Spring 2025 SOWK 460w Class 16 Weekly Email

MyHeritage Syllabus Presentations Emails

I’m looking forward to presentation tonight.

Unit Introduction and What You Will Learn

During week 16, we will have groups complete their presentations and share them with their classmates, members of the university community, and workers for their practicum placements. Students will be able to demonstrate scholarly presentation skills and share practical assessments and recommendations compiled from their program evaluations.

Unit Assignments

A-01: Class Engagement and Attendance

Attend class

A-04d: Executive Summary of the Program Evaluation

Meta: Points 200 pts (20% of student’s final grade); Deadline Monday 05/12/25 by 08:00 AM; Submission via Anthology through the assignments section of MyHeritage; Locations Assignment Submission, Executive Summary Template.docx, and Syllabus Handout.

Purpose: The executive summary gives students the opportunity to engage in scholarly writing that clearly articulates the outcomes of the program evaluation they completed.

Task: The Executive Summary of the Program Evaluation is used as a key assignment¹ for SOWK 460w. The CSWE (2022) describes their ninth competency as students being able to evaluate practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Specifically, students will be assessed regarding the identified practice behavior of “select and use culturally responsive methods for evaluation of outcomes; and critically analyze outcomes and apply evaluation findings to improve practice effectiveness” (p. 13). Due to this assignment being a key assignment, although each group will submit the same version of the final paper and receive the same grade, each student must submit the paper via Anthology through MyHeritage assignments.

Each group must hand in one final paper that is 10-15 pages long and consists of seven sections: introduction, logic model, ethical framework, methods, data/findings, narrative/discussion, and references.

• The introduction provides a description of the agency, a clearly defined research question, and a review of the literature related to the agency type or population served that includes at least ten academic/peer-reviewed articles.
• The logic model contains a brief description and a figure representing the program’s resources, activities, output, outcomes, and impact.
• The ethical framework explains the considerations you made when designing the project. It should be described clearly and consistently. Potential questions answered include: How will you interact with clients, the institution, and subjects? How will you protect the rights and privacy of subjects? With whom will you share data, and why? Did your tasks/timeline ultimately go the way you thought it would? What took longer and why? What was more complicated than you expected, and why?
• The methods section explains how you collected your data. Consider the following questions: Why did you do it this way? Is it because of what was available? How did others collect data in the literature? If you did it differently than they did, why not?
• The data/findings include a narrative briefly explaining what you found in objective language. You do not need to interpret the results. Use tables and graphs to display data in a simplified way. The tables/graphs should be neat, clear, and self-explanatory.
• You will interpret your findings in the narrative/discussion section. What are your conclusions about the institution? What do you recommend? What needs to change? Does it relate to the literature in the introduction? If not, why not? Explain your findings in the context of the literature.
• The references section is an APA-formatted list of references cited in your paper.
• Many students will also have documents attached as an appendix. These might include forms used or other artifacts from your research that are discussed in the body of the executive summary.

Success: Students will submit a paper demonstrating their ability to use scholarly writing to describe their research project clearly. See Appendix C for the rubric. I will provide feedback before final grades are due by Wednesday 05/15/24 at 5:00 PM.

Appendices C. CSWE (2022) Competency 9 Practice Behaviors Rubric for Program Evaluation Executive Summary

The CSWE (2022) Competency 9 Practice Behaviors Rubric evaluates students’ ability to use culturally responsive methods and critically analyze outcomes to improve practice. For 1A, it assesses the clarity of the research question, use of academic literature, ethical framework, methods, and cultural considerations, ranging from unclear and unsupported to detailed and well-integrated. For 1B, it evaluates findings articulation, visuals, logic model development, and recommendations, progressing from vague and incomplete to clear, comprehensive, and actionable.

9a: Select and use culturally responsive methods for the evaluation of outcomes; and

Description	Initial	Emerging	Developed	Highly Developed
Clearly defined research question with extensive literature support	The research question is not identified. Very little appropriate evidence is presented, or the evidence presented is not tied to the argument or the research question.	The research question is weakly presented. A weak understanding of the literature is demonstrated. Five academic/peer-reviewed articles are cited in the body of the paper.	The research question is adequately presented. A basic understanding of the literature is demonstrated. Seven academic/peer-reviewed articles are cited in the body of the paper.	The research question is clearly presented. In-depth understanding of the literature demonstrated. Ten or more academic/peer-reviewed articles are cited in the body of the paper.
Strong and consistent ethical framework	No consistent ethical framework is articulated.	The ethical framework is vague, unsupported, and/or unconvincing.	The ethical framework is adequate, somewhat believable, somewhat convincing, and consistent with the research question.	The ethical framework is clear, believable, convincing, and consistent with the research question.
Relevant and well-aligned methods	Methods are unclear or inconsistent with the research question.	Methods are not clearly relevant or are weakly related to the research question.	Methods are somewhat relevant and are adequately related to the research question.	Methods are relevant and clearly relate to the research question.
Comprehensive discussion of cultural considerations	There is no discussion of cultural considerations related to the method.	Cultural considerations are abstractly discussed.	Cultural considerations are directly addressed and discussed but need more depth and thorough consideration.	There is an in-depth and thorough discussion of the cultural considerations related to the methods.

9b: critically analyze outcomes and apply evaluation findings to improve practice effectiveness with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

Description	Initial	Emerging	Developed	Highly Developed
Clear findings with well-presented visuals	Very little appropriate evidence is presented, or the evidence presented is not tied to the research question or the contract.	The narrative wanders or only weakly relates to the research question, and tabular or graphic information is messy and difficult to understand.	The narrative adequately articulates findings, and tabular or graphic information is somewhat clear/the reader can understand it with limited effort.	The narrative clearly articulates findings, and tabular or graphic information is clear, neat, and easy to understand.
Comprehensive and detailed logic model	The logic model is incomplete or unclearly related to the program being evaluated.	The logic model weakly illustrates the program’s resources, activities, output, outcomes, and impact; the model is messy, confusing, and difficult to understand.	The logic model adequately illustrates the program’s resources, activities, output, outcomes, and impact; the model can be understood with limited effort.	The logic model clearly and completely illustrates the program’s resources, activities, output, outcomes, and impact.
Clear conclusions with actionable recommendations	The discussion does not appropriately explain conclusions, does not make concrete recommendations, and does not attempt to explain what the findings mean for the organization.	The discussion weakly explains student conclusions, makes vague or unconvincing recommendations that do not relate to the research question, and cannot explain what the findings mean for the organization.	The discussion adequately explains student conclusions, makes some recommendations, and adequately explains what the findings mean for the organization.	The discussion clearly explains student conclusions, makes concrete recommendations, and explains what the findings mean for the organization.

A-5a: [Extra Credit] Review of a Published Program Evaluation Paper

Meta: Points 50 pts (5% of total grade in extra credit); Deadline Monday 05/12/25 by 08:00 AM; Completion via MyHeritage Assignments as a file upload; Locations Assignment Submission and Syllabus Handout.

Purpose: Program evaluations are frequently published or submitted as formal reports. Reviewing these published versions and providing a review helps engage students in how to write a program evaluation. Offering an assignment for extra credit gives students a designated manner to increase their grades for this class.

Task: Students will find a program evaluation that has been published. The article could be a journal article or a published report on an authoritative website. Students will review and summarize the study that was completed by writing a short paper that is between 500 and 750 words in length.

Success: Students will submit a paper demonstrating strong academic writing and critical thinking skills. I will provide feedback before final grades are due by Wednesday 05/21/25 at 5:00 PM.

A-5b: [Extra Credit] Descriptive Review of Groups Program Evaluation

Meta: Points 100 pts (10% of total grade in extra credit); Deadline Monday 05/12/25 by 08:00 AM; Completion via MyHeritage Assignments as a file upload; Locations Assignment Submission and Syllabus Handout.

Purpose: Evaluating our research process is not usually included in a program evaluation but helps improve our research skills and understanding gained during a project. Offering an assignment for extra credit gives students a designated manner to increase their grades for this class.

Task: The descriptive review of a student’s group program evaluation is a paper where students can self-reflect about their project and, through informal interviews with their groupmates and the agency stakeholders, attempt to describe the process and understand the impacts of the program evaluation they have completed. It is to be between 1,250 to 1,500 words in length. It will reflect on the program evaluation process, the feelings and impressions of the group members and stakeholders going through the process, and what potential changes or reactions the agency stakeholders have to the process.

Success: Students will submit a paper demonstrating academic skills. They will be able to demonstrate scientific writing skills. I will provide feedback before final grades are due by Wednesday 05/21/25 at 5:00 PM.

Unit Resources

If you don’t remember what you signed up to bring, the Google Doc Student Program Evaluation Symposium is accessible. Also, please complete your end of course evaluations SOWK 460W Survey. If you can email me a copy of your presentation before class I can have that ready to go through.

To-Do Lists

• Attend class and complete your presentation
• Complete your End of Semester Survey for this class
• Complete Executive and if desired extra credit before 5/12 at 8am.

1. Heritage University’s social work program selects assignments across the curriculum for students to demonstrate each practice behavior defined by the CSWE to act as key assignments. These assignments are submitted to Heritage’s online portfolio, Anthology Portfolio, and given to all students at each site using the same grading rubric. Student scores help provide data for faculty to self-evaluate the program. ↩