Naturalistic evaluation2


Published on

This is for Program Evaluation Class

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Naturalistic evaluation2

  1. 1. NaturalisticEvaluationJasmine Ervins M.Ed.Shika Hershel M.Ed. Ilda Gonzalas M.Ed.
  2. 2. Naturalistic Evaluation An approach to assessment that evolved from the work of researchers at the Indiana Center for Evaluation  Wolf  Tymitz  Guba  Lincoln Has been used in numerous applications including schools, social programs, museums, and health care
  3. 3. Model’s Design
  4. 4. Two Streams Naturalistic Evaluation has evolved from two parallel streams  ‘Responsive evaluation’ from the evaluation field  Naturalistic methodologies from the area of qualitative ‘inquiry’ used by anthropologists and sociologists practicing ‘ethnography’  Combining the two makes Naturalistic Evaluation an intensive endeavor
  5. 5. Model’s Purpose
  6. 6. Purpose Generally used to discover what is wrong (generally) and how to fix it (in a manner that will last), or how something is working (generally) and why (so you know how to keep doing it, or for possible use by others) This is more rigorous than finding out what is wrong (according to the audience) and deciding what to do (according to the audience)
  7. 7. Philosophical Perspective
  8. 8. Major Role of Evaluation Guba and Lincoln believe it is to respond to audience requirements for information in ways that take account of the different value perspectives of its members Naturalistic Evaluation puts the evaluator in the role of learner – the informants teach However, criteria for scientific rigor still apply!
  9. 9. General Phases Familiarization phase  Gaining entry  Understanding the Circumstance and the players Three C’s  Collection of Data  Classification and Analysis of Data  Confirmation of Propositions Synthesis  Presentation of findings and debriefing
  10. 10. Naturalistic Evaluation Pros  When done correctly, it can provide a very complete picture of a program’s context, stakeholders, operations, effects (qualitative and quantitative), and systems of relationship  A participant-oriented ‘gold standard’ Cons  When done correctly, can  Take a prohibitively long time  Cost a lot  Be very labor intensive  When done incorrectly, can give a false sense of knowledge
  11. 11. History ofDevelopment
  12. 12. Background of Naturalistic Evaluation ApproachO The Naturalistic approach gives the evaluator freedom to choose the methods used to collect, analyze, and interpret their data.
  13. 13. Major Developer(s)
  14. 14. Responsive EvaluationO Stake (175) is one of the major developers of the naturalistic evaluation approaches.O Stake was concerned that conventional approaches were not sufficiently receptive to the needs of the evaluation client.O Stake believed that evaluators should use whatever data-gathering schemes seem appropriate relying heavily on human observers and judges.
  15. 15. Robert StakeO First evaluation theorist to introduce Participant Oriented Evaluation into the field of education.O Introduced the theory of Responsive Evaluation which focuses on “re-directing data gathering and interpretative efforts around emerging issues of importance to program practitioners in the evaluation setting” (Abma, 2005)O Created the Countenance Framework in 1967. The model refers to the two faces of evaluation: description & judgment.O Description includes the evaluator’s observation and list of benchmarks for the activities being evaluated. Judgment is the evaluator’s overall rating of merit.
  16. 16. Uses of the Model
  17. 17. Implementation Techniques
  18. 18. Implementation Techniques