A Context‐Restrictive Model for Program Evaluation?

The reader will note that the confidence level underlying these concluding remarks is quite high; in particular, Lynch claims that his model, while needing further refinement, is sufficiently developed to be ready for wider use. While it is clear that Lynch deserves considerable credit for his attempt to construct an adaptable evaluation instrument—as antidote to the craft of evaluating language programs on a case-by-case basis—the model (at least as presented and exemplified in Lynch's article) seems to be oddly, and perhaps dangerously, self-limiting. I will argue, therefore, that further refinement of the model would be advisable before further use. As a matter of practice, ESL program evaluation is a wellestablished ongoing activity in our profession, most typically orchestrated through curriculum committees, retreats, or self-study task forces. While formal external evaluations of ESL programs may be less common than with many other kinds of academic units on U.S. campuses, they certainly occur. Elsewhere, organizations like the British Council have well-established policies for periodic external evaluation of ESL projects and programs. The perceived rationale for all this expensive activity is that it provides objective, reliable and expert judgments on particular programs as well as offering reasoned recommendations for possible changes in objectives, activities, and/or personnel. It is of course true that this rationale is idealistic both in terms of its assumption of reduced bias (Beretta, 1986) and in terms of its expectation that cogent recommendations will actually be implemented. On the other hand, it is equally the case that evaluators are typically chosen because they are supposed to bring into the evaluation a sufficiently broad