Evaluating Programs & Human Performance

 I enjoyed learning more about assessment and evaluation this week. I actually enjoy assessing my students and seeing their growth daily. It gives me chills sometimes to see how far they soar each year.

After much discussion about the role of evaluation in education, it was decided that there needed to be some sort of evaluation. This is where different evaluation models began to emerge. Most of the models were created in the 1970s and 1980s (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).

CIPP Evaluation Model:  Stufflebeam’s CIPP model was developed by taking into account the four different types of evaluation which are context, input, process, and product. The model can be used as a comprehensive evaluation which includes all or a single type can be done as a stand-alone evaluation. Context evaluation assesses the environment in which the program will be used. Input evaluation is where questions are asked about the resources that will be used to develop the program. Process evaluation is used to look at the ways the program is developed, implemented, initial effectiveness, and effectiveness after changes are made. The final component is product evaluation. This component looks at the success of the program in achieving the desired outcomes. This model included the evaluator as part of the program development process. It also shifted evaluation to be more of a continuous process and no longer something that just happened at the end of a project (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).


Five-Domain Model:  Peter Rossi developed this useful evaluation model in the late 1970s. This model was developed so that each evaluation is tailored to fit local needs, resources, and program type. Under this model, the evaluation questions are the core. It is important that the evaluation questions be clear and accepted by the key stakeholders. The model is made up of five evaluation domains. An evaluation can be done with any or all of the domains. The five domains include:  needs assessment, theory assessment, implementation assessment, impact assessment, and efficiency assessment (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).


Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation Model:  This model was developed in 1959, and it was created specifically for training evaluation. It is a 4-level evaluation system.
Level 1:  Reaction. Assessment of the learners’ attitudes and reactions of the learning process.
Level 2:  Learning. Evaluate what the learners learned in the training program.
Level 3:  Behavior. Determine if the participants change their on the job behavior as a result of the training program.
Level 4:  Results.  Evaluate if the training leads to “final results” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012).


Chen’s Theory Driven Evaluation: Theory Driven Evaluation is designed to be guided by a set of explicit or implicit assumptions about what action is required to solve a social, educational or health problem and why the problem will respond to the action (Chen). “The purpose of theory-driven evaluation is not only to assess whether an intervention works or does not work, but also how and why it does so” (Chen).


Patton’s Utilization Focused Evaluation:  The UFE Evaluation model has been researched for over 35 years. UFE is “a decision-making framework for enhancing the utility and actual use of evaluations” (Patton, 2010). The model has four evaluation standards that it uses.
Utility – ensures the relevance and use
Feasibility – ensures it is realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal
Propriety – ensures it is ethical, legal, and respectful
Accuracy – ensures it is technically adequate to determine worth

I feel that the models that I could use to evaluate my instruction would be the CIPP Model and the Five-Domain model. I could use them by evaluating my lessons to see if they were successful. I always look at my lessons after my students have participated in them to see what I can do to improve the lesson. I think by using one of these evaluation models it could help guide me to delve deeper into the lesson and to answer more questions.

 I think that the management of resources should be considered in the evaluation of instructional programs. I think this would be another piece that needs attention. If it was part of the evaluation process, then it would be considered more of a priority than if it wasn’t. I think that there are so many resources out there, and by including it one could ensure they are using the available resources to the maximum potential.

A performance problem in the area of teaching is that sometimes a teacher can work so hard and be very good at teaching, but not be valued by the campus administration. I personally have seen this. It makes a teacher feel unappreciated and, in turn just as the book states on page 137, it can result in unworthy performance.  A non-instructional solution that might help solve the problem is improved and more timely feedback for teachers. This would mean that the feedback would need to be more frequent than just once a year.

References:
Chen, Huey. T. Theory-driven evaluation: Conceptual framework, application and advancement. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/deszarate/Downloads/9783531183060-c1.pdf

Patton, Michael. Q. (2010). Utilization Focused Evaluation. Retrieved from http://ccer.org/service/documents/Michael%20Patton/U-FE%20workshop.pdf

Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 3^rd ed. Boston: Pearson.