Uploaded byLuis Medina Gual
Evaluation theory tree
This document presents an "evaluation theory tree" that traces the development of evaluation theories and influences among prominent evaluation theorists. The tree has roots in accountability/control and social inquiry. It outlines key theorist perspectives on evaluation methods including Tyler, Campbell, Scriven, Cronbach, and others. It also outlines theorist perspectives in the areas of valuing evaluations including Eisner, Owens/Wolf, Stake, MacDonald, and House. Finally, it outlines theorist perspectives related to the use of evaluations including Stufflebeam/Guba, Wholey, Patton, Cousin, Preskill, Owen, and Fetterman. The tree is intended to map the evolution of evaluation theory across different branches
Evaluation theory tree
- 1. An evaluation theory tree Mr.Luis Medina Gual Based on: Alkin, M. (2004). Evaluation roots: tracing theorists’ views and influences. USA: Sage Publications.
- 2. Before… some questions ¿Cuál es la finalidad del árbol de la teoría de evaluación? ¿Describe la función de cada rama del “Evaluation Theory Tree “? What is the difference between evaluation and research?
- 3.
- 4. Roots Accountability andcontrol “Being answerable or capable of being accounted for” Accountable of Goals ProcessProducts
- 5. Roots Social inquiry “Whydo people in social groups act as they do?” Psychology Quantitative sociological Qualitative and antropological
- 6.
- 7. Methods Tyler Evaluation 4hypotesis testing Vs norm reference evaluation
- 8. Methods Campbell Pure experiments, cuasiexperimentsand pre-experiments for internal and external validity
- 9. Methods Others Shuman= utilityfor administrators Cook= context importance
- 10. Methods Theory drivenevaluation (comprehensive evaluation) Rossi y Chen Vs black box (why and how it works?)
- 11. Methods Cronbach “Enlightment”= external validity Domainsof evaluation: units (population), treatments, observation (outcomes) and settings (UTOS)
- 12.
- 13. Valuing Scriven “There isa science of valuing and that is evaluation” “Modus Operandi” (MO)= characteristic causal chain
- 14. Valuing Eisner “Things thatmatter cannot be measured” Connoisseur= critical description + expectation + draw upon experience
- 15. Valuing Owens /Wolf Adversary evaluation Juditial evaluation model
- 16. Valuing Stake vsMacDonald Stake= evaluator decides MacDonald= voices and values of Stakeholders
- 17. Valuing House Evaluation isnot “good” or “bad” (Scriven) but “right”, “fair” and “just” Ethical fallacies= clientism, contractualism, managerialism, methodologicalism, pluralism/elitism and relativism
- 18.
- 19. Use Stufflebeam +Guba Professional Standards: Utility (serve the information needs of intended users), feasibility (be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal), propriety (behave legally, ethically), accuracy (technically accurate ) Evaluation as a process to improve services
- 20. Use Wholey Emphasis onmanagers and policy makers
- 21. Use Patton Broader spectrumof identified stakeholders (Utilization Focused Evaluation – UFE) Identify users User’s commitment Involvement of users Interpreting findings
- 22. Use Cousin “Buy-in”, program personnelparticipating in the evaluation Evaluation personnel and decision makers in a partnership
- 23. Use Preskill Transformational learning, toidentify information needed to meet their goal Clinical approach
- 24. Use Owen Consultants= prescriptive and recommendations Evaluators=descriptive and judgements Blurred distinctions
- 25. Use Fetterman Empowerment evaluation: evaluatoras a coach for designing and conducting evaluation Vs. Participatory evaluation (it is not the same)