Fourth generation educational evaluation: The impact of a post-modern paradigm on school based evaluation

Studies in Educational Evaluation

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 187-199

  Russell, Neil ^a   Willinsky, John ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031542434     PISSN: 0191491X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0191-491X(97)00012-6     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barrack, C., & Cogliano, J. (1993). Stakeholder involvement: Mythology or methodology? Evaluation Practice, 14 (1), 33-37.
2. Blomberg, D.G. (1991). The teacher as evaluator. Curriculum Perspectives, 11 (4), 32-43.
3. Boston, K. (1992). Working for the possible. Curriculum Perspectives, 12 (4), 30-31.
4. Bryk, A.S. (Ed.). (1983). Stakeholder-based evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 17. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5. Caulley, D. (1987). History and the four generations of evaluation. The Bulletin of the Australasian Evaluation Society, 1, Nov., 23-7.
6. Doll, W.E. Jr. (1993). A postmodern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
7. Eisner, E. (1993). Reshaping assessment in education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25 (3), 219-233.
8. Finger, G. (1992). Integrating learning technology in Queensland state schools: A program evaluation of the Queensland Sunrise Centre. Department of Education, Queensland, Australia.
9. Finger, G., & Russell, N. (1994). School evaluation using fourth generation evaluation; A case study. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6 (1), 43-54.
10. Fishman, D. (1992). Postmodernism comes to program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 15, 263-270.
11. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-77, (pp. 109-133). Brighton: Harvester.
12. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation, California: Sage.
13. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1990). Fourth generation evaluation: An interview with Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 2 (3), 3-14.
14. Habermas, J. (1981). Theory of communicative action: Reason and rationalization of society (Vol 1, T. McCarthy, trans.). Boston: Beacon.
15. Harlen, W. (1978). Evaluation and the teacher's role, London: Schools Council Research Studies, Macmillan Education.
16. House, E.R. (1973). School evaluation: The politics and the process. Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.
17. Hughes, P. (1990). Two roles of evaluation: Compatible or conflicting. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 2 (3), 15-28.
18. Kemmis, S. (1989). Self evaluation in the context of program evaluation. Evaluation Journal of Australasia. 2 (1), 2-30.
19. Kemmis, S., & Robottom, I. (1986). Principles of procedure in curriculum evaluation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13 (2), 151-155.
20. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1992). In response to Lee Sechrest's 1991 AEA Presidential Address: Roots: Back to our first generations, February 1991, 1-7. Evaluation Practice, 13 (3), 165-169.
21. McCormick, R., & James, M. (1983). Curriculum evaluation in schools. London: Croom Helm.
22. McEvoy, C., & Rissel, C. (1992). Fourth generation evaluation and its appropriateness for evaluating aboriginal health program. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 4 (1), 23-31.
23. Nevo, D. (1993). The evaluation-minded school: An application of perceptions from program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 14 (1), 39-47.
24. Noddings, N. (1993). For all its children. Educational Theory, 43 (1), 15-22.
25. Patton, M.Q. (1986). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. California: Sage.
26. Peach, F. (1995). Education in Queensland. Australian College of Education, Queensland Newsletter, 34 (1), 1-8.
27. Prideaux, D. (1993). School based curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25 (2), 169-178.
28. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Russell, N. (1984). Teachers as curriculum evaluators. In M. Skilbeck (Ed.), Readings in school based curriculum development, (pp. 244-255). London: Harper & Row.
30. Sechrest, L. (1992). Roots: Back to our first generations. Evaluation Practice, 13 (1), 1-7.
31. Simons, H. (1979). Suggestions for a school self-evaluation based on democratic principles. Classroom Action Research network. Bulletin no. 3. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Institute of Education.
32. Smith, D.G. (1991). Hermeneutic inquiry: The hermeneutic imagination and the pedagogic text. In E. Scott (Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry. New York: State University of New York Press.
33. Stake, R.E. (1982). A peer response: A review of program evaluation in education: When? How? To what ends? In E.R. House, S. Mathison, J.A. Pearl, & H. Preskill (Eds.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual, Vol. 7. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34. Stufflebeam, D.L., & Webster, W.J. (1980). An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2 (3), 5-19.
35. Weiss, C.H. (1984). Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation. In R.F. Connor, D.G. Altman, & Jackson (Eds.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual, Vol 9. California: Sage.
36. Werner, W., & Case, R. (1991). Collaborative assessment of school-based projects. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
37. Willinsky, J. B. Postmodern literacy: A primer. Interchange. 22 (4), 56-76.
38. Willinsky, J. (In press). Beyond 1492-1992: Toward a postcolonial supplement for the Canadian curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies.
39. Windle, C., & Neigher, W. (1978). Ethical problems in program evaluation: Advice for trapped evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1, 97-107.
40. Wolf, R. (1973) How teachers feel about evaluation. In E. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and the process, (pp. 156-168). Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.
41. Worthen, B., & Sanders, J. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.