Try to describe the shortcomings of the three generations of evaluation and their enlightenment to us? It is about curriculum and teaching theory. Help me answer it

The concept of the fourth generation of educational evaluation. In the 1980s, representatives of Cuba (Egong Guba) (YSLincoln) and others and Lincoln created the "fourth generation educational evaluation theory." They believe that evaluation It should be taken into account that the value evaluation of things is essentially a psychologically constructed evaluation. They further emphasized the "value of diversity" and advocated fully listening to opinions from all sides in the evaluation, and evaluating through the differences between various standard values, taking the evaluation as continuous coordination, shortening the distance between different opinions, and finally forming A recognized process of achieving consciousness.

Second, the concept of comparative educational evaluation

After nearly half a century of development and research, there are many schools of evaluation in Western education, but the evaluation of the nature of education is still vague and inconclusive in sight. . Theoretical guidance of various assessment models is also a broad range of strengths and weaknesses. Here, we try to compare some representative views or models to understand their places and gain a deeper understanding of the essence and differences in educational evaluation development trends.

1. Target model behavior and target CIPP model behavior model, Taylor model, that is, Taylor’s guidance to conduct evaluation as the core of the target and the key evaluation process, through student behavior investigation from the actual situation and educational goals are found out, so through information feedback, the educational goals that promote educational activities can be as close as possible. The model has a compact structure, simplicity, clear logical context, and is easy to implement. It plays an important role in educational evaluation theory.

The CIPP model consists of context (Context) evaluation, input (input) evaluation process (process) evaluation and a comprehensive evaluation model of results, including four evaluations (Procluct) evaluation. It is the center of decision-making and informs decisions in different ways. Background formation evaluation planning decisions, decision-making services for organizational input evaluation, guidance decision-making process evaluation, and outcome evaluation to evaluate the effectiveness of recovery implementation. The main feature of the CIPP model is that the context of input, process and outcome evaluation is a comprehensive and prominent evaluation of "improvement". (1) Evaluation:

Comparing the behavior of the target model and the CIPP model can find different uses in other aspects besides the quantitative method that also emphasizes the method. There are differences, mainly in the following points. The behavioral orientation model, which is implemented with a focus on the educational level of the target, is essentially an after-the-fact evaluation, which is the result of a summative evaluation. The CIPP model focuses on improved functional evaluation, emphasizing the provision of comprehensive information for the decision-making process beginning with subsequent formative evaluation. Time and space (2) assessment is different: the behavioral goal model focuses on the results of behavioral assessment, and the assessment field involves hindsight. The CIPP model broadens the evaluation of time and space, covering the entire process of relevant evaluation activities in all aspects before, during and after the event. Formula (3) Attitude towards the target. As the goal model is central to the goal, the goal will undoubtedly reflect Taylor's values ??once established. The CIPP model is considered a reasonable need for the target itself to be evaluated as necessary and, if necessary, revised and improved on the target object. Taylor breaks down the framework of this view and expands the scope and content of assessment from the given, deepening the understanding of assessment. The object evaluated by Equation (4). The behavioral goal model is mainly suitable for evaluating the rationality and effectiveness of teaching courses. The rationale for the CIPP model and the development of various teaching assessment plans. Different roles (5) assessment. Goal model is the behavior used to determine the effects of education, management and educational activities to achieve educational goals. In addition to the control role, the CIPP model must also provide information on all aspects of decision-making to achieve the purpose of improving decision-making.

In view of this, there are some limitations in the target behavior model, such as coagulation evaluation indicators. In the closed evaluation process, the convergence of values ??has been better than that of the CIPP model. Therefore, the CIPP model is better than the target model. Greater flexibility in behavior can reflect the full picture of the evaluation object, and therefore has broader democracy. Of course, we do not deny the value of the behavioral target model. If the teaching effect needs to be identified, verified and tested, the advantages of this model are self-evident.

2. The reason why Beibei’s rating outlook is compared with its previous rating outlook is mainly because more than one shell expressed for the first time that the purpose of educational evaluation is This argument about the role of value judgment undoubtedly plays a very key role in the development of educational evaluation theory. We can even regard Tony's view that the concept of evolution is not a watershed evaluation, because before him, whether it was Taylor, Fidelity or Stafford Beam, they did not mention the "value judgment" and describe it as are some education policymakers.

In the Taylor model, the emphasis is on achievable goals within the scope of the behavioral description. In emphasizing the hidden ideas of seeking common ground while reserving differences, with reference to evaluation and unified standards, the intended goal of the so-called unified framework of judges is to examine the objective description of how much value there is behind the original goal. Reliability and Stafford Beam are ignored in determining the nature of evaluations, and evaluations are defined as processes for gathering information for their decision-making or other purposes, thus, problems of selection and evaluation criteria are avoided.

However, whether admitted or not, the essence of evaluation is a method based on the facts described on the basis of value judgments. Bibei subdivided it because it reveals the essence. He believes that educational evaluation is "the systematic collection of information and evidence." The process of interpretation, based on which value judgments are made, the purpose of action. "It turns out that evaluation cannot just give a brief description of the information, it always contains predictions and inferences on the relationship with certain values ??and consequences, and there can only be no value judgment." What is called a description of knowledge cannot be called an evaluation. Based on this understanding, the evaluation of the following schools pays more attention to the research object than shellfish, which also diversifies the value of the dollar standard. This is Dotoni's indelible contribution to every evaluation standard.

3. The predetermined formula evaluation and the proposed Stark evaluation response evaluation model. He believes that "the accuracy of the method is sacrificed to a certain extent in exchange for more evaluation results of the plan. What I want to say Employee Use. "⑩His past evaluations are called "pre-type ratings", which correspond to "response evaluations". He argued that with the prearranged polymorphic nature of assessments that emphasized demonstration and objective testing purposes, program executives mastered the standards, as well as reported applied research. Compare responses to significant differences in assessments: (1) Evaluate different criteria. Stick to your own values ??with an assessed perspective? Valuation to determine actual value of diversification? Does the value of target reserve requirements deny its value? Be single, in fusion of minds, not in divergence. In response to differences in assessment reserves, there is still a value perspective, full respect for all needs, recognition of value diversity, and divergent thinking rather than convergence. (2) Different methods of evaluation. The use of predetermined formulas is a scientism method, such as testing, measuring, and establishing an indicator system, operating evaluations, judges drawing conclusions, and using quantitative analysis. Response evaluation uses naturalistic methods, such as observation, dialogue, interviews, etc., reducing reliance on formal information exchange, and judges draw conclusions using qualitative analysis. Different (3) information exchange. Assessment planning done well in advance limits the areas of information exchange. In this area, the information required is "produced" and requires accuracy and refinement. Responsive evaluations are given by free communication and allow continued selling of various types of valuable information in the field of evaluation, but do not require precise effort to be effective. Equation (4) evaluates the effect. The predetermined formula in which the evaluator engages himself is understood as a stimulus, not a reactant. He only needs to produce standardized stimuli, such as questions, tests, etc., to elicit a series of responses, and the materials he collects serve as information for assessment reports. Engage in the evaluation process of responses to evaluate naturally occurring things, such as the student's reaction and mutual dialogue after a major stimulus, he wants to know the facts, but also understand the value orientation, that is, ***vibration and people who are The responses, interactions with the evaluators, and the information obtained will be incorporated into the evaluation report. (5) Responses to different evaluators. People feel guilty, frustrated, and find it difficult to have a sense of accomplishment before there is always a predetermined formula to evaluate. The evaluation is like a sharp sword hanging in the sky that will fall on his head at any time. In assessing people's response to feeling full trust and respect, psychological assessment is easy to mix and build.

From this point of view, response evaluation emphasizes the pluralism of values, divergent thinking, and methodological naturalism, a form of democracy in a broader sense. It is fully consistent with the concerns raised by the consciousness of Western societies. and welcome.

3. Enlightenment of educational evaluation

With the evolution of the concept

in the entire development process of Western educational evaluation theory, we can at least get the following enlightenment:< /p>

>

1. In the development of a comprehensive educational evaluation educational theory, the division of labor in the development stages of evaluation, educational evaluation can be divided into four theoretical stages: the first generation is called time In the "measurement cycle" of the late 1930s-20s, which was marked by the formation of a great deal of "measurement" theory and the practical application of testing techniques, assessment was simply equivalent to "measures" pursuing educational goals. The second generation can be called the "described period", which lasted from the 1930s to the 1950s, and was characterized by testing results, "illustrating" and striving to standardize education. The third generation is called the "trial period," which occurred from about 1950 to 1970, and "judgment" is the main symbol. Assessment is used to measure not only as a means to collect various information, but also to judge education based on a certain value and pursue the diversity of education. The fourth generation of educational evaluation emerged in the late 1970s, emphasizing that evaluation is a process of "psychological construction" to promote the value of diversity, full participation, and joint construction. Work hard to democratize education.

Although each generation of theoretical evaluation is trying to overcome the shortcomings of the previous generation and make it more in line with the new requirements of the evaluation of the times, there are some similarities among the evaluations of the first three generations. Disadvantages: (1) "Management tendency" The evaluation of the third generation is often a consistent relationship between the evaluation and all other relevant people are excluded, and managers and evaluators rarely challenge. This kind of relationship is usually caused by the unreasonable consequences of the four practical activities. It is not wrong for the manager, if there is a problem with the evaluation conclusion, it must be directed to other people; the relationship between the manager and the evaluation is unfair and has no right to evaluate the status. ;Evaluators are unable to protect their own interests and express their opinions; Managers try to protect themselves from harm and are rated only to meet the manager's needs. (2) “Ignore the value of diversity.”

The result is difficult for people to use different values? Those who are hurt by the evaluation often do not cooperate in accepting the so-called "objective" evaluation. (3) "Over-reliance on scientific paradigm." Therefore, the evaluator forgets the "scientific method" and "empirical technology" is just human knowledge, a kind of method and technical evaluation of things, but not all; making the evaluation too dependent and neglected The "number of measurements" of the "quality" survey has been reduced; making the evaluation activities lack the necessary flexibility and elasticity.

For the first three generations of full evaluation, the fourth generation of empirical evaluation introduces qualitative methods and pays attention to the evaluation process evaluation based on the interaction of both parties and dynamic analysis. Its contribution is that "it has the control and evaluation of objects required to successfully coordinate the process of moral evaluation." The new function of educational evaluation theory, in our opinion, shows the timely trend of this theory.

2. Regarding development trends, educational development and educational evaluation have evolved from historical evaluation, from scratch, from singleness to plurality. The development trends are very obvious: (1) In the evaluation process, closed open. Taylor patterns serve as a starting point and a final destination goal, combined into a closed loop. The CIPP model and response methods are no longer limited to the target itself, but a variety of background environments. External factors are included in the evaluation process and are an open network. (2) Evaluate content to one-sided wheel. Early educational evaluation not only evaluates students' aptitudes, but then develops into the evaluation process, as well as further development in all aspects of educational activities, so that the comprehensive evaluation of content is a relatively broad and comprehensive evaluation. (3) The evaluation function is integrated into a single variety. The previous selection of appropriate education, through testing the child, develops into diagnosing problems, improving education, and creating an education that is suitable for children. Develop from summative assessment to focus on the role of formative assessment. (4) value, convergence-divergence after conversion. The Taylor model aims to become a unified evaluation scale, and the answer model needs to make judgments based on people's needs and is evaluated from the value of an element? into US dollars. From quantitative change (5) The assessment tool is a combination of qualitative and quantitative. Developed from respect for various objective, standardized measures to facilitate the further development of qualitative analysis and extensive collection of information such as observation, conversation, analytical parameters, and value judgments made using methods that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. .

1 Comment: See Chen Yukun: "Research on the Theoretical Research on China's Higher Education Evaluation", Guangdong Higher Education Press, 1993, pp. 16-18; 2 Wang Zhihe. Editor: "Evaluation of Higher Education", Beijing Normal University Press, 1995, pp. 8-9.

3 Chen Yukun and others choose. "Education Collection Education Evaluation", People's Education Press, 1989, pp. 263,160. .

4 Selected by Chen Yukun and others: "Education Evaluation of Pedagogy Collection", People's Education Press, 1989, page 301298326325. .

5 Chen Yukun: "Research on the Theory of Evaluation of Higher Education in China", Guangdong Higher Education Press, 1993 edition, page 18

6 Editor: Wang Zhi. "Evaluation of Higher Education", Beijing Normal University Press, 1995 edition, page 9

See Zhouchao Sen: "New Evaluation Theory of Adventure Education", "Education", 1992 2.