Diverse and creative uses of cases for teaching

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2005, Issue 105, 2005, Pages 91-100

  Patton, Michael Quinn ^a  

^a UNION INSTITUTE AND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248599320     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.146     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alkin, M. (ed.).Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004.
2. Alkin, M., and Christie, C., “The Use of Role-Play in Teaching Evaluation.“American Journal of Evaluation, 2002, 23(2), 209-218.
3. Altschuld, J. and Engle, M. (eds.).The Preparation of Professional Evaluators: Issues, Perspectives, and Programs.New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 62, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
4. Barnette, J. and Sanders, J. (eds.).Mainstreaming Evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 99.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
5. Braverman, M., Constantine, N. and Slater, J. K. (eds.).Foundations and Evaluation: Contexts and Practices for Effective Philanthropy.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
6. Christie, C., “What Guides Evaluation? A Study of How Evaluation Practice Maps onto Evaluation Theory.“In C.Christie (ed.), The Practice-Theory Relationship in Evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 97.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
7. Christie, C., and Alkin, M., “The User-Oriented Evaluator’s Role in Formulating a Program Theory: Using a Theory-Driven Approach.“American Journal of Evaluation, 2003, 24(3), 373-386.
8. Compton, D., Baizerman, M. and Stockdill, S. (eds.).The Art, Craft, and Science of Evaluation Capacity Building.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 93.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
9. Greene, J. and Abma, T. (eds.).Responsive Evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 92.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
10. Greene, J. and Caracelli, V. (eds.).Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 74.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
11. House, E., and Howe, K., Values in Evaluation and Social Research.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1999.
12. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation.The Standards for Program Evaluation.(2nd ed.)Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994.
13. King, J., Stevahn, L., Ghere, G., and Minnema, J., “Toward a Taxonomy of Central Evaluator Competencies.“American Journal of Evaluation, 2001, 22(2), 229-247.
14. Mertens, D., “Training Evaluators: Unique Skills and Knowledge.“In J.Altschuld and M.Engle (eds.), The Preparation of Professional Evaluators: Issues, Perspectives, and Programs.New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 62.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
15. Mohan, R., Bernstein, D. and Whitsett, M. (eds.).Responding to Sponsors and Stakeholders in Complex Evaluation Environments.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 95.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
16. Newman, D., and Brown, R., Applied Ethics for Program Evaluation.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996.
17. Patton, M. Q., Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text.(3rd ed.)Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997.
18. Patton, M. Q., Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods.(3rd ed.)Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2002.
19. Preskill, H. and Coghlan, A. (eds.).Using Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 100.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
20. Preskill, H., and Russ-Eft, D., Building Evaluation Capacity: Seventy-Two Activities for Teaching and Training.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004.
21. Preskill, H., Zuckerman, B., and Matthews, B., “An Exploratory Study of Process Use: Findings and Implications for Future Research.“American Journal of Evaluation, 2003, 24(4), 423-442.
22. Reichardt, C. and Rallis, S. (eds.).The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 61.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
23. Rogers, P., Hacsi, T., Petrosino, A. and Huebner, T. (eds.).Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 87.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
24. Ryan, K. and DeStefano, L. (eds.).Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation.New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 85.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
25. Schwandt, T., Evaluation Practice Reconsidered.New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2002.
26. Scriven, M. (ed.).Hard-Won Lessons in Program Evaluation.New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 58.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
27. Seigart, D. and Brisolara, S. (eds.).Feminist Evaluation: Explorations and Experiences.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 96.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
28. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D., “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts About Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality.“Risk Analysis, 2004, 24(2), 311-322.
29. Stake, R., The Art of Case Study Research.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995.
30. Stake, R., “Case Studies.“In N.Denzin and Y.Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research.(2nd ed.)Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2000.
31. Stringer, E., Action Research.(2nd ed.)Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage1999.
32. Stufflebeam, D., “Lessons in Contracting for Evaluation.“American Journal of Evaluation, 2000, 21(3), 293-314.
33. Stufflebeam, D. (ed.).Evaluation Models.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 89.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
34. Torres, R., Preskill, H., and Piontek, M., Evaluation Strategies for Communicating and Reporting: Enhancing Learning in Organizations.(2nd ed.)Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004.
35. Trevisan, M., “Practical Training in Evaluation: A Review of the Literature.“American Journal of Evaluation, 2004, 25(2), 255-272.
36. Yin, R., “Rival Explanations as an Alternative to Reforms as Experiments.“In L.Bickman (ed.), Validity and Social Experimentation: Donald Campbell’s Legacy.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2000.