Response to Request for Proposal

To evaluate the Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP) training program developed by Far West Laboratory

Submitted to: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development

Submitted by: Sherri Harrelson

Introduction In July 2013, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (FWL) issued a request for proposal (RFP) for an evaluation of its Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP) training program. This document is a proposal from Sherri Harrelson, evaluation consultant, submitted in response to the Far West Laboratory RFP. Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP) Training Program The purpose of the DIP training program is to provide instruction on key skills related to the planning of effective school programs. The target audience includes school administrators and graduate students in the field of educational administration. The DIP training package consists of three units of training, along with a Coordinators Handbook. The unit topics consist of setting goals (unit 1), analyzing problems (unit 2), and deriving objectives (unit 3). Each unit is designed to be used independently or in combination with any of the others. Each unit consists of four-to-six modules with specified instructional objectives, and is designed to be covered over the course of 10-15 hours for units 1 and 3, or 12-18 hours for unit 2. This can be done in a concentrated workshop type format or can be spread out over several days or weeks and administered in small, one-to-two hour increments as needed by the users. The one key stipulation in the DIP training program is that training must be overseen by a coordinator who has worked through the training either independently or with a training group prior to overseeing the training. Additional information regarding the training coordination is provided in the Coordinators Handbook. Evaluation Method The purpose of this evaluation is two-fold in that it is imperative to determine whether the DIP training program is worthy of further investment on behalf of Far West Laboratory and to assist future users, specifically school administrators, in purchasing and using the product. The outcome of this evaluation can be used to influence shareholders in FWL to continue to contribute resources to the development of the training program and subsequent marketing costs, and can also be used to influence purchase decisions and implementation among school administrators.

Due to the nature of this evaluation, multiple data sources and evaluation procedures will be utilized to evaluate the DIP training program. These include: Subject Matter Expert o An independent SME will be contracted to review the training materials and review the correlation of included reading materials, activities, and training exercises with the specified objectives. o Following the review of the training materials, the SME will be tasked with developing a pre and post-test to be implemented with a test group using the training. These measures assist in developing both qualitative and quantitative feedback regarding efficacy of the training. Small Test Groups o A small test group for each unit of training consisting of five current school administrators and five graduate students in the field of educational administration will be developed. o Each test group will run as a comprehensive workshop style training seminar. o Three current school administrators will be selected to act as coordinators for the training and will be allowed to work through materials independently prior to administering the training to the test groups. o Test groups will be required to take the pre and post-test developed by the SME. These measures allow feedback from both the coordinator perspective, as well as the trainee perspective. In addition, the pre and post-tests serve as quantitative evaluation sources to measure efficacy of materials. Attitudes o Surveys will be developed for both the coordinators of the training and the test group participants. o Coordinators will be asked to evaluate ease of use, comprehensiveness of instructions, and difficulties in conducting the training after independent reviews through survey responses. o Test group participants will be asked to evaluate motivation, relevancy, cohesiveness, and levels of comprehension through survey responses after participating in the training. These measures allow primarily for qualitative feedback which can be used for marketing and implementation purposes. Furthermore, these surveys can be used to identify possible points of contention with the product that could negatively influence marketability.

Task Schedule This schedule assumes a starting date of August 5, 2013 and a finish date of April 4, 2014. Task Item Meet with FWL to discuss proposal

Deadline August 15, 2013 August 26, 2013 September 16, 2013 September 30, 2013 October 14, 2013 October 28, 2013 November 15, 2013 December 2, 2013 January 31, 2014 February 14, 2014 February 28, 2014 March 14, 2014 April 4, 2014

Submit data collection plan to FWL with drafts of surveys Feedback from SME review, along with pre and posttest materials submitted to FWL Data collection materials revised as needed and final copies submitted to FWL Test group coordinators selected and information submitted to FWL Test group members selected and information provided to FWL Pre-tests administered and results provided to FWL Test group coordinators ready to begin training test groups All test groups completed Post-tests administered and results submitted to FWL Surveys administered and results compiled Survey results summarized and provided to FWL Final evaluation report submitted to FWL

Project Personnel Sherri Harrelson, an evaluation specialist with over 12 years of experience, will direct the evaluation of the DIP training program. She will be the primary individual responsible for planning and conducting the evaluation, as well as compiling results and writing the final evaluation report. Ms. Harrelson has overseen many evaluation processes, both large and small-scale, and has worked on numerous evaluation projects. She has written several articles on both research and evaluation in the field of education. Ms. Harrelson holds a BA degree in Elementary Education from the University of North Carolina- Wilmington and a Master of Educational Technology degree from Boise State University. Dr. Brady Walker will be serving as the subject matter expert for the purposes of evaluating the training materials and developing both the pre and post-tests for use with the test groups. Dr. Walker is an Associate Professor of Education at Lorelei State University. He holds an EdD in Education Administration and has worked on numerous evaluation projects pertaining to the field of education. He has been a professor at the university for 15 years, and he has authored many journal articles and published papers during that time. Budget Personnel Sherri Harrelson: 90 Days at $300/ day Dr. Brady Walker: 30 Days at $450/ day Travel and per Diem Two 2-day round trip (North Carolina to FWL including per Diem) Miscellaneous Mileage 1000 at $.55/ mile (3) Training Site Visits $200/ per visit (including per Diem) Communications Telephone/ internet meetings $100 per month average Postage Supplies, Materials, and Photocopying (3) Coordinators Handbook at $4.50/ each (10) Sets of unit materials at 24.95/ set Additional supplies/ photocopying Total Budget $27, 000 $13, 500

$1,500 $550 $600

$800 $200

$13.50 $249.50 $500 $44,913