Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Madaus, George F
• Scriven, Michael S
• Stufflebeam, Daniel L

Titel

Evaluation Models : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation

Ist Teil von

• Evaluation in Education and Human Services : 6

Ort / Verlag

Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands

Erscheinungsjahr

1983

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• I An Overview of Models and Conceptualizations -- 1 Program Evaluation: A Historical Overview -- 2 An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation -- 3 Assumptions Underlying Evaluation Models -- II Models and Conceptualizations -- 4 A Rationale for Program Evaluation -- 5 The Discrepancy Evaluation Model -- 6 Course Improvement through Evaluation -- 7 The CIPP Model for Program Evaluation -- 8 The Evaluation of Broad-Aim Programs: Experimental Design, Its Difficulties, and an Alternative -- 9 Societal Experimentation -- 10 Rationality to Ritual: The Multiple Roles of Evaluation in Governmental Processes -- 11 The Use of Judicial Evaluation Methods in the Formulation of Educational Policy -- 12 Deep Dark Deficits of the Adversary Evaluation Model -- 13 The Clarification Hearing: A Personal View of the Process -- 14 Evaluation Ideologies -- 15 Flexner, Accreditation, and Evaluation -- 16 The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry -- 17 Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Eva
• Attempting fonnally to evaluate something involves the evaluator coming to grips with a number of abstract concepts such as value, merit, worth, growth, criteria, standards, objectives, needs, nonns, client, audience, validity, reliability, objectivity, practical significance, accountability, improvement, process, pro℗Ư duct, fonnative, summative, costs, impact, infonnation, credibility, and - of course - with the tenn evaluation itself. To communicate with colleagues and clients, evaluators need to clarify what they mean when they use such tenns to denote important concepts central to their work. Moreover, evaluators need to integrate these concepts and their meanings into a coherent framework that guides all aspects of their work. If evaluation is to lay claim to the mantle of a profession, then these conceptualizations of evaluation must lead to the conduct of defensible evaluations. The conceptualization of evaluation can never be a one-time activity nor can any conceptualization be static. Conceptualizations that guide evaluation work must keep pace with the growth of theory and practice in the field. Further, the design and conduct of any particular study involves a good deal of localized conceptualization