what is Evaluation Models and Methods in Education
There have already been some talks concerning various methods of teacher assessment.
There are primarily two types of evaluation models:
(1) Product Model and (ii) Process Model.
The product model attempts to assess the results of learning and instruction, whereas the process model is concerned with the intervening factors that give birth to and shape the outcomes. The former is really synonymous with external examination/auditing/review of instructors’ and institutions’ actions conducted via national testing programmes, which are prevalent in the United States. The latter can be found in the form of self-evaluation or self-appraisal by instructors, which is popular in the United Kingdom. The product model of assessment is largely found in the United Kingdom at the Assessment of Performance Unit, which is part of the Department of Education and Science. Its mission is to provide assessment tools for monitoring children’s accomplishments in schools/colleges and, when feasible, identifying the occurrence of underachievement. The performance evaluation unit attempts to minimize six areas of pupil development: language, mathematics, science, aesthetics, personal, and physical. The product mode of assessment is challenged in the United States because the information it provides is too restricted to enable merit judgments and is insufficiently comparable for policy decisions. Second, it is said that the model is insufficient to deal with the complexities of an institution.
The process mode of assessment stems substantially from illuminative evaluation approaches and justifies itself mostly on the same grounds as product evaluation. For starters, external monitoring through formal testing is too limited to provide an accurate gauge of intellectual achievement. Second, it may be more cost-effective to keep relatively simple school administration rather than massively expanding it to meet new demands for educational responsibility. Third, process assessment may avoid excessive centralisation in educational administration management. Neave (1988) has appropriately added.
‘Finally, it is held wiser to involve individuals in evaluating and correcting their own mistakes than to subject them to public recrimination and then expect them to mind their ways under duress and odium.’