Evaluation Report
Having conducted your research and analysed the data, the evaluation report enables to bring together all your findings. Based on concrete evidence from your audience and the event, the information learnt can be called upon in any future events so that planning begins from an solid knowledge base.
guidelines
When writing the report, make sure that you go back to your original aims and objectives, as outlined in the objectives document that can be found on this site. A mixture of positive and negative feedback will provide constructive lessons to learn from in the future, as well as leading to conclusions about how best to take your findings forward into future event planning.
example evaluation report
The following is the Evaluation Report produced for a Dana Centre event. This event tested out a new game format (called DEMOCS) that we had not used with the public before. In addition to conducting an audience profile and detailed observation, a focus group were invited to attend this event.
Naked Science Evaluation Report
Stem Cell Research: What are the issues?
A collaboration with the New Economics Foundation
August 2003
Recommendations:
Continue using the DEMOCS format in the Dana Centre. This event was a successful way of informing our target audience about stem cell research, whilst also engaging them in a dialogue about the issues this raises.
In a previous staff trial of this format, the game had benefited from a roving facilitator who was able to answer individual teams’ questions. However, the facilitators at this event did not stand out enough for this to occur. In future events we should continue to use a roving facilitator, but must be sure to highlight who they are so that the audience is happy to ask them questions.
We should experiment with asking each team to discuss a particular set of issues. This would provide each team with a focus, whilst allowing the room as a whole to cover more ground within the topic of stem cell research.
The second half of this event lacked focus and was clearly not as planned as the first half of the evening. When using this format again, the second half must have a clear purpose and structure so that time is not wasted.
Some participants at this event were confused over some of the basic issues of stem cell research, therefore presenting an intellectual barrier to engagement. With this event, and with all other Dana Centre events, we must be sure to provide layers of information so that the basic points are covered before moving on to more complicated discussion.
The beer mats provided at this event were intended as a means of information provision, but did not achieve their full potential. It is not always enough to only provide information. For example, we should also point out how the beer mats can be used and why they are there.
Introduction:
Stem Cell Research: What are the issues? Was produced in collaboration with the New Economics Foundation who developed the game used in this event. The event was held in the Theodore Bullfrog Pub near Embankment. Doors opened at 7.15pm and the event finished at 9.15pm. There was a focus group attending this event for members of the Dana Centre target audience. Data from the focus group report has been used in this event report.
Profile:
A short entrance survey was conducted with 25 members of the audience. Of this group:
- Most people found out about the event via word of mouth – 38%
- The second most common way of finding out about the event was from an email list - 23%
This event was successful at reaching its target audience of non-specialist independent adults - 62% of those questioned were non-science specialist.
Of the remaining percentage, only 12% were biomedical specialists.
At 58% of those questioned there were more women than men at this event
At 77% of those questioned the majority of this audience were white in ethnic origin
The age range of those questioned is as follows:
- 54% between 19 – 35.
- 19% between 36 – 50
- 15% between 51 – 60
- 4% 65+
Event format:
Stem Cell Research: What are the issues? was delivered using an experimental event format, DEMOCS that has been developed by the New Economics Foundation. The audience was divided into 5 groups of approximately 6 people each. Each group was given a game to play, which raised the issues surrounding Stem Cell Research for discussion. Game play lasted for 90 minutes. At the end of the event all the groups were brought back together again to discuss the issues raised as a whole, lasting for a further 30 minutes.
Methodology:
A short entrance survey was conducted with members of the audience at this event. This was used to ascertain the audience profile of the evening. Once the event began detailed observation notes were taken. Following the event, a focus group was conducted with members of the Dana Centre target audience.
What went well?
1. This format worked well in a pub and would transfer successfully to the Dana Centre
2. The game itself worked well for this audience:
- It proved to be enjoyable for the target audience of non-specialist independent adults.
“It targeted well those of us that hadn’t broached the subject or worked outside of science professions.” (focus group participant)
- The audience learnt about the issues involved in stem cell research. It was particularly appropriate for people who did not have expertise in the subject.
- The audience engaged in a dialogue with each other, including members of the audience that they did not already know.
- Due to the game’ structure, audience members were able to express their opinions and were conscious of listening to the opinions of others.
3. Dialogue was achieved at this event. The majority of dialogue occurred between audience members on individual tables. These groups of people did not necessarily know each other at the start of the event.
4. There was evidence of learning at this event, especially from focus group members. This learning was both cognitive (acquiring new knowledge) and affective (challenging beliefs and values).
What could be improved?
1. During the second half, physical barriers to engagement in the event became apparent. There were NO roving microphones and it became hard to hear other audience members.
2. The second half of the event section lacked a clear structure and focus therefore presenting intellectual barriers to dialogue. This also meant that the facilitator had to make many interventions to keep debate going.
“I would have preferred to get hold of my group’s and my ideas and leave rather than more thoughts from others.” (focus group participant)
3. Beer mats with basic information about Stem Cells on them were produced for this event. However, audience members were not observed to take notice of the beer mats, and focus group members did not cite them as a useful information source.
4. At certain points in the game, players were unsure of instructions. Although there were 2 facilitators available at this game, audience members did not appear to notice them.
5. Focus group members explained that they did not know the origins of the information given to them at this event. At some points, this left them unsure whether to trust the information or not.
“I was a little conscious of the fact that I know so little about this subject I don’t know what information I was being given and what I wasn’t.” (focus group participant)