- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- Working Papers
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Reports
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Group assessment
Wed, 07/30/2008 - 15:18 — Cristina Sette
The following text is drawn from Taylor-Powell et al (1998).
Group assessment
Group assessment has built-in potential for evaluating collaboratives as most of the work of collaboratives is done in groups. Group assessment techniques use a group format for various purposes. Group assessment may be used at any phase of collaborative development to identify evaluation needs and question, to prioritize them, to share evaluation information within the group, to document outcomes, and to monitor and/or process feelings within the collaborative. Though varieties of group techniques abound we describe a few variations which may be useful in evaluating collaboratives.
- Brainstorming: common tool for groups to creatively generate ideas
- Nominal Group: popular problem-solving or idea-generating strategy for achieving consensus. Group members are asked to write their ideas down instead of expressing them verbally.
- Buzz Session: simply break down a large group (10-15) into smaller units (3-5) for foused discussion. Some people have trouble participating in large group discussions or meetings
- Fishbowls: refers to a smaller sub group which is discussing among itself while the larger group or another group affected by the issue at hand looks on. This technique can be used to share information between collaborative members or between a designated committee within the collaborative to other members. It could also be used for external communication if stakeholders are invited to a collaborative meeting to observe
Source: Taylor-Powell, E., B. Rossing, et al. (1998). Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the potential. Program Development and Evaluation. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Extension: 190. http://learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/G3658-8.PDF
References:
Guijt, I. and J. Woodhill (2002). Managing for Impact in Rural Development : A guide for project M & E. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/index.htm
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page