Specifications for Metaevaluation Assignment

EDMS 647 Introduction to Program Evaluation

 A metaevaluation is an evaluation of an evaluation.

 The purpose of this assignment is to give you the opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of the concept of metaevaluation. You will do so by briefly and informally evaluating – in writing – a program evaluation that has been published in the literature for your content area or any area of your choice.

 Start by choosing an article that describes a completed program evaluation. Be very careful not to select an article that describes an ongoing program evaluation – one that perhaps does not yet have any conclusive data. You may need to briefly review several articles before finding one that you think is thorough enough to give you the information you need to complete this assignment. If you have any doubt about the article you have chosen, you may bring a copy to class for the instructor to review, or send an electronic link via email for this purpose.

 Prior to writing your paper, read your assigned article and review the Program Evaluations Metaevaluation Checklist that can be found on the website of the Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University. There is a link to The Evaluation Center on the EDMS 647 course website on ELMS. There is a wealth of information at this website that may be useful for this assignment.

 You may discuss your article with other students in your class or with colleagues, but you must write your paper independently. Please remember to write out the University of Maryland Honor Pledge at the end of your paper and sign your name and the date.

 You are expected to state your opinions about the quality of the program evaluation described in your article; however it is understood that the article may provide a limited amount of information about the evaluation. You are not expected to do a formal, summative evaluation of the evaluation.

Please adhere to the following criteria:

 Your paper should be no longer than four (4) typewritten pages, double-spaced.  Use one-inch margins and a font no smaller than 10 characters per inch.  Be sure that you address all four of the categories of attributes covered in the JCSEE Program Evaluation Standards (Utility, Feasibility, Propriety, and Accuracy). Organize your paper with a separate section/heading for each of the four categories so that it is clear that you have discussed each one.  You do NOT need to specifically discuss each one of the numerous standards in each of the four categories, because there may not be sufficient information in the article to make a judgment about whether or not they have been met. Do not “force” the issue just to make a statement about each standard.  Clearly state your opinions – making extensive use of words like, “In my opinion…” or “It appears to me that…” – and support your opinions with examples from the article and/or your textbook and the Checklist. You may also insert examples from your own personal experience if they are relevant to the point you are trying to make.  Use the attached scoring key as a writing and editing guide. Scoring Key for Metaevaluation

Content Understanding Presentation The paper contains all of the The paper demonstrates The paper conforms required information and the without question that the completely to all stated content is discussed with a writer understands the presentation requirements, is Score very high level of clarity, process of metaevaluation, superbly neat and well Point such that the reader has no and it shows careful organized, and contains no 5 questions in regard to its attention to detail and careful spelling or grammatical meaning or source. consideration of all of the errors. program evaluation standards categories. The paper contains all of the The paper demonstrates that The paper conforms to all of required information and the the writer has a high level of the stated presentation content is discussed with a understanding of the process requirements, is Score high level of clarity, such that of metaevaluation, and it is predominantly neat and well Point the reader has only one or well organized and thorough, organized, and contains no 4 two questions in regard to its showing consideration of all more than one or two meaning or source. of the program evaluation spelling or grammatical standards. errors.

The paper contains most of The paper demonstrates that The paper conforms to most the required information and the writer has an acceptable of the stated presentation the content is discussed with understanding of the process requirements, and/or is Score enough clarity that the of metaevaluation, and it is basically neat and well Point reader has only a few organized, showing organized, and/or contains 3 questions in regard to its consideration of most of the more than two spelling or meaning or source. program evaluation grammatical errors. standards. The paper contains most of The paper demonstrates that The paper conforms to some the required information; the writer has a developing of the stated presentation however there is a lack of understanding of the process requirements, and/or is Score clarity in the discussion that of metaevaluation, and it is somewhat neat and well Point leads to numerous questions approaching an organized organized, and/or contains 2 on the part of the reader with state. Some of the program numerous spelling or regard to the meaning or evaluation standards may grammatical errors. source of the content. have been omitted.

The paper lacks some of the The paper demonstrates that The paper conforms to few required information and/or the writer lacks acceptable of the stated presentation there is a lack of clarity in the understanding of the process requirements, and/or is not Score discussion that leads to lack of metaevaluation, and/or it neat and/or well organized, Point of understanding on the part is unorganized and/or and/or contains enough 1 of the reader with regard to several of the program spelling or grammatical the meaning or source of the evaluation standards have errors to interfere with content. been omitted. understanding.