Evaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation /

Evaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation /

Show other versions (1)

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 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.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Madaus, George F. author., Scriven, Michael S. author., Stufflebeam, Daniel L. author., SpringerLink (Online service)
Format: Texto biblioteca
Language:eng
Published: Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands, 1983
Subjects:Education., Assessment., Assessment, Testing and Evaluation.,
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id KOHA-OAI-TEST:186471
record_format koha
institution COLPOS
collection Koha
country México
countrycode MX
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
En linea
databasecode cat-colpos
tag biblioteca
region America del Norte
libraryname Departamento de documentación y biblioteca de COLPOS
language eng
topic Education.
Assessment.
Education.
Assessment, Testing and Evaluation.
Education.
Assessment.
Education.
Assessment, Testing and Evaluation.
spellingShingle Education.
Assessment.
Education.
Assessment, Testing and Evaluation.
Education.
Assessment.
Education.
Assessment, Testing and Evaluation.
Madaus, George F. author.
Scriven, Michael S. author.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
Evaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation /
description 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 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.
format Texto
topic_facet Education.
Assessment.
Education.
Assessment, Testing and Evaluation.
author Madaus, George F. author.
Scriven, Michael S. author.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
author_facet Madaus, George F. author.
Scriven, Michael S. author.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
author_sort Madaus, George F. author.
title Evaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation /
title_short Evaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation /
title_full Evaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation /
title_fullStr Evaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation /
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation /
title_sort evaluation models [electronic resource] : viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation /
publisher Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands,
publishDate 1983
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7
work_keys_str_mv AT madausgeorgefauthor evaluationmodelselectronicresourceviewpointsoneducationalandhumanservicesevaluation
AT scrivenmichaelsauthor evaluationmodelselectronicresourceviewpointsoneducationalandhumanservicesevaluation
AT stufflebeamdaniellauthor evaluationmodelselectronicresourceviewpointsoneducationalandhumanservicesevaluation
AT springerlinkonlineservice evaluationmodelselectronicresourceviewpointsoneducationalandhumanservicesevaluation
_version_ 1756265515193466880
spelling KOHA-OAI-TEST:1864712018-07-30T23:09:24ZEvaluation Models [electronic resource] : Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation / Madaus, George F. author. Scriven, Michael S. author. Stufflebeam, Daniel L. author. SpringerLink (Online service) textDordrecht : Springer Netherlands,1983.engAttempting 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 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.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 Evaluation -- 18 Epistemological and Methodological Bases of Naturalistic Inquiry -- 19 Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism: Their Form and Functions in Educational Evaluation -- 20 The Explication Model: An Anthropological Approach to Program Evaluation -- 21 Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Progress by Lee J. Cronbach: A Synopsis -- 22 The Progress of Educational Evaluation: Rounding the First Bends in the River -- III The Standards and the Ninety-five Theses -- 23 The Standards for Evaluation of Educational Programs, Projects, and Materials: A Description and Summary -- 24 Ninety-five Theses for Reforming Program Evaluation -- Contributing Authors.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 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.Education.Assessment.Education.Assessment, Testing and Evaluation.Springer eBookshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7URN:ISBN:9789400966697

Similar Items