FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2326814315> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2326814315 endingPage "99" @default.
• W2326814315 startingPage "97" @default.
• W2326814315 abstract "EVALUATION BY definition requires a ''value judgment. Individuals interested in systematical ly evaluating programs of instruction and courses of study must be concerned with objectives which are specified adequately. It is reasonable to con clude that many individuals concerned with evalua tive research efforts have focused primarily on pro cess rather than product (2, 4). The value judg relative to the evaluative process deals pri marily with the establishment of objectives, i. e., desired end products. A typical rationalization employed for the non utilization of product criteria in educational evalua tion is that a lack of agreement exists with refer ence to basic educational objectives. Therefore, process and presage criteria are used for evalua ting educational outcomes. For example, a school may state as one of its desired outcomes for stu dents, .. .to use their leisure time inaworth while fashion. However, rather than assess this directly, which would of course be quite difficult, process criteria (e. g. existence of physical edu cation courses in the curriculum) may be used, and based on the fulfillment of these it is inferred that the product criterion is being achieved. It is pat ently unreasonable to infer that products are achieved, unless a functional relationship can be shown to exist between process and product. The only true test, of course, would be to assess directly the degree of accomplishment of the desired prod ucts. The crux of the problem appears to be in the as sertion that a lack of agreement exists concerning the broad general objectives of education. It is ob viously difficult, if not worthless, to evaluate ob jectives which perhaps are not perceived as objec tives by all concerned. It would appear to be worth while to attempt to ascertain whether various groups in education perceive stated objectives in the same I order of relative importance. For example, a school district may have a stated philosophy of education which lists objectives A, B, C, D, and E in hier archical order. However, would systematic assess ment of the judgments of this district's instruction al staff regarding these stated objectives reveal that the objectives are perceived in the same order of importance, or in some other manner? If, in any given educational setting, it can be demonstrated that the individuals concerned with their achieve ment of objectives agree to their relative impor tance, a second step can be taken. Statements of behaviors indicative of the agreed-upon objectives can be made and subjected to the same test. Even tually, specific skills and knowledges to be learned in order to achieve the desired behaviors and the overall general objectives can be stated. With this accomplished, there would at least be a logical con nection between classroom learning in daily situa tions and overall objectives. Evaluation procedures could then be employed to determine if, in fact, over all objectives were being achieved and, if not, nec essary changes could be made. The specific purpose of this study was to deter mine whether through the use of techniques of scal ing, the relative importance of educational obj ec tives can be determined. Parenthetically, it can be stated that if a series of educational objectives can be shown on an interval scale, this would indicate the relative importance of the objectives as well as demonstrate agreement concerning the series." @default.
• W2326814315 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2326814315 creator A5039354766 @default.
• W2326814315 date "1965-09-01" @default.
• W2326814315 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2326814315 title "Empirical Determination of the Relative Importance of Educational Objectives" @default.
• W2326814315 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1965.11010916" @default.
• W2326814315 hasPublicationYear "1965" @default.
• W2326814315 type Work @default.
• W2326814315 sameAs 2326814315 @default.
• W2326814315 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2326814315 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2326814315 hasAuthorship W2326814315A5039354766 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConcept C149782125 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConcept C36727532 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConceptScore W2326814315C145420912 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConceptScore W2326814315C149782125 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConceptScore W2326814315C15744967 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConceptScore W2326814315C162324750 @default.
• W2326814315 hasConceptScore W2326814315C36727532 @default.
• W2326814315 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2326814315 hasLocation W23268143151 @default.
• W2326814315 hasOpenAccess W2326814315 @default.
• W2326814315 hasPrimaryLocation W23268143151 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W1966279045 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W2071643088 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W2080105368 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W2364116267 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W2375231236 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W2796192350 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W3094291524 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W4230973144 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W4244440950 @default.
• W2326814315 hasRelatedWork W3094025969 @default.
• W2326814315 hasVolume "34" @default.
• W2326814315 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2326814315 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2326814315 magId "2326814315" @default.
• W2326814315 workType "article" @default.