In entering a new millennium, it is a good time for evaluators to critically appraise their program evaluation approaches and decide which ones are most worthy of continued application and further development. It is equally important to decide which approaches are best abandoned. In this spirit, this monograph identifies and assesses twenty-two approaches often employed to evaluate programs. These approaches, in varying degrees, are unique and cover most program evaluation efforts. Two of the approaches, reflecting the political realities of evaluation, are often used illegitimately to falsely characterize a program' s value and are labeled pseudoevaluations. The remaining twenty approaches are typically used legitimately to judge programs and are divided into questions/methods-oriented approaches, improvement/accountability approaches, and social agenda/advocacy approaches. The best and most applicable of the program evaluation approaches appear to
This chapter presents the CIPP Evaluation Model, a comprehensive framework for guiding evaluations of programs, projects, personnel, products, institutions, and evaluation systems. This model was developed in the late 1960s to help improve and achieve accountability for U.S. school programs, especially those keyed to improving teaching and learning in urban, inner city school districts. Over the years, the model has been further developed and applied to educational programs both inside and outside the U.S. Also, the model has been adapted and employed in philanthropy, social programs, health professions, business, construction, and the military. It has been employed internally by schools, school districts, universities, charitable foundations, businesses, government agencies, and other organizations; by contracted external evaluators; and by individual teachers, educational administrators, and other professionals desiring to assess and improve their services.! This chapter is designed to help educators around the world grasp the model's main concepts, appreciate its wide-ranging applicability, and particularly consider how they can apply it in schools and systems of schools. The model's underlying theme is that evaluation's most important purpose is not to prove, but to improve.Corresponding to the letters in the acronym CIPp, this model's core concepts are context, input, process, and product evaluation. By employing the four types of evaluation, the evaluator serves several important functions. Context evaluations assess needs, problems, and opportunities within a defined environment; they aid evaluation users to define and assess goals and later reference assessed needs of targeted beneficiaries to judge a school program, course of instruction, counseling service, teacher evaluation system, or other enterprise. Input evaluations assess competing strategies and the work plans and budgets of approaches chosen for implementation; they aid evaluation users to design improvement efforts, develop defensible funding proposals, detail action plans, record the alternative plans that were considered, and record the basis for choosing one approach over the others. Process evaluations monitor, document, and assess activities; they help evaluation users carry out improvement efforts and maintain accountability records of their execution of action plans. Product evaluations
The evaluation field has advanced sufficiently in its methodology and public service that evaluators can and should subject their evaluations to systematic metaevaluation. Metaevaluation is the process of delineating, obtaining, and applying descriptive information and judgmental information about an evaluation’s utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy and its systematic nature, competence, integrity/honesty, respectfulness, and social responsibility to guide the evaluation and publicly report its strengths and weaknesses. Formative metaevaluations—employed in undertaking and conducting evaluations—assist evaluators to plan, conduct, improve, interpret, and report their evaluation studies. Summative metaevaluations—conducted following an evaluation—help audiences see an evaluation’s strengths and weaknesses, and judge its merit and worth. Metaevaluations are in public, professional, and institutional interests to assure that evaluations provide sound findings and conclusions; that evaluation practices continue to improve; and that institutions administer efficient, effective evaluation systems. Professional evaluators are increasingly taking their metaevaluation responsibilities seriously but need additional tools and procedures to apply their standards and principles of good evaluation practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.