Week four: Evaluation paradigms and models

I am now catching up with the course; I had to focus on a heavy workload before Easter.

The article by professor Reeves is quite interesting, even if the vocabulary used is not always immediately accessible –especially for a non native speaker.

I have taught technological related subjects for more of my career, and I have met a lot of colleagues working in line with Paradigm 1: Analytic-Empirical-positivist-quantitative paradigm. It is an easy model to work with, and easy to adopt if you are from a scientific background.

Paradigm 2: Constructivist-Hermeneutic-Interpretivist-Qualitative Paradigm feels ‘extreme’ and I have the feeling would not help teaching or assessing a course if used on its own.

I have met in parts of Europe a lot of educators fitting the description of Paradigm 3: Critical Theory-Neomarxsist-Postmodern-Praxis Paradigm. They seem to be prevalent in educational establishments where underprivileged students are present. They do not work: they are on a mission!

The paradigm that I most relate to is Paradigm 4: Eclectic-Mixed Methods-Pragmatic Paradigm. I believe that this would be the most useful method to use in a fast changing environment:

• our courses seem to need changing more and more frequently

• our students come to us with changing general expectations and motivations.

In the document type of evaluation models , the ‘multiple type evaluation model’ seems to be the most logical to use in order to evaluate a technical course which is what I am planning to do.