Evaluation Techniques Sample Clauses

Evaluation Techniques. 1. Prior to October 31 of each year, the evaluator shall review with the evaluatee the standards and assessment techniques by which the evaluatee will be evaluated. For affected unit members at those schools operating on year-round calendars, this deadline shall be at the end of the second school month at their site. The established standards of student progress shall reflect the scope of the evaluatee’s assignment. Standardized tests and other multiple measures are used to demonstrate student’s progress toward District standards of expected achievement for their grade level in each are of study and toward the State-adopted content standards. 2. Scheduled observations may be set by the evaluator or may be requested by the evaluatee. There shall be at least one scheduled observation of no les than 30 minutes during the evaluation period. Unscheduled observations may occur as needed to effectively collect evaluation data, and an evaluator may visit a class at any time. A post-observation conference shall be held as soon as possible, but not later than fifteen (15) days after each formally scheduled observation. At such conferences, the evaluator should commend and reinforce effective performance, make recommendations, and provide aid to improve ineffective performance. The evaluator shall make a written record of such post-observation conferences, with a copy provided to the evaluatee. The evaluatee may attach a response if he/she so desires. Other post-observation conferences shall be held at the request of either party. 3. The evaluation process described above in intended to be dialogue driven and based on ongoing discussions between the evaluator and evaluatee. Nothing in this section is intended to imply that any evaluation will be based solely on the observation process described above.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Evaluation Techniques. For each output, an evaluation instrument can be selected, designed and adapted to test both the claims of the designer and the underlying narrative. There are a wide range of such instruments and this is not the place to reproduce an extensive catalogue of possible strategies. Broadly speaking however, such instruments can be classified under four types: Naturally occurring Includes all secondary data generated in the execution of the project. This may include registration documents, appraisals, performance reviews and so on. Often the data is rather more limited that required – perhaps consisting of quantitative indicators or factual statements but even so it is sometimes possible to use such techniques as content analysis in some circumstances. The cheapest source of evaluation information, but over reliance may generate unsuitable proxies and misleading conclusions. Empirical Instruments Where the intervention lends itself to quantifiable entities and performance indicators, such as scores in an objective test, numbers completing a programmes and so on. A most important range of techniques, such as time series, variance analysis and correlation are available. However, there is always a temptation to focus on what can be measured in this way, rather than the ostensible purpose of the intervention, and numbers in exploratory projects are often too small to generate firm conclusions. Narrative Instruments Usually based around semi structured and unstructured interviews with clients and stakeholders, either in a group or individually, although such techniques as diaries and blogs are possible and perhaps rather underused in evaluation at present. Post experience questionnaires are often structured in a way that can collect such data although results are sometimes disappointing. It is frequently necessary to keep the number of examinations rather small due to expense. It is easily possible, and not uncommon, to generate a great deal of rich qualitative data that cannot be analysed within the timeframes and parameters of the evaluation. Qualiquantological Instruments A rare group of techniques that tries to achieve qualitative type answers using quantitative techniques, such as Q Sorting, which is very useful for estimating diversity and typologies within a client group. Table 6 Range of Evaluation Instruments
Evaluation Techniques. Two or more activities, (some suggestions follow) should be selected and incorporated in the learning contract.

Related to Evaluation Techniques

  • Information Technology The following applies to all contracts for information technology commodities and contractual services. “Information technology” is defined in section 287.012(15), F.S., to have the same meaning as provided in section 282.0041, F.S.

  • Techniques Framework agreement: Information about the dynamic purchasing system: No dynamic purchase system

  • Processes Any employer, employee, trade union or employer’s association may at any point in time apply for an exemption from any of the provisions of this Collective Agreement. The applicant is required to complete and submit in writing with the relevant office of the Council, a fully and properly completed prescribed application for exemption form, accompanied by all relevant supporting documentation.

  • Protocols Each party hereby agrees that the inclusion of additional protocols may be required to make this Agreement specific. All such protocols shall be negotiated, determined and agreed upon by both parties hereto.

  • Studies The clinical, pre-clinical and other studies and tests conducted by or on behalf of or sponsored by the Company or its subsidiaries that are described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus were and, if still pending, are being conducted in accordance in all material respects with all statutes, laws, rules and regulations, as applicable (including, without limitation, those administered by the FDA or by any foreign, federal, state or local governmental or regulatory authority performing functions similar to those performed by the FDA). The descriptions of the results of such studies and tests that are described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus are accurate and complete in all material respects and fairly present the published data derived from such studies and tests, and each of the Company and its subsidiaries has no knowledge of other studies or tests the results of which are materially inconsistent with or otherwise call into question the results described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus. Except as described in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries has received any notices or other correspondence from the FDA or any other foreign, federal, state or local governmental or regulatory authority performing functions similar to those performed by the FDA with respect to any ongoing clinical or pre-clinical studies or tests requiring the termination or suspension of such studies or tests. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company makes no representation or warranty that the results of any studies, tests or preclinical or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the Company will be sufficient to obtain governmental approval from the FDA or any foreign, state or local governmental body exercising comparable authority.

  • Information Technology Enterprise Architecture Requirements If this Contract involves information technology-related products or services, the Contractor agrees that all such products or services are compatible with any of the technology standards found at xxxxx://xxx.xx.xxx/iot/2394.htm that are applicable, including the assistive technology standard. The State may terminate this Contract for default if the terms of this paragraph are breached.

  • ANALYSIS AND MONITORING The Custodian shall (a) provide the Fund (or its duly-authorized investment manager or investment adviser) with an analysis of the custody risks associated with maintaining assets with the Eligible Securities Depositories set forth on Schedule B hereto in accordance with section (a)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17f-7, and (b) monitor such risks on a continuing basis, and promptly notify the Fund (or its duly-authorized investment manager or investment adviser) of any material change in such risks, in accordance with section (a)(1)(i)(B) of Rule 17f-7.

  • Evaluation, Testing, and Monitoring 1. The System Agency may review, test, evaluate and monitor Grantee’s Products and services, as well as associated documentation and technical support for compliance with the Accessibility Standards. Review, testing, evaluation and monitoring may be conducted before and after the award of a contract. Testing and monitoring may include user acceptance testing. Neither the review, testing (including acceptance testing), evaluation or monitoring of any Product or service, nor the absence of review, testing, evaluation or monitoring, will result in a waiver of the State’s right to contest the Grantee’s assertion of compliance with the Accessibility Standards. 2. Grantee agrees to cooperate fully and provide the System Agency and its representatives timely access to Products, records, and other items and information needed to conduct such review, evaluation, testing, and monitoring.

  • Evaluations A. District management shall direct the evaluation of all permanent bargaining unit members no less than once every two years and probationary bargaining unit members no less than twice per year. Bargaining unit members who have been employed with VUSD for at least ten (10) years and whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards, may be evaluated at least every five (5) years, if the administrative evaluator and certificated employee being evaluated agree. The certificated employee or the administrative evaluator may withdraw consent of this agreement at any time (EC 44664 (a) (3)). B. The written procedures for evaluations that are currently in effect shall be maintained by the District until the bargaining unit negotiates and ratifies new procedures. The present procedures are in Appendix A. They include: 1. The evaluator shall be an immediate supervisor or any other management or supervisory employee, who is designated by District management. 2. Bargaining unit members may utilize peer review in lieu of management evaluation with principal approval. 3. Those bargaining unit members who are regularly scheduled to be evaluated will be notified by the evaluator no later than October 1st of each school year. Such notice will contain a brief explanation as to the procedures for evaluations 4. One-half of the permanent staff will be formally evaluated each year. a. Pre-Conference Guidelines (for Temporary, Probationary and Permanent Bargaining Unit Members) 1. A pre-conference for bargaining unit members to be evaluated will be held by October 31. The purpose of the pre-conference is to review the Standards for Bargaining Unit Members assignment and to determine the evaluation focus. At that time the evaluator and the bargaining unit member may agree that some elements of the standards are not applicable (NA) to the employee’s assignment and may mark them NA at that time. 2. If there is disagreement about which of the elements is not applicable (NA), the parties may invite the Assistant Superintendent of Certificated Human Resources to assist in resolving the differences. The Assistant Superintendent shall recommend alternatives to the unit member and evaluator.

  • Research Primary Investigator as part of a multi-site study (25 points) • Co-Investigator as part of a multi-site study (20 points) • Primary Investigator of a facility/unit based research study (15 points) • Co-Investigator of a facility/unit based research study (10 points) • Develops a unit specific research proposal (5 points) • Conducts a literature review as part of a research study (5 points)

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!