education

The following are major characteristics of goal-free evaluation: • The evaluator purposefully avoids becoming aware of the program goals. • Predetermined goals are not permitted to narrow the focus of the evaluation study. • Goal-free evaluation focuses on actual outcomes rather than intended program outcomes. • The goal-free evaluator has minimal contact with the program […]

Goal-Free Evaluation The rationale for goal-free evaluation can be summarized as follows: First, goals should not be taken as given. Goals, he argues, are generally little more than rhetoric and seldom reveal the real objectives of the project or changes in intent. In addition, many important program outcomes are not included in the list of

Strengths and Limitations of Program-Oriented Evaluation Approaches Probably the greatest strength and appeal of the objectives-oriented approach lies in its simplicity. It is easily understood, is easy to follow and implement, and produces information that program directors generally agree is relevant to their mission. This approach has caused program directors to reflect about their inten-

How Program-Oriented Evaluation Approaches Have Been Used The objectives-oriented approach has dominated the thinking and development of evaluation since the 1930s, both in the United States and elsewhere (Madaus & Stufflebeam, 1989). Its straightforward procedure of using objectives to deter- mine a program’s success or failure and to serve as a foundation for program Chapter

What do evaluators using theory-based evaluation approaches do? Bickman defines program theory as “the construction of a plausible and sensible model of how a program is supposed to work” (Bickman, 1987, p. 5). More recently, Donaldson defines program theory as “the process through which program components are presumed to affect outcomes and the conditions under

Theory-Based or Theory-Driven Evaluation Carol Weiss first discussed basing evaluation on a program’s theory in her 1972 clas- sic book building on earlier writings by Suchman (1967) on the reasons that pro- grams fail (Weiss, 1997; Worthen, 1996a). She has remained an effective and long-term advocate for theory-based evaluations (Weiss, 1995, 1997; Weiss & Mark,

Logic Models and Theory-Based Evaluation Approaches Logic Models One of the criticisms of objectives-oriented evaluation is that it tells us little about how the program achieves its objectives. This can be a particular problem when programs fail to achieve their objectives, because the evaluation can provide little advice on how to do so. Logic models

A Schema for Generating and Analyzing Objectives: The Evaluation Cube Building on a concept developed by Hammond (1973), The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University developed a three-dimensional framework for analyzing the objects of community-based youth programs. This approach can easily be modified to incorporate relevant dimensions for any objectives-oriented program. The cube (Dodson, 1994,

Provus Discrepancy Evaluation Model Another approach to evaluation in the Tylerian tradition was developed by Malcolm Provus, who based his approach on his evaluation assignments in the Pittsburgh public schools (Provus, 1971, 1973). Provus viewed evaluation as a continuous information-management process designed to serve as “the watch- dog of program management” and the “handmaiden of

The Tylerian Evaluation Approach Tyler had a tremendous influence on both evaluation and education., His work influenced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the first federal act to require evaluation of educational programs. At the end of his career, he chaired the committee that started the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),