IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v79y2020ics0149718919303295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practice makes better? Testing a model for training program evaluators in situation awareness

Author

Listed:
  • Mason, Sarah

Abstract

Evaluation approaches should be appropriate for their contexts. Scholars and practitioners alike have widely acknowledged this view for at least four decades, and the ability to respond to context is clearly established as a core evaluator competency. Outside of evaluation, this knowledge of context, known as situation awareness, is seen as a critical feature of good decision making and as a factor that distinguishes experts from novices across a wide range of domains. Yet there are few opportunities for evaluators to explicitly build their skills in situation awareness. This study addressed that gap by examining the potential for one online training program, informed by research on deliberate practice, to accelerate evaluators’ progress towards expertise in situation awareness. Built to align with evidence on developing situation awareness skills, the EvalPractice portal combined (1) an extensive ‘case bank’ of real-world evaluation scenarios, (2) repetitive practice that allowed novice evaluators to practice interpreting these evaluation scenarios, and (3) immediate feedback on the accuracy of these efforts based on events from the real-life version of the scenario. Findings from a small EvalPractice pilot suggest that it may be possible to improve foundational situation awareness skills using deliberate practice, but that further research is required to understand strategies for building higher-level situation awareness skills in evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mason, Sarah, 2020. "Practice makes better? Testing a model for training program evaluators in situation awareness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:79:y:2020:i:c:s0149718919303295
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101788
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718919303295
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101788?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vo, Anne T., 2013. "Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 44-52.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    2. Miller, Robin Lin, 2013. "Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 77-80.
    3. Cousins, J. Bradley, 2013. "When does a conceptual framework become a theory? Reflections from an accidental theorist," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 67-70.
    4. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    5. Mark, Melvin M. & Henry, Gary T., 2013. "Logic models and content analyses for the explication of evaluation theories: The case of emergent realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 74-76.
    6. Ha, Kyoo-Man, 2019. "Integrating the resources of Korean disaster management research via the Johari window," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    7. Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    8. Gargani, John, 2013. "What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 81-88.
    9. Chouinard, Jill Anne & Milley, Peter, 2016. "Mapping the spatial dimensions of participatory practice: A discussion of context in evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:79:y:2020:i:c:s0149718919303295. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.