participant oriented evaluation approaches stake s countenance l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Participant-oriented Evaluation Approaches: Stake’s Countenance PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Participant-oriented Evaluation Approaches: Stake’s Countenance

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

Participant-oriented Evaluation Approaches: Stake’s Countenance - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 2186 Views
  • Uploaded on

Participant-oriented Evaluation Approaches: Stake’s Countenance . Emily Howard Program Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Responsive Evaluation. Grew out of dislike for mechanical and preordinate evaluation methods in the late 1960s. Characteristics include : 1. Depends on inductive reasoning

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Participant-oriented Evaluation Approaches: Stake’s Countenance' - mirella


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
participant oriented evaluation approaches stake s countenance
Participant-oriented Evaluation Approaches: Stake’s Countenance

Emily Howard

Program Evaluation and Policy Analysis

slide2

Responsive Evaluation

Grew out of dislike for mechanical and preordinate evaluation methods in the late 1960s.

Characteristics include :

1. Depends on inductive reasoning

2. Uses a multiplicity of data

3. Does not follow a standard plan

4. Records multiple rather than single realities

Fitzpatrick, Sanders, Worthen 2004

quick vocabulary lesson

Transaction: Successive engagements or dynamic encounters constituting the process of instruction. (Activities, processes, etc.) Example: Behavioral interactions.

Quick Vocabulary Lesson

Outcomes: The effects of the instructional experience. (Including observations and unintentional outcomes.) Example: Teacher performance.

Antecedent: A condition existing prior to instruction that may relate to outcomes. (Inputs, resources, etc.) Example: Teacher background.

what does it do

The ultimate test of an evaluation’s validity is the extent to which it increases the audience’s understanding of the entity that was evaluated.

Responsive evaluators in continuous communication with stakeholders.

Stresses importance of being responsive to realities in program and concerns of participants rather than relying on preconceptions.

Disinterested in formal objectives and formal data collection.

What Does it Do?

Affords the evaluator information needed to analyze the levels of congruency.

advantages

Attempts to reflect the complexity of the program as realistically as possible.

Has great potential for gaining new insights and theories about the field and program it evaluates.

Advantages

Evaluators look at the needs for those whom the program serves.

disadvantages

Approach accused of being too subjective.

Possibly over-minimizes the importance of data collection instruments and quantitative evaluation.

Disadvantages

Can be cost prohibitive and labor intensive.

case study evaluating an environmental education professional development course
Case Study: Evaluating an Environmental Education Professional Development Course

Purpose: “Evaluate an environmental education professional development course using Stake’s Countenance Model as the organizational framework.”

case background

Course designed to educate teachers about research and instructional strategies used to investigate community environmental issues.

Case Background

Course included laboratory procedures, data collection trips, and data analysis.

Evaluation of a Chesapeake Watershed Ecology course.

evaluation methodology

Unexpected Outcomes:

Enhanced professional confidence

Not enough time to study and reflect

Administrative barriers to implementing what they learned

Antecedents:

Teacher background

Appropriate curriculum

Resource availability

Transactions:

Component participation

Behavioral interactions

Course choreography

Data Collection Instruments:

1. Pretest

2. Posttest

3. Teacher opinion survey

4. Expert opinion questionnaire

5. Attendance records

6. Background information

7. Teacher journals

8. Instructor journal

Evaluation Methodology

Outcomes:

Improved performance

Teacher attitudes

Intent to use

Criterion levels were established to judge discrepancies between what was intended and what was observed to occur.

slide12

Countenance Matrix

The table shows the outstanding

characteristics of the course.

The table compares intents to

observations and describes the

judgment standards and the

judgment of the evaluator.

evaluation results summary

Benefit of using Stake’s Countenance:

  • Facilitated in-depth understanding of the course.
  • Revealed unanticipated consequences as well as reasons and consequences for the effects.

Results of Evaluation:

1. Teachers were familiar with basic concepts but not advanced techniques.

2. Established importance of ties between perceived resource ability, class participation, and curricular choices.

3. Linked knowledge gains and improved professional confidence expressed by the teachers.

Evaluation Results & Summary
quality of the case study

Questions

Observations

Case study did not tackle a complex issue, hard to judge the technique.

Tool seemed well-suited to case; in education evaluation should be participant-oriented.

Would other techniques have been more or less helpful?

Is the technique more than the matrix, and is an evaluator necessary?

Did not see voice of the evaluator. Judgments largely a result of participant experience and rating.

Quality of the Case Study

Does the evaluator do more than facilitate? Does the evaluator make “big picture” observations?

Some of the judgments could have possibly been culled from survey results as well.

Would different techniques have yielded different results?

questions

Graphic

Questions?

Emily Howard

Participant-oriented Evaluation: Stake’s Countenance