The A-B-C-D Model EVALUATING TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS (Abstract) Jesus A. Ochave, Ph. D Dean, Graduate College Philippine Normal University

Simplicity, comprehensiveness, flexibility, isomorphism, efficiency, intuitive appeal, and validity are among the criteria used in the search of a model in the evaluation of teacher education program effectiveness (TEPE). TEPE is seen as having three facets and these are: 1.) material outputs of the program; 2.) effects on the trainees/students including relayed effects on the school children of these program students; and 3.) impact on the educational system and society.

UNDERSTANDING PROGRAM EVALUATION

Evaluation Models (Background for developing Plans)

The A-B-C-D model was developed and proposed by the author as a framework for evaluating TEPE. He believes that the model meets the aforecited criteria while it resembles some of the more comprehensible and relevant features of a traditional and classical models of evaluation like those of the experimental designs, Stufflebeam’s CIIP Model, Stake’s “Countenance of Educational Evaluation”, Soriven’s “Formative and Summative Evaluation” and Provus’ Discrepancy Model. Attributes familiar to the processes of accreditation and those of naturalistic evaluation are at times manifested by the A-B-C-D model. The model at the option of the user, may even encourage the use of metaphors if only to gain a better understanding of TEPE.

The A-B-C-D model is simple enough to be understood by a novice in evaluation; its components and the concepts employed are familiar to practitioners in education. It is comprehensive a sit includes a panorama of any teacher education program just as it is flexible enough to allow the evaluator to evaluate aspects of the program which bears on its effectiveness. It is isomorphic as it appeals to the sequence and flow of the events and series of experiences in the process of teacher education, and this, at the same time, makes it intuitively attractive. It is efficient as it is flexible enough to allow the evaluators to be microscopic in tracing the causal factors that explain program effects without necessarily going through a mass of other data and details. Its validity lies on what the evaluator considers acceptable evidence of evaluative data.

The A-B-C-D model has four components. These are A – the students; B – the programs and operations; C – the effects, and D – the social impact. Each of these four major components has two dimensions: interfacing each other are the dimension of “intents” or plans if you may, and the dimension of “actualities” or observations or what actually happens or what is available. The gap between intents and actualities whether on A, B (or in its many minor facets/aspects), C or D defines positive evaluation. The bigger the magnitude of the gap between actualities and intents the less positive is the evaluation, the lesser the better. Whatever the case, gaps explain nature of effects and impact. It is precisely these data on discrepancies between intents and actualities that are useful in making decisions on whether the program is effective or will be effective.

More importantly, data on gaps are useful to the management of educational programs. While programs are still in the fluid state, their major and minor components 1) could be realigned to be consistent with desired states, or 2) it could be continued or 3) it could be phased out.

Obviously the D component on social impact is more remote and probably lasting. It includes socio-cultural transformations partly traceable to the program. Indicators have to be identified and defined.

Generally it includes contribution of the graduates to human welfare and socio-barangay betterment. Effects are more personal to the graduate that are sometimes at the construct level. Are they better persons? Are they more competent as teachers? More immediate indicators are results in PBET, length of waiting before employment after graduation, length of stay in teaching, promotions, and measures of competence. Social impact as intended are visions of the program; intended effects are stated objectives/goals of the program.

The B – Component – Programs has at least seven minor components, and for each of these components “intents” and actualities have to be made explicit. These minor components are: curriculum and instruction: faculty; physical facilities; library; research and laboratory for teaching; administration; and linkage with and service to other institutions and community.

The A – Component – Students affects the B Component – the nature of programs, and also the components C – effects and the D – impact. What students are intended for the program? What students actually go into the program? The evaluator will have to identify (in the documents) personological and demographic characteristics of intended students that are best suited for the program, and how actual students compare to the ideal students for the program. This includes variables in aptitude, interests, aspirations and career plans.

Vectors are directions flows of arrows from students to both programs and effects, from programs to effect and thereon from effects to social impact. The vectors should determine the nature and magnitude of impact of an earlier component to the next. This suggests that the effects and impact of TEPE depends largely on the fit or consistency between the “intended program” and the “actual program” and the “intended students” and the “actual students”.

There is a need to amplify “intended effects” and “intended impact” and these can be done by professional teachers of teachers. Unintended effects and unintended impacts, for better or for worse, deserve equal attention.