Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Review of Educational Research.
http://www.jstor.org
Review of Educational Research
Spring 1983, Vol. 53, No. 1, Pp. 117-128
Many attempts have been made in recent years to clarify the meaning of
evaluationand exposethe distinctionbetweenevaluationand otherrelatedconcepts
such as measurementor research.The literaturecontainsmany approachesregard-
ing the conceptualizationof evaluationand the determinationof its countenance
in education.Many of those approacheshave been undulyreferredto as "models"
(e.g., the CIPPModel,the DiscrepancyModel,the ResponsiveModel,or the Goal-
Free Model) in spite of the fact that none of them includesa sufficientdegreeof
complexityand completenessthat might be suggestedby the term "model."Stake
(1981) rightlysuggestedthat they be referredto as persuasionsratherthan models.
For the benefitof those of us who lost their way betweenthe variousevaluation
models,approaches,and persuasions,severalattemptshavebeen madeto put some
order into the growingevaluation literaturethroughclassificationsof evaluation
approaches.Such classifications(e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1981; House, 1980; Pop-
ham, 1975;Stake, 1976;Stufflebeam& Webster,1980;Worthen& Sanders,1973)
made a significantcontributionthrough their critical reviews of the evaluation
literaturedenotingsimilaritiesand differencesamongthe variousapproaches.Those
classificationswere based on a somewhatholistic approachby placingeach evalu-
ation model as a whole in one of the labeledcategorieswith some other models.
Tryingto do justice to each evaluationmodel as a whole they sometimesignored
the major issues underlyingthe agreementsand disagreementsamong the various
evaluationapproaches.
Stufflebeam(1974) suggestedeight questionsto be addressedin any attemptto
conceptualizeevaluation.Nevo (1981) revisedStufflebeam'slist of questionsand
extendedit to 10 majordimensionsin a conceptualizationof evaluation.These 10
117
DAVIDNEVO
118
THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
119
DAVIDNEVO
120
THE CONCEPTUALIZATION
OF EDUCATIONALEVALUATION
121
DAVIDNEVO
122
THE CONCEPTUALIZATION
OF EDUCATIONALEVALUATION
123
DAVIDNEVO
Summary
Riskingoversimplification,one could summarizethe reviewof the literaturewith
the followingmost common answersto our 10 questions.This could be one way
to describe briefly the state of the art in the conceptualizationof educational
evaluation.
1. How is evaluationdefined?Educationalevaluationis a systematicdescription
of educationalobjectsand/or an assessmentof their meritor worth.
2. Whatare thefunctionsof evaluation?Educationalevaluationcan serve four
differentfunctions:(a) formative(for improvement);(b) summative(for selection
and accountability);(c) sociopolitical(to motivate and gain public support);and
(d) administrative(to exerciseauthority).
3. Whatare the objectsof evaluation?Any entity can be an evaluationobject.
Typicalevaluationobjectsin educationare students,educationaland administra-
124
THE CONCEPTUALIZATION
OF EDUCATIONALEVALUATION
Conclusion
As stated at the beginning of this article, a critical analysis of the various
theoreticalapproachesto educationalevaluationmighthaveimportantimplications
for practitionersof evaluationas well as for theoreticiansand researcherswho are
concernedwith developingnew concepts and better methods. All of them could
benefitfrom the analyticalscheme of the 10 questions,which guidedour analysis,
as well as from the reviewof the answerscontainedin the evaluationliterature.
125
DAVIDNEVO
References
Alkin, M. C. Evaluationtheorydevelopment.EvaluationComment,1969, 2, 2-7.
Alkin, M. C., Daillak,R., & White,P. Usingevaluations:Does evaluationmakea difference?
BeverlyHills, Calif.:Sage, 1979.
Boruch,F. R., & Cordray,D. S. An appraisalof educationalprogramevaluations:Federal,
state, and local agencies.Evanston,Ill.:NorthwesternUniversity,1980.
Campbell,D. T. Reformsas experiments.AmericanPsychologist,1969, 24, 409-429.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell,D. T. The design and conduct of quasi-experimentsand true
experimentsin field settings. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrialand
organizationalpsychology.Chicago:Rand McNally, 1976.
Cronbach,L. J. Courseimprovementthroughevaluation.TeachersCollegeRecord, 1963,
64, 672-683.
Cronbach,L. J., Ambron,S. R., Dornbusch,S. M., Hess, R. D., Hornik,R. C., Phillips,D.
C., Walker,D. E., & Weiner,S. S. Towardreformof programevaluation.San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass,1980.
Dornbusch,S. M., & Scott, W. R. Evaluationand the exerciseof authority.San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass,1975.
Eisner, E. W. On the uses of educationalconnoisseurshipand educationalcriticism for
evaluatingclassroomlife. TeachersCollegeRecord,1977, 78, 345-358.
Eisner,E. W. Theeducationalimagination.New York:Macmillan,1979.
EvaluationResearchSociety.Standardsfor programevaluation.Author, 1980.
Glass, G. V. The growth of evaluation methodology(ResearchPaper No. 27). Boulder:
Laboratoryof EducationalResearch,Universityof Colorado,1969.(Mimeo)
126
THE CONCEPTUALIZATION
OF EDUCATIONAL
EVALUATION
127
DAVID NEVO
AUTHOR
DAVID NEVO, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-
Aviv 69978, Israel. Specialization: Evaluation theory, measurement and research
methodology.
128