This assignment consists of three separate tasks which are meant to encourage active participation and engagement with the course material.

10%: Attendance 

Your grade is directly related to your presence in class. If you are unable to attend, you need to contact the convenor prior to class and submit documentation. You, however, can miss two units without providing documentation.

10%: Being prepared + active participation in class

This part of the assignment is designed to award those students who come prepared and who actively engage in class the course material and with each other.

10%: Leading the discussion

This part of the assignment requires students to engage in more detail with one of the readings during the course. Students will nominate themselves one week in advance of presentation. The task requires each student to prepare maximum 3 slides, and maximum 3 questions for the group to engage with (or alternatively a group exercise). The presentation and discussion should take maximum 20 minutes. This assignment will be discussed in more detail in week 1.

Word limit: 1,500 words                 

Due date: 31 August 2015 (Monday of week 6)

Assignment value: 30%

Write a concise review of the literature presented in the required readings for weeks 1-6. Your review should identify key themes in the literature and relate hose themes to your own learning objectives and fields of interest or practice.

The purpose of the assessment task is to ensure that you understand the key principles of and discussions relating to evaluations. It is essential to identify you own learning objectives for this course in this assignment. You are required to demonstrate a critical understanding of the readings and the issues they raise. It is intended to be an exercise that provides you with a clear overview of the field and the issues and discussions that take place. It is also intended to make you read all the course material.

The reference list is not included in the word limit.

Grade

%

Fail

≤49

Failed to complete all aspects of the assigned task. Fail papers do not succeed in demonstrating an understanding of key issues or will not relate those issues to the student’s learning objectives or field of interest or practice. If you fail this assignment, you should consult with unit convenor (Charlotte)

Pass

50-64

This is the standard required to pass this assignment. To achieve a pass you must write clearly and coherently. You must demonstrate an understanding of the issues discussed in the literature and their relevance to your learning objectives. You must provide accurate referencing.

Credit

65-74

Credit range assignments must fulfil the requirement for a pass grade. Additionally, it must provide a convincing integration of the literature rather than a series of loosely related review of individual papers.

Distinction

75-84

In addition to the above, assignments must demonstrate in-depth thought and reflection on the way that the key issues in the literature relate to evaluation practices. Distinction grade papers must demonstrate very strong communication skills, including an ability to deal with complexity in engaging and effective ways.

High Distinction

≥85

In addition to above, assignments will demonstrate exceptional understanding and engagement with the material. It will demonstrate capacity for deep personal reflection and clarity about personal learning objectives in the unit. High Distinction grade assignments must show exceptional communication skills, analytical understanding self-awareness.

Word limit: 2,000 words     

Due date: 9 November 2015 (Monday of week 14)     

Assignment value: 40%

This research assignment requires you to develop an evaluation proposal for a program.

The purpose of this assignment is to make you able to enter the field (relatively) confident that you are able to undertake at least small scale evaluations. This assignment is designed to give you those skills.

In week 8, we will meet with Andrew Ellery, who is a Project Officer for the Department of Family and Community Services. Andrew presents some current projects/programs. This assignment is to write an evaluation proposal for one of those (so don’t miss this week). The assignment will be explained in more detail following Andrew’s visit.

There are two components to this assignment:

10%: A preliminary presentation/consultation with Andrew and MQ staff:

In week 13, Andrew will again visit us. This is your chance to engage and consult with Andrew, Charlotte and Markus. You will be able to present up to 6 A4 pages with your preliminary outline/considerations.

30%: The proposal:

You should organise the proposal so that it includes the elements outlined in the table below.

Note: The sections shaded grey on Table 1 (summary, research timetable, budget, personnel, appendices) normally feature in research proposals and grant applications, but due to the word limit for this task they do not have to be included here (and will not count toward your task). References (which are compulsory) do not have to count toward your word limit. Also, please make sure that you make linkages between the different sections of this report where appropriate.

A marking rubric will be provided later in the course.

Table 1: Evaluation Proposal

Cover letter

You should include a cover letter and address the evaluation proposal to Andrew Ellery

Title

The title should indicate the topic of the study in 1- 15 words

Summary

100 to 200 word summary of the entire project

Background/

Significance

This section should outline the program that you will be evaluating in the proposed research and indicate why evaluation is needed. For instance, are there controversies about the program or the social issue it responds to? Why is there a need for further information about this program? When outlining the program, you should present the program logic in diagrammatic form and explain how the key elements of the program relate to each other. When indicating why the evaluation is needed, you should discuss the program, the social issue that it responds to and what the evaluation will contribute to our knowledge.

Literature Review

A concise summary of the main references relevant to evaluating the selected program. Make sure that you review the findings of other studies and discuss their methodology. At the end of this review, draw out the important messages for the evaluation and the methodology in particular. It is imperative that multiple sources with a range of authors are consulted to allow for a diversity of views to be explored and identification of controversies about the program (or similar types of programs). Please do not take any sources at face value – be critical but reasonable.

Aims and

Objectives

Make it clear who the evaluation is being commissioned by. Identify the study’s main objective and the key research questions that will guide the evaluation. After identifying the main objective, it might help to consider whether you need information on the effectiveness, appropriateness, and efficiency and so on of the program.

Approach

Discuss the suggested approach and justify why you have chosen that approach. It is good practice to discuss (briefly) the merits of the main alternative approaches. Use references if appropriate. What methods will you use? What will be the outcome of using these methods? Which stakeholders will be involved? It is imperative that you explain the links between the evaluation question(s), the evaluation approach, the methods and how these will be operationalised in this particular case.

Ethical and

Political Issues

Identify any specific issues arising from the research. Pay careful attention also to generic

ethical issues in research with human subjects – Respect for Persons: Informed Consent; confidentiality; possible risks for subjects and any possible benefits. State whether Ethics approval has, or will be sought, and if so, from whom. Also, consider the political dimensions of this report – are there controversies about the program or social issue? Are there any conflicts of interest (i.e. as internal or external evaluators)? And, consider the ethical issues that are likely to arise because this is evaluation research.

Research

Timetable

Set out the best information available on the time needed for the various stages of the research: preparation, data collection, analysis, write up, publication/dissemination.

Personnel

Where appropriate, identify the main people (including yourself as primary researcher)

are likely to be involved and summarise the experience and expertise they would need to bring in order to produce high quality data.

Budget

This is required for many grant applications, consultancies, etc. It is often useful to complete in other cases as well.

References

List any books, articles, reports, web sites etc. you have cited in the proposal.

Appendices

Attach any important documents (e.g. questionnaires, ethics approvals, CVs, budget, sampling framework) referred to in the body of the proposal.