Program evaluation is essential and is expected in Extension. There are many reasons that an evaluation may be conducted for a program, but three reasons are;1) to improve a program, 2) to assess if a program produced the intended benefits or results, which can also be viewed as accountability, and 3) to gain knowledge about a specific condition or population. While there are many facets of evaluation, I want to explain a few of the primary focuses of an evaluation, that are the most common.
First, a formative evaluation is intended to provide information that helps to guide program improvement. Formative evaluations are usually conducted while a program is still on-going so that adjustments can be made immediately to the program. A formative evaluation must be conducted in a timely manner with definitive and specific measures for program improvement. The results of the evaluation must also be of use immediately.
A summative evaluation, on the other hand, is designed to assess if a program produced the intended results. Summative evaluations are conducted at the conclusion of a program and may yield information on short-term outcomes but can also be conducted well after a program has ended to measure medium- or long-term outcomes or impact. A summative evaluation is primarily aimed at demonstrating accountability in a program. Most evaluations conducted in the field by Extension County Agents and Associates are a form of summative evaluation.
An evaluation can also be conducted to gain knowledge about a population, a problem, or a community-level issue. These evaluations are usually aimed at gaps in knowledge in science and therefore, are primarily reported in academic journals or through professional organizations. Furthermore, these types of evaluations may be used to create robust, large-scale programs. While these types of evaluations are utilized in Extension at an aggregated level, they are not one of the primary tools for evaluation of Extension programs conducted by County Agents. However, because they may have some application in Extension, I wanted to mention them here.
Dependent upon the purpose of the evaluation, there are five evaluation designs. Each of these five evaluation designs have various underlying strengths, weaknesses, and design issues that must all be considered. The five evaluation designs include:
- Needs Assessment
- Program Theory Assessment
- Process Evaluation
- Outcome or Impact Evaluation
- Efficiency Evaluation
Most of the evaluations distributed by County Agents at the end of a workshop are usually a combination of process evaluation and outcome evaluation. A process evaluation is simply determining if the workshop was implemented and delivered in the way the County Agent intended it to be conducted. However, there are also usually questions on the evaluation that indicate short-term outcome evaluation. Recall that an outcome is a change in knowledge, attitude, behavior, or behavioral intent. Therefore, when a workshop participant is asked a question such as, “Did you learn something new during the workshop today?”, this is evaluating a short-term outcome, which is a change in knowledge.
The Division of Assessment and Scholarship is available to assist any County Agent, Associate, or Specialist with designing and implementing evaluations. We can also assist with evaluation plans that are required as a part of a grant proposal. A team effort is necessary to develop a good evaluation, which means that the Extension personnel that requested the evaluation must be involved in the design process. However, the Division will guide the evaluation development and implementation as well as assist with interpretation of the results. If you would like to consider designing an evaluation for a program, please do not hesitate to contact me, Susan Guynn, at 864-656-0606 or email at sguynn@clemson.edu.
By: Susan T. Guynn, PhD
Director of Assessment and Scholarship
