Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education (수산해양교육연구)

The Korean Society for Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education (한국수산해양교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Investigation on Characteristics of Program Evaluation Model according to Research Paradigm

연구 패러다임에 따른 프로그램 평가모형의 특징 고찰

  • Received : 2017.04.25
  • Accepted : 2017.06.15
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the characteristics of the research paradigm and to explore the characteristics and limitations of the representative evaluation models belonging to each paradigm. The research paradigm is Positivism, Interpretivism, Critical Theory, and Postmodernism. The evaluation models that represent each paradigm include Objective-oriented evaluation model, Forth generation evaluation model, Empowerment evaluation model, Connoisseurship & Criticism model. The characteristics of each evaluation model reflects the characteristics of their own research paradigm.

Keywords

References

  1. Kang, Man-Chul(2008). A Critical Review of Eisner's Concept of Educational Evaluation. Research of Education Principle. The Journal of Educational Principles, 13(2), 139-162.
  2. Kwak, Young-sun(2009). Qualitative research: Philosophy, Art and Education. Pajoo: Kyoyukguahaksa.
  3. Kim, Young-Chun & Joo, Je-Hong. Postmodern paradigm and education/curriculum research. Seoul: Academypress.
  4. Park, Seung-bae(2013). Educational Criticism. Pajoo: Kyoyukguahaksa.
  5. Bae, Ho-soon(2008). Theory-Driven Educational Program Evaluation. Seoul: Wonmisa.
  6. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S.(1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oak, Sage: 1-18
  7. Fetterman, D.(1996). Empowerment Evaluation : An Introduction. In Fetterman, David M., Kaftarian, Shakeh J. and Wandersman, Abraham (eds.), Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assesment & Accountability, Sage: 63-74.
  8. Fetterman, D.(2005). Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice: Asessing levels of commitment, In Fetterman, David M. and Wandersman, Abraham (eds.) Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice, Guilford press: 42-72.
  9. Fitzpatrick, J. L. & Sanders, J. R. & Worthen B. R.(2004). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Pearson Education, Inc.
  10. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S.(1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  11. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S.(1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  12. Habermas, J.(1972). Knowledge and human interests. 2nd ed., London, Heinemann.
  13. Hatch, A.(2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Setting. New York: State University of New York Press.
  14. House, E. R.(1978). Assumptions underlying evaluation models. Educational Researcher, 7, 4-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X007008004
  15. House, E. R.(1983). Philosophy of evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Ball.
  16. Khun, T.(1970). The structure oj scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  17. Lather, P.(2007). Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts Toward a Double(d) Science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  18. Lee, Eun-hwa(2006). A Study on Developing a Conceptual Model of Course Evaluation in University, Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education, 18(3), 314-328.
  19. Lee, Suk-Min(2012). A Study on Evaluation Theory and Model Based on Philosophical Paradigm: Focusing on US Evaluation Research. Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 22(1), 59-89.
  20. Popper, K.(1970). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Science Education.
  21. Scriven, M.(2003). Evaluation theory and metatheoly. in T. Kellaghan, D. T. Stufflebeam, & L. A. Wingate(Eds.). International handbook of educational evaluation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub. 15-30.
  22. Stake, R. E.(1976). A Theoretical Statement of Responsive Evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2: 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(76)90004-3
  23. Steele, S. M.(1973). Contemporary approaches to program evaluation. Washington, D. C. : Education Resources Division Capitol Pub.
  24. Stufflebeam, D. L.(2000). Foundational models for 21st century program evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan(Eds). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human service evaluation(2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Pub. 33-83.
  25. Stufflebeam, D. L. & Webster, W. J.(1980). An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(3), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737002002005
  26. Stufflebeam, D. L. & Webster, W. J.(1983). An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven & D. L. Stufflebeam(Eds.). Evaluation models: viewnpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Pub: 23-43.
  27. Tyler, R. W.(1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The Universty of Chicago Press.
  28. Willis, J. W & Jost, M. & Nilakanta, R.(2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research. Interpretative and Critical Approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
  29. Worthen, B, R. & Sanders, J. R.(1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guideline. New York: Longman.