Question

in a complete paragraph; in your own words Please define and discuss the differences between formative, summative, process, impact, and outcome evaluations

Answer 1

Evaluation is a process that critically examines a program. It involves collecting and analyzing information about a program’s activities, characteristics, and outcomes. Its purpose is to make judgments about a program, to improve its effectiveness, and/or to inform programming decisions. Program evaluations are conducted for a variety of reasons. Purposes can range from a mechanical compliance with a funder’s reporting requirements, to the genuine desire by program managers and stakeholder to learn “Are we making a difference?” and if so, “What kind of difference are we making?” The different purposes of, and motivations for, conducting evaluations determine the different types of evaluations. Below, I briefly discuss the variety of evaluation types.

Importance of Evaluation

Improve program design and implementation.
It is important to periodically assess and adapt your activities to ensure they are as effective as they can be. Evaluation can help you identify areas for improvement and ultimately help you realize your goals more efficiently. Additionally, when you share your results about what was more and less effective, you help advance environmental education.

Demonstrate program impact.
Evaluation enables you to demonstrate your program’s success or progress. The information you collect allows you to better communicate your program's impact to others, which is critical for public relations, staff morale, and attracting and retaining support from current and potential funders.

Evaluation Types

Formative evaluations are evaluations whose primary purpose is to gather information that can be used to improve or strengthen the implementation of a program. Formative evaluations typically are conducted in the early- to mid-period of a program’s implementation.

Summative evaluations are conducted near, or at, the end of a program or program cycle, and are intended to show whether or not the program has achieved its intended outcomes (i.e., intended effects on individuals, organizations, or communities) and to indicate the ultimate value, merit and worth of the program. Summative evaluations seek to determine whether the program should be continued, replicated or curtailed, whereas formative evaluations are intended to help program designers, managers, and implementers to address challenges to the program’s effectiveness.

Process evaluations, like formative evaluations, are conducted during the program’s early and mid-cycle phases of implementation. Typically process evaluations seek data with which to understand what’s actually going on in a program (what the program actually is and does), and whether intended service recipients are receiving the services they need. Process evaluations are, as the name implies, about the processes involved in delivering the program.

Impact evaluations sometimes alternatively called “outcome evaluations,” gather and analyze data to show the ultimate, often broader range, and longer lasting, effects of a program. An impact evaluation determines the causal effects of the program. This involves trying to measure if the program has achieved its intended outcomes. (see, for example) The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) defines rigorous impact evaluations as: ”Analyses that measure the net change in outcomes for a particular group of people that can be attributed to a specific program using the best methodology available, feasible and appropriate to the evaluation question that is being investigated and to the specific context” (see, for example) Impact (and outcome evaluations) are primarily concerned with determining whether the effects of the program are the result of the program, or the result of some other extraneous factor(s). Ultimately, outcome evaluations want to answer the question, “What effect(s) did the program have on its participants (e.g., changes in knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, skills, practices) and were these effects the result of the program? Although the different types of evaluation described above differ in their intended purposes and times of implementation, it is important to keep in mind that every program evaluation should be guided by good evaluation research questions.

Good Evaluation
A well-planned and carefully executed evaluation will reap more benefits for all stakeholders than an evaluation that is thrown together hastily and retrospectively. Though you may feel that you lack the time, resources, and expertise to carry out an evaluation, learning about evaluation early-on and planning carefully will help you navigate the process.

Good evaluation is tailored to your program and builds on existing evaluation knowledge and resources.
Your evaluation should be crafted to address the specific goals and objectives of your EE program. However, it is likely that other environmental educators have created and field-tested similar evaluation designs and instruments. Rather than starting from scratch, looking at what others have done can help you conduct a better evaluation. See MEERA’s searchable database of EE evaluations to get started.

Good evaluation is inclusive.
It ensures that diverse viewpoints are taken into account and that results are as complete and unbiased as possible. Input should be sought from all of those involved and affected by the evaluation such as students, parents, teachers, program staff, or community members. One way to ensure your evaluation is inclusive is by following the practice of participatory evaluation.

Good evaluation is honest.
Evaluation results are likely to suggest that your program has strengths as well as limitations. Your evaluation should not be a simple declaration of program success or failure. Evidence that your EE program is not achieving all of its ambitious objectives can be hard to swallow, but it can also help you learn where to best put your limited resources.

Good evaluation is replicable and its methods are as rigorous as circumstances allow.
A good evaluation is one that is likely to be replicable, meaning that someone else should be able to conduct the same evaluation and get the same results. The higher the quality of your evaluation design, its data collection methods and its data analysis, the more accurate its conclusions and the more confident others will be in its findings.