Critique of Evaluation Report

The evaluation of Project L.O.V.E. (Let Older Volunteers Educate), which was presented on 31^st January, 2003 by the implementation committee, was targeted towards determination of the effectiveness of having older volunteers assist students with their education. The project itself is a provincial organization that aims to promote inter-generational skills and literacy. Summarily, the project functions by providing teachers and students with role models, which are the older people, from whom they could learn new experiences and craft new attitudes towards aging (Implementation Committee, 2003).

The evaluation, which was conducted by the Government of Prince Edward Island, Canada, is presented in a formative manner that agreeably follows the precisions of a good research. Critically, some loopholes can also be identified, which this essay will address adequately. Firstly, this assessment was done through questionnaires, some of which were delivered by mail, while others by hand through a third party. The report was then put in the public domain for free viewing. This kind of research model/method is very relevant to this study, as it leads to generation of diverse ideas and comments. Moreover, the delivery of the questionnaires by mail eliminated the necessity of seeking for informed consent from higher authorities. The survey method is appropriate, since the study incorporates at least three levels of sample population: the teachers, students, and the volunteers. The evaluation of these classes of participants gave informative and all-round results that could be can be considered to be highly reliable.

Inasmuch as the study gives a wide range of views from diverse participants, it only addresses the qualitative part of the responses, whilst the quantitative measurement provided is not reliable and as adequate as the former. Percentages are given on the level of positive responses, but this is not enough to sum up the comprehensive views of respondents presented in the verbatim statements. With regards to the fact that this report was made available to the public domain, the nature of the findings can be said to be appropriate, but for deeper scientific analysis, it lacks a strong background that can barely be subjected to statistical interpretation.

The evaluator uses a straightforward language, fit for the targeted readers and audience of the report. The report is presented in a simple, flowing manner, organized in a way that is easy to follow and comprehend. Though this is not the recommended academic format of research papers, the adaptation suffices the target audience as well as the purpose to which the report was intended. The inclusion of the verbatim responses of the participants brings a wave of reality and originality to the report. While this kind presentation is unique and fit for some kind of audience, it does not conform to the officially recommended way of presenting reports (Caffarella & Daffron, 2013). The raw responses received from the respondents ought to have appeared in the appendix section.

The use of charts and tables in the presentation of results is timely and very effective, as it brings out the comparison among the various kinds of responses received. Though the evaluator does not make the dependent and the independent variables at the beginning of the study, the graphical analysis of results makes it lucid which parameters are being evaluated in the research. Specifically, the numerical data was best presented in the nature which the evaluator uses, since as opposed to narrative style, the use of tables gives a summarized, clear and concise element of results. More data included in the appendix section serve to give more credibility to the research. The use of bar graphs as the uniform way of presenting results also is in the interest of the target audience, since it eliminates any possible confusion that could be caused by mixture of other forms of chats such as pie, line graphs etc.

The discussion part adequately provides an analysis of the results, as is expected of every standard academic report. It explicitly connects to the initial objective of the study, and explains the relationship between the Project L.O.V.E. and improvement in education in the aspect of both teachers and students (Implementation Committee, 2003). This close correlation is the single-most important facet of the report that needed to have been addressed. However, the evaluation lacks empirical evidence to show the relationship between the above parameters, which is crucial for scientific analysis (Caffarella & Daffron, 2013). This lack of empirical backing means that with time, the evaluation would become outdated and inapplicable in future situations.

The suggestions part is well-structured and addresses the gaps that the study identifies so far. In addition, the conclusion addresses the key points of the project, mainly its strengths. It also gives the benefits of the program, if implemented, as supported by the results achieved. However, it is realizable that the evaluator dedicates much of the time elucidating the benefits rather than giving the concluding remarks which should be closely tied to the main objective of the study. Averagely, the project is has more strengths than weaknesses, but would have been more splendid of the gaps were addressed.

Reference

Caffarella, R. S. & Daffron, S. R. (2013). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide for educators, trainers, and staff developers (3rd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Implementation Committee, (2003). Evaluation of Project L.O.V.E. Tough challenges: Great rewards. Retrieved from http://www.nald.ca/library/research/evaluat/evaluate.pdf.