Course is WGU/MSN C-921
I prefer someone who has written this paper before for accuracy as my time is very limited. i will upload course directions.
EVALUATION REPORT — ATTEMPT 3 — REVISION NEEDED
Overall Evaluator Comments
EVALUATOR COMMENTS
You provided a blueprint for three assessments. You aptly described the administration procedures for each assessment. You also appropriately explained how item discrimination, test reliability, and difficulty are evaluated along with actions to improve the outcomes. Please see comments in the rubric for aspects that require revision.
A1. ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceOne or 2 assessment overviews are provided, or 1 or more of the 3 provided assessment overviews do not indicate the type, purpose, and expected outcomes of the assessment.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
An overview of each assessment includes the type, purpose, and expected outcome. However, for the summative performance assessment, the type is nonspecific as a “project”. It is unclear what the purpose and expected outcomes are of a project interacting with community leaders and healthcare professionals. Please provide a specific type of assessment that will be employed for the summative performance assessment and describe the purpose and expected outcomes of the assessment.
A2. MODULE TITLES, COURSE OBJECTIVES, AND STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe module title, 3 course objectives, or 2 student learning outcomes are not included on 1 or more of the assessment blueprints.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
A unique title, course objectives (COs), and student learning outcomes (SLOs) are provided for each assessment in the blueprint. Module 1, the third CO, includes “designing” a program, which is not aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy. In module 2, the COs “demonstrate leadership behaviors” and “design a health literacy program” are not measurable and do not align with Bloom’s taxonomy. In module 3, the SLO to “provide an accurate description” is not measurable and the verb “provide” is not aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy. Please provide course objectives that are measurable and align with Bloom’s taxonomy.
A2A. ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY ALIGNMENT
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceA description is not provided on each assessment blueprint, or 1 or more of the descriptions do not articulate how the assessment activity aligns with each course objective and student learning outcome, or the description of alignment is not reasonable or accurate.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
This can be more fully evaluated once aspect A2 meets competency.
A3. COGNITIVE LEVEL
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe cognitive levels measured by the assessment are not identified on each assessment blueprint, or are inconsistent with Bloom’s taxonomy, or do not reasonably align to the course objectives of the given module.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
Cognitive levels for each assessment are identified in the blueprint. The cognitive level for module 1 is inaccurately identified as “cognitive”. The cognitive level identified for module 3 is comprehension and application, however, comprehension is not a level on Bloom’s taxonomy and it is not aligned with the level of course objectives. The cognitive levels can be more fully evaluated once the aspect A2 meets competency.
A4. ITEM TYPES
Competent
A5. NUMBER OF ITEMS
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe number of items on the assessment is not identified on each of the 3 assessment blueprints, or the number of items is insufficient to measure the intended student learning outcomes. If the assessment does not require numerous items, the explanation for why is illogical or inaccurate.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
The number of items is accurately noted to be 10 on the objective assessment. However, on the performance the number of items is inaccurately identified as 10 reports for 40 students in groups of 4. Please provide the number of items included in the assessment.
B1. ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceAssessment instructions are not included for each of the 3 assessments, or 1 or more of the instructions fail to provide sufficient information for the average reader to complete the assessment without further clarification.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
Assessment instructions are included for each assessment and the objective assessment instructions specifically state when results will be available and for students not to navigate to other sites/programs on the computer. However, the instructions for the formative and performance assessments are vague and appear to be a summary of what may be expected instead of instructions for students to complete the assessments. Please provide specific instructions for each assessment with enough information for the average reader to complete the assessment.
B2. FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe formative assessment is missing prompts, items, answer keys or other information necessary to administer the assessment. Or the assessment is not written clearly, does not align to the course module, or its level of rigor is too low or too high for the needs of the course module. Or the assessment activity does not provide students sufficient opportunity to display the knowledge and skills listed in the assessment blueprint. Or the assessment contains bias by creating an advantage to students based on personal characteristics.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
The formative assessment includes a specific question for students to answer with a minimum word count for an initial response and a response to a peer. However, the assessment does not include how many peers each student must respond to in the discussion.
B2A. FEEDBACK AND GOAL SETTING LANGUAGE
Approaching Competence
Approaching CompetenceThe feedback and goal setting language does not provide students with a clear understanding of their current state of learning, or it does not provide feedback across the full range of possible performance on the assessment. Or the feedback does not explain why a give response is correct or incorrect. Or the goal setting language does not help students understand what they should focus on based on their performance or does not prompt them to set their own goals for future learning.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
A grading rubric is provided for the discussion assessment. However, the levels for meeting competency or not is vague and only contains two levels of competency which does not allow for students to gain credit for a response if it does not explicitly meet criteria. Also, there is not any feedback for varying levels of performance beyond the rubric and goal-setting language is not found.
B3. SUMMATIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Approaching Competence
Approaching Competence: The summative performance-based assessment is missing background, scenario, prompts, or other information necessary for students to complete the assessment. Or prompts are unclear, excessively wordy, immeasurable, or contain more than one verb per prompt. Or the assessment activity is neither an authentic recreation of an activity relevant to the role of the BSN nurse in promoting community health, nor does it require students to engage in creative thinking or self-reflection related to content learned in the course module. Or the assessment is not written clearly, does not align to the course module, or its level of rigor is too low or too high for the needs of the course module. Or the assessment activity does not provide students sufficient opportunity to display the knowledge and skills listed in the assessment blueprint. Or the assessment contains bias by creating an advantage to students based on personal characteristics.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
The summative performance includes the expectations of students in completing a 10 page report. However, background information, and clear, concise prompts with single, discrete measurable verbs are not included for the assessment. Please provide single, discrete measurable prompts for the assessment.
B3A. SUMMATIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Approaching Competence
Approaching Competence: The summative performance-based rubric descriptors are not clearly written, are excessively wordy or do not inform students exactly how their performance will be evaluated. Or the rubric does not precisely describe student performance for each assessment prompt or dimension of performance on the assessment. Or the rubric does not include a descriptor for multiple performance levels for each prompt or dimension of performance, or the number of performance levels is too few or too numerous for the performance task. Or descriptors of performance are not clearly discreet from other descriptors of higher and lower performance.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
A grading rubric is provided for the performance assessment. It is unclear how the criteria will be met, including “evidence that the information was obtained from program beneficiaries and healthcare professionals”. The rubric can be more fully evaluated once aspect B3 meets competency.
B4. SUMMATIVE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT
Approaching Competence
Approaching Competence: Fewer than 10 assessment items are provided, or 1 or more of the 10 assessment items are written with language that is unclear, excessively wordy. Or 1 or more of the 10 items are inadequate to measure student mastery of course outcomes and student learning outcomes on the summative objective assessment blueprint. Or 1 or more of the 10 item stems are written with negative wording or do not ask a single, discrete question. Or 1 or more of the answer options within 1 or more items are grammatically inconsistent or are implausible answers to the stem. Or 1 or more of the items have more than 1 correct answer option when only 1 correct answer option is intended. Or 1 or more of the 10 items contain bias by creating an advantage to students based on personal characteristics.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
A-10 question objective assessment is included in the submission. The answer choices in questions 1 & 2 indicate the correct answer with the difference in wording and length of the correct answer compared to the other choices. Question 6 has two correct answers, however, only one is indicated as correct in the key and the question does not indicate to select multiple answers.
B4A. SUMMATIVE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT ANSWER KEY
Competent
C1. ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES
Competent
C2. ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Competent
C2A. PASS/FAIL CRITERIA
Approaching Competence
Approaching Competence: The description does not articulate pass/fail criteria for each assessment, or the pass/fail criteria are determined via a subjective process, or the description does not logically or accurately explain why a given assessment does not require pass/fail criteria.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
It is appropriately noted that the formative assessment is ungraded. On the objective assessment, the pass/fail criteria indicate at lest 80% to pass, however, the expected outcome of the assessment indicates the need to obtain at least 70%. Please ensure alignment of the criteria for the assessment.
C3. ANALYTICAL METHODS
Approaching Competence
Approaching Competence: A description is not included for each assessment, or if a description is not included, the explanation why is illogical or inaccurate. Or the description does not accurately describe the methods for measuring and evaluating difficulty, reliability, and item discrimination for each applicable assessment.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
It is appropriately noted that the performance assessment will be evaluated based on the grading rubric. Difficulty index is noted to be used to evaluate the objective assessment results. However, item difficulty, item discrimination, and test reliability are not addressed in the submission.
C3A. ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT
Approaching Competence
Approaching Competence: Assessment improvement plans are not provided for each assessment, or 1 or more of the assessment improvement plans do not provide specific short- and long-term procedures for making improvements to assessment based on varying levels of results, or are not rigorous, reasonable or appropriate for the assessment.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
It is noted that students will be expected to review course materials if they fail to pass an assessment. However, short-and long-term plans for improving the assessments based on varying levels of results are not found for each assessment.
C4. TEST SECURITY PROCEDURES
Approaching Competence
Approaching Competence: A description is not included for each assessment, or if a description is not included, the explanation why is illogical or inaccurate. Or the descriptions do not include specific measures that will be taken to prevent, detect, and respond to test security breaches, or the measures are not rigorous, reasonable, or appropriate for the assessment.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 3
For the formative assessment, it is stated that students must use passwords to access the student portal, however, ways to prevent, detect, and respond to breaches in security are not addressed. The objective assessment indicates that prevention of cheating will include a lockdown browser. However, ways to detect and respond to breaches in security are not addressed. It is inaccurately stated that there is no need for test security on the performance assessment. Please describe ways to prevent, detect, and respond to security breaches for each assessment.