Stake's Evaluation model

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Stake's Evaluation model by Mind Map: Stake's Evaluation model

1. Stake's responsive

1.1. Sounds like Paton's utilzation focussed

1.2. Pluralistic

1.2.1. conflict between stakeholders recognised

1.2.2. All perspectives may be valuable

1.2.3. consensus in value between stakeholders

1.2.4. Some perspectives may be uncomfortable for other groups of stakeholders.

1.2.4.1. Teachers

1.2.4.2. consumers of teaching

1.2.4.2.1. parents

1.2.4.2.2. students

1.2.4.3. Managers of teachers

1.2.4.4. Managers of consumers of teaching

1.2.4.5. Government

1.2.5. Stake: 'I am a situationalist... goodness in schooling is strongly dependent on situation'. Sameness is just gloss - 'you still want to start with the particular' New Direction for Evaluation

1.2.6. Evaluator as Judge but not change agent

1.3. Approach

1.3.1. improved communication

1.3.2. less attention to pre-determined outcomes/issues

1.3.3. Focus is on context, culture, power, needs and beliefs re. a phenomenon

1.3.4. Includes value perspectives when reporting

1.3.5. 'Responsive' to priority needs

1.4. Methods

1.4.1. 'thick descriptions' allowing the reader to “vicariously experience”

1.4.2. Almost participatory in design

1.4.3. Case study 'portrayals'

1.4.3.1. vicarious experience information

1.4.3.2. narratives

1.4.3.3. simple descriptions

1.4.3.4. sharing of impressions

1.5. Advantages

1.5.1. information about quality

1.5.2. Responding to the way things are actually happening

1.5.3. More than mere performance

1.5.4. Programme activities > Programme intents

1.5.5. More likely to be actually used!

1.6. Disadvantages/limitations

1.6.1. evaluation in settings where learning occurs

1.6.2. He who pays the piper calls the tune???

1.6.3. Labour intensive

1.6.4. Subjectivity??

1.6.5. Hawthorne effect

1.7. Resources

1.7.1. http://prezi.com/mnvka4g1da4p/stakes-responsive-model/

1.7.2. Abma, T. A., & Stake, R. E. (2001). Stake’s responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evolution. New Directions for Evaluation, 2001(92), 7–22. doi:10.1002/ev.31

2. Questions

2.1. Sarah Al-Amodi - In Stake's responsive model, does it mean that if we want to determine the needs of stakeholders we need to make a workshop or we can use questionnaire to ask stakeholders about their needs?

2.1.1. relevant data of different kinds

2.1.1.1. 'Countenance' paper

2.1.2. observation of context, power, culture

2.1.3. Thick descriptions

2.1.4. Yes - you can but that is not all

2.1.5. Mixed methods approach

2.2. Suzanne Matthew - Stakes model - really useful but can we be selective depending on stakeholder priorities?

2.2.1. "To be responsive does not automati-cally yield design authority to stakeholders. It means coming to know the circumstances and problems and values well, then using professional talent and discipline to carry out the inquiry. For me, the inquiry belongs to the evaluator. She or he conducts it so, in the end, the stakeholders have a good vicarious experience and reconstruction of quality. I do not see the inquiry as a cooperative effort." p9

2.2.2. 'I never gave up the evaluator's responsibility to previde summary judgements, but I provide them softly framed so as to encourage the reader's own interpretations p10

2.2.3. Validation methods like triangulation lead to genuine rigour

2.2.4. Important to secure a 'power balance' so that everyone can have their 'say'

2.3. Lowri Evans - For 'Stakes responsive model' isnt this just a collection of opinions?

2.3.1. no, and in a sense that could be leveled at any research that is trying to capture perceptions or subjective data. I am not trying to measure something in a petri dish. What counts as knowledge here? It is the purposeful collection of opinions to guide the response to the basic pursuit of a 'consensus of value'

2.3.2. 'Grand theory contributes little to governing education. You need to have local theory. You need to be in touch with the situation in order to make the best judgements' p10

2.3.3. 'Generalisations decay' Cronbach p12

2.3.3.1. They also obscure the uniquness of a local situation

2.3.4. Who should decide what counts as evidence?

2.3.4.1. kind of evidence is important in the context of health promotion, because it enhances the understanding of human behaviour, it promotes holistic-thinking, offers contextual information and brings in the perspective of the community or target group.

2.3.4.2. evaluator guilty of silencing the very people involved

2.4. Ramsey - Can Stake's model only be applied to smaller groups, for practical reasons?

2.4.1. How small?