Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Program Evaluation
Program Evaluation ch 3 on
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Objectivism epistemology | Evaluation information must be "scientifically objective" |
| Subjectivism epistemology | appeal to experience rather than to science - the validity of a subjectivist evaluation depends on the relevance of the evaluator's background and qualifications and the keenness of his perceptions |
| Utilitarian | determine value by assessing the overall impact on a program on those affected |
| Intuitionist-pluralist | the value depends on the impact of the program on EACH individual (tended to be subjectivist epistemology |
| Areas evaluators disagree are | 1. whether the intent of evaluation is to render a value judgment 2. general view of the political roles of evaluation 3. Influenced by their prior experience 4. Knowledge and expertise required for evaluators 5. Do evaluations need a wide variety of appr |
| Five categories of evaluation | 1. Objective-oriented; 2. Management-Oriented; Consumer-oriented; Expertise-oriented approaces; 5. Participant- oriented |
| Objective-oriented evaluation approach | the purposes of some activity are specified and then evaluation focuses on the extent to which those purposes are achieved |
| Uses of objective-oriented evaluation | reformulate the purposes of the activity, change the activity itself, or the assessment procedures and devices used to determine the achievement of purposes |
| Tylerian Evaluation Approach | evaluation is the process of determining the extent to which the objectives of a program are actually being attained. |
| Tylerian Evaluation steps | 1. Establish broad goals or objectives; 2. Classify the goals or objectives; 3. Define objectives in behavioral terms; 4. Find situations in which achievement of objectives can be shown; 5. Develop or select measurement techniques; 6. Collect performance |
| Logical method for evaluating goals and objectives | Examine the 1. need; 2. consequences; 3. fit with higher-order values (laws, policies) of goals and objectives |
| Empirical methods for evaluating goals and objectives | 1. Collecting group data to describe judgments about the value of a goal or objective; 2. Arranging for experts, hearings, or panels to review; 3. Content studies; 4. Pilot study |
| The Evaluation Cube | Three-dimensional framework for analyzing the objects of community-based youth programs |
| Logic Models | Start with the long-term vision of how program participants will improve with program (ultimate outcome); Determine inputs, activities, outputs and immediate, intermediate, long-term and ultimate outputs |
| Pros of Objective-oriented evaluation | Simplicity - easily understood, follow and implement; legitimate - programs are being held accountable for what its designers said it would accomplish |
| Cons of Objective-oriented evaluation | 1. lacks real evaluative component; 2. lacks judgment of difference between objectives and performance; 3. neglects value of objectives; 4. ignores alternatives; 5. neglects context; 6. neglects other outcomes; 7. linear, inflexible |
| goal-free evaluation | 1. avoids becoming aware of goals; 2. predetermined goals are not permitted; 3. examines actual outcome; 4. limit contact with management; 5. increase likelihood of finding unanticipated side effects |
| Management-oriented | An evaluation that serves the decision maker and the evaluation is directed to the concerns, informational needs, and criteria for effective of the decision maker. |
| CIPP Evaluation Model (4 types of evaluation) | 1. Context - planning decisions; 2. Input - structuring decisions; 3. Process - implementing decisions; 4. Product - recycling decisions |
| Management-oriented models | 1. CIPP Evaluation Model; 2. UCLA Evaluation Model; 3. parts of Provus' Discrepancy Evaluation Model; 4. Utilization-focused evaluation approach |
| Management-oriented model strengths | 1. Rational and orderly system approach; 2. gives focus to the evaluation; 3. can begin evaluation before program begins; 4. provides timely feedback to decision makers |
| Management-oriented model weaknesses | 1. Important questions may be ignored because at odds with decision maker; 2. disenfranchises other stakeholders; 3. can be costly and complex; 4. assumes decisions can be identified in advance. |
| Consumer-Oriented Evaluation Approaches | A summative evaluation with checklists and criteria of the consumers |
| Consumer-Oriented Strengths | 1. Make evaluation material widely available; 2. Increase consumer knowledge |
| Consumer-Oriented Weaknesses | 1. Increase cost of products; 2. suppress creativity |
| Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approaches | Depends primarily on professional expertise to judge an institution, program, product, or activity |
| Examples of expertise-oriented evaluation | Doctoral examinations administered by a committee, proposal review panels, professional reviews conducted by professional accreditation bodies |
| Types of Expertise-Oriented Evaluations | 1. Formal review system; 2. Informal review system; 3. Ad hoc panel review; 4. Ad hoc individual review |
| Strengths of Expertise-Oriented | 1. emphasized the central role of expert judgment and human wisdom; 2. Formal review boards develop criteria, self-study, defined objectives, support and protect |
| Weaknesses of Expertise-Oriented | 1. The evaluation could reflect one persons biases; 2. public concerns over credibility and public cynicism |
| participant-oriented evaluation | Views the participants in the endeavor being evaluated as central to the evaluation |
| Commonalities of participant-oriented | Depend on inductive reasoning; Use multiplicity of data; do not follow standard plan; Record multiple rather than single realities |
| Responsive Evaluation | Central focus is in addressing the concerns and issues of a stakeholder audience; heavily qualitative |
| Naturalistic Evaluation | the evaluator is studying he program activity in situ, without constraining, manipulating, or controlling it. Uses cross-checking and triangulation; unobtrusive measures |
| Types of participant-oriented evaluation | 1. Responsive; 2. Naturalistic; 3. Participatory; 4. Utilization-focused; 5. Empowerment |
| Strengths of Participant-oriented evaluation | Readily used by any sensitive individual; emphasize human element; complex; foster and facilitates activism of recipients of program services |
| Negatives of Participant-oriented evaluation | Subjective; high cost; labor intensive; advocates lose unbias |
Created by:
julieg