The previous postings, the ones immediately leading to this
one, has reviewed the phases of a change model.
This blog is currently addressing evaluation. This posting focus on the last of Elliot W.
Eisner’s functions of evaluation.[1] It probably is the one, one associates with evaluation;
it’s determining whether the objective/s is/are met. If you aim at accomplishing X, is X done or
achieved?
Yes, as an answer, is better than no,
somewhat, or almost. A good evaluation
process will determine what it is. But
how does one determine this? Better yet,
how does one enhance the chances of arriving at yes? And it is these questions that open this
function up to utilitarian concerns and an inherent process.
They are: mapping out the objectives, conceptualizing
their development, identifying and arranging the “milestones” toward completion,
and achieving the aim/s. As with the
other aspects of this model, this order does not necessarily lock-in a hard
progression. The change agent uses this
order to assist in thinking in a logical way.
Here is a short description of each of these concerns.
In terms of
“mapping,” the purpose is to find the right level of specificity the change
effort will seek to change. Of course,
this activity aligns with problem identification and it recognizes that
problems or “guilt” do not stand isolated.
If a condition is deemed a problem, well, that condition was caused by
other conditions and that, in turn, by even more remote conditions, and so on. Law identifies this fact in terms of crimes.
Who or what is
responsible for a criminal act? There is
the perpetrator, there is the person or condition that supplies the motivation,
there is the one who provides the wherewithal, there is the one who arranges
the situation, and on and on. Law, in
determining who to blame, has a concept known as proximate cause. That is, the cause most directly responsible
for the illegal occurrence. If a person
causes another to be angry and that other person consequently commits a crime –
assault or murder – it is the person who attacks or kills the victim who is
held responsible not the one who enticed the attacker to be angry.
Does a change
effort seek to change the proximate cause or the “supportive” cause? Usually, problems are arranged in layers. A specific problem is specific, but it is
caused or undergirded by another condition that might be causing this problem,
but also other problems. It in turn is
caused by still another problem that is causing an even wider array of
problems. So, one asks: does one address the more specific problem or
does one address or even have the capacity to address the more broader problem.
Perhaps an
example would help. Say, in a school
district they have a dysfunctional recruiting office. They hire poor administrators. These administrators, at the school site,
make awful decisions, and those decisions are ones with which the average
teacher must deal. Such problems can be
the choice of poor textbooks or the hiring of incompetent fellow teachers. These types of choices cause problems at the
school site.
So, at what
level should the change effort be directed, the immediate problem or a more
encompassing problem? This model argues,
especially in terms of initial change efforts, an effort should be that level
of specificity that the resources of the change effort has at its disposal. Resources include, but not limited to, time,
talent, influential connections, financial access, etc.
Once the targeted
problem is determined, it should be conceptualized as to the following: what is its attributes, who is involved, what
are its logistical characteristics, and what types and amounts of resources are
needed to address it? The purpose here
is to break down the problem to identify a series of objectives the change
agents will attempt to accomplish.
Once that list is identified, each
objective is further broken down to a logical series of actions the agent will
perform; each with its own “milestone.”
Each milestone, once performed, brings the change effort closer to
completion. There are suitable record
keeping formats the agents can utilize to record the progress the change effort
is accomplishing as the change effort evolves to its end. During all of this, the other functions are
being met – e.g., revision – and should be kept in mind and acted upon. This progresses until each of the objectives are
achieved.
Achievement is determined by the
fulfillment of the comparison function, a topic of the last posting. To add to that notion, there are two types of
comparisons: norm-referenced evaluations
and criterion-referenced evaluations.
Norm-referenced refers to comparing results with that of others’
performances – e.g., scholastic achievement scores rank students according to
percentiles of achievement.
Criterion-referenced evaluations compares performance against some
minimal level of performance – either the subject meets the level, or he/she
does not.
What should be remembered is that all
of this is complicated and dealing with human emotions and motivations is a multilevel
reality.[2] And when all the above is done, one is left
with one final phase: finalizing. That is, the change becomes part of the
status quo and is subject to future evaluations. This blog will address this last phase in the
next posting.
[1] Elliot W.
Eisner, The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School
Programs (New York, NY: MacMillan
Publishing Company, 1985).
[2] A current book addressing this multivariable quality
of change is one by Microsoft CEO, Satya Nedella, Hit Refresh: The Quest to
Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone. In that book he describes his effort to
change the culture of Microsoft – talk about aiming for a prime cause for an
enormous array of problems. See https://news.microsoft.com/hitrefresh/, accessed February 26, 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment