Countenance Evaluation Model

Robert E. Stake’s the “Countenance Model of Evaluation” in Education Evaluation is an important aspect of program development to come up with improvement plan to achieve competitiveness, depending on the judgment of the one who evaluates, or the evaluators. Education being complex is associated with contingencies with consideration to congruence (intentions and observations).

This needs adequate scrutiny, rendering both cost measurement and estimation of outcomes since education is a crucial part of society and economy, and its greater effectiveness per unit cost is of high consideration, especially on a given resource constraint, is desirable (Mathison, 2005, p. 90). The so-called Countenance Model of Evaluation, formulated by Robert E. Stake, is a model focusing on the qualitative influences to the traditional quantitative designs, with judgment being maintained as the major function of the one who evaluates.

The heart of this model is on the decisions that are come up with during the evaluation. There are three important phases of program development where this model revolves: antecedent, transaction, and outcome. In the antecedent phase, the consideration is the environmental factors that might affect program outcomes. The effectiveness of the program during implementation is being considered by in the transaction phase on the other hand. When the program has already achieved completion, its effects are being examined in the outcome phase.

The evaluation procedure must take into account both judgment and descriptions, both relying on quantitative and qualitative observations. The description may either be absolute or comparative (Snyder, Acker-Hocevar, and Snyder, 2008, pp. 167-168). The strength of this model is that it allows thorough evaluation since it requires the evaluator to give a description of the situations (events, activities, conditions, etc. ) before, during, and after the program implementation (Snyder, Acker-Hocevar, and Snyder, 2008, p. 168). It is really a helpful feature of this model that it offers flexibility in operation.

The approach is holistic in nature, rather than atomistic, with each part being emphasized. Factors are all given attention, with the importance of each factor imposed and selected to gain sensitivity (Burgess, Galloway, and Morrison, 1993, p. 36). References Burgess, Robert G. , Sheila Galloway, and Marlene Morrison. (1993). Implementing In-service Education and Training. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=t949AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA36&dq=countenance+evaluation+model+in+education&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U1p1htWqqCorrsxmE_4op-nJA40mA

Mathison, Sandra. (2005). Encyclopedia of Evaluation. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=sCibBf4Ni1QC&pg=PA167&dq=countenance+evaluation+model&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U3JfsrxoDJqDLQ-djt_50iTpK99vQ#PPA167,M1 Snyder, Karolyn J. , Michelle Acker-Hocevar, and Kristen M. Snyder. (2008). Living on the Edge of Chaos: Leading Schools into the Global Age. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://books. google. com/books? id=nmv5mSHlXKQC&pg=PA90&dq=countenance+evaluation+model&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U2pfiSKzcKZz7laTIzdLnRjUjd31Q