Stufflebeam’s Improvement-Oriented Evaluation

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


This unit argues that evaluations should foster improvement, provide accountability records, and promote increased understanding of the phenomena under review; it argues further that the first of these is paramount. The module explicates the CIPP model for evaluation by describing its develop ment, contrasting it to other approaches, depicting its role in improving programs, explicating its main concepts, and outlining the requirements of a sound evaluation design. Finally, it emphasizes the importance of subjecting one’s evaluation work to evaluation through metaevaluation.


Product Evaluation Incorrect Response Evaluation Work Funding Agency Input Evaluation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, J. A. 1971. A study of the status, scope and nature of educational evaluation in Michigan’s public K–12 school districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  2. Brickell, H.M. 1976. Needed: Instruments as good as our eyes. Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, Occasional Paper Series, Number 7, Kalamazoo, Michigan, July.Google Scholar
  3. Cronbach, L. J., and Associates. 1980. Toward reform of program evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Findlay, D. 1979. Working paper for planning an evaluation system. Unpublished, The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  5. Guba, E.G. 1969. The failure of educational evaluation. Educational Technology, 9, 29–38.Google Scholar
  6. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1981. Standards for Evaluations of Educational Programs, Projects, and Materials. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Nevo, D. 1974. Evaluation priorities of students, teachers, and principals. Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  8. Patton, M.Q. 1978. Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills/London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Reinhard, D.L. 1972. Methodology development for input evaluation using advo cate and design teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  10. Root, D. 1971. The evaluation training needs of superintendents of schools. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  11. Sanders, J.R., and Sachse, T.P. 1977. Applied performance testing in the classroom. Journal of Research and Development in Education (Spring), 10, 92–104.Google Scholar
  12. Scriven, M. 1966. The methodology of evaluation. Publication #110 of the Social Science Education Consortium, Irving Norrissett, Executive Director, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
  13. Scriven, M. 1970. Critique of the PDK Book, Educational Evaluation and Decision Making. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re search Association, New York City.Google Scholar
  14. Scriven, M. 1972. An introduction to metaevaluation. In P.A. Taylor and D.M. Cowley (eds.), Readings in curriculum evaluation. Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown.Google Scholar
  15. Stake, R. 1967. The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 7 (April).Google Scholar
  16. Stufflebeam, D. L. 1966. A depth study of the evaluation requirement. Theory Into Practice, 5, No. 3, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stufflebeam, D. L. 1969. Evaluation as enlightenment for decision making. In A. Walcott (ed.), Improving educational assessment and an inventory of measures of affec tive behavior. Washington, D.C.: ASCD.Google Scholar
  18. Stufflebeam, D. L. 1971. The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational account ability. Journal of Research and Development in Education (Fall).Google Scholar
  19. Stufflebeam, D. L. 1975. Metaevaluation. Occasional Paper Series. Kalamazoo, Michigan: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, 3.Google Scholar
  20. Stufflebeam, D.L. et al. 1971. Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, I11.: Peacock.Google Scholar
  21. Tyler. R. W. 1942. General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 35, 492–501.Google Scholar
  22. Webster, W. J. 1975. The organization and functions of research and evaluation in large urban school districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., March.Google Scholar
  23. Wolf, R. L. 1974. The application of select legal concepts to educational evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations