Discussion: Three Levels of Evaluation

Discussion: Three Levels of Evaluation
An integral part of program design and development is ensuring that outcomes and objectives are achieved. For the nurse educator, this element of program development supports both creating a program of value and building in a means of measuring that value through evaluation strategies tied to outcomes and objectives. For the learner, meeting the given outcomes and objectives generally yields increased knowledge and skills, which confirm that learning has, indeed, occurred. Yet when evaluation indicates that outcomes and objectives are not met, all is far from lost. Rather, the nurse educator can then retrace the development process to decide how to improve a program and its learning experiences, in order to deliver information in a more effective way.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

In this Discussion, you will analyze the purpose of evaluation at the learner level and develop an evaluation based on the learning objectives and learning outcomes that you wrote for the Discussion in Week 7 of Module 3. In the process, consider how developing your evaluation strategy might help create a stronger learning experience.
Note: Remember that your Instructor assigned you to a specific Discussion Group: A, B, C, or D in Week 2. You will remain in the same group and respond from the perspective of your Discussion group setting.

To Prepare:
Review the media program related to “Curriculum Evaluation” in this week’s Learning Resources and consider the importance of the three levels of evaluation that impact learning.
Review the learning activity you developed for the Week 7 Discussion, including the learning outcomes and learning objectives that you developed and any recommended revisions from colleagues.
Consider types of evaluation at the learner level that would match that activity and your original or revised objectives and learning outcomes.
By Day 3 of Week 9
In your Group Discussion area, post the following:

Explain the purpose of evaluation and the basic concepts and forms of evaluation at the learner level.
Based on your Week 7 Discussion learning activity, create an evaluation appropriate for your Discussion group setting that matches the level of the objectives and learning outcomes and domains of learning.
Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your post.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6 of Week 9
Respond to colleagues in your group on at least two different days by explaining whether their evaluation method was appropriate for the objectives and outcomes presented, and, as applicable, proposing a different method of evaluation. Explain your reasoning with support from the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature.

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:

Week 9 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 of Week 9 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 9
To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 9 Discussion
NURS_6321_Week9_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by Day 3.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
N/A
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
N/A
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post main post by Day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
N/A
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
N/A
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6321_Week9_Discussion_Rubric
Learning Resources
Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

Billings, D. M., & Halstead, J. A. (2020). Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

Chapter 10, “Designing Courses and Learning Experiences” (pp. 181–201
(Previously read in Week 8.)
Chapter 24, “Strategies for Evaluating Outcomes” (pp. 450–471)
Chapter 25, “Developing and Using Multiple-Choice and Alternative Format Tests” (pp. 474–492)
Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. (2017). Program evaluation. In Evaluation and testing in nursing education (5th ed., pp. 315–335). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

(Previously read in Week 2)

Credit Line: Evaluation and testing in nursing education New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 5th Edition by Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. Copyright 2017 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. (2017). Clinical evaluation tools. In Evaluation and testing in nursing education (5th ed., pp. 339–368). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

Credit Line: Evaluation and testing in nursing education New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 5th Edition by Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. Copyright 2017 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. (2017). Code of fair testing practices in education. In Evaluation and testing in nursing education (5th ed., pp. 369–374). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

Credit Line: Evaluation and testing in nursing education New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 5th Edition by Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. Copyright 2017 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. (2017). National league for fair testing guidelines for nursing education. In Evaluation and testing in nursing education (5th ed., pp. 375–378). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

Credit Line: Evaluation and testing in nursing education New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 5th Edition by Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. Copyright 2017 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. (2017). Code of professional responsibilities in educational measurement. In Evaluation and testing in nursing education (5th ed., pp. 379–386). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

Credit Line: Evaluation and testing in nursing education New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 5th Edition by Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. Copyright 2017 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. (2017). Standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students. In Evaluation and testing in nursing education (5th ed., pp. 387–388). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

Credit Line: Evaluation and testing in nursing education New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 5th Edition by Oermann, M., & Gaberson, K. Copyright 2017 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Melrose, S., Park, C., & Perry, B. (2015). Evaluation of learning. In Creative clinical teaching in the health professions. Retrieved from https://clinicalteaching.pressbooks.com/chapter/chapter-six-evaluation-of-learning/

Document: Part 4 Planning Guide: Evaluation Plan Home Care or Public Health Agency (Word document)

Document: Part 4 Planning Guide: Evaluation Plan College or University (Word document)

Document: Part 4 Planning Guide: Evaluation Plan Medical/Health Center (Word document)

Document: Part 4 Planning Guide: Evaluation Plan Other Setting (Clinic, etc.) (Word document)

Required Media (click to expand/reduce)

Discussion