-
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.
-
1900s-1930s: Aspects of scientific management are applied to education and industry, with a focus on systemization, standardization, and efficiency.
-
Early 1920s: Potential origin of formative evaluation, when researchers used a variety of techniques to assess the effectiveness of an instructional film.
-
1930-1945: Ralph W. Tyler’s work on education, specifically educational evaluation (a term he coined) and testing, has a wide impact on education.
-
1930s-1950s: Processes similar to formative evaluation (but using different names) are used in many instructional projects, especially educational films.
-
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.
-
1942: Ralph W. Tyler is one of the first individuals to describe the formative role of evaluation activities in educational programs.
-
1946-1957: A time of major expansion of educational offerings, personnel, and facilities, and a time of rapid expansion of standardized testing.
-
1950: Ralph W. Tyler defines evaluation as “The process of determining to what extent the educational objectives are actually being realized.”
-
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>
-
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.
-
1959: Donald Kirkpatrick proposes a four-level model for evaluating training programs. The levels included the following steps: reaction; learning; behavior; and results.
-
1960s: Programmed instructional materials developed during this time were tested while they were being developed.
-
1960s-1980s: Analysis, design, production, evaluation, and revision steps are included in virtually all ID models created in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1972: Daniel L. Stufflebeam suggests the distinction between proactive evaluation intended to serve decision making and retroactive evaluation to serve accountability.
-
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”.
-
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.”
-
1973-1980s: Evaluation emerges as a professional field that is related to, but distinct from, the fields of research and testing.
-
1975: The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation is created as a coalition of major professional organizations concerned with the quality of evaluation.
-
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.
-
1980: Walter Dick recommends that more research is needed into the use of formative evaluation in instructional research.
-
1980: James O. Carey and Lou M. Carey offer a two-phase process for instructional materials selection that involves formative evaluation.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1990: Approximately five major evaluation professional organizations exist.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
2006: Over 50 major evaluation professional organizations exist worldwide.
-
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.
