​Please read chapter (step) 6 (Consider and Build in Process Uses if and as Appropriate), chapter (step) 7 (Focus Priority Evaluation Questions), and chapter (step) 8 (Check That Fundamental Areas for Evaluation Inquiry Are Being Adequately Addressed: Imp

I need an explanation for this English question to help me study.

Please read chapter (step) 6 (Consider and Build in Process Uses if and as Appropriate), chapter (step) 7 (Focus Priority Evaluation Questions), and chapter (step) 8 (Check That Fundamental Areas for Evaluation Inquiry Are Being Adequately Addressed: Implementation, Outcomes, and Attribution Questions)

Write three points of interest and three corresponding open-ended discussion questions about each of approximately two of the assigned readings. You must highlight all the content on the book so I can identify your work.

Make your answer clear and organised

Points of interest

Something in the reading that stood out to you, surprised you, or resonated with your experience;

Something that connects with things you have learned in this or other courses;

Something in the reading that you want a deeper understanding about;

Something that has implications for your evaluation proposal.

Open-ended questions: In general, these are questions that begin with the words What, Why, and How. Good questions will:

Ask the class to reflect on the point of interest;

Invite the class to think critically;

Invite the class to think independently and creatively;

Allow for students to express opinions based on what was read.

“Use yellow color to highlight all the sentences or content that you did comment on each work and send it back to me along with your answer”

Remember I use two sites for plagiarism checkers, so make sure your work free from counterfeit. In case if I find that you have plagiarism in your work, so will provide the result to you and no redo work will be accepted. So please your own world and thoughts.

See attached.

Here examples below if you are wondering what I am expecting from you:

Ex 1)

An interesting tension I’ve found between Patton (2012), Gullickson (2020), and McBride et al. (2020) is where each author places the primary intended users in the evaluation process. For Patton, the primary intended users are at the heart of evaluation, in the thick of it with the evaluators. For Gullickson (2020), the primary intended users seem to be in the margins, in the “potential activities,” with the evaluators and evaluation/judgement at the center (p. 3). For McBride et al. (2020), the primary intended users seem to be agents to influence, direct, and shape in the service of social change. This is just a tension I’m noticing.

I really love the arrangement of competencies (ie: logic of evaluation, critical thinking, understanding about subjective/objective claims, worldviews and values) as central to evaluation in Gullickson (2020, p. 6). It helps me to understand HOW to approach the “activities of evaluation,” which I am interpreting as similar to Patton’s (2012) steps of asking prioritizing questions, conducting the situation analysis, and so on. I also think McBride et al. (2020) would explicitly add the concept of evaluators addressing antiracism with primary intended users to Gullickson’s (2020) ideas of worldviews and values in evaluation.

One specific question I have is: how do we help program leaders and primary intended users to “build data systems that provide evidence of disparities, guide the design and implementation of programs in a way that addresses social ills and help institutions ask questions regarding their own role in supporting inequitable structures” with users who do not, cannot, or will not see antiracism as a necessary aim (McBride et al., 2020, p. 123)?

In a public K-12 institution with whom I work, the leaders pay lip service to antiracist efforts, especially in light of recent public pressure, yet, when designing a student-centered program, the same leaders bristled at the inclusion of “antiracism” as a goal or outcome. They were worried that the language would be seen as “political” or that the criteria would be read as a “liberal agenda.” I would be grateful for any ideas about how we are to accomplish the goals of becoming a change-agent when organizations or primary intended users refuse to acknowledge certain worldviews or are set against the desperately needed change.

Ex 2)

COLLAPSE

I appreciated Michale Quinn Patton’s voice in the video provided. For some reason he seemed more calm than I imagined. The quiet thoughtfulness he presented impressed me. I like to see, hear and get know the authors of the works I read.

Although evident in his text, in this short video Patton easily puts to rest some of the anxiety I have about program evaluation. I am not sure what the source of the anxiety is, maybe simply the word “evaluation?” But, I think it is really more than that for me. “Evaluation” implies a fair amount of logic, effort and planfulness. Which is a good thing, that does not make me anxious. But, evaluation implies more of these than most programs have embedded from the beginning. Consequentially, the task of evaluating seems daunting and ignites my anxiety. Yet, as he illustrated in his example of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), many successful programs are formed in messy