SOCW 6311 wk 11 discussion 1 peer responses
SOCW 6311 wk 11 discussion 1 peer responses
Respond to at least two colleagues’ by doing the following:
Respond to at least two colleagues by offering critiques of their analyses. Identify strengths in their analyses and strategies for presenting evaluation results to others.
Identify ways your colleagues might improve their presentations.
Identify potential needs or questions of the audience that they may not have considered.
Provide an additional strategy for overcoming the obstacles or challenges in communicating the content of the evaluation reports.
Name first and references after every person
Instructor wants lay out like this:
Respond to at least two colleagues ( 2 peers posts are provided) by doing all of the following:
Identify strengths of your colleagues’ analyses and areas in which the analyses could be improved.
Your response
Address his or her evaluation of the efficacy and applicability of the evidence-based practice,
Your response
[Evaluate] his or her identification of factors that could support or hinder the implementation of the evidence-based practice,
Your response
And [evaluate] his or her solution for mitigating those factors.
Your response
Offer additional insight to your colleagues by either identifying additional factors that may support or limit implementation of the evidence-based practice or an alternative solution for mitigating one of the limitations that your colleagues identified.
Your response
References
Your response
Peer 1: McKenna Bull
RE: Katie Otte Initial Post-Discussion 1 – Week 11
Top of Form
Identify strengths in their analyses and strategies for presenting evaluation results to others.
You provided an insightful analysis of this particular process evaluation, and it seems that you were able to design a comprehensive presentation guideline. I agree with your tactic to break the presentation up into categories, and the categories you have selected seem to address the major components of the program, the evaluation itself, and the findings of said evaluation. You also provided a great analysis and summary of the PATHS program. The purpose of the program is clear, and the overarching purpose of the evaluation was made clear in your synopsis as well.
Identify ways your colleagues might improve their presentations.
You addressed outcome measures very well, however, there may have been some lacking information in regards to overall evaluation methods as a whole. Addressing factors such as who was collecting the data, how they were trained, how their training or standing could limit potential bias, and similar information. This may be an important piece of information that could help to provide audience members with a better understanding of the evaluation processes as a whole.
Identify potential needs or questions of the audience that they may not have considered.
As mentioned by Law and Shek (2011), this program was designed and facilitated in Hong Kong, China. As such, the program takes on a more eastern based holistic approach to care and treatment. In western society, the beliefs for treatment seem to be quite different and take a far different approach most of the time. Would these more traditional and holistic beliefs translate into a more western culture? Would this program have a similar effect or simply be pushed aside for a more western approach?
Provide an additional strategy for overcoming the obstacles or challenges in communicating the content of the evaluation reports.
There are a number of methods one may use to disseminate the findings to others. This step can be challenging and present a number of different hurdles one must overcome. One strategy one may suggest could be using multiple strategies. Dudley (2014) suggests that a variety of evaluation reports should be prepared and disseminated that are relevant to different stakeholders, rather than taking the approach that one report “fits all” (p. 310). This approach will help to provide evaluators be prepared for various audiences, and have presentations able to meet the needs of many.
References
Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.
Law, B., & Shek, D. (2011) Process Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Program: Project P.A.T.H.S. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(5) 539-548.
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Peer 2: Katie Otte
Katie Otte Initial Post-Discussion 1 – Week 11
Top of Form
Initial Post: By Day 3 post an analysis of how you would present the results of the evaluation to a group of social work colleagues.
In presenting the results of an evaluation to a group of colleagues, I would break the presentation into the following categories including:
1.
Overview of the program being evaluated
2.
Research questions
3.
Outcome Measures
4.
Data collection method
5.
Results
6.
Analysis
The evaluation I am presenting focuses on a process evaluation for a large-scale positive youth development program in Hong Kong called Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programs (PATHS) (Law & Shek, 2011). The goal of this program was to promote holistic development among junior secondary school students in Hong Kong focusing on 15 constructs that can affect adolescent development (Law & Shek, 2011). The process evaluation focuses on program adherence, process factors, program quality, and success.
The process evaluation addressed two research questions:
1. What is the implementation quality of the Secondary 3 curriculum of the Tier 1 Program of Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong?
2. How are program adherence and other indicators related to the implementation quality and success of the Secondary 3 Tier 1 Program?
The results are based on these parameters and data was collected through observations of actual program delivery (Law & Shek, 2011). The two items that were used to evaluate the observation outcome were implementation quality and implementation success. The observers were requested to indicate their observations using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent) with a higher score representing better implementation quality or success (Law & Shek, 2011).
The overall program adherence to the program manual ranged from 12.5% to 95.0%, with an average overall adherence of 76.18% (Law & Shek, 2011). The scores for implementation quality and success were 4.63 and 4.68 which are both high. The current study found that program adherence, implementation process, and implementation context are closely associated with implementation quality and success. Implementation quality and success had the highest correlation (Law & Shek, 2011).
Identify the background information that you think they would need and the key message of your presentation.
The background information my colleagues might need includes an understanding of the program and its goals. Additionally, my colleagues might want to know if any other studies had been done with similar programs and if so, what the results were. The key message of the presentation would be to see the value in the program based on the evaluation results.
Explain the strategies that you might use to meet your colleagues’ interests and goals.
To facilitate providing this information, I would ensure I had a thorough understanding of the program. I would also make sure to have information about similar programs and if studies have already been done.
Identify questions that your colleagues might have and what their reactions might be.
Do these findings warrant any changes to the program?
Why is there a range within program adherence?
Why did time management and reflective learning receive low ratings?
Can these findings be applied in other social work services, settings, programs?
I believe their overall reaction would be supportive of the results and the program based on the results.
References
Law, B., & Shek, D. (2011) Process Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Program: Project P.A.T.H.S. Research on Social Work Practice, 21,(5) 539-548.
Bottom of Form
