{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02815884476534296, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021660649819494584, 'mean_word_length': 5.6, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Follow Through: A Case Study in Meta-evaluation Research

The field of educational evaluation is self-conscious and self-critiquing: witness the growth in literature on the evaluation of evaluations. For example, recent studies by Bernstein and Freeman (1975), Bourque and Freeman (1977), and Minnesota Systems Research Inc. (1976) provide empirical reviews of the quality of evaluation research. To the same end, a wealth of forms and checklists have been developed for the explicit purpose of assessing evaluation quality (Persell, 1971), and the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation is compiling standards for the evaluation of educational programs, projects, and materials. Another manifestation of evaluation's self-consciousness stems from an increasing awareness on the part of evaluators and educational researchers that many related studies are conducted with little cumulative impact on educational knowledge and practice. In an attempt to remedy this situation, the field has recently emphasized integrative meta-analyses (Glass, 1977; Light, 1979) in which results from associated studies are combined quantitatively to draw conclusions about a substantive area. For example, Glass and Smith (1979) analyzed the results of about 80 research efforts that estimated the effect of class size on student achievement and drew conclusions that are at odds with