Le post mortem d’une évaluation conjoncturelle
Mots-clés :
évaluation conjoncturelle, évaluation de programme, évaluation naturaliste, enseignement supérieur, modèles d’évaluationRésumé
Le modèle conjoncturel est apparu comme une solution aux problèmes reliés à l’utilisation des modèles formalistes d’évaluation de programme. L’utilisation de ce modèle dans le cadre de l’évaluation d’un programme universitaire a permis d’une part, d’expérimenter le modèle et, d’autre part, d’identifier les avantages et les limites reliés à son utilisation. L’évaluation a tracé un portrait assez exhaustif du programme à l’étude grâce à l’information obtenue qui était complète et riche en détails pertinents. Plusieurs avantages et limites reliés à l’utilisation d’une telle approche ont été identifiés dans les écrits des dernières années et la plupart d’entre eux furent confirmés dans l’étude actuelle. Celle-ci fut aussi l’occasion d’identifier d’autres avantages et limites ainsi que d’émettre des recommandations concernant l’utilisation du modèle conjoncturel.
Références
Berk, R. A., & Rossi, P. H. (1976). Doing good or worse: Evaluation research poli re-examined. Social Problems, 23, 337-349-
Borich, G. D., & Jemelka, R. P. (1982). Programs and systems (The educational techn series). Toronto: Academic Press.
Caro, F. G. (1971). Issues in the evaluation of social programs. Review of Educational Res 41(2), 87-114.
Cochran, N. (1980). Society as emergent and more than rational: An essay o inappropriateness of program evaluation. Policy Sciences, 12(2), 1 13-129.
Coleman, N. (1980). Policy research and political theory. University of Chicago Record, I 78-80.
Datta, L. E. (Ed.). (1981). Evaluation in change. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation ofschoolpro New York: Macmillan. Gold, N. (198 1). The stakeholder process in educational program evaluation. Washington, D National Institute of Education.
Guba, E. G. (1969). The failure of educational evaluation. Educational Technology, 9(5) 29-38.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hershkowitz, M. (1977). Critical issues in educational needs assessment. Educational Planning, 3, 6-14.
House, E. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hurteau, M. (1982). Une approche naturaliste: L'evaluation du certificat de relations industrielles I au moyen du modele conjoncturel. These de doctorat, Universite Laval, Quebec.
Kalman, M. (1976). Use of responsive evaluation in statewide program evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2(1), 9-18.
Kaufman, R., & English, F. W. (1979). Needs assessment: Concepts and application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Klintberg, I. G. (1976). A responsive evaluation of two programs in medical education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2(1), 23-30.
Levine, M. (1974). Scientific method and the adversary. American Psychologist, I, 661-677.
Michael, N. (1984, octobre). Realistic evaluation: Ritualistic evaluation and the implications for the utilization of evaluation data. Conf6rence donnee dans le cadre du congres Evaluation '84, San Francisco.
Nadeau, M. A. (1984). La mise en priorite de besoins. Document non publiC, Universite Laval, Québec.
Newcomer, D., & Bernstein, D. (1984, octobre). Achieving excellence through the use of a utilization-focused evaluation approach. Conf6rence donn6e dans le cadre du congr6s Evaluation '84, San Francisco.
Owens, T. R. (1973). Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding. In E. R. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp. 295-305). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1976). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. In G. V. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation studies review manual (Vol. 1, pp. 140-157). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Preskill, H. (1983, octobre). Notes on being responsive: Evaluating a graduate nursing program. Conf6rence donn&e dans le cadre du congres Evaluation '83, Chicago.
Rackel, R. E. (1976). A summary: Responsive evaluation and family practice. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2 (1), 35-36.
Rippey, R. M. (1973). Studies in transactional evaluation. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Rockwell, S. (1982). A responsive approach to evaluating an alcohol program for youth. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8(2), 197-200.
Rutman, L. (1980). Planning useful evaluations. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Schermerhorn, G. R., & Williams, R. G. (1979). An empirical comparison of responsive and preordinate approaches to program evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(3), 55-60.
Schwartz, P. A. (1980). Program devaluation: Can the experiment reform? In E. Loveland (Ed.), Measuring the hard to measure: New directions for program evaluation (no. 6) (pp. 9- 25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, R. A., & Shore, A. R. (1979). Why sociology does not apply: A study of the use of sociology in public policy. New York: Elsevier Publishing Corporation.
Scriven, M. (1978). Merit vs. value. Evaluation News, 8, 20-29.
Sorlie, W. E., & Essex, D. L. (1978). Evaluation of a three-year health sciences PLATO IV computer-based education project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Development of Computer Based Instructional Systems, Dallas, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 161 424)
Stake, R. E. (1976). A theoretical statement of responsive evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2(1), 19-22.
Stake, R. E. (1978). Responsive evaluation. In D. Manilton, D. Jenkins, & C. King (Eds.), Beyond the numbers game. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Stake, R. E. (1983). Responsive evaluation. In T. Hus6n & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies (Vol. 7) (pp. 253-254). New York: Pergamon Press.
Stake, R. E., & Hoke, G. A. (1976). Evaluating an arts program: Movement and dance in a downstate district. National Elementary Principal, 55(3), 52-59-
Stake, R. E., & Pearson, J. A. (1981). Evaluating responsively. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Applied strategies for curriculum evaluation (pp. 25-33). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 416 MARTHE HURTEAU & MARC-ANDRt NADEAU
Vanhoose, J. (1977). A responsive evaluation of inside out. Bloomington, IN Instructional Television. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 1
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluating educational and social action programs: A treef In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Evaluation action programs: Readings in social action an (pp. 3-28). Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
Weiss, C. H. (1983). The stakeholder approach to evaluation: origins and prom Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder based evaluation: New directions for program evaluati San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Witkin, B. R. (1984). Assessing needs in educational and social programs. S Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wolf, R. L. (1975). Trial by jury: The process. Phi Delta Kappa, 57, 185-187.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
La Revue canadienne de l’éducation utilise la licence CC BY-NC-ND de Creative Commons.
