Deep Dark Deficits of the Adversary Evaluation Model
- 539 Downloads
As a spectator attraction, competition is hard to beat. Whether it’s a courtroom drama or a sporting event, we thrill as the contest totters in favor of one side, then the other. Perhaps it’s the uncertainty of the outcome that fascinates us. But whatever the appeal, it’s quite clear that ancient folks, like present-day ones, got genuinely excited by competitive events. The athletic contests of antiquity, whether Greek, Roman, or Mayan, were capable of drawing standing-room-only audiences.
KeywordsGround Rule Procedural Matter Adversary Model Adversary Process Educational Evaluation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Adapted from a paper presented as part of a symposium. “The Adversary Evaluation Model: A Second Look.” Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April 4–8, 1977.Google Scholar
- 2.Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 3-on-2 Evaluation Report, 1976–77. vols. I, II, and III. Portland, Oregon: January 1977.Google Scholar
- 3.For example, see Wolf, Robert L “Trial by jury: A new evaluation method.” Phi Delta Kappan, no. 3,57 (November 1975), 185–87; Owens, Thomas. “Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding.” In: Ernest House (ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1973; Levine, Murray. “Scientific method and the adversary model.” American Psychologist, September 1974, 666-77; or Kourilsky, Marilyn. “An adversary model for educational evaluation.” Evaluation Comment, no. 2, 4 (1974).Google Scholar
- 5.Lipson, 1976, p. 890.Google Scholar