This document discusses two approaches to evaluating art programs: responsive evaluation and pre-ordinate evaluation. Responsive evaluation involves observing the program and gathering feedback from those involved to understand its strengths and weaknesses from different perspectives. Pre-ordinate evaluation assesses whether specific objectives were achieved by using tools like tests and checklists. Both approaches have benefits and limitations, so the best practice is to integrate aspects of both in order to capture expected and unexpected outcomes of the art program.

1. How to Evaluate an Art Program
an article by Robert E. Stake
Centre for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation
University of Illinois

2. Introduction
 Other than curriculum, Arts-in-education
program are among those evaluated. Different
ways will be used to evaluate an educational
program.
 This chapter discussed several approaches to
evaluate an art program in further details.
Responsive Evaluation
Pre-ordinate Evaluation

3. Responsive Evaluation
 Responsive evaluation is an alternative approach
that based on what people do naturally to evaluate
things: ‘they observe and react’
 An educational evaluation is responsive evaluation
IF…
 It orients more directly to program activities
than to program intents/objective
 It responds to audience requirements for
information
 The different value-perspectives present are
referred to in reporting the success and
failure of the program

4. Responsive Evaluation
 To do a responsive evaluation, the evaluator conceives
of a plan of observations.
 The Evaluation Plan emphasizes on
 Statement of goals
 The use of objective tests
 Standards held by program personnel
 Research-type reports
 The help of program evaluators is required to collect the
appropriate data. Program evaluators need to conduct
personal observation, interviews and others.

5. Responsive Evaluation
 Responsive Evaluation will be useful during
formative evaluation when the art education staffs
need help in monitoring the program, when one is
sure what problem will arise.
 It is also useful in summative evaluation especially
when the audience would like to understand the
program activities, its strengths and shortcomings,
and when the evaluator feels that is his
responsibility to provide vicarious experience.

6. Characteristics and Tasks of a
Program Evaluator
 Help to prepare brief narratives, product display,
artworks, graphs, etc.
 Identify the value or important aspects of the
programs from the audience/participants
 Program evaluator gathers expressions of worth
from various individuals whose points of view differs
 Checks on the quality of the report
 Keeping record of action and reaction of the
audience throughout the program
 Choose the accessible media and approach to
ensure that the participants increase the
fidelity/trustworthiness of communication

7. The Function of Program Evaluation
 In evaluating an arts-educational program, tests ad
other data-gathering devices should not be ruled
out.
 The choice of these instruments in responsive
evaluation should be made as a result of observing
the program in action, discovering the purpose and
interests among groups in the program
 Meaning that, lecturers/evaluators need to integrate
and design test/instruments to gather valid data
which will be written in a form of report.

8. Prominent events in a responsive evaluation
Talk with clients,
program staff,
audiences Identify program scope
Overview program
activities
Discover purposes,
concerns
Conceptualize
Issues/problems
Identify data needs
Select, observes,
Assemble formal
reports If any
Format for audience use
Winnow, match issues
to audiences
Prepare case study
Observe designated
Judge instruments if any
outcomes
Figure 1

9. Implementation
 Refer to Figure 1 (Clockwise)
The evaluator will discuss many things on various occasions
with the program staff and representative of audiences.
 The program scope, activities, purposes and issues will be
discussed in a form of displays, photographs or video
recorded, curricular content and art products.
 As described in the clock (Figure 1), the evaluator would pick
and choose what to observe, what to record and what to
feedback
 The evaluator somehow should not rely on his/her personal
observation. They need to enlist with the students/clients,
teachers, community leaders and curriculum specialists. The
repeated ness observation from different perspectives and the
cross-checking process helps to increase the data reliability.

10. Pre-ordinate Evaluation
 Ralph Tyler, Benjamin S. Bloom and James
Popham are foremost among many evaluation
writers who have designed coherent evaluation
studies around specific objectives
 their evaluation instruments include, achievement
tests, performance tests or observation checklist
which have been develop to provide evidence that
specific goals were or were not achieved.
 The Pre-ordinate approach depends on a capability
to state the important purposes of education in
terms of the student behavior and their ability to
accomplish those purposes.

11. Pre-ordinate Evaluation
 Weakness
 The pre-ordinate evaluation usually is not
sensitive to on-going changes in program
purpose, not to unique ways in which students
benefit from performing in art media or from
encountering artistic expression, nor to
dissimilar viewpoints that people have as to
what is good and bad.

12. Pre-ordinate Evaluation
 Elliot Eisner summarized the weakness of pre-ordinate
evaluation in “Emerging Models for
Educational Evaluation, 1972”
 For each learner that are evaluated after the
instructional experience such as after a production
of artwork, the teacher can reflect upon what has
occurred.
 Therefore, Eisner implies that sometimes it would
be preferable to evaluate the quality of the
opportunity to learn: the “intrinsic” merit of the
experience.
 (This is because, the pre-ordinate evaluation
focuses on reaching the objectives rather than the
unexpected findings of the program)

13. Conclusion
 Pre-ordinate evaluation should be preferred to
responsive evaluation to ensure that the program
objectives have been achieved. With greater focus
on the preparation, the pro-ordinate measurements
made can be expected to be more reliable.
 Both responsive and pre-ordinate evaluation can be
integrated in arts program. As the program moves
in unique and unexpected ways, the evaluation
efforts should be adapted to them

14. Conclusion
 The arts-in-education program offer
unique experiences to youngsters; its
evaluation should reflect the quality of
those experiences. A portrayal of program
offerings, students involvement and
balanced account of perceived strengths
and shortcomings should help faculties
and citizens find proper place for art in the
curriculum.