Apa Format: 2 Pages, 3 References To Be Done In Collaboratio

Apa Format 2 Pages 3 References To Be Done In Collaboration Of Having

APA format 2 pages 3 references to be done in collaboration of having a curriculum for community with Seton Hall University Section F: Crafting End-of-Program Outcomes As a team, review the mission, vision, and philosophy that you created for your curriculum, as well as the overall need or goal that led to the focus of your curriculum. Then, begin to develop your end-of-program outcomes. Refer to the Appendix section titled “Writing Measurable End-of-Program Outcomes” for authentic examples that can aid you in writing your outcomes. Respond to each of the following in bullet or paragraph form during Week 7 of the course. Create 8–10 end-of-program learning outcomes. For each learning outcome, identify the learning domain. Then, complete the following: Describe the competency level used for your learning outcomes. Justify the appropriateness of each learning verb. Explain how these learning outcomes align with the curriculum’s mission, vision, and philosophy as well as the needs of the learner.

Paper For Above instruction

Developing effective end-of-program outcomes is a critical component in designing a curriculum that aligns with institutional mission and addresses community needs. This process involves careful consideration of the curriculum's foundational statements—mission, vision, and philosophy—and translating these into measurable learning objectives that guide student achievement upon program completion. This paper will describe the development of 8–10 end-of-program outcomes for a community-focused curriculum at Seton Hall University, emphasizing the alignment with institutional values and learner needs, and the selection of appropriate learning domains and competency levels.

Context and Purpose

The curriculum’s mission statement emphasizes empowering community members through knowledge and skill development, fostering social responsibility, and promoting lifelong learning. The vision aims for a community where individuals are active participants in societal improvement, and the philosophy underlines learner-centered and culturally responsive education. The overarching goal is to equip learners with competencies that enable positive community engagement, leadership, and sustainable development. Consequently, the program outcomes must encapsulate these values by reflecting expected skills and knowledge at the culmination of the program.

Development of End-of-Program Outcomes

The end-of-program outcomes serve as benchmarks for measuring learner achievement. The process involved identifying relevant learning domains—cognitive, affective, and psychomotor—and selecting action verbs aligned with Bloom's taxonomy to define the skills expected at program completion. Justification of chosen verbs focuses on their clarity, measurability, and appropriateness to the outcome, ensuring they effectively guide assessment and demonstrate learners’ competencies.

Sample Outcomes and Justifications

1. Outcome 1: Demonstrate understanding of community development theories and principles.
2. Learning Domain: Cognitive.
3. Competency Level: Comprehension/Understanding.
4. Justification: The verb "demonstrate understanding" signifies the ability to grasp theoretical concepts, which aligns with observing cognitive mastery essential for foundational knowledge in community work.
5. Outcome 2: Develop a participatory project plan to address a specific community need.
6. Learning Domain: Psychomotor and Cognitive.
7. Competency Level: Application.
8. Justification: "Develop" indicates applying knowledge creatively and practically, essential for translating theory into action and fostering practical skills.
9. Outcome 3: Communicate effectively with diverse community stakeholders.
10. Learning Domain: Affective and Communication Skills.
11. Competency Level: Proficiency/Communication skills.
12. Justification: The verb "communicate" is appropriate as it emphasizes an essential skill for community engagement and collaboration, directly supporting the curriculum's social responsibility emphasis.
13. Outcome 4: Evaluate the impact of community interventions using qualitative and quantitative methods.
14. Learning Domain: Cognitive and Affective.
15. Competency Level: Evaluation/Analysis.
16. Justification: "Evaluate" ensures learners critically appraise their interventions' effectiveness, which is vital for continuous improvement and aligns with the program’s emphasis on sustainable community development.
17. Outcome 5: Exhibit leadership qualities in organizing community events or initiatives.
18. Learning Domain: Affective and Psychomotor.
19. Competency Level: Organization/Leadership.
20. Justification: "Exhibit" invokes observable behaviors demonstrating leadership, reinforcing the importance of proactive community participation, central to the program’s philosophy.
21. Outcome 6: Reflect critically on personal biases and their influence on community work.
22. Learning Domain: Affective.
23. Competency Level: Reflection/Analysis.
24. Justification: The verb "reflect" encourages self-awareness, aligning with the learner-centered philosophy and fostering personal growth essential for culturally responsive practice.
25. Outcome 7: Design sustainable community initiatives that promote environmental stewardship.
26. Learning Domain: Cognitive and Psychomotor.
27. Competency Level: Creation/Synthesis.
28. Justification: "Design" emphasizes creative synthesis and planning, crucial for developing sustainable solutions aligned with societal and environmental goals.
29. Outcome 8: Use data analysis tools to interpret community survey results.
30. Learning Domain: Cognitive.
31. Competency Level: Application/Analysis.
32. Justification: "Use" indicates applying specific tools, fostering data literacy necessary for evidence-based decision-making in community work.
33. Outcome 9: Foster collaborative relationships with interdisciplinary teams to address complex community issues.
34. Learning Domain: Affective and Interpersonal Skills.
35. Competency Level: Collaboration/Teamwork.
36. Justification: "Foster" involves nurturing relationships and teamwork, essential for holistic community approaches rooted in the curriculum’s philosophy.
37. Outcome 10: Advocate for policy changes that benefit underserved populations.
38. Learning Domain: Affective and Cognitive.
39. Competency Level: Advocacy/Leadership.
40. Justification: "Advocate" reflects active engagement and leadership in policy influence, aligning with the mission to empower communities.

Alignment with Curriculum Philosophy

The outlined outcomes directly support the curriculum's mission to foster empowerment, social responsibility, and lifelong learning. They emphasize practical application, critical thinking, cultural responsiveness, and leadership—all fundamental to preparing learners to meet community challenges effectively. By aligning each outcome with specific learning domains and competency levels, the curriculum ensures a comprehensive, measurable approach that facilitates ongoing assessment and continuous improvement.

Conclusion

Crafting end-of-program outcomes rooted in the curriculum's mission, vision, and philosophy offers a clear pathway for assessing learner success and ensuring program relevance. The selected learning outcomes encompass essential skills and knowledge needed for impactful community engagement. They are measurable, aligned with values, and designed to prepare learners for real-world challenges, ultimately fulfilling the program's goal of fostering community-oriented professionals committed to positive societal change.

References

• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Allyn & Bacon.
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. David McKay Company.
• Harvey, S., & Prusak, L. (2018). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Review Press.
• McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised, or connected, learning: The potential for digital technologies to transform the learning experience. Australian Educational Computing, 25(1), 1-13.
• Meyer, L. H., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: An introduction. Improving Student Learning: Ten Years On, 1, 49-58.
• Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. Jossey-Bass.
• Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Jossey-Bass.
• Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. John Wiley & Sons.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.
• Wilson, M. (2010). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Erlbaum Associates.