S519: Evaluation of Information Systems Meta-evaluation D-Ch11.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
303LON and 308LON Module Review and Your Next Steps Unit: 12.
Advertisements

CHAPTER 16 Interviews. Interviews serve many purposes.
Johns Hopkins University School of Education Johns Hopkins University Evaluation Overview.
Functional Question Higher (Statistics 1) For the week beginning ….
METAEVALUATION An Overview (dls 8/30/11). Key Questions  1. What is the essence of metaevaluation?  2. Why is metaevaluation important?  3, What are.
Metadisciplinary Outcomes for Science Literacy (Can Assess Now by Standardized Concept Inventory) STUDENT WILL BE ABLE TO… 1. Define the domain of science.
What You Will Learn From These Sessions
Writing Scientific Papers Lecturer: Prof. Nyoman S. Antara, Ph.D. Agroindustrial Technology Department Faculty of Agricultural Technology Udayana University.
 Systematic determination of the quality or value of something (Scriven, 1991)  What can we evaluate?  Projects, programs, or organizations  Personnel.
International Outcomes Assessment Dr. Barbara Wheeling Montana State University Billings Coordinator for Institutional Assessment College of Business Director.
PPA 502 – Program Evaluation
Business research methods: data sources
Unit 4: Writing Writing Reports.
S519: Evaluation of Information Systems Understanding Evaluation Ch1+2.
Purpose of the Standards
EVAL 6970:Cost Analysis for Evaluation Dr. Chris L. S. Coryn Nick Saxton Fall 2014.
Learning Objectives LO1 Describe the role of professional judgment in achieving the overall objectives of the independent auditor in conducting an audit.
Expert Systems Expert Systems Chris LaJoie, Chris Panton, and Kurt DeVaney.
The guidelines – more about the new things Integrating degree and learning outcomes in the whole doctoral education An university-common ISP-template and.
Satie Airam é Bren School, Assistant Dean for Academic Programs Winter 2012 Group Project Defense Guidelines.
CC1008NI - Personal Development For Computing Tutorial 1.
EMPRICAL RESEARCH REPORTS
Comments on Nontechnical ABET Criteria J. W. V. Miller 6/30/08 Adapted from the University of Delaware Civil and Environmental Engineering Website
Method Type in your method here. Describe participants, sampling, variables. Type in your method here. Describe participants, sampling, variables. Type.
Designing and implementing of the NQF Tempus Project N° TEMPUS-2008-SE-SMHES ( )
Connections paper Route J – Religious Ethics with New Testament 2792 About the paper & exam questions.
National 5 Lifeskills.
Program Evaluation EDL 832 Jeffrey Oescher, Instructor 6 June 2013.
How to Write a Critical Review of Research Articles
Evaluating a Research Report
The Strengths and Limitations of Regulatory Peer Review Dr. Heather E. Douglas Phibbs Assistant Professor of Science and Ethics University of Puget Sound.
Highlights from Educational Research: Its Nature and Rules of Operation Charles and Mertler (2002)
Agricultural and Horticultural Science 3.2 Research and report on the impact of factors on the profitability of a New Zealand primary product.
Preparing a Business Report
LEVEL 3 I can identify differences and similarities or changes in different scientific ideas. I can suggest solutions to problems and build models to.
Review: Alternative Approaches II What three approaches did we last cover? What three approaches did we last cover? Describe one benefit of each approach.
S519: Evaluation of Information Systems Result D-Ch10.
 Now we are ready to write our evaluation report.  Basically we are going to fill our content to the checklist boxes we learned in lec2. S519.
What does peer review involve? Here are some of the aspects of the research that are scrutinised: Originality of the research The appropriateness of the.
Quality Assessment of MFA’s evaluations Rita Tesselaar Policy and operations Evaluation Department Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
REPORTS.
Exam feedback. Question 17 2 marks – non-directional, fully operationalised 1 mark – non-directional, not fully operationalised 0 marks – directional/difference.
S519: Evaluation of Information Systems Understanding Evaluation Ch1+2.
Impact of Technology Architectural Design. Research.
Data Driven Planning and Decision-making for Continuous School Improvement: Developing a Program Evaluation Plan Leadership for Innovative Omani Schools.
Aspect 1 Defining the problem - Problem: The design context will normally offer a variety of potential problems to solve. A focused problem and need is.
In-House Memo Reports Reporting to Colleagues The Cain Project in Engineering and Professional Communication ENGINEERING SERIES.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Principles, criteria and methods Part 1 Quality management Produced in Collaboration between.
.  Evaluators are not only faced with methodological challenges but also ethical challenges on a daily basis.
Learning to Teach System Skill Building Three.
Scientific Literature and Communication Unit 3- Investigative Biology b) Scientific literature and communication.
Fitness and Conditioning
Research Skills.
HRM – UNIT 10 Elspeth Woods 9 May 2013
Internal assessment criteria
Unpacking This Week’s ELA Standards
HCS 449 TUTORS Lessons in Excellence -- hcs449tutors.com.
How to publish from your MEd or PhD research
S519: Evaluation of Information Systems
Meta-evaluation.
LAW112 Assessment 3 Haley McEwen.
NHS Tribunal Training Alan D Miller April 2008 Depute Chairman
S519: Evaluation of Information Systems
Understanding Standards Modern Studies
School of public health & Health professions Sub-title
Professional Excellences
REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gaining 20 marks for A02 Deadline is 4pm on Tuesday 5th March.
INFO 414 Information Behavior
Elements of evaluation quality: questions, answers, and resources
Presentation transcript:

S519: Evaluation of Information Systems Meta-evaluation D-Ch11

Last week What are these checkpoints? How to put your result together? What are lessons-learned during the exercise?

Meta-evaluation It is evaluation of an evaluation (Scriven, 1991) to determin the quality and/or value of an evaluation

Five criteria Validity Utility Conduct Credibility Costs

Validity To what extent, the conclusions of the evaluation are justified Check carefully the facts they use and values they assign Question everything Constraints (budget, time, etc.) Using KEC checkpoints Using standards (

Validity Covers all relevant sources of value Comprehensively covers process, outcome and cost Include no irrelevant or illicit criteria Data used to directly address the criteria Include analyses that are appropriate for the data Clearly states how data are interpreted Is clear about where evaluative conclusions come from Include valid recommendation

Utility Are the findings Relevant to the questions or decisions being faced by the audience Timely Clearly communicated Cost effective

Conduct Legal Ethical Professional standards Cultrual appropriateness Unobtrusiveness Minimal disruptive to the evaluand

Credibility Familiar with the context Independence, impartiality, and/or lack of conflict of interest Expertise in evaluation and in the evaluation subject field

Cost How reasonable the costs of an evaluation

Meta-evaluation rating table Table 11.1

Exercise D-p217, exercise 2 Form a pair, do the evaluation Form a group to select the best result, Design a poster Present them in a poster Using three sentenses to summarize your evaluation What you learn What you feel How to improve