The CIPP Model is one of the most reliable comprehensive frameworks for evaluating student knowledge at different stages of the learning process. “The model is configured for use in internal evaluations conducted by an organization’s evaluators, self-evaluations conducted by project teams or individual knowledge providers, and contracted or mandated external evaluators” (Stufflebeam, 2003). Regardless the specific educational setting to which CIPP evaluation model is applied it usually comprises the four essential elements: context, input, process, and product.
Context evaluation is the effective instrument for evaluating the decision-making priorities and predicting the learning outcomes; input evaluation is used to assess the specific aspects of the learning process, including budget and staff, and to allocate the limited learning resources.
Process evaluation is the third component of the CIPP model, aimed at implementing the critical learning activities; and product evaluation targets the learning outcomes and seeks interpretation of the short- and long-term benefits of any learning process.
CIPP forms the basis for developing cost-effective evaluation approaches to curriculum and is used to enhance the quality of both formative and summative evaluation.
Unfortunately, this evaluation model tends to produce somewhat idealized concept of evaluation, where the significance of top-down approaches is overestimated, and where stakeholders may lack decision-making authority.
“All stakeholders have a right to be consulted about concerns and issues and to receive reports which respond to their information needs” (Cronbach, 1992), but CIPP frequently prevents education professionals from achieving appropriate information balance as a part of effective evaluation. That is why, the use of Kirkpatrick model of evaluation may prevent teachers from idealizing top-down evaluation approaches, and may become an effective instrument for assessing student reaction to particular subjects.
Kirkpatrick model is particularly useful when developing balanced approaches to information management in different educational settings. Kirkpatrick model suggests, that “evaluation should always begin with level one, and then, as time and budget allows, should move sequentially through levels two, three, and four. Information from each prior level serves as a base for the next level’s education” (Winfrey, 2000). Donald Kirkpatrick has been extremely objective when developing his multi-stage theory of evaluation; in his view, evaluation process should start with measuring student reaction to particular programs or subjects.
Although positive reaction may not result in better learning results, negative reaction will always prevent students from achieving the basic curriculum objectives (Winfrey, 2000). At the second stage of evaluation, students are being evaluated according to the amount of knowledge they have been able to acquire in the learning process; the third stage is aimed at evaluating behavioral change which took place under the impact of learning.
Ultimately, at the fourth stage of evaluation the success of the learning course is measured. The model offers unlimited opportunities to education professionals and teachers, who are willing to utilize its benefits in middle and high school educational settings; the model may not fit into primary school environments, due to the fact that young students are not always able to express their attitudes and to appropriately react to specific subjects and disciplines.
Cronbach, L. J. (1992). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San- Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. Retrieved October 28, 2008 from http://www. wmich. edu/evalctr/pubs/CIPP-ModelOregon10-03. pdf Winfrey, E. C. (2000). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation. Retrieved October 28, 2008 from http://coe. sdsu. edu/eet/articles/k4levels/index. htm