Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Trock, Warren L.

English

Research Papers in Economics

THE  EVALUATION  PROCESS  FOR  THE
PUBLIC  POLICY  EDUCATION  PROJECT
Warren L. Trock
Professor of Agricultural Economics
Colorado State University
How  often  do  we  conceive  of  evaluation  as  just  a  measure
of accomplishment?  Isn't it usually  limited to a judgment of  how
well we performed  in a teaching situation?  The staff of the policy
education  project found  it to be  so used  in many  cases, and  we de-
cided that it should be more than that in  our project.
In our  first major  planning  session  we  asked  ourselves  four
questions about  evaluation.
1.  Can  evaluation  be  a significant  element  in  an  educational
process?
2.  Can  it be used  to stimulate  an  active  involvement  of par-
ticipants in a workshop?
3.  Can it contribute  to  an identification  of program  elements
useful to participants?
4.  Can  evaluation be useful  in promoting desired behavioural
change among participants  in a workshop?
We  answered  yes to these questions  and we then proceeded  to
design an evaluation  system that would be a significant part of our
educational  process.
The  first element  in the  system was  a survey  of participants
intended  to identify  them as  to  backgrounds,  experiences,  and in-
terests.  The questionnaire  produced data much  like you would put
in  your  own  biographical  sketch,  but  two  questions  were  asked
about  experience  in public  affairs education.  We  wanted  to know
how much  our participants  had  been  involved  with  local  public  is-
sues.
The participants, who were selected  by specialists and adminis-
trators in their respective  states, were principally  involved in com-
munity  development  programs.  But  there  were  also  a significant
number  involved  in  agricultural  programs,  youth  activities,  and
policy education.
The second  element  in the  evaluation  system was  designed  to
provide  feedback during the course of the workshop.  A committee
of participants,  one from each state, was chosen by participants  to
115counsel  with  the  workshop  staff  on  matters  relating  to  organiza.
tion  and conduct  of the  workshop.  Staff met with  the  committee
regularly  to  receive  criticisms  and  recommendations.  Some  ad-
justments  were made  in the content  and extent of the program in
response  to participants'  preferences.
An  evaluation  of  the  workshop  was  the third  element  in  the
system.  It included specific questions  about the program, the facili-
ties,  the  resource persons  and materials,  and the organized  discus-
sions and games.  But there were also requests for evaluation of the
workshop  in relation  to expectations  and needs.  These  were made
because  we  anticipated  that  the  workshop  might  be  repeated  in
other regions.  We wanted to be  able to recommend  changes in for-
mat, program,  or methods  of presentation  of ideas  and  materials.
Response was  good.  Sufficient  confidence  in the interests and  in-
tentions or the staff had been created  during the workshop to per-
mit free expression  of feelings  about the workshop.
The fourth  element  in  the evaluational  system was  the news-
letter, which we used to maintain communication with participants
in the  workshop.  In it were  reported  the  plans  for public  policy
education  made by the participants, their activities  as they became
involved  with  local  policy  issues,  informational  materials  available
which were relevant to their educational  activities, and news of per-
sonal accomplishments.  It was possible  also for participants to re-
quest assistance from  staff and other participants.
Prior  to  the  follow-up  workshop  at  Boise,  participants  were
again surveyed  to ascertain the kinds of policy education experienc-
es they had enjoyed  since the Otter Rock  workshop and  the needs
for further training  which they felt, given their experiences.  This
fifth element  in the evaluational  system  was  important to the de-
termination  of program content for the follow-up  workshop.  From
the responses the staff was able to identify activities  (case studies)
to  be used to illustrate public  policy  education  in communities  and
informational  needs to be addressed  by the staff and other resource
persons.
The follow-up  workshop  was evaluated  in much the same way
that the Otter  Rock  workshop  was  assessed.  This was  the  sixth
element  in the evaluational  system.  There  was considerable  satis-
faction  with the  whole  educational  effort,  but  there  were  certain
needs  expressed  which  are  significant  to continue  productivity  of
participants.  They quite obviously wish for continuing communica-
tion with their colleagues,  the state  policy specialists, and with the
workshop staff.  This communication would be not only informative
but supportive  of them in  their  policy  education programs.  They
118wish also  for continued  training  within their  states,  opportunities
to further explore the methodology of public policy  education,  and
regular refreshment in terms of the subject matter of policy issues.
The newsletter will be continued as a means of communication
among participants, specialists,  and staff.  The in-state training and
other activities will be the responsibility of the policy specialists.  A
report of the whole policy training effort will be prepared if resourc-
es can be found  to support it.  Participants  have  asked for it, and
it will be a logical conclusion of the evaluative  system for the proj-
ect.  We hope for that conclusion.
117PART VI
Rural Leadership Development

THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION PROJECT

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics