The Practice of Evaluation

I was over thirty before I finalized my decision not to become a minister. But even now, as some of you know, I still occasionally give in to the urge to preach. Thanks to an invitation from the editor of the POD Quarterly, I now have an opportunity to do so on a regular basis-and on a topic close to my heart. Evaluation is part and parcel of our POD jargon. Unfortunately, as is the case with some other concepts and practices we borrowed from our predecessors and colleagues in other fields, it is extremely misunderstood. Many of us have become overnight experts in and about things we had no knowledge of when the movement began, and evaluation is no exception. In fact, I know of only three people in POD that have had any formal training in evaluation. Admittedly, it is my bias that evaluation is a more complex and (dare I say it?) more important skill than some others currently being plied in the trade. Thus my willingness to write this column

Editor\u27s Message, Spring 1980

I wish to begin my editorship by thanking David Outcalt for his gargantuan efforts in the course of giving birth to the POD Quarterly and nurturing it through its first year. As I guide it through its second year of life, I look forward to corresponding with many of you, as contributors, reviewers and readers, and in maintaining the editorial standards and policies which have been established by the Editorial Board and upheld by David

The Practice of Evaluation

I was over thirty before I finalized my decision not to become a minister. But even now, as some of you know, I still occasionally give in to the urge to preach. Thanks to an invitation from the editor of the POD Quarterly, I now have an opportunity to do so on a regular basis-and on a topic close to my heart. Evaluation is part and parcel of our POD jargon. Unfortunately, as is the case with some other concepts and practices we borrowed from our predecessors and colleagues in other fields, it is extremely misunderstood. Many of us have become overnight experts in and about things we had no knowledge of when the movement began, and evaluation is no exception. In fact, I know of only three people in POD that have had any formal training in evaluation. Admittedly, it is my bias that evaluation is a more complex and (dare I say it?) more important skill than some others currently being plied in the trade. Thus my willingness to write this column

Conference Evaluation Report Summary

Thirty-four states, the District of Columbia and Canada were represented at POD\u27s Fourth Annual Conference. (As your truthful evaluator, I must come clean and confess that POD is really only three years old. How, then, you might ask, can we have held a Fourth Annual Conference? It\u27s easy. We just co-opted the conference out of which POD grew and called it our own so people would not think we were some upstart organization. If I tell you this, could I falsify anything which follows?) Texas was represented by 16 people, California by 13, and Illinois and New Jersey were the only other double-digit states, with 12 each. Of the 206 registrants, 167 filled out a two-page conference evaluation form (81%), and their responses represented the major evaluation activity. Core Committee members also interviewed people throughout the conference and provided me with more personal-type comments which helped to round out the evaluative picture. All of the information obtained in these two ways has been synthesized and presented to Core Committee members in the form of a twenty-page memo. Since a distribution of the same to all members would be prohibitive, the major points contained therein are highlighted here for everyone

Editor\u27s Message, Winter 1980

What does one write in one\u27s final statement as editor? David Outcalt, the previous editor, suggested I remind the readership of how difficult it was to follow in his footsteps. Sandy Inglis, who will be the new editor, thought it might be appropriate to remind people of the hard work and long hours that accompany this position. Both are correct and deserve thanks and support, respectively. However, I have something else in mind

Conference Demographics and Evaluation Summary

Thirty-four states, the District of Columbia and Canada were represented at POD\u27s Fifth Annual Conference at Fairfield Glade, Tennessee. This introductory sentence should sound vaguely familiar to many of the Quarterly\u27s readers, since it is numerically the same as last years\u27 opening summary report statement. Tennessee and Canada, with 13 participants each, wrested top honors from last year\u27s winner, Texas, which fell from 16 to 9 participants. Other double-digit states were Ohio and Virginia, with 11 each, and California and Illinois, with 10 each. (Space considerations dictate the inclusion of this abridged version of the 1979 Conference Evaluation Report in the Quarterly. This does not mean, however, that POD is departing from its inclusionary policy. For your very own copy of the complete, unexpurgated, twenty-four-page (single-spaced) report, including seventeen tables and eleven displays, send me a check for $2.50 to cover photocopying and mailing expenses. Checks should be made payable to the Evaluation and Training Institute.

Editor\u27s Message, Summer 1980

Six issues of the POD Quarterly now adorn the bookshelves of those enlightened individuals and far-sighted librarians who have subscribed since its beginning. More people and institutions are subscribing every week, and I would like to call to the attention of new subscribers the fact that back issues are available at the single-copy price indicated on the inside of the front cover. Also, I receive many letters from well-meaning individuals who have circulated their copies among colleagues and found that the Quarterly seldom comes full circuit, presumably because of its intrinsic value. In addition to offering these people an opportunity to obtain missing copies as well, I further suggest that all readers consider asking their librarians to subscribe so that there will always be a copy available on campus. And do not forget to have them order back issues as well

CSE, MO and AA: Three Evaluation Strategies

A model for, a method of, and an approach to evaluation are summarized and discussed in this column. The CSE model, developed at UCLA\u27s Center for the Study of Evaluation, is a decision-oriented model; the Modus Operandi Method presents an alternative strategy which can be used when experimental or quasi-experimental designs cannot be used; and the Adversary Approach suggests a process through which all positive and negative features of a program can be identified

The Practice of Evaluation

As of the current issue, this column takes on a slightly different character-and we do not mean the additional author. Clare Rose will co-author the next two columns and then assume full responsibility during the year I will be serving as editor of the Quarterly. This issue also marks the beginning of a series of brief discussions of the most prominent and influential models in educational and social science evaluation practice