Due Sunday by 10:59pm CST
Points 70
Submitting a text entry box or a file upload
Attempts 0
Allowed Attempts 2
Back to Week at a GlanceDESIGNING A PLAN FOR OUTCOME EVALUATION
Planning for an outcome evaluation can be a complex process, as you must consider the purpose, outcomes, research design, instruments, and data collection and analysis procedures. It can be difficult to plan these things without seeing them in action. After you have engaged in planning, however, the knowledge you gain can live on in other efforts. For example, you can apply knowledge and skills learned from conducting one type of evaluation to others. The evaluations themselves can even inform and complement each other throughout the life of a program.
In this Assignment, you apply all that you have learned about program evaluation throughout this course to aid you in a complete outcome evaluation plan.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
TO PREPARE
Recall the program that you proposed in Week 4. If needed, review your previous work related to the program, client needs, and goals and intended outcomes, as well as last weeks plan for process evaluation.
You must now develop a complete plan to evaluate the outcomes of the program.
BY DAY 7
Submit a 3- to 4-page plan for an outcome evaluation based on the new program that you proposed earlier in the course. Be specific and elaborate. Include the following information:
A brief outline of the program
The purpose of the evaluation
The outcomes to be evaluated
The group research design that you will use and why
The key stakeholders and their potential concerns
The indicators or instruments to be used to measure the outcomes
The methods for collecting, organizing, and analyzing the datawho, how, etc.
Use the Learning Resources and peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles to support your paper. Make sure to include appropriate APA citations and a reference list.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
SOCW_6311_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
SOCW_6311_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmit a 3- to 4-page plan for an outcome evaluation based on the new program that you proposed earlier in the course. Be specific and elaborate. Include the following information:…A brief outline of the program …The purpose of the evaluation…The outcomes to be evaluated
10.5 to >9.35 pts
Exceeds Expectation 90%-100%
Response meets expectations and exceeds through insightful connection to social work research and practice and/or additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources.
9.35 to >8.3 pts
Meets Expectation 80%-89%
Response fully outlines the program. … Response fully describes the purpose of the evaluation and the outcomes to be evaluated. … Response demonstrates clear connection to the Learning Resources.
8.3 to >7.24 pts
Fair 70%-79%
Response incompletely outlines the program. … Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed of the purpose of the evaluation and the outcomes to be evaluated. … Response may show evidence of connection to the Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected.
7.24 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement 0%-69%
Response makes little or no attempt to outline the program. … Response makes little or no attempt to describe the purpose of the evaluation and the outcomes to be evaluated. … Response does not demonstrate connection to the Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response.
10.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe group research design that you will use and why
14 to >12.46 pts
Exceeds Expectation 90%-100%
Response meets expectations and exceeds through insightful connection to social work research and practice and/or additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources.
12.46 to >11.06 pts
Meets Expectation 80%-89%
Response clearly states the group research design to be used. The design choice is fully justified through reference to the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
11.06 to >9.66 pts
Fair 70%-79%
Response states the group research design to be used. Justification is limited, incomplete, or vague and/or does not reference the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
9.66 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement 0%-69%
Research design is missing or inappropriate. There is little or no attempt to justify the choice of design through reference to the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
14 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe key stakeholders and their potential concerns
10.5 to >9.35 pts
Exceeds Expectation 90%-100%
Response meets expectations and exceeds through of more than two concerns and/or in-depth critical thinking and analysis of stakeholders concerns and how to address them.
9.35 to >8.3 pts
Meets Expectation 80%-89%
Response fully describes the key stakeholders and at least two potential concerns.
8.3 to >7.24 pts
Fair 70%-79%
Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed of the key stakeholders and two potential concerns.
7.24 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement 0%-69%
Response makes little or no attempt to describe the key stakeholders and potential concerns.
10.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe indicators or instruments to be used to measure the outcomes
10.5 to >9.35 pts
Exceeds Expectation 90%-100%
Response meets expectations and exceeds through insightful connection to social work research and practice and/or additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources.
9.35 to >8.3 pts
Meets Expectation 80%-89%
Response clearly states the indicators or instruments to be used to measure the outcomes. Choices are fully justified through reference to the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
8.3 to >7.24 pts
Fair 70%-79%
Response states the indicators or instruments to be used to measure the outcomes. Justification is limited, incomplete, or vague and/or does not reference the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
7.24 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement 0%-69%
Indicators/instruments are missing or inappropriate. There is little or no attempt to justify choices through reference to the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
10.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe methods for collecting, organizing, and analyzing the datawho, how, etc.
14 to >12.46 pts
Exceeds Expectation 90%-100%
Response meets expectations and exceeds through insightful connection to social work research and practice and/or additional details and examples from the Learning Resources, peer-reviewed research, or other relevant sources.
12.46 to >11.06 pts
Meets Expectation 80%-89%
Response fully describes methods for collecting, organizing, and analyzing the data. Specific details and examples are included. Choices are fully justified through reference to the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
11.06 to >9.66 pts
Fair 70%-79%
Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed of methods for collecting, organizing, and analyzing the data. General details and examples are included. Justification is limited, incomplete, or vague and/or does not reference the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
9.66 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement 0%-69%
Methods for collecting, organizing, and analyzing the data are missing or inappropriate. There is little or no attempt to justify choices through reference to the Learning Resources or other peer-reviewed research.
14 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting
10.5 to >9.35 pts
Exceeds Expectation 90%-100%
Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error-free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. … Paper appropriately paraphrases sources, using one or fewer quotes. Presents polished APA Style. Citations, reference list, and paper formatting are generally error-free (two or fewer). … Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.
9.35 to >8.3 pts
Meets Expectation 80%-89%
Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. … Paper appropriately paraphrases sources. Paper may use two to three short quotes but provides appropriate reference. Consistently documents sources in APA Style. Uses citations for ideas requiring attribution, with a few minimal errors (three to five). The reference list is complete and contains only minimal errors (three to five). Paper formatting is appropriate. There is a clear distinction between cited content and original thought. … Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.
8.3 to >7.24 pts
Fair 70%-79%
Paper does not meet length requirements (either somewhat too short or too long). The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (510) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. … Paper may rely on four short quotes or one to two long quotes (over 40 words) and/or does not sufficiently paraphrase material from other resources into students own words. Attempts to document sources in APA Style. Citations are present but contain frequent APA errors or omissions. A reference list is provided but is incomplete and/or contains frequent APA errors. Paper formatting may be incorrect (e.g., single-spaced or without a title page). … Occasionally lacks a clear distinction between cited content and original thought. … Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.
7.24 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement 0%-69%
Paper does not meet length requirements (either significantly too short or too long). The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. … Paper relies excessively on quoting (five or more short quotes or three or more long quotes [over 40 words]) and/or uses quoted material without paraphrasing or referencing the source of the material. Little or no attempt has been made to document sources in APA Style. Citations are infrequent or missing, and a reference list is not provided. Little or no attempt has been made to format the paper in APA Style. … There is no distinction between cited content and original thought. … Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity.
10.5 pts
Total Points: 70
