Buradasınız

Çeşitli Program Değerlendirme Yaklaşımlarının Karşılaştırılması

INTRODUCTION AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PROGRAM EVALUATION APPROACHES

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Evaluation is a tool which can be used to help teachers judge whether a curriculum or instructional approach is being implemented as planned, and to assess the extent to which stated goals and objectives are being achieved. A variety of evaluation approaches emerged during the 20th century. The main aim of this descriptive study, which based to literature reviewing model, is to review comparatively the different program evaluation approaches frequently mentioned in the international literature. The study firstly, introduces different program evaluation approaches in international literature , then compares and discusses each program evaluation approach ,and finally, presents some suggestions on standards to guide development of better evaluation approaches and planning, developing and applying of effective program evaluation approaches for the theoreticians, program directors , evaluation trainers , the practitioners of evaluation ,and program evaluators
Abstract (Original Language): 
Değerlendirme, öğretmenlerin bir program veya öğretim yaklaşımının planlandığı gibi uygulanıp uygulanmadığına karar vermelerine ve tasarlanmış amaç ve hedeflere ulaşma derecesini belirlemelerine yardımcı olarak kullanılabilecek bir araçtır. Birçok değerlendirme türü 20. yüzyılda ortaya çıkmıştır. Literatür taraması modeline dayalı olarak gerçekleştirilen betimsel nitelikteki bu çalışmanın temel amacı, uluslararası literatürde yer alan çeşitli program değerlendirme türlerini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Çalışmada öncelikle uluslararası literatürde yer alan çeşitli program değerlendirme türleri tanıtılmakta, daha sonra her bir değerlendirme türü karşılaştırılmalı olarak inceleme konusu yapılmaktadır. Çalışmanın son kısmında ise, teorisyenler, program yöneticileri,değerlendirme konusunda eğitim veren uzmanlar, değerlendirme uygulayıcıları ve program değerlendirmecilerin daha iyi değerlendirme yaklaşımı geliştirmeleri ve etkili program değerlendirme yaklaşımları tasarlama,geliştirme ve uygulamalarına yönelik temel sonuçlar ve önerilere yer verilmiştir.

REFERENCES

References: 

Anderson, J. (1993, January). Foucault and disciplinary technology. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (New Orleans: LA).
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D. Duffy, T. M., and Perry, J. D. (1998). "Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (Denver, CO: Libraries Unlimited), 100-112.
Bengston, D. N., & Fan, D. P. (1999). "An innovative method for evaluating strategic goals in a public agency: Conservation leadership". Evaluation Review, 23(1), 77-10.
Bickman, L. (1987). "The function of program theory". In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Haccsi, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Using program theory in education , New Directions for Program Evaluation (San Francisco: Jossey Bass),Vol.33,5-18.
Brandon, P. R. (1998) ."Stakeholder participation for the purpose of helping
ensure evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-collaborative evaluation". American Journal of Evaluation,19(3),325-337.
Cockerill, R., Myers, T., & Allman, D. (2000). "Planning for community-based evaluation". American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 351-357.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920 (New York: Teachers College Press).
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. Thousand Oaks (CA: Sage Publications, Inc).
214
Salih UŞUN
Gagne. R. M..
Briggs
, L. J., and Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design, Fourth edition. Fort Worth (TX: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich College Publishers).
Gentry, C. G. (1994). Introduction to Instructional Development: Process and Technique (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company).
Giardino, V.(2004).Evaluation in Instructional Systems Development. M.S. in Instructional Technology Program. MC 70 Designing Instructional Systems; Available online
at:http://connect.barry.edu/ect607/SummEval.html, accesed July 17,2009.
Gustafson, K. L. and Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of Instructional Development Models, Third Edition ( Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology).
Hannum, W. and Hansen, C. (1989). Instructional Systems Development İn
Large Organizations. Englewood (Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications).
Henry, G. T., Julnes, G., & Mark, M. M. (Eds.). (1997). "Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice". New Directions for Evaluation, No. 78 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Hlynka, D., & Belland, J. C. (1991). Paradigms Regained: The Uses of Illuminative, Semiotic, and Post-Modern Criticism as Modes of Inquiry in Educational Technology: A Book of Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Hlynka, D., & Yeaman, A. R. J. (1992, September). Postmodern Educational Technology. ERIC Digest.
Johnson, R. L., McDaniel, F., & Willeke, M. J. (2000). "Using portfolio's in program evaluation: an investigation of interrater reliability". American Journal of Evaluation,21(1),65-80.
Johnson, R. L., Willeke, M. J., & Steiner, D. J. (1998). "Stakeholder collaboration in the design and implementation of a family literacy portfolio assessment". American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 339¬353.
Kemp, J. E. Morrison, G. R. and Ross, S. M. (1994). Designing Effective Instruction (NY: Macmillan Publishing Company).
Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Public and Nonprofit Policies and Programs (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Mertens, D. M. (2001). "Inclusitvity and transformation: Evaluation in 2010". American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3),367-374.
215
Introduction and Comparison of Different Program Evaluation Approaches
Paton, R., Foot, J., & Payne, G. (2000) . "What happens when nonprofits use quality models for self-assessment? "Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(1), 21-34.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation ,The New Century Text (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, (CA: Sage).
Postman, N. (1995). The End of Education: Redefining The Value of School
( New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Pratt, C. C., McGuigan, W. M., & Katzev, A. R. (2000). "Measuring program outcomes: Retrospective pretest methodology". American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 341-349.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry For Learning İn Organizations. Thousand Oaks (CA: Sage).
Quintanilla, G., & Packard, T. (2002). "A participatory evaluation of an inner-city science enrichment prgram". Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 15-22.
Schnoes, C. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Chambers, J. (2000). "Empowerment
evaluation applied: Experiences, analysis, and recommendations from a case study". American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), 53-64.
Seels, B. and Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions, Second Edition. Upper Saddle River ( NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc).
Shambaugh, R. N. and Magliaro, S. G. (1997) .Mastering The Possibilities: A Process Approach to Instructional Design ( Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon).
Smith, M. F. (2001) . "Evaluation: Preview of the future #2". American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 281-300.
Smith, N. L. (1994). "Clarifying and expanding the application of program theory-driven evaluations". Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 83-87.
Smith P. L. and Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional Design (NY: Merrill/Macmillan College Publishing).
Stake, R. E. (1967) .The countenance of educational evaluation. In Ely, D. P. and Plomp, T. (Eds.) (1996) Classic Writings on Iİnstructional Technology (Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited).
Stake, R. E. (1973, October) .Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. Keynote address at the conference "New trends in evaluation," Institute of Education (Sweden: University of Goteborg ).In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1987).
Stufflebeam, D. L. and Shinkfield, A. J. (1990). Systematic Evaluation (Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff).
216
Salih UŞUN
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1999, December ). Foundational Models for 21st Century Program Evaluation , The Evaluation Center Occasional Papers Series, Western Michigan University.Available online at:
http://www.unssc.org/web/programmes/LS/unep-unssc-precourse- material/7 evaluatıonl%20Models.pdf , accesed May 23 ,2009.
Thayer, C. E., & Fine, A. H. (2000). "Evaluation and outcome measurement in the non-profit sector: Stakeholder participation". Evaluation and Program Planning,23,103-108.
Torres, R. T., & Preskill, H. (2001). "Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future". American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 387¬395.
Unrau, Y. A. (2001) . "Using client interviews to illuminate outcomes in program logic models: A case example". Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 353-361.
Visser,R,M,S.(2009). Trends in Program Evaluation Literature:The Emergence of Pragmatism,TCALL Occasional Research Paper No. 5 Texas Center for Adult Literacy & Learning, Available online at: http://wwwtcall.tamu.edu/orp/orp5.htm, accesed February 11,2009.
Wilson, B, Teslow, J. and Osman-Jouchoux, R. (1998). The Impact of Constructivism (and Postmodernism) On ID Fundamentals. In Seels, B. (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A review and reconsideration. Englewood Cliffs (NJ: Educational Technology Publications).

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com