- Published: November 17, 2022
- Updated: November 17, 2022
- University / College: The University of Sydney
- Level: Bachelor's Degree
- Language: English
- Downloads: 2
The paper ” Categories of Evaluative Inquiries” is an outstanding example of psychology coursework.
The term proactive entails acting in advance to tackle an expected challenge of difficult. According to John Owen, proactive evaluation outlines the various strategies toward approaching and logically assessment of decisions, in particular, front-end decisions. Proactive evaluation can be logically applied in two ways (Owen & Rogers, 1999). First, it entails the provision of findings to guide any decision-making about a new program, specifically one being developed from scratch. This first way is dubbed ‘ nothing to something’. In the second proactive evaluation strategy, an existing program that is in dire need of major reviews. In addition, a program that has a possibility of being replaced with a completely new program. These two strategies fall under the category of proactive evaluation due to their nature (Owen & Rogers, 1999). The strategies provide information on how to assist decision making on an anticipated or projected basis. Proactive evaluation deals with:
- The extent of the need in a described audience for a program in a specified area of provision:
- Critically evaluation of all identified procedures have been tackled from other programs implemented elsewhere:
- Evaluation of concepts and strategies in proved research and related literature on the issue or problem at hand.
Firstly, in the extent of the need in a described audience for a program in a specified area of provision, we try to determine discrepancies in an ideal state and actual state. A want discrepancy is carried out to detail on the divisiveness of the actual and the ideal states of any event (Owen & Rogers, 1999). Considering the integration of education of male and female students in elementary states in Saudi Arabia, we try to determine the discrepancies based on the desired ideal state from the actual state. An evaluator is subjected to review the actual methods used to integrate the education of male and female students (Owen & Rogers, 1999). Observations and interviews techniques can be adapted for these stages. In addition, the evaluator can survey the methods and strategies preferred for the integration of education. Thereafter, the evaluator determines the differences between the desired and the actual means of integrating education. This is followed by outlaying and presentation of a concluded report about the size of the nature of the discrepancies noted (Owen & Rogers, 1999). A second approach to proactive evaluation is to critically evaluation of all identified procedures having been tackled from other programs implemented elsewhere. Research findings on related programs, integration of education for male and female students can be overlooked (Owen & Rogers, 1999). Research findings are a very helpful tool and the best way to analyze and evaluate information using this form is a literature review. When compiling a research approach, a series of procedures to adhere to are formulating the field or program of inquiry. Secondly, collecting and evaluation all necessary data collected. This is succeeded by analyzing and integrating the data. Lastly, the findings are presented to the necessary parties. Conclusively, the proactive evaluation approach is an agent of change. As highlighted above, this approach can support and provide means for fundamental changes in the educational integration of students in Saudi Arabia. This approach is applicable to any program that is not servings its expected need or is outdated (Owen & Rogers, 1999). Clarification EvaluationWhen in need of better program planning, explicit program designs, and better policy, clarification evaluation is the approach to adapt. Clarification evaluation deals with:
- Provision of fundamentals for monitoring and impact evaluation of subsequent programs;
- It deals with the analysis of logical aspects as well as theoretical aspects of programs;
- The description of programs;
- The ability for programs to be plausible;
- The evenness of a program’s implementation in relation to its design.
There has been much emphasis on the conception of both program theory and program logic. During the data collection phase, it is vital that nothing is left to chance. All aspects expected of the program should be covered (Owen & Rogers, 1999). The evaluator will rely solely on the data collected when he or she is constructing a program that is expected to be plausible. Data collection methods such as observation, interviews and even surveying are applicable during a clarification evaluation. For our case, the integration of education for male and female students in Saudi Arabia is our program plan. In addition, clarification evaluations push for evaluators to lay comprehendible program plans that are readily understood by deliverers and managers (Owen & Rogers, 1999). A series of suggested methodologies adopted by this approach are: Determining the objective, securing the commitment and gathering team members for the evaluation. In the integrating of education of male and female student scenarios, the evaluator should be the focal member of the team to steer them in line with the suggested methodologies. Additionally, in the provided scenario it is vital to identify all the key influential decision-makers and the stakeholders for the program plan (Owen & Rogers, 1999). Secondly, we outline the evaluation boundaries of the program plan that shall be under study. This will set the expected goals, objectives, and limits to the program plan as a whole. It is eminent to consider both the decisions to be made and the importance of the program during the evaluation. During the data collection phase, assembling of evidence should only be taken for lengthy programs (Owen & Rogers, 1999). Thirdly, identification and analysis of all literature and available documents follows. In evidence assembling, document analysis is integral. Document analysis can include memoranda, research synthesis, policy statements, hearings resource statements, program guidelines to mention but a few (Owen & Rogers, 1999). Team members should avoid conflicting documents. If there, cases in which some documents conflict on what is intended and what is expected they should be clearly sorted before proceeding. Among the deliverables after the evidence assemblies, are flow diagrams. The flow diagrams are useful tools during discussions and presentations of information gathered. They give an overview flow of events of the program plan hence making understanding easier (Owen & Rogers, 1999). Clarificative evaluation has made clear the need to make explicit the logic of any program. This is a key step in any program plan as it forms the basis to which the program will be conceived. The emphasis on the legitimacy of clarification evaluation as the evaluation is imperative. Furthermore, it is the duty of the evaluators to point out any salience, as clarificative evaluation is novel (Owen & Rogers, 1999).