Harrelson, RFP

8/13/2019 Harrelson, RFP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/harrelson-rfp 1/5

1

Response to Request for Proposal

To evaluate the Determining Instruct ional Purposes (DIP)

training program developed by Far West Laboratory

Submitted to:

Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development

Submitted by:

Sherri Harrelson



2

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 LaboratoryRFP.

Determining Instruct ional 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

Coordinator’s 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 usedindependently 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 orwith a training group prior to overseeing the training. Additional information regarding

the training coordination is provided in the Coordinator’s 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.



3

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, andtraining 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 wellas 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.



4

Task Schedule

This schedule assumes a starting date of August 5, 2013 and a finish date of April 4,

2014.

Task Item Deadline Meet with FWL to discuss proposal August 15, 2013

Submit data collection plan to FWL with drafts ofsurveys

August 26, 2013

Feedback from SME review, along with pre and post-test materials submitted to FWL

September 16, 2013

Data collection materials revised as needed and finalcopies submitted to FWL

September 30, 2013

Test group coordinators selected and information

submitted to FWL

October 14, 2013

Test group members selected and informationprovided to FWL

October 28, 2013

Pre-tests administered and results provided to FWL November 15, 2013

Test group coordinators ready to begin training testgroups

December 2, 2013

All test groups completed January 31, 2014

Post-tests administered and results submitted to FWL February 14, 2014

Surveys administered and results compiled February 28, 2014

Survey results summarized and provided to FWL March 14, 2014

Final evaluation report submitted to FWL April 4, 2014



5

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 evaluationprocesses, 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 numerousevaluation 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

PersonnelSherri Harrelson: 90 Days at $300/ day $27, 000Dr. Brady Walker: 30 Days at $450/ day $13, 500

Travel and per DiemTwo 2-day round trip (North Carolina to FWL includingper Diem)

$1,500

Miscellaneous Mileage 1000 at $.55/ mile $550(3) Training Site Visits $200/ per visit (including perDiem)

$600

CommunicationsTelephone/ internet meetings $100 per month average $800Postage $200

Supplies, Materials, and Photocopying(3) Coordinator’s Handbook at $4.50/ each $13.50(10) Sets of unit materials at 24.95/ set $249.50

Additional supplies/ photocopying $500

Total Budget $44,913

Documents

Harrelson, RFP