Participant-oriented Evaluation Participant-oriented Evaluation Approaches: Stake’s Approaches: Stake’s

Countenance Countenance

Emily HowardProgram Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Responsive EvaluationGrew 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 LessonQuick 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 Stake and his Countenance The two basic acts of evaluation are description and judgment.

Insert Matrix Here

What Does it Do? 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 Events in Stake’s Countenance

clock image here

Advantages 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 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: Case Study: Evaluating an Environmental Education Evaluating an Environmental Education

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

Case BackgroundCase 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 Evaluation Methodology Criterion levels were established to judge discrepancies between what

was intended and what was observed to occur.

Antecedents:Teacher background

Appropriate curriculumResource availability

Transactions:Component participationBehavioral interactionsCourse choreography

Outcomes:Improved performance

Teacher attitudesIntent to use

Data Collection Instruments:1. Pretest2. Posttest3. Teacher opinion survey4. Expert opinion questionnaire 5. Attendance records6. Background information7. Teacher journals 8. Instructor journal

Unexpected Outcomes:Enhanced professional

confidenceNot enough time to study and

reflectAdministrative barriers to

implementing what they learned

The table shows the outstandingcharacteristics of the course.

The table compares intents toobservations and describes the judgment standards and thejudgment of the evaluator.

Countenance Matrix

Evaluation Results & Summary 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 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?Questions?

Graphic

Emily HowardParticipant-oriented Evaluation: Stake’s Countenance