EVALUATION MODELS:
OBJECTIVE ORIENTED MODEL:
INTRODUCTION:
According to Wor’hen , Sanders & Fitzpatrick (1987) the objective oriented evaluation is a process of
determining the extent to which program objectives have been /are being achieved without taking into
account the unintended outcome of the program . In education such an approach focuses on the degree
to which educational goals and objectives are being achieved .Theories and methodologies that fall into
this category. Basically define evaluation as the process of specifying and identifying goals ,objectives or
standards of performance and comparing the measurement data collected with the previously identified
objectives in order to determine the degree of discrepancy or congruence which exist (gardener 1977).
This kind of evaluation begins with the clarifications of the measurable objectives and the gathering data
for validating the Extent to which these kinds of objectives are met. Various evaluation approaches use
goal or objectives are the central focus in the evaluation process however, the key figure credited as
the founder of the goal based evaluation approach is Ralph w. Tyler whose contribution had been
presented below. Other scholars built on the foundation that was laid by Tyler.
This paper presents the contributions from Metfessel and Micheal .Sanders j. and cummingham D.J. and
Malcolm prows as the main proponents of the Tylerian oriented evaluation approach and their
contributions will also show more of them.
PROPONENTS OF THE OBJECTIVE ORIENTED EVALUATION APPROACH AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION:
Several evaluation approaches use goal o objectives as the central focus in the evaluation process.
However, the key figure credited as the founder of the goal based evaluation approach Ralph W. Tyler
whose contribution has been presented below .other scholars built on foundation that was laid by Tyler
in this paper we shall consider the contributions of sanders J.R. and cummingham D.J. ,metfessel and
micheal and Malcolm focuses as the main proponents of the tylerian evaluation approach . a brief
account of these key proponents of the objectives oriented evaluation approach. And their contribution
and a mention of a few others as presented below.
RALPH W. TYLER:
As introduced above , although several scholars have contributed to the evaluation and refinement of
the objectives oriented approach to evaluation since its inception in the 1930’s ,the individual credited
with conceptualizing and popularizing it is Ralph w Tyler . this is the reason why the approach is named
the tylerian evaluation approach. Although Tyler coined the approach and applied it to education it has
been widely accepted and applied in several other disciplines which involve program evaluation (
Worthen ,sanders & fitspatrick 1987). Tyler considered evaluation as the process of determining the
extent to which the objectives of a program are actually attained .his approach to evaluation followed
these steps:
As the establishing broad goals or objectives , classifying the goal or objectives , defining the objectives
in behavioral terms finding the situation in which achievement of objectives can be shown.
They also add the develop or select measurement techniques , collect performance data and then finally
the comparison of performance data with behaviorally stated objectives.
Discrepancies between performance and objectives lead to modifications intended to correct the
deficiency , and the evaluation cycle is repeated. Tyler ‘s rationale was logical ,scientifically acceptable
,readily adaptable by evaluators ( most of whose methodological upbringing was very compatible with
the preset-protest measurement of behaviors stressed by Tyler) and had great influence on subsequent
evaluation theorist (Goodlad , 1979)
Tyler believed the service provides primarily needed to discuss the importance and meaning of the
general goals of their services .as mentioned above ,the service Tyler was interested in improving was
education though his thinking applies to services in other sectors as well Tyler stressed the importance
of screening broad goals before accepting them as the basis for evaluation an activity. The screen
through which potential goals should be filtered includes value questions derived from three sources:
1. Philosophical (the nature of knowledge )
2. Social ( the nature of society )
3. Pedagogical ( the nature of the learner and the learning process)
SANDERS J.R AND CUMMINGHAM D.J:
According to worthen ,sanders & Fitzpatrick(1987) the question of how specifically to evaluate goals
and objectives was addressed by sanders and cummingham .they hinged their approach on both logical
and empirical methods for evaluating goals .this consideration involved the following key elements:
a) Logical methods:
These authors mentioned above say that examining the clarity and precision of the rationale behind
each objectives. If there are no justifiable reasons for a goal or objective ,it cannot have much value. The
need for accomplishing the goal or objective is a critical consideration .
They continue saying that in examining the consequences of accomplishing the goal or objective. By
projecting logically the consequences of achieving , both strengths and weakness in competing goals
may be revealed .criteria such as utility and feasibility of the goal or objective could be used here. A
search of literature may reveal the results of past attempts to achieve certain goals or objectives.
Considering higher order values such as laws and policies fit with existing practices ,moral principles or
the ideals of a free society to see whether a goal or purpose is required or whether it will conflict with
such values.
b) Empirical methods for evaluating goals or objectives:
Here they stressed that collecting group data to describe judgments about the value of a goal or
objective .surveys are the most common form of gathering information about a group’s value position.
Arranging for experts hearings or panels t review and evaluate potential goals and objectives .specialists
can draw from knowledge or experience that may not be available. Their informed judgment may be
very different from the group value data that surveys produce.
Conducting content studies of archival records such as speeches, minutes, editorials or newsletters .such
content analyses may reveal value positions that conflict with or are in support of , a particular goal or
objective. Conducting a pilot study to see whether the goal is attainable and in what form it may be
attained. If no prior experience is available when evaluating a purpose or goal , it may be advisable to
suspend judgment until some experience has been gained.
Once a broad goal has been made operational or activities directed towards attaining the goal have
been tried, it may take on a different meaning from that which it had in earlier discussions . this is one
place where demonstration projects serve an important function in program evaluation.
METFESSEL AND MICHEAL’S EVALUATION PARADIGM:
EARLY approach to evaluation suggested by metfessel and micheal (1967) was heavily influenced by
the tylerian tradition .eight steps in the evaluation process were proposed as follows: That to involve
stakeholders as facilitators of program evaluation and formulate cohesive model of goals and specific
objectives. The translation of specific objectives into a communicable form by selecting or constructing
instruments to furnish measures allowing inferences about program effectiveness. carry out periodic
observations using content valid test, scales, and other behavioral measures and analyze data using
appropriate methods , interpreting the data using standards of desired levels of implementation ,
modification , and revision of the broad goals and specific objectives .one of the primary contributions
of metfessel and micheal was in expanding the educational evaluator’s vision of alternative instruments
that might be used to collect evaluation data.
HAMMOND EVALUATION MODEL :
Tyler’s work further extended by Hammond ,who proposed an even more detailed structure for
evaluation .Hammond believed that determining whether or not a program goals were attained was
important but equally important was determining why those goals were attained or why they were not.
To facilitate these why questions , Hammond proposed a three dimensional model to organize the
various factors that impinge on goal attainment .
The dimensions included the following:
1. Instruction :characteristics of the program or activity being evaluated
2. Institution: characteristics of the individuals or groups involved in the program or activity
3. Behavior: characteristics of the objectives of the program or activity .the intersections of these
dimensions their various factors yields cells which are useful in explaining evaluation results.
PROVUS’ DISCREPANCY EVALUATION MODEL:
Another approach to evaluation in the tylerian tradition was developed by Malcolm provus , evaluation
as a continuous information management process designed to serve as the “ the watchdog of program
management” and the handmaiden of administration in the management of program development
through sound decision making”
Although his was in some ways a management oriented evaluation approach, the key characteristics of
provus proposals stemmed from the tylerian tradition . provus viewed evaluation as a process of :



Agreeing upon standards ( another term used in place of objectives)
Determining whether a discrepancy exists between the performance of some aspect of a
program and the standards set for performance
Using information about discrepancies to decide whether to improve ,maintain , or terminate
the program or some aspect of it .provus called his approach ,not surprisingly , the discrepancy
evaluation model.
According to worthen , sanders , & fitspatrick provus conceived that as a program is being developed ,
it goes through four developmental stages , to which he added a fifth optional stage
A) DEFINITION/DESIGN STAGE:
At this stage the focus is on defining goals, processes or activities , delineating necessary resources and
participants to carry out the activities and accomplish the goals.
1. Installation stage:
Here the program goals designed are used as the standard against which to judge program operation.
The evaluator performs a series of congruency tests to identify any discrepancies between expected
objectives and actual implementation of the program or activity.
2. Process ( interim products):
During the process stage, evaluation focuses on gathering data on the process of participants to
determine whether their behaviors changed as expected . the focus here is to assess the gains that
participants should be making if program goals are to be reached.
3. Product:
All the product stage , evaluation is done to determine whether the terminal objectives for the program
have been achieved. Provus distinguished between immediate outcomes, or terminal objectives and
long term outcomes , or ultimate objectives . he encouraged the evaluator t go beyond the traditional
emphasis on end of program performance and make follow up studies a part of evaluation.
4. Cost benefit analysis:
Provus also suggested an optional fifth stage that called for cost-benefit analysis and comparison of
results with similar cost analysis of comparable programs .in recent times , with the funds for human
services becoming scarcer, cost benefit analysis have become an essential part of almost all program
evaluations.
The discrepancy evaluation model was designed to facilitate development of programs in a large public
school system , and later it was applied to state wind evaluations by a federal bureau. It attempts to
ensure effective program development by preventing the activity from proceeding to the next stage
until all identified discrepancies have been removed. Whenever discrepancy is found , provus suggested
a co-operative problem solving process for program staff and evaluators. The process involving asking:
 Why is there a discrepancy?
 What corrective actions are possible ?
 Which corrective action is best?
This process usually requires that additional information be gathered and criteria developed to allow
rational , justifiable decisions about corrective actions or terminations. this particular problem solving
activity was a new addition to the traditional objectives oriented evaluation approach.
The evaluation approaches outlined here have been referred to not only as objectives oriented
evaluation approaches , the term we refer , but also as “objectives referenced” evaluation. “Objectives
performance congruence” approaches , “performance congruence” models And other similar terms. In
each assessment of the extent to which objectives have been attained is the central feature.
a) Purpose of the objectives oriented evaluation:
As highlighted above , the key concern of objectives oriented evaluation approach is to access the
congruence between program performance and its goal . in doing so , the approach attempts to
accomplish several tasks as follows:
 The approach seeks to confirm the means through which the program goals and objectives were
established . it scrutinize the process from which the program objectives were established and
whether the process was effective. This is an important aspect as the program has inbuilt
evaluation reference criteria . its own goals
 The approach also attempts to establish the status of the program progress towards achieving
its stated objectives. Here evaluation plays a formative role by providing feedback to the
administrators responsibility for improvement of the program performance so that eventually
the completion of the program matches that of achievement of its goals this helps to predict
whether the goals of the program will be achieved within the timelines specified in the program
, or not.
 When conducted at the end of the program , the objectives oriented evaluation approach
scrutinizes the entire program to establish whether the outcomes match the objectives for
which it was established . at this point the approach plays the summative role of evaluation and
the findings of the evaluation process can be used by the program stakeholders to make a
rational and informed decision on the fate of the project , based on the congruence or
discrepancies established by the evaluator .the program may be recommended to be
maintained ,improved ,expanded or terminated.
 The objectives-oriented model also assesses whether the program personnel have adequate
resources such as money ,equipment , facilities, training etc to achieve the goals discrepancies
noted can then be dealt with so that the intended outcomes of the program are achieved as
planned.
 The model also aims at systematically identifying vital priority changes if needed in order to put
more focus on achieving the program goals. Depending on the context , this might be viewed as
program management decision more than evaluation .however , it is evaluation that has to
inform the management on the importance of such adjustment if defined goals are to be
achieved. The model aims at enlightening the management on timelines adjustment for
achievement of stated objectives or necessity to adjust the goals after examining the efforts put
behind the achievement of existing goals against time available to accomplish the
achievements( rossi , freeman ,lipsey ,1998) .it is an objectives-oriented model and its
assessment or discrepancies between the program goals and its achievement of the same that
mainly helps in future decision making for similar programs .success or failure in planning the
goals and their achievements aim at shedding light on how to plan for similar programs in the
future.
H. THE ROLE OF THE EVALUATORS:
identification of goals or objectives of the program to be evaluated.
The first task of the evaluator in the objective oriented evaluation model is to identify and clarify the
program goals and objectives . At this stage the evaluator also makes an assessment of the worth of the
objectives. This is important especially when the evaluation is conducted for formative purposes.
Clarification of the variables which effect performance .
Having identified the program objectives, the evaluator must clarify different variables that will
examined in order to clearly judge whether the performance is in line with the objectives or not. At this
stage , the evaluator must specifically state the key elements which will be looked at in the evaluation
process.
Identification of the objective-based-criteria (standards) by which performance will be judged.
The evaluator must establish a measurable criterion against which performance will be measured. For
example , in a school context the evaluator may decide that if the net enrolment of pupils is 80 percent
of the gross enrolment then the objectives are met.
Development of tools , techniques and procedures of collecting information regarding performance.
The evaluator designs the evaluation tool which will be used in collecting the program performance data
. The tool must be comprehensive enough to cover all areas and all stakeholders of the project . Items
in the data collection tool must be capable of establishing whether the program objectives are met , or
not.
Collection of performance data.
Data collection on program performance should be carefully done using the data collection tool
developed . It is important that the evaluator ensures that all key informants are given an opportunity to
provide their information to the evaluator . the evaluator must consider all data related to achievement
of the project objectives and ignore the rest of the information.
Comparison of the information regarding performance with the pre-established standards.
This is A very important stage in which the evaluator weighs the findings against the pre-established
objectives. The congruence or discrepancy found will form the basis of the key recommendation that
the evaluator will make and communicate to the program management.
Communication of the results of the comparison to appropriate audiences.
Evaluation is incomplete if it’s findings are not communicated to the program s evaluator stakeholders.
The evaluator provides information necessary for rational decisions to be made as to whether the
program should be maintained , improved , expanded or terminated. In addition to the evaluator’s
interactive role with administrators in identifying , developing or judging objectives , this type of
evaluation demands that the evaluator be expert in measurement methodology relative to the
performance of the project to be evaluated , the analysis of the performance data and the formulation
of meaningful descriptive reports . the evaluator should be able to provide educated professional
opinion regarding the worth effectiveness of the evaluated project in addition to the descriptive
information upon which the judgment is based.
C. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODEL:The following are the characteristics of the model:
As the purposes of the program activity are specified , the model focuses on the extent to which the
intended outcomes has been achieved and this model uses general goals to establish the purposes. This
same model it is involved frequently in contact between the evaluator , the management and the staff
and limits the likelihood that unanticipated side effect will be noted. Several times it requires the
evaluator to familiarize himself/herself with the key objectives of the program and its straightforward
procedures that let achievement of objectives determine success or failure and justify improvements of
the program activities maintenance or termination.
This specific model operates within specific time frame where objectives usually contain the desired
attainment level and the criteria for judging such attainments.
These characteristics make the objectives oriented model suitable for Africa , e.g :- in the case of civic
education evaluation in that , the evaluator being part of the program , has in mind the objectives and
focuses on them.
D. APPLICATION OF THE OBJECTIVES –ORIENTED MODEL:The application of the technique may vary from the simple application of pre-test treatment – post-test
technique ( as commonly used to evaluate student learning) to a wide range of more complicated
process such as the objectives of establishing an educational curriculum e.g:- the 8-4-4 system in Kenya.
In any program regardless of its magnitude , behaviorally stated objectives are established for the
program and relevant performance behaviors are measured against this yard-stick using either
standardized tests or the evaluator constructed instruments (ogula 2002) in an education context there
is need to create a situation in which the learner can demonstrate his/her achievement of objectives.
The curriculum and teachers performance is judged on the basis of students achievements and scores
and the extent to which such achievement conform to the prior set objectives.
However, a generalized approach would undoubtedly contain the following elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Identification of goals or objectives of the project , program , or thing to be evaluated
Clarification of the variables which effect performance
Identification of the criteria (standards) by which performance will be judged
Development or identification of tools, techniques and procedures for collecting information
regarding performance
5. Collection of the performance data
6. Comparison of the information regarding performance will the pre-established standards
(resulting in a judgment of worth)
7. Communication of the results of the comparison to appropriate audiences.
D. STRENGTHENS OF THE OBJECTIVES-ORIENTED MODEL:a. it is easily understood.
Probably the greatest strength and appeal of the objectives –oriented approach to evaluation lies in its
simplicity. It is easily understood , easy to follow and implement , and produces information that
program directors generally agree in relevant to their mission.
b. it simplifies decision making.
As the model checks the degree of congruence between performance and objectives , also it helps in
informing of the real management of the real state of the program ; this simplifies decision making.
c. it focuses on clear definition of objectives.
The simplicity of model in terms of straight forwardness on program objectives makes it economically
cheap and less time consuming. This is because of the prior definition of objectives and standards ,
against which program performance is measured. The model also ignores unintended outcomes , thus
focusing on specific items of the program.
d. it is replicable.
The model ‘s specific focus on clearly stated objectives allows various evaluators to carry out evaluation
on the same project and even confirm the findings of previous evaluations . this is because the model is
systematic and specific in approach.