IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v33y2010i4p477-486.html

Theory underlying a national teacher evaluation program

Author

Listed:
  • Taut, Sandy
  • Santelices, Verónica
  • Araya, Carolina
  • Manzi, Jorge

Abstract

The paper describes a study conducted to explicate the multiple theories underlying Chile's national teacher evaluation program. These theories will serve as the basis for evaluating the intended consequences of this evaluation system, while not losing sight of emerging unintended consequences. We first analyzed legal and policy documents and then interviewed fourteen representatives of the four stakeholder groups involved in the program's design and implementation, in order to gain insight into their respective conceptions of the program's functioning and intended effects. The results show that, as to be expected and despite the long and difficult negotiation process that preceded implementation of this program, multiple political stakeholders still view the program's intended effects differently. However, there was substantial overlap regarding a number of intended effects, such as building the capacity of, and triggering change in, teachers with shortcomings, and informing the selection of new teachers and facilitating the exit of unsatisfactory teachers from the system. It was difficult to get interviewees to talk about how exactly these intended effects are supposed to be achieved. The paper draws conclusions regarding theory elaboration process involving multiple stakeholders in a highly political context.

Suggested Citation

  • Taut, Sandy & Santelices, Verónica & Araya, Carolina & Manzi, Jorge, 2010. "Theory underlying a national teacher evaluation program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 477-486, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:4:p:477-486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(10)00016-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Huey-Tsyh & Rossi, Peter H., 1987. "The theory-driven approach to validity," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 95-103, January.
    2. Vincent Greaney & Thomas Kellaghan, 2008. "Assessing National Achievement Levels in Education," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6904, April.
    3. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johanna D. Birckmayer & Carol Hirschon Weiss, 2000. "Theory-Based Evaluation in Practice," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(4), pages 407-431, August.
    2. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    3. Kiana Moore & Heather Allen, 2013. "Continuity of Business Plans for Animal Disease Outbreaks: Using a Logic Model Approach to Protect Animal Health, Public Health, and Our Food Supply," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Nadir ALTINOK, 2015. "Une éducation pour tous de qualité: une analyse statistique sur les pays d'Afrique sub-saharienne," Economies et Sociétés (Serie 'Histoire Economique Quantitative'), Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), issue 50, pages 919-950, Juin.
    5. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    6. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    7. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    8. Cullen, Patricia & Clapham, Kathleen & Byrne, Jake & Hunter, Kate & Senserrick, Teresa & Keay, Lisa & Ivers, Rebecca, 2016. "The importance of context in logic model construction for a multi-site community-based Aboriginal driver licensing program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 8-15.
    9. Torvatn, Hans, 1999. "Using program theory models in evaluation of industrial modernization programs: three case studies," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 73-82.
    10. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    11. Martin Gustafsson, 2019. "The case for statecraft in education: The NDP, a recent book on governance, and the New Public Management inheritance," Working Papers 16/2019, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    12. Voeten, J.J., 2012. "Understanding responsible innovation in small producers’ clusters in Northern Vietnam : A grounded theory approach to globalization and poverty alleviation," Other publications TiSEM e01da02b-ef2b-47c9-8d06-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    14. Yoon Ah Shin & Jungwon Yeo & Kyujin Jung, 2018. "The Effectiveness of International Non-Governmental Organizations’ Response Operations during Public Health Emergency: Lessons Learned from the 2014 Ebola Outbreak in Sierra Leone," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, April.
    15. Gervais, Christine & de Montigny, Francine & Lacharité, Carl & Dubeau, Diane, 2015. "The Father Friendly Initiative within Families: Using a logic model to develop program theory for a father support program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 133-141.
    16. Margarian, Anne, 2010. "Restrictions of empirical policy analyses: the example of the evaluation of rural development policies," 118th Seminar, August 25-27, 2010, Ljubljana, Slovenia 95320, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Jeongwon Lee & Kiyoon Shin & Hongbum Kim & Junseok Hwang, 2025. "Efficiency of Innovation Policy with Different Types of R&D Planning: Evidence from South Korea’s Information and Communication Technology Sector," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(1), pages 630-662, March.
    18. Peretz, Jean H. & Das, Sujit & Tonn, Bruce E., 2009. "Evaluating knowledge benefits of automotive lightweighting materials R&D projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 300-309, August.
    19. Matt Andrews, 2022. "This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success," CID Working Papers 413, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    20. Marko Lovec & Tanja Šumrada & Emil Erjavec, 2020. "New CAP Delivery Model, Old Issues," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 55(2), pages 112-119, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:4:p:477-486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.