This position paper examines the relationship of four generations of evaluation, the CIPP evaluation model, and summative and formative evaluation, and uses these terms to describe the characteristics of homeschooling. The article proposes that according to the four generations of evaluation and the CIPP model (context, input, process, and product), homeschooling can be divided into four generations. Such a division can help in examining the degree of fit of educational objectives and teaching methods with the method for evaluating homeschooling, as well as comparing homeschooling and school education based on how they use evaluation.
AliyuA. A.BelloM. U.KasimR.MartinD. (2014). Positivist and non-positivist paradigm in social science research: Conflicting paradigms or perfect partners. Journal of Management & Sustainability, 4, 79. https://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v4n3p79
2.
AmadiC. S. (2023). The integration of 21st-century skills in science: A case study of Canada and the USA. Education and Urban Society, 55(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211062531
3.
AppleM. W. (2020). Homeschooling, democracy, and regulation: An essay review of homeschooling: The history and philosophy of a controversial practice. Education Review, 27. https://doi.org/10.14507/er.v27.2931
4.
BadleyG. (2003). The crisis in educational research: A pragmatic approach. European Educational Research Journal, 2(2), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2003.2.2.7
5.
BasaranM.DursunB.Gur DortokH. D.YilmazG. (2021). Evaluation of preschool education program according to CIPP model. Pedagogical Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/9701
6.
BeckC. W. (2017). Home education: The social motivation. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(1), 71–81.
7.
BhatB. A.BhatG. J. (2019). Formative and summative evaluation techniques for improvement of learning process. European Journal of Business & Social Sciences, 7(5), 776–785.
8.
BlackP.McMillanJ. H. (2012). Formative and summative aspects of assessment: Theoretical and research foundations in the context of pedagogy. Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment, 167–178.
BoulterL. (2017). A comparison of the academic achievement of home school and public school students. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 7(3), 01–09. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v7i3.1037
11.
BrooksJ. G.BrooksM. G. (1993). In search of understanding. The case for constructivist classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
12.
BrousselleA.BuregeyaJ. M. (2018). Theory-based evaluations: Framing the existence of a new theory in evaluation and the rise of the 5th generation. Evaluation, 24(2), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389018765487
13.
ChengA.HamlinD. (2021). Contemporary homeschooling arrangements: An analysis of three waves of nationally representative data. Education Reform Faculty and Graduate Students Publications. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/edrepub/128.
14.
ChintaR.KebritchiM.ElliasJ. (2016). A conceptual framework for evaluating higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 989–1002.
15.
CoganM. F. (2010). Exploring academic outcomes of homeschooled students. Journal of College Admission, 208, 18–25.
16.
CoopersteinS. E.Kocevar-WeidingerE. (2004). Beyond active learning: A constructivist approach to learning. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320410537658
17.
CupchikG. (2001February). Constructivist realism: An ontology that encompasses positivist and constructivist approaches to the social sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), 7.
18.
DavisA. (2006). Evolution of homeschooling. Distance Learning, 8(2), 29–36.
19.
DwyerJ. G.PetersS. F. (2019). Homeschooling: The history and philosophy of a controversial practice. University of Chicago Press.
20.
ErtmerP. A.NewbyT. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
21.
EvangelistiS. (2013). Learning from home: Discourses on education and domestic visual culture in early modern Italy. History, 98(333), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-229X.12030
FosterT. D.FroyenL. C.SkibbeL. E.BowlesR. P.DeckerK. B. (2016). Fathers’ and mothers’ home learning environments and children’s early academic outcomes. Reading and Writing, 29(9), 1845–1863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9655-7
GarrisonC.EhringhausM. (2007). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom.
26.
GertelG. (2019). Homeschooling: Trends, outcomes, and policy. Initiative for Applied Education Research. (Hebrew).
27.
GstraunthalerT.PiberM. (2012). The performance of museums and other cultural institutions: Numbers or genuine judgments?International Studies of Management & Organization, 42(2), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825420202
28.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
29.
HakanK.SevalF. (2011). CIPP Evaluation model scale: Development, reliability and validity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.146
30.
HiattD. B. (1994). Parent involvement in American public schools: An historical perspective 1642–1994. School Community Journal, 4(2), 27–38.
31.
HirshA. (2019). The changing landscape of homeschooling in the United States. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
32.
JacksonG. (2008). Australian Home education and Vygotskian learning theory. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 15(1), 39–48.
KomatsuS. (2002). Transition in the Japanese curriculum: How is the curriculum of elementary and secondary schools in Japan determined. International Education Journal, 3(5), 50–55.
36.
KorkmazH.DumanG. (2014). Public understanding about homeschooling: A preliminary study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(21), 3891–3897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.861
37.
KosteleckáY. (2012). The legal status of home education in post-communist countries of central Europe. International Review of Education, 58(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-012-9298-0
38.
KunzmanR.GaitherM. (2013). Homeschooling: A comprehensive survey of the research. Other Education, 2, 4–59.
39.
LarochelleM.BednarezN. (1998). Constructivism and education: Beyond epistemological correctness. In LarochelleM.BednarzN.GarrisonJ. (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 3–23). Cambridge University Press.
LoisJ. (2010). The temporal emotion work of motherhood: Homeschoolers’ strategies for managing time shortage. Gender & Society, 24(4), 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210377762
42.
LoisJ. (2013). Home is where the school is: The logic of homeschooling and the emotional labor of mothering. NYU Press.
43.
LoisJ. (2016). Homeschooling motherhood. In GaitherM. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of home education (pp. 186–206). John Wiley & Sons.
44.
MackenzieN.KnipeS. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205.
45.
Martin-ChangS.GouldO. N.MeuseR. E. (2011). The impact of schooling on academic achievement: Evidence from homeschooled and traditionally schooled students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 43(3), 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022697
46.
MarzanoR. J. (2010). Formative versus summative assessments as measures of student learning. In Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 259–271). Routledge.
47.
MazamaA.LundyG. (2013). African American homeschooling and the question of curricular cultural relevance. Journal of Negro Education, 82(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.2.0123
48.
McCabeM.BeláňováA.MachovcováK. (2021). The gift of homeschooling: Adult homeschool graduates and their parents conceptualize homeschooling in North Carolina. Journal of Pedagogy, 12(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2021-0006
49.
MitchellE. (2020). Why English parents choose home education—A study. Education, 3, 1–13.
50.
MitraD. L. (2014). Student voice in school reform: Building youth-adult partnerships that strengthen schools and empower youth. State University of New York Press.
51.
MolopeM.OduaranA. (2020). Evaluation of the community development practitioners’ professional development programme: CIPP model application. Development in Practice, 30(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2019.1650894
52.
Neuman, A. (2020). Ask the young: What homeschooled adolescents think about homeschooling. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1710628
53.
NeumanA.AviramR. (2015). Home Schooling: The choice and the consequences. In P. Rothermel (Ed.), International perspectives on home education. Do we still need schools? (pp. 211–222). Palgrave Macmillan.
54.
Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2016a). Academic achievement and homeschooling – It all depends on the goals. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 51, 1–6.
55.
Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2016b). The clash of two world views – A constructivist analysis of home educating families' perceptions of education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24(3), 359–369.
56.
Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2016c). Structured and unstructured elective home education: A proposal for broadening the taxonomy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(3), 355–371.
57.
NicholsonT. (1989). Using the CIPP model to evaluate Reading instruction. Journal of Reading, 32(4), 312–318.
58.
PaciorkowskiS. (2014). Homeschooling in Poland? Legal status and arguments used in Polish debate over home education. Social Transformations in Contemporary Society, 2, 153–162.
59.
RayB. (2015). African American homeschool parents’ motivations for homeschooling and their black children’s academic achievement. Journal of School Choice, 9(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2015.998966
RochovskáI.DroščákM.ŠilonováV. (2020). Comparison of preferred didactic forms and methods in homeschooling. New Educational Review, 61(3), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.20.61.3.01
62.
RomeroN. (2018). Toward a critical unschooling pedagogy. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 12(23), 56–71.
63.
RyanL. (2019). Elective home education in Wales: Post-16 transition and the role of the educational psychologist [Doctoral Dissertation, Cardiff University]. http://orca.cf.ac.uk/125115/12/ThesisRyanDEdPsy-1.pdf.
SikkinkD.SkilesS. A. R. A. (2015). Homeschooling and young adult outcomes: Evidence from the 2011 and 2014 Cardus education survey. The Cardus Religious Schools Initiative.
68.
SotoS. T. (2015). An analysis of curriculum development. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 5(6).
69.
StufflebeamD. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, Atlantic City, NJ.
70.
SuparmanE.SangadjiK. (2019). Evaluation of learning programs with the CIPP model in college: A theoretical review. International Journal of Education, Information Technology, and Others, 2(1), 120–127.
71.
TokmakH. S.BaturayH. M.FaddeP. (2013). Applying the context, input, process, product evaluation model for evaluation, research, and redesign of an online master’s program. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1485
72.
Von GlaserfeldE. (1998). Why constructivism must be radical. In LarochelleM.BednarezN.GarrisonJ. (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 23–28). Cambridge University Press.
