This document discusses various models and approaches to evaluation, including formative and summative evaluation. It describes models such as Tyler's goal attainment model, Stufflebeam's CIPP model, Scriven's goal-free evaluation, and Provus' discrepancy evaluation model. The document outlines steps and considerations for evaluation in areas like curriculum design, teacher use of curriculum, pupil outcomes, and curriculum systems. It also provides examples of evaluation criteria and compares different evaluation approaches.

2. (Evaluation)
(Concept)

3. 1.
2.
(Learning Outcome)
(Content)

4. ,,

5. (Good, 1945 : 209)
(LeeJ. Cronbach, 1970: 231)

6. (Stufflebeam Daniel L. et., 1971: 128)
(2521 : 192)
(2548 : 64)

8. (Taba, 1962:310)
(2537 : 218-219)

9. (2539 : 192 – 193)

12. 3
1
(Project Analysis)
2

13. 1.
2. .. 2521 .. 2519 2520

14. 2
(Formative Evaluation)
3
(Summative Evaluation)
2521 6 6 1 2

15. (Beauchamp. 1975: 177) 4
1 .(Evaluation of Teacher useof theCurriculum)
2. (Evaluation of theDesign)
3. (Evaluation of Pupil Outcomes)
4. (Evaluation of Curriculum System)

16. (Saylorand Alexander,
1981: 265)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

17. (2539 : 195 – 197)
1.
2.
3.
4.
(2527: 141-142)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

19. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

20. (Taba1962: 324)
1. (Formulation and Clarification for Objective)
2. (Selection and Construction of theAppropriateInstruments
for Getting Evidences)
3. (Application of EvaluativeCriteria)
4. (Information on theBackground of Studentsand theNature
of Instruction in theLight Which to Interpret theEvidences)
(Worth or Value)

21. (2539: 198-202)
1.
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.
4.
5.

22. 1.
2.

23. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

24. 1.
2.
3.
4.

25. 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

26. 1.
2.
3.

27. 4.
5.
6. (Academic Achievement)
7.
8.

28. 2
1. (PuissanceAnalysisTechnique)
2. 4
2.1 (Goal Attainment Model) (Ralph W. Tyler) (Rabert L.
Hammond)

29. 2.2 (Goal FreeEvaluation Model) (Michael
Scriven)
2.3 (Criterion Model) (Robert E. Stake)
2.4 (Decision-Mzking Model) (Malcolm Provus)
(Daniel L. Stufflebeam) (DorisT. Gow)

31. 9.1 (The Stake’s
Congruence Contingency Model)
3
1. (Antecedent) 7
2. 5
3. (Outcomes) 5 3

32. 3
1.
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.
-
-
-
-
-
3.
-
-
-
-
-

33. 1.
3
3
2.
2
1. (DescriptiveData) 2
1.1
1.2

34. (Contingency) (Antecedents) (Transactions) (Outcomes)
(Congruence) 30
31

35. 2. (Judgemental Data) 2
2.1 (Standards)
2.2
3. 4 . .1
:
: 20% 80%
: 100%
:

36. 32

37. 3
9.2
(Stufflebeam)
(Daniel L. Stufflebeam)
(Decision Settingt) 2
1. (Information Grasp)
2. (Degreeof Cange)

38. 1. Homeostatic
2. Incremental
3. Neomobilistic
4. Metamorphism
(Evaluation Data)
4

39. 33 Stufflebeam

40. 1. Planning Decisions6
2. Structuring Decisions1
3. Implemening Decisions
4. Recycling Decisions
4 4

41. 1. (Context Evaluation)
1.1 (Conceptual Analysis)
1.2 (Empirical Studies)
1.3 (Planning Decision)
2. (InputsEvaluation)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

42. Homeostatic Incremental Neomobilistic
(Structuring Decision)

43. 3. (ProcessEvaluation)
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Incremental Neomobilistic Homeobilistic
(Implementing Decisions)

44. 4. (Products
Evaluation)
RIT (Reduced Insructional Time) RIT RIT (Recycling
Decisions) 4 Context, Input, Process Products CIPP Model

45. 9.3 (Tyler)
( Ttler, 1949 : 248) 3 34
34

46. (Goal Attainment Model)
1.
2.
1. (Goal Sources) (Goal Screens)
2.
3.

47. 4.
5.
6. (Feedback) (Pre-Post Measurement) (SummativeEvaluation) (Formative
Evaluation)
9.4 (Hammond)
(Robert Hammond) (Dimensions) (Interaction) 3

48. 1. 5
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

49. 2. 5
2.1
2.2 1-3
2.3 1-3
2.4
2.5
2.6 ()

50. 3. 3 (CognitiveDomain) (Psychomotor Domain) (Affective Domain)
1.
2.
3. 1. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6.

51. 9.5 (Provus, Discrepancy
Evalution Model)
(Discrepancy Evalution) 5 1. (Desingn) 2. (Installation) 3.
(Process) 4. ( Products) 5. (Cost) 5
1 (Standards– S)
2 (Performance– P)
3 2 1 (Compare– C)
4 (Discrepancy – D)
5 (Decision Making )

52. S = Standard
P = Performance
C = Compare
D = Discrepancy
D = Decision Making
S
P
C D Decision Making
35 Provus

53. 36

54. (Summary)

55. (Self-Test)
1.
2.
(Activity)
1.
2.
3.