Suchergebnisse

Evaluative thinking is a core skill used by evaluators. It brings evaluation practice to a higher level of sophistication and utility and helps to ensure that evaluation findings, interpretations and recommendations are contextualised, evidence-based and practical. This article draws upon decades of the work of evaluators who have published on thinking critically and evaluatively. It identifies and explores the five primary elements of evaluative thinking – critical, contextual, creative, practical thinking and reflective practice – and offers a practical framework for examining and applying these elements of evaluative thinking. It also distinguishes evaluative thinking from evaluation planning and implementation, which it precedes and guides. Finally, it proposes that evaluative thinking should be examined and learned intentionally as a core evaluation skill just as, for example, various methodologies or methods of analysis are taught.

A verb, as one of the basic parts of speech, is the primary concern of derivation process-oriented studies. However, verb-based subjectively-evaluative derivatives have not been the object of research yet. The article discusses potential capacities of verbs to form subjectivelyevaluative derivatives on the level of derivation in modern Russian. To avoid terminological confusion and to distinguish axiological vs. derivational evaluation the latter is represented by the term evaluative. The study argues an unjustified idea that the suffix -ану- is an evaluative of subjective evaluation. These verbs are referred to the derivatives of objective evaluation. We have provided a set of factors for the classification of subjectively-evaluative verbal derivatives, according to which they were classified. The analysis of language and speech material has allowed us to find the ways evaluative verbs are formed and the register of word forming affixes as a means of representing category of evaluation in the morpheme and word forming structure of the word.

An attempt was made to assess response similarities of the husband & wife on 'soft' (evaluative) & 'hard' (non-evaluative) survey questions. Both husband & wife in 179 couples were interviewed separately & simultaneously with a ,J that included 'hard' data (income) & 'soft' data (child discipline) questions. Findings indicated relatively high consensus for hard data with 60. 3','(, of the husbands & wives responding in identical income categories. When discrepancies did occur, the diff was generally minor. Soft data responses varied within a considerably wider range, with only 22. 9% identical responses. 2 implications were suggested by the data: (a) unlike surveys dealing with soft data, attempts to elicit hard data responses are less prejudiced by interviewing either the husband or wife; (b) on questions which require evaluations, there is a greater likelihood that the R will stress the importance of his/her role over that of the spouse. AA.

Abstract
Many people feel that respecting a person's autonomy is not sufficiently important to obligate us to stay out of their affairs in all cases; but the ground for interference may often turn out to be a hunch that the agent cannot really be competent, or cannot really know what her decision implies; for if she were both of these things, surely she would not make such a foolish decision. This paper suggests a justification of paternalism that does not rely on such appeals. I argue that in cases where an agent will undergo a significant alteration in their evaluative outlook – 'evaluative shift' – three central, persuasive objections to paternalism lose their force, and offer a prima facie case for paternalism in some of these cases. I then suggest that we can extend this argument to some cases where evaluative alteration is not predictable, but where the risk and harm are both significant. In such cases, paternalism may be justified.

This research article examines overpromising in scientific discourse that may raise unrealistic expectations in order to gain trust and funding. Drawing on signaling theory, philosophy of promising, and science communication research, a conceptualization of overpromising is presented. This conceptualization facilitates the evaluation of promises in science and technology and highlights the importance of the knowledge context. Further research is needed to explore the broader dimensions and motivations for overpromising.

Explores evaluative institutional arrangements along 2 main dimensions: different kinds of knowledge, and the authority which they generate and use. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, such institutions were ill-adapted to their purposes. They sought to reverse the trend to pluralism and to weaken the institutional arrangements on which it was based. Old institutions were scrutinised and either abandoned or reconstituted. (SJK)

AbstractHigher education evaluation or assessment plans generally look to key assessments within the curriculum for critical demonstrations of students' learning. Increasingly, accreditation agencies (e.g., Southern Association of Schools and Colleges, National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education) have asked for evidence of how faculty have made use of student outcome data in their own ongoing planning. This is a condition that expands the notion of evaluation as a collection of data from which to examine the merit or worth of a program to the collaborative and analytic meaning making of evaluative action. This has been an area of traditional complication where evaluators work to support the use of evaluation findings while maintaining appropriate independence from the program administrators with operational responsibility. However, this combination of instructional needs, accountability expectations, and insight into evaluative outcomes amplifies the need for evaluator expertise for collaborating in these dimensions of practice. This study then examines the work of a faculty and its assessment team—including evaluation researchers—to (a) implement and evaluate a general education program through a midprogram assessment, (b) analyze the faculty's engagement with the results and (c) adapt the reporting and meaning‐making processes to further invest the faculty as coinvestigators in the evaluation and its use in improving the program.