1

Pembentangan oleh:

KU MAHANI BT KU MAT DESA

Pensyarah:

Dr. Jamil Ahmad

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model

(DEM)

1

2

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

2

Journel of Construction Education-Summer 1998, vol 3, No. 2, pp64-66 The Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM), developed in

1969 by Malcom Provus to provides information for programme assessment and programme improvement.

What is the definition of evaluation?

He defined evaluation as the process of agreeing upon program standards, determining whether a discrepancy exists between some aspect of the program and standards governing that aspect of the program, and using discrepancy information to identify weaknesses of the program.

Under the DEM evaluation is defined as the comparison of an ACTUAL PERFORMANCE to a DESIRE STANDARD

3

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

3

What is the purpose of evaluation?His stated the purpose of evaluation is to determine

whether to improve, maintain or terminate a program (Gredler, 1996).

His model is primarily a problem-solving set of procedures that seeks to identify weaknesses (according to selected standards) and to take corrective actions with termination as the option of last resort

. With this model, the process of evaluation involves

moving through stages and content categories is such a way as to facilitate a comparison of program performance with standards,while at the same time identifying standards to be used for future comparisons.

4

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

4

The Provus method identifies four specific stages of all programs.

The are: Program Definition Stage Program Installation Stage Program Process Stage Program Product Stage

Stage 1: Program Definition – where the purpose of the evaluation is to assess the program design by first defining the necessary inputs, processes, and outputs, and then, by evaluating the comprehensiveness and internal consistency of the design. Evaluation Stage 1 asks the question, “Is the program adequately defined”?

5

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

5

Stage 2: Program Installation – where the purpose of the evaluation is to assess the degree of program installation against Stage 1 program standards. Stage 2 asks, “Is the program installed as defined in Stage 1”?

Stage 3: Program Process – where the purpose of the evaluation is to assess the relationship between the variables to be changed and the process used to effect the change. Stage 3 asks, “Are the resources and techniques being used congruent with the goals of the program?

Stage 4: Program Product – where the purpose of the evaluation is to assess whether the design of the program achieved its major objectives. Finally, in Stage IV the question is asked, “Are the program objectives achieved in the implementation”?

Stage 5:Program Comparison

6

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

6

Provus Terminology DefinedThe following definitions will be useful in understanding the evaluation which follows:

Enabling Objectives – intervening behaviors/tasks which students must complete as a necessary basis for terminal outcomes.

Terminal Outcomes – the behaviors the clients are expected to demonstrate upon completion of the program.

Design Criteria – contains a comprehensive list of program elements (input, process,output) that become the standard of performance in Stage 1.

7

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

7

Manakala Journel of Extansion: September/Oktober, 1998 (pg 10).

“ The Provus Discrepancy Model provide a basis for evaluating programme. Provus considers discrepancies to be the essential clue in program evaluation. Discrepancies point out differences that exist between what program planners think is happening in the program and what’s actually happening. Provus recommends that when discrepencies occur, either program performance or program design standards be changed”

Three important basis phrases in the Provus Model. Discrepancy : mean differences Program performances : what Extansion refers to as program

implementation, result, and/or accomplishment Program design standard : means objectives.

The Discrepancy Evaluation Model can be visualised as an ongoing cycle, as shown in Figure 1.

8

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

PROVUSStart here

EXTENSIONESEStart hereTranslate into

Establish program design standards

Specify program objectives

Plan evaluation using the discrepancy model

Plan evaluation based On objectives

Collect informationOn performance

Collect information on program accomplishments

Identifydiscrepancies

Identify differences between program objectives and program accomplishments

Alter performance and/orAlter the standard

Modify programs

end hereor

Recycle to start

end hereor

Recycle to start

=

=

=

=

=

Figure 1: Discrepancy Evaluation Model

The Discrepancy Evaluation Model can be visualised as an ongoing cycle, as shown in Figure 1

8

9

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) – stepsJournal of Extansion: September/Oktober, 1981

The Discrepancy Evaluation Model can be visualised as an ongoing cycle, as shown in Figure 1.

9

To use the Discrepancy Evaluation Model, need to follow these steps.

STEP 1: Decide which program to evaluate. This might be:A. A new program just being developed for introduction.B. An ongoing program that may appear to be running out of steam.C. A program that seems to be working just fine, but appears to have

switch directions.

STEP 2: Determine objectives for the targeted programQuestion to/be ask

A. Are written objectives already available?B. As participants know it?C. The advisory committee?D. If there’s any confusion about program objectives, get them

clarified before proceeding. Involve several people and, if nesessary, determine objective now. (Which Pruvos says is okay to do at this time if it hasn’t already been done before) to establish the base against which discrepencies can be measured.

10

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) – stepsJournal of Extansion: September/Oktober, 1981

The Discrepancy Evaluation Model can be visualised as an ongoing cycle, as shown in Figure 1.

10

To use the Discrepancy Evaluation Model, need to follow these steps.

STEP 3: Plan the evaluation Question to/be ask

A. What information do you need to know whether and how well objectives are being accomplished. Whatever information is needed must be possible to collect, and reasonable in terms of the work that collection entails.

B. How can you get at that, who can help? Specialists often help with developing evaluation plans and usually have advice and experience to share. Don’t try to reinvent the evaluation wheel all by yourself!

STEP 4: Follow through by implementing plans to collect information.

11

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) – stepsJournal of Extansion: September/Oktober, 1981

The Discrepancy Evaluation Model can be visualised as an ongoing cycle, as shown in Figure 1.

11

To use the Discrepancy Evaluation Model, need to follow these steps.

STEP 5: Identify discrepancies between program objektives and program accomplishments.

Question to/be askA. Where do differences exist? B. What have you learned about them – their causes, effect on

program, participants, other pertinent information?

STEP 6: Plan what to do next. At this point, the Discrepancy Evaluation Model says it’s time for

remedial planning. Either the basic program design standard or performance should be revised so that objectives abd acconplishments are consistent.

Question to/be askA. But which should change? Objectives or implementations?

12

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

12

Use of the Provus Discrepancy Model

The Provus model is most effective under the following circumstances:1. When the type of evaluation desired is formal, and the

program is in the formative, rather than summative stages.

2. When evaluation is defined as continuous information management addressing program improvement and assessment, and where evaluation is a component of program development.

3. Where the purpose of evaluation is to improve, maintain or terminate a program.

4. Where the key emphasis of evaluation is program definition and program installation.

13

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

13

Use of the Provus Discrepancy Model

5.Where the roles of the evaluator are those of facilitator, examiner of standards, observer of actual behaviors, and design expert.

6.When at each stage of evaluation program performance is compared with program objectives (standards) to determine discrepancies.

7.Where the program evaluation procedure is designed to identify weaknesses and to make determinations about

correction or termination.

8.Where the theoretical construct is that all stages of programs continuously provide feedback to each other.

14

Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

14

Use of the Provus Discrepancy Model

9. Where the criteria for judging programs includes carefully evaluating whether:

a. The program meets established program criteria

b. The actual course of action taken can be identified, and c. A course of action can be taken to resolve all

discrepancies (Gredler, 1996).

15

CONCLUSION

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that most of the shadows in life are caused by our standing n our room sunshine.

Provus Diserepancy Evaluation Model can help us be in the best way to focus more light on the many excellent features extansion programes already have.

Thanks for your attention

16

LESSON PLANMata Pelajaran : Ekonomi AsasTajuk: Perdagangan AntarabangsaObjektif = Standard (P’s DEM)

Selepas P & P pelajar dapat menyenaraikan dengan baik 3 perbezaan diantara PAB dan Perniagaan dalam negeri.

Aktiviti: dijalankanRefleksi = Actual (P’s DEM)

80% pelajar berjaya menyenaraikan dengan baik perbezaan diantara PAB dengan Perdagangan dalam negeri.

17

Purpose of evaluation - (Gedler, 1996)

A: To improveB: To maintainC: Terminate – biasanya pilihan terakhir

apabila A dan B tidak dapat dijayakan.

18

Menurut Provus, program ini memiliki kitaran hayat (life-cycle, yang mempunyai langkah-langkah pengembangan mengikut tahap yang berkaitan .

Model Evaluasi/Pertenatangan adalah suatu model evaluasi program yang menekankan peri pentingny a pemahaman sistem sebelum membuat sesuatu penilaian. . (Provus, 1971: Dalam Azizi, 2008)

TAHAP 1: Tahap definisi Fokus kegiatan/aktiviti1. Merumuskan tujuan program diadakan.2. Menyiapkan murid/staf dan kelengkapan keperluan.3. Merumus standard dalam bentuk rumusan pada suatu

yang dapat diukur.4. Cth rumusan standard: “ Keberhasilan Program KPSM

yang disandarkan adalah 70% warga belajar menngkatkan pendapatannya dan ketrmpilannya. (by Suciptoardi.posted 3 jan 2011.)

19

TAHAP 2: Tahap penetapan kelengkapan Tahap penetapan kelengkapan program

iaitu melihat apakah kelengkapan yang tersedia sudah sesuai dengan yang diperlukan. Dalam tahap ini dilakukan kegiatan:

Meninjau kembali penetapan standard Meninjau program yang sedang berjalan Meneliti discrepency yang wujud dalam

program actual dan standard

20

TAHAP 3: Tahap Proses

Pada tahap proses ini, penilaian difokukan kepada bagaimana memperolehi data tentang kemajuan para peserta program, untuk menentukan apakah perilakunya berubah sesuai dengan yang diharapkan atau tidak.

Jika tidak; maka perlu dilakukan perubahan terhdap aktiviti-aktiviti yang terlibat.

Tahap ini juga disebut sebagai tahap “Mengumpulkan data dari pelaksanaan program”.

21

TAHAP 4: Tahap Produk Tahap mengadakan analisis data dan

menetapkan tingkat output yang diperolehi.

Penilaian dilakukan untuk menentukan apakah tujuan akhir program tercapai atau tidak. Provus membedakan antara dampak terminal (immediates outcomes) dan dampak jangka panjang. (long term-outcomes).

Dalam tahap ini pertanyaannya adalah “Apakah sasaran program telah dicapai?

22

TAHAP 5: Tahap perbandingan / cost-benefit

Iaitu tahap membandingkan hasil yang dicapai dengan tujuan yang telah ditetapkan. Dalam tahap ini penganalisa akan menyenaraikan semua pertentangan (discrepancy) yang wujud.

Mengambil keputusan untuk memutuskan kelanjutan dari program tersebut, samada:

Menghentikan program tersebut Menggantikan Meneruskan Memodifikasikan tujuannya.

Biar apapun pertentangan yang ditemui, Provus menganjurkan agar pemecahan masalah dlakukan secara kopertif diantara penilai dan penganjur program.

Pada tahap ini, Perlu adanya proses kerjasama yang baik antara kedua pihak kerana Menurut Provus penilaian adalah untuk membangunkan program bukan untuk menghakimi sesuatu. (Provus, 1971: Dalam Azizi, 2008)

Proses kerjasama yang dilakukan antara lain membincangkan tentang:

Mengapakah wujudnya pertentangan? Apakah langkah-langkah pembaikkan yang mungkin dilakukan. Apakah langkah paling baik yang paling baik dilakukan untuk

memecah masalah yang dihadapi.

23

TAHAP 5: Tahap perbandingan / cost-benefit Anilisis biaya-manfaat (cost-benefit analysis) ,

dimana hasil-hasil yang diperolehi dbandingkan dengan biaya yang dikeluarkan.

Analisis ini menjadi sangat penting dalam keadaan sumber (biaya) pendidikan yang sangat terbatas (limted resources).

--------------------------------------------------------------------Menurut Provus semua program mempunyai

pusingan hayat (life cycle), yang terdiri dari langkah-langkah/tahap-tahap pengembangan: demikian juga dengan P’s DEM, turut mempunyai pusingan hayat.