This blog is currently
summarizing the factors that affect the processes of organizational
change. It is offering a model of change
that is made up of phases, as opposed to steps.
To date, the phases problem identification, staffing, “unfreezing,” rule
making, information gathering, negotiating, conflict ameliorating, and testing
have been described and explained. This
posting looks at evaluating. This will
be the first of a set of postings dedicated to evaluation.
Evaluation: To understand the role evaluation plays in a
viable change strategy, one needs to take a broader view of it than what it is
usually given. The aim here is more than
giving a grade or something comparable to what is going on. It is more than determining whether things
are going according to plan. Yes, these
concerns are present, but there is more.
Borrowing
from the ideas expressed by Elliot W. Eisner concerning evaluation, the
following functions of evaluation are drawn:
diagnosis, revision, comparison, anticipation of needs, and
determination of achievement.[1] His application of these functions are mostly
aimed at the evaluation of student performance.
Here,
Eisner’s ideas are modified to evaluate a change effort, both in terms of
determining values associated with the change before, during, and after the
effort is conducted, and also other related concerns which are delineated below
and in the following postings.
A
word of context: as it is stated above,
the term phase is used to indicate that the various types of activities
comprising change efforts are not cookbook steps. Each phase is broad, and not meant to
designate discreet “steps.” They are actions
that have a less designated character. That includes what will be described as
evaluation.
For
example, the first Eisner function of evaluation – diagnosis – can well be considered an aspect of problem identification,
the first phase, and information gathering, the fifth phase identified in this
model. The diagnoses under evaluation,
though, is aimed at acquiring that information that assist subjects at arriving
at its desired – previously identified – results.
Eisner
indicates that he borrows the term diagnosis from the medical field but points
out that one should not expect that this form of analysis has the tests or
technological gadgetry that the medical profession has at its disposal. In education – and one can add in most
organizational settings – the act of diagnosing is more an art than a science
or an engineering practice. In addition,
at this phase, the review of the school’s effectiveness has been completed and has
led to the change effort in question.
What is now being diagnosed is the progression of a change process.
Specifically,
one is trying to determine where and what are the problems that are popping up
as the testing protocol is being conducted.
These can be of two sources which have already been cited in this blog: the social realm and the technological
realm. Of course, problems can have both
sources at once.
This
type of analysis needs to be constant throughout the process. Solutions or treatments must be devised. This in turn might cause one to do more
research through reviewing the appropriate literature, interviewing appropriate
experts, and/or talking to the subjects.
At times, questioning subjects need not happen in that they are more
than willing to let an agent know what the problem(s) is/are.
The
agent is looking for “bridges;” that is, those bits of information or changes
in the plan that can get the subjects from where they are to where, for the
sake of the change, need to be. As much
as possible, the solutions or treatments need to be tailored to the
personalities, dispositions, other value orientations of the subjects or to the
capacities of the technology being used.
While
posing its own challenges in trying to maintain the integrity of the change,
individualization – catering to the biases of those involved – should be sought
to the extent possible. Here the
concerns can range from personal problems subjects bring to the work place to
more professional commitments the subjects harbor.
Accordingly,
the information contained in Topic II of this book – the philosophies, the approaches,
the psychological and sociological beliefs of the subjects – come in
handy. That information can serve as a
starting point by which to understand where the subjects are mentally as the
change effort begins and as it progresses.[2]
If
one thinks that this sort of diagnosis should be part of the information
gathering phase or even the problem identification phase; this writer does not
necessarily disagree. The writer’s
reluctance of using the term, diagnosis, in the earlier phases is its
connotation of trying to find problems.
Information gathering and problem identification phases should be more
objective in its approach. Yes, that
goes for problem identification. Those
phases should be able to find there are no significant problems to “fix” or
even to address.
Here,
evaluation presupposes a “measuring” outlook.
That is, how well are things going as the change effort unfolds? After all, one does not go to a doctor for a
diagnosis unless one suspects something is wrong. A prudent approach assumes problems exist
with the change effort – the track record of such efforts would justify such an
assumption.
The
next function identified by Eisner is revision. This function is usually referred to in the
education literature as formative evaluation.
Its aim is to improve an educational effort and, as oppose to diagnosis,
the emphasis is on changing the change process, not garnering the information, per se.
Its
process is to insert review points and questions during development and
implementation of an educational effort to determine whether there is progress
toward the stated objectives the effort has pursued. Therefore, it is not a day-to-day revision,
but one inserted at key points. Everything
associated with the effort is fair game; that includes reviewing the aims and
goals of the effort itself.
One
concern of such a review is to detect any Hawthorn effect. That is, an agent should place heighten
interest to see if those who are engaged in the change, due to their probable
increased buy-in, might be prone to overlook problems. People who exert energy in trying to
accomplish what they see as important, tend to perceive its implementation
through “rosy” glasses. Hence, they
become poor evaluators. Being on the
lookout for such a bias can help in meeting this obstacle to conducting an objective
evaluation.
Obviously,
formative evaluation is highly dependent on conversations between and among
agents and subjects. Subjects in a
curricular change is not just the involved teachers but affected students,
other teachers, administrators, parents, in some cases, the custodial staff,
etc. All affected parties – directly and
indirectly – need to be heard. They will
each have a reaction and, given their strategic role, can play a determining part
in the effort’s success.
One-point
Eisner makes is that, contrary to the way earlier curricular change efforts
viewed teachers, they are not interchangeable elements – they are not mere
“tubes.” “Teachers cannot and should not
be bypassed. Materials guarantee
nothing. What they do is to expand the
range of resources with which teachers and students can work. They are not a substitute for teachers.”[3]
In
this regard, a realistic view of student and parent performance need to be kept
in mind. If they are not behaving, as
Eisner phrases it, within “conventional assumptions,” then customary curricular
effort will not be successful. In turn,
such a situation indicates what needs to be addressed and changed; i.e., this
very dysfunctional behaviors on the part of students and/or parents. Some might consider this a non-curricular
issue.
This
is a good definitional concern. It is
possible that certain curricular changes could address extreme student and
parental attitudes and behaviors that can be determined to be counterproductive. But if not, this calls for qualitatively,
differing approach. Frankly, such an
extreme case needs its own theoretical treatment beyond the purposes of this
book.
To
return to the current concern, revision is what it is. This level or aspect of evaluation is
essential and, as with many of the other aspects of change, deserves focused
attention. The agent should spend
meaningful levels of time and interest in the questions that are asked and the
information that those questions generate to make those revisions in the change
strategy.
It
is this writer’s experience that informs him that an agent is not given too
many opportunities to implement change, so he/she needs to strive for success
when the opportunity is there. He/she
should not experience failure due to the lack of a timely revision.
[1] Elliot W. Eisner, The
Educational Imagination: On the Design
and Evaluation of School Programs (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1985).
[2] This writer
estimates that in a given school, about 80% are essentialists/behaviorist, just
under 20% are progressives/humanists, 1 or 2 Perennialist/academics, and, if
any, a reconstructionist/reconceptualist.
[3] Elliot W.
Eisner, The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School
Programs, 195.
No comments:
Post a Comment