1. Theme 10 Evaluation

2. In this theme we discuss in detail the topic “evaluation”. This is a comprehensive and a complex theme. Therefore, during this session, we discuss only a first part of te overall theme.

3. Evaluation: the concept Defining the concept evaluation is a difficult issue since the concept itself only emphasizes one aspect of what evaluation fully embraces; namely the “giving a value” to what is being observed. As we will see, it also does not help to replace the concept by other popular concepts, such as “assessment”. Again, only one particular aspect of the whole process is being emphasized.

4. Evaluation: the concept Read the following description of evaluation: “Evaluation is the entire process of collecting, analysing and interpreting information about potentially every aspect of an instructional activity, with the aim of giving conclusions about the efficacy, efficiency and or any other impact” (Thorpe, 1988). You can observe that evaluation is a comprehensive process that can be related to potentially every element in our educational frame of reference.

5. Evaluation: the concept In the literature, an important distinction is made between evaluation and assessment. Assessment or “measuring” refers to the process of collecting and analysing information (Burke, 1999 en Feden & Vogel, 2004) Evaluation refers to, as stated earlier, adding a value to what has been collected and analyzed in view of coming to a conclusion about the efficacy, efficiency or any other impact.

6. But in the literature, an even more detailed distinction is made between: Measuring/testing: collecting information Evaluating/valuing: what is this information worth? Scoring/grading: depending on the « worth », what score will we give It is essential to distinguish these three approaches. One can measure without valuing or scoring. And one cannot score without collecting and valuing information. Evaluation: the concept

7. Evaluation: quality requirements Prior to a discussion of recent developments in the field of evaluation, we first deal with some critical quality requirements that are central in discussions about evaluation: Validity Reliability Authenticity Recency

8. Validity Validity refers to the extent that the content of what is being measured, valued and scored is related to the initial evaluation objective. Typical questions that are raised in this context are: What if we only measure geometry, when we want to come to conclusions about mathematics performance in primary school? What if we only get questions from chapter 5 during an exam? What if we only ask memorization questions in a test when we also worked in the laboratory and solved chemistry problems?

9. Reliability Reliability refers to the extent our measurement is stable. Typical questions raised are: If I repeat the same test tomorrow, will I get the same results (stability)? Is there a large difference in the ability to solve the different questions about the same topic (internal consistency)? If someone else measured, valued and scored the test, would he/she end up with the same results?

10. Authenticity Authenticity refers to the extent the information we gather, mirrors in a relevant, adequate, and authentic way reality. Examples of related questions: Is it sufficient to ask student nurses to give injections on a doll to evaluate their injection skills? Is it adequate to give a flying license to someone who was only tested in a flight simulator? Is it sufficient to say that one is able to “teach” after evaluating his/her capacities with small group teaching?

11. Recency Recency questions the “date” information has been collected, valued or scored in view of evaluation: Can we accept credits obtained 5 years ago from someone who asks being releaved of courses in a new study program? Can we hire a young house mother who got her degree 10 years ago? Are the Basic Life Support Skills mastered six months ago, still relevant today in an active first aid officer?

12. Recent developments in evaluation Recent developments in evaluation can be clustered along five dimensions: At what aggregation level is the evaluation being set up? What are the functions/roles of the evaluation? Who carries out the evaluation? When is the evaluation being set up? What evaluation techniques are being adopted? We discuss some examples in relation to each dimension.

13. Dimension 1: aggregation levels Firstly, we observe that evolutions in evaluation are related to the aggregation levels in our educational frame of reference: Micro level Meso level Macro level We look – in relation to each aggregation level – to particular new developments.

14. Dimension 1: aggregation levels At each aggregation level, the same elements re- appear. Evaluation can be related to every element in the educational frame of reference Responsible for the instruction Learner Learning activities Organisation Context Instructional activities (objectives, learning content, media, didactical strategies, evaluation)

15. Micro level Example 1: evaluation of the extent the learning objectives have been attained; Example 2: evaluation of didactical strategies.

16. Micro level: evaluation learning objectives During evaluation we measure the behavior, we value the behavior and give a score. The question is “What is the base of giving a certain value?”. Based on a criterion? –Criterion referenced assessment Based on a norm, e.g., group mean? –Norm referenced assessment Based on earlier performance of learner? –Ipsative assessment or self-referenced assessment

17. Example: athletics, 15-year olds have to run 100 meter? Criterion referenced assessment –Every performance is compared to an a priori stated criterion; e.g., less than 15 seconds Norm referenced assessment –Every performance is compared to the classroom mean (imagine your are in a class with fast runners). Ipsative assessment of self-referenced assessment –Every performance is compared to the earlier performance of the individual learner; emphasis on progress. Micro level: evaluation learning objectives

18. Micro level: evaluation instructional strategies Hattie (2009) discusses in his meta-analysis instructional activities. These analyses look whether different instructional strategies have a differential impact on learners. Do they matter? In the following example you see that the didactical strategy “homework” represent an average “effect size” d =.29. This is far below the benchmark d =.40.

19. Meso level: evaluation at school level Recent developments at the school level look whether “schools” have a value-added; this means an additional value that results in better learning performance. But can we simply compare schools with one another? Does this not lead to simple ranking as depicted in this journal

20. One cannot simply compare schools. Calder (1994) puts forward in this context, the CIPP model to consider everything in balance: –Context evaluation: the geographical position of a school, the available budget, the legal base, etc. –Input evaluation: what the school actually uses as resources, its program, its policies, the number and type of staff members, etc. –Process evaluation: the way a program is implemented, the strategies being used, the evaluation approach, the professional development of the staff, etc. –Product evaluation: the effects, such as goal attainment, throughput, return on investment, etc. Meso level: evaluation at school level

21. Comparing schools with the CIPP model can as such imply that: –A school with a lot of migrants outperforms a school with dominantly upper class children. –A school can be good in attaining certain goals, but can be less qualified in attaining other goals. –A school can be criticized as to its policies. –That one will consider the geographical location of a school when discussing results (e.g., an unsafe neighbourhood). –That we will also look at what the learners do later when they go to another school (e.g., success at university). Schools are being assessed by the inspection on the base of the CIPP model. Meso level: evaluation at school level

22. The inspection reports are public. Meso level: evaluation at school level

23. Macro level: school effectiveness Read the following description: “The aim of school effectiveness research is to describe and explain the differences between schools on the base of specific criteria. This research explores the differences in performance on the base of differences in those responsible for teaching, the learners, the classes, the school.” You can see that – as in the CIPP model – explanations are sought at the level of all schools in the educational system.

24. This development started from very critical reports as to the value-added of schools: –Coleman report (1966, chapter 1): “Schools have little effect on students’ achievement that is independent of their family background and social context.” –Plowden report (1967, p.35): “Differences between parents will explain more of the variation in children than differences between schools. (…) Parental factors, in fact, accounted for 58% of the variance in student achievement in this study.” Schools want – in contrast to these reports – proof they make a difference and contribute to learner performance Macro level: school effectiveness

25. A central critique on the Coleman and Plowden report is that they neglect the complex interplay that helps to explain differences; see the CIPP model. Instead of simply administering tests and comparing results, we have to look – next to “product effects” – at the processes and variables that are linked to these results. This is labelled with the concept performance indicators. Macro level: school effectiveness

26. Macro level: performance indicators Performance indicators are: "statistical data, numbers, costs or any other information that measures and clarifies the outcomes of an institution in line with preset goals.“ You can notice that the emphasis in performance indicators is on the description and explanation of differences in performance. One of the best known performance indicator studies is the three-yearly PISA study: Programme for International Student Assessment. E.g., in the PISA 2006 study, performance was compared of schools in 54 countries.

27. Macroniveau: performance indicators Results of PISA in 2006 show – for example – the high performance of Flemish schools for sciences, mathematics, and reading literacy.

28. PISA results are not only described. They are also explained. In this graphic, one sees how the PISA results are associated with the socio-economic status (SES) of the learners. The higher the status, the higher the results. SES is determined by the educational level of the parents, their income, their possession of cultural goods (e.g., books), etc.

29. Dimension 2: Functions of evaluation Why do we evaluate? There might be different reasons: Formative evaluation –To see where one is in the learning process and how we can redirect the learning process Summative evaluation –To determine the final attainment of the goals. Prediction function –To predict future performance (e.g., success in higher education) Selection function –To see whether one is fit for a job or task.

30. Dimension 2: Functions of evaluation Abroad, there is a lot of attention for the selection function; see the emphasis on entrance exams. In this example, one sees a lucky candidate (and his mother) who succeeded in the entrance exam for a Chinese university.

31. Dimension 2: Functions of evaluation Earlier, there was a major emphasis on summative evaluation. Nowadays this emphasis has shifted towards formative evaluation. Why? Does one learn from evaluative feedback; this is also called consequential validity genoemd? From the evaluation results, does this not imply that the teacher has to redirect the instruction, the support, the learning materials, etc? Does a learner already reach a preliminary attainment level?

32. Dimension 3: Who is responsible? Traditionally, the teachers is responsible for the evaluation. But there are new developments: The learner him/herself carries out the evaluation : self assessment The learner and peers carry out the evaluation together: peer assessment An external responsible carries out the evaluation (e.g., other teacher). An external company carries out the evaluation: assessment centers …

33. New development: self assessment Self-assessment is seen as a type of evaluation that aims at fostering the learning process (Assessment-as-learning) : formative evaluation function Two main steps to be taken: –Initial training to develop criteria and instrument/tool, and discuss the value of what is being measured. –Next, usage of the tools/instruments and developing a personal opinion. Scoring is not an issue here. Very useful technique: rubrics (see further on) Dimension 3: Who is responsible?

34. Assessment centres: external company that carries out evaluation; mostly with selection function “Standardized procedure to assess complex behavior on the base of multiple information bases. The behavior is assessed in simulated contexts. Multiple persons carry out the evaluation and come to a shared vision.” Different evaluators are involved and guarantee a 360° approach of the evaluation This technique fulfills a selection function e.g., when screening candidates for a job Dimension 3: Who is responsible?

35. Dimension 4: When to evaluate? There is a shift in the moment the evaluation is being set up: towards « prior to » and « during » the learning process; serving formative evaluation function: Prior –Prior knowledge testing During –Progress testing –Portfolio evaluation After –Final evaluation

36. Dimension 5: What technique? Next to traditional evaluation tests with multiple choice questions, open answer questions, fill-in questions, sort questions, … we observe a series of new techniques. Examples: Rubrics: attention is paid to criteria and indicators Portfolio’s: file with letters, information, illustrations, products, … as the information base for the evaluation …

37. Dimension 5: Technique rubrics Rubrics: Define clear criteria: concrete element of a complex learning objective that is being measured, valued and scored Determine for each criterion a number of quality indicators: indicators exemplify the level at which a certain criterion is being met, answered, attained

38. Dimension 5: Technique Rubrics Example rubric: “mixing colours” In next steps of the learning process, we can add criteria and/or performance indicators to the rubric 1234 Amount of paint being used?Learner does not consider the amount of different colours being used --Learner uses right from the start minimal amounts of paint to start mixing colours What colour is mixed first?Starts with the darkest colour to mix - -Starts with the lightests colour to mix What order in mixing colours? … … Performance indicators Criteria

39. Dimension 5: Technique Rubrics Example rubric: “Writing of a historical fiction story”

40. Dimension 5: Technique Portfolio Read this description of a portfolio: A portfolio is a file with letters, information, illustrations, products, … that is used as an information base for the evaluation.

41. Dimension 5: Technique Portfolio Types of portfolios: –A document portfolio or product portfolio: documentation that helps to describe the activities in the training, intership, practical experience, … (measurement). In addition to this info, learners can add their reflections (valueing). Typically used with student doctors, nurses, teachers, … –A process portfolio: a logbook. Documentation of the progress in the learning process, enriched with reflections. Typically used with student doctors, nurses, midwives, teachers, …. –A showcase portfolio: “the best of …”. Bundle of the best work of a student that helps to come to a conclusion about his/her performance. Typical use in decorative arts, music, theater, architects, ….

42. Example of a process portfolio for student teachers Dimension 5: Technique Portfolio

43. Einde van dit instructiepakket Pak nu de eindtoets aan. Ga opnieuw naar je Minerva werkplek