Evaluation of an Educational Innovation

This research critiques the article "Environmental Approach Used for Evaluating an Educational Innovation" (Raviv, Raviv, and Reisel, 1993, pp. 317324). The article is critiqued within the contexts of (1) justification, (2) definitions, (3) prior research, (4) hypothesis, (5) sampling, (6) instrumentation, (7) data reporting and analysis, (8) results, (9) objectivity, (10) limitations, and (11) overall assessment.

Justification for the research reported in the article is critiqued in the contexts of the strength of the authors' arguments for conducting the research, and the generalizability of the procedure applied in the research reported in the article. The research reported in the article assessed the usefulness of a process for the evaluation of an educational innovation. The innovation in point was the operation of a high school in accordance with a philosophy that emphasizes individualized education and the quality of studentteacher relationships (Raviv, Raviv, and Reisel, 1993, p. 318). The research reported in the article evaluated the success of this innovation through the measurement and comparison of classroom learning environments in a high school operated in accordance with conventional educational philosophy in which instrumental goals and academic achievement are emphasized with those in a high school operated in accordance with an i

. . .
search reported in the article. Definitions The authors provided definitions of classroom learning environment, educational philosophies, and appropriate measures of classroom learning environments. These definitions were stated clearly, and these definitions were relevant to the research reported in the article. Prior Research Most of the prior research reviewed by the authors dealt with various approaches to the measurement of classroom learning environments, and to the instrumentation designed for and used in the measurement of classroom learning environments. Certainly, the prior research reviewed was satisfactory within the narrow context of these issues. All but completely ignored, however, was a review of prior research that dealt with the relationship between classroom learning environments, as the authors defined such environments, and learning outcomes. The absence of a review of research in this area was a major shortcoming of the research reported in the article being critiqued. This deficit causes it to be difficult if not impossible to assess the value of the research reported in the article critiqued. Hypothesis The researchers hypothesized that "the educational approach governing each of the two s
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Raviv Reisel, Sampling Students, Prior Research, Analysis Data, Justification Justification, Environmental Scale, reported article, classroom learning, research reported article, research reported, article critiqued, classroom learning environments, learning environments, reported article critiqued, learning outcomes, CRITIQUE Introduction, conventional school, prior research, innovative school, educational philosophy, Instrumentation Real, Raviv Raviv, classroom learning environment, school operated accordance,
Approximate Word count = 1374
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Evaluation of an Educational Innovation