Limitations of a Standard Perspective on Program Evaluation: The Example of Ten Years of Teacher Corps Evaluations.

Fox, G. Thomas, Jr.

Alert:

Limited Availability of Full-Text Documents. Click here for more information, or here to request the return of a PDF online.

Help

Tutorial

Help |

Tutorial

Help |

Tutorial

Help With This Page

Back to Search Results Help Permalink Share this record

More Info:
Help 0 items in My Clipboard | Add record to My Clipboard

Record Details - ED141387

Title: Limitations of a Standard Perspective on Program Evaluation: The Example of Ten Years of Teacher Corps Evaluations.

Full-Text Availability Options:

ERIC Full Text (7429K)

Related Items: Show Related Items

Click on any of the links below to perform a new search
Title:	Limitations of a Standard Perspective on Program Evaluation: The Example of Ten Years of Teacher Corps Evaluations.
Authors:	Fox, G. Thomas, Jr.
Descriptors:	Data Analysis; Decision Making; Evaluation Methods; Federal Programs; Higher Education; Models; Policy Formation; Program Evaluation; Schools of Education; Teacher Education
Source:	N/A
More Info: Help Peer Reviewed:
Publisher:	N/A
Publication Date:	1976-04-00
Pages:	102
Pub Types:	Speeches/Meeting Papers
Abstract:	Six evaluation studies on Teacher Corps are first described and then analyzed. The two evaluation perspectives used for analysis were: (1) the standard evaluation paradigm as described by Astin and Panos and (2) the evaluation paradigm suggested by Parlett and Hamilton as "illuminative evaluation". The standard evaluation paradigm describes three main components: student inputs, student outputs, and educational operations; and finds causal relationships between these components. In contrast to the standard evaluation paradigm, the Parlett and Hamilton paradigm includes: (1) a study of the entire program: its rationale and evolution, its operations, achievements and difficulties; (2) an examination of the program within the school or educational milieu; and (3) a combination of methodological strategies for describing and analyzing a program in order to help "illuminate" salient program features. Results of this study indicate that, if one agrees with Astin and Panos that "the fundamental purpose of evaluation is to produce information which can be used in educational decision-making", then these evaluation studies have failed. They failed not because they did not follow the standard evaluation techniques reviewed by Astin and Panos, but because they did follow these procedures and used the standard perspective of evaluation. The challenge for evaluations, then, seems not be apply these same evaluation procedures better, but rathr to use alternative perspectives on evaluation. (Author/MV)
Abstractor:	N/A
Reference Count:	0

Note:	Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (60th, San Francisco, California, April 19-23, 1976)
Identifiers:	Higher Education Act 1965; Teacher Corps
Record Type:	Non-Journal
Level:	1 - Available on microfiche
Institutions:	N/A
Sponsors:	N/A
ISBN:	N/A
ISSN:	N/A
Audiences:	N/A
Languages:	N/A
Education Level:	Higher Education

Back to Search Results