https://torrens.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_131443_1&content_id=_10903108_1
Planning and Evaluation Template Project Title: Goal: Objectives Strategies Process Indicators Data Collection Methods PUBH2007_Assessment 2_Planning & Evaluation template_T3_2015.docxPage 1 of 1 PUBH2007_Assignment 2 Assessment Brief Updated Final T22019 Page 1 of 7 ASSESSMENT BRIEF Subject Code and Title PUBH 2007: Program development, implementation and evaluation Assessment Assignment 2: Program Planning and Evaluation Individual/Group Individual Length 1500 words Learning Outcomes Construct a clear program plan using goals, objectives, strategies and indicators in preparation for implementation and evaluation (M3) Understand and explain the principles of evaluation, including types, ethics and potential evaluation methods (M4) Develop knowledge of how to conduct an evaluation of processes (M5), Submission Online, End of Module 5 Weighting 30% Total Marks 100 marks Context Once needs assessment is complete, the next stage is to develop a program plan and preliminary evaluation plan incorporating process indicators. Implementation of the program follows although it can be happening alongside planning. This assignment asks you to build upon the findings of your needs assessment from Assignment 1 to devise a health promotion program plan to tackle Type 2 Diabetes in the Playford Council Area and discuss how you would go about implementing it and evaluating it. Instructions You have identified in Assignment 1 that there is a need for a Diabetes health promotion program in the Playford Council Area. You can choose between one of these two areas: • A program that addresses prevention or • A program that addresses management And one of these two target groups: PUBH2007_Assignment 2 Assessment Brief Updated Final T22019 Page 2 of 7 • Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander people • or primary school children Use the learning resources and look for other literature on these types of programs to give you ideas. 1) Write a program plan for this project: Give your project a title. Use the template provided to complete a goal, three objectives and one or two strategies for each objective. Then complete some possible process indicators that will show if your strategies are being implemented and how you could evaluate them. The template should be completed in landscape and with enough space between the objectives, strategies and indicators that it is clear how they relate to each other. Then complete the evaluation methods column for your plan showing how you would evaluate your process indicators. Ensure that your objectives and strategies are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Aligned, Realistic/Relevant, and Time-bound). 2) Once you have completed your program plan template write a brief overview of your program’s process evaluation outlining how it will be put into operation including: • Who would undertake the proposed program and its evaluation? • What resources including funding and personnel you would need for your evaluation? • The methods to be used for the conduct of the evaluation and why they are appropriate to your process indicators • How you would involve various stakeholders (professionals and community) within your evaluation • Any potential ethical issues or other challenges to your evaluation plan and how you would address them Your assignment should also have: • A brief introduction and conclusion • Use of academic writing and presentation and grammar • Complies with normal academic standards of legibility, referencing and bibliographical details (including reference list) • Is written clearly with accurate spelling, grammar; sentence and paragraph construction • Appropriate citation and referencing used (using APA style) PUBH2007_Assignment 2 Assessment brief updated final T22019 Page 3 of 7 Learning Rubrics PUBH 2007 Assignment 2: Program planning and implementation Assessment Attributes Fail (Unacceptable) Pass (Functional) Credit (Proficient) Distinction (Advanced) High Distinction (Exceptional) Assessment Attributes 0-34 (Fail 1 – F1) Unacceptable 35-49 (Fail 2 – F2) Poor 50-64 (Pass -P) Functional 65-74 (Credit - CR) Proficient 75-84 (Distinction – DN) Advanced 85-100 (High Distinction – HD) Exceptional Grade Description (Grading Scheme) Evidence of unsatisfactory achievement of one or more of the learning objectives of the course, insufficient understanding of the course content and/or unsatisfactory level of skill development. Evidence of satisfactory achievement of course learning objectives, the development of relevant skills to a competent level, and adequate interpretation and critical analysis skills. Evidence of a good level of understanding, knowledge and skill development in relation to the content of the course or work of a superior quality on the majority of the learning objectives of the course. Demonstration of a high level of interpretation and critical analysis skills. Evidence of a high level of achievement of the learning objectives of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, use of methodology and communication skills. Evidence of an exceptional level of achievement of learning objectives across the entire content of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, creativity, originality, use of methodology and communication skills. Knowledge and understanding Demonstrates ability to write a clear program plan including a goal, Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Key components of the assignment are not addressed. Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. Discriminates between assertion A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s. Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of http://www.tua.edu.au/media/50742/a240_grading-scheme.pdf PUBH2007_Assignment 2 Assessment brief updated final T22019 Page 4 of 7 objectives and strategies using the SMART process Demonstrates knowledge and understanding of evaluation approaches, methods and how to apply these to the proposed program evaluation 30% Point range Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Point range evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Point range of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Point range personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning. Point range Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument and/or position Demonstrates critical reasoning and analysis skills in writing a coherent outline for a proposed program Critically analyses potential ethical issues, resource implications, Specific position (perspective or argument) fails to take into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Makes assertions that are not justified. Specific position (perspective or argument) begins to take into account the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Justifies any conclusions reached with arguments not merely assertion. Specific position (perspective or argument) takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Others’ points of view are acknowledged. Justifies any conclusions reached with well-formed arguments not merely assertion. Specific position (perspective or argument) is expertly presented and accurately takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment. Justifies any conclusions reached with well- Specific position (perspective or argument) is presented expertly, authoritatively and imaginatively, accurately taking into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment. Limits of position are acknowledged. PUBH2007_Assignment 2 Assessment brief updated final T22019 Page 5 of 7 stakeholder involvement in evaluation 30% Point range Point range Point range developed arguments. Point range Justifies any conclusions reached with sophisticated arguments. Point range Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge Demonstrates ability to write a clear program plan including a goal, objectives and strategies using the SMART process and process indicators 25% Limited synthesis and analysis. Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis. Point range Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. Point range Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. Point range Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis Point range Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases. Point range PUBH2007_Assignment 2 Assessment brief updated final T22019 Page 6 of 7 Point range Use of academic and discipline conventions and sources of evidence 15% Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar. Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style. Point range Is written according to academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or