How do evaluation practitioners make choices when they evaluate a program? What function do evaluation theories play in practice? In this article, I report on an exploratory study that examined evaluation practices in France. The research began with observations of practitioners' activities, with a particular focus on the phases of evaluation design. The purpose of the study was to examine the logic underlying their choices and the role that evaluation theory played in those choices. In this study, I used activity theory and ergonomics methods. I highlight various ways in which working evaluators make evaluation choices in real situations, explained by different sets of conceptual resources they hold related to their level of experience. Finally, I show how this research contributes toward clarifying the role of theories in practice and enriching an evaluation theory
Alkin, M.C., & Christie, C.A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree revisited. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Barbier, J.M. (1985). L'évaluation en formation. Paris: PUF.
4.
Bonniol, J.J. (1981). Déterminants et mécanismes des comportements d'évaluation d'épreuves scolaires. Thèse de Doctorat es Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Bordeaux, 1981.
5.
Bruner, J.S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
6.
Caroli, S., & Weill-Fassina, A. (2007). En quoi différentes approches de l'activité collective des relations de services interrogent la pluralité des modèles de l'activité en ergonomie. Activités, 4, 85-98.
Chi, T.H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M.J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale : Laurence Erlbaum associates.
9.
Christie, C.A. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation. New directions for evaluation Vol 97 (pp. 7-35). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Christie, C.A., & Rose, M. (2003). Learning about evaluation through dialogue: Lessons from an informal discussion group. American Journal of Evaluation , 24, 235-243.
11.
Demailly, L. (2001). Evaluer les politiques éducatives. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
12.
Donaldson, S.I., & Lipsey, M.W. (2008). Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: Developing practical knowledge. In I. Shaw, J. Greene, & M. Mark (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation . London: Sage.
13.
Dreyfus, M.L., Dreyfus, S.E., & Athanasiou, T. (1986). Mind over machine the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.
14.
English, B. (2002). Competencies for evaluation practitioners: where to from here? Journal of the Australasian Evaluation Society , 2, 13-15.
15.
Fetterman, D.M., Kaftarian, S.J., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Empowerment evaluation. Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
16.
Fitzpatrick, J.L. (2004). Exemplars as case studies: Reflections on the link between theory, practice and context. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 541-559.
17.
Fitzpatrick, J.L., Christie, T.A., & Mark, M.M. (2008). Evaluation in action: Interviews with Expert Evaluators . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Flyvbjerg, B., & Sampson, B. (2001). Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Furubo, J.E., Rist, R.C., & Sandhahl, R. (2002). International atlas of evaluation. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Hadji, C. (1989). L'évaluation, règles dujeu. Paris: ESF.
22.
King, J.A., Stevahn, L., Ghere, G., & Minnema, J. (2001). Toward a taxonomy of essential evaluator competencies . American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 233-235.
23.
Kishchuck, N., & Long, B. (1997). Rapport sur la certification professionnelle. Canada: Rapport au bureau de la SCE.
24.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate periperal participation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Levin-Rozalis, M., & Rosenstein, B. (2003). A mentoring approach to the one year evaluation course. American Journal of Evaluation , 24, 245-259.
26.
McGuire, M., Zorzi, R., & Perrin, B. (2002). Projet de la société canadienne d'évaluation à l'appui de la défense des intérêts et du perfectionnement professionnel, Societé Canadienne d'Evaluation. http://www.evaluation.francophonie.org .
27.
Mertens, D. (1994). Training evaluators: unique skills and knowledge . New Directions in Program Evaluation, 62, 17-27.
28.
Nadeau, M.A. (1988). L'évaluation de programme, théorie et pratique . Québec : Ed. Les Presses de l'Université Laval.
29.
P, Pastré. (2002). L'analyse du travail en didactique professionnelle. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 138, 9-17.
30.
P. Pastré., Mayen, P., & Vergnaud, G. (2006). Note de synthèse sur la didactique professionnelle. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 154, 145-198.
Piaget, J. (1955). The child's construction of reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
33.
Rodrigues, P. (2002). Avaliaçao da formaçao pelos participantes em entrevista de investigacao. Porto: Fundaçao Calouste Gulbenkian.
34.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
35.
Schwandt, T. (2007). The role of practical knowledge in learning. Paper delivered at the 21st Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, ``Learning to evaluate, evaluating to learn.'' Baltimore, 11/08/2007.
36.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Leviton, L.C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation theories of practice. Newbury Park: Sage publications .
37.
Stufflebeam, D. (1980). L'évaluation en éducation et la prise de décision . Ottawa: NHP.
38.
Torres, R., Preskill, H.S., & Piontek, M.E. (1996). Evaluation strategies for communicating and reporting: Enhancing learning in organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
39.
Tourmen, C., & Figari, G. (2006). La référentialisation: une façon de modéliser l'évaluation de programme, entre théorie et pratique. Vers une comparaison des approches en France et au Québec. Mesure et Evaluation en Education, 29, 5-25.
40.
Tourmen, C., & Toulemonde, J. (2005). Comment former à évaluer? Quelques apports de la didactique professionnelle. Education Permanente, 165, 87-99.
41.
Trevisan, M.S. (2004). Practical training in evaluation: a review of the literature. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 255-272.
42.
Vergnaud, G. (1989). Learn mathematics? In Vergnaud. G, Rogalski. J, & Artique. M (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference for the psychology of Mathematics Education . Paris: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
43.
Vergnaud, G. (1990). La théorie des champs conceptuels. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 10, 133-170.
44.
Vergnaud, G. (2001, May). Forme prédicative et forme opératoire de la connaissance. In Jean Portugais (Ed.), Actes du Colloque GDM 2001 La notion de compétence en enseignement des mathématiques, analyse didactique des effets de son introduction sur les pratiques de la formation,, Montréal.
45.
Vermersch, P. (1996). L'entretien d'explicitation en formation initiale et en formation continue. Paris: Esf.
46.
Vincenti, W.G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore: John Hopkins.
47.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Original work published 1934).
48.
Worthen, B.R. (1994). Is evaluation a mature profession that warrants the preparation of evaluation professionals? New Direction for Program Evaluation, 62, 3-15.
