השוואת שיטות
סקרו את השיטות שבחרתם זו לצד זו; שורות שבהן יש הבדל מודגשות.
| הערכת תוכנית ביקורתית× | הערכת תוכניות× | |
|---|---|---|
| תחום | שיטות שדה | שיטות שדה |
| משפחה | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| שנת המקור≠ | 1970s–1990s (deliberative democratic strand formalised ~1999; transformative paradigm ~2009) | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| הוגה השיטה≠ | Ernest House, Ken Howe, Donna Mertens (transformative/deliberative democratic evaluation traditions) | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| סוג≠ | Qualitative/mixed-methods evaluation approach | Applied evaluation methodology |
| מקור מכונן≠ | Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative Research and Evaluation. Guilford Press. ISBN: 978-1606230787 | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944 |
| כינויים | critical evaluation, emancipatory evaluation, critical-emancipatory program evaluation, transformative evaluation | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| קשורות≠ | 4 | 3 |
| תקציר≠ | Critical program evaluation is an approach to assessing programs that integrates critical theory with standard evaluation methods. It moves beyond measuring whether a program met its stated objectives to interrogating whose interests the program serves, how power and privilege shape its design and outcomes, and whether it advances or hinders equity and social justice. The approach draws on deliberative democratic evaluation (House and Howe) and the transformative paradigm (Mertens), treating evaluation as an inherently value-laden, politically situated practice. | Program evaluation is a systematic, empirically grounded process of collecting and analyzing information about a program to determine its merit, worth, or significance. Applied across education, public health, social services, and policy, it addresses questions such as whether a program is reaching its target population, whether it is being implemented as designed, and whether it is producing the intended outcomes. It draws on both quantitative and qualitative methods and serves accountability, improvement, or knowledge-generation purposes. |
| ScholarGateמערך נתונים ↗ |
|
|