Why Choose Us?
0% AI Guarantee
Human-written only.
24/7 Support
Anytime, anywhere.
Plagiarism Free
100% Original.
Expert Tutors
Masters & PhDs.
100% Confidential
Your privacy matters.
On-Time Delivery
Never miss a deadline.
PYCL 507 Program Evaluation Project Part B: Program Evaluation Report Program Evaluation Report (15 points): Based on the interview, students will prepare a report detailing a program evaluation design to evaluate the agency overall or a specific program at the agency
PYCL 507 Program Evaluation Project Part B: Program Evaluation Report
Program Evaluation Report (15 points): Based on the interview, students will prepare a report detailing a program evaluation design to evaluate the agency overall or a specific program at the agency. Specifically, students will select an evaluation approach described in Fitzpatrick, Sanders & Worthen (2011; FSW hereafter). FSW, classifies several evaluation approaches into four categories based on the identification of essential factors that guide the evaluation. Using the definition of “program” provided by FSW, students will provide a brief description of the program; in addition, using one of the evaluation approaches, students must explain why the approach is a “best fit” to evaluate the program in question. Lastly, students will explain how a logic model is used to guide an evaluation. Students will also complete the “Checklist for Determining When to Conduct an Evaluation” and will include a rationale in favor of or against conducting the evaluation. Students should also include a logic model example to show how to organize an evaluation plan. Students do not have to actually conduct a program evaluation; you just need to design the evaluation and outline the process. This report should follow APA formatting guidelines and be between 10 and 15 pages (not including any references or the completed checklist). The report is due on [DUE DATE].
View Rubric
|
507 Program Evaluation B: Report |
||||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
|
|
Pts |
|
Program description Description of stakeholders view longer description |
2.5 pts Exceeded The program that was identified to be evaluated was clearly presented. Stakeholders were clearly identified and described. |
2 pts Met The program that was identified to be evaluated was discussed. Stakeholders were identified and described. There may be minor inaccuracies. |
0 pts Not Met The program that was identified to be evaluated was not clearly presented. Stakeholders were not identified. |
/ 2.5 pts |
|
Evaluation approach 10 steps reviewed to determine evaluability view longer description |
2.5 pts Exceeded Provided a clear rationale for selecting a particular approach. All ten steps to determine evaluability were clearly identified. |
2 pts Met Provided a rationale for selecting a particular approach. All ten steps to determine evaluability were identified. There may be minor inaccuracies. |
0 pts Not Met Did not provide clear rationale for selecting a particular approach. All ten steps to determine evaluability were not identified. |
/ 2.5 pts |
|
507 Program Evaluation B: Report |
||||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
|
|
Pts |
|
Logic model Evaluation questions view longer description |
2.5 pts Exceeded Clearly indicated all evaluation questions. The logic model was included and examples of how to use it were included and clearly identified. All information required to answer evaluation questions were clearly outlined. |
2 pts Met Indicated the evaluation questions. The logic model was included. All information required to answer evaluation questions were included, but there may be minor inaccuracies. |
0 pts Not Met Did not indicate the evaluation questions. The logic model was not included. All information required to answer evaluation questions were not included. |
/ 2.5 pts |
Expert Solution
PFA
Archived Solution
You have full access to this solution. To save a copy with all formatting and attachments, use the button below.
For ready-to-submit work, please order a fresh solution below.
