Advertisement

Introduction to Evaluation

Chapter
  • 174 Downloads
Part of the Evaluation in Education and Human Services book series (EEHS, volume 8)

Abstract

Evaluation is one of the most fundamental components of sound professional services. The clients of professionals deserve assistance that is directed to their needs, of high quality, up-to-date, and efficient. In order to hold professionals accountable for satisfying such standards, society must regularly subject professional services to evaluations. Some of the evaluation work that is directed at regulation and protection of the public interest obviously must be conducted by independent bodies, such as government agencies and accrediting boards. But fundamentally, the most important evaluations of professional services are those conducted (or commissioned) by the professionals themselves.

Keywords

Systematic Evaluation School District Evaluation Work Professional Service Evaluation Office 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. 1974. Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S.; Ball, S.; and Murphy, R. and Associates. 1974. Encylopedia of educational evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B.S.; Englehart, M.D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W.H.; and Krathwohl, D.R. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, B.S.; Madaus, G.F.; and Hastings, J.T. 1981. Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Brinkerhoff, R.; Brethower, D.; Hluchyj, T.; and Nowakowski, J. 1983. Program evaluation: A practitioners’ guide for trainers and educators.Boston: Kluwer- Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental de- signs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, J.S.; Campbell, E.Q.; Hobson, C.J.; McPartland, J.; Modd, A.M.; Weinfeld, F.D.; and York, R.L. 1966. Equalty of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, D. L. 1966. Program evaluation and review technique: Applications in Educa tion. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, D. L. 1971. Educational project management. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L.J. 1963. Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64, 672–683.Google Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L.J. 1980. Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Eisner, E.W. “Educational objectives: Help or hindrance?” The School Review, 75 (1967): 250–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisner, E.W. 1975. The perceptive eye: Toward the reformation of educational evaluation. Stanford, California: Stanford Evaluation Consortium, December.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, R. “Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions.” American Psychologist, 18 (1963): 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glass, G. 1976. Primary secondary and meta analysis of research. Educational Re searcher, 5 (10), 3–8.Google Scholar
  16. Guba, E.G. “A Study of Title III activities: Report on evaluation.” (National Insti- tute for the Study of Educational Change, Indiana University, October, 1966) (mimeo).Google Scholar
  17. Guba, E.G., and Lincoln, Y.S. 1981. Effective evaluation. San Francisco, Washington, London: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Hammond, R.L. 1967. “Evaluation at the local level.” Address to the Miller Com mittee for the National Study of ESEA Title I II.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, R. 1980. Directory of evaluators and evaluation agencies. New York: Exxon Corporation.Google Scholar
  20. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1981. Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York: McGraw- Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Kaplan, A. 1964. The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  22. Kellaghan, T. 1982. “Los sistemas escolares como objecto de evaluación.” In Daniel Stufflebeam; Thomas Kellaghan; and Benjamin Alvarez (eds.), La Evaluación Educativa. Bogota: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.Google Scholar
  23. Kellaghan, T.; Madaus, G.; and Airasian, P. 1982. The effects of standardized testing. Hingham, Mass.: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krathwohl, D.R.; Bloom, B.S.; and Masia, B.B. 1964. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  25. Metfessel, N.S., and Michael, W.B. “A paradigm involving multiple criterion mea sures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27 (1967): 931–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peck, H. “Report on the certification of evaluators in Louisiana.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Educational Research Association, Lexington, Ken tucky, Fall 1981.Google Scholar
  27. Popham, W. J. 1971. Criterion-referenced measurement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Provus, M. 1969. Discrepancy evaluation model. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Pitts burgh Public Schools.Google Scholar
  29. Reinhard, D. 1972. Methodology developments for input evaluation using advocate and design teams. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  30. Rice, J.M. 1897. The futility of the spelling grind. The Forum, 23, 163–172. 1914.Google Scholar
  31. Rice, J.M. 1914. Scientific management in education. New York: Hinds Noble and Eldredge.Google Scholar
  32. Roth, J. 1977. Needs and the needs assessment process. Evaluation News, 5, 15–17.Google Scholar
  33. Scriven, M.S. 1967. The methodology of evaluation. In Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1 ). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  34. Scriven, M.S. 1974. Prose and cons about goal–free evaluation. Evaluation Comment, 3, 1–4Google Scholar
  35. Scriven, M.S. 1975. Evaluation bias and its control. Occasional Paper Series No. 4, Western Michigan University, Evaluation Center.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, E.R., and Tyler, R.W. 1942. Appraising and recording student progress. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, N.L. 1981a. Metaphors for evaluation: Sources of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, N.L. 1981b. New techniques for evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Stake, R.E. 1967. The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523–540.Google Scholar
  40. Stake, R.E. 1975. Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. Occasional Paper Series No. 5, Western Michigan University, Evaluation Center.Google Scholar
  41. Stake, R.E. 1978. The case–study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7, 5–8.Google Scholar
  42. Stake, R.E. “Setting standards for educational evaluators.” Evaluation News no. 2, 2 (1981): 148–152.Google Scholar
  43. Stufflebeam, D.L. “The use and abuse of evaluation in Title III.” Theory Into Practice, 6 (1967): 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stufflebeam, D.L. 1978. Metaevaluation: An overview. Evaluation and the Health Profes sions, 1 (2), 146–163.Google Scholar
  45. Stufflebeam, D.L., et al. 1971. Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, I11.: Peacock.Google Scholar
  46. Suarez, T. 1980. Needs assessments for technical assistance: A conceptual overview and comparison of three strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
  47. Tyler, R.W. 1967. Changing concepts of educational evaluation. In R.E. Stake (ed.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (Vol. 1 ). New York: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  48. Webster, W.J. 1975. The organization and functions of research and evaluation units in a large urban school district. The Dallas Independent School District, Dallas.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations