Prof Ed 10

• "In accordance with Section 185, Fair Use of Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution."
• COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION Bayombong Campus
• Unit 6


  Educational Evaluation
• Lesson Titles


  • Lesson 1: Guiding Principles for Evaluators
  • Lesson 2: Evaluation Approaches
  • Lesson 3: Evaluation Methods and Techniques
  • Lesson 4: The CIPP Evaluation Model
• As future teachers, there is a need to study the different principles, approaches, methods, and techniques in conducting an educational evaluation.
• The CIPP Model is presented in this module. Hopefully, the students will be able to apply their learnings as they evaluate a portion of the curriculum they are pursuing.
• Systematic Inquiry


  Evaluators conduct systematic, data-based inquiries about whatever is being evaluated. Inquiry cannot be based on pure hearsay or perceptions but must be based on concrete evidence and data to support the inquiry process.
• Competence


  Evaluators provide competent performance to stakeholders. The evaluators must be people or persons of known competence and generally acknowledged in the educational field.
• Integrity/Honesty


  Evaluators ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire evaluation process. As such, the integrity of authorities who conduct the evaluation process must be beyond reproach.
• Respect for People


  Evaluators respect the security, dignity, and self-worth of the respondents, program participants, clients, and other stakeholders with whom they interact. They cannot act as if they know everything but must listen patiently to the accounts of those whom they are evaluating.
• Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare

  Evaluators articulate and consider the diversity of interests and values that may be related to general and public welfare.
• These evaluation guiding principles can be used at various levels and serve as benchmarks for good practices in educational evaluation: institutional level - when we evaluate learning, policy level - when we evaluate institutions, international level - when we rank and evaluate the performance of various institutions of higher learning.
• Evaluation Approaches


  The various conceptual arrangements made for designing and conducting the evaluation process
• Major classification of evaluation approaches

  • One authored by House (1980)
  • One authored by Stufflebeam and Webster (1980)
• House's approach


  Considers all major evaluation approaches to be based on a common ideology which is that of liberal democracy. It is believed that an individual has freedom of choice, is unique, and that the evaluation process is guided by empirical inquiry truly based on objective standards. However, all evaluations are based on subjectivist ethics in which the individual's subjective experiences figure prominently.
• Objectivist epistemology


  Knowledge is acquired which is capable of external verification and evidence through methods and techniques universally accepted and through the presentation of data.
• Subjectivist epistemology


  Knowledge is acquired based on existing personal knowledge and experiences that are explicit or are not (tacit) available for public inspection.
• Elitist political perspective


  The idea is to focus on the perspectives of managers and top echelon people and professionals.
• Mass-based political perspective


  The focus is on consumers and the approaches are participatory.
• Stufflebeam and Webster's approach

  Places evaluation approaches into one of three groups according to their orientation toward the role of values, and ethical consideration: political orientation (pseudo-evaluation), question orientation (quasi-evaluation), and values orientation (true evaluation).
• Summary of Evaluation Approaches

  • Pseudo-evaluation approaches (objectivist epistemology-elite perspective)
  • Quasi-evaluation approaches (objectivist epistemology-elite perspective)
  • Quasi-evaluation approaches (objectivist epistemology-mass perspective)
  • True evaluation (objectivist epistemology – elite perspective)
  • True evaluation (objectivist epistemology – elite perspective from a mass perspective)
  • True evaluation (subjectivist epistemology – elite perspective)
  • True evaluation (subjectivist epistemology – mass perspective)
• Pseudo-evaluation


  Politically Controlled and Public Relations studies are based on an objectivist epistemology from an elite perspective. They seek to misrepresent value interpretations about some object.
• Quasi-evaluation (objectivist, elite)


  A highly respected collection of disciplined inquiry approaches that can legitimately focus on questions rather than values.
• Quasi-evaluation (objectivist, mass)


  Approaches that provide an accurate accounting of results to constituents.
• True evaluation (objectivist, elite)

  Approaches that provide a knowledge and value base for making and defending decisions, or identify and assess potential costs & benefits of competing policies.
• True evaluation (objectivist, elite from mass)

  Consumer-oriented approach that judges the relative merits of alternative goods and services.
• True evaluation (subjectivist, elite)

  Accreditation/certification and Connoisseur approaches that determine if institutions, programs, and personnel should be approved, or critically describe, appraise, and illuminate an object.
• True evaluation (subjectivist, mass)

  Adversary and Client-centered approaches that present the pros and cons of an issue, or foster understanding of activities and how they are valued in a given setting.
• Although both approaches (politically controlled studies and public relations) seek to misrepresent value interpretations about some object, they go about it a bit differently
• Information obtained through politically controlled studies is released or withheld to meet the special interests of the holder
• Public relations information is used to paint a positive image of an object regardless of the actual situation
• Neither of these approaches (politically controlled studies and public relations) is acceptable evaluation practice, although the seasoned reader can surely think of a few examples where they have been used