planning and Evaluation

Order Description

Assessment : Prepare an Evaluation Proposal Planning
Task in this unit. You will develop an evaluation plan/proposal.
This should incorporate
• the aims,
• rationale,
• study design,
• ethical procedures,
• stakeholder engagement,
• data collection and analysis,
• timeline and dissemination strategy.

This guide is designed to step you through all the requirements. The marking rubric accompanies this and cannot include everything that is required as this would not be practical. The rubric is a guide to the expected quality of work at each level of achievement. The assessors are looking for range of elements against each criterion – the requirements are informed by this document.However, you will be creative and have original thoughts which we cannot allow for on a rubric – so, strong responses may include elements or additional qualities that are not specified on the rubric and we would naturally award marks for these.

To receive a distinction or high distinction for this task, you must go beyond the bare minimum – accordingly, we would expect the strongest papers to be flawlessly written, professionally presented and make effective use of the available evidence.
We look forward to seeing you pull together a high-quality report. This should be something you would be happy to submit to your boss at work. This paper contributes to your final grade and so we trust that you will allocate ample time to undertake this complex yet rewarding task.

IMPORTANT:

The task is outlined in detail on the following pages. You may choose to use additional headings…the following is a Guide only and demonstrates how you might engage adequately with each section in order to address the assessment criteria. Note, each section explains which criterion it relates to and provides the wording directly from the rubric to show this. Hopefully, this makes the expectations very clear.

SEX AND ETHICS : THE SEXUAL ETHICS VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM © M.Carmody 2009

For the purposes of your task,the program aim is :
To prevent sexual assault for youngpeople in casual and dating relationships.

For the purpose s of your task ,the objectives of the program are:

1. To assist young people to develop knowledge and skills to make ethical decisions in intimate relationships
2. To develop young people’s capacity to negotiate and enjoy positive and respectful relationships ; and
3. To reduce the incidence of unwanted , coerced or pressured sex.

The “ Sex + Ethics Program “ developed by Carmody and colleagues
Is an example of evidence-based prevention education and brings sexuality and violence prevention education together. It works from a strength-based model and focuses on skills not just knowledge. The program provides a decision-making model based on balancing pleasure with danger (Carmody,2010)

Sessions include activities on sexual ethics , pressures to be sexual , non-verbal and verbal communication skills, alcohol and its impact on ethical negotiation ,ethical consent, negotiating conflicting desires and needs in relationships, breaking up and ethical bystander skill.

Care for myself

Be aware of my desires and wants and the possible impact on the other person

Negotiate and “ask”

Reflect

Where will the program be run?

For the purposes of this assessment task, the Sex & Ethics program is to be implemented in State secondary schools, Community health centres, youth correctional facilities and sporting clubs in various local government areas (LGAs)
In Victoria. It is also going to be run at Deakin University Campuses. It is designed for young men and women aged 16 – 25.

How many sessions will be delivered?
1x 2hr session will be delivered weekly for 6 weeks to participants by trained educators from an external organisation.

For this assignment ,you will develop a process OR impact evaluation proposal / plan: ( I think a process evaluation will fit )
In real life ,of course , a good evaluation will do both, but this is not advised for your assignment because it would be difficult to do so effectively in 2000 words, whilst adequately meeting the criteria.
The Sex & Ethics program described includes multiple objectives – you may choose to focus your evaluation plan on one or more of these – you do not need to address all of them to achieve a good grade. Having said this, you must state clearly which program objective/s your evaluation will address.
You will choose the setting ( this should be informed by the evidence you find in literature ) and then prepare a 2000 words(+/-10%) report which must include:
1.1 Title of your evaluation plan
No marks associated with this directly but should be creative and logical .Take a look at other evaluation plans or reports for ideas. Of course your overall presentation will affect your grade. You may create a cover page for this purpose if you wish.
1.2 Contents page
No marks for this specifically ,but contribute to the readability and professionalism of your work . This should not take too long .
1.3 Executive summary or abstract of your evaluation plan (5%)
This section should not be no more than 200 words. It will include :
• The context
• The aim/objectives of the proposed evaluation
• Relevant ethical considerations
• Evaluation design
• Data collection methods and analysis and dissemination strategy
It should be a very standard and effectively summarise the evaluation plan
Instructions relating to the executive summary above relate precisely to the wording of the marking rubric
2 Evaluation rationale (20%)
This section should be no more than 600 words and will include reference to the theoretical underpinning of your approach. You will also demonstrate an understanding of the evidence-base for your decision to choose this particular approach ( ie process or impact ) Please refer to Chapter 3,4,5 of Nutbeam ,Evaluation in a Nutshell (2014) for the type of chosen Evaluation Criteria in the Australia research context.
There is a minimum requirement for the supporting evidence you provide in your rationale. You will need to use a least 6 sources from the literature to support your decision making here . This may include a mix of journal articles , systematics reviews ,government / NGO reports ,research reports etc….
THEY SHOULD BE , ie within the past 10 years , available on the web if possible . You may include overseas studies but the focus should be on Australian evidence as this is a context for the implementation of the program and hence the evaluation.
Who are the key stakeholders you would need to involve in conducting this evaluation ? What is their role in the evaluation ? Why this is important ? Can you draw on any theory /framework/ tool to support your decision here?
From the rubric we are looking for an outstanding discussion of the existing evidence base , with highly effective support from current literature ; a strong rationale provided for choice of evaluation approach (process or impact ) (please refer to Nutbeam& Bauman Evaluation in a nutshell) with comprehensive ,effective support from the literature ; and clearly identified key stakeholders with a brief description of their role in the proposed evaluation.
3 Evaluation aims or objectives (10%) (200 words maximum)
This is what you want to find out by conducting your evaluation . Evaluation aims/ objectives may be worded as questions or statements: this will depend whether you are planning to conduct an impact or process evaluation.
It will be important to look at published evaluation reports to understand how you migh word these. Note, there is no magic number but experienced evaluators advise no more than 5 key evaluation objectives
From the rubric: these should be strong , clearly expressed evaluation questions / objectives , written to a very high standard , and lead on logically from the rationale . Maximum 200 words here
4 The evaluation design (15%) ( 350 words maximum)
This section is where you provide a description of the evaluation design including a statement of the type of design you intend to use eg. quasi experimental or observational; you may also specify whether you will use a pre-post, cross-sectional, case study, etc. or ‘no specific design’ as such, but a comprehensive listing of the phases or components of the evaluation.
You will also need to include a brief discussion of the rationale for the evaluation design, ie. the reasons for selecting this type of evaluation. Here you should make mention of different approaches to evaluation, their relative strengths / weaknesses and why your chosen design is best suited to effective evaluation of this program.
From the rubric: make sure that an appropriate evaluation design is chosen to achieve evaluation objectives/answer evaluation questions; you should offer strong support here from any relevant theories, models or frameworks. The markers will be looking for a succinct, logical, well-thought-out rationale provided for your choice of evaluation design with solid support from the literature.
This section should be no more than 350 words.
5 Ethical responsibilities processes (10%) No more than 250 words
What are the ethical principles that will guide this evaluation? What are the ethical responsibilities for the evaluator/s? What are the processes you must include to ensure that the evaluator/s can meet these responsibilities? This section should be well-supported by the literature and demonstrate an understanding of key ethical principles and their application in this context.
From the rubric: your response should clearly and succinctly identify all of the following: a brief rationale for your ethical practice in carrying out this evaluation; how you will go about obtaining ethical approval through appropriate channels; a brief description of processes intended in obtaining informed consent from participants; identifies potential risks and benefits for evaluation participants; your discussion here should be matched to intended data collection methods and should demonstrate a strong grasp of key ethical principles. To reiterate, you also need to engage effectively with credible, relevant literature. No more than 250 words here.
6 Data&collection&methods&(15%)&&
Here you need to consider the data collection methods including
6.1 the sample – how will you select the participants in this evaluation and why will you use this approach?
6.2 the data collection instruments you will use, eg. surveys, interviews, observational checklists, focus group discussions? How will you administer them? Eg, online, face-to-face, by phone, written questionnaires? How many will you conduct? Why?
6.3 data analysis processes – this should be very brief and should be informed by the literature. How will you interrogate the data you collect and collate the findings to gain meaning and achieve your evaluation objectives?
6.4 the procedures to be carried out – this is like a recipe and can be presented as a list. Imagine that you are going on leave and you need to hand this on to the person replacing you at your workplace…could they complete this evaluation based on the instructions you have provided? Or would they need to seek clarification for some elements? Think through this carefully…you want it to be a good cake !
From the rubric: this section should be well considered and highly detailed to the point a researcher could complete sound, rigorous evaluation
Following these steps. Also, ensure that the sample, instruments and procedures are well suited to answer evaluation questions. No more than 350
words here.
NOTE: You do not need to include a fully developed data collection%instrument – eg .questionnaire/interview format/detailed observational checklist/etc. as this would be an entire assignment in itself! You need only describe the sort of questions you would include in the instrument, eg. a topic or theme list, or if you plan to use a standardised questionnaire, briefly describe it and what it has been used for in the past – this may require support from the literature!! You need to demonstrate that it is appropriate for your evaluation purposes – you will find that people have
conducted similar evaluations and you can draw on their approaches heavily, as long as you acknowledge them this is fine. We are not expecting you to know this or reinvent the wheel. It is about investigating the evaluation literature and finding out what might work for you in this context!
Of course, you will also provide references for any existing instruments you use or adapt.
7 Dissemination&strategy&(7.5%) . Max. 200 words
Considering the purpose/s of your evaluation, how do you intend to share your findings and recommendations? A written report, website, academic journal articles, newsletters, industry conferences, community forum, social media, other news channels? Think carefully about your target audiences…how will you ensure this information reaches them? Remember that ethical processes also come into play here too…keeping confidentiality and anonymity in reporting is vital ie. not naming names!
From the rubric: the proposed strategy for sharing findings & recommendations should be clear, succinct logical and appropriate to the target audiences. Should show strong engagement with relevant & credible literature and demonstrate sophisticated & lateral thinking. Your strategy should link clearly with key stakeholders and/or organisations identified in evaluation rationale. Max. 200 words.
8 Timeline (10%)&
This may be presented as a Gantt chart or a table and is not included in the word count.
From the rubric: the timeline should be of a very high standard detailing all steps required as part of an evaluation and shows how the evaluation fits with the overall program. The sequence of tasks and time allocated should be logical and well thought out and visually the timeline should be easily followed.
9 Referencing and presentation (7.5%)
Your report should be within the within the word count (+/R10%) which means it should be no more than 2200 words. Subheadings are welcome. You may choose to leave out in-text citations, subheadings, contents page and reference list when checking your word count.
From the rubric: for this task, writing and presentation should be of consistently very high standard, should read well, and of course we expect it to be professionally presented. This means the structure, formatting and layout are excellent, and there are no grammatical, spelling or typographical errors. All sources should be cited accurately and systematically, in accordance with Harvard or APA referencing guidelines.
There should be no errors in referencing.