Scientific in Applied Social Science

Order ID	53563633773
Type	Essay
Writer Level	Masters
Style	APA
Sources/References	4
Perfect Number of Pages to Order	5-10 Pages

Description/Paper Instructions

Scientific in Applied Social Science

judgment from evaluators. A lot of personal bias is expected if the evaluator of a program becomes its advocate; since it is hard for an evaluator to make a statement that a program is not working and should be terminated if the evaluator believes in such program and has invested heavily in it. However, by reviewing other theorists’ position on the issue of evaluator’s roles, we can see each different role will have its unique strength and weakness and there is no specific role that fits all the evaluation. Instead of using another metaphor to describe my position, I will define the role of evaluator in the things an evaluator will do during an evaluation, as shown in the following table. (See table 2) Insert Table 2 Here Nevertheless, I understand my resolution for such fundamental issue is not perfect and is vulnerable to criticism in several aspects. First of all, the role I proposed for evaluators might not work in certain contexts; or it is very likely that evaluators who take different roles can still achieve great successes in conducting evaluations.

Take Stake, Weiss, Wholey and Cronbach for example, their difference regarding the proper role for an evaluator doesn’t prevent them from presenting strong evaluation cases to support their positions. In other words, it is almost like I propose a role for an evaluator and then caution evaluators to take such role while in the same time indicate other roles might work even better in their contexts. Second, different cultural, racial and ethnic backgrounds of evaluators could also affect their judgments about issues such as clients’ expectations, dynamics between the program administrators and evaluators, the monetary relationship between evaluators, program administrators, federal government and stakeholder groups, as those issues might vary significantly in different background contexts. Since my resolution is based on my judgment of such issues, if my judgment is an incorrect reflection of the reality elsewhere, then my resolution might not fit well in that context. Last but not least, people can also attack the logic behind my approach to define the role for an evaluator.

Maybe it is wrong to define the evaluator’s role in terms of what they should do during the evaluation; maybe an evaluator’s role should be associated with the purpose of an evaluation and such role actually defines what an evaluator should do in the evaluation. References Campbell, D. T. (1984). Can we be scientific in applied social science? Evaluation studies review annual, Volume 9. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Scriven, M. (1969). An introduction to meta-evaluation. Education Product Report, 2, 36-38. Scriven, M. (1986). New frontiers of evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 7, 7-44 Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Shadish, W. R. Jr., Cook, T. D. & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Smith, N. L. & Brandon, P. R. (Eds.). (2008).

Fundamental issues in evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford. Stake, R.E. (1980). Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Evaluation. Rethinking Educational Research (pp.72-87). London: Hodder & Stoughton. Stake, R.E. & Trumbull, D. J. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy & Social Science, 7, 1-12. Rossi, P. H., and Freeman, H. E. (1985). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. (3rd ed.) Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1985. Weiss, C. H. (1978). Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. In Lynn, L.E. (Ed.). Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection (pp. 23-81). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Weiss, C.H. (1988). “If Program Decisions Hinged Only on Information: A Response to Patton.” Evaluation Practice 9(3): 15-28. Notes Note 1. Readers gain new perspectives and ideas from reading the evaluation reports, which results in accumulated knowledge and evidence that can be used by them in many ways including defining a problem, suggesting a solution and making a policy. Differing from the instrumental use of evaluation results, enlightenment emphasizes the long term effect on policy-making.

 

International Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; May 2010

 

49

 

Table 1. A summary of theorists’ positions on the issue of evaluator’s role

 

Scriven Campbell Stake Weiss Rossi Program selection

 

“everything” (p.84)

 

Preference for pilot programs (p.136)

 

Preference for local programs

 

Programs whose evaluation results are likely to be used

 

Divide programs into 3 kinds: innovative, established and fine-tuning

 

Criteria selection

 

Prescribe value through needs- assessment

 

Describe values from political process (p.160)

 

Describe values from local stakeholders (p.307)

 

Describe values from different stakeholders (p.210)

 

Prefer criteria to come from stakeholder agreement but unclear how to avoid biases

 

Data collecting scope

 

The outcome effects of the program

 

Outcome consequence of the program (p.161)

 

13 kinds of data covering the program antecedents, transaction and the outcome (p.282)

 

Not only the immediate outcome of the program, but also its input, implementation and long-term outcome (p.205)

 

Collecting data regarding the program implementation, outcome as well as its efficiency

 

Data collecting method

 

Not specific Randomized- experiments or strong quasi-experim ents

 

Qualitative methods, case studies

 

Both quantitative and qualitative methods (p.204-205)

 

Accept both quantitative and qualitative methods with a preference towards the former.

 

Evaluation findings

 

One final evaluative judgment regarding the program effects and “need”

 

Reports about the causal inference of program effect

 

Accurate portrayal of the program, diverse formats (p.282-283)

 

Separate summaries for different stakeholder groups, with knowledge and information that best interest them.

 

Include not only the program effects, but also its policy relevancy such as cost-efficiency, alternative options, etc. (p.409)

 

Use of evaluation results

 

Instrumental use of the results to choose the better evaluand or improve one. (p.109)

 

Instrumental use of the results to solve a social problem.

 

Provide vicarious experiences of the program

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Enlightenment use of the results to accumulate knowledge and shape policy-making

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Instrumental, conceptual and persuasive use of the results. (p.410-411)

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Dissemination of the evaluation results

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Not mentioned Dissemination is not the concern of an evaluator (p.162)

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Not mentioned Actively facilitate the dissemination of results (p.207)

Scientific in Applied Social Science

“ a definite responsibility of evaluation researchers” (p.410)

Scientific in Applied Social Science

International Education Studies www.ccsenet.org/ies

Scientific in Applied Social Science

50

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Table 2. A summary of my position on the issue of evaluator’s role

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Phase of Evaluation Evaluator’s responsibility Program selection

Scientific in Applied Social Science

• Determine the nature of the program

Scientific in Applied Social Science

• Analyze the political influences that affect the program

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Criteria selection

Scientific in Applied Social Science

• Use values from different stakeholder groups

Scientific in Applied Social Science

• Conduct needs-assessment to prioritize the values of different stakeholder groups

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Data collecting scope

Scientific in Applied Social Science

• Collect data that can answer stakeholders’ inquiries and concerns

Scientific in Applied Social Science

• Emphasis on the program outcome and look into program input and implementation

Scientific in Applied Social Science

Data collecting methods

 

• Get to know clients’ expectation and available resources

 

• Be familiar with both quantitative and qualitative methods

 

Evaluation findings

 

• Provide answers to the inquiry of different stakeholder groups

 

• Offer evaluative judgment regarding the program effect

 

Use of evaluation results

 

• Use the results as evidence to make decision regarding the program (promote, modify or terminate the program)

 

• Increase people’s knowledge of certain phenomenon

 

Dissemination of evaluation results

 

• Provide separate summaries of evaluation results to different stakeholder groups with information about their interest and concern

Scientific in Applied Social Science

RUBRIC QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately.  Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples.  The answer is complete. 50 points:  The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples.  No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points:  Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points:  Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points:  References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated.  Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points:  Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented.  APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors.  There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points:  Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented.  APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20:  The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors  10 points out 20:  The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20:  The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points:  The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements.  The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.

GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER

CLICK ON THE LINK HERE:  https://phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow

Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!

Scientific in Applied Social Science

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!