Issue link: https://takingitglobal.uberflip.com/i/1542824
R. Adeboye, C. Flewelling,V. Ogbole, E. O'Sullivan 18 Figure C: Assessing Strength of Evidence based on Percentage of Positive Relevant Responses An additional write-in question from the Teachers Survey was also assessed against the PIAs, in an effort to ascertain whether there were specific gaps in Connected North programming: "What learning experiences would you hope to be able to access that are currently unavailable through Connected North, if any?" Because it was often difficult to determine whether respondents were requesting something because they thought it was a gap or simply because they thought it was good and wanted to see more of it, only 152 responses were analysed - for the teachers who responded less than "very satisfied" on the rating scale question "How would you rate your satisfaction with the variety of content available through Connected North?" Based on this filter, ambiguous responses could be more confidently categorized as gaps. Findings The table below provides a high-level illustration of the strength of evidence regarding whether Connected North's expected outcomes reflect stakeholder priorities (Question 1), whether it is well-designed (Question 2), whether its outcomes chain is reasonable (Question 3), whether it is being implemented as intended (Question 4), and whether it is contributing to its intended outcomes (Question 5). Blue denotes positive evidence, while red denotes negative. Darker shades denote stronger sentiment (e.g. stronger feelings regarding the value of Connected North), while the letters denote the relevance and/or quantity of evidence, with "H" or "high" denoting a relatively high volume of relevant evidence, "M" denoting a moderate amount, and "L" denoting a low amount. The "overall" column reflects the evaluation team's determination of the overall strength of the evidence. The evaluation team developed these summaries by triangulating the individual lines of evidence through sense-making sessions (Patton, 2011). Overall, the table shows that the answer to all high-level evaluation questions is affirmative, with particularly strong evidence supporting the program's design and implementation. The outcomes chain likewise appears to be well-founded, suggesting a high likelihood that Connected North is contributing to its intended outcomes. As expected, direct evidence of program influence on medium- and long-term outcomes is less pronounced and more limited in scope. Details unpacking this evidence are provided in the following pages.