Difference between revisions of "Research Evaluation"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| − | Please click here to go back to the [[ | + | Please click here to go back to the [[Evaluation Approaches]] page. |
Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|home]]page | Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|home]]page | ||
Revision as of 02:26, 28 November 2013
Within the broad field of education, Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2003), Mac-donald (1976) Mertens (2005), Norris (1990), Nunan (1992), Smith and Glass (1987), and Stenhouse (1975) among others have explored the relationship between research and evaluation. Nunan (1992) affirms that “any investigation which contains questions, data, and interpretations of the data qualifies as research”; in other words he stresses the view that evaluation is the application of research methods with the objective of validating a hypothesis or process. Gronlund (1981) states that “evaluation may be defined as a systematic process of determining the extent to which instructional objectives are achieved”. Rossi et al (2004) argue that evaluation can be defined as “a systematic, rigorous, and meticulous application of scientific methods to assess the design, implementation, improvement, or outcomes of a program”.
Evaluation is a systemic documentation and determination of a subject’s value, worth, significance, and performance according to a pre-defined set of standards. Evaluation processes are often used in a wide range of fields in everyday and aca-demic life, including educational settings. Two factors are important in research evaluation design:
- To omit casual and uncontrolled observation
- To properly define research objectives
Please click here to go back to the Evaluation Approaches page.
Click here to go back to the homepage
