Scribd
Upload
166 views2 pages

The Model For Evaluation: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, ML, USA

the discussion using cipp model

Uploaded by

Atiqah Azis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
166 views2 pages

The Model For Evaluation: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, ML, USA

the discussion using cipp model

Uploaded by

Atiqah Azis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

2

The CIPP Model for Evaluation

DANIEL L. STUFFLEBEAM
The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, Ml, USA

This chapter presents the CIPP Evaluation Model, a comprehensive framework


for guiding evaluations of programs, projects, personnel, products, institutions,
and evaluation systems. This model was developed in the late 1960s to help
improve and achieve accountability for U.S. school programs, especially those
keyed to improving teaching and learning in urban, inner city school districts.
Over the years, the model has been further developed and applied to educational
programs both inside and outside the U.S. Also, the model has been adapted and
employed in philanthropy, social programs, health professions, business,
construction, and the military. It has been employed internally by schools, school
districts, universities, charitable foundations, businesses, government agencies,
and other organizations; by contracted external evaluators; and by individual
teachers, educational administrators, and other professionals desiring to assess
and improve their services.! This chapter is designed to help educators around
the world grasp the model's main concepts, appreciate its wide-ranging
applicability, and particularly consider how they can apply it in schools and
systems of schools. The model's underlying theme is that evaluation's most
important purpose is not to prove, but to improve.
Corresponding to the letters in the acronym CIPp, this model's core concepts
are context, input, process, and product evaluation. By employing the four types
of evaluation, the evaluator serves several important functions. Context evalua-
tions assess needs, problems, and opportunities within a defined environment;
they aid evaluation users to define and assess goals and later reference assessed
needs of targeted beneficiaries to judge a school program, course of instruction,
counseling service, teacher evaluation system, or other enterprise. Input evalua-
tions assess competing strategies and the work plans and budgets of approaches
chosen for implementation; they aid evaluation users to design improvement
efforts, develop defensible funding proposals, detail action plans, record the
alternative plans that were considered, and record the basis for choosing one
approach over the others. Process evaluations monitor, document, and assess
activities; they help evaluation users carry out improvement efforts and maintain
accountability records of their execution of action plans. Product evaluations

31

International Handbook of Educational Evaluation, 31-62


T. Kellaghan, D.L. Stufflebeam (eds.)
© 2003 Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
32 Stufflebeam
identify and assess short-term, long-term, intended, and unintended outcomes.
They help evaluation users maintain their focus on meeting the needs of students
or other beneficiaries; assess and record their level of success in reaching and
meeting the beneficiaries' targeted needs; identify intended and unintended side
effects; and make informed decisions to continue, stop, or improve the effort.
According to the CIPP Model, evaluations should serve administrators, policy
boards, military officers, and other clients; teachers, physicians, counselors, clini-
cians, engineers, social workers, and other service providers; students, parents,
patients, and other beneficiaries; and funding organizations, regulatory bodies,
and society at large. Evaluators should present their audiences with evaluations
that help develop high quality, needed services and products; help identify and
assess alternative improvement options; help assure high quality and ongoing
improvement of services; certify the effectiveness of services and products;
expose deficient, unneeded, and/or unsafe services and products; and help clarify
the factors that influenced an enterprise's success or failure. Thus, the CIPP
Model is oriented to administration, development, effective service, prevention
of harm, accountability, dissemination, and research.
This chapter introduces the CIPP Model by presenting a general scheme to
show relationships among the model's key components. Next, evaluation is
defined. The chapter subsequently delineates the CIPP Model's improvement/
formative and accountability/summative roles. It follows with a brief discussion
of self-evaluation applications of the model. Following discussion of the model's
use for improvement purposes, general guidance and an example checklist are
provided for using the model for accountability purposes. Context, input,
process, and product evaluation are next explained in some detail as applied
mainly to group efforts; these explanations include a few cogent examples and a
range of relevant techniques. The chapter is concluded with guidelines for
designing the four types of evaluation. The Evaluation Center's2 experiences in
applying the model are referenced throughout the chapter.

A GENERAL SCHEMA

Figure 1 portrays the basic elements of the CIPP Model in three concentric circles.
The inner circle represents the core values that provide the foundation for one's
evaluations. The wheel surrounding the values is divided into four evaluative foci
associated with any program or other endeavor: goals, plans, actions, and
outcomes. The outer wheel denotes the type of evaluation that serves each of the
four evaluative foci. These are context, input, process, and product evaluation.
Each double arrow denotes a two-way relationship between a particular
evaluative focus and a type of evaluation. The task of setting goals raises
questions for a context evaluation, which in turn provides information for
validating or improving goals. Planning improvement efforts generates questions
for an input evaluation, which correspondingly provides judgments of plans and

You might also like