Skip to main content

Stake’s Client-Centered Approach to Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • 344 Accesses

Part of the book series: Evaluation in Education and Human Services ((EEHS,volume 8))

Abstract

The sweeping federal requirements for evaluation that were imposed on American education in the 1960s stimulated the development of a number of new approaches to evaluation. One such approach was introduced by Robert Stake in 1967 in what was to become known as the “countenance model for educational evaluation.” This approach built on Tyler’s notion that evaluators should compare intended and observed outcomes, but it broadened the concept of evaluation by calling for examination of background, process, standards, and judgments, as well as outcomes. Stake further developed his philosophy of evaluation during the late 1960s and early 1970s, and in 1975 presented his extended view under the label of “responsive evaluation.” This presentation retained the countenance approaches’s emphasis on examining the “full countenance of a program,” but it broke sharply from the Tylerian tradition of gathering data to discuss whether intentions had been realized. Instead, responsive evaluation assumed that intentions would change and called for continuing communication between evaluator and audience for the purposes of discovering, investigating, and addressing issues. In general, Stake is the leader of an emergent “school of evaluation,” which calls for a pluralistic, flexible, interactive, holistic, subjective, and service-oriented approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Clark, D.L., and Guba, E.G. 1965. An examination of potential change roles in education. Paper presented at the Seminar on Innovation in Planning School Curricula, Airliehouse, Virginia, October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. 1963. Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64, 672–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. et. al. 1980. Toward a reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denny, T. 1978. Story telling and educational understanding. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. Occasional Paper No. 12, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V. 1980. Evaluation research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D., et al. 1977. Beyond the numbers game. Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1981. Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, B. 1975. Evaluation and the control of education. In D. Tawney (ed.), Evaluation: The state of the art. London: Schools Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, T. 1973. Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding. In E. House (ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parlett, M., Hamilton, D. 1972. Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. Edinburgh: Centre for Research in the Educa tional Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Occasional Paper No. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provus, M. 1971. Discrepancy evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rippey, R.M. (ed.). 1973. Studies in transactional evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. 1967. The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, et al., Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. (AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. 1973. Goal-free evaluation. In E. House (ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. 1976. Evaluation bias and its control. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, Occasional Paper No. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L.M., and Pahland, P.A. 1974. Educational technology and the rural high lands. InL.M. Smith, Four examples: Economic, anthropological, narrative, and portrayal (AERA Monograph on Curriculum Evaluation). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E.R., and Tyler, R.W. 1942. Appraising and recording student progress. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E. 1967. The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E. 1975a. Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, Ohio: Merril.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E. 1975b. Program evaluation: Particularly responsive evaluation. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, Occasional Paper No. 5, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E. 1976. A theoretical statement of responsive evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2, 19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E. 1978. The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher 7, 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E. 1979. Should educational evaluation be more objective or more subjective? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E., Easley, J. A., Jr. (eds.). 1978. Case studies in science education. Vol. 1, 2, Rep. NSF Proj. 5E–78–74. Urbana, I11.: CIRCE, University of I11. College of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E., and Gjerde, C. 1971. An evaluation of TCITY: The Twin City Institute for Talented Youth. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, Paper No. 1, Evaluation Report Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam, D. L. 1966. A depth study of the evaluation requirement. Theory into Practice, 5, 121–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam, D.L., et al. 1971. Educational evaluation and decisionmaking. Itaska, I11: Peacock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R.W. 1942. General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research. 35, 492–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, R.L. 1973. The application of select legal concepts to educational evaluation. Ph.D. thesis. University of Illinois, Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stufflebeam, D.L., Shinkfield, A.J. (1985). Stake’s Client-Centered Approach to Evaluation. In: Systematic Evaluation. Evaluation in Education and Human Services, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5656-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5656-8_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8995-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-5656-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics