To meet the specific needs of a small, localized program like that of

Question

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 
 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 
 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 
 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

RC Butler 2021  -  Practice Two RC Questions Everyday.   
Passage # 78 Date: 24-Feb-2021
 This question is a part of RC Butler 2021 .  Click here for Details

proabhinav · Answer

Hi Experts

For Q2, when we say recommend, shouldn't we be comparing one entity to others? While the language of the passage from beginning is why Case study approach is apt, but we don't discuss any immediate comparisons with other approaches. Please can you help me with rationale behind correct answer.

For Q3, passage 3 is adding more points to the case study approach, but I don't see any objections made. Why is option 2 correct ..

Thank You
Abhinav

tapasgupta · Answer

1. A-  an evaluation of the PFF Fellows program would benefit from naturalistic engagement
  - given in first para
B-  a summative evaluation would add to a complete assessment of the PFF Fellows program
  - nowhere it is written
C-  a formative evaluation is not appropriate when evaluating a program of vast scope  - opposite

D-  a proper evaluation of the PFF Fellows program will require pretreatment data
  - opposite
E-  evaluation is unlikely to yield meaningful results when applied to major sociocultural institutions  - opposite

2. A-  to recommend an approach
  - says at last para
B-  to criticize an approach
  - out of scope
C-  to define a method  - author did not just defined. He says it would fit.

D-  to undermine a tradition  - out of scope

E-  to identify a candidate for research  - out of scope

3. A-  to voice a prominent concern  - extreme choice

B-  to answer a number of possible objections  - says the last para about the concern with the data

C-  to explain the results of a study  - no results are given

D-  to illustrate a method already introduced  - out of scope

E-  to rebut critics of the author  - out of scope

Yuvaraj6030 · Answer

What is the primary purpose of this passage?

A- to recommend an approach 
Check the second line of the first paragraph "an evaluation should employ the case study design" make note if the non neutral words(ex: Here SHOULD) while reading. These play a crucial role in determining authors tone and point. 
In first two lines he recommends an approach and in the rest of the passage he starts describing about the case study why is it so important.
B- to criticize an approach
C- to define a method 
Correct unto some extent. Remember a main point should refer to the entire passage not even 90% of the passage.
D- to undermine a tradition
E- to identify a candidate for research

udaypratapsingh99 · Answer

bb   Sajjad1994   egmat   generis   GMATNinja

I found some passage to be much difficult to even comprehend than others which I found much easy. Do you have any suggestion or advice for such passages ?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi, Please read the posts below in the links, these might help you in some way. https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-read- ... 00886.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightbla ... 01219.html Good Luck

Akarshkhan86 · Answer

I am confused with the Question 3. Can anyone help me out with why option B is right over Option D?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Reference Text from the  last paragraph:

"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."

This text shows that the author is discussing the possible objections that may arise.  Option (B)  is correct.

Rance14 · Answer

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 - mentioned in the first paragraph "A predominantly qualitative research method, the case study is designed to examine a subject in its natural setting" though I was more naturally able to pick it up at the very end of the third paragraph "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." Correct

B- a summative evaluation would add to a complete assessment of the PFF Fellows program - the opposite is mentioned in the second paragraph "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" hence summative evaluation would not benefit - Eliminate

C- a formative evaluation is not appropriate when evaluating a program of vast scope - as mentioned in the reasoning for option B, PFF is a formative evaluation hence it should be appropriate - Eliminate

D- a proper evaluation of the PFF Fellows program will require pretreatment data - mentioned in the third paragraph "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." hence no pretreatment data is required - Eliminate

E- evaluation is unlikely to yield meaningful results when applied to major sociocultural institutions - nothing is mentioned about major sociocultural institutions in the passage hence - Eliminate

Do let me if there are any flaws to my approach or if there was any better way to go about it

To meet the specific needs of a small, localized program like that of

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

To meet the specific needs of a small, localized program like that of

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards