EdTech 505 Far West RFP

8/9/2019 EdTech 505 Far West RFP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/edtech-505-far-west-rfp 1/6

Evaluation of Determining Instructional Purposes

Far West Laboratories

Educational Research and Development

Submitted to:Florence W. LarsonChief Program OfficerFar West Laboratories

Picture courtesy of Quest Garden

Submitted by: Angie KruzichPresident and Evaluation Team LeaderKruzich Evaluation ServicesOctober 20, 2013

http://questgarden.com/107/02/2/100905192007/evaluation.htm






2 | E d T e c h 5 0 5 : E v a l u a t i o n P r o j e c t

Introduction

Kruzich Evaluation Services (KES) proposes to evaluate Far West Laboratory's (FWL)

Determining Instruction Purposes (DIP) training program. This evaluation would seekinformation about the units being used to train school administrators and graduate

students within the DIP program. In addition, the evaluation will help to determine

whether FWL should continue to invest and/or expand the use of the training units. The

Request for Proposal (RFP) also clarifies that the materials have not yet been used in a

real training course, yet. KES believes that a Decision Making Evaluation Model will be

the best model to answer these inquiries for FWL.

Description of Program

KES has inventoried the materials being used in the DIP program which include a

handbook, three main training units and more detailed teaching modules within each

unit. The purpose of the DIP training is to help those enrolled plan effective school

programming.

The coordinator's handbook contains procedures and other detailed information that

helps one plan a series of training sessions. It is mentioned in the RFP, that one does

not need any prior instruction or knowledge of this training course in order to be the

managing coordinator.

The training units themselves each contain four to six detailed modules. The three units

in the DIP program are:

Unit 1: Setting Goals

Unit 2: Analyzing Problems

Unit 3: Deriving Objectives

Each module within a unit contains several types of teaching materials. This includes:

Instructional Objectives

Reading Material

Individual and/or Groups Activities Feedback Techniques

The RFP also states that any one unit or combination of units can be used together or

independently of one another. For example, a coordinator could just use Unit 2:

Analyzing Problems for a smaller training course.




Evaluation Method

Purpose

The leadership at Far West Laboratories would like the results of this evaluation todetermine whether it is sensible to continue producing and marketing the DIP training

units. Will this program be a good investment of FWL money? Likewise, these results

will also be helpful to school administrators who may or may not be initially interested in

purchasing the DIP training.

AudienceThis particular evaluation will provide information to three main groups.

1. The Far West Laboratory leadership staff will be the primary group interested in

the outcomes of this evaluation. FWL primary objectives are to use thisevaluation to help make decisions about further marketing and production of the

DIP training units.

2. In addition, the Training Coordinators hired to conduct the DIP training sessions

for the purposes of this evaluation will be provided with the final evaluation.

Feedback to and from the trainers can determine if any necessary adjustments to

the DIP units should take place before marketing and distribution.

3. Finally, the trainees or future prospective clients, such as school administrators

and graduate students, would be interested in these evaluation results.

Evaluation recommendations, a satisfactory report or both will help anyone

interested in purchasing the DIP units make an informed decision. Questionsabout the DIP units could also be answered with the information obtained

through evaluation.

Information-CollectionIn order to truly determine the effectiveness of the DIP program, this evaluation must

obtain information from more realistic scenarios. Thus far, the DIP program has not

been simulated or used in any real training situations. Therefore, the main focus of the

evaluation process should include real-life training situations. KES proposes that three

training sessions are conducting using the full DIP unit curriculum in each. For each

session, one coordinator would ideally have 10-15 trainees over the course of eight total

days (2 days/wk). Coordinators would travel to trainees. Only from true training courses

and invested participants can many questions be answered to assist FWL in their quest

for answers. Data that would be of interest to analyze would include:

Who is interested in participating in this program?




How many participants are interested?

How many schools are interested?

How many school districts are interested?

How much are participants, administrators and/or school districts willing to pay?

Did participants feel the information was valuable in the trainings?

Which topic(s) were most helpful? Which topic(s) were least helpful?

Would participants apply their knowledge from the program?

Did participants leave the training understanding how to apply the information?

Was the training powerful enough that participants followed through by applying

learned information from the training?

Would participants recommend the DIP training to others?

How did participants apply the training within their own schools?

What are the costs to provide the trainings and distribute materials?

Data Collection Instruments and Sources

In order to answer the above questions, several different techniques would be used to

collect data and information. One collection method would be to conduct surveys of the

coordinators, and participating trainees during one of three training sessions. This can

collect data to assist answering questions related to interest to purchase and how well

the DIP units succeeded during the trainings. The surveys can be administered right

after the DIP trainings but then a follow up survey can also be conducted several

months or even a year later to see how the trainings were applied by the trainees.

Another technique to collect information about the DIP units would involve interviewingthe coordinators, school administrators and graduate students. The interviews would

take place during the trainings and be conducted by the evaluation team leader.

Interviews can go a little further than a survey in that the interviewer can ask the

interviewee to expand on their thoughts and ideas.

Additionally, interviews would take place with participating school district central o ffices,

FWL accounts payable and receivable personnel and FWL marketing department

personnel. During these interviews, data can be collected to help analyze the marketing

and sales of the DIP units. What cost is acceptable such that the units are purchased by

clients and FWL covers their expenses.

Finally pre-testing and post-testing would be conducted. This is more concrete data

collection to show if there was growth in knowledge by the trainees. This data would be

analyzed and included in the final evaluation report as would all interview and survey

data.




Task Schedule

The timeline involved to complete the evaluation from start to finish would incorporate

the following tasks, dates and personnel.

Task Team Member ClosingDate

1. Submit evaluation proposal to FWL Kruzich Oct 20132. Await evaluation acceptance from FWL Kruzich October3. Advertise program through the United States FWL November4. Simultaneously, create surveys and interview questions Jones & Rice November5. Meet with and update FWL Kruzich & Jones December5. Hire three coordinators for the training sessions Kruzich Nov - Jan6. Begin setting up training session dates and times Kruzich Dec - Jan7. Conduct multiple training sessions New Hires Feb - Apr

8. During training sessions, conduct interviews Kruzich Feb - Apr9. As training sessions come to a close, distribute surveys Kruzich Mar - Apr10. Analyze survey and interview results Jones & Rice May11. Write final evaluation report Kruzich & Jones May - Jun12. Present final report and recommendations to FWL Kruzich & Jones July 1, 2014

KES Project Personnel

Angie Kru zich, Ph.D., KES Presiden t - Dr. Kruzich, also KES's Evaluation Team

Leader, provides leadership, mentorship and technical advising for the company and isthe key consultant who works directly with clients. With specialties in social policy,program evaluation and statistical analysis, she adds her wealth of experience to allaspects of research, including problem definition, project design, survey construction,focus group moderation, data analysis, and reporting.

Andrea Jones, Ph.D., KES Research Analyst - Andrea brings extensive experience inonline survey methodology, quantitative analysis and reporting to KES. As a part of herrole, Andrea consults with clients on questionnaire design, guides projects through datacollection and oversees the analysis and writing of research reports.

Will iam Rice, Ph.D., Washin gto n State University Ed ucatio n Departm ent - WilliamRice is frequently used as a subject matter expect (SME) by KES. For this particular

evaluation, he would be called in to consult and assist with this evaluation regarding the

DIP units. William has 20 years of experience in the education department at WSU and

specializes in development of teacher training courses.




Budget

Budget expenses would include:

KES evaluation team costs $20,000

o This portion of the budget will cover costs for: Cost for Kruzich and Jones Meeting Times for KES with FWL Cost for SME Consultant All Surveys and Interview Questions Written All Data Analyzed The Full Evaluation Report Write Up Editing and Rewrite Time Involved Presentation Time of Final Evaluation Report

Evaluation Team Leader Travel Expenseso Travel two nights at a timeo Visit each coordinator twice maximumo Conduct Surveys and Interviews during tripo Hotel Est. $150/nighto Food Allowance $100/dayo Plane Fare $550/tripo 6 trips: $1050/trip $ 6,300

Hire 3 Coordinators to conduct 1 full DIP training session eacho Salary

8 days each 6 hours/day $200/day $ 4,800

o Travel Expenses: will travel to the trainees Hotel, Food, Plane $12,600

o Pre-Training of Coordinators $ 4,800

DIP Training Materials provided by FWLo free to participants during evaluation processo Provide Snack Food to participants $ 900

On the Road Training Costso Photocopying $ 300o Other Miscellaneous $ 300

Total Cost = $50,000

Documents

EdTech 505 Far West RFP