Curriculum evaluation plays a pivotal role in refining educational systems to meet the evolving needs of learners and society. One of the most innovative and stakeholder-centric models in this domain is Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model, developed by Robert E. Stake in the 1970s.
Unlike traditional evaluation models that focus strictly on predefined objectives, Stake’s model centres on the concerns of stakeholders, allowing for a more flexible, contextual, and responsive approach to curriculum assessment.
Overview of Stake’s Evaluation Approach
Focus on Stakeholders
Stake’s responsive model operates on the principle that the priorities and concerns of stakeholders — including students, teachers, parents, administrators, and policymakers — should determine the direction of the evaluation.
This approach marks a departure from rigid, objective-based evaluation frameworks, offering a more dynamic, real-world-oriented methodology.
🔁 Steps in Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Process
| Step | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Stakeholder Engagement | Meet with stakeholders (clients, staff, audiences) to understand their concerns and intentions. |
| 2. Scope Determination | Analyse stakeholder input and documentation to define the evaluation’s scope. |
| 3. Programme Observation | Observe actual implementation and identify any unintended deviations from the curriculum’s intentions. |
| 4. Purpose Identification | Clarify both stated and implicit purposes of the curriculum, along with associated stakeholder concerns. |
| 5. Issue Formulation | Identify core evaluation issues and problems based on observations and stakeholder inputs. |
| 6. Evaluation Design | Develop evaluation strategies for each issue, outlining the data required. |
| 7. Data Collection | Choose suitable data collection methods (e.g., observations, interviews, case studies). |
| 8. Thematic Reporting | Organise information into themes and present findings through natural, audience-friendly formats (e.g., videos, artefacts, reports). |
Stake’s Countenance Model (Congruence–Contingency Model)
Stake also introduced the Countenance Model, which evaluates the relationship between intended and observed elements of a curriculum across three key dimensions:
📊 Stake’s Matrix: Curriculum Evaluation Framework
| Phase | Intended Elements | Observed Elements | Congruence | Contingency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antecedents | Learner & teacher attributes, pre-conditions | Actual learner background, teacher preparedness | Alignment between intended and actual pre-conditions | Logical links to outcomes |
| Transactions | Planned learning activities, methods | Actual classroom interactions and activities | Alignment of intended vs. real-time teaching | Cause-effect patterns |
| Outcomes | Desired student achievements (cognitive, affective) | Actual student performance & learning gains | Comparison between expected and achieved results | Relationships across conditions and outcomes |
Congruence refers to how closely the intended elements match the observed ones.
Contingency refers to causal links — how certain conditions lead to particular outcomes.
Examples of Logical and Empirical Contingencies
A logical contingency might involve scheduling a film about floods (intended transaction) to promote awareness of conservation laws (intended outcome).
An empirical contingency would require data (e.g., test scores or surveys) to confirm that viewing the film actually enhanced student understanding.
Evaluators examine these contingencies to uncover the “why” behind outcomes, thereby improving curriculum planning and delivery.
Advantages of Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model
| Advantage | Explanation |
|---|---|
| 🎯 Stakeholder Focused | Ensures that evaluation reflects the needs and values of those affected. |
| 🔄 Flexible Approach | Allows evaluators to adapt methods based on emerging issues or concerns. |
| 🧩 Holistic Evaluation | Examines curriculum design, implementation, and results collectively. |
| 📣 Effective Communication | Emphasises report formats that suit different audiences — from technical reports to visual case studies. |
| 🤝 Greater Stakeholder Engagement | Involves clients throughout the process, ensuring higher utility and ownership of findings. |
Limitations of Stake’s Model
| Limitation | Description |
|---|---|
| 🎭 Subject to Stakeholder Bias | Stakeholders may intentionally downplay issues they wish to hide. |
| 🧪 Methodological Complexity | Requires skilled evaluators to manage diverse data sources and reporting formats. |
| 🔍 Lacks Standardisation | Flexibility can lead to inconsistency if not well-coordinated. |
| ⏳ Time-Intensive | In-depth observations, interviews, and documentation may prolong the process. |
| 📊 Hard to Compare | The qualitative, context-driven nature makes it difficult to compare programmes statistically. |
Application in the Indian Educational Landscape
In India’s diverse and dynamic education system, Stake’s model can be particularly useful in:
- Evaluating NEP 2020 implementations at the grassroots level
- Assessing the efficacy of new pedagogies like experiential learning or competency-based education
- Capturing community feedback in government school curriculum rollouts
- Improving curriculum inclusivity by addressing local cultural, linguistic, and contextual needs
Conclusion
Stake’s Responsive and Countenance Models bring a much-needed contextual and human-centric dimension to curriculum evaluation. By shifting focus from rigid objectives to real-world experiences, these models ensure that curricula evolve in response to actual classroom dynamics and societal expectations.
While more complex than objective-based models like Tyler’s, Stake’s framework excels in flexibility, relevance, and stakeholder inclusion — all critical for 21st-century curriculum reforms in India and beyond.
