Stakes Countenance With Case Study (Emily Howard)

Participant-oriented EvaluationApproaches: 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 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 Antecedent: A condition existing prior to instruction that may relate to outcomes. (Inputs, resources, etc.) Example: Teacher background. Transaction: Successive engagements or dynamic encounters constituting the process of instruction. (Activities, processes, etc.) Example: Behavioral interactions. Outcomes: The effects of the instructional experience. (Including observations and unintentional outcomes.) Example: Teacher performance. Stake and his Countenance The two basic acts of evaluation are description and judgment. Insert Matrix Here What Does it Do? Stresses importance of being responsive to realities in program and concerns of participants rather than relying on preconceptions. 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. Disinterested in formal objectives and formal data collection. Affords the evaluator information needed to analyze the levels of congruency. Events in Stake’s Countenance clock image here Advantages Evaluators look at the needs for those whom the program serves. 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. Disadvantages Approach accused of being too subjective. Possibly over-minimizes the importance of data collection instruments and quantitative evaluation. Can be cost prohibitive and labor intensive. 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 Evaluation of a Chesapeake Watershed Ecology course. Course designed to educate teachers about research and instructional strategies used to investigate community environmental issues. Course included laboratory procedures, data collection trips, and data analysis. Evaluation Methodology Criterion levels were established to judge discrepancies between what was intended and what was observed to occur. Antecedents: Teacher background Appropriate curriculum Resource availability Transactions: Component participation Behavioral interactions Course choreography Outcomes: Improved performance Teacher attitudes Intent to use 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 Unexpected Outcomes: Enhanced professional confidence Not enough time to study and reflect Administrative barriers to implementing what they learned 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. Countenance Matrix 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. Quality of the Case Study Would different techniques have yielded different results? Would other techniques have been more or less helpful? Some of the judgments could have possibly been culled from survey results as well. Did not see voice of the evaluator. Judgments largely a result of participant experience and rating. Does the evaluator do more than facilitate? Does the evaluator make “big picture” observations? Is the technique more than the matrix, and is an evaluator necessary? 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. Questions Observations Questions? Graphic Emily Howard Participant-oriented Evaluation: Stake’s Countenance