NURSI+A202:B205NG

Evaluation Methods of Clinical Situations

Discussion: Evaluation Methods of Clinical Situations Last week, your focus was evaluation and strategies at the learner level. This week, you will consider the purpose of evaluation and set of strategies for the course or learning experience level. These include conceptual models like the Structure, Process, and Outcome model for healthcare, and the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) educational model. As you examine these and other evaluation methods, reflect on how outcomes and objectives continue to play a strategic role in the evaluation process, whether at the learner or course/learning experience level. Photo Credit: Jacob Lund/Adobe Stock In this Discussion, you will consider course/learning experience level learning outcomes within each domain of learning and explain which course/learning experience level evaluation method or strategy would be most appropriate. You will also keep in mind that different Discussion groups and settings would impact the methods you choose. 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: Based on your Discussion group setting, consider a professional practice scenario in that setting for which you could develop end-of-course/learning experience outcomes. Develop one course/learning experience level learning outcome from each domain of learning, and use higher Bloom’s levels of learning (i.e., application level or above). Provide a type of evaluation method to be used for each course/learning experience level learning outcome. By Day 3 of Week 10 In your Group Discussion area, post the following: Briefly describe your practice scenario for the Discussion group setting and the needed learning.  Describe your course/learning experience level learning outcome from each domain and explain the type of evaluation method. Explain why course/learning experience level evaluation methods might vary based on your Discussion group setting. Explain how course/learning experience level methods might vary based on the healthcare setting. 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 10 Respond to colleagues in your group on at least two different days by explaining whether colleagues’ evaluation methods were appropriate for the course/learning experience level outcomes presented. Propose different methods of evaluation for the learning outcomes and support your reasoning with 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: Rubric Detail   Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Name: NURS_6321_Week10_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_Week10_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 23, “Introduction to the Evaluation Process” (pp. 437–449) Keating, S. B. (2018). The classic components of the curriculum: Developing a curriculum plan. In Keating, S. B., & DeBoor, S. S. (Eds.), Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing education (4th ed., pp. 81–101). New York, NY: Springer (Previously read in Weeks 4, 5, 6, and 8) Credit Line: Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Nursing Education, 4th Edition by Sarah B. Keating & Stephanie S. DeBoor, Editors. Copyright 2018 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center. Keating, S. B. (2018). Program evaluation and accreditation. In Keating, S. B., & DeBoor, S. S. (Eds.), Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing education (4th ed., pp. 204–219). New York, NY: Springer. (Previously read in Week 2) Credit Line: Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Nursing Education, 4th Edition by Sarah B. Keating & Stephanie S. DeBoor, Editors. Copyright 2018 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center. Dickerson, P. S., Shinners, J., & Chappell, K. (2017). Awarding credit for outcomes-based professional development. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 48(3), 97-98. The following documents are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Review these documents as to how the Program Evaluation framework is conducted within the CDC.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Program Performance and Evaluation Office. (2018). CDC program evaluation framework. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018a). Checklist for step 1: Engage stakeholders. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/eval/steps/step1/Step-1-Checklist-Final.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018b). Checklist for step 2: Describe the program. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/eval/steps/step2/Step-2-Checklist-Final.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018c). Checklist for step 3: Focus the evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/eval/steps/step3/Step-3-Checklist-Final.pdf Ratka, A., Zorek, J. A., & Meyer, S. M. (2017). Overview of faculty development programs for interprofessional education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(5), 1–10. Rutherford-Hemming, T., & Lioce, L. (2018). State of interprofessional education in nursing: A systematic review. Nurse Educator, 43(1), 9–13. Document: Learning Objective Verbs at Each Bloom’s Taxonomy Level (PDF document) (Previously reviewed in Weeks 7 and 8) 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) Discussion: Evaluation Methods of Clinical Situations Last week, your focus was evaluation and strategies at the learner level. This week, you will consider the purpose of evaluation and set of strategies for the course or learning experience level. These include conceptual models like the Structure, Process, and Outcome model for healthcare, and the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) educational model. As you examine these and other evaluation methods, reflect on how outcomes and objectives continue to play a strategic role in the evaluation process, whether at the learner or course/learning experience level. Photo Credit: Jacob Lund/Adobe Stock In this Discussion, you will consider course/learning experience level learning outcomes within each domain of learning and explain which course/learning experience level evaluation method or strategy would be most appropriate. You will also keep in mind that different Discussion groups and settings would impact the methods you choose. 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.

Mar 16th, 2021

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.