{"id":1304,"date":"2023-08-29T14:09:33","date_gmt":"2023-08-29T12:09:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/uncategorized\/srovnani-vybranych-pristupu-k-realizaci-evaluaci\/"},"modified":"2023-09-15T15:39:24","modified_gmt":"2023-09-15T13:39:24","slug":"comparison-of-selected-evaluation-approaches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/articles\/comparison-of-selected-evaluation-approaches\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparison of Selected Evaluation Approaches"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Comparison of Selected Evaluation Approaches<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstrakt<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

C\u00edlem stat\u011b je pouk\u00e1zat na rozmanitost, jak mohou evalu\u00e1to\u0159i p\u0159istupovat k \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed evalua\u010dn\u00edch \u00faloh. Proveden\u00e1 anal\u00fdza dokl\u00e1d\u00e1, jak pestr\u00fd je rejst\u0159\u00edk pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f a pota\u017emo tak\u00e9, k jak rozd\u00edln\u00e9mu typu informac\u00ed mohou evaluace zalo\u017een\u00e9 na rozd\u00edln\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstupech v\u00e9st. Text obrac\u00ed pozornost k z\u00e1klad\u016fm evalua\u010dn\u00edho my\u0161len\u00ed a poukazuje na mo\u017enosti volby metodologick\u00e9ho a konceptu\u00e1ln\u00edho r\u00e1mce p\u0159i \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed praktick\u00fdch \u00faloh. Sta\u0165 tedy nem\u00e1 ambice poskytovat praktick\u00fd n\u00e1vod k realizaci evaluac\u00ed, n\u00fdbr\u017e poskytuje zobecn\u011bn\u00e9 poznatky abstrahovan\u00e9 od detail\u016f rutinn\u00edch evalua\u010dn\u00edch projekt\u016f.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evaluace jsou nejprve vymezeny s vyu\u017eit\u00edm n\u011bkolika definic akcentuj\u00edc\u00edch metodologick\u00e9 priority evaluac\u00ed a evalua\u010dn\u00edho v\u00fdzkumu. D\u00e1le je detailn\u00ed pozornost v\u011bnov\u00e1na \u010dty\u0159em p\u0159\u00edstup\u016fm k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, a to konfirma\u010dn\u00edmu (Goal-based), explora\u010dn\u00edmu (Goal-free), konstruktivistick\u00e9mu (Constructivist) a k p\u0159\u00edstupu veden\u00e9mu teori\u00ed (Theory-driven). Ka\u017ed\u00fd z p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f je v\u017edy stru\u010dn\u011b charakterizov\u00e1n, d\u00e1le je analyzov\u00e1n kontext jeho vzniku a vztah k ostatn\u00edm p\u0159\u00edstup\u016fm; v neposledn\u00ed \u0159ad\u011b jsou uvedeny kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00e9 znaky a odli\u0161nosti od ostatn\u00edch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f. U\u017eite\u010dnou sou\u010d\u00e1st\u00ed anal\u00fdzy ka\u017ed\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu je ilustra\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edklad, z n\u011bho\u017e jsou patrn\u00e9 odli\u0161nosti v pojet\u00ed evaluac\u00ed realizovan\u00e9 v duchu jednotliv\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Main goal of the paper is to show the variety of how evaluators could solve the evaluation tasks. Results of the performed analysis present how uneven the outcomes of evaluation could be when different approach is taken. The article turns attention toward the basics of evaluative thinking by opening the range of alternative methodological and conceptual frameworks that could be used in the course of intervention program evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evaluation is defined with use of several definitions that put emphasis on methodological aspects of evaluative inquiry. In detail, there are four different approaches compared: goal-based, goal-free, constructivists and theory-driven. Each of the approaches is briefly introduced, context of its dissemination is explained and it is also described how the approach relates to other approaches. Useful component of the analysis is an example that highlights the main distinctions among the four approaches and results that each of the approaches can offer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00e1 slova<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Konfirma\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup, explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup, konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup, evaluace veden\u00e1 teori\u00ed, evalua\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstupy<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goal-based evaluation, goal-free evaluation, constructivist evaluation, theory-driven evaluation, evaluation approach<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00davod<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jedny z nej\u010dast\u011bji citovan\u00fdch definic evaluace (krom\u011b definic d\u00e1le uv\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch v textu tak\u00e9 nap\u0159. Rossi, Lipsey a Freeman 2004, Scriven 1991, Weiss 1972, House 1980) spojuje d\u016fraz na proces z\u00edsk\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed podklad\u016f (d\u016fkaz\u016f) a postupy uplat\u0148ovan\u00e9 p\u0159i jejich vyhodnocen\u00ed. Podobn\u011b tak\u00e9 Guba a Lincolnov\u00e1 (1989) pova\u017euj\u00ed evaluaci za \u010dinnost, p\u0159i kter\u00e9 se uplat\u0148uj\u00ed v\u011bdeck\u00e9 postupy s c\u00edlem z\u00edskat a analyzovat obsah, strukturu a v\u00fdstupy intervenc\u00ed. Konstruktivisticky zakotven\u00e1 definice evaluac\u00ed odkazuje k metodologick\u00e9mu z\u00e1kladu, kdy\u017e vyjmenov\u00e1v\u00e1 konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed postupy, je\u017e se v oblasti evaluac\u00ed vyu\u017e\u00edvaj\u00ed. Nav\u00edc vymezuje obsah evalua\u010dn\u00edch \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed, kter\u00e1 v jejich pojet\u00ed zahrnuj\u00ed nejen v\u00fdsledky, ale tak\u00e9 obsah, strukturu a v\u00fdstupy. Stake (2004) ve sv\u00e9 definici evaluac\u00ed a charakterizaci evalua\u010dn\u00ed \u010dinnosti explicitn\u011b poukazuje, \u017ee ka\u017ed\u00fd jednotlivec je sice \u201erodil\u00fdm evalu\u00e1torem\u201c, nebo\u0165 hodnocen\u00ed je jako takov\u00e9 p\u0159irozenou sou\u010d\u00e1st\u00ed ka\u017edodenn\u00edho \u017eivota, nikoliv v\u0161ak nutn\u011b \u201edobr\u00fdm evalu\u00e1torem\u201c. Snaha formalizovat jednotliv\u00e9 postupy pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00e9 p\u0159i evaluaci se projevuje zapojen\u00edm n\u011bkter\u00fdch princip\u016f v\u011bdeck\u00e9ho v\u00fdzkumu, resp. metod a technik pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch ve spole\u010denskov\u011bdn\u00edm v\u00fdzkumu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V\u00fd\u0161e uveden\u00e9 definice p\u0159estavuj\u00ed evaluaci jako formalizovan\u00fd postup, kter\u00fd se vyzna\u010duje mj. systemati\u010dnost\u00ed, kontrolovatelnost\u00ed (p\u0159ezkoumatelnost\u00ed) a vylou\u010den\u00edm \u010di alespo\u0148 podstatnou redukc\u00ed subjektivismu. Jin\u00e9 definice kladou d\u016fraz na c\u00edl a \u00fa\u010del prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 evaluace. V kontextu hodnocen\u00ed interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f tak nap\u0159. definuj\u00ed Hallov\u00e1 a Hall (2004) evaluace jako specifick\u00fd typ \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed, jen\u017e ov\u011b\u0159uje, zdali, a v jak\u00e9 m\u00ed\u0159e, byly napln\u011bny c\u00edle a pl\u00e1ny stanoven\u00e9 v r\u00e1mci konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed intervence. Takov\u00fdmto d\u016frazem na porovn\u00e1n\u00ed pl\u00e1novan\u00e9 a skute\u010dn\u011b dosa\u017een\u00e9 hodnoty v\u00fdstupn\u00edch hodnot I. Hallov\u00e1 a D. Hall redukuj\u00ed aplika\u010dn\u00ed oblast evaluace na problematiku souvisej\u00edc\u00ed s posuzov\u00e1n\u00edm v\u00fdsledk\u016f (outcome evaluation). Nicm\u00e9n\u011b je t\u0159eba uv\u00e9st, \u017ee v\u00fd\u010det aplika\u010dn\u00edch oblast\u00ed je v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b evaluac\u00ed podstatn\u011b \u0161ir\u0161\u00ed a zahrnuje mj. tak\u00e9 evaluaci dopad\u016f \u010di anal\u00fdzu pot\u0159eb (Rossi, Lipsey a Freeman 2004; Stufflebeam a Sinkfield 2007, Mark, Henry a Julnes 2000, Shadish, Cook, a Leviton 1991).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ucelenou definici kombinuj\u00edc\u00ed \u00fa\u010del a zp\u016fsob proveden\u00ed evaluace navrhuje Patton (2008), podle n\u011bho\u017e je evaluace \u010dinnost\u00ed, kter\u00e1 zahrnuje systematick\u00fd sb\u011br \u00fadaj\u016f charakterizuj\u00edc\u00edch interven\u010dn\u00ed programy, zp\u016fsoby jejich fungov\u00e1n\u00ed a v\u00fdsledky, k nim\u017e dosp\u00edvaj\u00ed. M. Q. Patton d\u00e1le poukazuje, \u017ee c\u00edlem evaluac\u00ed je zv\u00fd\u0161it kvalitu t\u011bchto interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f, pos\u00edlit jejich efektivitu, popsat mechanismy jejich fungov\u00e1n\u00ed a p\u0159in\u00e9st konkr\u00e9tn\u00edm zainteresovan\u00fdm stran\u00e1m podklady, na jejich\u017e z\u00e1klad\u011b je mo\u017en\u00e9 prov\u00e1d\u011bt rozhodov\u00e1n\u00ed o jejich dal\u0161\u00edm sm\u011b\u0159ov\u00e1n\u00ed. Na jin\u00e9m m\u00edst\u011b rovn\u011b\u017e uv\u00e1d\u00ed, \u017ee evaluace mohou (a maj\u00ed) p\u0159in\u00e1\u0161et objektivn\u00ed a prakticky vyu\u017eiteln\u00e9 \u00fadaje (Patton 1982).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do praktick\u00e9 roviny se uveden\u00e9 vymezov\u00e1n\u00ed evaluac\u00ed z hlediska zp\u016fsobu a \u00fa\u010delu proveden\u00ed prom\u00edt\u00e1 v podob\u011b \u0161irok\u00e9 \u0161k\u00e1ly p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f, kter\u00e9 mohou b\u00fdt p\u0159i prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed vyu\u017eity. S ohledem ke konkr\u00e9tn\u00edm c\u00edl\u016fm tak m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt zvolen p\u0159\u00edstup, kter\u00fd se zam\u011b\u0159\u00ed bu\u010f na co nejp\u0159esn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed kvantifikaci dosa\u017een\u00e9ho v\u00fdsledku nebo na vn\u00edm\u00e1n\u00ed p\u0159\u00ednos\u016f dan\u00e9 intervence konkr\u00e9tn\u00edmi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami \u010di na vysv\u011btlen\u00ed mechanismu, jak dan\u00e1 intervence vyvol\u00e1v\u00e1 zm\u011bnu v chov\u00e1n\u00ed \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f posuzovan\u00e9ho programu. N\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00ed anal\u00fdza je v\u011bnov\u00e1na vybran\u00fdm zp\u016fsob\u016fm, jak lze p\u0159istoupit k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed \u010di jin\u00fdmi slovy jak m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt nastaven design konkr\u00e9tn\u00edho evalua\u010dn\u00edho syst\u00e9mu. V tomto ohledu poukazuje na obecn\u011b-metodologick\u00e9 p\u0159edpoklady vyu\u017eit\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch forem v z\u00e1vislosti na konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch podm\u00ednk\u00e1ch neopou\u0161t\u011bje p\u0159itom teoretickou rovinu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159\u00edstupy k realizaci evaluac\u00ed<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pro jednotliv\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edstupy k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed je charakteristick\u00e9, \u017ee (1) vypov\u00eddaj\u00ed o pojet\u00ed extern\u00ed validity, (2) odr\u00e1\u017eej\u00ed vztah \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed (\u00fadaj\u016f) a reality (konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed hodnocen\u00e9 situace), (3) nasti\u0148uj\u00ed z\u00e1kladn\u00ed metodologickou orientaci a v neposledn\u00ed \u0159ad\u011b tak\u00e9 (4) definuj\u00ed \u00fast\u0159edn\u00ed z\u00e1jem \u010di hodnotu, kter\u00e1 ur\u010duje celkov\u00e9 nasm\u011brov\u00e1n\u00ed prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 evaluace (Alkin, Christie 2005).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Na z\u00e1klad\u011b takto stanoven\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed lze identifikovat celou \u0159adu jednotliv\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f, kter\u00e9 se v pr\u016fb\u011bhu v\u00fdvoje metodologie evaluac\u00ed objevily. Z jejich dlouh\u00e9ho seznamu uv\u00e1d\u00edme celkem \u010dty\u0159i p\u0159\u00edstupy, kter\u00e9 reprezentuj\u00ed hlavn\u00ed sm\u011bry uva\u017eov\u00e1n\u00ed o zp\u016fsobech prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed. Jsme si v\u011bdomi toho, \u017ee prezentovan\u00fd v\u00fd\u010det nen\u00ed \u00fapln\u00fd; chyb\u00ed zde mj. zplnomoc\u0148uj\u00edc\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup (empowerment evaluation), participativn\u00ed a kolaborativn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstupy a mnoh\u00e9 dal\u0161\u00ed. Nicm\u00e9n\u011b prim\u00e1rn\u011b sledovan\u00fd \u00fa\u010del tento v\u00fd\u010det beze zbytku napl\u0148uje. Ukazuje toti\u017e na pluralitu forem prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, p\u0159i\u010dem\u017e \u010dty\u0159i uveden\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edstupy sou\u010dasn\u011b odr\u00e1\u017eej\u00ed hlavn\u00ed metodologick\u00e9 akcenty p\u0159i prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.    Konfirma\u010dn\u00ed evaluace (Goal-based evaluation; Ralph Tyler)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tyler\u016fv p\u0159\u00edstup byl v dan\u00e9m historick\u00e9m kontextu nev\u00eddan\u00fd. V tomto obdob\u00ed byl rozvoj evalua\u010dn\u00edch \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed sv\u00e1z\u00e1n v\u00fdlu\u010dn\u011b s oblast\u00ed \u0161kolstv\u00ed a vzd\u011bl\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed; evalua\u010dn\u00edch \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed v ostatn\u00edch oblastech, jako nap\u0159. evaluace interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f, se objevily a\u017e v 60. letech. Podle historick\u00e9ho exkursu Guby a Lincolnov\u00e9 (1989) p\u0159evl\u00e1daly v meziv\u00e1le\u010dn\u00e9m obdob\u00ed evaluace vyu\u017e\u00edvaj\u00edc\u00ed sumarizovan\u00e9 v\u00fdsledky standardizovan\u00fdch znalostn\u00edch, kognitivn\u00edch \u010di v\u00fdkonnostn\u00edch test\u016f, jak\u00fdmi jsou nap\u0159. SRTA (Stone Reasoning Test in Arithmetic, jen\u017e je pou\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n od roku 1908) \u010di SAB (Stanford Achievement Battery, vytvo\u0159en\u00fd v roce 1922). Tyto a mnoh\u00e9 podobn\u00e9 testy byly tehdy hojn\u011b pou\u017e\u00edv\u00e1ny, nebo\u0165 bezvadn\u011b plnily sv\u016fj prim\u00e1rn\u00ed \u00fa\u010del: individu\u00e1ln\u00ed diagnostiku \u017e\u00e1k\u016f. Krom\u011b toho v\u0161ak v\u00fdsledky uveden\u00fdch test\u016f nach\u00e1zely v sumarizovan\u00e9 (agregovan\u00e9) podob\u011b sekund\u00e1rn\u00ed vyu\u017eit\u00ed. Na jejich z\u00e1klad\u011b byly porovn\u00e1v\u00e1ny jednotliv\u00e9 t\u0159\u00eddy v r\u00e1mci \u0161koly, \u010di dokonce cel\u00e9 \u0161koly v r\u00e1mci dan\u00e9 oblasti \u010di st\u00e1tu. R. Tyler v\u0161ak tento zp\u016fsob vyu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n\u00ed standardizovan\u00fdch test\u016f odm\u00edtl, a nam\u00edsto toho vypracoval vlastn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup k realizaci evaluac\u00ed. Jeho z\u00e1m\u011brem (\u00fakolem) toti\u017e bylo vyhodnotit nov\u011b zav\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 osmilet\u00e9 osnovy a ob\u00e1val se, \u017ee diagnostick\u00e9 testy, prim\u00e1rn\u011b vytvo\u0159en\u00e9 pro m\u011b\u0159en\u00ed schopnost\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch \u017e\u00e1k\u016f, nep\u0159inesou pot\u0159ebn\u00e1 data o \u00fa\u010dinnosti osnov. R. Tyler v t\u00e9to souvislosti poukazoval p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm na rozd\u00edln\u00fd p\u0159edm\u011bt anal\u00fdzy, tedy schopnosti jednotliv\u00fdch \u017e\u00e1k\u016f oproti konkr\u00e9tn\u011b specifikovan\u00fdm v\u00fdsledk\u016fm pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch (\u010di zav\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch) osnov. P\u0159i tomto srovn\u00e1n\u00ed by zp\u016fsobilost pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch diagnostick\u00fdch test\u016f vypov\u00eddat o v\u00fdsledc\u00edch (efektivit\u011b) nov\u00fdch osnov nebyla podle R. Tylera obhajiteln\u00e1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tyler\u016fv zp\u016fsob \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed podstatn\u011b p\u0159esahuje r\u00e1mec jednoho samotn\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu k realizaci evaluac\u00ed. Jeho hlavn\u00edm odkazem je obecn\u00fd evalua\u010dn\u00ed postup, kter\u00fd je zalo\u017een na p\u0159i\u0159azov\u00e1n\u00ed skute\u010dn\u011b dosahovan\u00fdch a empiricky ov\u011b\u0159iteln\u00fdch v\u00fdsledk\u016f k p\u0159edem definovan\u00fdm c\u00edl\u016fm (tj. o\u010dek\u00e1van\u00fdm v\u00fdstup\u016fm), p\u0159i\u010dem\u017e ob\u011b hodnoty (c\u00edle a v\u00fdsledky) jsou n\u00e1sledn\u011b porovn\u00e1ny. Z tohoto d\u016fvodu je Tyler\u016fv p\u0159\u00edstup n\u011bkter\u00fdmi naz\u00fdv\u00e1n jako objectives-oriented (Alkin 2004), jin\u00ed o tomto p\u0159\u00edstupu p\u00ed\u0161\u00ed jako o goal-based evaluation (Stufflebeam, Shinkfield 2007). Ob\u011b pojmenov\u00e1n\u00ed v\u0161ak stejn\u011b dob\u0159e vystihuj\u00ed z\u00e1kladn\u00ed podstatu Tylerova p\u0159\u00edstupu a lze je pou\u017e\u00edvat jako synonyma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159edem definovan\u00e9 c\u00edle jsou tedy v r\u00e1mci tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu z\u00e1kladn\u00edm a jedin\u00fdm zdrojem krit\u00e9ri\u00ed. Aby bylo mo\u017en\u00e9 s c\u00edli v r\u00e1mci konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu pracovat, je t\u0159eba, aby m\u011bly m\u011b\u0159itelnou podobu \u2013 R. Tyler v tomto ohledu prosazoval takov\u00e9 c\u00edle, kter\u00e9 maj\u00ed odraz v chov\u00e1n\u00ed jednotlivc\u016f[1]. Z\u00e1kladn\u00ed ot\u00e1zka konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu tedy zn\u00ed: \u201eVyskytuj\u00ed se ve skupin\u011b \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f interven\u010dn\u00edho programu o\u010dek\u00e1van\u00e9 prvky chov\u00e1n\u00ed \u010di nikoliv?\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tyler\u016fv p\u0159\u00edstup je zalo\u017een na pln\u00e9m ch\u00e1p\u00e1n\u00ed komplexity evalua\u010dn\u00edho procesu, jeho\u017e c\u00edlem je dosp\u011bt k z\u00e1v\u011bru deklaruj\u00edc\u00edmu m\u00edru, ve kter\u00e9 posuzovan\u00fd program napl\u0148uje p\u0159edem stanoven\u00e9 c\u00edle. R. Tyler s\u00e1m sv\u00e9 evaluace prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 v polovin\u011b 30. let v souvislosti s hodnocen\u00edm nov\u011b zav\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch osmilet\u00fdch osnov popsal jako posloupnost sedmi z\u00e1kladn\u00edch krok\u016f takto (cit. dle Alkina 2004):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1)   definov\u00e1n\u00ed c\u00edl\u016f intervence<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2)   kvantifikace c\u00edl\u016f intervence a jejich klasifikace (uspo\u0159\u00e1d\u00e1n\u00ed c\u00edl\u016f do skupinek dle v\u011bcn\u00e9 podobnosti)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3)   nalezen\u00ed specifick\u00fdch behavior\u00e1ln\u00edch vzorc\u016f pro ka\u017edou skupinku c\u00edl\u016f intervence; jin\u00fdmi slovy definovat znaky (ukazatele) unik\u00e1tnosti ka\u017ed\u00e9 skupinky c\u00edl\u016f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4)   identifikace situac\u00ed, ve kter\u00fdch je mo\u017en\u00e9 v\u00fdskyt po\u017eadovan\u00fdch behavior\u00e1ln\u00edch vzorc\u016f zachytit (pozorovat); nalezen\u00ed okolnost\u00ed, na nich\u017e lze m\u00edru dosa\u017een\u00ed stanoven\u00fdch c\u00edl\u016f dan\u00e9 intervence jasn\u011b dokumentovat<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5)   v\u00fdb\u011br adekv\u00e1tn\u00edch metod z\u00edsk\u00e1n\u00ed pot\u0159ebn\u00fdch \u00fadaj\u016f pro ka\u017edou skupinku c\u00edl\u016f resp. behavior\u00e1ln\u00edch vzorc\u016f; v\u00fdb\u011br \u010di v\u00fdvoj metodiky m\u011b\u0159en\u00ed stupn\u011b dosa\u017een\u00ed c\u00edl\u016f intervence<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6)   volba optim\u00e1ln\u00ed metody sb\u011bru dat, proveden\u00ed p\u0159edv\u00fdzkumu a vlastn\u00ed sb\u011br dat<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7)   srovn\u00e1n\u00ed z\u00edskan\u00fdch \u00fadaj\u016f s p\u0159edem definovan\u00fdmi c\u00edli; stanoven\u00ed zp\u016fsobu vyu\u017eit\u00ed z\u00edskan\u00fdch v\u00fdsledk\u016f a n\u00e1stin mo\u017enost\u00ed a omezen\u00ed p\u0159i jejich interpretaci<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tyler\u016fv p\u0159\u00edstup byl nov\u00e1torsk\u00fd je\u0161t\u011b v jednom ohledu: do t\u00e9 doby pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00e9 testov\u00e1n\u00ed neposkytovalo prakticky \u017e\u00e1dnou zp\u011btnou vazbu, kter\u00e1 by mohla pomoci dosa\u017een\u00e9 v\u00fdsledky zlep\u0161ovat. Absence akcepta\u010dn\u00edch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed (vod\u00edtek, kter\u00e1 by pomohla ur\u010dit, jak\u00e9 v\u00fdsledky jsou \u201edobr\u00e9\u201c, a jak\u00e9 nikoliv) neumo\u017e\u0148ovala naplnit baz\u00e1ln\u00ed princip evaluace, tedy stanovit v\u011bcn\u00fd z\u00e1klad a p\u0159\u00ednos[2]. Kdybychom i p\u0159es tyto v\u00fdhrady p\u0159ipustili, \u017ee prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 testov\u00e1n\u00ed bylo evaluac\u00ed, ozna\u010dili bychom ji zp\u011btn\u011b z dne\u0161n\u00edho pohledu jako evaluaci sumativn\u00ed. Posuzovan\u00e9 hodnoty toti\u017e vytv\u00e1\u0159ely po\u0159ad\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch t\u0159\u00edd \u010di \u0161kol a ukazovaly na \u00fasp\u011bch a ne\u00fasp\u011bch jednotliv\u00fdch subjekt\u016f. Naproti tomu evaluace prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e1 R. Tylerem p\u0159in\u00e1\u0161ela zcela jin\u00fd typ \u00fadaj\u016f, nebo\u0165 zprost\u0159edkov\u00e1vala data poskytuj\u00edc\u00ed detailn\u011b strukturovan\u00e9 v\u00fdsledky o rozd\u00edlech mezi skute\u010dn\u00fdmi a o\u010dek\u00e1van\u00fdmi \u010di po\u017eadovan\u00fdmi c\u00edli. T\u00edm proveden\u00e9 evaluace de facto poskytly n\u00e1vod, kter\u00e9 z v\u00fdsledk\u016f (tedy p\u0159esn\u011bji, kter\u00e9 z behavior\u00e1ln\u00edch vzorc\u016f dokumentuj\u00edc\u00edch ur\u010ditou t\u0159\u00eddu c\u00edl\u016f) je vhodn\u00e9 v p\u0159\u00ed\u0161t\u00edm obdob\u00ed zlep\u0161ovat. R. Tyler sv\u00fdm pojet\u00edm tedy umo\u017enil, aby osmilet\u00e9 osnovy byly nejen porovn\u00e1ny oproti dosavadn\u00edmu kurikulu z hlediska rozvoje schopnost\u00ed a dovednost\u00ed podrobiv\u0161\u00edch se \u017e\u00e1k\u016f (\u0161kol), ale sou\u010dasn\u011b aby osmilet\u00e9 osnovy s intenzivn\u00ed pomoc\u00ed j\u00edm prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed mohly b\u00fdt d\u00e1le rozv\u00edjeny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tyler\u016fv odkaz je dodnes \u017eiv\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed. Jednak t\u00edm, \u017ee inspiroval mnoh\u00e9 pokra\u010dovatele k dal\u0161\u00edmu rozv\u00edjen\u00ed konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu, mezi v\u0161emi jmenujme nap\u0159. Blooma et al. (1956) \u010di Magera (1962), a d\u00e1le t\u00edm, \u017ee umo\u017enil jin\u00fdm, aby v\u016f\u010di c\u00edlen\u00e9mu p\u0159\u00edstupu k evaluac\u00edm vymezili sv\u00e9 vlastn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstupy (viz nap\u0159. M. Scriven \u010di E. Guba, o kter\u00fdch je pojedn\u00e1no ve v\u011bt\u0161\u00edm detailu d\u00e1le). Koneckonc\u016f sou\u010dasn\u00e1 podoba evaluac\u00ed tak, jak je po\u017eadov\u00e1na Feder\u00e1ln\u00ed vl\u00e1dou USA (a do ur\u010dit\u00e9 m\u00edry i Evropskou komis\u00ed) vych\u00e1z\u00ed do zna\u010dn\u00e9 m\u00edry pr\u00e1v\u011b z Tylerova konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu[3]. V obecn\u011bj\u0161\u00edch souvislostech lze hovo\u0159it o tzv. objectives-oriented tradition, kter\u00e1 se objevuje i v jin\u00fdch oborech: p\u0159esto\u017ee nebyl doposud prok\u00e1z\u00e1n p\u0159\u00edm\u00fd vliv, nelze si nepov\u0161imnout shody z\u00e1kladn\u00edch princip\u016f nap\u0159. s dnes roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159en\u00fdm MBO (Management by Objectives) v mana\u017eersk\u00fdch studi\u00edch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nespornou v\u00fdhodou Tylerova konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu je jeho relativn\u00ed jednoduchost a mo\u017enost snadn\u00e9ho proveden\u00ed, t\u0159eba i jen formou intern\u011b prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed, bez pomoci speci\u00e1ln\u011b \u0161kolen\u00fdch evalu\u00e1tor\u016f. Za jeho silnou str\u00e1nku lze pova\u017eovat rovn\u011b\u017e fakt, \u017ee tento p\u0159\u00edstup vede z\u00fa\u010dastn\u011bn\u00e9 zainteresovan\u00e9 strany (zejm\u00e9na pak mana\u017eery posuzovan\u00fdch interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f) k zamy\u0161len\u00ed nad jejich p\u016fvodn\u00edmi z\u00e1m\u011bry a skute\u010dn\u011b dosa\u017een\u00fdmi c\u00edli a podn\u011bcuje je k jejich zp\u0159esn\u011bn\u00ed a sd\u00edlen\u00ed s ostatn\u00edmi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

N\u011bkte\u0159\u00ed ze sou\u010dasn\u00fdch evalu\u00e1tor\u016f (Rodriguez-Campos 2005, Schwandt 1984) p\u0159i hodnocen\u00ed Tylerova odkazu poukazuj\u00ed na skute\u010dnost, \u017ee jeho p\u0159\u00edstup vlastn\u011b nen\u00ed \u017e\u00e1dnou specifickou inspirac\u00ed pro prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, nebo\u0165 jde o pouhou deskripci postr\u00e1daj\u00edc\u00ed kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00e9 atributy samotn\u00e9 evaluace. Nejen R. Tylerovi, ale obecn\u011b cel\u00e9mu konfirma\u010dn\u00edmu p\u0159\u00edstupu je d\u00e1le vyt\u00fdk\u00e1no, \u017ee zcela odhl\u00ed\u017e\u00ed od kontextu, v n\u011bm\u017e jsou evaluace realizov\u00e1ny, a \u017ee nebere v potaz nezam\u00fd\u0161len\u00e9 dopady, ke kter\u00fdm mohou posuzovan\u00e9 interven\u010dn\u00ed programy v\u00e9st (Scriven 1993). Konfirma\u010dn\u00edmu p\u0159\u00edstupu je rovn\u011b\u017e vyt\u00fdk\u00e1n relativn\u011b vysok\u00fd sklon k managerialismu[4] (House 1993; Guba, Lincoln 1989) a tendence k p\u0159\u00edli\u0161 obecn\u00e9mu posuzov\u00e1n\u00ed sledovan\u00fdch intervenc\u00ed. Stake (1975) konfirma\u010dn\u00edmu p\u0159\u00edstupu vy\u010d\u00edt\u00e1, \u017ee jako formativn\u00ed zp\u016fsob evaluace v\u016fbec nepo\u010d\u00edt\u00e1 s individu\u00e1ln\u00edmi hodnotami a hodnotov\u00fdmi syst\u00e9my samotn\u00fdch klient\u016f (v Tylerov\u011b p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b \u017e\u00e1k\u016f) a nebere v r\u00e1mci posuzovan\u00e9 situace ohled na jejich svobodn\u00e9 rozhodov\u00e1n\u00ed a jedn\u00e1n\u00ed (viz nap\u0159. odli\u0161n\u00e9 aspirace \u017e\u00e1k\u016f \u0161kol v m\u011bstsk\u00fdch aglomerac\u00edch oproti aspirac\u00edm \u017e\u00e1k\u016f na venkov\u011b).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159i hodnocen\u00ed Tylerova p\u0159\u00edstupu nebyl doposud docen\u011bn je\u0161t\u011b jeden p\u0159\u00ednos. Tyler toti\u017e p\u0159ivedl do evaluac\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed data a otev\u0159el tak prostor pro pronik\u00e1n\u00ed spole\u010denskov\u011bdn\u00ed metodologie (zam\u011b\u0159en\u00e9 na sb\u011br a anal\u00fdzu prim\u00e1rn\u00edch dat) do oblasti evaluac\u00ed. P\u0159\u00edstup testov\u00e1n\u00ed pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fd do t\u00e9 doby se toti\u017e zakl\u00e1dal v\u00fdhradn\u011b na sekund\u00e1rn\u00ed pr\u00e1ci s jednotliv\u00fdmi testy (jejich vypl\u0148ov\u00e1n\u00ed nebylo prov\u00e1d\u011bno za \u00fa\u010delem evaluac\u00ed, ale byly evalu\u00e1tory takto vyu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1ny).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Uveden\u00fd ilustra\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edklad je uveden ve snaze o poskytnut\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00edho obrazu shora uveden\u00fdch charakteristik. Uveden\u00fd p\u0159\u00edklad je zalo\u017een na p\u0159edpokl\u00e1dan\u00e9m proveden\u00ed evaluace zam\u011b\u0159en\u00e9 na posouzen\u00ed efekt\u016f rekvalifika\u010dn\u00edho kursu ur\u010den\u00e9ho nezam\u011bstnan\u00fdm osob\u00e1m star\u0161\u00edm 50 let, kter\u00fd je v\u011bnov\u00e1n pr\u00e1ci s v\u00fdpo\u010detn\u00ed technikou. P\u0159\u00edklad odpov\u00edd\u00e1 situaci, kdy takov\u00fdto rekvalifika\u010dn\u00ed kurs pilotn\u011b prob\u011bhl v jedn\u00e9 lokalit\u011b a na z\u00e1klad\u011b proveden\u00e9 evaluace bude rozhodnuto bu\u010f o jeho zastaven\u00ed, nebo o roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159en\u00ed kursu do dal\u0161\u00edch okres\u016f.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ilustra\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edklad konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu[5]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V r\u00e1mci konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu je vypracov\u00e1n test po\u010d\u00edta\u010dov\u00e9 gramotnosti,<\/em>
kter\u00fd se po skon\u010den\u00ed kursu p\u0159edlo\u017e\u00ed ka\u017ed\u00e9mu z \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f. Po dohod\u011b s inici\u00e1torem a s jeho souhlasem se test zam\u011b\u0159uje na pou\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n\u00ed textov\u00e9ho editoru a tabulkov\u00e9ho procesoru a jsou definov\u00e1ny konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed \u00falohy, kter\u00e9 indikuj\u00ed zvl\u00e1dnut\u00ed obsahu kursu. V neposledn\u00ed \u0159ad\u011b je stanoveno, \u017ee pokud 80 procent \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f kursu tento test zvl\u00e1dne (tj. dos\u00e1hne alespo\u0148 75procentn\u00ed \u00fasp\u011b\u0161nosti p\u0159i \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed \u00faloh zadan\u00fdch v testu), bude mo\u017en\u00e9 pova\u017eovat kurs za vhodn\u00fd k roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159en\u00ed do dal\u0161\u00edch lokalit.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

V\u00fdsledky \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f kursu v z\u00e1v\u011bre\u010dn\u00e9m testu jsou tak v r\u00e1mci konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu interpretov\u00e1ny jako d\u016fkaz \u00fa\u010dinnosti v\u00fdukov\u00fdch metod (kurs skute\u010dn\u011b vzd\u011bl\u00e1v\u00e1) a jejich p\u0159\u00ednosu (osvojen\u00ed znalost\u00ed a dovednost\u00ed \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edky kursu). Na z\u00e1klad\u011b toho se m\u016f\u017ee realiz\u00e1tor kursu (resp. sponzor) rozhodnout o roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159en\u00ed kursu do jin\u00fdch okres\u016f (bude-li kurs posuzov\u00e1n jako efektivn\u00ed), pop\u0159. o zm\u011bn\u011b obsahu kursu \u010di o zm\u011bn\u011b jeho v\u00fdukov\u00fdch metod (bude-li kurs shled\u00e1n neefektivn\u00edm).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.    Explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup (Goal-free evaluation; Michael Scriven)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jak ji\u017e bylo uvedeno, od dob R. Tylera byla v\u00fdznamn\u00e1 \u010d\u00e1st evaluac\u00ed zalo\u017eena na porovn\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed p\u0159edem vyty\u010den\u00fdch c\u00edl\u016f p\u0159\u00edslu\u0161n\u00fdmi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami se skute\u010dn\u011b dosa\u017een\u00fdmi v\u00fdsledky. Tento zp\u016fsob prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, kter\u00fd Guba a Lincolnov\u00e1 (1989) naz\u00fdvaj\u00ed \u201epopisem\u201c a pova\u017euj\u00ed ho za tzv. druhou generaci evalua\u010dn\u00ed metodologie, je vyu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n v \u0159ad\u011b situac\u00ed z rozli\u010dn\u00fdch d\u016fvod\u016f dodnes a rozhodn\u011b ho nelze pova\u017eovat ani za p\u0159ekonan\u00fd, ani za aplika\u010dn\u011b omezen\u00fd \u010di nevhodn\u00fd. Evalu\u00e1to\u0159i se v\u0161ak pochopiteln\u011b sna\u017eili navrhovat nov\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edstupy p\u0159ekon\u00e1vaj\u00edc\u00ed sv\u00e9 ascendenty v charakteristik\u00e1ch, je\u017e byly p\u0159edm\u011btem nejv\u011bt\u0161\u00edch kontroverz\u00ed a jejich\u017e v\u00fdsledky z\u016fst\u00e1valy v mnoh\u00fdch ohledech za p\u016fvodn\u00edm o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00edm. V tomto ohledu je tedy explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup t\u0159eba ch\u00e1pat jako Scrivenovu odpov\u011b\u010f na konfirma\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup, jako odpov\u011b\u010f, je\u017e p\u0159inesla nov\u00fd pohled na zp\u016fsob prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podstatou rozd\u00edlu mezi konfirma\u010dn\u00edm a explora\u010dn\u00edm p\u0159\u00edstupem je stupe\u0148 pozornosti v\u011bnovan\u00fd skute\u010dn\u00fdm v\u00fdstup\u016fm, v\u00fdsledk\u016fm a dopad\u016fm posuzovan\u00fdch program\u016f. M. Scriven reagoval na typick\u00fd nedostatek konfirma\u010dn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed, kter\u00e9 sice dok\u00e1zaly p\u0159esn\u011b odpov\u011bd\u011bt na ot\u00e1zku, zdali bylo dosa\u017eeno vyty\u010den\u00fdch c\u00edl\u016f a v jak\u00e9 m\u00ed\u0159e, nicm\u00e9n\u011b v\u016fbec nebraly v potaz vyskytnuv\u0161\u00ed se nezam\u00fd\u0161len\u00e9 d\u016fsledky p\u016fsoben\u00ed sledovan\u00fdch program\u016f \u010di intervenc\u00ed[6]. Explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed tedy stav\u00ed do pozice hodnocen\u00fdch prvk\u016f c\u00edle samotn\u00e9, p\u0159i\u010dem\u017e odm\u00edt\u00e1 jejich apriorn\u00ed danost. Scriven (1973) zd\u016fraz\u0148oval, \u017ee evalu\u00e1tor by dokonce c\u00edle posuzovan\u00e9ho interven\u010dn\u00edho programu nem\u011bl zn\u00e1t, aby jimi nebyl ovlivn\u011bn: \u201eGoals bias the evaluator\u201c[7]. Toto je v kontextu Scrivenovy evalua\u010dn\u00ed teorie tzv. kvalitativn\u00ed v\u00fdznam objektivity; za objektivn\u00ed je v tomto ohledu pova\u017eov\u00e1n takov\u00fd v\u00fdsledek, u kter\u00e9ho lze prok\u00e1zat, \u017ee nen\u00ed vych\u00fdlen\u00fd[8]. Evalu\u00e1tor by tedy v souladu se z\u00e1kladn\u00edm principem tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu m\u011bl v\u011bnovat pozornost v\u0161em efekt\u016fm, k nim\u017e dan\u00e1 intervence sm\u011b\u0159uje, a to jak k efekt\u016fm zam\u00fd\u0161len\u00fdm, tak tak\u00e9 nezam\u00fd\u0161len\u00fdm. D\u00edky tomu maj\u00ed evaluace prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 v souladu s principy tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu mnohem lep\u0161\u00ed p\u0159edpoklady zachytit i vedlej\u0161\u00ed a neo\u010dek\u00e1van\u00e9 d\u016fsledky posuzovan\u00fdch intervenc\u00ed. Konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed evalua\u010dn\u00ed praxe ukazuje, \u017ee explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup dosahuje velmi dobr\u00fdch v\u00fdsledk\u016f zejm\u00e9na p\u0159i identifikaci v\u00fdstup\u016f a v\u00fdsledk\u016f, nicm\u00e9n\u011b pro hodnocen\u00ed dopad\u016f se v\u00fdhody jejich aplikace v\u00fdrazn\u011b sni\u017euj\u00ed. Z\u00e1kladn\u00ed ot\u00e1zka explora\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu tedy zn\u00ed: \u201eJak\u00e9 jsou ve\u0161ker\u00e9 efekty dan\u00e9 intervence?\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

M. Scriven v souvislosti s explora\u010dn\u00edm p\u0159\u00edstupem poukazuje na pot\u0159ebu vymanit se z r\u00e1mce, kter\u00fd soust\u0159e\u010fuje pozornost realiz\u00e1tora evaluac\u00ed na jednotliv\u00e9 d\u00edl\u010d\u00ed oblasti, a doporu\u010duje prov\u00e1d\u011bt evaluace takov\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem, p\u0159i kter\u00e9m by samotn\u00e9 hodnocen\u00ed nebylo nijak sv\u00e1z\u00e1no s p\u016fvodn\u00edmi programov\u00fdmi c\u00edli. Takov\u00e1 p\u0159edstava m\u00e1 nav\u00edc oporu v samotn\u00e9 normativn\u00ed rovin\u011b evaluac\u00ed; apriorn\u00ed definice c\u00edl\u016f, jejich\u017e dosa\u017een\u00ed m\u00e1 dan\u00e9 evaluace potvrdit \u010di vyvr\u00e1tit, m\u016f\u017ee toti\u017e v\u00e9st k jednostrann\u00e9 akcentaci z\u00e1jm\u016f konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch zainteresovan\u00fdch stran (nap\u0159. inici\u00e1tor\u016f intervence nebo mana\u017eer\u016f interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f), co\u017e by bylo v rozporu nejen se Standardy definovan\u00fdmi Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (cit. dle Sanders 1994), ale i  s obecn\u00fdmi z\u00e1sadami nestrannosti. M. Scriven s\u00e1m zd\u016fraz\u0148oval, \u017ee explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup je d\u00edky eliminaci rizika vych\u00fdlen\u00e9ho hodnocen\u00ed spravedliv\u011bj\u0161\u00edm p\u0159\u00edstupem (Scriven 1993).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Z p\u0159edchoz\u00edho je patrn\u00e9, \u017ee pokud je evaluace realizov\u00e1na v souladu s principy explora\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu, m\u011bla by b\u00fdt minimalizov\u00e1na interakce evalu\u00e1tora s ostatn\u00edmi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami (tedy zejm\u00e9na s mana\u017eery dan\u00e9ho interven\u010dn\u00edho programu a s jeho pracovn\u00edky, resp. se zadavateli dan\u00e9ho evalua\u010dn\u00edho \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed). Jen tak je toti\u017e mo\u017en\u00e9 zajistit (a prok\u00e1zat), \u017ee zp\u016fsob proveden\u00ed evaluace je skute\u010dn\u011b nez\u00e1visl\u00fd, tj. zalo\u017een\u00fd v\u00fdlu\u010dn\u011b na odbornosti evalu\u00e1tora neovlivn\u011bn\u00e9ho preferencemi a o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00edm n\u011bkter\u00e9 ze zainteresovan\u00fdch stran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup nevylu\u010duje p\u0159i sv\u00e9 aplikaci simult\u00e1nn\u00ed vyu\u017eit\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstupu konfirma\u010dn\u00edho; z \u0159ady konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch p\u0159\u00edpadov\u00fdch studi\u00ed je skute\u010dn\u011b patrn\u00e1 snadn\u00e1 mo\u017enost oba p\u0159\u00edstupy kombinovat. V\u00fdhodou takov\u00e9to kombinace je zv\u00fd\u0161en\u00ed u\u017eitku z prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 evaluace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup \u010del\u00ed kritice poukazuj\u00edc\u00ed na nedostate\u010dn\u011b transparentn\u00ed postup p\u0159i stanoven\u00ed indik\u00e1tor\u016f. Jak je nal\u00e9zt? Jak prov\u00e9st operacionalizaci, kdy\u017e nejsou zadan\u00e9 (resp. evalu\u00e1torovi nejsou zn\u00e1m\u00e9) c\u00edle posuzovan\u00e9 intervence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Uveden\u00ed explora\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu nen\u00ed ve v\u00fdvoji evalua\u010dn\u00ed metodologie ni\u010d\u00edm nahodil\u00fdm; rozvinut\u00ed tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu jasn\u011b vych\u00e1z\u00ed z diskursu 60. a 70. let, jen\u017e byl veden na t\u00e9ma \u00fa\u010delu a posl\u00e1n\u00ed evaluac\u00ed jako takov\u00fdch. Explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup je koncipov\u00e1n jako imanentn\u00ed sou\u010d\u00e1st interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f, jako pr\u016fvodce zainteresovan\u00fdch stran napom\u00e1haj\u00edc\u00ed v jejich rozhodovac\u00ed \u010dinnosti ve v\u0161ech f\u00e1z\u00edch rozvoje a v cel\u00e9 \u0161\u00ed\u0159i implementace posuzovan\u00fdch intervenc\u00ed. M. Scriven sv\u00fdm p\u0159\u00edstupem za cel\u00fd evalua\u010dn\u00ed obor jasn\u011b deklaroval ambici zapojit evaluace nejen do procesu implementace interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f. T\u00edm se pokusil marginalizovat tehdej\u0161\u00ed \u00fazus p\u0159\u00edpravy a proveden\u00ed evalua\u010dn\u00edch \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed a\u017e v pokro\u010dil\u00fdch f\u00e1z\u00edch implementace intervenc\u00ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ilustra\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edklad explora\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evalu\u00e1tor, kter\u00fd pou\u017eije explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup, nezn\u00e1 z\u00e1m\u011bry inici\u00e1tora hodnocen\u00fdch kurs\u016f, a tak v\u011bnuje pozornost v\u0161em zaznamenateln\u00fdm efekt\u016fm, ke kter\u00fdm kurs vede. Evalu\u00e1tor dojde k z\u00e1v\u011bru, \u017ee kurs sice nenau\u010d\u00ed jednotliv\u00e9 \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edky form\u00e1tovat odstavce a vytv\u00e1\u0159et tabulky, nicm\u00e9n\u011b vede ke zdokonalen\u00ed obecn\u00fdch u\u017eivatelsk\u00fdch n\u00e1vyk\u016f (pravideln\u00e9 z\u00e1lohov\u00e1n\u00ed, rychlej\u0161\u00ed psan\u00ed na kl\u00e1vesnici apod.). Sou\u010dasn\u011b je d\u00edky explora\u010dn\u00edmu p\u0159\u00edstupu odhalen jeden z nezam\u00fd\u0161len\u00fdch efekt\u016f kursu, kdy si \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edci mezi sebou vym\u011b\u0148uj\u00ed zku\u0161enosti z pr\u016fb\u011bhu pohovor\u016f u potenci\u00e1ln\u00edch zam\u011bstnavatel\u016f a sd\u00edl\u00ed mezi sebou aktu\u00e1ln\u00ed nab\u00eddky voln\u00fdch pracovn\u00edch pozic, co\u017e jim napom\u00e1h\u00e1 k rychlej\u0161\u00edmu z\u00edsk\u00e1n\u00ed nov\u00fdch pracovn\u00edch m\u00edst.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup tak sp\u00ed\u0161e ne\u017e k efektivit\u011b kursu obrac\u00ed pozornost k jeho celkov\u00e9 u\u017eite\u010dnosti. Zadavatel evaluace (resp. inici\u00e1tor kurs\u016f) m\u016f\u017ee na z\u00e1klad\u011b v\u00fdsledk\u016f takto proveden\u00e9ho \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed odhadnout m\u00edru efektivnosti kursu (i kdy\u017e v\u00fdznamn\u011b m\u00e9n\u011b p\u0159esn\u011b ne\u017e p\u0159i pou\u017eit\u00ed konfirma\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu) a tak\u00e9 m\u016f\u017ee identifikovat konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed formy, jak kurs upravit pro ostatn\u00ed regiony. Explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup pom\u016f\u017ee odhalit a zv\u00fdraznit takov\u00e9 parametry kursu, kter\u00e9 by i p\u0159es sv\u016fj vysok\u00fd v\u00fdznam z\u016fstaly v implicitn\u00ed rovin\u011b.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.    Konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup (Constructivist evaluation; Egon Guba, Yvonna Lincolnov\u00e1)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup (samotn\u00fdmi autory ozna\u010dovan\u00fd tak\u00e9 jako \u201eevaluace \u010dtvrt\u00e9 generace\u201c \u010di p\u016fvodn\u011b publikovan\u00fd pod n\u00e1zvem \u201enaturalistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup\u201c) je reakc\u00ed na obecn\u011b p\u0159evl\u00e1daj\u00edc\u00ed pozitivistick\u00e9 ch\u00e1p\u00e1n\u00ed reality jako objektivn\u00ed danosti a mo\u017enosti jej\u00edho zkoum\u00e1n\u00ed a hodnocen\u00ed. \u010celn\u00ed p\u0159edstavitel\u00e9 konstruktivistick\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu, E. Guba a Y. Lincolnov\u00e1, se p\u0159ibli\u017en\u011b od po\u010d\u00e1tku 80. let sna\u017eili rozproudit v\u00fdvoj evalua\u010dn\u00edho oboru diskuz\u00ed o hodnotov\u00e9m pluralismu, kritikou p\u0159\u00edli\u0161n\u00e9 koncentrace evalu\u00e1tor\u016f na v\u00fdzkumnou metodologii a poukazov\u00e1n\u00edm na nevhodn\u00fd design evaluac\u00ed, kter\u00fd \u010dastokr\u00e1t z\u00fa\u017eil posuzovan\u00e9 situace natolik, \u017ee dosa\u017een\u00e9 z\u00e1m\u011bry ztratily vn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed validitu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V r\u00e1mci historick\u00e9ho kontextu je t\u0159eba pouk\u00e1zat na skute\u010dnost, \u017ee 80. l\u00e9ta v USA znamenala oproti p\u0159edchoz\u00edm dv\u011bma desetilet\u00edm z\u00e1sadn\u00ed redukci po\u010dtu extern\u011b prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed po\u017eadovan\u00fdch feder\u00e1ln\u00ed vl\u00e1dou. Sn\u00ed\u017een\u00ed popt\u00e1vky po evaluac\u00edch bylo zp\u016fsobeno jednak rozpo\u010dtov\u00fdmi \u0161krty Reaganovy administrativy (bylo m\u00e9n\u011b interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f, je\u017e by bylo t\u0159eba evaluovat), a d\u00e1le tak\u00e9 pos\u00edlen\u00edm role intern\u00edch evalua\u010dn\u00edch t\u00fdm\u016f p\u016fsob\u00edc\u00edch v r\u00e1mci jednotliv\u00fdch ministerstev. Rovn\u011b\u017e je t\u0159eba upozornit na rostouc\u00ed v\u00fdznam evaluac\u00ed[9]. Evalu\u00e1to\u0159i se tak v\u00edce ne\u017e d\u0159\u00edve obraceli k principi\u00e1ln\u00edm ot\u00e1zk\u00e1m evaluac\u00ed na rozd\u00edl od praktick\u00fdch aspekt\u016f jejich prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed, je\u017e dominovaly v p\u0159edchoz\u00edm obdob\u00ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E. Guba a Y. Lincolnov\u00e1 p\u0159i formulaci sv\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu vych\u00e1zeli jednak ze Stakeova responzivn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu[10], ze kter\u00e9ho p\u0159evzali tezi, \u017ee evalua\u010dn\u00edho \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed by se m\u011bl \u00fa\u010dastnit nejen evalu\u00e1tor a zadavatel\u00e9, ale tak\u00e9 v\u0161echny dal\u0161\u00ed zainteresovan\u00e9 strany, kter\u00fdch se prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e1 evaluace dot\u00fdk\u00e1. Konstruktivist\u00e9 v tomto ohledu dokonce p\u0159izn\u00e1vaj\u00ed v\u0161em zainteresovan\u00fdm stran\u00e1m, kter\u00e9 jsou zapojeny do prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 evaluace, pln\u011b anga\u017eovanou \u00fa\u010dast zahrnuj\u00edc\u00ed jak spolurozhodov\u00e1n\u00ed v ot\u00e1zk\u00e1ch c\u00edl\u016f, tak tak\u00e9 pr\u00e1vo ovliv\u0148ovat jednotliv\u00e9 \u010dinnosti sm\u011b\u0159uj\u00edc\u00ed k z\u00e1v\u011br\u016fm dan\u00e9ho evalua\u010dn\u00edho \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed. Druh\u00fdm pil\u00ed\u0159em, o n\u011bj\u017e se konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup op\u00edr\u00e1, je metodologie zalo\u017een\u00e1 na hermeneutick\u00e9 dialektice. Evaluace zalo\u017een\u00e9 na konstruktivistick\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edstupu tak nejprve sumarizuj\u00ed a analyzuj\u00ed ment\u00e1ln\u00ed konstrukce jednotliv\u00fdch zainteresovan\u00fdch stran. V druh\u00e9m kroku jsou pak tyto ment\u00e1ln\u00ed konstrukce podrobeny vz\u00e1jemn\u00e9mu srovn\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed, kdy jsou identifikov\u00e1ny oblasti shody mezi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami a t\u00e9mata, v nich\u017e se zainteresovan\u00e9 strany li\u0161\u00ed. N\u00e1sleduj\u00ed diskuse zainteresovan\u00fdch stran facilitovan\u00e9 evalu\u00e1torem, jejich\u017e c\u00edlem je sbl\u00ed\u017eit ment\u00e1ln\u00ed konstrukce zainteresovan\u00fdch stran a dos\u00e1hnout shody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E. Guba s Y. Lincolnovou tak zpochyb\u0148uj\u00ed epistemologick\u00e9 mo\u017enosti nez\u00e1visl\u00e9ho a nez\u00fa\u010dastn\u011bn\u00e9ho pozn\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed (objektivn\u00ed) reality a kladou je do protikladu s transak\u010dn\u00edm subjektivismem, o n\u011bj\u017e se op\u00edr\u00e1 jimi zd\u016fraz\u0148ovan\u00fd intersubjektivn\u00ed (sd\u00edlen\u00fd) charakter individu\u00e1ln\u00edch konstrukc\u00ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Na rozd\u00edl od n\u011bkter\u00fdch jin\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f, nap\u0159. explora\u010dn\u00edho, je konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup spjat s konkr\u00e9tn\u00edmi metodami a technikami. Rovn\u011b\u017e jeho paradigmatick\u00e1 vyhran\u011bnost a jasn\u00e9 paradigmatick\u00e9 zakotven\u00ed z n\u011bj \u010din\u00ed v\u00fdjimku mezi ostatn\u00edmi p\u0159\u00edstupy. Jako jeden z m\u00e1la p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f (pokud ne jako jedin\u00fd) odm\u00edt\u00e1 pozitivistick\u00fd pohled na evaluace a vyzdvihuje p\u0159edpoklad o neexistenci objektivn\u00ed pravdy a objektivn\u00ed hodnoty. \u017d\u00e1dn\u00e1 z ment\u00e1ln\u00edch konstrukc\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch zainteresovan\u00fdch stran nen\u00ed podle E. Guby a Y. Lincolnov\u00e9 o nic pravdiv\u011bj\u0161\u00ed a opravdov\u011bj\u0161\u00ed ne\u017e jin\u00e1 ment\u00e1ln\u00ed konstrukce kter\u00e9hokoliv z dal\u0161\u00edch \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 evaluace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup klade do st\u0159edu sv\u00e9 pozornosti zainteresovan\u00e9 strany a v\u011bnuje zna\u010dnou pozornost anal\u00fdze jejich role v posuzovan\u00e9m interven\u010dn\u00edm programu a sledov\u00e1n\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch z\u00e1jm\u016f, jimi\u017e jsou tyto zainteresovan\u00e9 strany vedeny. Naproti tomu explora\u010dn\u00ed (M. Scriven) a konfirma\u010dn\u00ed (R. Tyler) p\u0159\u00edstup obracej\u00ed svou pozornost k c\u00edl\u016fm sledovan\u00fdch interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f a k metod\u00e1m, jak co nejl\u00e9pe ov\u011b\u0159it jejich dosa\u017een\u00ed. Zainteresovan\u00e9 strany vystupuj\u00ed v takto pojat\u00fdch evaluac\u00edch jen jako jeden z \u010dinitel\u016f, v n\u011bm\u017e se zrcadl\u00ed p\u0159\u00ednos (worth) posuzovan\u00fdch interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f, nikoliv v\u0161ak jejich v\u011bcn\u00fd z\u00e1klad (merit).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mnoho evalu\u00e1tor\u016f poukazuje na zna\u010dnou obt\u00ed\u017enost proveden\u00ed evaluac\u00ed zp\u016fsobem, kter\u00fd by vyu\u017e\u00edval konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup, p\u0159esto se v\u0161ak lze s konkr\u00e9tn\u00edmi p\u0159\u00edklady jejich praktick\u00e9ho vyu\u017eit\u00ed setkat. V\u00fdznamnou bari\u00e9ru aplika\u010dn\u00edho rozvoje konstruktivistick\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu p\u0159edstavuje principi\u00e1ln\u00ed c\u00edl takto prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed, j\u00edm\u017e je konvergence protich\u016fdn\u00fdch z\u00e1jm\u016f (subjektivn\u00edch ment\u00e1ln\u00edch konstrukc\u00ed) a dosa\u017een\u00ed konsenzu. Pawson a Tilley (1997) proto za\u0159azuj\u00ed konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup zalo\u017een\u00fd na negociaci mezi nositeli jednotliv\u00fdch ment\u00e1ln\u00edch konstrukc\u00ed do \u201e\u00fatuln\u00e9ho p\u0159edm\u011bstsk\u00e9ho sv\u011bta, v n\u011bm\u017e se odehr\u00e1vaj\u00ed setk\u00e1n\u00ed mezi \u0159editeli \u0161kol, u\u010diteli a rodi\u010di \u017e\u00e1k\u016f, p\u0159i kter\u00fdch marn\u00ed \u010das diskuzemi o charakteru dom\u00e1c\u00edch \u00fakol\u016f pro p\u00e1tou t\u0159\u00eddu\u201c. Rovn\u011b\u017e dal\u0161\u00ed z p\u0159edpoklad\u016f, hermeneutick\u00fd dialektick\u00fd proces, \u010din\u00ed z konstruktivisticky prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed \u010dinnost, kter\u00e1 je v r\u00e1mci obvykle po\u017eadovan\u00fdch \u010dasov\u00fdch r\u00e1mc\u016f (\u0159\u00e1dov\u011b m\u011bs\u00edce) prakticky neuchopiteln\u00e1 a neprovediteln\u00e1. Konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup tak sice p\u0159\u00edli\u0161 nezm\u011bnil evalua\u010dn\u00ed praxi a v\u017eit\u00e9 zp\u016fsoby prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, nicm\u00e9n\u011b v\u00fdznamn\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem ovlivnil evalua\u010dn\u00ed teorii. Je t\u00e9m\u011b\u0159 nemo\u017en\u00e9 naj\u00edt monografii \u010di u\u010debnici evaluac\u00ed vydanou v posledn\u00edch p\u011btadvaceti letech, kter\u00e1 by na konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup neodkazovala. Je t\u0159eba na tomto m\u00edst\u011b pouk\u00e1zat na skute\u010dnost, \u017ee samotn\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup se stal inspirac\u00ed pro mnoh\u00e9 dal\u0161\u00ed (nap\u0159. participativn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup) a m\u00e1 rovn\u011b\u017e sv\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edm\u00e9 pokra\u010dovatele \u2013 nap\u0159. Bhola (1998), Schwandt (1984) \u010di Huebner, Betts (1999).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V neposledn\u00ed \u0159ad\u011b je t\u0159eba vyzdvihnout p\u0159\u00ednos \u0159ady d\u00edl\u010d\u00edch koncept\u016f a n\u00e1m\u011bt\u016f, kter\u00e9 se v evalua\u010dn\u00ed praxi rychle roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159ily bez ohledu na konkr\u00e9tn\u011b uplat\u0148ovan\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup. V tomto sm\u011bru p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm idea identifikace v\u0161ech subjekt\u016f dot\u010den\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed a jejich zahrnut\u00ed do procesu evaluac\u00ed coby zainteresovan\u00fdch stran je dnes obecn\u011b akceptovan\u00fdm doporu\u010den\u00edm (Lay, Papadopoulos 2007). Dokonce m\u00e1 sv\u016fj normativn\u00ed rozm\u011br, nebo\u0165 zahrnut\u00ed v\u0161ech zainteresovan\u00fdch stran je definov\u00e1no v Program Evaluation Standards (cit. dle Sanders 1994) jako sine qua non ka\u017ed\u00e9ho korektn\u011b proveden\u00e9ho evalua\u010dn\u00edho \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Konstruktivistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup jako celek je v\u0161ak mnoh\u00fdmi evalu\u00e1tory (nap\u0159. Scriven 1991) pova\u017eov\u00e1n za \u201eradik\u00e1ln\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup v sou\u010dasn\u00e9 epistemologii a v\u00fdzkumn\u00e9 metodologii\u201c, kter\u00fd na vln\u011b kritiky vyu\u017eitelnosti experiment\u016f v evalua\u010dn\u00ed praxi vylil s vani\u010dkou i d\u00edt\u011b (Pawson, Tilley 1997). Konstruktivistick\u00e9mu p\u0159\u00edstupu je vyt\u00fdk\u00e1n neopodstatn\u011bn\u00fd imperativ parity zainteresovan\u00fdch stran v kontextu zjevn\u011b disparitn\u00ed reality, kterou nav\u00edc v\u0161echny ostatn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstupy pln\u011b akceptuj\u00ed a reflektuj\u00ed. Dal\u0161\u00ed odli\u0161nost konstruktivistick\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu omezuj\u00edc\u00ed jeho vyu\u017eitelnost se projevuje v nemo\u017enosti posoudit adekv\u00e1tnost z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f z hlediska zaveden\u00fdch pojm\u016f, jak\u00fdmi jsou nap\u0159. validita a reliabilita. E. Guba s Y. Lincolnovou sice v tomto ohledu nab\u00edzej\u00ed alternativn\u00ed konstrukty (nap\u0159. zav\u00e1d\u011bj\u00ed pojem \u201ekredibility\u201c coby n\u00e1hrady za vnit\u0159n\u00ed validitu \u010di \u201edependabilitu\u201c jako alternativu reliability); to v\u0161ak ne\u0159e\u0161\u00ed probl\u00e9m izolace konstruktivistick\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ilustra\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edklad konstruktivistick\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159i uplatn\u011bn\u00ed konstruktivistick\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu diskutuje evalu\u00e1tor b\u011bhem spole\u010dn\u00e9ho brainstormingu s vybran\u00fdmi \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edky dan\u00e9ho kursu; nezam\u011bstnan\u00fdmi, <\/em>kte\u0159\u00ed nebyli do kursu p\u0159ijati; lektory; z\u00e1stupci potenci\u00e1ln\u00edch zam\u011bstnavatel\u016f; p\u0159\u00edm\u00fdmi nad\u0159\u00edzen\u00fdmi zam\u011bstnanc\u016f, kte\u0159\u00ed se v minulosti kursu z\u00fa\u010dastnili a z\u00edskali nov\u00e9 zam\u011bstn\u00e1n\u00ed; pracovn\u00edky dan\u00e9ho \u00fa\u0159adu pr\u00e1ce; z\u00e1stupci inici\u00e1tora dan\u00e9ho interven\u010dn\u00edho programu a s rodinn\u00fdmi p\u0159\u00edslu\u0161n\u00edky \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edk\u016f kursu. V pr\u016fb\u011bhu diskuz\u00ed, kter\u00e9 evalu\u00e1tor moderuje, se pozornost zam\u011b\u0159uje na o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed, s nimi\u017e jednotliv\u00e9 zainteresovan\u00e9 strany vstupovaly do dan\u00e9 situace (t\u00edm dojede ke konfrontaci subjektivit resp. ment\u00e1ln\u00edch konstrukc\u00ed). Evalu\u00e1tor zji\u0161\u0165uje, kter\u00e1 z t\u011bchto o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed se naplnila a kter\u00e1 nikoliv, n\u00e1sledn\u011b hled\u00e1 zp\u016fsoby, jak koncipovat \u010di vylep\u0161it posuzovan\u00fd kurs, aby uspokojil pot\u0159eby ka\u017ed\u00e9 ze zainteresovan\u00fdch stran. Tyto diskuze jsou opakov\u00e1ny do doby, ne\u017e je nalezeno kompromisn\u00ed uspo\u0159\u00e1d\u00e1n\u00ed kursu, kter\u00e9 maximalizuje u\u017eite\u010dnost pro ka\u017edou ze zainteresovan\u00fdch stran. V\u00fdsledkem je tedy n\u00e1vrh zm\u011bn v uspo\u0159\u00e1d\u00e1n\u00ed kursu, kter\u00e9 vede k tomu, \u017ee inici\u00e1tor pova\u017euje kurs za u\u017eite\u010dn\u00fd, (potenci\u00e1ln\u00ed) \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edci v n\u011bm spat\u0159uj\u00ed cestu k z\u00edsk\u00e1n\u00ed nov\u00e9ho zam\u011bstn\u00e1n\u00ed, pracovn\u00edci \u00fa\u0159ad\u016f pr\u00e1ce jsou p\u0159esv\u011bd\u010deni, \u017ee absolventy takto koncipovan\u00e9ho kursu dok\u00e1\u017e\u00ed sn\u00e1ze um\u00edstit na trhu pr\u00e1ce a zam\u011bstnavatel\u00e9 budou preferovat absolventy kursu oproti jin\u00fdm uchaze\u010d\u016fm, nebo\u0165 jsou p\u0159esv\u011bd\u010deni o tom, \u017ee tito absolventi skute\u010dn\u011b disponuj\u00ed pot\u0159ebn\u00fdmi schopnostmi a dovednostmi.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zadavatel evaluace se dozv\u00ed jen velmi m\u00e1lo o efektivnosti kursu, a tak rozhodnut\u00ed o roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159en\u00ed do dal\u0161\u00edch region\u016f bude muset op\u0159\u00edt o jin\u00e9 poznatky, nicm\u00e9n\u011b d\u00edky konstruktivisticky pojat\u00e9 evaluaci z\u00edsk\u00e1 podobn\u00e9 informace o tom, jak\u00fd je p\u0159\u00ednos kursu pro jednotliv\u00e9 zainteresovan\u00e9 strany. Takov\u00e9to poznatky mohou pomoci jak p\u0159i zlep\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed kursu, tak tak\u00e9 p\u0159i komunikaci s jednotliv\u00fdmi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.    Evaluace veden\u00e1 teori\u00ed (Theory-driven evaluation; Huey-Tsyh Chen, Peter Rossi)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159\u00edstup k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, kter\u00fd je veden teori\u00ed, lze pova\u017eovat za p\u0159\u00edsp\u011bvek k diskuzi mezi evalu\u00e1tory o mo\u017enostech a limitech uplatn\u011bn\u00ed randomizovan\u00fdch experiment\u016f. P\u0159edstavitel\u00e9 tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu neroz\u0161i\u0159uj\u00ed \u0159ady radik\u00e1ln\u00edch kritik\u016f, kte\u0159\u00ed odm\u00edtaj\u00ed jak samotn\u00e9 experimenty, tak tak\u00e9 jak\u00fdkoliv jin\u00fd design empirick\u00e9 studie \u0161it\u00e9 podle pozitivistick\u00e9ho st\u0159ihu. P\u0159\u00edstup k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, kter\u00fd je veden teori\u00ed, se v tomto ohledu distancuje jak od konstruktivistick\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu E. Guby a Y. Lincolnov\u00e9, tak tak\u00e9 od jejich descendent\u016f v podob\u011b participativn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed a \u0159ady dal\u0161\u00edch (zejm. od p\u0159\u00edstupu zalo\u017een\u00e9ho na spolupr\u00e1ci \/collaborative\/ a od zplnomoc\u0148uj\u00edc\u00edho \/empowerment\/ p\u0159\u00edstupu).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Na druh\u00e9 stran\u011b v\u0161ak nelze teori\u00ed veden\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup p\u0159i\u0159adit ani k obh\u00e1jc\u016fm a \u0161i\u0159itel\u016fm experiment\u00e1ln\u00edho designu, jak\u00fdmi byli nap\u0159. D. Campbell, J. Stanley nebo T. Cook. \u010celn\u00fd p\u0159edstavitel tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu, H. Chen, obrac\u00ed pozornost evalu\u00e1tor\u016f k mechanismu fungov\u00e1n\u00ed intervenc\u00ed, a vytv\u00e1\u0159\u00ed tak nov\u00fd r\u00e1mec, v n\u011bm\u017e mohou b\u00fdt prov\u00e1d\u011bny jak (d\u00edl\u010d\u00ed) experimenty, tak tak\u00e9 jinak koncipovan\u00e1 \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed. V\u00fdznamnou zm\u011bnu oproti ostatn\u00edm popisovan\u00fdm p\u0159\u00edstup\u016fm p\u0159edstavuje zp\u016fsob vyu\u017eit\u00ed takto z\u00edskan\u00fdch \u00fadaj\u016f. Ty jsou toti\u017e vztahov\u00e1ny ke kontextu dan\u00e9 intervence a slou\u017e\u00ed k vysv\u011btlen\u00ed zp\u016fsobu, jak dan\u00e1 intervence funguje. Z\u00e1jem vysv\u011btlen\u00ed je v evaluac\u00edch ojedin\u011bl\u00fd. Z mnoha pramen\u016f je patrn\u00e9, \u017ee smysl, c\u00edle a posl\u00e1n\u00ed evaluac\u00ed jsou tradi\u010dn\u011b spat\u0159ov\u00e1ny zejm\u00e9na v popisu (deskripci) a v jist\u00e9 omezen\u00e9 m\u00ed\u0159e v exploraci, nicm\u00e9n\u011b pokus o vysv\u011btlen\u00ed (nap\u0159. zp\u016fsobu fungov\u00e1n\u00ed interven\u010dn\u00edho programu) se v uchopiteln\u00e9 a systematicky pojat\u00e9 podob\u011b objevuje a\u017e u H. Chena. Na tento p\u0159\u00edstup a jeho nosnou ideu o evaluac\u00edch vysv\u011btluj\u00edc\u00edch mechanismy fungov\u00e1n\u00ed posuzovan\u00e9ho interven\u010dn\u00edho programu nav\u00e1zal na realistick\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup, kter\u00fd p\u0159inesl do evalua\u010dn\u00ed teorie kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00e9 prvky emergentn\u00edho realismu (zejm. pak generativn\u00ed pojet\u00ed kauzality, roli kontextu \u010di rozli\u0161en\u00ed mechanismu a pravidelnosti).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chen\u016fv p\u0159\u00edstup sm\u011b\u0159uje k eliminaci interpreta\u010dn\u00ed nejistoty (zejm\u00e9na) v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b p\u0159ijet\u00ed nulov\u00e9 hypot\u00e9zy o fungov\u00e1n\u00ed intervence programu v podm\u00ednk\u00e1ch experiment\u00e1ln\u00edho designu[11]. Pokud toti\u017e nen\u00ed shled\u00e1n statisticky v\u00fdznamn\u00fd rozd\u00edl mezi v\u00fdstupy v testovac\u00ed a kontroln\u00ed skupin\u011b, nab\u00edz\u00ed se v\u017edy n\u011bkolik z\u00e1sadn\u00edch ot\u00e1zek \u010di pochybnost\u00ed: Znamen\u00e1 v\u00fdsledek testu, \u017ee dan\u00fd interven\u010dn\u00ed program skute\u010dn\u011b nevyvol\u00e1v\u00e1 o\u010dek\u00e1van\u00e9 efekty? Co kdy\u017e je nepr\u016fkazn\u00fd v\u00fdsledek zp\u016fsoben navr\u017een\u00fdm evalua\u010dn\u00edm designem? Co kdy\u017e jsou pou\u017eity takov\u00e9 n\u00e1stroje m\u011b\u0159en\u00ed, kter\u00e9 jen nejsou dostate\u010dn\u011b citliv\u00e9, aby mohly zp\u016fsoben\u00fd efekt zachytit? Mohli bychom dos\u00e1hnout jin\u00e9ho v\u00fdsledku, tj. prok\u00e1zat funk\u010dnost dan\u00e9 intervence, pokud bychom zv\u00fd\u0161ili po\u010det p\u0159\u00edpad\u016f\/velikost testovac\u00ed a kontroln\u00ed skupiny? H. Chen proto v t\u00e9to souvislosti nab\u00edz\u00ed \u0159e\u0161en\u00ed, kter\u00e9 spo\u010d\u00edv\u00e1 v dopln\u011bn\u00ed poznatk\u016f z\u00edskan\u00fdch z evaluac\u00ed zalo\u017een\u00fdch na experiment\u00e1ln\u00edm (\u010di kvaziexperiment\u00e1ln\u00edm) designu o nov\u00fd typ informac\u00ed a znalost\u00ed \u2013 o tzv. \u201eteorii\u201c p\u016fsoben\u00ed dan\u00e9 intervence (Donaldson 2007; Rogers 2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00dast\u0159edn\u00ed pojem \u2013 teorie \u2013 tedy v pod\u00e1n\u00ed autora znamen\u00e1 pravd\u011bpodobn\u00fd a obhajiteln\u00fd model o\u010dek\u00e1van\u00e9ho p\u016fsoben\u00ed dan\u00e9ho interven\u010dn\u00edho programu (Chen, Rossi 1983). Chenova \u201eteorie\u201c je p\u0159edstavou o mechanismech, kter\u00fdmi by dan\u00fd interven\u010dn\u00ed program mohl p\u016fsobit, a kter\u00e9 by mohly vyvol\u00e1vat pozorovateln\u00e9 v\u00fdstupy. Kondicion\u00e1l v posledn\u00ed v\u011bt\u011b je zvolen z\u00e1m\u011brn\u011b, nebo\u0165 H. Chen s\u00e1m nech\u00e1pal svou definici teorie deskriptivn\u00edm zp\u016fsobem, tedy jako konstatov\u00e1n\u00ed faktick\u00e9ho stavu, n\u00fdbr\u017e jako vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00ed \u017e\u00e1douc\u00edho, lep\u0161\u00edho \u010di optim\u00e1ln\u00edho stavu (Chen 1990). Chenovu teorii je tedy mo\u017en\u00e9 si p\u0159edstavit jako soubor vz\u00e1jemn\u011b prov\u00e1zan\u00fdch hypot\u00e9z o vztaz\u00edch mezi jednotliv\u00fdmi ud\u00e1lostmi mezi prvky dan\u00e9 intervence. Vlastn\u00ed proces evalua\u010dn\u00edho \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed je pak de facto verifikac\u00ed tohoto souboru hypot\u00e9z a modifikac\u00ed v\u00fdchoz\u00ed p\u0159edstavy na z\u00e1klad\u011b empiricky z\u00edsk\u00e1van\u00fdch \u00fadaj\u016f.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159\u00edstup k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, kter\u00fd je veden teori\u00ed, je zalo\u017een na t\u0159ech element\u00e1rn\u00edch principech. T\u00edm prvn\u00edm je zam\u011b\u0159en\u00ed na zm\u011bnu (action oriented); zahrnuje toti\u017e detailn\u00ed popis jednotliv\u00fdch mechanism\u016f, pomoc\u00ed nich\u017e interven\u010dn\u00ed programy mohou p\u016fsobit (tj. vyvol\u00e1vat zm\u011bnu). V tomto ohledu p\u0159itom nejde ani o popis v\u00fdchoz\u00ed struktury, ani o zachycen\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch prvk\u016f samotn\u00fdch interven\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f, ale jde o zachycen\u00ed dynamiky intervence. Druh\u00fd princip Chenova p\u0159\u00edstupu je zalo\u017een na konceptualizaci samotn\u00e9 intervence a na detailn\u00edm rozboru pou\u017eit\u00e9 implementa\u010dn\u00ed strategie. V tomto ohledu se teori\u00ed veden\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup zam\u011b\u0159uje na anal\u00fdzu konkr\u00e9tn\u011b pou\u017eit\u00fdch n\u00e1stroj\u016f dan\u00e9 intervence a na zkoum\u00e1n\u00ed intenzity \u010di zp\u016fsobu jejich pou\u017eit\u00ed. T\u0159et\u00edm z princip\u016f tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu je volba krit\u00e9ri\u00ed, na jejich\u017e z\u00e1klad\u011b jsou v\u00fdsledky dan\u00e9ho interven\u010dn\u00edho programu posuzov\u00e1ny. Zde H. Chen navazuje jak na R. Tylera, tak tak\u00e9 na M. Scrivena, kte\u0159\u00ed v r\u00e1mci sv\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f v\u011bnovali volb\u011b a adekv\u00e1tn\u00edmu stanoven\u00ed indik\u00e1tor\u016f zna\u010dnou pozornost. H. Chen v\u0161ak zvolil odli\u0161n\u00fd zp\u016fsob jejich stanoven\u00ed \u2013 navrhuje toti\u017e, aby krit\u00e9ria pro posouzen\u00ed \u00fa\u010dinnosti dan\u00e9 intervence navrhly samotn\u00e9 zainteresovan\u00e9 strany.[12]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

H. Chen v r\u00e1mci sv\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu definoval celkem \u0161est oblast\u00ed[13], jim\u017e je t\u0159eba p\u0159i prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed v\u011bnovat pozornost. Jde (1) o samotnou povahu intervence (treatment), jej\u00ed\u017e pozn\u00e1n\u00ed a anal\u00fdza je nezbytn\u00fdm v\u00fdchodiskem pro zachycen\u00ed zm\u011bn vyvolan\u00fdch dan\u00fdm interven\u010dn\u00edm programem, (2) o implementa\u010dn\u00ed prost\u0159ed\u00ed, kter\u00e9 jasn\u011b odkazuje ke kontextu, v n\u011bm\u017e se posuzovan\u00e1 intervence, resp. interven\u010dn\u00ed program odehr\u00e1v\u00e1, a (3) o v\u00fdsledky, ke kter\u00fdm dan\u00fd interven\u010dn\u00ed program dosp\u011bl. Druh\u00e1 trojice oblast\u00ed zahrnuje (4) dopady, jejich\u017e detailn\u00ed anal\u00fdzu H. Chen pova\u017euje za \u00fast\u0159edn\u00ed t\u00e9ma cel\u00e9 evaluace, (5) intervenuj\u00edc\u00ed mechanismus, co\u017e je v podstat\u011b kauz\u00e1ln\u00ed vztah spojuj\u00edc\u00ed povahu intervence a jej\u00ed v\u00fdsledek (outcome) a (6) zobecn\u011bn\u00ed, v souvislosti s n\u00edm\u017e H. Chen upozor\u0148uje, \u017ee z\u00edskan\u00e9 poznatky mohou b\u00fdt vyu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1ny i s \u010dasov\u00fdm odstupem, pro jin\u00e9 populace \u010di v jin\u00fdch kontextech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chenov\u00fdm c\u00edlem, kter\u00fd anticipuje v r\u00e1mci sv\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu, je snaha o dosa\u017een\u00ed vyv\u00e1\u017een\u00e9ho pom\u011bru mezi vnit\u0159n\u00ed a vn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed validitou. To je dal\u0161\u00ed z mnoha prvk\u016f, jimi\u017e se Chen\u016fv p\u0159\u00edstup odli\u0161uje od v\u0161ech ostatn\u00edch. Jin\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edstupy, jak H. Chen s\u00e1m poukazuje, toti\u017e bu\u010f kladou d\u016fraz jen na jeden z obou typ\u016f validity, nebo si probl\u00e9m validity v\u016fbec nep\u0159ipou\u0161t\u011bj\u00ed (Chen 1990). H. Chen v tomto ohledu odkazuje na vyhl\u00e1\u0161en\u00e9 spory W. Gosseta s R. Fischerem veden\u00e9 o povaze a vhodnosti zn\u00e1hodn\u011bn\u00fdch experiment\u016f, p\u0159i\u010dem\u017e Chen jednozna\u010dn\u011b stran\u00ed Gossetovi, kter\u00fd nam\u00edsto experiment\u00e1ln\u00edho designu preferoval takov\u00e9 uspo\u0159\u00e1d\u00e1n\u00ed, jeho\u017e postupy by se co nejv\u00edce podobaly re\u00e1ln\u00fdm situac\u00edm zkouman\u00fdch subjekt\u016f (Alkin 2004).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nespornou v\u00fdhodou Chenova p\u0159\u00edstupu je, \u017ee konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed rozhodnut\u00ed, je\u017e je p\u0159i realizaci evalua\u010dn\u00edho \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed t\u0159eba u\u010dinit, jsou r\u00e1mov\u00e1na teori\u00ed. Znamen\u00e1 to tedy, \u017ee charakter jednotliv\u00fdch kauz\u00e1ln\u00edch vazeb, povaha sledovan\u00fdch znak\u016f (indik\u00e1tor\u016f) i samotn\u00e1 interpretace z\u00edskan\u00fdch v\u00fdsledk\u016f m\u00e1 jasn\u00fd a dokumentovan\u00fd z\u00e1klad, kter\u00fd usnad\u0148uje implementaci dosa\u017een\u00fdch v\u00fdsledk\u016f (Molas-Gallard, Davies 2005).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P\u0159\u00edstup k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, kter\u00fd je veden teori\u00ed, lze tedy vyu\u017e\u00edvat zejm\u00e9na v takov\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edpadech, kdy nen\u00ed mo\u017en\u00e9 testovat vztahy mezi jednotliv\u00fdmi prom\u011bnn\u00fdmi p\u0159\u00edmo; v t\u011bchto situac\u00edch dok\u00e1\u017ee teori\u00ed veden\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup zv\u00fdraznit v\u00fdsledky sledovan\u00fdch program\u016f a z\u00e1rove\u0148 tak\u00e9 p\u0159esn\u011b specifikovat jednotliv\u00e9 faktory, kter\u00e9 k celkov\u00e9mu v\u00fdsledku p\u0159isp\u00edvaj\u00ed nejv\u011bt\u0161\u00ed m\u011brou. Dan\u00fdch z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f je p\u0159i vyu\u017eit\u00ed tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu dosa\u017eeno prost\u0159ednictv\u00edm popisu mechanismu p\u016fsoben\u00ed interven\u010dn\u00edho programu a prost\u0159ednictv\u00edm specifikace a monitorov\u00e1n\u00ed determinuj\u00edc\u00edch \u010dinitel\u016f.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ilustra\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edklad teori\u00ed veden\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evalu\u00e1tor prov\u00e1d\u011bj\u00edc\u00ed evaluace v duchu tohoto p\u0159\u00edstupu po \u00favodn\u00edm sezn\u00e1men\u00ed s danou situac\u00ed p\u0159iprav\u00ed \u201eteorii\u201c, jak dan\u00fd kurs m\u016f\u017ee dosahovat o\u010dek\u00e1van\u00fdch v\u00fdsledk\u016f, pop\u0159. p\u0159evezme (a uprav\u00ed) teorii p\u0159ipravenou zadavatelem evaluace. N\u00e1sledn\u011b p\u0159iprav\u00ed takov\u00fd design evaluace, kter\u00fd umo\u017en\u00ed vytvo\u0159enou teorii ov\u011b\u0159it. Takov\u00fd model m\u016f\u017ee m\u00edt t\u0159eba podobu, je\u017e je patrn\u00e1 z n\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00edho obr\u00e1zku:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

V pr\u016fb\u011bhu evaluace je v\u00fdchoz\u00ed model (dokumentuj\u00edc\u00ed teorii zm\u011bny) postupn\u011b upravov\u00e1n podle z\u00edsk\u00e1van\u00fdch poznatk\u016f tak dlouho, a\u017e vznikne fin\u00e1ln\u00ed podoba \u201eov\u011b\u0159en\u00e9\u201c teorie. Evalu\u00e1tor b\u011bhem prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed takov\u00e9to evaluace spolupracuje s jednotliv\u00fdmi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami, z\u00edsk\u00e1v\u00e1 konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed podkladov\u00e1 data o jednotliv\u00fdch prvc\u00edch sv\u00e9 teorie a klade p\u0159itom d\u016fraz na p\u0159esn\u00e9 zachycen\u00ed a popis kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00fdch proces\u016f (vazeb mezi jednotliv\u00fdmi prvky). V z\u00e1v\u011bre\u010dn\u00e9 zpr\u00e1v\u011b pak evalu\u00e1tor zd\u016frazn\u00ed kritick\u00e9 momenty, kter\u00e9 se spolupod\u00edlej\u00ed na \u00fasp\u011b\u0161nosti kursu.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zadavatel tak z\u00edsk\u00e1 podklad verifikuj\u00edc\u00ed, zdali p\u0159edpokl\u00e1dan\u00fd mechanismus p\u016fsoben\u00ed kursu skute\u010dn\u011b funguje \u010di nikoliv. Teori\u00ed veden\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup tedy neov\u011b\u0159uje dosa\u017een\u00e9 c\u00edlov\u00e9 hodnoty (jako tomu je v p\u0159\u00edstupu konfirma\u010dn\u00edm), nehled\u00e1 ani jednotliv\u00e9 efekty, k nim\u017e kurs vede (viz explora\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup), ale prov\u011b\u0159uje platnost p\u0159edpokl\u00e1dan\u00fdch vztah\u016f mezi aktivitami a v\u00fdstupy, mezi v\u00fdstupy a v\u00fdsledky a mezi v\u00fdsledky a dopady. Zadavatel na z\u00e1klad\u011b v\u00fdsledk\u016f takto pojat\u00e9 evaluace zv\u00e1\u017e\u00ed, zdali i v ostatn\u00edch regionech panuj\u00ed podobn\u00e9 okolnosti jako v pilotn\u00ed lokalit\u011b (v\u00fdchoz\u00ed \u00farove\u0148 po\u010d\u00edta\u010dov\u00e9 gramotnosti, po\u010det a struktura pracovn\u00edch sil atd.) a pokud ano, rozhodne o roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159en\u00ed kursu.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Souhrn<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Z nast\u00edn\u011bn\u00e9ho p\u0159ehledu jednotliv\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f je patrn\u00e9, \u017ee ka\u017ed\u00fd z nich je mo\u017en\u00e9 si p\u0159edstavit jako reflektor, kter\u00fd osv\u011btluje konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed \u010d\u00e1st dan\u00e9 intervence. Ze zku\u0161enost\u00ed a z dostupn\u00fdch podklad\u016f se ukazuje, \u017ee \u017e\u00e1dn\u00fd z existuj\u00edc\u00edch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f neposkytuje recept na v\u0161echny situace, ve kter\u00fdch evaluace jsou a mohou b\u00fdt prov\u00e1d\u011bny. Existence n\u011bkolika evalua\u010dn\u00edch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f je tak odrazem mnohosti hodnocen\u00fdch situac\u00ed; pro ka\u017edou situaci je vhodn\u00fd jin\u00fd evalua\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup. Sou\u010dasn\u011b to znamen\u00e1, \u017ee v dan\u00e9 situaci lze vyu\u017e\u00edt n\u011bkolika r\u016fzn\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f a zohlednit tak konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed parametry dan\u00e9 aplika\u010dn\u00ed situace. Tato variantnost v p\u0159\u00edstupech k realizaci evaluac\u00ed na jedn\u00e9 stran\u011b p\u0159edstavuje jist\u00e1 rizika, nebo\u0165 volba konkr\u00e9tn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt v dan\u00e9 aplika\u010dn\u00ed situaci provedena laikem, a\u0165 u\u017e na stran\u011b realiz\u00e1tora \u010di na stran\u011b zadavatele bez adekv\u00e1tn\u00ed rozvahy nad implikacemi takov\u00e9to volby. Na druh\u00e9 stran\u011b plat\u00ed, \u017ee zmi\u0148ovan\u00e1 mnoho\u010detnost p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f, jakkoliv \u010din\u00ed oblast evaluac\u00ed nep\u0159ehlednou, je smyslupln\u00e1 a v kone\u010dn\u00e9m d\u016fsledku u\u017eite\u010dn\u00e1, nebo\u0165 p\u0159ibli\u017euje evalua\u010dn\u00ed metodologii konkr\u00e9tn\u00edm aplika\u010dn\u00edm situac\u00edm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V praxi se obvykle zohled\u0148uj\u00ed pragmatick\u00e1 krit\u00e9ria pro volbu p\u0159\u00edstupu \u010di pro nastaven\u00ed designu dan\u00e9 evaluace. V \u0159ad\u011b p\u0159\u00edpad\u016f je typ (p\u0159\u00edstup) definov\u00e1n zadavatelem, v jin\u00fdch situac\u00edch neb\u00fdv\u00e1 \u010das \u010di prost\u0159edky k proveden\u00ed evaluace v\u00edcero p\u0159\u00edstupy, v n\u011bkter\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edpadech m\u016f\u017ee chyb\u011bt pov\u011bdom\u00ed o alternativn\u00edch zp\u016fsobech proveden\u00ed evaluace \u010di znalost konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch metodologick\u00fdch n\u00e1stroj\u016f nutn\u00fdch pro realizaci dan\u00e9ho evalua\u010dn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu. Zp\u016fsob proveden\u00ed evaluace je d\u00e1le determinov\u00e1n jej\u00edm c\u00edlem, co\u017e n\u011bkter\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edstupy v dan\u00e9 aplika\u010dn\u00ed situaci diskvalifikuje. P\u0159esto v\u0161ak je vhodn\u00e9 o alternativn\u00edch p\u0159\u00edstupech v\u017edy uva\u017eovat, nebo\u0165 jejich efektivn\u00ed realizac\u00ed m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt v\u00fdznamn\u011b zv\u00fd\u0161ena u\u017eite\u010dnost (a vyu\u017eitelnost) proveden\u00e9 evaluace.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Pozn\u00e1mky pod \u010darou:<\/strong>
[1] V pedagogick\u00e9m v\u00fdzkumu maj\u00ed takov\u00fd charakter nap\u0159. achievement testy.
[2] V\u011bcn\u00fd z\u00e1klad (merit) charakterizuje samotnou podstatu p\u0159edm\u011btu evaluace a odkazuje k jeho funk\u010dnosti, zat\u00edmco p\u0159\u00ednos (worth) odkazuje k tomu, jak je v\u011bcn\u00fd z\u00e1klad vn\u00edm\u00e1n konkr\u00e9tn\u00edmi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami.
[3] R. Tyler se s\u00e1m stal v 60. letech vedouc\u00edm NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), co\u017e byl feder\u00e1ln\u00ed program pro sb\u011br dat o v\u00fdkonech \u017e\u00e1k\u016f americk\u00fdch \u0161kol.
[4] Tedy k p\u0159\u00edli\u0161n\u00e9mu zam\u011b\u0159en\u00ed na fin\u00e1ln\u00ed v\u00fdstupy odhl\u00ed\u017eej\u00edc\u00edho od mechanism\u016f a zp\u016fsob\u016f jejich dosa\u017een\u00ed.
[5] P\u0159\u00edklad je pr\u016fb\u011b\u017en\u00fd a opakovan\u011b se k n\u011bmu vrac\u00edme v ka\u017ed\u00e9m z d\u00e1le prezentovan\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f. Postupn\u011b jsou tedy uvedeny \u010dty\u0159i variace na stejn\u00e9 t\u00e9ma. D\u00edky tomu si \u010dten\u00e1\u0159 m\u016f\u017ee vytvo\u0159it p\u0159edstavu o odli\u0161nostech, kter\u00e9 mezi jednotliv\u00fdmi p\u0159\u00edstupy panuj\u00ed.
[6] Podoba evalua\u010dn\u00edch \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed byla v USA v 60. letech ovlivn\u011bna z\u00e1konn\u00fdmi pravidly,
kter\u00e1 p\u0159esn\u011b specifikovala jejich podobu. Specifikace evaluac\u00ed vych\u00e1zela, s ohledem k \u00fa\u010delu vyu\u017eit\u00ed (nap\u0159. rozhodnut\u00ed o pokra\u010dov\u00e1n\u00ed \u010di zastaven\u00ed finan\u010dn\u00ed podpory konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch \u0161kol z ve\u0159ejn\u00fdch zdroj\u016f), z Tylerovy metodiky.
[7] M. Scriven v t\u00e9to souvislosti n\u011bkdy p\u00ed\u0161e o tzv. bias-free evaluation.
[8] Krom\u011b t\u00e9to kvalitativn\u00ed objektivity je mo\u017en\u00e9 rozli\u0161it tak\u00e9 objektivitu kvantitativn\u00ed,
kter\u00e1 spol\u00e9h\u00e1 na shodu intersubjektivit (House 1980). Kvantitativn\u00ed pojet\u00ed objektivity v\u0161ak M. Scriven z\u00e1sadn\u011b odm\u00edt\u00e1.
[9] E. House (1993) komentuje: \u201eEvaluace za\u010daly b\u00fdt a\u017e p\u0159\u00edli\u0161 d\u016fle\u017eitou \u010dinnost\u00ed na to, aby byly ponech\u00e1ny jen v ruk\u00e1ch akademik\u016f.\u201c
[10] Responzivn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstup je dal\u0161\u00edm ze zp\u016fsob\u016f, jak mohou b\u00fdt evaluace koncipov\u00e1ny. Toto pojet\u00ed je typick\u00e9 t\u00edm, \u017ee nem\u00e1 pevn\u00fd design, ten se utv\u00e1\u0159\u00ed postupn\u011b krok za krokem a\u017e v pr\u016fb\u011bhu realizace dan\u00e9 evaluace v\u017edy na z\u00e1klad\u011b d\u00edl\u010d\u00edch z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f z p\u0159edchoz\u00edch etap.
[11] Tedy p\u0159i ov\u011b\u0159ov\u00e1n\u00ed \u00fa\u010dinnosti intervence pomoc\u00ed porovn\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed v\u00fdsledk\u016f dosa\u017een\u00fdch v testovac\u00ed skupin\u011b (je\u017e byla intervenci podrobena) oproti v\u00fdsledk\u016fm skupiny kontroln\u00ed (ve kter\u00e9 nebyla intervence aplikov\u00e1na).
[12] Pokud tato v\u00fdzva zn\u00ed jako utopie, kter\u00e1 nem\u016f\u017ee v\u00e9st v praxi k adekv\u00e1tn\u00edm z\u00e1v\u011br\u016fm, odkazujeme na pravidla stanoven\u00ed indik\u00e1tor\u016f vyu\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch pro monitoring a evaluaci opera\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f Evropsk\u00e9 unie.
[13] H. Chen je naz\u00fdv\u00e1 dom\u00e9ny (domains).
 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Literatura<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1] Alkin M. C. (2004) Evaluation Roots. London: SAGE Publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2] Alkin M. C., Christie C. A. (2005) Theorists\u00b4 Models in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3] Bloom B. S., Engelhart M. D., Furst E. J., Hill W. H., Krathwohl D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I. Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4] Bhola H. S. (1998) \u201cProgram evaluation for program renewal: A study of the national literacy program in Namibia\u201d. Studies in Educational Evaluation 4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5] Chen H-T. (1990) Theory-Driven Evaluations. London: SAGE Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6] Chen H-T., Rossi P. H. (1983) \u201cEvaluating with Sense: The Theory-driven Approach\u201d. Evaluation Review 7<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7] Donaldson S. I. (2007) Program Theory-Driven Evaluation Science. New York: LEA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8] Guba E. G., Lincoln Y. S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: SAGE Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9] Hall D., Hall I. (2004) Evaluation and social research \u2013 introducing small-scale practice. New York: Palgrave McMillan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10] House E. R. (1980) Evaluating with Validity. London: SAGE Publishing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11] House E. R. (1993) Professional Evaluation. Social Impact and Political Consequences. London: SAGE Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12] Huebner A.J., Betts S.C. (1999) \u201cExamining Fourth Generation Evaluation: Application to Positive Youth Development\u201d. Evaluation 1999 5: 340-358.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13] Lay M., Papadopoulos I. (2007) \u201cAn Exploration of Fourth Generation Evaluation in Practice\u201d. Evaluation 2007 13: 495-504.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14] Mager R. F. (1962) Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto: Fearon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15] Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., Julnes G. (2000) Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding and Improving Policies and Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16] Molas-Gallard J., Davies A. (2005) \u201cToward Theory-Led Evaluation. The Experience of European Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies\u201d. American Journal of Evaluation 2: 1-18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17] Patton M. Q. (1982) Practical Evaluation. London: SAGE Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18] Patton M. Q. (2008) Utilization-Focused Evaluation. London: SAGE Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19] Pawson R., Tilley N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20] Rodr\u00edguez-Campos L. (2005) Collaborative Evaluations. Florida: Llumina Press<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21] Rogers P. J. (2008) \u201cUsing Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Intervention\u201d. Evaluation 2008 14: 29-48.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22] Rossi P. H., Lipsey M. W., Freeman H. E. (2004) Evaluation. A Systematic Approach. London: SAGE Publications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23] Sanders R. J. (1994) The Program Evaluation Standards 2. London: SAGE Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24] Schwandt T. A. (1984) An Examination of Alternative Models for Sociobehavioral Inquiry. Indiana: IN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25] Scriven M. (1973) \u201cThe Methodology of Evaluation\u201d. In Worthen B. R., Sanders J. R. (eds.) Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Belmont: Wadsworth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26] Scriven M. (1991) Evaluation Thesaurus. London: SAGE Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27] Scriven M. (1993) Hard-Won Lessons in Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28] Shadish W. R., Cook T. D., Leviton L. C. (1991) Foundations of Program Evaluation. London: SAGE Publishing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29] Stake R. E. (1975) Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Evaluation. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30] Stake R. E. (2004) Standards-Based & Responsive Evaluation. London: SAGE Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31] Stufflebeam D. L., Shinkfield A. J. (2007) Evaluation, Theory, Models & Applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32] Weiss C. H. (1972) Evaluation Research. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Main goal of the paper is to show the variety of how evaluators could solve the evaluation tasks. Results of the performed analysis present how uneven the outcomes of evaluation could be when different approach is taken. The article turns attention toward the basics of evaluative thinking by opening the range of alternative methodological and conceptual frameworks that could be used in the course of intervention program evaluation.<\/p>\n

Evaluation is defined with use of several definitions that put emphasis on methodological aspects of evaluative inquiry. In detail, there are four different approaches compared: goal-based, goal-free, constructivists and theory-driven. Each of the approaches is briefly introduced, context of its dissemination is explained and it is also described how the approach relates to other approaches. Useful component of the analysis is an example that highlights the main distinctions among the four approaches and results that each of the approaches can offer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1304"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1304\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1311,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1304\/revisions\/1311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}