In this period of cutbacks on funding and fiscal restraint, holding meetings can be expensive. One way to reduce the cost is to hold online meetings. But how do you schedule meetings when everyone is busy and in different locations? Here are three online meeting schedulers that may be helpful.
Tungle.com is located at www.tungle.com. It is a calendar and scheduler that you can sync with Google calendar or other online calendars.
Doodle.com is a simple online meeting scheduler in which you invite others to log on and each is polled on a list of meeting times that you set. See www.doodle.com
MeetingWizard.com is capable of more complex tasks including sending invitations to participants proposing alternative times, summarizing responses, updates to meeting organizer and sending confirmations. See www.meetingwizard.com
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Evaluation Follow-up as a model of Good Evaluation Practice
Michael Quinn Patton notes the importance of "walking the walk" of good evaluation practice. Here is his most recent post to Evaltalk.
Jane Davidson wrote: "I know MQP is big on insisting any evaluation contract includes time specifically set aside for formal follow-up. Perhaps he might share some of the questions he asks at that time?"
Here's a surprise: I focus first on issues of use. How were findings used? What has happened to recommendations (if some were generated)? What issues have surfaced in putting findings to use? (This opens up and circles back to how the evaluation was conducted and the kinds of issues Jane astutely surfaced in her report on synthesizing what happened in a set of evaluations -- very important observations, Jane).
Having dealt with use of findings and recs, I turn to process issues: What was particularly useful about the evaluation process? Not useful? Strengths, weaknesses, gaps? What, if any, impacts did the evaluation process have (separate from use of findings, i.e., process uses)?
I don't ask directly about the evaluator's or consultant's value-added, but comments on this inevitably emerge from the focus on findings and process uses.
As regards the value of doing this after the fact, I think of it as walking the talk of evaluation. If we expect programs to evaluate their outcomes and impacts, we need to model (i.e., role model) good evaluation by evaluating our own practice and work. And, of course, it informs our scholarship and inquiries into effective and useful evaluation, which in my case means I get to use the findings in my writings, an added cost-benefit of doing this. :)
Michael Quinn Patton
Utilization-Focused EvaluationSaint Paul, MN
MQPatton@Prodigy.net
| hide details 9:36 AM (12 minutes ago) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Here's a surprise: I focus first on issues of use. How were findings used? What has happened to recommendations (if some were generated)? What issues have surfaced in putting findings to use? (This opens up and circles back to how the evaluation was conducted and the kinds of issues Jane astutely surfaced in her report on synthesizing what happened in a set of evaluations -- very important observations, Jane).
Having dealt with use of findings and recs, I turn to process issues: What was particularly useful about the evaluation process? Not useful? Strengths, weaknesses, gaps? What, if any, impacts did the evaluation process have (separate from use of findings, i.e., process uses)?
I don't ask directly about the evaluator's or consultant's value-added, but comments on this inevitably emerge from the focus on findings and process uses.
As regards the value of doing this after the fact, I think of it as walking the talk of evaluation. If we expect programs to evaluate their outcomes and impacts, we need to model (i.e., role model) good evaluation by evaluating our own practice and work. And, of course, it informs our scholarship and inquiries into effective and useful evaluation, which in my case means I get to use the findings in my writings, an added cost-benefit of doing this. :)
Michael Quinn Patton
Utilization-Focused EvaluationSaint Paul, MN
MQPatton@Prodigy.net
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Preliminary Analyses: How much to share with clients?
While working on a new project, I did a preliminary analysis of pre- and post-reading test scores sent to me by examiners in 5 different sites. I ran frequencies and descriptives for each time period and noticed a large difference in only one site out of the 5. I decided to include this preliminary information in a progress report and asked the question - Did Xsite use a different test during this period? No, was the response. She checked on it and found that the one site with much lower scores had reported the data as standardized grade-level scores, not raw scores!
I typically don't report means and frequencies prior to the first draft of the report, but this example has me thinking. I have avoided a problem early on by deciding to sent the preliminary results. But I also wonder, what future problem have I created, if any? Time will tell as this evaluation case example unfolds.
I typically don't report means and frequencies prior to the first draft of the report, but this example has me thinking. I have avoided a problem early on by deciding to sent the preliminary results. But I also wonder, what future problem have I created, if any? Time will tell as this evaluation case example unfolds.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Listening to Program Participants
Tweeted 8-12-2009: "Evaluators: Do not assume that you know anything about what the program does. Always ask for a description of the services or activities."
Why is it important to listen to program participants describe what they do in a program?
Programs are not made up of a single component or element - a program has a set of goals and objectives (explicit or implicit) that participants are expected to follow. Each participant in a program - the implementers and the current and future beneficiaries of the program - interacts with others within a program according to the roles and expectations mutually emerging in time and guided by the goals and objectives, standards of practice as understood by the culture of the participants in the program, and according to the expectations and values of collaborating stakeholders (funders, citizen boards, communities).
When we listen to participants' narratives about their activities within a program we can hear the ways that the program is operationalized at the level of that participant's field of action. The "field of action" is the unit of interactions within a program that has the highest likelihood of managing change - and change is what programs are designed to manage for participants. Change is the core function of any social or educational program. No matter how goals and objectives are written in print, managing change toward or from some current or future behavior or condition is the critical feature of any program. Think about the budget of any program. Embedded within that budget are the concrete raw materials for making change happen. The largest share of the budget resources most often is the personnel category (or consultants if the program depends on delivery by consulting collaborators). So in terms of program resources and program goals, the management of change is the central focus of programs.
The management of change is embedded in the narrative of those participants closest to the interaction between the provider and beneficiary, and no less so with the program leaders. Each program participant carries within them a "narrative of action" that when verbalized gives the evaluator the clues to the deepest nature of a program. Unleashing these narratives through questioning and listening to participants is the beginning of a process of mutual and collaborative self-reflection that is critical in making program evaluation useful and helpful.
So do not assume to know anything about a program, but always ask each program participant you encounter to describe the work they do. Note the words and narrative revealed by the participant: In what order are activities and services described? What conditions are noted? What kinds of interactions are described? What links to the community are identified? Who is doing the action - provider or beneficiary? How is hopefulness and hopelessness conveyed? What challenges are identified? What facilitators are identified? The narrative of the participants will become an evaluator's most useful tool to make program evaluation useful and helpful.
Why is it important to listen to program participants describe what they do in a program?
Programs are not made up of a single component or element - a program has a set of goals and objectives (explicit or implicit) that participants are expected to follow. Each participant in a program - the implementers and the current and future beneficiaries of the program - interacts with others within a program according to the roles and expectations mutually emerging in time and guided by the goals and objectives, standards of practice as understood by the culture of the participants in the program, and according to the expectations and values of collaborating stakeholders (funders, citizen boards, communities).
When we listen to participants' narratives about their activities within a program we can hear the ways that the program is operationalized at the level of that participant's field of action. The "field of action" is the unit of interactions within a program that has the highest likelihood of managing change - and change is what programs are designed to manage for participants. Change is the core function of any social or educational program. No matter how goals and objectives are written in print, managing change toward or from some current or future behavior or condition is the critical feature of any program. Think about the budget of any program. Embedded within that budget are the concrete raw materials for making change happen. The largest share of the budget resources most often is the personnel category (or consultants if the program depends on delivery by consulting collaborators). So in terms of program resources and program goals, the management of change is the central focus of programs.
The management of change is embedded in the narrative of those participants closest to the interaction between the provider and beneficiary, and no less so with the program leaders. Each program participant carries within them a "narrative of action" that when verbalized gives the evaluator the clues to the deepest nature of a program. Unleashing these narratives through questioning and listening to participants is the beginning of a process of mutual and collaborative self-reflection that is critical in making program evaluation useful and helpful.
So do not assume to know anything about a program, but always ask each program participant you encounter to describe the work they do. Note the words and narrative revealed by the participant: In what order are activities and services described? What conditions are noted? What kinds of interactions are described? What links to the community are identified? Who is doing the action - provider or beneficiary? How is hopefulness and hopelessness conveyed? What challenges are identified? What facilitators are identified? The narrative of the participants will become an evaluator's most useful tool to make program evaluation useful and helpful.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Father's Day 2009 Post
What do researchers say fathers contribute to children and child development? My take on this is - Dads, you better start talking to your babies and toddlers early and often! Here are a selection of findings for reflection.
- Fathers and social development. Fathers who tended to hold their babies facing out reported that they did this because “it’s easier for the baby to see the world.” In over 20 years of studying fathers, Dr. Ross Parke states that men have a tendency to allow their infants more freedom toexplore, which appears to support the development of independence in their children. Fathers who actively play with their children appear to reinforce the notion of emotional self-control in their children and help their children learn to recognize the emotional cues of others. (http://fcs.tamu.edu/families/parenting/fathering/fathering_pdf/development.pdf)
- A noted sociologist, Dr. David Popenoe, is one of the pioneers of the relatively young field of research into fathers and fatherhood. "Fathers are far more than just 'second adults' in the home," he says. "Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring."6 Fathers have a direct impact on the well-being of their children. It is important for professionals working with fathers—especially in the difficult, emotionally charged arena in which child protective services (CPS) caseworkers operate—to have a working understanding of the literature that addresses this impact. Such knowledge will help make the case for why the most effective CPS case plans will involve fathers. (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm)
- However, there was one surprising finding: while mothers’ depression reduced the mother-child reading activities, and similarly, fathers’ depression reduced the father-child reading activities, it was the fathers’ depression (but not mothers) that significantly affected the child’s vocabulary development at 24-months. Why? The authors suggest that even though maternal depression reduced mother-child reading time, the mother stills spends a significant amount of time with the child, so that such reduction is not likely to have a major effect on the child’s development. (http://www.child-psych.org/2009/03/baby-blues-fathers-postpartum.html)
-
Fathers influence child language development more than mothers: CHAPEL HILL - In families with two working parents, fathers had greater impact than mothers on their children's language development between ages 2 and 3, according to a study by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Frank Porter Graham (FPG) Child Development Institute and UNC's School of Education. Researchers videotaped pairs of parents and their 2-year-old children in their homes during playtime. The children whose fathers used more diverse vocabularies had greater language development when they were tested one year later. However, the mothers' vocabulary did not significantly affect a child's language skills. "Most previous studies on early language development focused on mothers," said Nadya Panscofar, a graduate research assistant and an author of the study. "These findings underscore that for two-parent, dual earner families, fathers should be included in all efforts to improve language development and school readiness." (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct06/fpgfatherslanguage103006.htm)
Monday, April 27, 2009
Be sure to read the Boston Globe article about Helen Reinherz
A lingering cloud
A study that began more than 30 years ago in Quincy shows that family arguing leaves a long-lasting imprint on children
http://www.boston.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)