Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe existence of multiple purposes for site visits can explain some of the variation seen in the design and use of site visits in practice. In some instances, site visits are one element of a larger evaluation design where results are blended with data from a variety of sources. In other instances, site visits stand alone as the entire evaluation. This chapter discusses three case studies from the perspective of evaluation practitioners that are aligned with the typology presented in the previous chapter by Chapman Haynes, Murphy, and Patton. They illustrate three distinct conditions where site visits have been used in evaluation. The cases selected include two site visits that are part of a suite of numerous evaluation activities that comprise the evaluation design and one case where the site visit comprises the entire evaluation. The chapter concludes with five cross‐cutting themes that form practical considerations for incorporating site visits into evaluation practice.

AbstractIn contrast to typical National Science Foundation program evaluations, the Utah State Math Science Partnership‐Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance Project (MSP‐RETA) provided technical assistance (TA) in two forms: direct TA for up to 10 projects a year, and professional development sessions for a larger number of project staff. Not surprisingly, the two forms led to different results in terms of involvement and use. Most of those who participated in the direct technical assistance activities were positively affected and sought additional support and development. Project staff who were not included in the direct assistance efforts were more likely to report limited involvement and use. © Wiley Periodicals Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

AbstractThis chapter discusses the impact that four multisite National Science Foundation (NSF) evaluations had on the broader field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and evaluation. Three approaches were used to investigate the broader impact of these evaluations on the field: (a) a citation analysis, (b) an on‐line survey, and (c) surveys and follow‐up interviews with NSF project principal investigators (PIs). The results indicate that the four evaluations had at least some impact. In addition, they show that the four efforts had differential impact, generally related to the way each evaluation operated. Evaluations in operation for longer time periods produced more products with more types of dissemination. The most‐cited products tended to be instruments and tools. The field influence survey showed that, overall, few NSF PIs had any knowledge of influential evaluations, evaluation publications, or evaluators. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.