Completing the AEA-based self-assessment in LDT 506 helped me see my current position as an evaluator more clearly. I would place myself at a 3 out of 6. I would not rate myself lower because I already have some foundational skills related to evaluation, especially in collecting structured feedback, interpreting responses, and attending to context. At the same time, I would not rate myself higher because I still have significant experience gaps in leading a full evaluation process, coordinating multiple stages, and facilitating across cultural and power dynamics. The clearest pattern in my self-assessment is that I am stronger at reading a situation than steering one. I am more comfortable analyzing, interpreting, and understanding context than coordinating a whole process or facilitating people through it. One surprise from the self-assessment was that I had entered with a narrow view of evaluation as mainly technical and data-focused, but the frameworks showed me that evaluation is also relational, ethical, and shaped by human systems (AEA, 2018).
One of my strengths is systematic inquiry and data interpretation. In my academic and administrative experience, I have had opportunities to create surveys, review responses, and identify patterns in feedback. A clear example comes from my work in the postgraduate department of a private university in Sri Lanka, where I helped gather student and program feedback. I realized that a broad satisfaction question would not provide useful information because students could interpret it in many different ways. Instead of relying on a general question about whether students were satisfied with the program, I found it more useful to ask about specific dimensions such as teaching, communication, and administrative support. That decision made the responses easier to interpret and more actionable because it showed where concerns were actually located. Although this was not a full formal evaluation, it gave me confidence in organized inquiry and in the importance of asking focused questions that generate meaningful evidence. This aligns with the AEA Methodology domain, particularly competencies related to determining evaluation questions, choosing appropriate methods, interpreting findings in context, and drawing conclusions from evidence.
My second strength is understanding stakeholders and context. In the same Sri Lankan university setting, I learned that feedback design could not be separated from the cultural and institutional environment. I understood that students might hesitate to criticize teaching methods, faculty, or department practices directly because hierarchy and respect for authority are powerful influences in many academic environments. Because of that, I tried to frame questions around students’ experiences rather than direct criticism of specific individuals. I also saw anonymity as important because students were more likely to respond honestly when their identities were protected. This experience made me realize that good data collection is not only about technical question design; it also depends on understanding who the stakeholders are, what assumptions they may bring, and how context shapes participation. This fits the AEA Context domain, which emphasizes responding to the uniqueness of context, engaging stakeholders, and clarifying diverse perspectives and cultural assumptions.
My first growth area is planning and management of the evaluation process. What I learned from the self-assessment is that this is more of an experience gap than a complete lack of ability. I have contributed to pieces of evaluation-related work, but I have not yet had responsibility for holding the whole process together from beginning to end. One moment that made this clear was when I reviewed student feedback in the postgraduate department and could identify meaningful patterns, yet still felt that my interpretation had limits because I was involved in only one part of the process. I could see what the responses suggested, but I did not always know the broader departmental constraints, decision-making context, or perspectives of other stakeholders. That meant my interpretation, while useful, was still incomplete. This is where Stevahn et al. (2005) helped me understand my self-assessment more deeply. Their taxonomy organizes evaluator competence into categories such as systematic inquiry, situational analysis, project management, reflective practice, and interpersonal competence, and it emphasizes that these categories are interconnected in practice rather than separate skills. My experience illustrates that point: my strength in inquiry was limited by less-developed experience in project management and broader process coordination. The AEA Planning and Management domain reinforces this through competencies such as coordinating evaluation processes and monitoring progress and quality.
My second growth area is interpersonal competence, especially facilitating culturally responsive interaction and attending to power and privilege. For me, the key distinction is that recognizing a dynamic is not the same as facilitating through it. I can identify when hierarchy, confidence, or cultural assumptions are shaping participation, but I have less experience actively responding to those dynamics in real time. In the Sri Lankan university context, I could design around power dynamics by using anonymity and neutral wording, but I was not in a role that required direct facilitation among stakeholders. In other academic and group settings, I have also noticed that some people speak more confidently while others stay silent, yet I have not always known how to step in constructively. The AEA Interpersonal domain emphasizes listening to different perspectives, attending to power and privilege, and facilitating constructive and culturally responsive interaction, which is exactly where I see the need for growth.
Beyond this class, I want to take two concrete steps to grow in these areas. First, I want to seek a workshop or online course in group facilitation or dialogue so I can build more practical skills in inclusive communication and culturally responsive interaction. Second, I want to coordinate a project from start to finish rather than contributing to only one part. I already see this growth edge in a collaborative paper I am working on with ASU undergraduate students related to education and cybersecurity. The project involves a human study, study design, expert evaluation, results, data interpretation, and evaluation-related thinking, and I am mainly responsible for those sections. That strengthens my methodological confidence, but it also reminds me that my next step is to take on more coordination responsibility in future collaborative work.
My immediate next step in Module 2 will focus on interpersonal competence. In a peer feedback session or team discussion, I want to move from simply noticing uneven participation to actively facilitating more balanced participation. I plan to do that by intentionally inviting quieter members to share before final decisions are made. Evidence of improvement would be more balanced participation and clearer inclusion of perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked. In this way, Module 2 becomes a deliberate chance to practice the “steering” side of evaluation rather than staying only on the “reading” side.
References
American Evaluation Association. (2018). AEA evaluator competencies.
American Evaluation Association. (2018). AEA guiding principles for evaluators.
Stevahn, L., King, J. A., Ghere, G., & Minnema, J. (2005). Establishing essential competencies for program evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 43–59.
Comments
Post a Comment