The use of the Nominal Group Technique to identify areas for formative evaluation is described. Group characteristics, pertinent group questions, and advantages of the method are outlined. The process depersonalizes results, puts individual concerns into perspective, and focuses on improving the program (not on blaming or evaluating personnel).…

Areas of evaluation are identified in which the formative/summative distinction appears inadequate: (1) knowledge-generating evaluations aimed at conceptual use; (2) developmental evaluation; and (3) use of evaluation to support intervention or empower participants. An argument is also made for the effectiveness of feedback that cannot be…

The viewpoints of contributors to the forum are reviewed. Many of the disagreements represent fundamental differences in what constitutes evaluation. All four authors agree that the formative/summative distinction is useful and will continue to be an important concept in program evaluation, although the distinction needs greater clarification.…

In 1991, Michael Scriven published "Beyond Formative and Summative Evaluation," a reconsideration of the classic distinction in evaluation roles. Debate about the roles of evaluation continued in the four papers that follow this introduction, all of which were presented at a forum at the 1995 International Evaluation Conference. (SLD)

The formative-summative distinction in evaluation is defended as a reasonable way to classify evaluation activities. Context ultimately defines the formative or summative functions of evaluation. The characteristics of an evaluator are defined, and points of agreement with the other contributors to the forum are noted. (SLD)

The formative/summative evaluation dichotomy suggested by M. Scriven is challenged, and a conceptual typology is presented that crosses improvement and assessment evaluation functions with process and outcome program stages for four basic types of evaluation. This framework accommodates mixed types of evaluations. (SLD)

The evaluator's roles--change agent, manager, resource person, interpreter, and liaison between the project and the funding agency--are described, concerning the evaluation of innovative projects in education. Difficulties in obtaining desired commitments (i.e., a project's financial commitments and its positive attitude toward the evaluation…

Proposals satisfy a number of functions in evaluation work. This article examines how these functions differ depending on whether the proposal concerns a preordinate study in which methods are prespecified or an emergent study in which decisions about methods are made as the study proceeds. (Author/SLD)

The use of the vignette method with a small group of respondents over a two-year teacher enhancement project sponsored by the National Science Foundation is described, and the usefulness of the method is reviewed. Vignette data provide material sufficient to answer evaluation questions. (SLD)

A good formative evaluator, who helps programs become as effective as possible, behaves remarkably like a good personal coach. Nine ways in which a formative evaluator can help a program manager are listed, and implications for practicing evaluators and the evaluation profession are detailed. (SLD)

Four forms of evaluation are outlined: (1) evaluation and development; (2) design evaluation; (3) process evaluation; and (4) summative evaluation. Each form is understood through five dimensions (orientation, state, focus, timing, and approach), which are illustrated through evaluation of a community services training program in Australia. (SLD)

Hypertextual ways to think about evaluation are explored, and hypertext computer programs are discussed. Hypertext is useful as a way to search out and link related material. It can help maintain, manipulate, and analyze nonnumerical evaluation data. (SLD)

Events that brought independent evaluators together to address common problems and issues in the area of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) education are described, focusing on development and accomplishments of the collaboration. The foundation stemmed from the funding agency's insistence that each program identify an evaluator. (SLD)