assignment 4

HEA 540 Module Four Short Paper Guidelines and Rubric

Using Standards to Drive Recommendations Overview: In Module Three, you examined several categories of external data sources. In this module’s discussion, you explored different kinds of recommendations that can emerge from a program evaluation. In this assignment, you will synthesize this previous work into a set of recommendations driven by relevant regulatory and/or accreditation standards Prompt: In addition to aligning to an institution’s mission, vision, and goal, programs must also align to requirements from institut ional accreditors, programmatic accreditors, credentialing agencies, or relevant regulations. In this assignment, you will make recommendations based on the accreditation standards or relevant regulations you have explored. You will describe each recommendation, identify a specific standard or r egulation, and then explain how your recommendation would align the program with that specific standard or regulation. Be sure to ask your instructor for an example if you have trouble making connections between standards and relevant recommendations for your acad emic program. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

 Recommendation: Offer three to five specific recommendations that would improve the academic program under evaluation.

 Standards and Regulations: Identify at least one specific standard or regulation for each recommendation. Include the complete text of the standard or regulation as well as its source.

 Alignment: Explain how each recommendation would align the program with the specific standard or regulation you identified.

Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document that is a minimum of 5 pages in length (including title and reference pages) with APA-formatted headings for each recommendation, double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and any sources cited in APA format.

Critical Elements Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Recommendations Offers s peci fi c recommendati ons that woul d

i mprove the academi c program under eval uati on

Offers recommendati ons that woul d i mprove the academi c program under eval uati on, but addi ti onal detai l s are needed

to unders tand the recommendati on

Does not offer s peci fi c recommendati ons that woul d i mprove the academi c program under eval uati on

25

Standards and Regulations

Identi fi es s peci fi c s tandards and/or regul ati ons for each recommendati on; i ncl udes the compl ete text of the s tandard or regul ati on as wel l as i ts s ource

Identi fi es s tandards and/or regul ati ons for each recommendati on but does not i ncl ude the compl ete text of the s tandard or regul ati on and/or i ts s ource

Does not i denti fy s tandards and/or regul ati ons for each recommendati on

25

Alignment Expl ai ns thoroughl y how each

recommendati on woul d al i gn the academi c

program wi th the s peci fi c s tandard or regul ati on i denti fi ed

Expl ai ns how each recommendati on woul d al i gn the program wi th the s peci fi c s tandard

or regul ati on i denti fi ed, but addi ti onal detai l s are needed to unders tand the al i gnment

Does not expl ai n how each recommendati on woul d al i gn the academi c program wi th the

s peci fi c s tandard or regul ati on i denti fi ed

40

Articulation of Response

Submi s s i on has no major errors rel ated to headi ngs , ci tati ons , grammar, s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on

Submi s s i on has major errors rel ated to headi ngs , ci tati ons , grammar, s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on that negati vel y

i mpact readabi l i ty and arti culati on of mai n i deas

Submi s s i on has criti cal errors rel ated to headi ngs , ci tati ons , grammar, s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on that prevent

unders tandi ng of i deas

10

Total 100%