EVALUATION THEORY AND MODEL Theory and model should have symbiotic relationship with practice Theory and model should have symbiotic relationship with practice Theory connotes a body of knowledge that organizes, categorizes, describes, predicts, explains, and otherwise aids in understanding and controlling a topic Theory connotes a body of knowledge that organizes, categorizes, describes, predicts, explains, and otherwise aids in understanding and controlling a topic Model is an extension of theory which includes the "how to" components Model is an extension of theory which includes the "how to" components

There are more then fifty recognized program evaluation models are found in the literature There are more then fifty recognized program evaluation models are found in the literature House (1978):System analysis, behavioral objectives, decision-making, goal-free, art criticism, accreditation, adversary, and transaction. House (1978):System analysis, behavioral objectives, decision-making, goal-free, art criticism, accreditation, adversary, and transaction. Guba and Lincoln (1989). 4 generations characterized by different methodologies: (a) measurement oriented, (b) description oriented, (c) judgment oriented, and (d) negotiation oriented, Guba and Lincoln (1989). 4 generations characterized by different methodologies: (a) measurement oriented, (b) description oriented, (c) judgment oriented, and (d) negotiation oriented,

Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (1985) classified evaluation models into three broad types Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (1985) classified evaluation models into three broad types Pseudo-evaluation Pseudo-evaluation Quasi-evaluation Quasi-evaluation True evaluation True evaluation

In sum, Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (1985) and Guba and Lincoln (1989) advocate the use of formal, systematic, and comprehensive approaches of program evaluation. In sum, Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (1985) and Guba and Lincoln (1989) advocate the use of formal, systematic, and comprehensive approaches of program evaluation.

Evaluation Standards The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1981) developed four categories of standards The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1981) developed four categories of standards utility standards utility standards feasibility standards feasibility standards propriety standards propriety standards accuracy standards. accuracy standards.

Utility Standards to ensure that an evaluation will serve the practical information needs of given audiences to ensure that an evaluation will serve the practical information needs of given audiences the standards include audience identification, evaluator credibility, information scope and selection, valuational interpretation, report clarity, report dissemination, report timeliness, and evaluation impact. the standards include audience identification, evaluator credibility, information scope and selection, valuational interpretation, report clarity, report dissemination, report timeliness, and evaluation impact.

Feasibility Standards to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal Considerations involved are practical procedures, political viability, and cost effectiveness. Considerations involved are practical procedures, political viability, and cost effectiveness.

Propriety Standards to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results these standards are formal obligation, conflict of interest, full and frank disclosure, the public's right to know, rights of human subjects, human interactions, balanced reporting, and fiscal responsibility. these standards are formal obligation, conflict of interest, full and frank disclosure, the public's right to know, rights of human subjects, human interactions, balanced reporting, and fiscal responsibility.

Accuracy Standards to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features of the object being studied that determine its worth or merit to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features of the object being studied that determine its worth or merit these standards are object identification, context analysis, described purposes and procedures, defensible information sources, valid measurement, reliable measurement, systematic data control, analysis of quantitative information, analysis of qualitative information, justified conclusions, and objective reporting. these standards are object identification, context analysis, described purposes and procedures, defensible information sources, valid measurement, reliable measurement, systematic data control, analysis of quantitative information, analysis of qualitative information, justified conclusions, and objective reporting.