Calculating the return on training investment is easy to do. Training departments can show their value to the company's bottom-line by reporting the dollars spent and balancing the scale with the value returned.
Recommendations are one of the most critical products of any evaluation. Audiences typically spend more time studying our recommendations than any other product, including our findings or our conclusions. And, because recommendations are so important, we evaluators are beginning to pay them more attention, although surprisingly little attention and surprisingly slowly. Six years ago we lamented that &dquo;Unfortunately, we as a profession have paid little attention to the topic of recommendations&dquo; (Hendricks, 1984). Two years ago Michael Patton reminded us that little has changed:
article is a good illustration of this point. The need to get the car fixed can be justified in terms of your goals, e. g. , ‘ ‘I I need to get the car fixed if I want to drive to a meeting . &dquo; In reality, of course, your case might well resemble the rich person who said he ‘ ‘needed&dquo; a fifth Ferrari. You might be better off abandoning ,the car and resting instead of attending a meeting. This notion is crucial in education where we say kids need to learn certain things, because we are putting that need in the context of our values or perceptions. Perhaps one way of trying to objectify the &dquo;if-clause&dquo; is to use
The international and cross-cultural theme for this year’s meeting brings us literally face to face with the issue of differences. Differences in cultures, in languages, in dress, in customs, in viewpoints and perspectives. If you have had a chance to walk the streets of San Francisco-or of just about any city in the United States, for that matter-you will note differences like these. Differences, then, are all around us. I focus here on several important benefits of differences. In brief, my thesis is that differences are not only beneficial, but also essential for our learning, our creativity, and our astonishment. I highlight each of these aspects, focusing on the implications for us as individuals and, in particular, for us as evaluators.
Articles should deal with topics applicable to the broad field of program evaluation. Implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified. Examples of contributions include but are not limited to reviews of new developments in evaluation and descriptions of a current evaluation effort, research problem, or technique. Manuscripts should include appropriate references and not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages in length.
Sheet metals are often used as safety structures in automotive applications where the fracture behaviour is a key design parameter. Theoretical and experimental observations have shown that the fracture behaviour of many metals depends on the stress state. Modelling the stress state dependency of fracture in Finite Element (FE) simulations has led to the development of advanced stress state dependent fracture criteria. The calibration of advanced fracture models is currently limited by the characterisation methods, which have not developed much during the last decades. Experimental characterisation methods that can determine the stress state accurately are necessary to ensure reliable calibrations of advanced fracture models. In this article, an experimental method to obtain the stress state and its evolution during deformation is presented. The stress state evolution is determined using measured local displacement field data, which were obtained by digital image correlation, coupled with a stepwise modelling method. This article shows that the stepwise modelling method can capture the stress state evolution for three different specimen geometries subjected to tensile loading. The resulting experimentally determined stress state evolutions are compared with the results of FE simulations, and both results are in good agreement. The accurate stress state evolutions characterised directly from experiments using the proposed method enables calibration of advanced fracture models rapidly and reliably.
Letters are selected for their pertinence to material published in Evaluation Practice or because they discuss issues or problems of general interest to practicing evaluators. Letters pertaining to material published in EP may criticize articles or reports; correct errors; Provide support or agreement; or offer different points of view, clarifications, or additional information. Depending on the nature of the discussion, authors of articles in question may be given an opportunity to reply in the same issue. Letters accepted for publication may be edited and shortened.
contracts for evaluations in which we look only at the interests of the donor agency and not at the intended recipients. We seek, accept, and &dquo;carry out&dquo; evaluations when we know that adequate resources, especially time, are lacking. We seek, accept, and &dquo;carry out&dquo; evaluations in areas outside our technical or cultural expertise. And, finally, we agree to conditions of secrecy such that evaluations of aid
Essays, opinions, and professional judgments are welcome in this section of EP. Forum articles speak to and about the philosophical and ethical dilemmas of our profession. Authors are invited to express their views to encourage constructive dialogue centered on issues. To keep the dialogue substantive, other articles moti vated by previous Forum presentations should have independent titles and themes. Items labeled "Comments on ..." and "Rejoinder to ..." will not be published inForum— such responses, and those not of article length or nature, are welcome and encouraged in the Letters section of EP. Standard citations and reference lists should acknowledge and identify earlier contributions and viewpoints. Manuscripts should not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages in length.
EA 622 151 -ButteaMi Joah L. FoCOs Groups: A,Starting Point for Needs AsdeasMent. Reseaecn for Better Schools, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. Apr 90 400-86-0003 11p.; Paper Orebented at the Annual Meeting of the American Edudational Research Association (Boston, MA, April 16-26, 1990). Speechei/Conference Papers (150), -Reports ReSearbh/Technidal (143) MF61/PC01 Plus-Postage. Audience Analysis; Brainstorming;, *Discussion Groups; Elementary Secohdary-Education; Feedback; Marketing; *NeedS Assessment;,,Qualitative Research *FodUaGroups Utilization of focus groups, commonly used in marketing research, as the first step of program needs assessment, is examined in this repoet. Focus groups are useful in generating new data that have not been constrained by a preconceived evaluation format. The goal of focus groups is not consensus building, but identification of 'a variety of needs. A needs assessment Study was conducted by a regional educational laboratory, in five locations aceosi the northeastern United States. Thirty-five representatives from edrcation, administration, business, and professional associations, generated ,from a list of nominations, participated in focus group discussions. The groups identified regional elementary and sebondary educational needs and feasible types of assistance. Group feedback produced a significantly different list of needs than those generated previously by a mail survvr. Earlier lists of needs focused on elementary and secondary problems, and the focus groups emphasized needs supportive of the instructional program. Focus groups' requests for assistance were congruent with available services. Findings indicate that, although to defining the educational status quo, focus groups are useful in providing input to improve survey design, enhance knowledge of clients' needs, an: expand management concepts for future planning. (11 references (LMI) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions,supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** Focus Groups: A Starting Point for Needs Assessment Joan L. Buttram Research for Better Schools, Inc. 444 N. Third Street Philadelphia, PA 19123 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office ot Education& Research and Improvement EDIJCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATICN CENTER (ERIC) Alm document has been reproduced u, ecetved from the person or organization onginating it 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction Quality Pointsof view or opinionsstatedinthesdocir ment do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Boston, April, 1990. It is based on work sponsored, wholly or in part, by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (QEg), 'Department of Education, under Contract Number 400-86-0003. The di:Intent of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U.S. Government. IntroduCtion Although Most recently linked to market research (Krueger, 1988), -evaluatort' interest in focus groups has been sparked with the, inCreasing adceptance of qualitative methodologies and emphasis_on client reactions (Patton., 1987). Focus groups can be used by evaluators to explore individuals' perceptions about a broad range of topics and purposes (Krueger, 1988). For example, those most closely tied to marketing's use assess_participants' reactions to a particular program, service, or product (loKilii0, 1986). Focus groups also can be used to tap the perceptions of internal staff or other stakeholders. In addition, they can provide intormation about a program not just at its end, but at its beginning or mid-point. ,This paper will examine the use of focus groups at the start, as the first step in a broader needs assessment. Most programs are designed to meet a set of perceived needs, usually for a targeted group of clients. To ensure that program designers clearly understand the needs of the target group, needs assessments are often conducted, either formally or informally (Stufflebeam, McCormick, Brinkerhoff, & Nelson, 1985). Although most program planners would probably argue that they know what their clients need, too many programs have failed because of mismatched services. It's therefore imperative to assess, or confirm clients' needs (Rossi & Freeman, 1982). Deciding what the needs of clients are is no easy task. One standard technique is to ask members of the target group (or their representatives) to react to a set of needs already listed in some form (Patton, 1982; Rossi & Freeman, 1982). Their reactions, in are used to design appropriate program Services or products. To many evaluators, this initial listing of potential needs presents the clasSic Catch-22. 'Jaw Should the evaluator decide what client needs indlude-in the initial list? And how can this list not bias the client's response? As Krueger (1988, p. 19) notes, respondents are limited by the -choices offered and, therefore, the findings could be unintentionally infldenced...by oversight or omission. The validity of the needs assessment is consequently dependent on the perceptiveness of the evaluator (or others) Who drew up the initial list. Sihce most formal needs assessments involve large numbers of individuals, more open-ended assessments that do not supply a predetermined list Of needSare seldom feasible. Yet it is in these very instances that needs tssesstents are so crucial to ensuring that the program will be responsive to the target group. Focus groups, as described below, can help resolve the dilemma involved in developing that initial list (Krueger, 1988). Methodology A focus group typically involves six to eight individuals from a target group who participate in a structured discussion (Krueger, 1988; Morgan, 1988). A needs assessment focus group will address the problems (or needs) of group members to which the program might respond (Krueger, 1988). During the session, the moderator will focus the group's discussion on identifying and delineating those needs. Since a focus group is not meant to arrive at a consensus around a particular topic (Morgan, 1988), the discussion will most likely produce a variety of needs to be addressed, some shared by the entire group and some particular to one or more individuals in the group. The evaluator will still be faced with the task of developing a final list of needs, but the task will be carried out from a more client-centered vantage point. Convening multiple frcus groups on the same topic can help
left education researchers to assume such basics as the five hour school day, the value of reading for the sake of reading, etc. and to look instead only at easy-to-study but often superfluous needs/wants. In education, I do not even know whether we are sophisticated and knowledgeable enough to worry about treatment needs. Maybe we are still at the stage of carefully examining goals and the skills children need to attain them.
Articles should deal with topics applicable to the broad field of program evaluation. Implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified. Examples of contributions include but are not limited to reviews of new developments in evaluation and descriptions of a current evaluation effort, research problem, or technique. Manuscripts should include appropriate references and not exceed 10 double- spaced typewritten pages in length.
TRACES are what evaluators left behind — discoveries, records, tracks — which made marks on the profession of program evaluation. Published here are excerpts from our past (e.g., articles. passages from books, speeches) that show where we have been or affected where we are g(r)o(w)ing. Suggestions for inclusion should be sent to the Editor, along with rationale for their import. Photocopies of the original printed versions are preferred with full bibliographic information. Copying rights will be secured by the Editor.
Articles should deal with topics applicable to the broadfield of program evaluation. Implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified. Examples of contributions include but are not limited to reviews of new developments in evaluation and descriptions of a current evaluation effort, research problem, or technique. Manuscripts should include appropriate references and not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages in length.
Increasingly, professional forecasters rely on citizen forecasts when predicting election results. Following this approach, forecasters predict the winning party to be the one which most citizens have said will win. This approach predicts winners and vote shares well, but related research has shown that some citizens forecast better than others. Extensions of Condorcet’s jury theorem suggest that naïve citizen forecasting can be improved by delegating the forecasting to the most competent citizens and by weighting their forecasts by their level of competence. Indeed, doing so increases both the accuracy of vote share predictions and the number of states forecast correctly. Allocating the state’s electoral votes to the candidate who the most weighted delegates say will win yields a simple but successful forecasting model of the US Presidency. The ‘wisdom of crowds’ model predicts eight presidential elections out of nine correctly. The results suggest that delegating and weighting provide easy ways to improve citizen forecasting.
Dr. Joseph Wholey is Professor of Public Administration at the University of Southern California's Washington Public Affairs Center. His research and teaching focus on policies, program approaches, and management practices that contribute to improved performance in human service agencies and programs. He is well- known to evaluators for his development of the theory and application of "evaluability assessment." In addition to his academic responsibilities, Dr. Wholey currently devotes a good part of his time to a project that places the evaluator in a special role requiring both methodologi cal competence and communication skills. He is Director of the Program for Excellence in Human Services, a voluntary partnership of local governments, regional groups, state agencies, and universities. The program is a cooperative effort intended to help improve the performance and credibility of Northern Virginia's human service system. In September 1989 we had the opportunity one afternoon to talk informally in Joe's Washington office (across from the famous Ford's Theatre) about the project in Northern Virginia and his experience of coordinating and facilitating the work of an extraordinary group of local and state government executives, program managers, planners, and faculty members.
