1. 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.
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 help of program evaluators is required to collect the
appropriate data. Program evaluators need to conduct personal
observation, interviews and others.
In contrast with Pre-Ordinate Evaluation…
The Evaluation Plan emphasizes on
Statement of goals
The use of objective tests
Standards held by program personnel
Research-type reports
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
Responsive Evaluation
Talk with clients,
program staff,
audiences
Identify program
scope
Overview
program
activities
Discover
purposes,
concerns
Select, observes,
Judge
instruments if
any
Identify data
needs
Conceptualize
Issues/problems
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 repeatedness
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.
