UNIT 9 PROGRAMME AND

INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION 1
Structure
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Objectives
9.3 Meaning and Definition of Programme Evaluation
9.3.1
9.3.2
Defimng Evaluation
Meaning of Programme Evaluation i
1
9.3.3
9.3.4
9.3.5
Purpose of Programme Evaluation
Area of Programme Evaluation Studies
Components of Programme Evaluation
Ij
9.4 Institutional Effectiveness: Dimensions and Criteria
9.4.1
9.4.2
Parameters of Institutional Evaluation
Classification of Components of InstitutionalAssessment
I
i
9.4.3 Dimensions of Institutional Assessment Specified by National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NAAC)
9.4.4 InstitutionalAssessment Procedures of"NAAC
9.5 Context Input, Process and Product Evaluation (CIPP) Model
 making level. This unit will acquaint you with the concept of programme evaluation, Programme and Instie-
tional Evaluation
the parameters of programme evaluation and different approaches ahd models of
programme evaluation.
t

9.2 OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you will be able to:
a explain the nature and concept of programme evaluation;
a identify different parameters of institutional evaluation;

explain the concept and relevance of evaluation of different components like context
evaluation, input evaluation, process evaluation, product evaluation and evaluation
1 of management of programmes;
prepare an outline of a programme evaluation study in the context of its scope,
objectives, and methods and procedures; and
a distinguish between formative and summative evaluation and recognize the
significance of both types in the educational system.

9.3 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF PROGRAMME

EVALUATION
In your daily life you may be asked to judge the value or worth of an object, outcome,
action or techniques. However, such judgement is not as easy as we perceive in a casual
way. The concept of value judgement or evaluation is more articulate in nature. In your
personal life you may judge whether a career is worthy to be pursued by you or not. On
the other hand, a school principal would like to know whether a new course introduced
in the school is effective in meeting its goals or not. Whether in the personal context or
in the general context, making judgement on effectiveness or worthiness of an object,
or event, attribute or product involves two key components. One is gathering 'evidence'
about the event, attribute, object or project and another is judgement with a 'value'.
Another question may be raised whether making judgement or evaluation is purposeful
or casual in nature. In the context of the educational system such concepts are to be

. perceived with a purpose i.e. facilitating action or making the system more valuable.
Hence you may perceive that evaluation is a process of making judgements about the
merit, value or worth of a programme, product and technique. Evaluation is usually
done to improve decision-making.

9.3.1 Defining Evaluation

One of the popular definitions of evaluation given by C.E. Beeby (1977) defines it as
"the systematic collection and interpretation of evidence, leading, as part of the process,
to ajudgement of value with a view to action". Such definition takes us to notice four
key elements. One is 'Systematic collection of evidence'. Value judgement must be
based on evidence. The evidence must be gathered purposefully through planned and
conscious efforts. The information needed must be defined with some degree of precision.
The information may be gathered through various sources by applying different kinds
of tools like tests, observations, questionnaires, interviews etc.
Policy Making and The second element is 'interplptation of evidence'. Just gathering evidence does not
Implementation
serve the purpose. You will have to be careful whether the evidence gathered shall
facilitate the judgement process or not. In other words, you will have to gather evidence
associated with indicators of evaluation. Then the evidence gathered must be interpreted
from all kinds of perspectives. Hence, you must be careful about interpretations.

The third element is 'judgement of value'. It is not just description of evidence on

indicating the status of a phenomenon. It is a pinpointed effort to judge how well a
system, a process or a product matches with the expected goals or outcomes. In other
words, such kind of value judgement is associated with the process of interpretation
about how well an educational programme succeeds in reaching the goals.

The fourth element is 'action orientation'. The evaluation for the sake of making
judgement or giving grades or certification does not serve the purpose. It must lead to
decision making so that it can serve the purpose of framing better policies and adopting
efficient and effective practices in education. In the above presentation you could have
noticed that evaluation is not baseless judgement, ratherjudgement is based on evidence
analysed and interpreted systematically. Moreover, educational evaluation need not stop
at making statement 'effective' or 'ineffective'; 'good' or bad'. Evaluation is incomplete
unless it leads to policy orientation, decision-making and actions related to improvement
of the system.

9.3.2 Meaning of Programme Evaluation

Let us explore the meaning of programme evaluation in the context of evaluation of
educational programmes. You must be clear about the concept of educational
programmes. In the educational context, a programme can be understood as any
"educational enterprise aimed at the solution of a particular educational problem or the
improvement of some aspect of an educational system. Such a programme would
typically be sponsored by public or private funds, possess specified goals and exhibit
some structure for managing the procedures, materials, facilities andlor personnel
involved in the programmes" (Worthen, 1990).You will come across various programmes
aimed at solution of particular educational problems like:

eradication of illiteracy, viz., National Adult Education Programme;

universalization of elementary education, viz., District Primary Education

Programme, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan etc.;

alternative arrangement of schooling such as Non-Formal Education Programme

and Open school system and

empowerment of women and girls: such as Mahila Samakhya Project.

You can come across a number of such educational programmes or projects

- at local level: e.g. Education in Panchayati Raj System;
- at district level: e.g. District Primary Education Programme(DPEP);
- at regional level: e.g. Tribal Welfare Schemes focussing on development of a
particular tribal belt; Alternative Schooling for Child Labourers; education of a
particular region; Ashram School system covering a region;
 - at state level: e.g. Education Guarantee Scheme; Shiksha Mitra Project; Provision Pmgramme and Institu-
tional Evaluation
for special primary teachers' training;
- at national level: e.g. National Literacy Mission; Indira Gandhi National Open
University System, Gyan Vani and Gym Darshan Programmes, of IGNOU; and
- at international level: e.g. UNDP, World BankProgrammes, UNESCO Programmes
for Education.

You can also come across educational programmes adopted at the institutional level
like: In-service Education Programme for Primary Teachers; Comprehensive and
Continuous Evaluation Programme in University system; Open Learning through
Networking of Institutions; Interdisciplinary Rogrammes offered by a University etc.
It can be a training programme offered by national institutions like NUEPA or IIh4 or
NCERT for development of competencies in academic administration or a programme
intended for capacity building of resource persons involved in the management of
elementary education in a district.

Evaluation of any such educational programme might include evaluation of an

institutional level programme like innovations in evaluation system or decentralization
of policy formulation in an institution. It might include evaluation of strategies adopted
for universalization of elementary education at national or state level. Evaluation
may be conducted for educational programmes of any size or scope ranging from
value education programme in a particular school to an international organization like
UNICEF sponsored project on childcare and development. Whatever may be the scope
of such evaluation the programme evaluation must focus on change or improvement of
the system and hence must lead to decision making process and interventions in the
system.

Check Your Progress 1

Notes: a) Write your answer in the space given below.
b) Compare your answer with those at the end of the unit
1) The major focus of evaluation of an institutional programme is to:
P
i) judge the worth of its product.
ii) judge best practices of the institution.
i. iii) describe strengths and weaknesses of the institution.
iv) facilitate decision making.
2) How is value judgement linked to action orientation?
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
I ...........................................................................................................................
I

...........................................................................................................................
I
.............................
87
i
 r
Policy Making and
...........................
Implementation 3) Is value judgement evidence free? State reasons to support your answer.
1

...........................................................................................................................

9.3.3 Purpose of Programme Evaluation

Programme evaluation studies are conducted to serve various purposes. One may be
interested to get feedback regarding continuation of a programme, whereas someone
else would like to judge the merit of processes adopted in a programme and would like
to get directions for improvement of the programme under investigation.

These purposes may be classified as follows:

To facilitate decision making about the launch of a programme.

To contribute to decisions about programme continuation, expansion or promotion.

To contribute to decisions about programme modification.

To find evidence in favour of a programme.

To find evidence to pressurise discontinuation of a programme.

To contribute to the understanding of psychological, social and other processes

contributing to process dynamics of a programme.

These motives or purposes of evaluators act as major factors in determining the scope
and strategies of evaluation studies. Moreover, the identity of the person/institution
who intends to conduct the programme evaluation study also plays a major role in
identification of purpose of an evaluation study. For instance, an individual conducting
programme evaluation for research purposes might have different objectives of
evaluation than an institution or the head of an institution initiating a project for
evaluation of its own programme or programme run by others. As an evaluator, you
might have framed the objectives of evaluation keeping in view such motives or
contextual needs.

9.3.4 Area of Programme Evaluation Studies

The programme evaluation study may cover all the components of an educational
programme or a particular component only. The evaluation may consider different
dimensions of a programme such as:

1) All aspects of the programme in general covering its goals, resources, processes
of operation, its managemeht-andoutput.

2) Cumculum development, cumcular inputs and transaction process.

88
3) Organizations and their functioning. Programme and Institu-
tional Evaluation
4) Methods, media and strategies involved.
5) Human resource development:for instanceteacher education and training; training
of educational administrators.
6) Products of the system: for instance student achievement.
The scope of the programme evaluation study can be identified with above
components partially or in holistic forms.

9.3.5 Components of Programme Evaluation

As an evaluator, you must see an educationalprogramme in totality i.e. goals, resources,
processes,and management.You may fix priorities about the aspects to be included in

ProgrammeGoals
Every programme must have clear goals. The goals play a significant role in different
kinds of evaluation studies. As you know, those who believe in objective-based
evaluation, treat objectives as the criteria of evaluation. In other words, the extent to
which the objectives have Been achieved shall indicate the success of a programme.
The programme objectives are derived from its goals statement. A goal is understood as
purpose, effect or end point that the programme is going to reach. The programme
objectives are specific statementsabout the expected propamme outcomes, which can
be observed in clear-cut form. As an evaluator, you may like to measure or assess the
extent to which the programme objectives have been achieved at the end of the
programme.

Evaluation of Programme Goals

There is an added significance in studying the goals and objectives of a programme. It
is important to study the actual worth of goals. If the goals are not worthwhile and are
subject to suspicion and doubt, it would be misleading to then consider the goals as
criteria of evaluation. For example, the goals of an educational programme deviating
from or contradicting our constitutional values shall raise several doubts about the nature
of the programme itself. Hencx, the evaluation conducted at the initial stage of launching
a programme streamlines the goals against the vision, mission, national values, societal
needs and expectations and many other criteria. Thejob of evaluating programme goals
is a challenging task before the programme developers. Since the identification of
programme goals is an essential component of any programme, you will come across
the institutional efforts made at the stage of programme planning to evaluate the goals
and to determine the right kind of goals for a particular programme.

As stated above, the programme objectives occupy a key position in evaluating the
product of a system. The statements indicating more specific outcomes of a programme
are called programme objectives. For example, in an in-service training programme of
a DIET, the goals may be stated as developing teaching competencies in science at
elementary stage. The programme objectives shall include development of specific
teaching competencies related to particular concept(s) of science specific to the
curriculum of a particular grade. Such objectives shall act as the major criteria of
evaluation of the in-service programme.
89
Policy Making and Evaluation through Measurement of Outcomes in Terms of Behavioural Outcomes
Implementation
You may be acquainted with the terminology of behavioural objectives (Please see Unit
12, Block 3). This can be understood particularly in the context of programme outcomes
stated in the form of behavioural changes among beneficiaries. In other words, the
programme outcomes can be measured in the given context of time and situations. For
example, the success of an in-service training programme can be ensured through
measuremelit of behavioural outcomes of trainees. The extent to which the behavioural
outcomes inatch with the behavioural objectives of the training programme shall indicate
its effectiveness. As an evaluator, you can make use of behavioural objectives as a
major source of constructing suitable tools of evaluation. This is known as criterion-
referenced instruments for programme evaluation. Hence, this is very significant to
consider goals and objectives of a programme when you intend to evaluate the product
of a programme.

Evaluation of Outcomes not Considering the Predetermined Goals

There are evaluators who like to judge the outcome of a programme without considering
its predetermined goals. Such evaluators presume that considering predetermined goals
as criteria of evaluation restricts the study of outcomes merely in the context of such
goals thereby neglecting other effects of the programme. Such evaluation is known as
Goal Free Evaluation. In such evaluation actual programme outcomes are taken into
consideration for evaluation in a broader context. It is presumed that the actual outcomes
may markedly differ from the programme goals. However, such outcomes may be
valuable from many respects other than the pre-specified programme goals. You can
come across such kind of evaluation studies where the evaluator, may not consider the
programme developer's goals as criteria of evaluation. He may develop his own criteria
of evaluation and take into account all plausible outcomes of a programme.

Evaluation of Resources
As you know, the resources and procedures are interdependent of each other in the
context of functioning of any programme. These aspects reveal many things about
planning and management of a programme. The evaluation of resources and processes
contribute directly towards increasing the efficiency of a programme.

Resources may be grouped under categories such as personnel (teachers and non-teaching
employees), study materials, books, equipments, libraries, laboratories, space and other
cost items needed to implement a programme. The evaluation may indicate whether
present resources are sufficient to operate the programme or not. The evaluator may ask
questions such as: Is the programme economical? Is the resource needed for a programme
managed at the cost of resources of another programme? and so on.

The resource evaluation can also take into account programme goals. It may consider
whether any relationship exists between the programme outcomes and the required
resources. The study of how minimum resource utilization can result in maximum
expected outcome in the context of different programmes can indicate the efficiency
level of resource management.

There are evaluation studies which explore quality of inputs in terms of achievement of
programmes. These are called input-output relationship studies. Economists conduct
cost-benefit studies to indicate value judgement on the quality of programmes. Low
90 investment in resources with high-level outcomes shall mean high value of a programme.
 You may come across a comparison of two programmes, which have similar objectives Programme and Institu-
tional Evaluation
and differences in resources. The comparison of the outcome of two programmes will
indicate the level of benefits gained, thereby indicating the quality of resources.
t

1 i
Evaluation of Procedures
In educational programme evaluation, this component plays a crucial role since the
t basic nature of education is identified with process components. As stated in the former
1
1 section, it is not only the inputs that contribute directly to the product; rather how well
such inputs are put into practice would indicate the success of a project. In other words,
the procedural dimensions covering methods, means, approaches, media, technology,
interaction style, leadership behaviour, strategies of operation etc. play major role in
programme functioning. Evaluating the worth of such components indicates the
directions in which we should operate a programme. You might come across a member
of evaluation studies indicating comparative effectiveness of one method or medium
over the other in terms of different criteria like outcome, cost, time, adaptability, usability
etc. Different evaluation questions can be put in the form of hypotheses, such as whether
Interactive Educational TV programme is more or as effective than face-to-face mode
lecture in the classroom situation or not? Whether study of self-instructional materials
is more effective than study of textbooks or not? Whether teacher student interaction
contributes towards achievement of expected outcome in students' behaviour? Whether
local area network services contribute to enhance administrative efficiency of an
educational institution or not?
Understanding the process dynamics of a programme and linking it with programme
outcomes will be useful in decision-making. In case the process is not efficient and
1 effective, the decision makers may choose to discontinue the programme because the
evaluation was negative. Since the process aspect is very much related to resources, the
evaluator must take care of the resource component while evaluating the process. For
instance, an untrained teacher cannot handle a particular medium properly hence the
1 training input is to be taken care of while evaluating the effect of use of media in an
instructional system. Hence, gathering evidence on resources, procedures and programme
goal attainment is very important in decision-oriented evaluation. Decisions about
modification of a programme can be taken more meaningfully if the programme
I
developers know how well the current version of the programme is working and why.

Evaluation of Programme Management

I

Every significant educational programme needs to have a sound management system.

In other words, the management system is e a t e d as an inbuilt component of a programme
which takes into account organization of activities, distribution/sharingof responsibilities
in executing the programme, co-ordinationlnet-working of different programme
components, monitoring resource mobilization and procedural mechanisms, scope for
decision making in a programme modification at operation stage etc. How well such
aspects are incorporated in a programme shall indicate the success of a programme.
The prog*m e evaluator may like to study the impact of the management system on
programme goal attainment. Decision makers may need to know whether the
management system is ensuring the effective use of programme resources? Whether
the management procedures are being used as intended by the programme developers?
Whether the management procedures followed are effective in attaining the goals of a
programme? etc. The answers to such kind of questions can be sought through study of
programme management.

I
 -

Policy Making and

Implementation Check Your Progress 2
Notes: a) Write your answer in the space given below.
b) Compare your answer with those at end of the unit.
4) State any three major purposes of an institutional evaluation study.

i) ...................................................................................................................
ii) ...................................................................................................................
iii) ...................................................................................................................
5) Which of the following does not come under the purview of programme
evaluation in education:

i) Study of entry behaviour of learners.

ii) Teachers' performance study.
iii) Conducting Test for selection of management experts.
iv) Evaluation of examination system.
6) i) Define educational goals.
...................................................................v..............................................
ii) Explain the meaning of evaluation of programme goals.
...................................................................................................................
iii) How is a programme goal treated as the most meaningful base of
evaluation?
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
iv) What is the relevance of resource evaluation in an educational system?
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
v) Does input-output relationship indicate effectiveness of a programme i n
totality? Support your answer with appropriate reasons.
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
vi) Why is management component given priority in programme evaluation
study?
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
 Programme and Institu-
9.4 INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: tional Evaluation
DIMENSIONS AND CRITERIA
In programme evaluation studies very often an educational institution is subject
to evaluation in totality. There have been efforts to identify different dimensions
of institutional evaluation in the context of quality of education. You may be
interested to know what the different parameters of evaluating an educational
institution are.

Depending upon the perceptual aspect of school quality, David's and wellison (1995):
identified three categories of respondents: students, teachers and parents. The major
issues identified as indicators of quality are as follows.

Students
1) Quality of teaching learning;

2) Satisfaction with staff;

3) Communications;

4) Standards of student behaviour;

5) Quality of school facility;

6) General factors and overall satisfaction with the school and

7) The extent of equal opportunities for students (as perceived by students)/ Role of
Governors in school (as perceived by parents)/ Governing body.
Parents
Quality of teaching and Learning
Satisfaction with staff
Communications
Standards of student behaviour
Quality of school facility
General factors and overall satisfaction with the school
Role of governors in the school

Teachers
Communication in the school
' Quality of Worley environment for the staff
Professional environment in the school
Quality of education supplied by the school

9.4.1 Parameters of Institutional Evaluation

The indicators for quality evaluation of an educational institution in totality have been
classified under seven heads on the basis of Cheng and Tam's (1997) write-ups. They
have been reorganized for better clarity in the following section:
93
Policy Making and Table 9.1: Parameters of Institutional Evaluation
Implementation
S.N. Indicators Areas Criteria
1. Goals1 Objectives School objectives, standards, Clarity; time-bound;
and specializations listed in specific and observable;
school programmes and plans, whether resources are
e.g. academic rate, dropout rate sufficient to achieve the
etc. goals, whether goals are
achievable.
2. Resources Quality of student intake, Clear relationship between
facilities, f k n c i a l Support etC. input (resources) and
output, whether resources
are of needed quality.
3. Process Leadership (Teachers1 Clear relationship
Principals), participation, between process and
social interactions, classroom output. Smooth internal
climate, learning activities and process leading to
experiences. expected outcome.
4. Satisfaction of Satisfaction of educational Satisfaction of all
stakeholders authorities, management board, powerful school
administrators, teachers, parents, constituents or
students, employers etc. stakeholders.
5. Institution's Public relations, marketing, Accountability of school
legitimacy and public image, reputation, status to community, social
reputation in the community, evidence of reputation, meeting social
accountability, etc. needs, demands and
requirements.
6. Absence of Absence of conflicts, Strategies adopted for
problems and dysfunctions, difficulties, minimising problems and
troubles in the defects, weaknesses, troubles, troubles.
institution etc.
7. Adaptation to Awareness of essential needs Openness and flexibility
environmental and changes, internal process in internal organization
changes and monitoring, programme towards environmental
internal barriers, evaluation, development changes and its strategies
continuous planning, staff development for planning and
improvement. etc. development.
Source: Cheng and Tam (1997)
These dimensions of institutional evaluation focus on systems approach where the
institution is to be seen in totality in the context of its different components viz., inputs,
process, product and mechanism of evaluation. These components can be a long list of
infrastructure, learners, teachers, administrators and administrative set-u~r.:urriculum,
*. -

teaching-learning process and evaluation, output of the system, planning, research and
development, social responsiveness, etc. The quality of these components can be studied
in the context of different indicators. Moreover, these indicators need to be specified in
such a way that clear-cut and pinpointed outcomes of evaluation can be arrived at as a
result of programme evaluation.
In the Indian context of institutional evaluation Mukhopadhyay (2p05) hat developed a
comprehensive institutional assessment system. The components have been presented
94 in Figure.
 a+ Principal
Quantitative Assessment

I CII
Enrolment
Programme and Institu-
tional Evaluation

/ I transition I

LO\
I - .

l.zYLl
I I
. - -
: I
Institution

A
Physical
Infrastructure

Assessment

Fig. 9.1: Mukhopadhyay's Institutional Assessment System

Source :Mukhopadhyay (2005)

9.4.2 Classification of Components of Institutional Assessment

Mukhopadhyay (2005) classified different perceptual areas in his tool viz.
Mukhopadhyay Institutional Assessment Scale (MIAS) as follows:

1) Leadership;

2) Teacher quality - preparation, competence and commitment;

3) Linkage and interface - communication with the environment;

4) Students - academic and non-academic quality;

5) Co-curricular activities - non-scholastic areas;

6) Teaching - quality of instruction;

7) Office management - support services;
8) Relationship - corporate life in the institution;
9) Material resources - instructional support;
10) Examination - purposefulness and methodology;
11) Job satisfaction - staff morale and
12) Reputation of the institution.
Policy Making and The stakeholdersin an educational institution viz. teachers, principals, students, parents
Implementatloo
and supervisors rate the status of an institution according to the components stated
above. The quantified trend data are also gathered to assess the progress of the institution
in terms of:

Enrolment with break-up of girls and boys;.

Inter-class transition rate;
Performance including excellence in academic areas;
Performance in non-academic areas;
Physical infrastructure.

The criteria for assessment of these components will have to be identified by the
investigator in the context of evaluation of a particular institution.

Mukhopadhyay's Model incorporates two types of data needed for an institution viz.
trend data and perception based data. The trend data cover different components like

Enrolment;
Retention;
Academic performance (examination results);
Non-academic performance and
Physical infrastructure.

The perception based data cover different dimensions like

Principal's perception;
Teacher's perception;
Parent's perception;
Student's perception and
Supervisor's perception.

The perception may cover satisfaction level/ appropriateness1 performance level of

different components of an institution like various inputs of teaching learning system
such as:
curriculum;
teaching-learning processes;
evaluation system;
facilities and processes for personality development of learners and
governance1management system.

Components to be included in Programme Evaluation

Programme Goals
- subject to scrutiny
- acts as evaluation criteria
- leads to evaluation of products
96
 Resources (human and wn-human) PragrpmgepndInstita-
tieolllEvalo.tion
- exploring requirements, adequacy, means to generate resources, fulfillment
of essential criteria
! Process (strategies, methods, procedures, technology, processes)
- efficiency, economy, stakeholders, satisfaction
P r o ~ Management
~ ~ e (decision making, developing strategies, organization,
I
I implementation, monitoring)
bsuring effective use of inputs and processes in the EtlPinment of programme
goals

9.43 Dimensions of Mtutional Assessment Spedied by National

Asesment and Accreditation CounciI (NAAC)
In the Indian context the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) set
up by the UGC has specified seven-fold criteria for evaluation of institutions of higher
education.
Criterion 1: CurricP11vAspects
- Institutional goals, p r o w options, design and review of p m e s , new
concepts in curricular structure and organk&ion.

- Admission modalities and seasonality of academic schedules

- Teaching-learning process
- New technology in teaching learning
- Faculty d t m e n t and specialization
- Faculty appraisal and satisfaction
- Refonns and innovations in examination systems and evaluation.
Criterion3:Reserurh,~dExtelarion
- Faculty development and engagement in research and learning
- Research ambience and infrastructure
- Doctoral and post-doctoral research
- Sustenance and promotion of research culture and cousdtancy
- Extension and outreach activities.

- Infrastructure and academic r e s o w

- The libery, central computer facilities and university science and instnunentation
centre
- Health physical culture and hostel facilities.
Criterion5 :Strident Support and Pragression
- Adnzission/ curricular information and student feedback
- The learning process and student support
97
 Policy Making and - Academic/ career counselling and employment/ placement
Implementation
- Personality development and recreational facilities
- Overseas students and alumni.
Criterion 6: Organization and Management
- Organizational structure and institutional processes

I - Problem areas in management

I - Reforms in management and functioning

1 - Human power - planning, development and performance appraisal

- Social justice, welfare pmpammes and grievance redressal
- Mobilization, effective utilization and management of resources.
Criterion 7 :Other Healthy Practices
- Pursuit of excellence and quality assurance
- Complementmy academic mechanism
- Institutional measures to meet goals and objectives
- Educational innovations and value-based and community-oriented education
- Inter institutional collaboration and linkages with industry
- Practices contributing to institutional growth.

9.4.4 Institutional Assessment Procedures of NAAC

The NAAC's approach for assessment of universities and colleges has attracted the
attention of many observes. The NAAC has evolved a three-stageprocess for assessment
and accreditation through research experiences. NAAC states them as follows:

Methodology of Assessment and Accreditation

Preparation of the self-study report along with self-analysis by the department, to
be submitted to NAAC
*
1
Validation of the self-study report and the self-analysis by the pees through on-
site visit and 1
The final decision of NAAC based on the self-study report and the recommendations
of the team of peers.
1
1
The detailed process of assessment has been elaborated by NAAC and is briefly
summarized in the following section:

stage I: Preparation of the Self-study Report

The first and most important step in the process of assessment and accreditation is the
preparation of the self-study report by the institution as per the guidelines put forth by
NAAC. The institution has to prepare the self-study report in three parts, where Part I
and Part I1 are the organization of data and Part IlI is the self-analysis based on Part I
and Part 11.This is envisaged to be an internal institutional exercise expected to be done
with honest introspection. It aims to provide an opportunity for the institutionto measure
its effectiveness and efficiency, and to identify areas of its strengths and weaknesses.
98
NAAC believes that the institution that really understands itself - its strengths and Programme and Institu-
tional Evaluation
weaknesses, its potentials and limitations - is likely to be more successful in achieving
excellence in its educational mission than the one without such self-awareness. Self-
study is thus envisaged to be the backbone of the process of assessment and accreditation.

It is through the self-study report that NAAC understands the institution. In fact the
self-study informs and orients the peer team to assess the institution during the visit to
the institution. Hence the institution needs to present the factual details of all the aspects
of its functioning, viz. the inputs, processes and the product generated in a meaningful
way. As the entire exercise would be based on the self-study report, it should be prepared
with utmost care and this manual gives the necessary guidelines for doing it effectively.

Srcge IZ: Via to the Inslitdon

Onreceiving the self-studyreport from the Department1institution, NAAC will constitute

the panel of peers and inform the institution about it. If the institution has any reservation
about any of the members, it can record its views, without suggesting alternatives.
Choosing from among the other panel members, NAAC will finalise the peer team. The
team will visit the institution and look for patterns of evidence to validate the self-study
report. The peers will interact with the various constituents of the institution and also
check documentary evidence to understand the functioning of the Department. At the
end of the visit the peer team will submit a report to NAAC.

w e IZI: Final decision of NAAC

The Executive Committee of NAAC will review the report and take a decision about
grading of the Department. The grading will be valid for a period of five years.

From the above you can notice that NAAC has evolved an assessment procedure which
is very transparent. Its purpose is not just to assign a grade to an institution but also to
act as an eye-opener to the institution for future development. The benefits anticipated
by NAAC from such assessment are as follows:

Benefits of Assessment of Institutions by NAAC

Helps the institution to know its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities through
an informed review.
To identify internal areas of planning a d resource allocation.
Enhances collegiality on the campus.
The outcome of the process provides the funding agencies with an objective
and systematic database for performance funding.
Initiates the institution into innovatives and modern methods of pedagogy.
Gives the institution a new sense of direction and identity.
Provides society with reliable information on the quality of educationoffered
by the institution.
Employers have access to information on standards during recruitment.
Promotes intra-institutional and inter-institutional interactions.

These expectations indicate very well the role of programme evaluation in improving
the quality of higher education.
PdicyMaldogaInl
Implementation Check Your Progress 3
Notes. a) Write your answers in the spaces given below.
b) Compare your answers with those at the end of the unit.

7) State any topic of your choice for programme evaluation study.

....................................................................................................................... "*.
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................

8) Identify any four components of the programme to be covered in the study.

i) ...................................................................................................................
ii) .....................A.
........................................................................................
iii) .....................
.........................................................................................
iv) ...................................................................................................................

9) State one criteria on each for evaluation of each of the four components.

i) ...................................................................................................................
ii) ......................................................................... .-........................................
iii) ................................................................................................................
iv) ...................................................................................................................

10) State the sources from where data will be gathered for such evaluation.
i) ...................................................................................................................
ii ) ............................ .
...................................................................................
iii) ......................... .
...
...............................................................................
iv) ...................................................................................................................

9.5 CONTEXT, INPUT,PROCESS AND PRODUCT

EVALUATION (CIPP) MODEL
After going through the facts presented above, you may have observed that different
dimensions of institutions have to be evaluated in the context of different criteria as
developed by experts or evaluators or institutions themselves. One of the most popular
models of Programme Evaluation developed by Stufflebeam and Guba (197 1) covers
100 evaluation of Context, Input, Process and Product dimensions of a programme. This is
commonly known as the CIPP model. Eacb typeof evaluation viz. Context evaluation, Progrrunme and Mtu-
tiond Evaluation
Input evaluation,Process evaluation and Product evaluation is valued in the context
of decision-making on planning and execution of a programme. Let us examine the
meaning and relevance of each of these evaluations.

9.5.1 Context Evaluation

Such evaluation aims at judging the rationale of a programme in the given context.
It intends to explore the needs and problems and specifies whether initiating a
programme is justified in the context of such needs and problems. Such evaluation
is usually conducted at the initial stage of launching a programme, identifying its
objectives and linking such objectives with specific needs in the given context.
Hence programme planning and delineating the scope of a programme is directly
associated with context evaluation. For instance, launching a programme for motivating
the rural children for primary education must have its genesis in the context of a
particular rural community and its surroundings. Understanding the typical problem
of the m a l community and linking such problems with the need for primary schooling
shall be the major focus of educational planners. At this point, the context evaluation
provides support to make a programme more realistic, relevant and need-based. It
helps in reducing the discrepancy between actual and desired conditions through
understanding the reality and making it prone to ground reality. Such kind of evaluation
is very much desirable in the context of decentralization of educational planning and
policy making. You will come across a number of need assessment studies, benchmark
studies, documentary analyses, and studies related to conceptualization of educational
programmes at the ground level.

9.5.2 Input Evaluation

You may have realised that for achieving certain objectives you will have to depend
on specific resources. For example, launching specific programmes will require human
and non-human resources. Such resources need to be justified in the context of
expected outcomes of a programme as well as availability of resources in the given
context. In the educational system the human inputs include learners (their entry
behaviour), teachers (qualified, trained and motivated) and administratorsl management
support staff. The cumcular inputs shall include learning materials, gadgets, library
study facilities, laboratory facilities etc. The infrastructure including classrooms, hostels,
sports and games, physical amenities etc. is also counted as significant components
of a programme. The financial inputs also occupy a significant place in programme
evaluation studies.

The points for consideration of Input evaluation is to facilitate decision makers

choose the best possible resources and strategies within certain constraints. The
questions are raised whether certain resources are too expensive or unavailable, whether
a particular input-output strategy is likely to be effective in achieving
the objectives of the institution, whether the strategy has acceptability among
stakeholders or not, how best to utilise personnel as resources, what plans have
been formulated by an institution to overcome input related problems and
constraints in specific context aqd soon. The components studied in the context
of NAAC's accreditation of universities and colleges give major emphasis to
such questions. The evaluator gathers a lot of trend data on the basis of record
surveys, observations, interviews, focused group discussions etc.
101
Policy Making and Institution as a system
Implementation

u
+
Assessment

Context

Socio, Political, Economic,

Cultural, Technological
Considerations.

Fig. 9.2: CIPP Model

Prioritising goals
and objectives

9.5.3 Process Evaluation

Such evaluation starts with the execution of a programme. The evaluation considers
whether processes adopted go well as per strategies already identified or not. The kind
of changes needed in the processes of programme functioning is also highlighted in
process evaluation. It covers the ways in which different human and non-human factors
interact with each other in the functioning of an institution. It is not only the identification
of strategy that is significant in programme evaluation but also focus on the management
of process aspects of such strategies of an institution. The methods, media, techniques,
approaches, group dynamics, response patterns, teaching, learning, research and
evaluation processes are included in process evaluation studies. The evaluation also
sets monitoring strategies to gather evidence on day-to-day operation of a programme.
The data gathering devices can vary and can include keeping records, making participant
observations, interviewing, administering questionnaires, reaction scales and tests,
focused group discussions etc.

The process evaluation study does not wait for the programme to be completed to make
judgments on strengths or weaknesses of different processes. Rather, it covers the
questions how best to strengthen the processes and take appropriate decisions on making
any change in strategies on the basis of day-to-day experiencesof programme execution.
Such kinds of programme evaluation go hand in hand with the operation of the
programme. In other words, the experiences of the process evaluation study contribute
102
to facilitating on the spot decisions on programme functioning. Besides this, the Programme and Institu-
tional Evaluation
experiences accumulated during the functioning of the whole programme also contribute
to establish linkages between processes adopted and the outcome of the programme.
Hence, the programme evaluator keeps records of programme events over a period of
time. These retords can be useful at a later time in detecting strengths and weaknesses
of the programme that account for its observed outcomes. Hence, you can notice two
major purposes served through process evaluation. One is to facilitate decision making
in day-to-day operation of a programme having adopted a flexible mechanism of
operation and another is to detect strengths and weaknesses in the programme execution
linking it with programme outcome. One function is integrated with programme operation
whereas another function is related to value judgements about the strategy at the end of
a programme.

9.5.4 Product Evaluation

You have already learnt that product evaluation means matching the outcome of a
programme with expected outcomeslobjectives of the programme. In other words, the
programme evaluator determines whether the programme objectives have been achieved
or not. If achieved, the evaluator studies the extent to which they have been achieved.
As you know, in educational programme the target may be fixed in terms of coverage of
the programme, retention rate, and success rate. The success rate may be studied in the
context of examination results, research output, publications etc. Hence, the evaluator
makes an attempt to gather evidence on outcome of the programme by using various
measures. The data can be gathered quantitatively through administration of tests and
scrutiny of records whereas qualitative data on successloutcomeof data can be gathered
through stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and observations. The outcome of product
evaluation can be used by programme administrators to make decisions about continuing
the programme and modifying it.

The CIPP model of programme evaluation covers all the stages of a programme starting
from its conceptualization, strategy building and execution to completion of the
programme. The evaluation studies may be conducted part by part or as an integrated
effort to link one evaluation study with another. The sole purpose of adopting such a
model is to facilitate decision-making at different stages of an educational programme.
The success of such a model depends on how best the co-ordination exists between the
evaluator and the decision maker.

Check Your Progress 4

Notes: a) Write your answers in the spaces given below.
b) Compare your answers with those at end of the unit.
11) What is the significance of Context evaluation?
-------------------------__-_
12) Identify any 5 parameters of evaluation of teaching-learning processes.
i) ...................................................................................................................
ii) ...................................................................................................................
iii) .:................
..................................................................................................
iv) ...................................................................................................................
v) ...................................................................................................................
13) Frame any five questions to be asked to parents in the context of evaluation of
a village school.

i) ...................................................................................................................
ii) ...................................................................................................................
iii) ...................................................................................................................
iv) ...................................................................................................................
14) What should be the criteria for evaluation of:
i) Programme objectives

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
ii) Resources

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
iii) Institution's legitimacy and reputation.

.................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

9.6 FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE EVALUATION

These terminologies have been widely used in educational evaluation. In a general
sense, you may understand Formative Evaluation to mean evaluation conducted at
different stages of programme design and implementation, whereas Summative
Evaluation is understood as evaluation conducted at the end of a project or a propamme.
The difference between the two is fairly complicated. While designing and administering
a particular strategy of instruction a teacher becomes more keen to refine the programme
strategy from hisher own experience of dealing with the same. Such refinement takes
place during the process of programme design and implementation instead of waiting
till the end of the instrucfhonalprogramme and evaluating its end product. Such focus ProgmmenalWtu-
of evaluation is reflected in Formative Evaluation. On the other hand, the teacher bionaiEvalmtion

would like to study whether the expected outcome has been achieved at the completion
of a programme or not so that hetshe may like to continue with the programme or make
necessary modific~tiionsin it. Such focus on judging the worth of a programme in the
context of end product is usually reflected in summative evaluation.

9.6.1 Dif'ferences between Formative .andSummative Evaluation

Let us examine the dichotomy of these terminologies as visualized by evaluation research
experts. M. Scvrivenis the propounder of such evaluation techniques. Scriven (1980)
stated that formative evaluation is conducted during the development or improvement
of a progmrme. Such evaluation is conducted for in-house staff and normally remains .
in-house. Of course evaluation is conducted by internal or external evaluators or jointly
by both. f3n the other hand, summative evaluation is conducted after completion of a
prograrrme. It is conducted for the benefit of an external audience or decision makers.
The evaluation may be conducted by an internal evaluator or external evaluator or by
both.

From the point of view of contributions of both the kinds of evaluation, Scriven had
opined that both of them intend to judge the worth of a particular entity. However, the
formative evaluation is conducted spreading over different stages of programme
.
i,mplementation at different points of time. The formative evaluation results are utilised
for improvement of the programme with flexibility during the process of its
implementation whereas the svmmativeevaluation results are utilised for final decisions
about the worth of a programme.

9.6.2 Characteristics of Formative and Swmmative Evaluation

The characteristics of these studies have been identified by different experts like Bloom
(1971) and Lewy (1990).

Formative Evaluation
Formative evaluation focuses on molecular analysis. It emphasizes the identification
of causes for certain events associated with continuous activities of the programme.
It is interested in the broader experiences of the programme users and tends to
highlight the concern for programme improvement during its process. It does not
emphasise local effects of a programme.

The formative evaluation follows exploratory and flexible design. It focuses on

individual camp ;nts of the programme. The outcomes are not comparative in
nature. The e v a u l s c ~ nstudies make use of varieties of tools. The tools may be
context-specific krd locally developed. If necessary, they may adopt standardised
tools. Data are also gathered through varieties of techniques like interview and
obse~rationsin the context of teaching-learning process. Formative evaluation
involves minute analysis of learning tasks and specific instructional objectives
and administration of achievement tests after completing a short learning unit
covering study materials for 6 to 10 periods of study. The results of such unit tests
are analysed for the purpose of strengthening instructional strategy and giving
necessary feedback to learners and teachers for further improvement in teaching
learning practices.
Policy Making and Summative Evaluation
Implementation
In contrast to the characteristicsof formative evaluation studies, summative evaluation
has the following characteristics -

Summative evaluation focuses on molar analysis. It evaluates the outcome of a

programme in totality. It provides information on efficiency and effectiveness of a
total programme. It tends to emphasise local effects.
From the methodological point of view summative evaluation follows well-defined
evaluation designs. The hypotheses are tested in the context of evaluation criteria.
a
The results are comparative and are concerned with broad range of issues. It has
implications for policy decisions, costs and competing options. The evaluation
design adopts reliable, valid and publicly acceptable tools reflecting the concerns
of the sponsor and the decision maker.
In the context of teaching-learning system, summative studies cover sample items
covering each unit of the study (which might have been already a component of
formative study) and constitute the total test items of the whole programme. The
test is administered at the end of the course, with the purpose of providing a basis
for grading or certifying the learner.
To conclude, it can be said that there exist sharp differences in the above two types of
evaluation in the context of main focus of evaluation as well as strategies adopted for
conducting evaluation studies. The formative studies spread over the conduct of whole
programme and adopt flexible design of evaluation. The results obtained at the one
point of evaluation is used for bringing about modifications in the next stepls. On the
other hand, summative evaluation adopts well-defined, a priori design with
methodological rigour. Generalizations are made about the findings with implications
for major policy decisions and public accountability.
The audience of formative evaluation are the programme developers and users whereas
the audience of summative evaluation are policy makers, employers, external funding
agencies, political system etc. Of course these ideas of Scriven have been exemplified
further by other evaluation experts. The differences between formative and summative
evaluation are given in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2: Differences between Formative and Summative Evaluation

Formative Evaluation
Small segments, Unit wise,
time to time evaluation
Feedback for course
improvement on the spot
Internal, Teacher and Learner
concerned, Local specific
Methods and Procedures
flexible
Facilitate decisions to make
modifications in the strategiesdecision making be on continua-
and processes on a continuous
basis.
Summative Evaluation
Total course, Course end product
Decision at the end of programme
implementation
. External validity, Accountability
to others
Specific Rigorous evaluation
design
Product evaluation to facilitate
tion of a Programme or to modify
the same.
 Both formative and summative evaluation complement each other in facilitating hgrammeaodJnstitu-
tiooal Evaluation
programme development, implementation and value judgements of its products, its
acceptability and meeting the programme goals in totality.

9.6.3 Significance of Formative and Summative Evaluation

. Inspite of differences existing in the nature of these studies, complementary role in
their programme design, development and implementation can be very well recognised.
The significance of formative evaluation can be well acclaimed in the context of
improvement of educational processes rather than appraising the product already placed
in the market. Evaluation experts like Cronbach et al. (1980) give more value to formative
evaluation in the context of course improvement since the evidence is available midway
through programme development. It provides feedback to teachers and learners about
success or failure in mastering specific competencies. It makes it possible to spot weak
points of the programme and to identify those learners who need corrective teaching.
Formative evidence of this type contributes more to the improvement of learning than
to results of end-of-course testing.

On the other hand, the essential role of summative evaluation is to be valued in the
context of accountability and obligation of the programme director towards the
sponsoring agency and the external socio-political system. The simcance of summative
or end product evaluation is recognised in view of taking major policy decisions on
whether to continue with the programme or to make necessary modifications in future
strategies. The products of the education system are valued by the external system on
the basis of grades1 certifications mainly given through summative evaluation studies.

Check Your Progress 5

15) a) Differentiate between the purposes of formative evaluation summative
evaluation.

....................................................................................................................
b) Why is formative evaluation preferred to summative evaluation?

C) Who is the main user of formative evaluation study?

d) What approaches are followed in conducting formative evaluation?

 ...........................

1
Policy Making and
Implementation e) From the methodological perspective how do you differentiate between
Formative and Summative evaluation?

...................................................................................................................
f) How is Formative evaluation complementary to summative evaluation?

9.7 LET US SUM UP

After going through this unit you must have become acquainted with the nature of
programme evaluation; parameters of programme evaluation; characteristics of CIPP
model of evaluation and the nature of formative and summative evaluation. You may be
able to try and identify the different parameters of any educational programme and
+ design appropriate programme evaluation strategies on the basis of your study of this
unit.

9.8 UNIT-END ACTIVITIES

i) Read any project report or doctoral thesis or a dissertation that deals with evaluation
of any educational programme and prepare a critical note on it.

ii) Prepare a proposal outline for evaluation of an emergent project on education of

your choice. Write about its rationale, objectives, and scope and also identify the
parameters of evaluation of the project including the tools for investigation.

9.9 SUGGESTED READINGIREFERENCES

Beeby, C.E. (1977): The Meaning of Evaluation. In: Current Issues in Education.
No. 4: Evaluation, Wellington: Department of Education.

Borg, W.R. and Gall, M.D. (1980): Educational Research, New York: White Plains,
Longman,
Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1997): Multimodels of Quality in Education, Quality
Assurance in Education, 5(1).

Cronbach, L.J., et al. (1980): Toward a Reform of Programme Evaluation, California :

Jossey. Bass.

Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (1995): Improving the Duality of Schools -Ask the Clients?
School Organization, 15(1).

Lewy, A. (1990): Formative and Summative Evaluation. In Welberg, H.J., and Hartel,
GD., (Eds.)The International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation, Oxford, Pergman
Press.

Mukhopadhyay, M. (2005): Total Quality Management in Education, New Delhi:

SAGE.
108
NAAC, Manualfor self-studyfor DepartmentalAccreditation,Memiograph, Bangalore: Prog-e and Institu-
tional Evaluation
NAAC

Scriven, M. (1980): Evaluation Thesarus, 2ndEdn, California; Edne Press Invernes.

Sahoo, P.K. (1980): Programme Evaluation: ConceptualAnalysis, Journal of Educational

Planning and Administration, Vol. 1, No. 1.

Stufflebearn, D.L., et al. (1971): Educational Evaluation and Decision Making, Itasca,
III: F.E. Peacok.
Worthen, B.R. (1990): Program Evaluation, In Walberg, H.J., and Haertel, GD.,
(Eds.) The International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation, Oxford:
Pergman Press.

9.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1) iv)

2) Strength of a programme would lead to consolidation of the programme whereas

the weakness of a programme must lead to a search for corrective measures. Such
decisions are to be implemented for attaining the goals and objectives of the
programme.

3) The value judgement must have its base on supportive evidence collected from
different sources. The evidence based evaluation increases the validity and
acceptability of judgement.

i) Evaluation of DIETSin India.

- Evaluation of in-service education programmes introduced by IASEs in
the country.
- Evaluation of ASC programmes organised by different Universities in
India.

ii) Evaluation of DPEP in a state.

- Evaluation of examination system adopted by Board of Secondary
Education in a state.

iii) Evaluation of student support service facilities provided by IGNOU.

- Evaluation of Teleconferencingbased counselling services of a State Open
University.

iv) Effectiveness of environment education programme at U.G stage.

- Evaluation of internal assessment system adopted at P.G level courses.

4) i) To facilitate decision making about launching of a project.

ii) To contribute to decisions about programme continuation.

iii) To contribute to decisions about programme modification.

5) iii)
Poiicy Making and 6 ) i) A goal is understood as purpose, effect, or end point that we intend to reach.
Implementation
ii) Tojudge whether it is time-specific, need-specific, well defined and attainable
with available resources.
iii) Goals act as the criteria of evaluation. It means whether prograrnrne.output
matches expected outcome/goals or not.
iv) Inputs must be identified in the context of the objectives of a programme.
Their availability, accessibility, cost, potential etc. must be judged.

V) No. Input-output evaluation talks only about the worth of inputs in the context
of achievement of goals. But it does not speak about the process dimension
and the context in which it was implemented. Hence, input-output evaluation
is partial in nature.
vi) Management component focuses on the way in which a programme is
organised,co-ordinated, monitored and executed. There is a direct relationship
between effective management system and the efficiency and effectiveness of
a programme. Every programme has a management system. Its evaluation
indicates the success or failure of a programme to a large extent.

7) Evaluation of Orientation programme organised by the'Academic Staff College of

a University.

8) i) Assessment of academic expectations of participants and their fulfilment.

ii) The strengths and weaknesses of different methods adopted in teaching learning
practices.
iii) Adequacy of physical facilities in organization of teaching learning practices.
iv) Satisfaction of participants about course units, resource persons and curricular
practices.
9) i) Fulfilment of expectation of participants after going through the programme.
ii) Adequacy and appropriateness in selection and use of different methods in
the context of course objectives, nature of courses and learners' background.
iii) Appropriate in the context of objectives, availability and optimum utility.
iv) Level of satisfaction of participants.
10) i) Participants' experiences and reactions.
ii) Organisers' views.
iii) Observation of physical facilities.
iv) Observation of resource persons' activities.
11) To assess needs and explore the ground for projectlprogramme formulation.
12) i) Teacher preparedness
ii) Learners' readiness
iii) Teacher-Student interaction
iv) Group dynamics

110 v) Classroom climate

13) - Whether the teacher is punctual in his duties? Programme and Institu-
tional Evaluation
- Whether the school functions as per school calendar?
- Whether students are motivated to attend the school?
- Whether students take interest in home assignments given by the school?
- Whether co-curricular activities organised by the school are worthwhile in
the context of learners' development?
14) i) Whether worthwhile, clear, specific, attainable.

ii) Clear relation with objectives.

iii) Accountability and social reputation.

15) a) Formative evaluation aims at strengthening the process whereas summative

evaluation judges the worth of the product at the end.

b) It facilitates decisions to improve the system by adopting corrective measures

on the spot. It is internal and institution-specifics, whereas summative
evaluation leads to decisions regarding continuation of a project. It is very
much linked with the expectations of external agencies.

c) The Institution itself.

d) Flexible, constructive, local specific.

e) Formative evaluation adopts a flexible design. Surnmative evaluation adopts

rigorous and standard evaluation designs with valid and reliable tools of data
collecfion.

f) B O the~ approaches indicate the worth of a programme. One indicates worth

of programme components at different stages whereas the other states about it
at-the end point indicating the worth of the product. Both of them facilitate
decision-making.
NOTES