About the Program
cohealth Arts Generator is currently creating a new phase of the Sisters and Brothers Project to be rolled out in a handful of high schools in the west of Melbourne. Over the last 3 years, cohealth have brought this hugely successful project to over 10 primary schools across the western suburbs. The Sisters and Brothers team are currently planning the implementation of a new program that will go deeper and touch on topics of: stereotypes, human rights and the different levels and forms of racism while maintaining the underlying aspect of community responsibility. The target audience for the new program will be 14-21 year olds in a range of settings. This new version will run as a pilot program in selected secondary schools in Term 1, 2016, and selected youth correction facilities and universities in Victoria in the first half of 2016.*
Sisters and Brothers aims to: 1. raise awareness and create dialog around race-based discrimination and its harms; and 2. give students the tools be active bystanders when they encounter race-based discrimination.
The Program Strategies
The program will be implemented by a culturally diverse group of young facilitators who use song writing, body percussion, rapping, singing, beat boxing, theatre and storytelling throughout. The program will consist of 10 x 4-hour workshops, where facilitators work with small groups of 6-10 participants to create works together. Each program will culminate in performances to participants’ peers, families and/or the broader community for each program site.
The Assignment 2000 words health promotion evaluation proposal
You are a health promotion officer designing an evaluation proposal for the Sisters & Brothers secondary schools pilot program. OR you may choose to plan your evaluation for a pilot program to be conducted in a youth correctional facility or a university setting. For the purposes of this assessment task, you will design an impact OR a process evaluation. You will also need to write some SMART objectives for this program in order to develop a realistic set of evaluation activities. Please refer to the assignment tips and hints, the rubric and other resources provided in tandem with this document. *VERY IMPORTANT!! Note, some aspects of this document are hypothetical as the program has yet to be implemented. Please do not contact the project managers or the organisation with questions about this assignment. In the first instance, if you are unclear about any aspect of this task, please post on the CloudDeakin discussion boards. Much of the program information in this document is taken from: http://sistersandbrothersproject.org/
You will choose the site/s for the implementation of the Sisters & Brothers pilot program. There is no right or wrong here, but you should research secondary schools in the Western suburbs of Melbourne so that you are informed and able to include real sites in your proposal. If you decide on youth correction facilities or universities, the same will apply. The decision should be informed by the evidence you find about the relevant institutions and communities you plan to be working with in conducting this evaluation. For the purposes of this task, you will prepare a 2000-word report (+/- 10%) and must include the following:
1.1 Title of your evaluation plan
There are no marks associated with this directly, but it should be creative and logical! Take a look at other evaluation reports or executive summaries; you might also find it useful to check some evaluations published in the academic literature or perhaps you can find some relevant publications on organisational websites to inspire you!
1.2 Contents page
This contributes to the readability and professionalism of your work. This should not take too long.
Executive summary (5%) This section should be no more than 200 words in total. It should include: the context, the aims/objectives of the proposed evaluation, relevant ethical considerations, evaluation design, intended data collection methods/analysis and the dissemination strategy. It should be of a very high standard abd effectively summarise the evaluation plan. These instructions relate precisely to the wording of the marking rubric.
2.0 Evaluation rationale (20%) This section should be no more than 600 words and should include reference to the theoretical underpinnings 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), ie. You need to explain, with supporting evidence, why you made this choice. There is a minimum requirement for the supporting evidence provided in your rationale: you will need to use at least 6 (six) sources from the literature to support your decision-making here. This may include a mix of journal articles, systematic reviews, government/NGO reports, research reports etc. You may also refer to textbooks/chapters including your prescribed text. Sources should be as current as possible, with the majority from within the past 10 years. You may choose to include overseas studies/evaluations, but make sure that you do demonstrate the need for this program to be evaluated locally. So, the focus should be on Australian evidence as this is the context for the implementation of the program and hence the evaluation. Identify the key stakeholders in this evaluation: who are they and why do you need to involve them in this evaluation? What is their role in the evaluation of this program? Why is this important? Can you draw on any theory/framework/tool to support your decisions 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) with comprehensive, effective support from the literature a; and clearly identified key stakeholders with a brief description of their role in the proposed evaluation.
3.0 Evaluation aims or objectives (10%) This is what you want to find out by conducting your evaluation. Evaluation aims or objectives may be worded as statements or questions: this will depend on 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 might word these. Note, there is no magic number but experienced evaluations advise no more than 5 key evaluation objectives. From the rubric: These should be strong, clearly expressed evaluation questions or objectives, written to a very high standard, and lead on logically from the rationale. Maximum of 200 words here.
4.0 The evaluation design This section is where you provide a description of the evaluation design including a statement of the type of design you intetnd to use eg quasi-experimental or observational; you may also specify whether you will use a pre-post, cross-sectional, case study etc. (for impact evaluations) or a particular framework to inform your process evaluation (eg. from Bauman & Nutbeam, PARE etc). You may find material to help you plan an evaluation of an ‘arts-based’ program for health and use this as the basis of your design. Alternatively, it may be that you use ‘no specific design’ as such, yet provide a comprehensive listing of the phases or components of the evaluation. You should look to the literature here to find out about similar programs in terms of how they were evaluated. This might be here or overseas. Here, you should offer 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 the different approaches to evaluation, their relative strengths/weaknesses and why your chosen design is best suited to achieve the evaluation objectives or answer your evaluation questions. You should provide strong support here from any relevant theories, models or frameworks. The marker will be looking for a succinct, logical and well thought out rationale for your choice of evaluation design with solid support from the literature. This section should be no more than 350 words.
5.0 Ethical responsibilities & processes (10%) What are the ethical principles to 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 meet their ethical obligations? This section should be well-supported by the literature and demonstrate an understanding of key ethical principles in research and their application to the chosen 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 your intended data collection methods and should demonstrate a strong grasp of key ethical principles. To reiterate, you also need to engage with credible, relevant literature here. No more than 250 words.
6.0 Data collection methods 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? How many will participate? Why?
6.2 The data collection instruments Which will you use? 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 you interrogate the data collected and collate the findings to gain meaning and achieve your evaluation objectives?
6.3 The procedures 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 a sound, rigorous evaluation following these steps. Also, ensure the sample, instruments and procedures are well-suited to answer your evaluation questions or objectives. No more than 350 words. NOTE: you do not need to include a fully developed data collection instrument, for example, a questionnaire or 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, for example 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 might require support from the literature – this can help you to demonstrate that it is appropriate for your evaluation purposes. You might find that people have conducted similar evaluations and you can draw on their approach/es heavily; as long as you acknowledge them, this is fine. We’re not expecting you to know this intuitively or to reinvent the wheel! You will be 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.
7.0 Dissemination strategy (7.5%) Considering the purposes of your evaluation, how do you intend to share your findings and recommendations? A written report, website, academic journal articles, newsletters, industry conferences, community forums, social media, other news channels? Think carefully about your target audiences. How will you insure this information reaches them? Remember the ethical processes also come into play here. Keeping confidentiality and anonymity in reporting is vital i.e. Not naming names! From the rubric: the proposed strategy for sharing findings and recommendations should be clear, succinct, logical and appropriate to the target audiences. Should show strong engagement with relevant and credible literature, and demonstrate sophisticated and lateral thinking. Your strategy should link clearly with key stakeholders and/or organisations identified in your evaluation rationale. Maximum 200 words.
8.0 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 valuation fits with the overall program. The seconds of tasks and time allocated should be logical and well thought out and visually the timeline should be easily followed.
9.0 Referencing & Presentation (7.5%) Your report should be within the word count(Plus or -10%) which means that 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 wordcount. 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.