Yi Huang*
Zhiying Deng- School of Business, Changsha Social Work College, Changsha, Hunan, China
Exploring various evaluation methods and distinguishing their applicability can help to find and explore alternative evaluation methods. Chinese higher education has its own characteristics and development laws, so higher education evaluation also has its own particularity. The theoretical paradigm of Chinese higher education evaluation should be explored, which should be rooted in the educational laws and concrete practice situations of China. Based on context, input, process, product (CIPP) educational evaluation theory, this paper analyzes the essence of process evaluation theory and objective evaluation theory firstly. Secondly, this paper compares and analyzes the applicability of general education evaluation theory in China through economic logic, systemic logic, and social reality logic. From the perspective of public welfare, values, evaluation of quality-oriented and social service-oriented, this paper constructs input, process, effectiveness (IPE) education evaluation theory based on socialist values, and the effect orientation of talents and social development evaluation (TSD). Research on CIPP evaluation theory's applicability in Chinese higher education helps to find new evaluation methods suitable for actual situations in different countries and improve the effectiveness of evaluation.
1 Introduction
Chinese higher education has its own characteristics and development laws, so higher education evaluation also has its own particularity. Research on context, input, process, product (CIPP) evaluation theory's applicability in Chinese higher education helps to find new evaluation methods suitable for actual situations in different countries and improve the effectiveness of evaluation. Exploring theoretical paradigm of Chinese higher education evaluation would be meaningful and interesting. Stufflebeam (2016) believed that it was helpful to introspect and review different evaluation methods, as it helped people understand alternative methods, judged their rationality and applicability, and improved the accuracy of evaluation methods. From the existing literature, it can be seen that higher education evaluation mostly uses the CIPP educational evaluation theory (Qin and Mo, 2022). In addition to the CIPP educational evaluation theory, other scholars have proposed different perspectives and theoretical paradigms, such as Stake's “responsive model” evaluation, Guba and Lincoln's “co-constructive model” evaluation, Finney's (2020) evaluation model and methods, and Wang et al.'s (2010) PCPC model. However, the above paradigms are essentially combinations between indicator system construction and weighting, heavily influenced by the CIPP theory. The CIPP educational evaluation theory is the most representative, mature, and widely applied evaluation paradigm in the field of modern educational evaluation. However, from perspectives of economic logic, systemic logic, and social reality logic, it is worth thinking about whether the general evaluation is in line with the law of higher education development and the characteristics of higher education in China.
2 Construction, evolution, and application of CIPP educational evaluation theory
2.1 Construction and evolutionary development of CIPP educational evaluation theory
Tyler (1986) introduced the goal-oriented educational evaluation theory. This theory focuses on assessing the extent changes of evaluation subjects during the educational process, thereby measuring the effectiveness of education. The key point of Tyler's goal-oriented educational evaluation theory is the comparison of educational outcomes with educational goals (which are predetermined). This theory had a important impact on the field of evaluation theory in the 20th century (Cai and Zhuang, 2013). However, the goal-oriented educational evaluation theory not only ignores the evaluation process, but also has deficiencies in how educational outcomes are measured. The growth and derivative development of educational outcomes are not effectively evaluated, and some educational outcome indicators are difficult to control. Stufflebeam proposed the CIPP evaluation theory in 1965, based on Tyler's goal-oriented evaluation theory (Xiao, 2003). This theory is designed to evaluate with a decision-making orientation. According to Madaus et al. (2000), the purpose of evaluation is not only about achieving goals but also evaluation improvement, including policies, institutional design, processes and outcomes. Hence, he proposed four dimensions for educational evaluation, which is context evaluation, input evaluation, process evaluation, and product evaluation. This theory set targets within the context of background evaluation, which compared to Tyler's goal-oriented educational evaluation theory. It not only emphasized the goals but also the assessment of implementation process. Stake (1973) proposed the “responsive model” of educational evaluation, Guba and Lincoln (1989) set the “co-construction model” of educational evaluation. In order to make the CIPP theory more adapted to the needs of social development, Stufflebeam refined the CIPP theory in the 1980s. He believed that the evaluation work itself should be evaluated. He pointed out the evaluation should focus on the research problem, the evaluation description should be accurate, avoid bias, and be easy to understand. At the beginning of the 21st century, Stufflebeam made the third revision to the CIPP theory. The revised CIPP theory is strongly service-oriented. After this revision, the dimensions of CIPP evaluation theory were revised from four to seven, namely context evaluation, input evaluation, process evaluation, impact evaluation, effectiveness evaluation, sustainability evaluation, and trans-portability evaluation.
2.2 Advantages and limitations of CIPP educational evaluation theory in Chinese practice
The CIPP theory holds certain advantages in evaluation practice, characterized by its comprehensiveness, systematicness, and applicability. Firstly, emphasizing process and outcome evaluation does not completely abandon the negation of the evaluation target. Although some scholars believe that the CIPP theory is a separation between educational goals and evaluation (Chen and Pan, 2012), in fact, Stufflebeam's CIPP theory also pays attention to target evaluation, because the essence of this theory is decision-oriented evaluation, and target is within the context evaluation. Decision-oriented evaluation serves decision-makers, therefore, whether the project goals are achieved is one of service contents for decision-makers (Ratnay et al., 2022). Secondly, the decomposition of outcome evaluation makes the evaluation system more complete, emphasizing the sustainability and applicability of outcomes, and the function of evaluation is reflected. In this regard, Xiao (2003) and Qin and Mo (2022) pointed out that the CIPP theory “emphasizes the function of developmental evaluation,” but they did not point out the decomposition of outcome evaluation and the characteristics of growth evaluation. Stufflebeam made the third revision in 2003, taking into account the future (growth) impact. The future impact and sustainability are the focus of Stufflebeam's third revision. Thirdly, the CIPP theory incorporates the evaluative thoughts of Stake, Guba, and Lincoln. The revised CIPP theory places importance on “stakeholders” and forms a diversified evaluation principle, particularly emphasizing the process evaluation itself. The CIPP theory advocates for the participation of stakeholders in the evaluation process, focusing on collecting the perspectives of the participants. It emphasizes the mutual interaction between the evaluators and the subjects of evaluation, understanding their desires, and making modifications to the educational program meeting the needs possible.
However, from the perspective of the dialectical view of contradictions, although the advantages of the CIPP theory are obvious, its limitations in itself and application also conform to the principle of contradictions. Firstly, decision-oriented evaluation may lead to evaluation biases, although the theory has been continuously improved and revised, the evaluation target has shifted from policy to project services, and the openness and freedom have increased to some extent. However, the orientation of serving decision-makers (project formulators) has fundamentally not changed. Both the evaluation system and indicator may cater to the preferences of decision-makers, which can result in the evaluation issues becoming distorted. About this, author agrees with the view of Xiao (2003). While the addition of third-party evaluation can play a role in reducing the distortion, service orientation still plays a potential role. Secondly, there is an over-reliance on descriptive evaluation rather than quantitative assessment, which raises the bar for the evaluation accuracy. In the third revision of 2003, Stufflebeam emphasized the need for “precise evaluative descriptions” reflecting his concern about the overuse of descriptive evaluation in the theory. Looking at seven evaluation dimensions of the revised CIPP evaluation theory, descriptive evaluation runs through the entire process. Although many scholars try to use quantitative methods when applying this theory, or set more indicators to reduce the proportion of descriptive indicators, such as Lv and Tong (2020) designed 62 evaluation indicators, Zhang et al. (2023) designed 28 evaluation indicators, but its function is limited. Thirdly, the evaluation of stakeholder participation (proactivity) is too low, and the complexity and time consumption of evaluation make this process ineffective. The initial educational evaluation objects are less related to the stakeholders. As this theory has been applied across various fields, people have gradually realized the importance of involving stakeholders in the evaluation process. Especially in the past 20 years, this theory has been widely adopted by scholars in China, leading to a significant in the participation of stakeholders. Many scholars, when applying the CIPP theory, have thoroughly incorporated the element of stakeholders, such as Jiang (2018) studied the quality evaluation of industry-education integration in vocational education, and Chen (2022) studied quality evaluation of urban industry-education. However, this participation is limited to the provision of basic data and related materials by stakeholders (passive participation), with very little evaluative participation (active participation).
3 Theoretical exploration of Chinese higher education evaluation
Educational evaluation needs to be conducted based on individual needs and societal needs (Chen and Pan, 2012). The initial theory of educational evaluation was goal-oriented, with goals primarily based on individual needs and societal needs. Meanwhile, the decision-making oriented educational evaluation theory is also based on this principle. As society development, stakeholders in educational assessment are gradually becoming involved. The needs of society are being broken down into the needs of stakeholders. Educational evaluation involves students, teachers, businesses, and society as a whole. Chinese higher education reform has mainly experienced three stages: the first phase was from 1978 to 1995, during which talent cultivation was under the national planning system, focusing on talent supply. The second phase was from 1995 to 2013, during which talent cultivation was transitioned from the national planning system to the market system, focusing on the combination of talent supply and demand. The third phase is from 2013 to the present. The Education Ministry of China implemented comprehensive reform in the Education system from 2013, proposing the guiding ideology of “integration between industry and education.” During this period, the marketization of China's higher education has been completed. Individual needs and social needs have become the main subject of higher education in China. Talent training is carried out mainly based on market demand, but what kind of talents to supply is determined by national strategic needs, social requirements, and other factors. At present, China is gradually transforming from an educational powerhouse to an educational superpower, with the connotation of education shifting from quantity to quality. Whether it is the CIPP theory, Stake's “responsive model” of educational evaluation, or Guba and Lincoln's “co-construction model” of educational evaluation, none of them can fully reflect the specific national conditions and educational characteristics of China.
Firstly, from the perspective of economic logic, CIPP educational evaluation theory or other evaluation theories are primarily designed and evaluated based on the market demand or the project itself. In contrast, Chinese higher education is not only based on the market demand, but also considers the supply perspective of what kind of talents. Therefore, there are differences from economic logic. Chinese higher education has been committed to the purpose of serving society and people, providing socialist constructors and successors who are morally, intellectually, physically, aesthetically, and laboriously well-developed. The differences in values lead us to consider the applicability of educational evaluation theories in China.
Secondly, from the perspective of systemic logic, the public welfare attribute of higher education evaluation in China has not been given enough attention in both theoretical introduction and practical application. The public welfare attribute and the benefit to the whole society of higher education in China are reflection of the political advantages, emphasizing both the orientation of quality education and the orientation of social service. Given its public welfare attribute characteristics, as with the construction of high-speed rail, expressways, and other public welfare service institutions, the long-term benefits should attract the attention of experts in the field of educational evaluation. Many scholars have used the CIPP theory to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of Chinese higher education, particularly focusing on the quality of vocational education. For instance, Xie and Gu (2018), Li et al. (2022), and Zhang et al. (2023) each constructed an educational quality evaluation system based on the CIPP theory. However, it is somewhat regrettable that the public welfare attribute of educational evaluation was not given attention in these studies.
Thirdly, from the perspective of social reality logic, the CIPP evaluation theory focuses on description of value judgments, with fewer quantitative assessments. Descriptive value are based on social values, and differences in social values can lead to variations in the orientation and scope of evaluations. Additionally, this theory has a high requirement for descriptions. This point has been briefly analyzed by many Chinese scholars (Zhao, 2007; Xiao, 2003), but there is a lack of discussion on how to avoid descriptive value judgments, and how to improve the theory based on different values. The decision-oriented CIPP theory is destined to evaluate the project itself, while the value orientation of project itself affects our evaluation methods. The values of CIPP theory is quite different from the value foundation of higher education decision-making in China. Moreover, even if we ignore the differences, too many descriptive value judgments may provide false evidences for the project decision-maker's project intentions (Worthen and Sanders, 1987).
4 Method construction of Chinese higher education evaluation
Educational theory, educational development, and educational evaluation are three important research topics, and educational evaluation is of great significance to the educational theory, educational reform and development, and educational management and decision-making (Xin and Li, 2005). Educational evaluation is the higher requirement in the current, and it is also the fundamental requirement of educational high-quality development in China. Regardless of how the forms change, the common attributes of evaluation will based on certain evaluation standards, actively judging the educational value on the basis of factual judgment (Cai, 2008). The CIPP educational evaluation theory of Stufflebeam has become increasingly mature, from its construction to application. In the process of practical application, Chinese scholars are paying attention to the differences in China, the purpose of higher education, and the positioning of higher education institutions.
Firstly, the theory construction of higher education evaluation in China is based on social value concepts. The philosophy and ideology of socialist education are mainly reflected in the growth of talent quality and social service. The educational goal should not only achieve results in technical skills, but also in cultivating students' patriotic spirit, integrity and friendliness, justice and law, ideas of harmony and equality. Although explicit outcomes are crucial, the formation and cultivation of correct values are even more significant in the process of social development. The “nine persistences” emphasized by General Secretary Xi Jinping at the National Education Conference, as well as the socialist core values advocating prosperity, democracy, harmony, freedom, equality, justice, law, patriotism, dedication, integrity, and friendship, are the social value concepts and value foundations that guide theory reconstruction of Chinese higher education evaluation in both theory and practice.
Secondly, the theory construction of higher education evaluation in China is based on the characteristics of Chinese educational system and educational law. The public welfare attribute of Chinese higher education, centralized management approach, the universal benefits of education, its essence of serving social development, that determine an education policy or education project. Excessive focus on the policy or project itself limits the applicability of CIPP theory (other theories) in the field of Chinese education. The public welfare attribute of Chinese educational subjects are being given serious attention by Chinese scholars in the theory construction. Therefore, the social benefits and reflections of public welfare in the process of educational evaluation should also be included. Hegel argued that “public opinion is the organic way in which the people express their will and opinions,”
“public opinion is both important and trivial. What is trivial is its specific consciousness and specific expression, what is important is the essential foundation that is faintly reflected in specific consciousness and specific expression.” (Hegel, 1961)
Public opinion (social response) is being given attention as it is the essential foundation of higher education in socialist countries. This reflects public welfare attribute of Chinese higher education and its orientation toward social service.
Finally, the theory construction of higher education evaluation in China is based on the outcome-oriented approach in talent growth and social development. The CIPP theory is a decision-making oriented evaluation, whose main purpose is to serve the project decision-makers, and it is to serve the growth of project. The national conditions of China determine that educational policies or educational projects serve society or serve the growth of talents and social development. General Secretary Xi Jinping systematically summarized the “nine persistences” in Chinese education conference, which are persisting in party leadership in education process, persisting in cultivation of moral character as the fundamental task, persisting in giving education, persisting in the socialist education direction, persisting in running education based on China's national conditions, persisting in people-centered education direction, persisting in deepening educational reform and innovation, and persisting in serving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as an important mission education. The “nine persistences” have established the socialist education direction of “cultivating talents for the party and the country,” showcasing a high level of political education direction. It provides ideological guidance, clarifies the direction, and lays the foundation for theoretical research in higher education evaluation.
Therefore, constructing an educational evaluation oriented toward social development and talent growth is the direction for the high-quality development of socialist higher education. The reconstruction of effect-oriented educational evaluation theory based on talent growth and social development should be a direction for Chinese scholars to deeply consider and focus on researching. Effect-oriented educational evaluation emphasize the quality effect in talent cultivation process and the service effect in social development. It includes healthy thoughts, good personality, correct values, social identity, progress together, future achievements, social response and personal results. So talents and social development evaluation is abbreviated to “TSD.” Based on the general evaluation theory, a three-dimensional evaluation model is established, which is input evaluation, process evaluation, and effectiveness evaluation. It is abbreviated as “IPE.” Among these, the effectiveness evaluation focuses on talent growth (quality-oriented) and social development (social service-oriented) evaluation. Talents and social development evaluation (TSD) should fully consider various evaluation subjects, such as healthy thoughts, good personality, correct values, social identity, progress together, future achievements, social response and personal results. Logic and framework of IPE theoretical paradigm for Chinese higher education evaluation are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. IPE framework of education evaluation based on TSD.
Because the main goal of socialist higher education is to cultivate talents useful to society, it is reflected not only in promoting the all-round development of individuals, but also in enhancing the overall value of society and strengthening social cohesion. Therefore, when measuring the educational effectiveness of higher education in socialist countries, it should be considered from the perspective of society. Among these, the most important is the formation of healthy thoughts and correct values. Healthy thoughts help individuals develop a positive attitude toward life and appropriate ways of behavior, thereby promoting talents growth and development in various aspects such as academics, career, and social interactions. Correct values can strengthen the connections and cooperation among group members, and enhance the overall harmony of society. Therefore, TSD is the cornerstone for measuring the effectiveness of higher education in socialist countries. The process evaluation is to measure means and methods achieving TSD goals, and the effectiveness evaluation is to measure whether TSD goals have been reached.
CIPP theory is decision-making orientation, evaluating from four dimensions, and also emphasizing future and potential effects, but it neglects social values and personal quality evaluation. CIPP theory can not fully adapt to the characteristics of Chinese higher education. Chinese higher education attaches greater importance to healthy thoughts, good personality, correct values, social identity, progress together, social response in education process. Exploring the evaluation theories and methods suitable for Chinese higher education can improve the efficiency and accuracy of educational evaluation in China. The differences between the TSD-oriented IPE education evaluation theory and the CIPP education evaluation theory are mainly reflected in the following aspects, as shown in Table 1. By comparing differences in Table 1, the theory reconstruction of TSD-oriented IPE education evaluation meets the actual conditions and attributes of education system in China, and reflects the superiority and mission of Chinese higher education.
Table 1. Differences between IPE and CIPP evaluation theories.
Avoiding the drawbacks of CIPP educational evaluation is an advantage of IPE evaluation based on TSD. That is, IPE emphasizes the cultivation effectiveness of correct values and healthy thoughts. Therefore, the IPE evaluation should be led by the effects of forming correct values and cultivating healthy thoughts, with other result evaluations serving as supplements. This is the main feature that distinguishes IPE from CIPP evaluation, and it is also an important aspect to avoid the drawbacks of CIPP educational evaluation.
5 Conclusion
Ilishkina (2025) emphasized the importance of viewing education evaluation as a holistic system—encompassing needs, objects, meanings, etc. In response to the reform of higher education evaluation in China, many scholars have conducted in-depth research. Zhu and Tan (2024) proposed a systemic thinking for educational evaluation reform based on the “three teachings” evaluation reform, arguing that subjective needs are the core value of evaluation reform. In the argument for subjective needs, he emphasized the market need. Wu and Li (2024) and Lin et al. (2025) emphasized that the reform of higher education evaluation lied in changing the evaluation concept and improving the evaluation practice, focusing on enhancing the literacy evaluation of participants as an important support for educational evaluation reform. However, it is somewhat regrettable that the concept of literacy evaluation is not defined or discussed in detail, there is no detailed discussion, whether it is knowledge, character, or values. Lin (2024) thought that higher education evaluation often had to make a choice between connotation evaluation and utilitarian evaluation, and emphasized that education evaluation should not only focus on specific knowledge acquisition, but also on cultivation of implicit values and abilities. However, the article lacks the above discussion. Li (2024) argued that Chinese education, as a public product, should follow the public logic, thus emphasizing that educational evaluation should adhere to public and value logic, which is consistent with the research conclusion of this article. However, the article does not further argue that how to build an educational evaluation system on the attributes of public and value logic (for example, how the political and value logic is reflected in the system).
Based on the applicability discussion of CIPP educational evaluation theory (but not limited to this, including Tyler's goal-oriented evaluation theory and other related theories), combined with the analysis on actual conditions of Chinese higher education, this paper analyzes and constructs the IPE education evaluation theory. Traditional evaluation approaches, for example, have been proven insufficient in expressing different characteristics since they are ubiquitous and uniform (Meylani, 2024). Therefore, it is of great practical significance to construct creative evaluation methods suitable for different scenarios (Liu, 2025). Based on TSD orientation, IPE education evaluation theory emphasizes social values, public welfare, and literacy education, which are suitable for characteristics and development laws of Chinese higher education. Different countries or regions should formulate appropriately higher education evaluation methods according to their own conditions.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
YH: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft. ZD: Resources, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was funded by Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 2024JJ8062).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Cai, X. L. (2008). On the essence of marxist theoretical education evaluation. Ideol. Theor. Educ. 50–57. doi: 10.16075/j.cnki.cn31-1220/g4.2008.11.007
Cai, X. L., and Zhuang, M. (2013). Evolution and enlightenment of foreign educational evaluation models. High. Educ. Dev. Eval. 29, 37–44, 105–106.
Chen, W. Y., and Pan, Y. J. (2012). Research on the third generation educational evaluation in the United States. Educ. Rev. 159–161.
Chen, Z. B. (2022). Research on Influencing Factors and Evaluation System of Urban Industry-Education Integration. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology.
Finney, T. L. (2020). Confirmative evaluation: new CIPP evaluation model. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 18, 135–146. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1598889893
Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications, 31–38, 186–187.
Ilishkina, D. I. (2025). Rethinking the evaluation of educational intervention effectiveness through activity theory: a mobile app example. Front. Educ. 10:1532376. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1532376
Jiang, Z. X. (2018). Constructing a quality evaluation system for the integration of industry and education in vocational education. Vocat. Educ. Forum 34–39.
Li, H. Y., Chen, F., and Liu, T. T. (2022). Constructing a quality evaluation system for higher continuing education based on the CIPP model. Chin. Adult Educ. 54–57.
Li, J. F. (2024). Historical evolution and realistic logic of educational evaluation from the perspective of value orientation. J. Nantong Univ. 40, 149–158.
Lin, J. H. (2024). Logic and function of higher education evaluation. Chin. Exam. 1–2. doi: 10.19360/j.cnki.11-3303/g4.2024.01.001
Lin, M. Q., Wang, Y., and Chen, Y. (2025). The ecosystem of educational evaluation in the context of developing a leading country in education: imbalance and regulation. Educ. Res. 46, 119–130.
Liu, Z. T. (2025). “De-indicatorisation”: the postmodern turn in higher education evaluation and quality assurance. China High. Educ. Res. 7–13. doi: 10.16298/j.cnki.1004-3667.2025.08.02
Lv, L. P., and Tong, G. T. (2020). Research on the quality evaluation system of industry-education integration in vocational colleges under the background of the “Two-High Plan”. Vocat. Tech. Educ. 41, 31–36.
Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M., and Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media, 280–287, 313.
Meylani, R. (2024). A comparative analysis of traditional and modern approaches to assessment and evaluation in education. West. Anatolia J. Educ. Sci. 15, 520–555. doi: 10.51460/baebd.1386737
Qin, F. M., and Mo, K. (2022). Research on the quality evaluation of industry-education integration in vocational education based on the CIPP model. J. Southwest Univ. 48, 194–203. doi: 10.13718/j.cnki.xdsk.2022.03.017
Ratnay, G., Indriaswuri, R., Widayanthi, D. G. C., Dalem, A. A. G. P. K. P., and Atmaja, I. M. P. D. (2022). CIPP evaluation model for vocational education: a critical review. Educ. Q. Rev. 5, 1–8. doi: 10.31014/aior.1993.05.03.519
Stake, R. E. (1973). Program Evaluation: Particularly Responsive Evaluation. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, 17.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2016). Factors that influenced my conduct of evaluations and evaluation training programs. New Dir. Eval. 150, 41–49. doi: 10.1002/ev.20188
Tyler, R. W. (1986). Changing concepts of educational evaluation. Int. J. Educ. Res. 10, 1–113. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(86)90008-X
Wang, Y., Li, C. H., and Yang, K. Z. (2010). Study on the construction of educational policy evaluation model. Mod. Distance Educ. 7–10.
Worthen, B. R., and Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. New York, NY: Longman.
Wu, H., and Li, X. (2024). Ideological clarification and focus directions of higher education evaluation reform at this stage. J. Shaanxi Norm. 53, 67–79. doi: 10.15983/j.cnki.sxss.2024.0306
Xie, M., and Gu, J. Y. (2018). Research and evaluation practice on the integration of industry and education in vocational colleges under the perspective of industry-education integration. Chin. Vocat. Tech. Educ. 41–44.
Xin, T., and Li, X. Y. (2005). New developments in educational evaluation: theory and practice. Tsinghua Univ. Educ. Res. 38–43.
Zhang, J., Pan, C. E., and Li, H. T. (2023). Research on the construction of quality evaluation indicators for industry-education integration in vocational based on the CIPP model. Chin. Vocat. Tech. Educ. 54–60.
Zhao, F. J. (2007). Major models and comparisons of educational evaluation at home and abroad. Heilongjiang Educ. 2007, 166–167.
Keywords: education evaluation, CIPP theory, TSD, theoretical paradigm, China
Citation: Huang Y and Deng Z (2026) Chinese higher education evaluation: theoretical analysis and method construction—Based on CIPP theory. Front. Educ. 10:1676842. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1676842
Received: 31 July 2025; Revised: 23 October 2025; Accepted: 17 November 2025;
Published: 06 January 2026.
Edited by:
Rolando Salazar Hernandez, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, MexicoReviewed by:
Galina Motova, National Centre for Public Accreditation, RussiaXianjun Meng, Xi'an Fanyi University, China
Copyright © 2026 Huang and Deng. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yi Huang, aHVhbmd5aWhlbGxvQDE2My5jb20=