Abstract
This chapter is a review and update of the so-called CIPP Model1 for evaluation. That model (Stufflebeam, 1966) was developed in the late 1960s as one alternative to the views about evaluations that were most prevalent at that time — those oriented to objectives, testing, and experimental design. It emerged with other new conceptualizations, especially those developed by Scriven (1966) and Stake (1967). (For a discussion of these historical developments, see Chapter 1 of this book.) The CIPP approach was applied in many institutions; for example, the Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory in Austin, Texas; the National Center for Vocational and Technical Education; the U.S. Office of Education; and the school districts in Columbus, Toledo, and Cincinnati, Ohio; Dallas, Forth Worth, Houston, and Austin, Texas; and Saginaw, Detriot, and Lansing, Michigan. It was the subject of research and development by Adams (1971), Findlay (1979), Nevo (1974), Reinhard (1972), Root (1971), Webster (1975), and others. It was the central topic of the International Conference on the Evaluation of Physical Education held in Jyvaskyla, Finland in 1976 and was used as the advance organizer to group the evaluations that were presented and discussed during that week-long conference. It was also the central topic of the Eleventh National Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on Educational Research, and, throughout the 1970s it was referenced in many conferences and publications. It was most fully explicated in the Phi Delta appa book, Educational Evaluation and Decision Making (Stufflebeam et al., 1971) and most fully implemented in the Dallas Independent School District. Its conceptual and operational forms have evolved in response to critiques, applications, research, and parallel developments; and it continues to be referenced and applied in education and other fields.
The most important purpose of program evaluation is not to prove but to improve
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
Adams, James A. “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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1971.
Brickell, Henry M. Needed: Instruments as Good as Our Eyes. Occasional Paper Series, no. 7. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center, July 1976.
Cronbach, Lee J. and Associates. Toward Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980.
Findlay, Donald. “Working Paper for Planning an Evaluation System.” Unpublished, The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, Ohio State University, 1979.
Guba, Egon G. “The Failure of Educational Evaluation” Educational Technology, 9 (1969) 29–38.
Nevo, David. “Evaluation Priorities of Students, Teachers, and Principals.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1974.
Patton, Michael Quinn. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1978.
Reinhard, Diane L. “Methodology Development for Input Evaluation Using Advocate and Design Teams.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972.
Root, Darrell. “The Evaluation Training Needs of Superintendents of Schools.” Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1971.
Sanders, James R. and Sachse, T.P. “Applied Performance Testing in the Classroom.” Journal of Research and Development in Education, 10 (Spring 1977) 92–104.
Scriven, Michael. “The Methodology of Evaluation.” no. 110, Layfayette, Indiana: the Social Science Education Consortium, Purdue University, 1966.
Scriven, Michael. “Critique of the PDK Book, Educational Evaluation and Decision Making.” Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City, 1970.
Stake, Robert. “The Countenance of Educational Evaluation.” Teachers College Record, no. 7, 68 (April 1967).
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. “Evaluation as Enlightenment for Decision Making.” In Walcott, A. Beaty(ed.) Improving Educational Assessment and an Inventory of Measures of Affective Behavior. Washington, D.C.: Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1969.
Stuffiebeam, Daniel L. “The Relevance of the CIPP Evaluation Model for Educational Accountability.” Journal of Research and Development in Education, (Fall 1971).
Tyler, R.W. “General Statement on Evaluation.” Journal of Educational Research, 35 (1942), 492–501.
Webster, W.J. “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 1975.
Wolf, R.L. “The Application of Select Legal Concepts to Educational Evaluation.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1974.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1983). The CIPP Model for Program Evaluation. In: Evaluation Models. Evaluation in Education and Human Services, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-6671-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-6669-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive