this study investigated the effect that several key contextual variables had on the
information needs and uses by a national sample of school boards and administrators. The
factors included (I) the quality of the decision to be made, (2) the amount of personal
conflict involved, (3) the content of the program, and (4) whether respondents were board
members or administrators. Responses to questions about simulated evaluation vignettes
indicated that these factors affected the need for more time and information. and from
whom people would want to obtain more information. A wareness of these influencers
should help school evaluators assist decision makers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Braskamp, L.A., R.D. Brown, and D.L. Newman (1982) "Studying evaluation utilization through simulation ." Evaluation Review6, 1: 114-126.
2.
——— (1980) "Credibility of a local educational program evaluation report: author source and client characteristics." Amer. Educ. Research J.15: 441-450.
3.
Brown, R.D. and D.L. Newman ( 1980) "Decision making theory and utilization of evaluative information: does sense of control affect information needs?" Presented at the annual meeting of Evaluation Network, Memphis.
4.
Brown, R.D., L.A. Braskamp, and D.L. Newman (1978) Evaluator credibility and acceptance as a function of report styles: do jargon and data make a difference ?Evaluation Q.2: 331-341.
5.
Brown, R.D., D.L. Newman, and L.S. Rivers (1981) "A model for utilizing decision making theory in evaluation." Presented at the annual meeting of Evaluation Network, Austin.
6.
——— ( 1980) "Perceived need for evaluation as an influence on evaluation's impact on decision making." Educ. Evaluation and Policy Analysis2: 67-72.
7.
——— and R.F. Glock (1982) "Contextual factors as influences on school board information needs for decision making. " Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
8.
Cistone, P.J. [ed.] (1975) Understanding School Boards. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
9.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10.
Janis, I.L. and L. Mann ( 1977) Decision Making. New York: Free Press.
11.
Newman, D.L., R.D. Brown, and L.A. Braskamp (1980) "Communication theory as a paradigm for studying evaluation use, " in L. A. Braskamp and R. D. Brown (eds.) Utilization of Evaluative Information. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
12.
Newman, D.L., R.D. Brown, and M. Littman ( 1979) Evaluator report and audience characteristics which influence the impact of evaluation reports: does who says what to whom make a difference?" CEDR Q.12: 14-18.
13.
Newman, D.L., R.D. Brown, and L.S. Rivers (1982) "An exploratory investigation of decision making style and locus of control as factors related to choice of school evaluation strategies." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York .
14.
Stecher, B.M., M.C. Alkin, and G. Flesher (1981) Patterns of information use in school level decision making. Center for Study of Evaluation Report 150. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education.
15.
Thompson, P., R.D. Brown, and J. Fergason (1981 ) "The impact of evaluation report styles on evaluation audiences: jargon and data do make a difference." Evaluation Rev.5,2: 269-279.
16.
Vroom, V.H. and A.G. Jago (1974) "Decision making as a social process: normative and descriptive models and leader behavior." Decision Sciences5: 743-769.
17.
Zeigler, L.H. (1975) "School board research: the problems and prospects ; in P. J. Cistone (ed.) Understanding School Boards , Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
