形成性评价:一种获得以人为本的系统的技术

T. H. Martin
{"title":"形成性评价:一种获得以人为本的系统的技术","authors":"T. H. Martin","doi":"10.1145/1103002.1103007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Let me tell you what I mean by formative evaluation. For example, in the design of something like Sesame Street or FreeStyle, social science researchers have gotten away from the role they're usually cast in - that is, to come in afterwards and explain why things failed. Instead, they get in right near the beginning and try to make sure that things turn out to be successes. You've all heard of the success of Sesame Street, and you're probably beginning to hear of the success of FreeStyle. When you have a big project and there is a great disparity between the people who are doing it and the people they're supposed to be impacting or who are going to be their users, the possibilities of misunderstanding and potential failure are great. This is a very common problem with large systems that are being designed today. Even though people think they are talking the same language, they find out they aren't. We have a lot of systems that are designed now where the system designers or the system analysts come up with specifications, let out bids, someone gets the bid, and that supposedly is it. Although misunderstandings between the systems analysts and the contractors may exist, that doesn't guarantee that the system analysts have a very good understanding of the end users. The idea in formative evaluation is that as you're getting the design put together and putting the concepts in place, you go out and start gathering representative data from the end user population to see whether in fact it is possible to attain the goals. Everybody knows that design is an iterative process, and evaluation should be a component of it. We give it lip service but very rarely do we do it, and the cliches are, \"Well, you know the users don't know what they're going to want, they're going to keep on changing.\" To some extent that is true, but that is very often used as an excuse to skip the data gathering completely. By focusing on the misunderstandings, by trying to clarify the goals, one can early on learn whether in fact a system can be developed that is useable and satisfactory to those users.","PeriodicalId":129356,"journal":{"name":"ACM Sigsoc Bulletin","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1979-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Formative evaluation: a technique for attaining people-oriented systems\",\"authors\":\"T. H. Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1103002.1103007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Let me tell you what I mean by formative evaluation. For example, in the design of something like Sesame Street or FreeStyle, social science researchers have gotten away from the role they're usually cast in - that is, to come in afterwards and explain why things failed. Instead, they get in right near the beginning and try to make sure that things turn out to be successes. You've all heard of the success of Sesame Street, and you're probably beginning to hear of the success of FreeStyle. When you have a big project and there is a great disparity between the people who are doing it and the people they're supposed to be impacting or who are going to be their users, the possibilities of misunderstanding and potential failure are great. This is a very common problem with large systems that are being designed today. Even though people think they are talking the same language, they find out they aren't. We have a lot of systems that are designed now where the system designers or the system analysts come up with specifications, let out bids, someone gets the bid, and that supposedly is it. Although misunderstandings between the systems analysts and the contractors may exist, that doesn't guarantee that the system analysts have a very good understanding of the end users. The idea in formative evaluation is that as you're getting the design put together and putting the concepts in place, you go out and start gathering representative data from the end user population to see whether in fact it is possible to attain the goals. Everybody knows that design is an iterative process, and evaluation should be a component of it. We give it lip service but very rarely do we do it, and the cliches are, \\\"Well, you know the users don't know what they're going to want, they're going to keep on changing.\\\" To some extent that is true, but that is very often used as an excuse to skip the data gathering completely. By focusing on the misunderstandings, by trying to clarify the goals, one can early on learn whether in fact a system can be developed that is useable and satisfactory to those users.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Sigsoc Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1979-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Sigsoc Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1103002.1103007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Sigsoc Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1103002.1103007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

我来告诉你们我所说的形成性评价是什么意思。例如,在《芝麻街》(Sesame Street)或《自由式》(FreeStyle)等节目的设计中,社会科学研究人员已经摆脱了他们通常扮演的角色——即事后介入并解释事情失败的原因。相反,他们在一开始就参与进来,并努力确保事情最终取得成功。你们都听说过《芝麻街》的成功,你们可能也开始听说《FreeStyle》的成功。当你有一个大项目,而参与项目的人与他们应该影响的人或将成为项目用户的人之间存在巨大差异时,误解和潜在失败的可能性就很大。这是当今设计的大型系统中非常常见的问题。尽管人们认为他们说的是同一种语言,但他们发现并非如此。我们现在设计了很多系统,系统设计师或系统分析师提出规格,发出投标,有人得到投标,据说就是这样。尽管系统分析人员和承包商之间可能存在误解,但这并不能保证系统分析人员对最终用户有很好的理解。形成性评估的想法是,当你把设计放在一起,把概念放在适当的位置时,你出去,开始从最终用户群体中收集有代表性的数据,看看是否有可能实现目标。每个人都知道设计是一个迭代过程,评估应该是其中的一个组成部分。我们只是嘴上说说而已,但很少真正去做,陈词滥调是,“嗯,你知道用户不知道他们想要什么,他们会不断变化。”在某种程度上,这是正确的,但这经常被用作完全跳过数据收集的借口。通过关注误解,通过尝试澄清目标,人们可以在早期了解是否实际上可以开发出对这些用户可用且满意的系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Formative evaluation: a technique for attaining people-oriented systems
Let me tell you what I mean by formative evaluation. For example, in the design of something like Sesame Street or FreeStyle, social science researchers have gotten away from the role they're usually cast in - that is, to come in afterwards and explain why things failed. Instead, they get in right near the beginning and try to make sure that things turn out to be successes. You've all heard of the success of Sesame Street, and you're probably beginning to hear of the success of FreeStyle. When you have a big project and there is a great disparity between the people who are doing it and the people they're supposed to be impacting or who are going to be their users, the possibilities of misunderstanding and potential failure are great. This is a very common problem with large systems that are being designed today. Even though people think they are talking the same language, they find out they aren't. We have a lot of systems that are designed now where the system designers or the system analysts come up with specifications, let out bids, someone gets the bid, and that supposedly is it. Although misunderstandings between the systems analysts and the contractors may exist, that doesn't guarantee that the system analysts have a very good understanding of the end users. The idea in formative evaluation is that as you're getting the design put together and putting the concepts in place, you go out and start gathering representative data from the end user population to see whether in fact it is possible to attain the goals. Everybody knows that design is an iterative process, and evaluation should be a component of it. We give it lip service but very rarely do we do it, and the cliches are, "Well, you know the users don't know what they're going to want, they're going to keep on changing." To some extent that is true, but that is very often used as an excuse to skip the data gathering completely. By focusing on the misunderstandings, by trying to clarify the goals, one can early on learn whether in fact a system can be developed that is useable and satisfactory to those users.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信