5.1 The field of evaluation: a short introduction

By the term evaluation we refer to the set of all those actions and procedures that enable us to make a judgment, to judge, a given item. In this sense, it is possible to arrive at the formulation of the said judgment through an evaluative research process that sanctions its reliability. In fact, only a judgment obtained through a proper evaluative process can be considered appropriate and adequate.

Some key points of this definition:

• The evaluative process must necessarily be structured: if, otherwise, this itself were not based on activities such as research, communication, surveying, it would not be reliable but would be a judgment left to subjectivity
• Exactly, it is not a matter of expressing extemporaneous and subjective opinions; the evaluative judgment must be supported by evidence, data, shareable information, and all this can only be done through a research process.

In recent decades, the topic of evaluation has taken on profound relevance from a number of points of view: both in the area of project evaluation in social work and in the more purely school-based sphere. In this section we will look at the evaluation issue first from a more general point of view, then go into the merits of evaluation from a school perspective, and finally see the possible implications between evaluation and instructional design.

To evaluate, it is important to determine the object to be evaluated: the products of learning/for learning, processes, systems. Before specifying how and when to evaluate, it is necessary to indicate that when one wants to evaluate, it is best not to make summaries since evaluation practice is characterized by a high degree of variety and heterogeneity: it is constantly developing new methods and approaches.

However, some information can be identified.

If the intervention project is realized through the development of several stages; evaluation is the process that accompanies the project in its implementation.

So, evaluation starts from the initial moment of the project.

(1) The first stage is called: “ex-ante evaluation.” It responds to three stages of the project:

(a) the “conception,” in which the project is only an idea and in which the evaluation process cannot be formalized, but refers to the judgments of the project creators, which may be based on criteria of relevance, appropriateness, feasibility, ect.: in relation to them it is determined whether to continue or abandon the project.

(b) The second stage, “activation,” is aimed at building the conditions for defining the project, the objectives of which are consensus building, building alliances and collaborations to subsequently implement the project action. Relative to this stage, the evaluation focuses on the following dimensions: detecting the quantity and quality of the contacts activated; the degree of relevance of the problem perceived by those involved; sharing with respect to the problem; identifying whether the quantity and quality of the information collected is sufficient and the possibility of activating resources for the implementation of the project (Leone, Prezza, 2003, pp. 137-139).

(c) The third stage is called “design” and consists of drafting the project. Thus, the evaluation process focuses on the criteria of: consistency of the project to the conditions of the environment deemed significant; adequacy of project writing to the stage of implementation; congruence between the different internal parts of the project and the set of resources used.

(2) During the implementation of the project, the second phase of evaluation, called “in-itinere evaluation,” begins.

It corresponds to the implementation of the project, with respect to which the evaluation process gathers information in order to understand: the actors taking part in the project, what is being carried out, in what timeframe and with what resources. Thus, an action of monitoring and reading the ongoing process is put in place (ibid., p. 140).

(3) In the concluding moment, the “ex-post evaluation” is carried out, which focuses on verifying the results obtained by identifying: the achievement of the objectives set; the impact, and thus the changes that the project has generated; the ability to affect social problems; the efficiency of what has been acted upon in relation to the relationship between costs and revenues; the productivity, i.e., the relationship between the resources used and the outputs received; and the possibility of transferring the model to other contexts (ibid., pp. 140-141).