including the people responsible for operating the
program as well as the target audience – feel about the program.
• It promotes understanding of diverse stakeholder perspectives
(e.g., what the program means to different people).
• Stakeholders, funders, policymakers, and the public may find
quotes and anecdotes easier to understand and more appealing
than statistical data.

11. Observation
Interview
Focus Groups
Document Studies
Key-informants

12. observation
• Observational techniques are methods by which an individual or
individuals gather firsthand data on programs, processes, or
behaviors being studied.
• They provide evaluators with an opportunity to collect data on a
wide range of behaviors, to capture a great variety of
interactions, and to openly explore the evaluation topic.
• By directly observing operations and activities, the evaluator can
develop a holistic perspective, i.e., an understanding of the context
within which the project operates.
• Observational approaches also allow the evaluator to learn about
things the participants or staff may be unaware of or that they are
unwilling or unable to discuss in an interview or focus group.

13. When to use observations
• Observations can be useful during both the formative and summative
phases of evaluation. For example, during the formative
phase, observations can be useful in determining whether or not the
project is being delivered and operated as planned.
• In the hypothetical project, observations could be used to describe the
faculty development sessions, examining the extent to which participants
understand the concepts, ask the right questions, and are engaged in
appropriate interactions.
• Observations during the summative phase of evaluation can be used to
determine whether or not the project is successful. The technique would
be especially useful in directly examining teaching methods employed by
the faculty in their own classes after program participation.

14. Interviews
• Interviews provide very different data from observations: they
allow the evaluation team to capture the perspectives of project
participants, staff, and others associated with the project.
• In the hypothetical example, interviews with project staff can
provide information on the early stages of the implementation and
problems encountered.
• An interview, rather than a paper and pencil survey, is selected
when interpersonal contact is important and when opportunities
for follow up of interesting comments are desired.
• Two types of interviews are used in evaluation research: structured
interviews, in which a carefully worded questionnaire is
administered; and in depth interviews, in which the interviewer
does not follow a rigid form.

15. Contd..
structured interviews: In-depth interviews:
• the interviewers seek to encourage
• the emphasis is on obtaining free and open responses, and
answers to carefully phrased there may be a trade off between
questions. comprehensive coverage of topics
• Interviewers are trained to and in depth and limited set of
deviate only minimally from the questions.
question wording to ensure • In depth interviews also encourage
uniformity of interview capturing of respondents’
administration. perceptions in their own words.
This allows the evaluator to
present the meaningfulness of the
experience from the respondent’s
perspective.
• In depth interviews are conducted
with individuals or with a small
group of individuals.

16. When to use interviews
• interviews can be used at any stage of the evaluation process. They
are especially useful in answering questions such as those
suggested by Patton (1990):
• What does the program look and feel like to the participants? To
other stakeholders?
• What are the experiences of program participants?
• What do stakeholders know about the project?
• What thoughts do stakeholders knowledgeable about the program
have concerning program operations, processes, and outcomes?
• What are participants’ and stakeholders’ expectations?
• What features of the project are most salient to the participants?
• What changes do participants perceive in themselves as a result of
their involvement in the project?

17. Focus Groups
• Focus groups combine elements of both interviewing and
participant observation.
• The focus group session is, indeed, an interview not a
discussion group, problem-solving session, or decision-
making group. (Patton, 1990)
• The hallmark of focus groups is the explicit use of the
group interaction to generate data and insights that would
be unlikely to emerge without the interaction found in a
group.
• Focus groups are a gathering of 8 to 12 people who share
some characteristics relevant to the evaluation. Originally
used as a market research tool to investigate the appeal of
various products.

18. Contd.
• the focus group technique has been adopted by
other fields, such as education, as a tool for data
gathering on a given topic.
• It conducted by experts take place in a focus
group facility that includes recording apparatus
(audio and/or visual) and an attached room with
a one-way mirror for observation. There is an
official recorder who may or may not be in the
room.
• Participants are paid for attendance and
provided with refreshments.

19. When to use focus groups
• When conducting evaluations, focus groups are useful
in answering the same type of questions as in-depth
interviews, except in a social context.
• Specific applications of the focus group method in
evaluations include :
- identifying and defining problems in project
implementation;
-identifying project strengths, weaknesses, and
recommendations;
-assisting with interpretation of quantitative findings;
-obtaining perceptions of project outcomes and
impacts; and generating new ideas.

20. Other Qualitative Methods
• Document Studies: defined a document as "any written or recorded material"
not prepared for the purposes of the evaluation or at the request of the
inquirer. Documents can be divided into two major categories: public
records, and personal documents (Guba and Lincoln, 1981).
• Key Informant :A key informant is a person (or group of persons) who has
unique skills or professional background related to the issue/intervention
being evaluated, is knowledgeable about the project participants, or has
access to other information of interest to the evaluator.
• Key informants can help the evaluation team better understand the issue
being evaluated, as well as the project participants, their
backgrounds, behaviors, and attitudes, and any language or ethnic
considerations. They can offer expertise beyond the evaluation team. They are
also very useful for assisting with the evaluation of curricula and other
educational materials. Key informants can be surveyed or interviewed
individually or through focus groups.

21. Example:
• A Qualitative Evaluation Process for Educational Programs
Serving Handicapped Students in Rural Areas
By : LUCILLE ANNESEZEPH
The paper describes a qualitative methodology designed to evaluate special education programs
in rural areas serving students with severe special needs. A rationale is provided for the use of
the elements of aesthetic criticism as the basis of methodology, and specific descriptions of the
steps for its implementation and validation are provided. Some practical limitations and particular
areas of usefulness are also discussed.

22. Mix method
• In recent years evaluators of educational and social programs have
expanded their methodological repertoire with designs that include
the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Such practice,
however, needs to be grounded in a theory that can meaningfully
guide the design and implementation of mixed-method evaluations.
• In many cases a mixture of designs can work together as a design
for evaluating a large, complex program.
• The ideal evaluation combines quantitative and qualitative
methods. A mixed-method approach offers a range of perspectives
on a program's processes and outcomes.
• For example, the impact of a reading intervention on student
performance may be compared for all students in a school over a
period of time using repeated measures from exams administered
for this purpose, but could also include more focused case studies
of particular classes to learn about crucial implementation issues.

23. benefits
• It increases the validity of your findings by allowing you to
examine the same phenomenon in different ways.
• It can result in better data collection instruments. For
example, focus groups can be invaluable in the
development or selection of a questionnaire used to gather
quantitative data.
• It promotes greater understanding of the findings.
Quantitative data can show that change occurred and how
much change took place, while qualitative data can help
you and others understand what happened and why.
• It offers something for everyone. Some stakeholders may
respond more favorably to a presentation featuring charts
and graphs. Others may prefer anecdotes and stories.

24. Example:
• A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a 12-Week Insurance-Sponsored
Weight Management Program Incorporating Cognitive–Behavioral
Counseling
By:Christiaan Abildso , Sam Zizzi, Diana Gilleland, James Thomas, and Daniel Bonner
A sequential mixed methods approach was used to assess the physical
and psychosocial impact of a 12-week cognitive–behavioral weight
management program and explore factors associated with weight loss.
Quantitative data revealed program completion rate and mean
percentage weight loss that compare favorably with other
interventions, and differential psychosocial impacts on those losing
more weight. Telephone interviews revealed four potential
mechanisms for these differential impacts: (a) fostering
accountability, (b) balancing perceived effort and success, (c)
redefining ‘‘success,’’ and (d) developing cognitive flexibility.