Participant-oriented Evaluation

Approaches: Stake’s Countenance

Evaluation is an important aspect of
program development to come up with
improvement plan to achieve
competitiveness, depending on the
judgement of the one who evaluates, or
the evaluators

Education being complex is associated

with contingencies with consideration to
congruence(intentions and observations)
 Stake Countenance Model Of
Evaluation
• Is a model focusing on the qualitative
influences to the traditional quantitative
design, with judgement being maintained as
the major function of the one who evaluates.
• The heart of this model on the decisions that
are come up with during the evaluation
Three important phases of program development
where this countenance model of evaluation
revolves
INSTRUCTION

Antecedents Transactions Outcomes

• The • The effectiveness • When the

consideration is of the program program has
the during already
implementations achieved
environmental being considered
factors that by in the completion, its
might affect transaction phase effect are being
program on the other hand examined in the
outcomes outcome phase
 Quick Vocabulary

Antecedent: A condition existing prior to instruction that may relate to

outcomes. The status of a student prior to his lesson. Ex. His aptitude,
previous experience, interest,and willingness is a complex antecedent. T

Transaction: Successive engagements or dynamic encounters constituting

the process of instruction. (Activities, processes, etc.) Example: Behavioral
interactions.

Outcomes: The effects of the instructional experience. (Including

observations and unintentional outcomes.) Example: Teacher performance.
Stake and his Countenance
The two basic acts of evaluation are
description and judgment.

Insert Matrix Here

 Case Study:
Evaluating an Environmental Education
Professional Development Course
Purpose: “Evaluate an environmental education professional development
course using Stake’s Countenance Model as the organizational framework.”
 Case Background

Evaluation of a Watershed Ecology course.

Course designed to educate teachers about

research and instructional strategies used
to investigate community environmental
issues.

Course included laboratory procedures,

data collection trips, and data analysis.
 Evaluation Methodology
Criterion levels were established to judge discrepancies between what was
intended and what was observed to occur.
Antecedents:
Teacher background
Appropriate curriculum
Resource availability
Transactions:
Component participation
Behavioral interactions
Course choreography
Outcomes:
Improved performance
Teacher attitudes
Intent to use
Unexpected Outcomes:
Enhanced professional confidence
Not enough time to study and reflect
Administrative barriers to
implementing what they learned
Data Collection Instruments:
1. Pretest
2. Posttest
3. Teacher opinion survey
4. Expert opinion questionnaire
5. Attendance records
6. Background information
7. Teacher journals
8. Instructor journal
 Countenance Matrix
The table shows the
outstanding
characteristics of the The table compares
course. intents to
observations and
describes the
judgment standards
and the
judgment of the
evaluator.
 Evaluation Results & Summary
Results of Evaluation: Benefit of using Stake’s
Countenance:
1. Teachers were familiar with basic
concepts but not advanced • Facilitated in-depth understanding
techniques. of the course.

2. Established importance of ties • Revealed unanticipated

between perceived resource ability, consequences as well as reasons
class participation, and curricular and consequences for the effects.
choices.

3. Linked knowledge gains and

improved professional confidence
expressed by the teachers.
 Quality of the Case Study
Questions Observations

Would different Case study did not tackle a

techniques have yielded complex issue, hard to judge
different results? the technique.

Would other techniques have been Tool seemed well-suited to case;

more or less helpful? in education evaluation should
be participant-oriented.

Is the technique more Did not see voice of the evaluator.

than the matrix, and is an Judgments largely a result of
evaluator necessary? participant experience and rating.

Does the evaluator do more than Some of the judgments could

facilitate? Does the evaluator have possibly been culled from
make “big picture” observations? survey results as well.