You are on page 1of 6

Richard Jones Central Valley Evaluations Modesto, California

richardjones3@u.boisestate.edu Telephone: 209-555-5555 cvevaluation.com







Response to Request for Proposal
______________________________________________________________________________
Evaluating the Determining Instructional Purposes
Training Program



















Submitted By: Central Valley Evaluations
Submitted To: Far West Laboratory for Educational & Research Development
Date: October 14, 2014

______________________________________________________________________________
_

R F P : D e t e r m i n i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l P u r p o s e s T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m

Page 2
Introduction

This response to request for proposal was constructed to provide Far West Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development (FWL) with our plan and vision for evaluating the
Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP) training program as requested on September 15, 2014.
The primary purpose of this evaluation proposal is to provide FWL with information and
recommendations as to the marketability and salability of the DIP program. As requested by
FWL, Central Valley Evaluations shall attempt to also provide information that can be used by
school administrators in making decisions regarding the purchase of the DIP training materials.
We understand that FWL has concerns about devoting monetary resources to marketing the DIP
training program, and we hope to provide your organization with the evaluative feedback
necessary to make this decision. Thus, this response to your RFP represents our commitment to
serving your evaluation needs as best we can.

Description of Program Being Evaluated

The Determining Instructional Purposes training program was created to provide administrators
and graduate students in educational fields with materials to plan effective school programs. The
training materials consist of three training units that are accompanied by a Coordinators
Handbook. The units covered in this program include the following: Unit 1Setting Goals, Unit
2Analyzing Problems, and Unit 3-Deriving Objectives. Each unit consists of between four and
six modules, all of which are in print form. The modules focus on both individual and
collaborative activities, often times requiring trainees to apply their learning to hypothetical
situations one might find in an educational setting. Each participant is provided with all of the
reading materials necessary for practicing such skills and feedback for the activities.

The DIP training materials have been designed so that school administrators can choose whether
to purchase and cover one, two, or all three of the units contained in this program. This self-
contained format will allow administrators to select the materials they feel best apply to their
given situation. The expected training time for Units 1 and 3 is 10-15 hours each, and the
estimated time for Unit 2 is 12-18 hours. The workshops for these materials can be schedule to
meet the needs of the school, meaning they can be rolled out in variety of time allotments;
however, a coordinator who first completes the materials on his or her own should be selected
oversee each of the trainings. There is no need for previous knowledge of the content on behalf
of the coordinators. The Coordinators Handbook will provide guidance for instituting and
monitoring all of the training materials. Here are the costs for these materials:

Coordinators Handbook: $4.50 (per copy)
Individual Units $8.95 (each)
1 Set of all 3 Units $24.95

We also recognize that these materials have yet to be used in any real-world or simulated
trainings.

_

R F P : D e t e r m i n i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l P u r p o s e s T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m

Page 3
Evaluation Method

As previously mentioned, the purpose of this evaluation would be to assist Far West Laboratory
by determining the marketability of their Determining Instructional Purposes training program.
Our goal would be to determine the value of producing and marketing this product on a larger
scale. A secondary goal would be to better understand how best to share information with
educational administrators who make decisions about purchasing such products. In order to
accomplish these and the other goals established for this evaluation, CVE is proposing the use of
a number of data sources as part of its evaluative method. All findings will be reported to the
stakeholders at FWL in both written and oral presentation. FWL will be allowed to share these
findings with any potential clients they deem appropriate.

Evaluating the Training Materials
The CVE will first evaluate the training materials to verify that the stated instructional objectives
of the training materials match the content that is contained within the modules. This will require
members of the CVE team to look through all of the materials including the modules and the
Coordinators Handbook. This will likely involve some interviews as well, so CVE would need
access to key stakeholders who were responsible for developing the contents of each module as it
is likely that questions will arise that need to be addressed by FWL personnel. These interviews
can take place via videoconference (Google Hangouts).

Simulated Trainings
CVE would run three simulated training groups, each one covering one of the three units in this
program. The participants involved in these trainings would include graduate students and
faculty from the Education Department at Edtech University and administrators from local
school districts; moreover, they would be conducted by two CVE staff members. Each group will
consist of 5 graduate students, 1 faculty member, and 3 school administrators. The first group
will cover Unit 1, and the workshops will be completed in three, five-hour sessions. The second
group will cover Unit 2, and the workshops will be completed in five, three-hour sessions. Group
three will cover Unit 3, and the workshops will be completed in five, two-hour sessions.
Workshop participants will complete a Google Forms survey, following each workshop, to
provide formative feedback that can be used in determining how best to inform administrators
about the potential use of these training materials and any other feedback that can be used in
marketing the program should that be in FWLs future. An post-training interview of each
participant will also be utilized as a way of gaining summative feedback for the same purpose.

Market Analysis
As part of this evaluation, CVE will complete market research to determine which, if any,
products and programs exist that would compete with the DIP modules. Special attention will be
paid to the content, prices, and marketing strategies of any programs FWL might compete
against. This would be an essential piece to consider when deciding whether or not to move
forward with the production and marketing of these materials. This will require access to all
marketing materials and personnel that have worked on DIP products. Interviews will be
conducted by the CVE team as a way of better understanding the vision that FWL has in terms of
marketing this product. These interviews will be conducted in-person at FWL headquarters.

_

R F P : D e t e r m i n i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l P u r p o s e s T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m

Page 4
Task Schedule

The following schedule represents the tasks that CVE has identified as being necessary to carry
out the evaluation plan listed in the sections above. Each of these tasks has been designed to
accomplish the goals that FWL has established within their Request for Proposal. CVE has
concluded that this process will take nine months to carry out and shall begin on January 1, 2015.

Completion Date Task Description
January 7, 2015
CVE will meet with FWL leadership and key stakeholders to review the
program objectives, evaluation methods, and evaluation materials. The
meeting will take place in-person at FWL headquarters.
February 1, 2015
CVE will examine the training materials to determine whether or not they
match the stated instructional objectives of the program. CVE will
contact/interview stakeholders via videoconference as questions arise.
February 7, 2015
CVE will develop the surveys and interview questions that will be used
in the simulated training sessions. These materials will be discussed with
FWL management via videoconference and revised if necessary.
February 21, 2015
CVE will hold interviews and select the participants for the simulated
training sessions. These interviews will take place in-person at the CVE
office and EdTech University.
March 28, 2015
CVE will coordinate and implement all three sessions of the first
simulated training group (Unit 1). Participants will complete the survey
at the end of each session. CVE will lead exit interviews with each of the
participants after all three sessions have been completed.
April 25, 2015
CVE will coordinate and implement all five sessions of the second
simulated training group (Unit 2). Participants will complete the survey
at the end of each session. CVE will lead exit interviews with each of the
participants after all five sessions have been completed.
May 29, 2015
CVE will coordinate and implement all five sessions of the third
simulated training group (Unit 3). Participants will complete the survey
at the end of each session. CVE will lead exit interviews with each of the
participants after all five sessions have been completed.
June 30, 2015
CVE will compile and analyze survey and interview data from all three
of the simulated training groups.
July 18, 2015
CVE will meet with the FWL marketing and sales teams to discuss their
vision for marketing and selling the DIP training program. This meeting
will take place in-person at FWL headquarters.
September 1, 2015
CVE will write and submit their final report to FWL. CVE will also
provide an oral presentation of their findings. This oral presentation will
take place at FWL.
September 4, 2015
CVE will meet with FWL to answer questions and to debrief the
evaluation process. This meeting will take place at FWL.



_

R F P : D e t e r m i n i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l P u r p o s e s T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m

Page 5
Project Personnel

Dr. Brady Alan is the lead evaluation specialist at Central Valley Evaluation. He will be
responsible for supervising all tasks and personnel associated with this evaluation process. He
will also be the lead contact person should FWL have questions about the process. Dr. Alan has
been an evaluation specialist for 21 years and was one of the co-founders of Central Valley
Evaluations. Prior to working at Central Valley Evaluations, Dr. Alan served for 12 years as an
evaluation specialist for Western Gulf Evaluation, Inc. Dr. Alan received his Ph.D. in Education
from the University of California, Berkeley. He also has a Masters Degree in Psychology from
California State University, Sacramento. Dr. Alan currently sits on the Board of Directors for the
American Evaluation Association where he has been a member for 15 years.

Adriana Hernandez is the Director of Educational Projects at Central Valley Evaluation. She
will lead all aspects of the simulated trainings for this evaluation. She will also be responsible for
leading the examination of the DIP training materials. Before joining CVE, Adriana worked as
an instructional designer for California State University where she specialized in curriculum and
instruction. Mrs. Hernandez also spent five years working for the California Department of
Education where she headed up the creation of the newest version of the California Standards for
the Teaching Profession. Mrs. Hernandez worked as the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum
and Instruction at Sacramento Unified School District and Superintendent of the San Francisco
Unified School District. She has a Masters Degree in Educational Administration from the
University of Arizona and is a member of the Association of California School Administrators.

Dominic Pham is a research assistant at Central Valley Evaluations. Mr. Pham will be
responsible for designing and implementing the data collection methods for this evaluation
project. He will work in conjunction with other members of the CVE staff and representatives
from FWL to ensure a thorough and scientific process of data collection and analysis. Prior to
joining CVE, Dominic spent 10 years working as a researcher in the Education Department at the
University of Southern California. Mr. Pham has an extensive background working with
quantitative and qualitative data.

Richard Jones is a graduate student at Boise State University and will serve as an assistant to
both Dr. Alan and Mrs. Hernandez. He has an extensive background in working with educational
technology. Mr. Jones has taught a variety of social science course for 12 years at Del Puerto
High School in Patterson, California. He is also serves as a district curriculum coach and the
secondary lead teacher for social studies. He has presented at a number of workshops (school,
district, and county levels).

Marissa Elliot is the Marketing Director at Central Valley Evaluations, and she will head the
market research analysis for this evaluation. She will be charged with leading the interviews with
the FWL marketing teams and with identifying any competing programs that currently exist in
the marketplace. Ms. Elliot has a Bachelors Degree in Business from the Texas A&M
University and a Masters Degree in Marketing from Stanford. Prior to joining Central Valley
Evaluations, Marissa worked as the Director of Marketing and Sales at the San Francisco
Chronicle.

_

R F P : D e t e r m i n i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l P u r p o s e s T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m

Page 6
Summary of Proposed Budget

The following budget is based on the activities Central Valley Evaluations has proposed for this
evaluation project. Far West Laboratories for Educational Research and Development would
need to make a payment of $15,000.00 prior to the start of any evaluation services from CVE.
Another payment of $15,000.00 will be due on June 1, 2015. The remaining $18,642.00 will be
due after the completion of the evaluation project, but must be paid no later than September 15,
2015.


Description of Services Cost Quantity Total Cost
Personnel
Dr. Brady Alan $450 per day 25 Days $11,250.00
Adriana Hernandez $300 per day 50 Days $15,000.00
Dominic Pham $200 per day 20 Days $4,000.00
Richard Jones $150 per day 35 Days $5,250.00
Marissa Elliot $175 per day 15 Days $2,625.00
Total Cost for Personnel $38,125.00

Simulation Participant Fees
Graduate Students $100 flat fee 15 members $1,500.00
School Administrators $200 flat fee 9 members $1,800.00
Faculty Members $300 flat fee 3 members $900.00
Total Cost for Simulation Participants $4,200.00

Travel
Transportation $400 per flight 8 tickets $3,200.00
Hotel Stays $85 per night 27 nights $2,295.00
Total Cost for Travel $5,495.00

Materials and Consumables
Copies $400 1 $400.00
Postage $150 1 $150.00
Simulation Units $24.95 per unit 10 $249.50
Simulation Coordinators Handbooks $4.50 per copy 5 $22.50
Total Cost for Materials and Consumables $822.00

Total Cost for Evaluation $48,642.00

You might also like