Despite its widespread influence on educational evaluation reform, Fourth Generation Evaluation (FGE) has primarily been adopted without sufficient critical examination. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of this constructivist and negotiation-based model by highlighting its theoretical and practical limitations. There are classification flaws and historical gaps in the division of evaluation into generations, which creates ambiguity through the use of the term “generation” and blurs the distinction between measurement and evaluation. Moreover, FGE’s foundation in the constructivist paradigm is seen as an insufficient theoretical basis, and its overreliance on naturalism risks leading to untenable outcomes. In practice, FGE is rarely implemented in its entirety, as its procedural complexity and overly idealistic conditions often hinder its application. Given the multifaceted and complex nature of modern educational contexts, FGE is increasingly ill-suited for contemporary evaluation needs. This paper concludes by advocating for an integrated educational evaluation framework with a specific focus on process integration to reconcile the perceived divide between constructivism and positivism.
References
[1]
Almeida, C. S. L. d., Marcon, S. S., Matsuda, L. M., Kantorski, L. P., Paiva, B. S. R., & Sales, C. A. (2019). Operation of a Hospital Palliative Care Service: A Fourth-Generation Evaluation. RevistaBrasileiradeEnfermagem,72, 383-390. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0848
[2]
Du, Y. (2010). Negotiation and Consensus: the Realistic Choice of Improving Evaluation Effectiveness: Based on the Analysis of Implementation Cases of the Fourth Generation Evaluation. Research in Educational Development, 30, 47-51. (In Chinese)
[3]
Fishman, D. B. (1992). Postmodernism comes to program evaluation: A Critical Review of Guba and Lincoln’s Fourth Generation Evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning,15, 263-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(92)90090-h
[4]
Gregory, A. (2000). Problematizing Participation: A Critical Review of Approaches to Participation in Evaluation Theory. Evaluation,6, 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890022209208
[5]
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. SAGE.
[6]
Hu, Z. F., Li, X. Q., & Liu, G. Q. (2006). On the Integration of Qualitative Evaluation and Quantitative Evaluation. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, 26, 3-7. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2006.02.001
[7]
Huebner, A. J., & Betts, S. C. (1999). Examining Fourth Generation Evaluation: Application to Positive Youth Development. Evaluation,5, 340-358. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563899922209020
[8]
Koch, T. (2000). ‘Having a Say’: Negotiation in Fourth-Generation Evaluation. JournalofAdvancedNursing,31, 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01253.x
[9]
Laughlin, R., & Broadbent, J. (1996). Redesigning Fourth Generation Evaluation: An Evaluation Model for the Public-sector Reforms in the UK? Evaluation,2, 431-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638909600200406
[10]
Lay, M., & Papadopoulos, I. (2007). An Exploration of Fourth Generation Evaluation in Practice. Evaluation,13, 495-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007082135
[11]
Liu, Z. J. (2018). Educational Evaluation. Beijing Normal University Press.
[12]
Lu, L. T. (2009). Measurement, Description, Judgment, and Construction: A Review of the Four Generations of Educational Evaluation Theories. Educational Measurement and Evaluation, 3, 4-7, 17. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.16518/j.cnki.emae.2009.03.002
[13]
McCoy, M., & Hargie, O. D. W. (2001). Evaluating Evaluation: Implications for Assessing Quality. InternationalJournalofHealthCareQualityAssurance,14, 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526860110409081
[14]
McDonald, D. (2008). Revisiting a Theory of Negotiation: The Utility of Markiewicz (2005) Proposed Six Principles. EvaluationandProgramPlanning,31, 259-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.03.003
[15]
Patton, M. Q. (2002). QualitativeResearch&EvaluationMethods. SAGE.
[16]
Pavani, F. M., Pires, A. U. B., Wetzel, C., Olschowsky, A., & Duarte, M. D. L. C. (2023). Fourth Generation Evaluation as a Path for Knowledge Translation in Mental Health. RevistaGaúchadeEnfermagem,44, e20220226. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2023.20220226.en
[17]
Perez, A. (2019). Assessing Quality in Mixed Methods Research: A Case StudyOperationalizing the Legitimation Typology. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=cehsdiss
[18]
Rebien, C. C. (1996). Participatory Evaluation of Development Assistance: Dealing with Power and Facilitative Learning. Evaluation,2, 151-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638909600200203
[19]
Reed, M. C. (1992). Book Reviews: Fourth Generation Evaluation by Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln. Newburg Park, CA: Sage, 1989, 294 pp. EvaluationPractice,13, 197-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409201300308
[20]
Russell, N., & Willinsky, J. (1997). Fourth Generation Educational Evaluation: The Impact of a Post-Modern Paradigm on School Based Evaluation. Studies inEducationalEvaluation,23, 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-491x(97)00012-6
[21]
Stake, R. E., & Fund, J. (1975). Evaluatingthe Arts in Education:A Responsive Approach. Bell & Howell.
[22]
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP Model for Program Evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation (pp. 117-141). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6669-7_7
[23]
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2007). EvaluationModels. Peking University Press.
[24]
Tyler, R. W. (1949). BasicPrinciplesofCurriculumandInstruction. University of Chicago Press.
[25]
Wang, X. L. (2003). An Introduction to Several Typical Models of Educational Evaluation. Early Education, 2, 8-9. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-6017-B.2003.02.003
[26]
Xinhua Chinese Dictionary (2013). The Commercial Press.
[27]
Zhang, M. X. (1995). Response, Negotiation, and Co-Construction: A Review of the “Fourth-Generation Evaluation Theory”. Journal of Foreign Education Studies, 3, 53-59. (In Chinese)
[28]
Zhu, D. Q., & Cao, D. F. (2024). Prospects for the Reform of Educational Evaluation in the New Era: The Fifth-Generation Educational Evaluation. Global Education, 53, 58-73. (In Chinese) https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-9670.2024.12.005
