Evaluation Methods Sample Clauses

Evaluation Methods. All monitoring or observation of work performance of an Employee for purposes of a formal evaluation will be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the Employee. Covert methods will not be used for formal or informal observation of teaching performance.

Evaluation Methods. The CO/COR will conduct performance evaluations based upon Section II above and the required performance levels set forth in the contract and/or Task Orders. The following techniques will be used to perform surveillance:

Evaluation Methods. Nicor Gas will work with the independent third party evaluator and SAG to develop best practices for when program evaluations shall be controlled trials or quasi-experimental design methods. Until SAG develops best practices, where appropriate given the EM&V budget constraints, the independent evaluator shall give preference to randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental design methods. When a program evaluator believes that randomized control trials or quasi- experimental designs are not appropriate given the EM&V budget constraints, the program evaluator shall provide an explanation and support for its decision as part of its evaluation plan.

Evaluation Methods. The SSRP/A Local NGO Grants Component was evaluated using site interviews with the Local Partner NGO (LP) key staff and other relevant stakeholders (when available), and review of Mercy Corps / ORT indicators and other documentation. Mercy Corps / ORT Local Grants Department staff provided information about the programs and performance of each of the LPs, which was then used to select the evaluation sample. Five LPs were chosen for the evaluation, given the unique cases that each represented. The reason for this type of selection was to show a wide range of different models or types of impacts represented by the SSRP/A LPs. The site interview outline (see Appendix) included the following categories: Community involvement in rehab and other activities, Structures for community involvement used or created, Impact of Mercy Corps / ORT technical assistance and training, Relationship of organization to local and other authorities (rehab cases only), Follow-up and / or spin-off projects, and questions related to the individual program and its results. The LPs and reasons for their selection is summarized in the table below: LP name Reason for selection1 1. Albanian Disability Rights Foundation (ADRF) High impact of training program 2. Dairy Entrepreneurs National Association (▇▇▇▇) Business sector involvement and income generation aspects of the project

Evaluation Methods. Each unit member will be assigned one (1) administrator evaluator [up to two (2) for probationary employees] for each year’s evaluation cycle. For post probationary unit members not on an improvement plan, administrator evaluators should be assigned on a rotating basis from year to year. The Evaluation process at Pacific Collegiate School may be conducted in one of three ways: A. Administrative Evaluation: This is the required mode of evaluation for all temporary and probationary employees. It is also the required mode of evaluation for post-probationary employees who received overall “Effective”, “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” ratings on either of previous two (2) summative evaluations, or who are on an Improvement Plan. Post-probationary employees who received an overall rating of “Exemplary” or “Strong” on their previous two (2) summative evaluations will participate in Administrative Evaluation at least once every three years, and may opt Peer-based or Project- based evaluation in other years.

Evaluation Methods. There are three methods for certificated unit member evaluation. Each method uses self- assessment and reflection and is linked to the appropriate standards continuum for the credentialed unit member’s position or assignment. Continuums are available for classroom teacher, librarian, counselor, and nurse; addendum available for Teacher on Special Assignment. Administrative Evaluation: This is an optional method for permanent unit members who have met or exceeded standards in their previous overall evaluation rating. Administrative Evaluation is the required method for probationary unit members and temporary unit members. It is also a required method for permanent unit members who have not met or who have partially met standards in their previous overall evaluation rating or are currently receiving TSN support. Peer-based Evaluation: With administrative approval, this is a recommended option for permanent unit members who have met or exceeded standards in their previous overall evaluation rating and would like to work with a peer in order for each peer/partner to examine practices and demonstrate proficiency. Project-based Evaluation: With administrative approval, this is another recommended option for permanent unit members who have met or exceeded standards in their previous overall evaluation rating and would like to demonstrate proficiency via a professional project related to their current practices. 16.2.1 Evaluators are those administrators designated by the District to evaluate unit members. By September 1, each evaluatee shall be notified of the evaluator assigned to the unit member; and given access to the Evaluation Handbook for Certificated Staff. 16.2.2 Summary evaluations shall reflect progress and performance in the areas of the professional standards. Administrators and all unit members are responsible for meeting professional standards at all times. As administrators observe formally or informally in classrooms or work settings, they also have the right and responsibility to identify any concerns related to meeting the standards. Administrators have the right and responsibility to observe unit members at any time. Participation and performance of professional duties outside the classroom setting, such as attending meetings, are included in the evaluation process and will be documented.

Evaluation Methods a. Self Evaluation: (See Appendix I) /data in the Each evaluatee will prepare a written self-evaluation report and present copies to all Committee members one week before the review conference. Reflection on the SLOs results self-evaluation will not be used or viewed in a negative manner. The report shall include, but may not be limited to: (1) Objectives for the continued improvement of instruction based on the relationship of instruction to the course objectives, the tabulated scores of the student evaluations, student achievement, as related to assessment data from SLOs or other means, and additional criteria the contract faculty member deems relevant to his/her current assignment. (2) Participation in non-classroom related activities, which may include professional growth activities, committee assignments, relevant community involvement, and/or student activities plus objectives for continued involvement in these areas. (3) To what extent the objectives for the improvement of instruction, participation in professional development activities, relevant community involvement and committee assignments stated in the evaluatee's last report (if applicable) have been met.

Evaluation Methods. The evaluation team reviewed documentation, conducted a household survey, interviewed stakeholders, and performed a village bank audit. Prior to going to the field, the evaluation team reviewed project proposals, annual reports, quarterly reports, monthly reports, and various reports on specific topics (see annex 5). In the field, the evaluation team reviewed training documents, training lists, field office reports and income generation records. Once in the field, the evaluation team performed household interviews and met with and interviewed LWF employees and select government officials. The lead evaluator, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, conducted the interviews in Khmer language. Each interview followed the general pattern of a SWOT analysis, with each interviewee being asked about the programme's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. At the discretion of the interviewer, points of interests were followed up with questions to achieve clarification. Because of the broad range of activities conducted in the programme, a comprehensive household survey was the core research tool employed (see annex 3). Interview questions were designed to determine the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the programme. One large sample served to assess all aspects of the programme from the perspective of beneficiaries. Because not all of the respondents had participated or were beneficiaries for all of the program activities, sample size for questions on different aspects of the program varied from activity to activity (see sampling below). In each district, the research team conducted one full day of household interviews as a group; the group interviewing single households together. This was done to insure the researchers interpreted questions in the same manner, asked questions in the same manner, and recorded responses in the same manner. Finally, the evaluation team auditor conducted village bank audits for two randomly selected village banks in a single district, Phnom Sruoch. For these audits, the auditor interviewed the LWF income generation officer, village bank personnel, and a sample of borrowers. In addition, the auditor reviewed village bank and income generation records. stops: Not at 6.06"

Evaluation Methods. The student and faculty sponsor and field supervisor must have a clear understanding of how each completed objective will be evaluated and a grade determined. Exams, essays, research papers, reports, self-studies, demonstrations, presentations, job diaries, software or computer programs, creative projects and other methods can be used to document the learning accomplished.