According to Alkin and Christie,Alkin, M.A. & Christie, C. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In M.C. Alkin (Ed),''Evaluation roots: tracing theorist’s views and influences (12- 63)''. CA: Sage. an approach is one which reflects a valuing orientation. This approach developed in response to the dominant objectifying approaches in policy evaluation Crabbe, A. & Leroy, P. (2008)The handbook of environmental policy evaluation.London: Earthscan. and is based on the notions that: 1) no evaluator can be truly objective, and, 2) no evaluation can be value-free.Hogan, R. (2007). The historical development of program evaluation. ''Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development, 2 (4)'' To this end, the approach makes use of teams of evaluators who present two opposing views (these teams are commonly referred to as adversaries and advocates). These two sides then agree on issues to address, collect data or evidence which forms a common database, and present their arguments. A neutral party is assigned to referee the hearing, and is expected to arrive at a fair verdict after consideration of all the evidence presented.Miller, R. L. & Butler, J. (2008).Using an adversary hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of a Military program. ''The Qualitative Report, 13 (1)'', 12-25.There are many different models for adversary evaluations, including judicial, congressional hearing and debate models. However, models which subscribe to a legal-framework are most prominent in the literature.Worthen, B. (1990). Program evaluation. In H. Walberg & G. Haertel (Eds.), ''The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation ( 42-47)''. Toronto, ON: Pergammon Press.==The Legal/ Judicial Model==The judicial evaluation model is an adaptation of legal procedures for an evaluative framework. Unlike legal adversary hearings, the objective of this approach is not to win, but rather to provide a comprehensive understanding of the program in question. This model assumes that it is impossible for an evaluator not to have a biasing impact. Therefore, the focus of these evaluations shifts from scientific justification to public accountability. Multiple stakeholders are involved, and this approach aims at informing both the public, and those involved in the evaluation about the object of evaluation. While the model is flexible, it usually incorporates a hearing, prosecution, defence, a jury, charges and rebuttals. Dependent upon the evaluation in question, this model may also incorporate pre-trial conferences, direct questioning and redirected questions, and summaries by prosecution and defence (Owens, 1973 ). Proponents of this model, however, stress the importance of carefully adapting the model to the environment in which it is deployed, and the policy which it intends to address. について

Words near each other

・ Adverbial phrase
・ Adverbs (novel)
・ Adversane
・ Adversarial collaboration
・ Adversarial Design
・ Adversarial information retrieval
・ Adversarial machine learning
・ Adversarial process
・ Adversarial purchasing
・ Adversarial queueing network
・ Adversarial review
・ Adversarial system
・ Adversary
・ Adversary (comics)
・ Adversary (cryptography)
・ Adversary evaluation
・ Adversary in the House
・ Adversary model
・ Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy (United States)
・ Adverse
・ Adverse abandonment
・ Adverse authority
・ Adverse Childhood Experiences International Questionnaire (ACE-IQ)
・ Adverse Childhood Experiences Study
・ Adverse drug reaction
・ Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee
・ Adverse effect
・ Adverse Effect Wage Rate
・ Adverse event
・ Adverse event prediction

Dictionary Lists

mini英和辞書

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]

スポンサードリンク

Adversary evaluation ：ウィキペディア英語版

According to Alkin and Christie,Alkin, M.A. & Christie, C. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In M.C. Alkin (Ed),''Evaluation roots: tracing theorist’s views and influences (12- 63)''. CA: Sage. an approach is one which reflects a valuing orientation. This approach developed in response to the dominant objectifying approaches in policy evaluation Crabbe, A. & Leroy, P. (2008)The handbook of environmental policy evaluation.London: Earthscan. and is based on the notions that: 1) no evaluator can be truly objective, and, 2) no evaluation can be value-free.Hogan, R. (2007). The historical development of program evaluation. ''Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development, 2 (4)'' To this end, the approach makes use of teams of evaluators who present two opposing views (these teams are commonly referred to as adversaries and advocates). These two sides then agree on issues to address, collect data or evidence which forms a common database, and present their arguments. A neutral party is assigned to referee the hearing, and is expected to arrive at a fair verdict after consideration of all the evidence presented.Miller, R. L. & Butler, J. (2008).Using an adversary hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of a Military program. ''The Qualitative Report, 13 (1)'', 12-25.There are many different models for adversary evaluations, including judicial, congressional hearing and debate models. However, models which subscribe to a legal-framework are most prominent in the literature.Worthen, B. (1990). Program evaluation. In H. Walberg & G. Haertel (Eds.), ''The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation ( 42-47)''. Toronto, ON: Pergammon Press.==The Legal/ Judicial Model==The judicial evaluation model is an adaptation of legal procedures for an evaluative framework. Unlike legal adversary hearings, the objective of this approach is not to win, but rather to provide a comprehensive understanding of the program in question. This model assumes that it is impossible for an evaluator not to have a biasing impact. Therefore, the focus of these evaluations shifts from scientific justification to public accountability. Multiple stakeholders are involved, and this approach aims at informing both the public, and those involved in the evaluation about the object of evaluation. While the model is flexible, it usually incorporates a hearing, prosecution, defence, a jury, charges and rebuttals. Dependent upon the evaluation in question, this model may also incorporate pre-trial conferences, direct questioning and redirected questions, and summaries by prosecution and defence (Owens, 1973 ). Proponents of this model, however, stress the importance of carefully adapting the model to the environment in which it is deployed, and the policy which it intends to address.
According to Alkin and Christie,〔Alkin, M.A. & Christie, C. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In M.C. Alkin (Ed),''Evaluation roots: tracing theorist’s views and influences (12- 63)''. CA: Sage.〕 an approach is one which reflects a valuing orientation. This approach developed in response to the dominant objectifying approaches in policy evaluation 〔Crabbe, A. & Leroy, P. (2008)The handbook of environmental policy evaluation.London: Earthscan.〕 and is based on the notions that: 1) no evaluator can be truly objective, and, 2) no evaluation can be value-free.〔Hogan, R. (2007). The historical development of program evaluation. ''Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development, 2 (4)''〕 To this end, the approach makes use of teams of evaluators who present two opposing views (these teams are commonly referred to as adversaries and advocates). These two sides then agree on issues to address, collect data or evidence which forms a common database, and present their arguments. A neutral party is assigned to referee the hearing, and is expected to arrive at a fair verdict after consideration of all the evidence presented.〔Miller, R. L. & Butler, J. (2008).Using an adversary hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of a Military program. ''The Qualitative Report, 13 (1)'', 12-25.〕
There are many different models for adversary evaluations, including judicial, congressional hearing and debate models. However, models which subscribe to a legal-framework are most prominent in the literature.〔Worthen, B. (1990). Program evaluation. In H. Walberg & G. Haertel (Eds.), ''The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation ( 42-47)''. Toronto, ON: Pergammon Press.〕
==The Legal/ Judicial Model==

The judicial evaluation model is an adaptation of legal procedures for an evaluative framework. Unlike legal adversary hearings, the objective of this approach is not to win, but rather to provide a comprehensive understanding of the program in question.〔〔〔 This model assumes that it is impossible for an evaluator not to have a biasing impact. Therefore, the focus of these evaluations shifts from scientific justification to public accountability.〔 Multiple stakeholders are involved, and this approach aims at informing both the public, and those involved in the evaluation about the object of evaluation. While the model is flexible, it usually incorporates a hearing, prosecution, defence, a jury, charges and rebuttals.〔 Dependent upon the evaluation in question, this model may also incorporate pre-trial conferences, direct questioning and redirected questions, and summaries by prosecution and defence (Owens, 1973 〔). Proponents of this model, however, stress the importance of carefully adapting the model to the environment in which it is deployed, and the policy which it intends to address.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「According to Alkin and Christie,Alkin, M.A. & Christie, C. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In M.C. Alkin (Ed),''Evaluation roots: tracing theorist’s views and influences (12- 63)''. CA: Sage. an approach is one which reflects a valuing orientation. This approach developed in response to the dominant objectifying approaches in policy evaluation Crabbe, A. & Leroy, P. (2008)The handbook of environmental policy evaluation.London: Earthscan. and is based on the notions that: 1) no evaluator can be truly objective, and, 2) no evaluation can be value-free.Hogan, R. (2007). The historical development of program evaluation. ''Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development, 2 (4)'' To this end, the approach makes use of teams of evaluators who present two opposing views (these teams are commonly referred to as adversaries and advocates). These two sides then agree on issues to address, collect data or evidence which forms a common database, and present their arguments. A neutral party is assigned to referee the hearing, and is expected to arrive at a fair verdict after consideration of all the evidence presented.Miller, R. L. & Butler, J. (2008).Using an adversary hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of a Military program. ''The Qualitative Report, 13 (1)'', 12-25.There are many different models for adversary evaluations, including judicial, congressional hearing and debate models. However, models which subscribe to a legal-framework are most prominent in the literature.Worthen, B. (1990). Program evaluation. In H. Walberg & G. Haertel (Eds.), ''The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation ( 42-47)''. Toronto, ON: Pergammon Press.==The Legal/ Judicial Model==The judicial evaluation model is an adaptation of legal procedures for an evaluative framework. Unlike legal adversary hearings, the objective of this approach is not to win, but rather to provide a comprehensive understanding of the program in question. This model assumes that it is impossible for an evaluator not to have a biasing impact. Therefore, the focus of these evaluations shifts from scientific justification to public accountability. Multiple stakeholders are involved, and this approach aims at informing both the public, and those involved in the evaluation about the object of evaluation. While the model is flexible, it usually incorporates a hearing, prosecution, defence, a jury, charges and rebuttals. Dependent upon the evaluation in question, this model may also incorporate pre-trial conferences, direct questioning and redirected questions, and summaries by prosecution and defence (Owens, 1973 ). Proponents of this model, however, stress the importance of carefully adapting the model to the environment in which it is deployed, and the policy which it intends to address.」の詳細全文を読む

スポンサードリンク

翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース