EVALUATION MODELS EME 505
MODEL PROPONENT FEATURES
1. CIPP Evaluation Model Daniel Stufflebeam Guide both evaluators and
stakeholders in posing relevant
questions and conducting
assessments at the beginning or Process Evaluation
a project, while it is on the
progress and at its end
Formative and summative
2. Stakes Countenance Robert Stake Description and judgment
Model Intents and observation
Antecedents, transactions and
contingencies
STEPS STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES
Context Evaluation The model was not designed The model could be said to blur
(Goals) with any specific program or the line between evaluation and
Input Evaluation (Plans) solution in mind; thus, it can other investigative processes
be easily applied to multiple such as needs assessment.
(Actions) evaluation situations.
It is not as widely known and
Product Evaluation Its comprehensive approach applied in the performance
(Outcomes) to evaluation can be applied improvement field as other
from program planning to models.
program outcomes and Needs very careful planning or it
fulfillment of core values. will not succeed
The model is well established Multiple data collection
and has a long history of techniques are needed to address
applicability. each type of data or evaluation
Combines formative question
evaluation with summative
evaluation
All the sections are being
considered so that no part of
the program is overlooked
Clear format for all
stakeholders and evaluators
to follow
Procedure is very specific
Stakes Model provides Too ideal
evaluators with an opportunity Does not emphasize the need
to compare the desired and issues of the program
outcome with the actual
outcome. Focuses on being ideal of the
The benefit of this is that it is program
the curriculum developers that
set the criteria of evaluation.
All the evaluators do is
determine if the curriculum
performed in a manner that is

3. Tylers Rationale for
Program Evaluation
4. Provus Discrepancy Malcolm Edwin Provus
Evaluation Model
5. Scrivens Formative and
Summative Evaluation
Ralph Tyler Linear model, it involves a
certain order or sequence of
steps from beginning to end
Deductive it starts from
general (examining the need of
the society) to the specific
(specifying instructional
objectives)
Improve, maintain, or
terminate the program
Formal or formative
Program definition and
program installation
Michael Scriven Goal-free evaluation(GFE) is
any evaluation in which the
evaluator conducts the
1. Stating the objectives Involves active participation of Narrowly interpreted objectives
2. Selecting learning
experiences related to the
objectives
in the purposes. These purposes
3. Organizing learning
objectives
4. Evaluating the
curriculum
1. Program Definition The evaluator is a facilitator,
2. Program Installation
3. Program Process
4. Program Product
5. Program Comparison
Qualitative Controlling goal orientation-
Unstructured interview
consistent with the ideas of the
developers.
the learner (acceptable verbs)
Objectives are clearly defined
Difficult and time consuming
construction of behavioral
are translated into educational
objectives
objectives
Simple linear approach to
Curriculum restricted to a
constricted range of student
development of behavioral
objectives skills and knowledge
Learning experiences are
individual and are not totally
within the power of the teacher
to select
The information obtained does not
the staff of the program is the provide a solid basis for judging the
one who evaluates. value of a program in its entirety.
Provides valid information for Ignore, to some extent, the total
decision making. evaluation, as it emphasizes partial
Emphasizes self-evaluation and evaluation, by stages.
improvement of programs. The development and application of
Provide space to change the the criteria used to observe the
standards or program execution program is not clearly specified.
to discontinue it. It deprives us of evaluative
All personnel participate in the judgments of the evaluator, since he
process. only submits the discrepancies to
The model is operational, the person making the decisions.
reality oriented. The recommendations of the
Provides continuous feedback evaluator, of the expert, could be
that strengthens the process and ignored by the other levels.
facilitates program monitoring.
Allows you to make corrections
throughout the change.
Help identify the area of
concern.
There is a chance that some of the
related biases most important effects will be
missed.
 evaluation without particular
knowledge of or reference to
stated or predetermined goals
and objectives.
Focuses on unintended effects
Participant observation
Avoiding the rhetoric of true
Uncovering side effects
with the question of what effects to
goals
Adapting to contextual or
environmental changes
Aligning goals with actual
program activities and
outcomes
The model failed to come to grip
look at, and what needs to be
assessed.
This approach can only lead to poor
planning.
This is seen as threat by many
program designers.
Does not provide more explicit
directions for developing and
implementing the model
Not necessarily a practical model
The evaluator does not get rid of all
goals, but replaces the goals of the
project staff with more global goals
based on societal needs and basic
standards of morality.

6. Course Improvement Lee J. Chronbach Course Improvement Course/program

Through Evaluation
7. Ochaves ABCD Jesus Arce Ochave
Evaluation Model
8. Metfessel and Michaels William B. Michael
Paradigm Involving
Multiple Criterion
Measures for the Evaluation
of the effectiveness of
school program
Decision about individuals
Administrative regulation
Combination of different
classical evaluation models
Comprehensive, flexible, and
allows the evaluator to trace
causal factors
Objective oriented
Newton S. Metfessel evaluation model
Influenced by Ralph Tyler
Possible alternative
instruments (multiple
criterion)
curriculum
A respondents
B the program/operations
C the effects
D social impact
1. Total school community Simplistic Judgmental decisions are involved
as participants Easily understood throughout all phases of the
2. Listing of specific evaluation.
Easy to follow and implement
objectives in hierarchical Measures may yield indications of
Produces information relevant
order from general to false gains or false losses that are
to the goals and mission
specific desired outcomes correlated with:
Involve stakeholders as
3. Translate the specific
facilitators of program Experiences in and outside of the
behavioral objectives into
evaluation schools environment.
a communicable form,
applicable to facilitate Uncontrolled differences in the
learning in the school facilitating effects of teachers and other
environment school personnel.
4. Select or construct a Inaccuracies in collecting, reading,
variety of instruments analyzing, collating, and reporting
data.
 that will furnish measure Errors in research design and statistical
from which inferences methodology.
can be drawn about the
effectiveness of programs
to meet planned
objectives
5. Carry out periodic
observations through the
use of the varied
instruments to gauge the
extent of behavioral
change that is valid with
respect to the selected
objectives.
6. Analyze the data
provided by the measures
of change through use of
appropriate statistical
methods
7. Interpret data that are
relative to the specified
objectives in terms of
particular judgmental
standards and values
considered appropriate to
desirable levels of
performance
8. Make recommendations
that provide a basis for
further implementation,
modifications, and
revisions of broad goals
and specific objectives
with the purpose of
program improvement

9. Steinmetz Discrepancy Andres Steinmetz Creating S Pragmatic, systematic approach Too broad
Evaluation Model Collecting P to wide variety of evaluation Too complex to apply
Feedback (D) needs
Minimal evaluators are applying
Provides well-informed
decision making
this model
 Emphasis on self-evaluation and
systematic program
improvement
10. Connoisseurship and Elliot Eisner Descriptive
Criticism Interpretative
Evaluation
10. Kerrigan Evaluation John Kerrigan 4 Levels Good evaluation tool for Restricted to application in
Model Reaction training programs and short training programs
Learning courses
Applications
Results
11. Impact Evaluation Costly and needs a lot of time