The following exam has been done by analyzing and matching theories to the specific requirements detailed in the MPA rubric, which provides a comprehensive description of what every single area of the program evaluation should have in order to fulfill basic industry standards. Based on this main premise the executive summary, introduction, and the ability of the program evaluator to answer the evaluation’s questions. At the same time the type of methodology, and the evaluator’s methodological strength and weaknesses will also be done in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the main goals of the evaluator in regards the program evaluation. Executive summary. This section just mentions briefly that the Central Michigan University …show more content…
The type of methodology that the author used is a mix of methodologies, which help him answer some question in regards the effectiveness of the program, and its outcome on graduate students. Based on this fact only four questions were answered. According to Wholey, Hatry &Newcomer (2015) the data analysis should be carefully arranged, and classify according to the pertinent categories in order to integrate the complete scope of the intended objectives in regards the program evaluation(pg.562).
However the program evaluator used complex structures instead of simplifying the data into just answering the questions. The author also specifies hat the research type mainly by the university is the One Group Post-Evaluation design, but the university also uses one -group post evaluation, and naive design. Which fundamentally relies on the graduates’ exit surveys. Based on the main premise that the author has recognized a complex research system, and the following research strengths and weaknesses have been
…show more content…
The weaknesses found on the methodological section were mainly in regards the overused of information. The evaluator cited 2 different methodological design that he considered that the university used while trying to design the exit surveys for graduate students. The methodological order used by the evaluator could be confusing at the beginning since there is a comprehensive explanation of basic concepts strictly related to research and data collection. The author did not explicitly specify the research design primarily used in order to address the questions. Finally, the research design and methodological approach towards what the University program should have done in order to be more comprehensive and reach a wider population target reflects a bias decode and vague estimations, which should not be really appreciated by the