• Uranchimeg Tudevdagva


This chapter contains a short review on evaluation models and an introduction into structure oriented evaluation.

The chapter starts with the basic definitions and gives an overview on recent evaluation models in chronological order. The following models are considered: the object-/goal-oriented model, Kirkpatrick’s four-level model, the consumer-oriented model, the CIPP model, Taba’s model, the discrepancy model, the CIRO model, the goal-free model, the transactional model, Eisner’s connoisseurship model, the logic model, the five level ROI model, the decision-making model, Kaufman’s five level model, the P3 model, the unfolding model, the PDPP model, the expertise-oriented model, the participant-oriented model, and the theory-driven model.

The second part of this chapter introduces into structure oriented evaluation model. Thereby the main concept is presented of structure oriented evaluation and the single steps of this model are explained based on an abstract example.


Evaluation Evaluation theory Evaluation theory review Evaluation model Structure oriented evaluation Evaluation goal Multidimensional evaluation Non-linear evaluation Goal-oriented evaluation Measuring achievement SURE model 


  1. Bayar-Erdene, L. (2019). Evaluation of faculty members by structure oriented evaluation. Doctoral Thesis, Mongolian University of Science and Technology, Ulaanbaatar.Google Scholar
  2. Boulmetis, J., & Dutwin, P. (2011). The ABCs of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project managers (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schröter, D. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 199–226. Available from
  4. Deller, J. (2019a). The Complete Philips ROI Model Tutorial for Beginners. Available from
  5. Deller, J. (2019b). Kaufman’s Model of Learning Evaluation: Key Concepts and Tutorial. Available from
  6. Donaldson, S. I. (2012). Evaluation theory and practice. Connections: European Evaluation Society, 2, 8–12.Google Scholar
  7. Donmoyer, R. (2014). Elliot Eisner’s lost legacy. Available from
  8. Eisner, E. W. (1975). The perceptive eye: Toward the reformation of educational evaluation. Washington: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  9. Eisner, E. W. (1985). The art of educational evaluation: a personal view. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  12. Fred, C. L. (2011). Curriculum development: Inductive models. Schooling, 2(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  13. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  14. Heller, A. (2013). Systemeigenschaft Robustheit - Ein Ansatz zur Bewertung und Maximierung von Robustheit eingebetteter Systeme. PhD Thesis, Win. Schriftenreihe ‘Eingebettete, Selbstorganisierende Systeme’ (Vol. 12). Universitätsverlag Chemnitz.Google Scholar
  15. Kaufman, R., Keller, J., & Watkins, R. (2007). What works and what doesn’t: Evaluation beyond Kirkpatrick. Performance and Instruction, 35(2), 8–12. Available from
  16. Khan, B. H. (2004). The People, process and product continuum in e-learning: The e-learning P3 model. Educational Technology, 44(5), 33–40. Available from
  17. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs. The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Madaus, G. G., Scriven, M. S., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1984). Educational evaluation and accountability: A review of quality assurance efforts. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(5), 649–673.Google Scholar
  19. Phillips, J. J. (1991). Handbook of evaluation and measurement methods. London: Gulf Press.Google Scholar
  20. Provus, M. M. (1969). The discrepancy evaluation model: An approach to local program improvement and development (124 pp.). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Public Schools.Google Scholar
  21. Rippey, R. M. (1973). Studies in transactional evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  22. Rossi, P. H., & Wright, S. R. (1979). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Ruhe, V., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Evaluation in distance education and E-learning: The unfolding model (206 pp.). New York: Guilford. ISBN: 978-1-59385-872-8.Google Scholar
  24. Scriven, M. S. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, AERA monograph series on curriculum evaluation (Vol. 1, pp. 39–81). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  25. Scriven, M. (1973). Goal-free evaluation. In E. R. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp. 319–328). Berkeley: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  26. Scriven, M. S. (1991). Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 12(1), 55–76.Google Scholar
  27. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1968). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision making. Columbus: Evaluation Center, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  28. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. Evaluation in Education and Human Service, 6, 117–141.Google Scholar
  29. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1994). Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the future of evaluation should not go and where it needs to go. American Journal of Evaluation, 15, 321–338.Google Scholar
  30. Suchman, E. A. (1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  32. Tudevdagva, U., & Hardt, W. (2011). A new evaluation model for e-learning programs. Technical Report CSR-11-03, Chemnitz University of Technology.Google Scholar
  33. Tudevdagva, U., & Hardt, W. (2012). A measure theoretical evaluation model for e-learning programs. In Proceedings of the IADIS on e-Society, Berlin (pp. 44–52).Google Scholar
  34. Tudevdagva, U., Hardt, W., Tsoy, E. B., & Grif, M. G. (2012). New approach for E-learning evaluation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Forum on Strategic Technology 2012, Tomsk, September 17–21, 2012 (pp. 712–715).Google Scholar
  35. Tudevdagva, U., Heller, A., & Hardt, W. (2013a). A model for robustness evaluation of embedded systems. In Proceedings of the IFOST 2013 Conference, Ulaanbaatar (pp. 288–292).Google Scholar
  36. Tudevdagva, U., Hardt, W., & Jargalmaa, D. (2013b). The development of logical structures for e-learning evaluation. In Proceedings of the IADIS on e-learning 2013, Prag, Czech Republic (pp. 431–435).Google Scholar
  37. Tudevdagva, U., Tomorchodor, L., & Hardt, W. (2014a). The beta version of implementation tool for SURE model. 11th Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering (JCKBSE 2014), Volgograd, September 17–20, 2014. Washington: IEEE Computer Society. In Journal of Communications in Computer and Information Science, 466, 243–251.Google Scholar
  38. Tudevdagva, U., Hardt, W., & Bayar-Erdene, L. (2014b). The SURE model for evaluation of complex processes and tool for implementation. In The 9th International Forum on Strategic Technology (IFOST 2014), Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Chittagong, October 21–23, 2014. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  39. Tudevdagva, U., Bayar-Erdene, L., & Hardt, W. (2014c). A self-assessment system for faculty based on the evaluation SURE model. In Proceedings of The 5th International Conference on Industrial Convergence Technology, ICICT2014, May 10–11, 2014 (pp. 266–269). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 978-99973-46-29-2.Google Scholar
  40. Tudevdagva, U., Jargalmaa, D. & Bayar-Erdene, L., (2014d), Case Study of Structure Oriented Evaluation Model, in Proceedings of The International Summer School on E-learning, Embedded system and International cooperation, SS2014, 7–13 July, 2014, Laubusch, Germany (pp. 41–44). ISSN 0947-5125.Google Scholar
  41. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide: Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action. Battle Creek: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar
  43. Warr, P., Bird, M., & Rackham, N. (1970). Evaluation of management training: A practical framework with cases, for evaluating training needs and results (112 pp.). London: Gower Press.Google Scholar
  44. Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Wholey, J. S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  46. Zhang, W., & Cheng, Y. L. (2012). Quality assurance in E-learning: PDPP evaluation model and its application. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 66–82. Available from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uranchimeg Tudevdagva
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Chemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Mongolian University of Science and TechnologyUlaanbaatarMongolia

Personalised recommendations