Journal of instructional development

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 17–18 | Cite as

Utility and self-sufficiency in the selection of educational alternatives

  • Roger Kaufman
  • Andrew S. Carron


Methods of deciding among educational programs usually have taken too narrow a focus or have been unsystematic. A set of guidelines for selecting among alternative programs would be helpful to the decision-maker who must design new programs, continue existing ones, or modify and synthesize the old and the new. This paper provides a possible set of decision rules for identifying and choosing among educational programs based on the underlying requirement that each learner reach at least self-sufficiency. It proposes a two-level decision model that is intended to accommodate people in society who are self-sufficient or who are “on target” for reaching that state and those in society who are neither self-sufficient nor moving toward that state. Both a rational and mathematical model are presented; both require empirical validation and continued thought.


Educational Program Educational System Organizational Goal Instructional Development Alternative Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alexander, K. Melcher, T., & Nickens, J. A computerized system for benefit-cost analysis in vocational education. Final report, Project No. DVE 9-1C11. Gainesville, Fla.: Institute for Educational Finance, College of Education, University of Florida, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Henderson, J. M., & Quandt, R. E.Microeconomics theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Kaufman, R. A.Educational system planning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Kaufman, R. A.Identifying and solving problems: A system approach. (2nd ed.) La Jolla, Calif.: University Associates Publishers, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Kaufman, R. A., & English, F. W.Needs assessment: Concept and application. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Educational Technology Publication, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. Kaufman, R. A., & Thomas, S.Evaluation without fear. New York: New Dimensions, Franklin Watts, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. Nicholson, W.Microeconomic Theory. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, Indiana, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. Pechman, J. A. (Ed.)Setting national priorities: Agenda for the 80’s. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. Popham, J. W.Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. Sobel, I. Human capital revolution in economics development: Current status, expectations and realities,Comparative Education Review, 25th Anniversary Issue. November, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Witkin, B. R. “Needs assessment kits, models and tools”,Educational Technology, 8(11), November, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger Kaufman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrew S. Carron
    • 3
  1. 1.Educational Research and DevelopmentCollege of EducationUSA
  2. 2.Center for Needs Assessment and Planning Learning Systems InstituteFlorida State UniversityTallahassee
  3. 3.Brookings InstitutionWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations