CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH  (Continued)
Previous pages: 1

1.3.4 Procedures

As Breen & Candlin (1980:106) point out, the interdependence of curriculum components of purpose, methodology and evaluation, within a formative/process context of continuous incorporation of evaluation into teaching and learning, implies an evaluation of the curriculum itself, and (by extension) of the process of evaluation (cf. Kennedy 1988:329). Thus Bell's rather linear representation (figure B-1, below) was later developed by Lynch (1990, cited in Lynch 1996:4) into a "Context-Adaptive Model" (CAM) for language programme evaluation. This seven-stage model (figure 2, below) acknowledges the cyclic nature of evaluation, showing stages 2 to 6 interacting with and influencing each other throughout.

PLANNING			DOING
	Purposes		Preliminary	Communication
			Data	Collection
	Object		Collection	Analysis
Specification
	Audiences		Major	Communication
			Data	Collection
	Context		Collection	Analysis
			Further	Communication
	Questions		Data	Collection
			collection	Analysis
	Information
Plan				Completion
	Techniques
	Evaluation Staff
	Resources
	Report
	Summary opinion

FIGURE B-1: AN OPEN MODEL OF EVALUATION (BELL 1982, CITED IN WHITE 1988:150).

		Step 1 Audience and Goals
		Step 2 Context Inventory
		Step 3 Preliminary Thematic Framework
		Step 4 Data Collection Design/System
		Step 5 Data Collection
		Step 6 Data Analysis
		Step 7 Evaluation Report

FIGURE B-2: CONTEXT-ADAPTIVE MODEL FOR LANGUAGE PROGRAMME EVALUATION (LYNCH 1990, CITED IN LYNCH 1996:4).

1.4 Conclusion

Experimental and psychometric traditions have been dominant in educational research, though their aim (mostly unfulfilled - Guba 1978:80) of achieving fully "objective methods" has led to studies that are artificial and restricted in scope  (Parlett & Hamilton 1975:141). This could be seen as due to a lack of a methodology uniquely suited to evaluation's needs, or it could be attributed to the inability to recognise various factors involved (cognitive, affective, socio-cultural, administrative, institutional, pedagogical, theoretical, philosophical, psychological). Given also that "there is no innovation that is 'teacher-proof' or 'student-proof'" (Parlett & Hamilton 1975:153), it would seem more realistic to employ a multiple- research-method evaluation that can feed back into the teaching/learning process, helping to achieve the optimum learning environment, while attempting to describe the situation. Evaluation, in a formative and illuminative context, can thus be a valuable tool of programme design, contributing to the growth of the evaluated programme in an ongoing way:

Indeed, by discarding a spurious 'technological' simplification of reality and by acknowledging the complexity of educational process, the illuminative evaluator is likely to increase rather then lessen the sense of uncertainty in education. On the other hand, unless studies such as these are vigorously pursued, there is little hope of ever moving beyond helpless indecision or doctrinal assertion in the conduct of instructional affairs. (Parlett & Hamilton 1975:154)