Abstract
One way of understanding evaluation is to compare the numerous evaluation models with one another. There are many possibilities for comparison, but perhaps the most significant comparisons are those among the underlying theoretical assumptions on which the models are based. In this way, one might see how logically similar the models are to one another and determine what logical possibilities do and do not exist.
I wish to express my thanks for helpful comments to Robert Ennis, David Hamilton, and Bruce Stewart.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Callahan, R.E. Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Ennis, R. On causality. Educational Researcher, 1973, 2, 6.
Hamilton, D. A science of the singular? University of Illinois, 1976, mimeo.
Hamilton, D. Making sense of curriculum evaluation. In Lee Shulman (ed.), Review of research in education, Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock, 1977.
House, E.R. Justice in evaluation. In Gene V. Glass (ed.), Evaluation studies review annual, Vol. 1, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publishing Company, 1976.
House, E.R. The logic of evaluative argument. Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA, Monograph 7, 1977.
House, E.R. Evaluation as scientific management in U.S. school reform. Comparative and International Education Review, October 1978.
Ittelson, W.H. and Cantril, H. Perception: A transactional approach. New York: Double-day Papers in Psychology, 1954.
Macdonald, B. Evaluation and the control of education. Norwich, England: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1974.
MacPherson, C.B. The real world of democracy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1966.
McLaughlin, M.W. Evaluation and reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing, 1975.
Mill, J.S. A system of logic. (8th ed.) New York: Harper Publishing, 1893.
Mill, J.S. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis, Illinois: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1861.
National Study of Secondary School Evaluation. Evaluative criteria. (4th ed.) Washington, D.C., 1969.
Popham, W.J. Educational evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1975.
Rawls, J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1971.
Rivlin, A.M. Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1971.
Scriven, M. Objectivity and subjectivity in educational research. Philosophical Redirections in Educational Research, National Society for the Study of Education, 1972.
Scriven, M. Evaluation bias and its control. Occasional Paper 4. Kalamazoo: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, 1975.
Scriven, M. Bias contol systems in evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1976.
Snyder, W. Case studies in military systems analysis. Washington, D.C.: Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1967.
Stake, R.E. Some alternative presumptions. Urbana, Illinois: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, October 1975, mimeo.
Stake R.E. Evaluating educational programmes. Organization for Economic Co-Operational Development, 1976.
Wolff, R.P. The poverty of liberalism. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1968.
Worthen, B.R. and Sanders, J.R. Educational evaluation: Theory and practice. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1973.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
House, E.R. (1983). Assumptions Underlying Evaluation Models. In: Evaluation Models. Evaluation in Education and Human Services, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-6671-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-6669-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive