ABSTRACT
The literature on evaluation abounds with arguments for and against testing pupils. On the one hand, how pupils measure up against performance standards or compare with others is an imperative; on the other hand, contexts and processes are paramount. In parallel with these viewpoints are contrasting types of evaluation, sometimes called ‘the agricultural model’ and ‘the anthropological model’, measuring variables related to conditions as compared with observing cultural systems. Other terms might be used such as ‘hard-nosed’ vs ‘naturalistic’ and ‘product’ vs ‘process’. These misleading typologies exaggerate the prejudices of their protagonists. Process evaluators are accused of avoiding the crunch issues concerned with what pupils have learned and are competent to do by the end of each phase; product evaluators are derided for failing to understand the educative experiences and believing that it can be encapsulated in lists of arid target criteria.
