To meet the specific needs of a small, localized program like that of the PFF Fellows, an evaluation should employ the case study design. A predominantly qualitative research method, the case study is designed to examine a subject in its natural setting and, in our case, to provide an appreciative, focused assessment of the individual concerns and idiosyncrasies of the program under consideration. By virtue of engaging with the people involved with the program itself, the case study can offer a respectful, expressive, sympathetic perspective on a program. Attending to the community within a program as it does, the case study method of interviews, surveys, and other anecdotal feedback instruments is ideal for a program of moderate scope and experiential nature. Since its approach is qualitative, the case study provides descriptive data that lead to an increased understanding of the program among all stakeholders, and can help facilitate discussion and relationship-building during the consideration of results. A program of modest size and close connection is accordingly a fine candidate for a case study evaluation.
The case study design was selected for two principal reasons: first, because the PFF Fellows program is not being compared with any other group – this is a formative evaluation seeking information that will improve the Fellows program, not a summative evaluation comparing its merit to that of other similar and potentially implementable programs; second, because both the PFF Fellows program’s own measures of success and the key questions guiding this evaluation (how well prepared did faculty feel, how satisfied are they with their current positions and their career arcs, etc.) are primarily qualitative themselves.
Other facets of the program contribute to making a case study design feasible. Since this evaluation’s foremost concern with the data is that they bear directly on local aspects of the PFF Fellows program, generalizability of results is not paramount. Also, since this evaluation is assessing the program from the perspective of present and past participants, it is not an experiment; pretreatment data are unnecessary when there is to be no treatment. The case study design similarly favors programs where processes are to be scrutinized, and in this particular evaluation, the approach, intervention, and guidance of the PFF Fellows program, not the value of the product, are to be explored. Finally, the PFF Fellows program is young and still developing; consequently, an evaluation that assesses which elements of the program have proven beneficial and which yet stand to be improved would fit the current state of the program, introducing few pressures or outside influences into the program itself and allowing for the naturalistic engagement so critical to a fruitful qualitative evaluation.
1- Which of the following could most reasonably be inferred from this passage?
A- an evaluation of the PFF Fellows program would benefit from naturalistic engagement
B- a summative evaluation would add to a complete assessment of the PFF Fellows program
C- a formative evaluation is not appropriate when evaluating a program of vast scope
D- a proper evaluation of the PFF Fellows program will require pretreatment data
E- evaluation is unlikely to yield meaningful results when applied to major sociocultural institutions
2- What is the primary purpose of this passage?
A- to recommend an approach
B- to criticize an approach
C- to define a method
D- to undermine a tradition
E- to identify a candidate for research
3- Which of the following best describes the function of the third paragraph in this passage?
A- to voice a prominent concern
B- to answer a number of possible objections
C- to explain the results of a study
D- to illustrate a method already introduced
E- to rebut critics of the author