Responsive evaluation is an approach to measure the effectiveness of educational programs developed by Robert E. Stake.[1] This approach enables to evaluate the educational and other programs by comparing the program activity, the program uniqueness, and the social diversity of the people.

The most important feature in the responsive evaluation is the responsiveness to main issues and problems, in particular those cases where people recognize at the site.[2]

Responsive evaluation emphasizes educational problems more than objectives or hypotheses and direct and indirect observation of program participation (the pluralism of value standards held by various groups). It also emphasizes a continuous attention to audience information-needs and media for reporting.

Preordinate evaluation

Preordinate evaluation has a relative contrast with responsive evaluation.[3] It highlights:

  1. A formal statement of goals
  2. Standardized tests of student performance
  3. Value standards held by program staff
  4. A "research-journal" type of report[4]

Responsive design

The fundamental project of the responsive predispositition is Stake’s 12 Prominent Events:

a) Identify program scope

b) Overview program activities

c) Discover purposes and concerns

d) Conceptualize issues and problems

e) Identify data needs

f) Select observers, judges, and instruments (if any)

g) Observe designated antecedents, transactions, and outcomes

h) Thematize and prepare portrayals and case studies

i) Winnow, match issues to audiences

j) Format for audience use;

k) Assemble formal reports (if any)

l) Talk with clients, program staff, and audiences (Stake, 1976)[5]

Strengths

The use of policy objectives and performance indicators in policy-making and policy-oriented debates has two important benefits: it gives focus and it provides a language for policy, management and even political debates[6]

The responsive approach is applicable to summative and formative evaluations.[7]

The formative evaluation is useful when the project staff needs help monitoring the program and when no one knows what problems are going to face it.[8]

In summative evaluation is useful this approach when audiences want to understand the activities, the strengths and the shortcoming of the project.[9]

Responsive evaluation is preferred over the pre-ordinate evaluation when someone wants to know the extent to which set objectives have changed (Stake, 1972). The responsive approach let to generate large bases of data,[10] to allow for a thick description of a program.[11] The responsive evaluation allows for evaluations of programs which are either limited or broad in scope and is especially suited for programs which are in transition.[12]

Gender-responsive evaluation

Gender-responsive evaluation is important as a means for building strong systems for generating and using evidence in order to improve the work that people do to achieve gender equality and women's empowerment. Gender-responsive evaluation is a powerful resource for accomplish the transformative agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals.[13]

Gender-responsive approach can improve gender equality and the empowerment of women by incorporating gender and women's rights aspects into evaluation approaches, methods, processes and use. The evaluation is a link of positive change towards gender equality and the empowerment of women. The process empowers the involved stakeholders and therefore prevents further gender discrimination and exclusion.[14]

Effective gender-responsive programs and interventions enhance to eliminate social factors such as racism, sexism, and economic oppression which cannot be overlooked in discussions of effective interventions for women offenders. In terms of dealing with individual issues is important to take in consideration the social issues of poverty, race and gender inequalities because they have a profound impact on women lives. Successful interventions must relate to the social realities where women come from and to which they will return. Gender-responsive evaluation is sensitive to cultural differences and expectations. The first challenge is to use theories and research development that support the implementation of these critical programs.[15]

References

  1. ↑ Stake, Robert (2003-01-01). "Responsive Evaluation". In Kellaghan, Thomas; Stufflebeam, Daniel L. (eds.). International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Kluwer International Handbooks of Education. Springer Netherlands. pp. 63–68. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_5. ISBN 9781402008498.
  2. ↑ Stake, Robert (November 2010). "RESPONSIVE EVALUATION B2. Vol 7 No 15 (2011)". education.illinois.edu. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
  3. ↑ Stake, Robert E. (Spring 1976). "A theoretical statement of responsive evaluation". Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2: 19–22. doi:10.1016/0191-491X(76)90004-3.
  4. ↑ House, Ernest (Spring 1982). "Evaluating with Validity. Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 119-125". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 4 (1): 119–125. doi:10.2307/1163798. JSTOR 1163798.
  5. ↑ Stake, Robert (January 1978). And Others Case Studies in Science Education, Volume I: The Case Reports. Illinois University: Center for Instructional - Research and Curriculum Evaluation. pp. 19–22.
  6. ↑ Van Derk Knaap, Peter (2006). "Responsive Evaluation and Performance Management. Vol 12(3): 278–293" (PDF). Sage Publications (London,Thousand Oaks and New Delhi). Retrieved 2017-05-10.
  7. ↑ Stake, Robert (January 1977). Responsive evaluation. Vol. 11, No. Illinois University: University of Illinois Press. pp. 106–109.
  8. ↑ Cameron, Bobby T. (2014). "Using Responsive Evaluation in Strategic Management, Volume 4, Issue 2". Strategic Leadership view. Retrieved 2010-05-10.
  9. ↑ Stake, Robert (2004). Standards-based & responsive evaluation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA: California: Sage Publications.
  10. ↑ Klintenberg, I. (Spring 1976). A responsive evaluation of two programs in medical education. Volume 2, Issue 1. Studies in Educational Evaluation. pp. 23–30.
  11. ↑ Sorcinelli, Parsons, & Halpern, G., M., E. (September 1984). Naturalistic responsive evaluation: a new methodology for evaluating health and safety in education, volume 8 n1. Lifelong Learning. pp. 4–6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ↑ Rakel, R. (September 1976). A summary: responsive evaluation and family practice. Studies in Educational Evaluation. Volume 2, issue 1. pp. 35–36.
  13. ↑ Entidad de las Naciones Unidas para la Igualdad de Género y el Empoderamiento de las Mujeres. "UN Women Evaluation Handbook: How to manage gender-responsive evaluation. viii + 168". ONU Mujeres (in Spanish). Retrieved 2017-05-10.
  14. ↑ UN Women. The Independent Evaluation Office Design: dammsavage studio (2015). "HOW TO MANAGE GENDER-RESPONSIVE EVALUATION" (PDF). UN Women. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
  15. ↑ Bloom, Barbara (September 1999). "Gender-responsive programming for women offenders: Guiding principles and practices. Pages: 22 to 27" (PDF). Administration of Justice Department. Forum on Corrections Research Volume:11 Issue:3. San Jose State University, San Jose, California.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.