�ݺ�ߣ

ChiYan Lam, MEd
CES 2013
Insights on Using Developmental Evaluation
for Innovating:
A Case Study on the Co-creation of an
innovative program
@chiyanlam
June 11, 2013
Assessment and Evaluation Group, Queen’s University
�ݺ�ߣs available at www.chiyanlam.com
1Monday, 10 June, 13

Acknowledgements

“The signiﬁcant
problems we have
cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking
with which we created
them.”
http://yareah.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/einstein.jpg

Impersonal
Hard to Focus
Passive

✓Learn from peers
✓Reﬂect on prior
experiences
✓Meaning-making
✓Active construction
of knowledge
+

Dilemma
• Barriers to Teaching and Learning: $, time, space.
• PRACTICUM = out of sight, out of touch.
• Instructors became interested in integrating Web
technologies to Teacher Education to open up
possibilities
• The thinking was that assessment learning
requires learners to actively engage with peers
and challenge their own experiences and
conceptions of assessment.
7

So what happened...?
• 22 teacher candidates participated in a hybrid, blended
learning pilot. They tweeted about their own
experiences around trying to put into practice
contemporary notions of assessment.
• Guided by the script:“Think Tweet Share”
• Developmental evaluation guided this exploration,
between the instructors, evaluator, and teacher candidates
as a collective in this participatory learning experience.
• DE became integrated; Program became agile and
responsive by design
8

Research Purpose
to learn about the capacity of developmental
evaluation to support innovation
development.
(from nothing to something)
10

Research Questions
1.

To what extent does Assessment Pilot Initiative qualify as a
developmental evaluation?
2.

What contribution does developmental evaluation make to
enable and promote program development?
3.

To what extent does developmental evaluation address the
needs of the developers in ways that inform program development?
4.

What insights, if any, can be drawn from this development about the
roles and the responsibilities of the developmental evaluator?
11

Literature Review

Developmental Evaluation
in 1994
• collaborative, long-term
partnership
• purpose: program
development
• observation: clients who
eschew clear, speciﬁc,
measurable goals

in 2011
• takes on a responsive,
collaborative, adaptive
orientation to evaluation
• complexity concepts
• systems thinking
• social innovation

DE supports innovation development
to guide adaptation to emergent and
dynamic realities in complex
environments.
DE brings to innovation and adaptation
the processes of:
• asking evaluative questions
• applying evaluation logic
• gathering and reporting eval data
to inform support project/
program/product, and/or
organizational development in real
time.Thus, feedback is rapid.
Evaluator works collaboratively with
social innovators to conceptualize,
design, and test new approaches in
long-term, ongoing process of
adaptation, intentional change and
development.
Primary functions of evaluator:
• elucidate the innovation and
adaptation processes
• track their implications and results
• facilitate ongoing, real-time data-
based decision-making in the
developmental process.
(Patton, 2011)

DE supports innovation development to
guide adaptation to emergent and
environments.
the processes of:
• gathering and reporting eval
data to inform support project/
development.
• facilitate ongoing, real-time
data-based decision-making
in the developmental process.
(Patton, 2011)

DE supports innovation development
to guide adaptation to emergent and
environments
the processes of:
• gathering and reporting eval data
to inform support project/
development.
• facilitate ongoing, real-time data-
based decision-making in the
developmental process.
(Patton, 2011)
Improvement
vs
Development .

Developmental
Evaluation
is
reality
testing.

1. Social Innovation
• SI aspire to change and transform social
realities (Westley, Zimmerman, & Patton, 2006)
• SI is about generating “novel solutions to
social problems” that are more effective,
efﬁcient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions
and for which the value created accrues
primarily to society as a whole rather than
private individuals” (Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller,
2008)
19

2. Complexity Thinking
20
Situational Analysis Complexity Concepts
Sensitizing frameworks that
attunes the evaluators to
certain things

Simple Complicated Complex
• predictable
• replicable
• known
• causal if-then
models
• unpredictable
•difﬁcult to replicate
• unknown
• many interacting
variables/parts
• systems thinking?
•complex dynamics?
• predictable
• replicable
• known
• many variables/parts
working in tandem in
sequence
• requires expertise/training
• causal if-then models (Westley, Zimmerman, Patton, 2008)
C
h
a
o
s21Monday, 10 June, 13

http://s3.frank.itlab.us/photo-essays/small/apr_05_2474_plane_moon.jpg

Complexity Concepts
• understanding dynamical behaviour of
systems
• description of behaviour over time
• metaphors for describing change
• how things change
• NOT predictive, not explanatory
• (existence of some underlying principles; rules-
driven behaviour)
23

Complexity Concepts
• Nonlinearity (butterﬂy ﬂaps its wings, black swan); cause and
effect
• Emergence: new behaviour emerge from interaction... can’t really
predetermine indicators
• Adaptation: systems respond and adapt to each other, to
environments
• Uncertainty: processes and outcomes are unpredictable,
uncontrollable, and unknowable in advance.
• Dynamical: interactions within, between, among subsystems change
in an unpredictable way.
• Co-evolution: change in response to adaptation. (growing old
together)
24

3. Systems Thinking
• Pays attention to the inﬂuences and relationships
between systems in reference to the whole
• a system is a dynamic, complex, structured
functional unit
• there is ﬂow and exchanges between sub-
systems
• systems are situated within a particular
context
25

Complex Adaptive Dynamic Systems

Practicing DE
• Adaptive to context, agile in methods,
responsive to needs
• evaluative thinking - critical thinking
• bricoleur
• “purpose-and-relationship-driven not
[research] method driven”(Patton, 2011, p.
288)

Five Purposes and Uses:
1. Ongoing development in adapting program, strategy,
policy, etc.
2. Adapting effective principles to a local context
3. Developing a rapid response
4. Preformative development of a potentially broad-
impact, scalable innovation
5. Major systems change and cross-scale developmental
evaluation
28
(Patton, 2011, p. 194)
Five Uses of DE

Method & Methodology
• Questions drive method (Greene, 2007; Teddlie and Tashakkori,
2009)
• Qualitative Case Study
• understanding the intricacies into the phenomenon and
the context
• Case is a “speciﬁc, unique, bounded system” (Stake,
2005, p. 436).
• Understanding the system’s activity, and its function and
interactions.
• Qualitative research to describe, understand, and infer
meaning.
29

Data Sources
Three pillars of data:
1. Program development records
2. Development Artifacts
3. Interviews with clients on the signiﬁcance of
various DE episodes
30

Data Analysis
1. Reconstructing evidentiary base
2. Identifying developmental episodes
3. Coding for developmental moments
4. Time-series analysis
31

How the innovation
came to be...

Key Developmental Episodes
• Ep 1: Evolving understanding in using social media
for professional learning.
• Ep 2: Explicating values through Appreciative
Inquiry for program development.
• Ep 3: Enhancing collaboration through structured
communication
• Ep 4: Program development through the use of
evaluative data
34
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. - Steve Jobs

(Wicked) Uncertainty
• uncertain about how to proceed
• uncertain about in what direction to proceed (given many choices)
• uncertain about the effects and outcome to how teacher
candidates would respond to the intervention
• the more questions we answered , the more questions we raised.
• Typical of DE:
• Clear, Measurable, and Speciﬁc Outcomes
• Use of planning frameworks.
• Traditional evaluation cycles wouldn’t work.
35

How the innovation came to
be...
• Reframing what constituted “data”
• not intentional, but an adaptive response
to emergent needs:
• informational needs concerning
development; collected, analyzed, interpreted
• relevant theories, concepts, ideas; introduced
to catalyze thinking. Led to learning and un-
learning.
36

Major Findings
RQ1: To what extent does API qualify
as a developmental evaluation?
1. Preformative development of a potentially
broad-impact, scalable innovation
2. Patton: Did something get developed?
(Improvement vs development vs innovation)
37
✔✔✗

RQ2: What contribution does DE
make to enable and promote program
development?
1. Lent a data-informed process to innovation
2. Implication: responsiveness
• program-in-action became adaptive to
the emergent needs of users
3. Consequence: resolving uncertainty
38

RQ3: To what extent does DE address
the needs of developers in ways that
inform program development?
1. Deﬁnition - deﬁning the “problem”
2. Delineation - narrowing down the problem space
3. Collaboration - collaboration processes; drawing on
collective strength and contributions
4. Prototyping - integration and synthesis of ideas to ready
a program for implementation
5. Illumination - iterative learning and adaptive development
6. Evaluation - formal evaluation processes to reality-test
39

Implications to
Evaluation
• One of the ﬁrst documented case study into
developmental evaluation
• Contributions into understanding, analyzing
and reporting development as a process
• Delineating the kinds of roles and
responsibilities that promote development
• The notion of design emerges from this
study
40

Implication to Theory

• Program as co-created
• Attending to the “theory” of the program
• DE as a way to drive the innovating process
• Six foci of development
• Designing programs?

Design and
Design Thinking
43

Design+Design Thinking
“Design is the systematic exploration into the complexity of options (in
program values, assumptions, output, impact, and technologies) and
decision-making processes that results in purposeful decisions about the
features and components of a program-in-development that is informed by
the best conception of the complexity surrounding a social need.
Design is dependent on the existence and validity of highly situated and
contextualized knowledge about the realities of stakeholders at a site of
innovation.The design process ﬁts potential technologies, ideas, and
concepts to reconﬁgure the social realities.This results in the emergence of
a program that is adaptive and responsive to the needs of program users.”
(Lam, 2011, p. 137-138)
44

Implications to
Evaluation Practice
1. Manager
2. Facilitator of learning
3. Evaluator
4. Innovation thinker
45

Limitations
• Contextually bound, so not generalizable
• but it does add knowledge to the ﬁeld
• Data of the study is only as good as the data collected from
the evaluation
• better if I had captured the program-in-action
• Analysis of the outcome of API could help strength the case
study
• but not necessary to achieving the research foci
• Cross-case analysis would be a better method for generating
understanding.
46

ThankYou!
Let’s Connect.
@chiyanlam
chi.lam@QueensU.ca
www.chiyanlam.com

�ݺ�ߣ

Insights on Using Developmental Evaluation for Innovating: A Case Study on the Co-Creation of an Innovative Program

More Related Content

Insights on Using Developmental Evaluation for Innovating: A Case Study on the Co-Creation of an Innovative Program