Values engagement in evaluation: Ideas, illustrations, and implications

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 195-207

  Hall, Jori N ^a   Ahn, Jeehae ^b   Greene, Jennifer C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

democratic evaluation; prescriptive valuing; responsive evaluation; STEM educational evaluation; values engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860167165     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214011422592     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Evaluation roots. Alkin M.C., ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2004:.
2. Amba T.The practice of politics of responsive evaluation.American Journal of Evaluation. 2006;27:31-43.
3. Chelimsky E.The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice.American Journal of Evaluation. 1998;19:35-55.
4. Christie C.A.,Alkin M.C.Evaluation theory tree re-examined.Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2008;34:131-135.
5. Everitt A.Developing a critical evaluation.Evaluation. 1996;2:173-188.
6. Critical social theory and evaluation practice.New Directions for Evaluation. 2010;127:1-6.
7. Greene J.C.Evaluation as advocacy.Evaluation Practice. 1997;18:25-35.
8. Greene J.C.A Value-Engaged Approach for Evaluating the Bunche-Da Vinci Learning Academy.New Directions for Evaluation. 2005;106:27-45.
9. Greene J.C.,DeStefano L.,Burgon H.,Hall J.An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs.New Directions for Evaluation. 2006;109:53-71.
10. Guba E.G.,Lincoln Y.S.Fourth generation evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Sage; 1989:.
11. House E.R.Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1980:.
12. House E.R.,Howe K.R.Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:.
13. Kushner S.Personalizing evaluation. London, England: Sage; 2000:.
14. Mabry L.Critical social theory evaluation: Slaying the dragon.New Directions for Evaluation. 2010;127:83-98.
15. MacDonald B.Curriculum evaluation today: Trends and implications. Tawney D., ed. London, England: MacMillan Education; 1976:125-136.
16. MacDonald B.Safari: Theory in practice. Nigel N., ed. Norwich, England: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia; 1977:50-67.
17. MacDonald B.Evaluation and democracy. Edmonton, Canada: Public address at the University of Alberta Faculty of Education; 1978:.
18. Mertens D.M.Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation.American Journal of Evaluation. 1999;20:1-14.
19. Rawls J.A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971:.
20. Renger R.,Bourdeau B.Strategies for values inquiry: an exploratory case study.American Journal of Evaluation. 2004;25:39-49.
21. Schwandt T.Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997:.
22. Schwandt T.Educating for intelligent belief in evaluation.American Journal of Evaluation. 2008;29:139-150.
23. Scriven M.Evaluating social programs and problems Visions for the New Millennium. Donaldson S.I.Scriven M., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003:19-42.
24. Shadish W.R.,Cook T.D.,Leviton L.C.Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991:.
25. Stake R.E.Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2004:.
26. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved fromhttp://www.2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.