Renomo—a Design Tool for Evaluations

Beywl, Wolfgang; Potter, Philip

doi:10.1177/13563899822208392

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One distinction for collective approaches is whether these interactions occur among members of natural, intact groups (such as all of the employees in an agency division) or in what are called nominal groups, which involve people brought together only for the purpose of articulating stakeholder values. For example, Beywl and Potter (2005) present a responsive evaluation model that brings nominal groups together for group discussions. Moore (1995, p. 36) argues this is an important distinction, wherein "both program evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis define public value in terms of collectively defined objectives that emerge from a process of collective decision-making, whereas benefit-cost analysis defines value in terms of what individuals desire without reference to any collective decision-making process."…”

Section: Addressing Valuative Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing policies to support valuing in the public interest

Julnes

2012

New Drctns Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Addressing Valuative Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing policies to support valuing in the public interest

Julnes

2012

New Drctns Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Large-scale multisite evaluations require good organisation and good communication. The numbers of partners involved at meetings can pose evaluators with problems; hence, some evaluators have developed tools for structuring discussion and consultation (Beywl & Potter, 1998). The Kellogg's Foundation's 'cluster evaluation' approach is of particular interest.…”

Section: [It Is] Often Without Regard To the Dif Culties And Limitatimentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Evaluation in Ensuring Excellence in Communications and Information Technology Initiatives

Somekh¹

2001

Education, Communication & Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an approach to the evaluation of communications and information technology (CIT) programmes in which the evaluation makes a positive contributio n to ensuring excellence in the programme. After a brief introductio n outlining changing attitude s to the commissioning of evaluations of CIT policy initiatives in the last 20 years, the article explores the politicise d purposes of evaluations , the kinds of knowledge that sponsors may be seeking, and the need for evaluations to use a mixture of quantitativ e and qualitativ e methods. Characteristi c problematic features of CIT programmes are then outlined, relating both to their products and their processes. This section deals with cultural differences, due to the diverse disciplinary , institutional , and often national, backgrounds of their programme teams. It is suggested that the resulting complexity makes it essential for evaluators to intervene in ways that prevent these problems from undermining the potential of CIT programmes to achieve excellence. In the nal section, there is a short review of some of the relevant literature on programme evaluation, followed by an account of recent evaluation studies of CIT programmes. The article ends with detailed discussion of the components of the suggested model of evaluation to ensure excellence, derived from the author's experience as an evaluator and in uenced by her reading of the research literature .We have reached a point in time when it is possible to envisage that communications and information technology (CIT) could begin to deliver some of the educational goals which have been promised for the last two decades. The technology itself is now much more user-friendly; the community of software engineers and developers has the bene t of experi-

show abstract

“…Here the emphasis is on those who are experiencing the learning and teaching process, not on those who are attempting to control the process through some sort of positivist quality audit. Beywel and Potter (1998), argue that clearly: F F F evaluators F F F have become sensitive to the variety of groups with which they become involved during the course of an evaluation and take account of their values and expectations (Beywel and Potter, 1998, p. 53). …”

Section: Models Of Course Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a good example of what Beywel and Potter (1998) refer to as the complex situation created bỳ`m ultiple stakeholders'', especially as it becomes clear that the end results of such a form of evaluation are:…”

Section: Models Of Course Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and the invisible student: theories, practice and problems in evaluating distance education provision

Gilroy

Long

Rangecroft

et al. 2001

Quality Assurance in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractMaking sure that a higher education distance learning course meets student expectations is critical to ensuring the quality of the student experience. Judging whether a course delivers to its promise is a particular challenge when the course is delivered by distance learning and there is no regular face-to-face contact with students, the more so when courses are faced with alternative conceptions, and external audits, of quality. The paper identifies the contested nature of quality, examines models of evaluation, relates them to existing forms of evaluation facing education courses, and offers an alternative constructivist approach based on the notion of a service template. Electronic accessThe research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.com/research_registersThe current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft Our thanks to the anonymous referees whose detailed suggestions were much appreciated by the template team.

show abstract

Renomo—a Design Tool for Evaluations

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

Developing policies to support valuing in the public interest

Developing policies to support valuing in the public interest

The Role of Evaluation in Ensuring Excellence in Communications and Information Technology Initiatives

Evaluation and the invisible student: theories, practice and problems in evaluating distance education provision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About