AN ADVERSARY

APPROACH TO
EVALUATION
Adversary approach makes use of teams of evaluators who
present two opposing views (these teams are commonly
referred to as adversaries and advocates). These two sides then
agree on issues to address, collect data or evidence which
forms a common database, and present their arguments. A
neutral party is assigned to referee the hearing, and is
expected to arrive at a fair verdict after consideration of all
the evidence presented
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATIONS
• Seven major ways in which adversary model could
be implemented for educational evaluation purposes
• 1. Exploring the values of a new existing
curriculum
• 2. Selecting new textbooks.
• 3. Estimating the congruence between an
innovation and the existing system
• 4. Revealing the different interpretations of the
same data by various representatives
• 5. Informing teachers, supervisors and
administrators
• 6. Resolving the disputes about performance
contracts
• 7. Arriving at the decision to be implemented
• The adversary approach is particularly useful when a policy decision
is involving large amounts of resources is at stake. In such an
evaluation it is possible that the following aspects of Owens cube
would operate formal setting, judges (s) and jury, and information to
guide the decision. If the evaluation is to discover the most
preferable of several textbooks for a particular grade- level course,
the following aspects as the cube would most likely obtain: informal
setting, any aspect of the judges dimension except “several judges or
jury, “ and an actual decision as the output.
 ONE FORM OF THE ADVERSARY APPROACH : WOLF’S
JUDICIAL MODEL

• Rationale
• Wolf (1975) stated that “educational evaluation has
become an increasingly sophisticated element in the
accountability movement.”
• He went on to say that educators at all levels must justify
their decisions, must grasp the complexities of
instructional programs, and must realize the importance
of effective communication with the public over such
 FOUR STAGES OF JUDICIAL MODEL

• 1. The Issue generating Stage-

• 2. The Issue selection stage
• 3. The Preparation of argument stage
• 4. The Hearing stage
1. THE ISSUE GENERATING STAGE-

• ` a broad range of issues are

identified relating to evaluation of
the program as perceived by as
many involve personnel as
possible.
2. THE ISSUE SELECTION STAGE
• . This stage consists of issue-reduction. Wolf
(1979[2]) proposes that issues on which there is
no debate, should be eliminated.
Thurston [6] states that this reduction may involve
extensive analysis (inclusive of content, logic
and inference). The object of debate should also
be defined and focused during this stage ( Wolf,
1979[2])
. THE PREPARATION OF ARGUMENT STAGE
• This stage consists of data collection,
locating relevant documents and
synthesising available information. The data
or evidence collected should be relevant to
the for and against arguments to be
deployed in the hearing (Wolf, 1979[2])[6]
4. THE HEARING STAGE

• This stage may also be referred to as the

clarification forum and involves public
presentation of the object of debate (Wolf,
1979 [2]). This is followed by the
presentation of evidence and panel or jury
deliberation.[2][6]
 CHARACTERISTICS OF HEARING STAGE

• Procedural rules must be flexible

• There are no strict rules for the assessment of
evidence. The only requirement is that the judge(s)
must determine beforehand whether evidence is
admissible or not.
• The parties may be asked before the hearing to
present all relevant facts, pieces of evidence and
names of witnesses/experts to the judges
• A copy of the complaint must, before the
public hearing takes place, be committed to
the judge(s) and the defense. The defense may
plead guilty to some charges and deny others.
• Witnesses are able to speak freely and may be
subjected to cross-examination.
• Experts may be summoned for a statement
before or during the hearing.
• Meetings of all parties involved with the
judge(s) prior to the public hearing tend to
soften the debate and can be conducive to a
joint striving to get to the truth of the matter on
the basis of relevant facts.
• Besides the two parties involved, other
stakeholders may also be allowed to participate.
 PROS AND CONS OF ADVERSARY
EVALUATION

• PROS of adversary evaluation:

• 1.Information Scope
• 2. Quality of evidence
• 3. Unwitting bias diminishes
• 4.The “Yes Man” syndrome diminishes
• 5. Hidden assumptions are exposed
• CONS
• 1. Disparity in proponent prowess
• 2. Fallible arbiters
• 3. Excessive confidence in the model’s
potency
• 4. Difficulties in framing the proposition in a
manner amenable to adversary resolution
• 5. Excessive cost