Le post mortem d’une évaluation conjoncturelle
Keywords:
évaluation conjoncturelle, évaluation de programme, évaluation naturaliste, enseignement supérieur, modèles d’évaluationAbstract
The responsive model of evaluation has been seen as an alternative to formal evaluation models. The model was used for the evaluation of a program in a Quebec francophone university. The study focussed on two main objectives, the first addressed the local utility of the program being assessed and the major problems encountered by the administrators while the second aimed at identifying the advantages and the limits of the model and comparing them to those reported in the literature. As far as the first objective was concerned, the rich, detailed, and pertinent information enabled the evaluator to sketch a portrait of the situation. The evaluation results and findings were transformed into specific recommendations to improve the program. As for the second objective, several advantages and limitations reported in the literature were confirmed but some new ones were also found. Specific recommendations for the use of the responsive model are presented as concluding remarks.
References
Berk, R. A., & Rossi, P. H. (1976). Doing good or worse: Evaluation research poli re-examined. Social Problems, 23, 337-349-
Borich, G. D., & Jemelka, R. P. (1982). Programs and systems (The educational techn series). Toronto: Academic Press.
Caro, F. G. (1971). Issues in the evaluation of social programs. Review of Educational Res 41(2), 87-114.
Cochran, N. (1980). Society as emergent and more than rational: An essay o inappropriateness of program evaluation. Policy Sciences, 12(2), 1 13-129.
Coleman, N. (1980). Policy research and political theory. University of Chicago Record, I 78-80.
Datta, L. E. (Ed.). (1981). Evaluation in change. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation ofschoolpro New York: Macmillan. Gold, N. (198 1). The stakeholder process in educational program evaluation. Washington, D National Institute of Education.
Guba, E. G. (1969). The failure of educational evaluation. Educational Technology, 9(5) 29-38.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hershkowitz, M. (1977). Critical issues in educational needs assessment. Educational Planning, 3, 6-14.
House, E. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hurteau, M. (1982). Une approche naturaliste: L'evaluation du certificat de relations industrielles I au moyen du modele conjoncturel. These de doctorat, Universite Laval, Quebec.
Kalman, M. (1976). Use of responsive evaluation in statewide program evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2(1), 9-18.
Kaufman, R., & English, F. W. (1979). Needs assessment: Concepts and application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Klintberg, I. G. (1976). A responsive evaluation of two programs in medical education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2(1), 23-30.
Levine, M. (1974). Scientific method and the adversary. American Psychologist, I, 661-677.
Michael, N. (1984, octobre). Realistic evaluation: Ritualistic evaluation and the implications for the utilization of evaluation data. Conf6rence donnee dans le cadre du congres Evaluation '84, San Francisco.
Nadeau, M. A. (1984). La mise en priorite de besoins. Document non publiC, Universite Laval, Québec.
Newcomer, D., & Bernstein, D. (1984, octobre). Achieving excellence through the use of a utilization-focused evaluation approach. Conf6rence donn6e dans le cadre du congr6s Evaluation '84, San Francisco.
Owens, T. R. (1973). Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding. In E. R. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp. 295-305). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1976). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. In G. V. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation studies review manual (Vol. 1, pp. 140-157). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Preskill, H. (1983, octobre). Notes on being responsive: Evaluating a graduate nursing program. Conf6rence donn&e dans le cadre du congres Evaluation '83, Chicago.
Rackel, R. E. (1976). A summary: Responsive evaluation and family practice. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2 (1), 35-36.
Rippey, R. M. (1973). Studies in transactional evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Rockwell, S. (1982). A responsive approach to evaluating an alcohol program for youth. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8(2), 197-200.
Rutman, L. (1980). Planning useful evaluations. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Schermerhorn, G. R., & Williams, R. G. (1979). An empirical comparison of responsive and preordinate approaches to program evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(3), 55-60.
Schwartz, P. A. (1980). Program devaluation: Can the experiment reform? In E. Loveland (Ed.), Measuring the hard to measure: New directions for program evaluation (no. 6) (pp. 9- 25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, R. A., & Shore, A. R. (1979). Why sociology does not apply: A study of the use of sociology in public policy. New York: Elsevier Publishing Corporation.
Scriven, M. (1978). Merit vs. value. Evaluation News, 8, 20-29.
Sorlie, W. E., & Essex, D. L. (1978). Evaluation of a three-year health sciences PLATO IV computer-based education project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Development of Computer Based Instructional Systems, Dallas, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 161 424)
Stake, R. E. (1976). A theoretical statement of responsive evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2(1), 19-22.
Stake, R. E. (1978). Responsive evaluation. In D. Manilton, D. Jenkins, & C. King (Eds.), Beyond the numbers game. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Stake, R. E. (1983). Responsive evaluation. In T. Hus6n & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies (Vol. 7) (pp. 253-254). New York: Pergamon Press.
Stake, R. E., & Hoke, G. A. (1976). Evaluating an arts program: Movement and dance in a downstate district. National Elementary Principal, 55(3), 52-59-
Stake, R. E., & Pearson, J. A. (1981). Evaluating responsively. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Applied strategies for curriculum evaluation (pp. 25-33). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 416 MARTHE HURTEAU & MARC-ANDRt NADEAU
Vanhoose, J. (1977). A responsive evaluation of inside out. Bloomington, IN Instructional Television. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 1
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluating educational and social action programs: A treef In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Evaluation action programs: Readings in social action an (pp. 3-28). Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
Weiss, C. H. (1983). The stakeholder approach to evaluation: origins and prom Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder based evaluation: New directions for program evaluati San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Witkin, B. R. (1984). Assessing needs in educational and social programs. S Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wolf, R. L. (1975). Trial by jury: The process. Phi Delta Kappa, 57, 185-187.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Canadian Journal of Education follows Creative Commons Licencing CC BY-NC-ND.
