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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
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.
Cronbach, L.J. 1963. Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64, 672–683.
Cronbach, L.J. et. al. 1980. Toward a reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Denny, T. 1978. Story telling and educational understanding. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. Occasional Paper No. 12, November.
Glass, G. V. 1980. Evaluation research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 211–228.
Hamilton, D., et al. 1977. Beyond the numbers game. Berkeley: McCutchan.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1981. Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York: McGraw Hill.
MacDonald, B. 1975. Evaluation and the control of education. In D. Tawney (ed.), Evaluation: The state of the art. London: Schools Council.
Owens, T. 1973. Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding. In E. House (ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley: McCutchan.
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.
Provus, M. 1971. Discrepancy evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan.
Rippey, R.M. (ed.). 1973. Studies in transactional evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan.
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.
Scriven, M. 1973. Goal-free evaluation. In E. House (ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley: McCutchan.
Scriven, M. 1976. Evaluation bias and its control. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, Occasional Paper No. 4.
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.
Smith, E.R., and Tyler, R.W. 1942. Appraising and recording student progress. New York: Harper and Row.
Stake, R.E. 1967. The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523–540.
Stake, R.E. 1975a. Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, Ohio: Merril.
Stake, R.E. 1975b. Program evaluation: Particularly responsive evaluation. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, Occasional Paper No. 5, November.
Stake, R.E. 1976. A theoretical statement of responsive evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2, 19–22.
Stake, R.E. 1978. The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher 7, 5–8.
Stake, R.E. 1979. Should educational evaluation be more objective or more subjective? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
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.
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.
Stufflebeam, D. L. 1966. A depth study of the evaluation requirement. Theory into Practice, 5, 121–133.
Stufflebeam, D.L., et al. 1971. Educational evaluation and decisionmaking. Itaska, I11: Peacock.
Tyler, R.W. 1942. General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research. 35, 492–501.
Wolf, R.L. 1973. The application of select legal concepts to educational evaluation. Ph.D. thesis. University of Illinois, Champaign.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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