-
Period: to
Industrial Revolution’s impact
Prior to 1900: The Industrial Revolution, spanning from approximately the mid-18th century through the mid-19th century, has led to major societal reforms, including changes in education. -
Period: to
Impact of science on education
1900s-1930s: Aspects of scientific management are applied to education and industry, with a focus on systemization, standardization, and efficiency. -
Origin of formative evaluation?
Early 1920s: Potential origin of formative evaluation, when researchers used a variety of techniques to assess the effectiveness of an instructional film. -
Period: to
Tyler's impact on education
1930-1945: Ralph W. Tyler’s work on education, specifically educational evaluation (a term he coined) and testing, has a wide impact on education. -
Period: to
Formative evaluation beginnings in instruction
1930s-1950s: Processes similar to formative evaluation (but using different names) are used in many instructional projects, especially educational films. -
Period: to
Evaluating instructional materials
1940s-1950s: Educators such as Arthur Lumsdaine, Mark May, and C. R. Carpenter described procedures for evaluating instructional materials that were still in their formative stages. -
Tyler describes formative evaluation in education
1942: Ralph W. Tyler is one of the first individuals to describe the formative role of evaluation activities in educational programs. -
Period: to
Period of educational expansion
1946-1957: A time of major expansion of educational offerings, personnel, and facilities, and a time of rapid expansion of standardized testing. -
Tyler defines evaluation
1950: Ralph W. Tyler defines evaluation as “The process of determining to what extent the educational objectives are actually being realized.” -
Bloom’s Taxonomy
1956: Benjamin Bloom publishes the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, where Evaluation is identified as the highest cognitive domain. See also <a href="http://www.krummefamily.org/guides/bloom.html" target="_blank"> http://www.krummefamily.org/guides/bloom.html</a> -
Period: to
Space Race impact
1958-1972: After the Russian launch of Sputnik in 1957, there was a call for evaluations of large-scale curriculum development projects funded by the government in the United States. -
Kirkpatrick model
1959: Donald Kirkpatrick proposes a four-level model for evaluating training programs. The levels included the following steps: reaction; learning; behavior; and results. -
Period: to
Programmed Instruction
1960s: Programmed instructional materials developed during this time were tested while they were being developed. -
Period: to
Evaluation in ID models
1960s-1980s: Analysis, design, production, evaluation, and revision steps are included in virtually all ID models created in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. -
Cronbach defines evaluation
1963: Lee J. Cronbach defines evaluation as “the collection and use of information to make decisions about an educational program. The program may be a set of instructional materials distributed nationally, the instructional activities of a single school, or the educational experiences of a single pupil…Course improvement: deciding what instructional materials and methods are satisfactory and where change is needed.” -
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
1965: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is passed in the United States, and leads to a significant shift of focus from the objects of educational evaluation as being students to projects, programs, and instructional materials. -
Formative and summative evaluation
1967: Michael Scriven marks the distinction between the terms “formative evaluation” and “summative evaluation” (and coins these terms) as serving two major roles or functions of evaluation. Formative evaluation is for the improvement of an ongoing activity, program, person, product, etc.; summative evaluation is used for accountability, certification, or selection. -
Stake’s Countenance Model
1967: Robert E. Stake’s shares his Countenance Model of evaluation, which suggests that two sets of information be collected regarding the evaluated object: descriptive and judgmental. The evaluation process should include (a) describing a program, (b) reporting the description to relevant audiences, (c) obtaining and analyzing their judgments, and (d) reporting the analyzed judgments back to the audiences. -
Markle and evaluation
1967: Susan Markle asserts there is a lack of vigor in testing processes. She prescribes detailed procedures for evaluating instructional assessment materials both during and after the development process. -
CIPP Model
1971: The CIPP evaluation model is developed by the Phi Delta Kappa Commission on Evaluation (D. L. Stufflebeam, W. J. Foley, W. J. Gephardt, E. G. Guba, H. D. Hammond, H. O. Merriman, and M. M. Provis). It divides evaluation into four distinct strategies: Context evaluation, Input evaluation, Process evaluation, and Product evaluation. -
Discrepancy Evaluation Model
1971: Malcolm M. Provus proposes the Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM), a five-step evaluation process including (a) clarification of the program design, (b) assessing the implementation o f the program, (c) assessing its in-term results, (d) assessing its long-term results, and (e) assessing its costs and benefits. -
IDI includes evaluation
1971: The teacher training package known as the Instructional Development Institute (IDI) that was created by the National Special Media Institute could be considered as having three major phases: analysis, design, and evaluation. -
Stufflebeam clarifies evaluation
1972: Daniel L. Stufflebeam suggests the distinction between proactive evaluation intended to serve decision making and retroactive evaluation to serve accountability. -
Alkin defines evaluation
1972: Marvin C. Alkin defines evaluation in instruction as “the process of ascertaining the decision areas of concern, selecting appropriate information, and collecting and analyzing information in order to report summary data useful to decision-makers in selecting among alternatives”. -
Goal-free evaluation
1973: Michael Scriven advocates for goal-free evaluation to be included in education rather than just focusing on “writing tests and digesting data” in order to help foster student success in education. This hybrid of formative and summative evaluative approaches “may be a realistic picture of what usually happens in supposedly more standardized situations.” -
Period: to
Evaluation as a profession
1973-1980s: Evaluation emerges as a professional field that is related to, but distinct from, the fields of research and testing. -
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation
1975: The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation is created as a coalition of major professional organizations concerned with the quality of evaluation. -
Responsive Education Model
1975: Robert E. Stake’s Responsive Education Model is shared, which suggests a continuing “conversation” between the evaluator and all other parties associated with the evaluand. Stake specified 12 steps of dynamic interaction between the evaluator and his audiences in the process of conducting an evaluation. -
Dick: More formative evaluation
1980: Walter Dick recommends that more research is needed into the use of formative evaluation in instructional research. -
Carey & Carey model
1980: James O. Carey and Lou M. Carey offer a two-phase process for instructional materials selection that involves formative evaluation. -
Gerlach & Ely model
1980: Vernon S. Gerlach and Donald P. Ely present a classroom-oriented ID model that involves a mix of linear and concurrent development activities, including an evaluation of learner performance. -
JCSEE defines evaluation
1981: The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation defines evaluation as “the systematic investigation of the worth or merit of some object.” They suggest 30 standards for evaluators, divided into four major groups: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. -
Guba & Lincoln model
1981: Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln’s model of evaluation suggests the evaluator apply five kinds of information: (a) descriptive information regarding the evaluation object, its setting, and its surrounding conditions, (b) information responsive to concerns of relevant audiences, (c) information about relevant issues, (d) information about values, and (e) information about standards relevant to worth and merit assessments. -
Evaluation: a mix of approaches
1981: Gary D. Borich and Ronald P. Jemelka recommend that instructional evaluation should not choose between decision-oriented, applied research, value-oriented, and systems-oriented definitions, but should be a mix of these as appropriate to the context. -
Evaluating instructional software
1990: Robert A. Reiser and Walter Dick share a new model for evaluating instructional software that focuses on the extent to which students learn the skills a software package is intended to teach. -
5 professional evaluation organizations
1990: Approximately five major evaluation professional organizations exist. -
Constructivistic evaluation
1991: David H. Jonassen argues that constructivistic learning is better judged by goal-free evaluation methods which take context into consideration and function as “more of a self-analysis and meta-cognitive tool.” -
Evaluating an evaluation model
1992: Barbara J. Gill, Walter Dick, Robert A. Reiser, and Jane E. Zahner evaluate Reiser and Dick’s 1990 model for software evaluation. This model for evaluating instructional software “emphasizes the collection of student performance data to determine the extent to which students learn the knowledge or skills a software package intends to teach.” It was revealed that teachers should be responsible for implementing the model, collecting student data, and sharing the data with other teachers. -
Evaluating interactive multimedia
1992: Thomas C. Reeves defines interactive multimedia (IMM) as “a computerized database that allows users to access information in multiple forms, including text, graphics, video, and audio.” The effectiveness of IMM is constrained by the design of the user interface and the motivation and expertise of the users, and therefore it needs to be evaluated in context. Reeves suggests using formative experimentation, where a pedagogical goal is set and the process taken to reach the goal is observed. -
ID model highlighting formative evaluation
1992: Lynn McAlpine suggests a model of instructional design that is based on real-life practice and highlights formative evaluation. The model is made up of: Needs Analyses, Goals/Purposes, Instructional Strategies, Learner Characteristics, Elements Specific to Context, Instructional Materials and Resources, Content/Task Analyses, Evaluation of Learning, Learning Objectives, and Constraints, and these components cycle recursively around the center of the model, formative evaluation. -
Evaluation in Instructional Technology
1994: Barbara B. Seels and Rita C. Richey identify Evaluation as one of the domains of the field of Instructional Technology. (The other fields are Design, Development, Utilization, and Management, and all domains interact with theory and practice.) -
Developmental evaluation
1994: Michael Quinn Patton introduces the term “developmental evaluation,” which he defines, in part, as the following: "Evaluation processes and activities that support program, project, product, personnel and/ or organizational development (usually the latter). The evaluator is part of a team whose members collaborate to conceptualize, design, and test new approaches in a long-term, on-going process of continuous improvement, adaptation, and intentional change." -
ASSURE model
1999: Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James D. Russell, and Sharon E. Smaldino present a classroom-oriented ID model, with the acronym of ASSURE. ASSURE stands for Analyze learners, State objectives, Select media and materials, Utilize media and materials, Require learner participation, and Evaluate and revise. -
PIE model
2000: Timothy J. Newby, Donald Stepich, James Lehman, and James D. Russell present a classroom-oriented ID model, PIE, in a book written primarily for pre-service teachers. Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating are the three phases of the PIE model. -
Morrison, Ross, & Kemp model
2001: Gary R. Morrison, Steven M. Ross, and Jerrold E. Kemp present a classroom-oriented ID model with a focus on curriculum planning. ID is viewed as a continuous cycle encircled by formative evaluation and revision, and on a larger scale, surrounded by ongoing confirmative evaluation, planning, implementation, summative evaluation, project management, and support services. -
NCLB Act
2001: The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is passed in the United States. It is based on the idea that having high standards and determining measurable goals (assessed through standardized testing) can improve individual students’ outcomes. -
Evaluating e-learning
2002: Thomas C. Reeves recommends that viewing e-learning as outcomes rather than assessments of student learning will lead to higher levels of evaluation. Reeves suggests relevant questions to be asked about these outcomes, and recommends that the e-learning industry invest more into the evaluation of its products. -
ID model with core of evaluation
2004: Caroline Crawford suggests the use of the Eternal, Synergistic Design Model, which has Evaluation and Feedback at its core, as a representation of the non-linear nature of the instructional design process. -
>50 professional evaluation organizations
2006: Over 50 major evaluation professional organizations exist worldwide. -
Race to the Top
2009: The Race to the Top Assessment Program is authorized in the United States. The program aims to provides funding to a consortia of states to develop assessments that are valid, support and inform instruction, provide accurate information about what students know and can do, and measure student achievement against standards designed to ensure that all students gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace.
