Executive Solution Overview
If I had more time beyond the eight-week constraint, I would expand the evaluation to include additional outcome variables and a longer assessment period, as stronger temporal data often reveal more about change trajectories than a single snapshot (Liechty et al., 2022). I would use multiple assessm…
Assignment Prompt & Instructions
If I had more time beyond the eight-week constraint, I would expand the evaluation to include additional outcome variables and a longer assessment period, as stronger temporal data often reveal more about change trajectories than a single snapshot (Liechty et al., 2022). I would use multiple assessment instruments, combining surveys with qualitative interviews and observations, to capture both the breadth and depth of participant experiences (Liechty et al., 2022). Assessing participants at baseline, mid-point, and follow-up would allow examination of sustained changes over time, which a shorter evaluation might miss. The study by Liechty and colleagues (2022) illustrates how multiple methods and time points can reveal developmental patterns. However, I would suggest even more frequent qualitative data collection to capture nuanced participant changes. Passing this final assignment felt rewarding because I struggled to bring everything together. Sometimes, even when you know what is expected, it is not always clear where to connect the dots, so completing it gave me a sense of accomplishment. An ideal evaluation would be collaborative and iterative, incorporating participant voices and adapting questions based on interim findings so the process supports continuous program improvement.
References
Liechty, J. M., Keck, A. S., Sloane, S., Donovan, S. M., & Fiese, B. H. (2022). Assessing transdisciplinary scholarly development: _A longitudinal mixed-method graduate program evaluation. Innovative Higher Education, 47_(4), 661–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09593-x