Re: Political turf problem

[Jim Bell <jimb@unbc.edu>]

The original discussion about evaluation seemed to be reaching the point 
where a single definition of evaluation would not serve us well. 
Consequently, I suggested that there may be more than one kind of 
evaluation e.g., formative and evaluative. Who judges the improvement and 
whose standards are used are not part of the distinction--although 
crucial questions in evaluation, I believe. 

Doesn't a summative evaluation mean that overall worth has been 
considered first? No. It certainly means that the goals have been 
considered. But summative evaluation can also include
a) is the original plan being followed
b) is each individual component working effectively
c) are there any serendipitious things that should be picked up and 
incorporated?


Jim Bell				Ph. (604) 960-6365
Learning Skills Centre			Fax (604) 960-6330
University of Northern BC		email jimb@unbc.edu
3333 University Way
Prince George, BC
Canada  V2N 4Z9                    =====-=-====-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, CH wrote:

> > WE might be helped in thinking about evaluation by the distinction 
> > between summative and formative evaluation. Summative evaluation comes at 
> > the end, as if it were the final judgement. Formative evaluation occurs 
> > while lthere is still time to make changes, to alter course. It does not 
> > judge the overall worth of something but rather points out strengths and 
> > weaknesses so that improvement can be made before the final verdict.
> 
> Just can't help wondering:
> 1. improvement in whose eyes and according to whose standards.
> 
> 2. Does not pointing out strengths and weaknesses to generate improvement 
> suggest that in some way the "overall worth" was considered first?  Is 
> not the pointing out of w. and s. modifying that "overall worth"?  or 
> will is it all worthless?
>