The document discusses an illuminative/responsive approach to evaluating an English as a foreign language (EFL) learning support program (LSP) in Greece. It describes a 4-step evaluation process: 1) Preparing stakeholders, 2) Identifying the program setting, 3) Sharing, observing, and seeking feedback, and 4) Reviewing, reflecting, and remedying issues. The evaluation aims to foster autonomous learning and involvement of all stakeholders at each step. It is argued that this participatory, formative approach can help programs improve, build ownership among stakeholders, and make evaluation less opposed in the Greek educational system.
M3_Authentic Assessment in Affective Domain.pdfMartin Nobis
The affective domain refers to the tracking of growth in feelings or emotional areas throughout the learning experience. To be most effective, learning objectives labeled using this domain need a very clear instructional intention for growth in this area specified in the learning objective.
Evaluation is the process of collecting data on a programme to determine its value or worth with the aim of deciding whether to adopt, reject, or revise the programme. The public want to know whether the curriculum implemented has achieved its aims and objectives; teachers want to know whether what they are doing in the classroom is effective; and the developer or planner wants to know how to improve the curriculum product.
M3_Authentic Assessment in Affective Domain.pdfMartin Nobis
The affective domain refers to the tracking of growth in feelings or emotional areas throughout the learning experience. To be most effective, learning objectives labeled using this domain need a very clear instructional intention for growth in this area specified in the learning objective.
Evaluation is the process of collecting data on a programme to determine its value or worth with the aim of deciding whether to adopt, reject, or revise the programme. The public want to know whether the curriculum implemented has achieved its aims and objectives; teachers want to know whether what they are doing in the classroom is effective; and the developer or planner wants to know how to improve the curriculum product.
UNDERLYING ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN DESIGNING A CURRICULUMFlorie May Gonzaga
Refers to the structure of arrangement of the components or elements of a curriculum.
The arrangement and emphasis of the elements reflect the theoretical orientation of the curriculum developer. Technical-scientific approaches put a lot of emphasis on well formulated objectives as bases for the selection and organization of content and evaluation of learning that is taking place.
Diagnosis of needs in curriculum developmentMonica P
MST Course Design and Dev't
(class report(s)/discussion(s))
DISCLAIMER: I do not claim ownership of the photos, videos, templates, and etc used in this slideshow
Models of curriculum evaluation and application in educationalKoledafe Olawale
Curriculum can be defined as the planned and guided learning experiences and intended learning outcomes, formulated through the systematic reconstruction of knowledge and experiences, under the auspices of the school, for the learners’ continuous and willful growth in personal social competence (Tanner & Tanner, 1975)
UNDERLYING ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN DESIGNING A CURRICULUMFlorie May Gonzaga
Refers to the structure of arrangement of the components or elements of a curriculum.
The arrangement and emphasis of the elements reflect the theoretical orientation of the curriculum developer. Technical-scientific approaches put a lot of emphasis on well formulated objectives as bases for the selection and organization of content and evaluation of learning that is taking place.
Diagnosis of needs in curriculum developmentMonica P
MST Course Design and Dev't
(class report(s)/discussion(s))
DISCLAIMER: I do not claim ownership of the photos, videos, templates, and etc used in this slideshow
Models of curriculum evaluation and application in educationalKoledafe Olawale
Curriculum can be defined as the planned and guided learning experiences and intended learning outcomes, formulated through the systematic reconstruction of knowledge and experiences, under the auspices of the school, for the learners’ continuous and willful growth in personal social competence (Tanner & Tanner, 1975)
The training and development presentation contains information about importance, objective and needs of training and development and challenges present in training and development. It contains several review of literature. It explains about Kirkpatrick's model, Kaufman's five level model, CIRO model, CI PD partnership model and k under model. The purpose and methodologies also explained.
A presentation for my Ed. D. Degree Program relating to Program Evaluation Models: Developers of the Management-Oriented Evaluation Approach and their Contributions;
How the Management-Oriented Evaluation Approach Has Been Used; Strengths and Limitations of the Management-Oriented Evaluation Approach; Other References, Questions for Discussion
63
Cultural
responsiveness is
gaining recognition as
a critical feature of the
evaluation process.
STRATEGIES THAT ADDRESS
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE
EVALUATION
7. A GUIDE TO CONDUCTING
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE EVALUATIONS
Henry T. Frierson, Stafford Hood, and Gerunda B. Hughes
Culture is a cumulative body of learned and shared behavior, values,
customs, and beliefs common to a particular group or society. In
essence, culture makes us who we are.
In doing project evaluation, it is also important to
consider cultural context in which the project
operates and be responsive to it. How can an
evaluation be culturally responsive? An evaluation
is culturally responsive if it fully takes into account
the culture of the program that is being evaluated.
In other words, the evaluation is based on an
examination of impacts through lenses in which the
culture of the participants is considered an
important factor, thus rejecting the notion that
assessments must be objective and culture free, if
they are to be unbiased.
Moreover, a culturally responsive evaluation attempts to fully describe
and explain the context of the program or project being evaluated.
Culturally responsive evaluators honor the cultural context in which an
evaluation takes place by bringing needed, shared life experience and
understandings to the evaluation tasks at hand.
Why should a project director be concerned with the cultural context of a
program undergoing evaluation? Simply put, as American society
becomes increasingly diverse racially, ethnically, and linguistically, it is
important that program designers, implementers, and evaluators
understand the cultural contexts in which these programs operate. To
ignore the reality of the existence of the influence of culture and to be
unresponsive to the needs of the target population is to put the program
in danger of being ineffective and to put the evaluation in danger of
being seriously flawed.
Being sensitive and responsive to the culture of
the participants and the cultural environment in
which the programs exists is a process that
should be an important component of program
evaluation. Fortunately, cultural responsiveness
as it relates to evaluation is gaining recognition
IV Sectio
n
Evaluation is based
on an examination of
impacts through
lenses in which the
culture of the
participants is
considered an
important factor.
64
There are no
culture-free
evaluators,
educational tests,
or societal laws.
as a critical feature of the evaluation process. This is particularly true for
programs in which the participants’ culture is acknowledged to have a
major impact on program outcomes.
The Need for Culturally Responsive Evaluation
It may seem obvious to some, if not to most, professionals that cultural
responsiveness should be an integral part of the project development and
evaluation process. After all, who could argue against taking i ...
IIAlternative Approachesto Program EvaluationPart1.docxsheronlewthwaite
II
Alternative Approaches
to Program Evaluation
Part
109
In Part One, we referred to the varying roles that evaluation studies can play in
education, government, business, nonprofit agencies, and many related areas, and
readers were introduced to some of the different purposes of evaluation. We hinted
at some of the different approaches to evaluation, but we have not yet exposed
the reader to these approaches. We will do so in Part Two.
In Chapter 4, we examine the factors that have contributed to such differing
views. Prior efforts to classify the many evaluation approaches into fewer categories
are discussed, and the categories that we will use in the remainder of this book are
presented.
In Chapters 5 through 8, we describe four categories of approaches that have
influenced evaluation practice. These general approaches include those we see as
most prevalent in the literature and most popular in use. Within each chapter, we
discuss how this category of approaches emerged in evaluation, its primary char-
acteristics, and how it is used today. Within some categories, there are several major
approaches. For example, participatory evaluation has many models or approaches.
We describe each approach, including its distinguishing characteristics and contri-
butions, the ways in which the approach has been used, and its strengths and
weaknesses. Then, in Chapter 9, we discuss other themes or movements in eval-
uation that transcend individual models or approaches, but that are important in-
fluences on evaluation practice today.
Many evaluation books, often authored by the developer of one of the ap-
proaches we discuss, present what Alkin (2004) has called “prescriptive theories”
or approaches to evaluation. These books are intended to describe that approach in
depth and, in fact, to suggest that the approach presented is the one that evalua-
tors should follow. This book does not advocate a particular approach. Instead, we
think it is important for evaluators and students studying evaluation to be famil-
iar with the different approaches so they can make informed choices concerning
which approach or which parts of various approaches to use in a particular eval-
uation. Each approach we describe tells us something about evaluation, perspectives
we might take, and how we might carry out the evaluation. During this time of
increased demands for evaluation in the United States and the world—what
Donaldson and Scriven (2003) have called the “second boom in evaluation”—it is
important for evaluators to be aware of the entire array of evaluation approaches
and to select the elements that are most appropriate for the program they are
evaluating, the needs of clients and other stakeholders, and the context of the
evaluation.
110 Part II • Alternative Approaches to Program Evaluation
Alternative Views
of Evaluation
Orienting Questions
1. Why are there so many different approaches to evaluation?
2. Why is evaluation theory, as reflected in d ...
The Evaluative inquiry Approach, Sarah de Rijcke + SES group, 2018Sarah de Rijcke
Evaluation experts and scientometricians have more to offer to the practices they analyse. The evaluative inquiry approach presented here understands academic performance or impact as an effect of translations within and between networks of actors that make up academic research and its environments. The aim is to find out what are the central issues or ambitions, how they are operationalised, what kind of output this yields and where the output travels to (building on Joly et al. 2015; Molas-Gallart et al. 2015; Matt et al. 2017; Spaapen & van Drooge 2011). We also move beyond tracing ‘productive interactions’ (Spaapen & Van Drooge, 2011) by proposing to use the potential of the form(s) evaluation can take. Our approach treats evaluation as a ‘situated intervention’ (Zuiderent-Jerak, 2015). It is designed to help organisations or groups give an overview of goals and missions and the ways these are embedded within the organisation (goal > mobilisation > output > reach).
Summative Case Study In Nursing
Practice Of Summative Assessment
Comparing Formative And Summative Evaluations
Formative Vs. Summative Assessment
Summative Versus Formative Assessments Essay
Reflection On Summative Assessment
Essay about Summative Assessment Preparation
Summative Paper
Assessment And Summative Assessment
Summary : Formative And Summative Assessments
Summative Assessment
Summative Assessment Case Study
Formative And Summative Assessment
End-Of-Year Summative Review
What Is Formative And Summative Assessment
Adults education is considered one of the less structured, ill-defined fields in terms of practices and competences that professionals should behold to operate within. This is particularly the case of intergenerational and family learning; the problem of the “private” sphere of learning, as well as the very informal nature of this type of learning requires more research to understand how to shape practices and which skills the educators should have. In this initial phase of our research, we contend that Learning Design, as practice that supports educators in capturing and representing the own (situated) plans of action within educational interventions, can be a key element to develop educators professionalism, towards quality and effectiveness of adults’ education. We support this assumption with the introduction of our training approach, where adults’ educators are invited to implement a creative/reflective process of five stages; every stage introduces tools for representing as part of the Learning Design approach; furthermore, trainers are encouraged to go beyond representing, by sharing and commenting other trainers’ designs. According to this approach, two elements of professionalism are promoted: At the level of the single educator, and at the at the level of the community of adults’ educators.
Similar to Responsive illuminative evaluation (20)
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
1. A responsive/illuminative approach to
evaluation of innovatory, foreign
language programs.
Dr Angeliki Deligianni
EFL State School Advisor -Thessaloniki
HOU Tutor
Former Education Attache - London Embassy of Greece
Email: ade@gecon.gr
1
2. Evaluating a Learning Support Program
(LSP) in English as a foreign language
(EFL).
LSP in EFL, initially funded by EU, aims to provide for students
with knowledge gaps and responds to the demand for lifelong
learning and autonomous learner as guided by EU.
Therefore, in evaluating a LSP in EFL program I aimed to
investigate the extent to which features of autonomous learning
were fostered.
The conceptual and procedural framework which I constructed
was grounded in recent developments in educational evaluation.
It was hoped that this would serve as an instrument for evaluating
innovatory language programs and that it would contribute to the
developing field of educational evaluation in Greece.
2
3. Absence of any evaluation practices in
education in Greece and oppostion to
evaluation
Since 1980 there has been an absence of any kind of evaluation
practices in the Greek educational system with the exception of
the regular assessment of students. There has been a great deal
of opposition from teachers and teacher unions every time that a
political decision for any type of evaluation was announced.
The responsive/illuminative approach followed in this study
provides evidence that this kind of participatory evaluation model
within the context of formative evaluation can be seen as a
means of achieving improvement rather than numerically
assessing the performance of those involved.
In this model the evaluand shares the same degree of
responsibility as the evaluator.
This is achieved through the reflection and review stages which
foster self evaluation. It is exepected that a sense of “ownership”,
a term coined by Kennedy (1988), of the program/innovation
could be developed in the stakeholders and unjustified fears
dispelled. It was also hoped that by developing and introducing
this participatory model, teachers and unionists would become
3
less opposed to evaluation in education.
4. The rationale of this evaluation study and the
choice for interpretive/naturalistic paradigm
First attempts to evaluate program sought quantitative data.
Officials, in charge of this program, were asked to collect and
send back to Ministry mainly quantitative data, such as number of
students attending, number of students being satisfied, amount of
teaching hours etc. Quantification and statistical generalisaitions
were then dispatched to EU funding centres to prove that EU
funds were wisely distributed.
Holding a different view I decided to design an instrument to
explore perspectives and shared meanings and develop insights
into the particular situation of the of LSP in EFL classroom.
I decided that the potential of the interpretive paradigm would
best suit my situation. Within this tradition emphasis is placed on
unravelling the individual’s point of view.
I also embarked on formative evaluatin techniques which are
responsive to the needs of stakeholders and provide information
that will illuminate the claims, concerns and issues raised by
stakeholding audiences.
4
5. Aims of the research study
•To determine the strengths and
weaknesses of LSP in EFL
•To investigate factors influencing the
effectiveness of LSP in EFL
•To produce suggestions for improvement
of LSP in EFL
5
6. Responsive/illuminative approach
My choice for this duet is grounded in the principles of
responsive –illuminative evaluation in the broader
context of formative evaluation. It seeks to interpret
information in order to faciliate remedy of problematic
areas. It is also flexible in responding to a range of
contextual constraints.
This flexibility is assisted by two facts: a) it takes as its
organisers the claims, concerns, and issues of the
stakeholders, illuminating issues of importance to
implementation and decision making as they
emerge,and b) it takes place within the naturalistic or
anthropological paradigm using mainly qualitative
methods.
6
7. Brief historical review of the literature on educational
evaluation- Presenting the evolution of the field
through its various stages up to the present
Tyler (1950) reshapes measurement oriented into an objectives-oriented
approach. Tyler’s contribution to the field is considered to be of great
importance. During 1930s and 1940s Tyler separated maesurement from
evaluation making it clear that the former constitutes a tool serving the
other.
Cronbach (1963) calls for a shift from objectives to decisions as organisers
of evaluation, foreshadows formative evaluation. He argues that if
evaluation were to be of maximum utility to course developers and
innovation planners it needed to focus on ways in which refinements and
improvements would occur while the course was in process of
development.
Scriven (1967) makes distinction between formative and summative
evaluation, mere assessment of goal achievement and evaluation,intrinsic
or process evaluation and payoff or outcome evaluation and argues for the
utility of comparative evaluation.
Stufflebeam (1968, 1988) also calls for decisions as organisers (CIPP model,
popular after 1971). Stufflebeam proposes four decision types which are
serviced by the four evaluation stages in his model (Context, Input, Process,
Product).
Scriven (1974) defines effects as the organiser of evaluation and
revolutionises thinking about evaluation. He argues that evaluation should
be goal free and it should evaluate actual effects against a 7
profile of
demonstated needs in education, rather than goals and decisions.
8. Responsive evaluation
Stake (1983) first uses the term responsive. He takes as organisers the concerns and
issues of stakeholders. He emphasises the distinction between a pre-ordinate and a
responsive approach. Many evaluation plans are pre-ordinate emphasising statement of
goals and using objective tests. In responsive evaluation the evaluator should first
observe the program and only then determine what to look for. The claims, concerns and
issues about the evaluand that arise in conversations with stakeholders (people and
groups in and around the program) constitute the organisers of responsive evaluation.
With reference to the organisers of responsive evaluation Guba and Lincoln (1981)
provide useful definitions accordingly.
•Claims: Assertions that a stakeholder may introduce that are favourable to the evaluand.
•Concerns: Assertions that a stakeholder may introduce that are unfavourable to the
evaluand.
•Issues: States of affairs about which reasonable persons may disagree.
It stems that natural communication rather than formal communication is what is needed
in order to address the above organisers in evaluation.
In this sense Stake argues that responsive evaluation is an old alternative as it is based
on what people do naturally to evaluate things: they observe and react.
He identifies three ways in which an evaluation can be responsive:
•If it orients more directly to program activities than to program intents
•If it responds to audience requirements for information
•If the different value perspectives of the people at hand are referred to in reporting the
success anf failure of the program.
8
9. Responsive evaluation
Highlighting the recycling nature of this type of
evaluation which has no natural end point, Guba and
Lincoln state that
“responsive evaluation is truly a continuous and
interactive process.” (1981:27)
9
10. Illuminative evaluation
In responding to the need for an alternative approach
to evaluation, Parlett and Hamilton (1988) advocated a
new approach to educational evaluation which they
termed “illuminative evaluation”. As its title suggests
the aim of this form of evaluation is to illuminate
problems, issues and significant program features
particularly when an innovatory program in education
is implemented.
This model is concerned with description &
interpretation, not measurement and prediction.
10
11. Illuminative evaluation:
Change
The value I found in illuminative evaluation is the empowerment of
all participants through interpretation of shared findings.
This contributes to awareness, as to what is going on externally
and self awareness as to what is going on in the inner world of the
participants, which can result into their own decision making and
acceptance of the need to change internally as individuals.And
this will finally bring about change into the educational
environment.
As personal change is pursued throughout all stages of the
evaluation process illuminative approach has much in common
with consulting. Yet, unlike consulting, illuminative evaluation
does not aim to proffer prescriptions, recommnendations, or
judgments as such. It rather provides information and comment
that can serve to promote discussions among those concerned
with decisions concerning the system studied, (Parlett, 1981:221).
Put simply, this approach to evaluation aims to illuminate
whatever might be hidden thus revealing the real reasons of
failure and ultimately to serve the decision-making for
improvement.
11
12. Illuminative evaluation:
The role of the evaluator.
“The role of the illuninative evaluator joins a diverse group of
specialists such as the psychiatrists, social antropologists and
historians and in each of these fields the research worker has to weigh
and sift a complex array of human evidence and draw conclusions from
it.” (Parlett & Hamilton, 1988:69)
By sharing his/her findings with the stakeholders, the illuminative
evaluator, facilitates the process of self awareness of all the
participants.
Self-awareness is pursued through illuminative evaluation and as in
psychiatrics and counseling, it is through this stage that an individual
would be willing to change and decide on his/her own free will to take
remedial action. (Parlett & Hamilton, 1988, Kennedy 1988).
12
13. Illuminative evaluation
Major working assumptions. (Parlett ,1981):
A system cannot be understood if viewed in isolation from its
wider contexts,Similarly an innovation is not examined in isolation
but in the school context of the “learning milieu”. The
investigator needs to probe beyond the surface in order to obtain
a broad picture.
The “learning milieu”, a term coined by Parlett (1981, is defined as
the social-psychological and material environment in which
students and teachers work together. Its particular characteristics
have a considerable impact on the implementattion of any
educational program.
•The individual biography of settings being examined need to be
discovered.
•There is no one absolute and agreed upon reality that has an
objective truth. This implies that the investigator needs to consult
widely from a position of “neutral outsider”.
•Attentiont to what is done in practice is crucial since there can be
no reliance on what people say.
13
14. lluminative-responsive evaluation.
The functional structure of both responsive and illuminative
evaluation takes us to the consideration of formative versus
summative evaluation.
“The aim of formative evaluation is refinement and
improvement while summative evaluation aims to
determine impact or outcomes” (Guba and Lincoln,
1981:49).
“formative evaluation does not simply evaluate the
outcome of the program but on an ongoing evaluating
process, from the very beginning, it seeks to form,
improve, and direct the innovative program” (Williams &
Burden, 1994:22).
14
15. lluminative-responsive evaluation
The functional structure of both responsive and illuminative
evaluation takes us to the consideration of formative versus
summative evaluation.
“what is needed is a form of evaluation that will guide
the project and help decision-making throughout the
duration of the innovation. For this reason formative
evaluation is often used where the very process of
evaluation helps to shape the nature of the project itself
and therefore increases the likelihood of its successful
implementation” (Williams & Burden, 1994:22).
15
16. Figure 1. Illuminative/responsive evaluation of innovatory
remedial program.
Conceptual Framework
Procedural/ Operational Framework
Step 1
Preparing the ground
16
17. Step 1
Preparing the ground
A. Teachers
Raising awareness of
problematic situation
Identifying training
needs to cope with
specific requirements
Introducing them to
“Cause for concern
forms” -positive
attitude-positive self
image
Interviews
17
18. Step 1
Preparing the ground
B. Heads of Schools – L.S.P
Teachers, LSP coordinators
– parents
Informing them about
project guidelines and
regulations
Discussing claims,
concerns, issues
C. Students’ Problem Solving
framework
Identification of students’ own
problem
Raising students’ metacognitive awareness
Goal setting (assisted by
teacher)
Identification of appropriate
tactics /strategies (assisted by
teacher)
Self evaluation (assisted by
teacher)
Group discussions
Investigating perceptions questionnaire
(Parts A B C D perceptions towards EFL &
themselves as EFL learners)
Individual advisory session or (Language
Advising Interview) of students with evaluator
(monitored, supported and assisted by
teachers)
18
19. Figure 2. Illuminative/responsive evaluation of innovatory
remedial program.
Conceptual Framework
Procedural/ Operational Framework
Step 2
Identifying the setting
Understanding
Perceptions
Problems
Issues
Nature of the school reality
or “learning milieu” within
which the program is
implemented
•Students’ questionnaires
(Parts E,F, Reasons for
attending, Parental support)
•Teachers’ interviews (claims,
concerns, issues)
•Students’ interviews
•Group discussions (Heads,
project coordinators)
•Review of students’ personal
information “cause for concern
form” (documents and progress
19
files)
20. Figure 3. Illuminative/responsive evaluation of innovatory
remedial program.
Conceptual Framework
Procedural/Operational Framework
Step 3
SOS (sharing, observing, seeking)
recycling technique
•Sharing information gained
•Observing
•Seeking more specific
information
• Group discussions
(Heads, project
coordinators, teachers,
parents)
•Observing classes,
episodes, incidents
•Students’ questionnaire
(Parts G H I, Perceptions
towards LSP, LSP teacher,
LSP environment)
•Students’ interviews
•Review of teaching
material files
20
21. Figure 4. Illuminative/responsive evaluation of innovatory
remedial program.
Conceptual Framework
Procedural/Operational Framework
Step 4
The 3 Rs (reviewing, reflecting,
remedying) technique
•Reviewing information
gained so far
•Reflecting on action by
answering “what, why”
questions with regard to
desirable outcomes
•Remedying problematic
situations or “illness”
through collaboratively
elaborated action plan
•Teachers’ interviews (reviewingreported on - students’ self
evaluation cheklists and “cause
for concern” forms
•Students’ interviews
(suggestions)
•Group discussions (Heads,
project coordinators, teachers,
parents)
21
22. Illuminative-responsive evaluation:
Its contribution to autonomy.
Through their active participation in program
evaluation (critical reflection, decision making, self
evaluation) students developed an awareness of their
progress.
This enhanced their self confidence enabling them to
take control of their own learning in the EFL classroom
and develop as autonomous language learners in other
school subjects as well.
22
23. Implications for using this evaluation model in the
field of education.
This conceptual duet of responsive and illuminative evaluation
aspires to make its own contribution to the field of educational
evaluation. The underlying theory of the conceptual and operational
framework , hopefully holds a significant potential for the evaluation of
innovatory/remedial language learning programs and educational
programs in general.
The involvement of all participants at all stages can be very promising
for the planning and implementation of educational programs which
aim to follow a “bottom-up” process. The use of responsiveilluminative approach to evaluation serves the purpose of remedying
the possible complications caused by a “top-down” process of
implementation of educational programs.In this sense it is also
expected to develop the sense of “ownership”(Kennedy, 1988) in the
stakeholder and this is expected to result in the program
effectiveness.
23
24. Sources
•
Council of Europe. (2000). Working Paper. Directorate General
for Education and Culture of the European Commission.
Implementing lifelong learning for active citizenship in a
Europe of knowledge: Consortium of Institutions for
Development and Research in Education in Europe (CIDREE).
Lisbon Launch Conference.
•
Council of Europe. Presidency Conclusions, Lisbon
Conference. (2000). 23 and 24 March 2000, para. 5, 13, 17, 24,
26, 29, 33, 37, 38. Brussels.
•
MoE (Ministry of Education). (1997). Reform Act 2525/1997.
Athens.
24
25. References
•Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers. College Record, 64, 672-683.
•Tyler, R.W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
•Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation improving the usefulness of evaluation results
through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
•Parlett, M. (1981). ‘Illuminative evaluation.’ In Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (eds.). Human Inquiry. Chichester:
Wiley Ltd.
•Parlett, M. & Hamilton, D. (1988). ‘Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovatory
programmes.’ In Murphy, R. & Torrance, H. (eds.).Evaluating education: issues and methods. London:
Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
•Scriven, M. (1967). ‘The methodology of evaluation.’ In Stake, R. E. (ed.). AERA. Monograph series on
curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Scriven, M. (1974). ‘Goal-free evaluation.’ In House, E. R. (ed.). School evaluation. Berkeley, LA.:
McCutcham.
•Stake, R.E. (1983). ‘Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation.’ In Madaus, G. F., Scriven,
M.F. & Stufflebeam, D. L. (eds.). Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services
evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
•Stufflebeam, D. L. (1968) Towards a science of educational evaluation. Educational Technology, 8 (14), 512.
•Stufflebeam, D. L. (1988). ‘The CIPP model for program evaluation.’ In Madaus,G. F., Scriven, M. F. &
Stufflebeam, D. L. (eds.). Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation.
Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
•Tyler, R.W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25
•Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1994). The role of evaluation in ELT project design. ELT Journal, 48 (1), 2227.