describe the evaluation design you chose, the measures of outcomes that you have selected, your data collection and analysis plans, and how you plan to assure reliability, validity, and credibility of your data and your analysis.

/in /by

Program Evaluation Plan Part 2: The Research Design

For the course project, you have been assuming the role of a consultant who has been hired to evaluate a clinical mental health counseling program that provides services in your community or region.

You are creating a hypothetical but plausible program with hypothetical stakeholders, clients, interventions, and measures. And you are developing plans for an evaluation that will guide program improvements and document progress toward the program’s mission and goals.

For this assignment in Unit 8, use the template linked in Resources to describe the evaluation design you chose, the measures of outcomes that you have selected, your data collection and analysis plans, and how you plan to assure reliability, validity, and credibility of your data and your analysis.

Requirements

To achieve a successful project experience and outcome, you must include the following sections for Part 2:

  • Title Page.
  • Evaluation Design (approximately one page).
  • Selected Measures of Outcomes (approximately two pages).
  • Data Collection Plan (approximately two pages).
  • Data Analysis Plan (approximately one page).
  • Reliability, Validity, and Credibility Considerations (approximately one page).
  • References.

Additionally, your paper must:

  • Be a total of 5–7 pages of text (excluding the title page and the references page).
  • Include scholarly references to support your ideas about research on the kind of program you are evaluating (population, clinical focus, counseling approach), and program evaluation procedures (program evaluation model, needs assessment, ethical and cultural considerations).
  • Be free from errors that detract from the message.
  • Be written in third person.
  • Use current APA style and formatting throughout.
  • Be in Times New Roman, 12-point font.

What is your pay? Is it the minimum wage? How much does each product you make or sell cost to produce? How much are they sold for? Who makes the majority of the profit from you work? You could even look at the quarterly statements for your company and examine the disparity.

/in /by

Write on a job you currently have or have had in the past. You can write about more than one job if you like. The paper should explain your job: what you do, where you do it, how you do it, why you do it, how you are paid.  You should not just summarize your work experience do not simply turn it into a resume. You should think about your work critically. For example,

  • How is your work structured to increase productivity?
  • Is your work alienating? Why? How?
  • Who is the owner? Do you see them?
  • What is your pay? Is it the minimum wage? How much does each product you make or sell cost to produce? How much are they sold for? Who makes the majority of the profit from you work? You could even look at the quarterly statements for your company and examine the disparity.
  • Is your company tied to any particular labour practices? How do they frame their employee/management relationship? Does this hold true to your experience?
  • Include reflection and, even more importantly, analysis.
  • Take your personal experience and expand the analysis to look at the individual and technical aspects of your job(s). Extrapolate from there to look at the structural reasons for the way your work is organized.
  • Examine the rationale for company policies beyond just your personal experience.

The essay should describe how you feel and think about your job. Is it interesting? Do you want to continue doing it for the rest of your life? Or perhaps you hate it. Do you ever want to change parts of it? How do you react to the pressures and hassles of the job? Are the employer’s expectations reasonable? Do they conflict with your expectations? These are some of the questions you might consider. Then examine those questions with a mind to understanding why your work was structured in the manner that it was.
These comments are just a guideline. Feel free to construct a paper that suits your interests and your specific job. For example, if you are English major and feel more comfortable writing a narrative rather than a formal essay, then you may do so. If you wish to communicate in poetry rather than prose, then, again feel free to do so. Creativity in approaching this assignment is welcomed.

Note: If you have never held a paying job then please write this assignment on your volunteer experience or examine the issues of work from your experience. For example write about how you have reached University without having to work. What is your relationship to class issues? How is your life financed? If you do not have to sell your labour why is that? What does that mean for you? How does your situation compare to what we have discussed and read about in class? What is the relevance of our texts to your own experience? Is it foreign to you? What have you learned about those who sell their labour, the working class and working poor, from this course?

Identify and apply a variety of epistemological, metaphysical and ethical theory 2. Evaluate and differentiate between an epistemological, a metaphysical and an ethical question

/in /by

The purpose of this assignment is to have you practice the skills necessary in completion of Student Outcomes 2, 3, 4, and 7, these are:

1. Identify and apply a variety of epistemological, metaphysical and ethical theory

2. Evaluate and differentiate between an epistemological, a metaphysical and an ethical question

3. Understand and apply the criteria of correct philosophical reasoning

4. Present a solution to a philosophical problem

But, in a round-about way, each of the outcomes is present. And with this, we will have hit on all of the outcomes for this class, in one way or another.

Task: The reading is Warburton 67-77

In the text, there is an argument against the morality of eating meat (as in, arguments for you being vegetarian/vegan). This argument, I called in the lecture, the Animal Suffering Argument. Your task is to:

A. Explain the Animal Suffering Argument (in your own words) (5pts)

After this, you can either (10pts):

B1. Explain Descartes reply to the argument

C1. Explain one problem with this reply

Each of these should take you around a paragraph to answer. Each of them are worth 5pts. Labeling your paragraphs with

‘(A)’…

‘(B)’…

‘(C)’…

‘(D)’…

according to what part you are talking about in them will make grading very fast and easy for me. Since this is worth 20pts, this is worth 5% of your total grade.

Submission:

To submit this assignment, I only accept .pdf, .doc, .odt, and .docx. I do not accept .pages. You can find where to submit in the upper right of this screen. As for all assignments in this class, the standard is Times New Roman, 12pt font, double spaced, 2-3 pages (that is, at least a few words onto the second page to the bottom of the third).

Here is an example:

The Animal Suffering Argument is one which is found in several forms in the contemporary debate over the permissibility of meat consumption, fur clothing, or the use of animal products in general. It is even applied to the idea that we should not perform animal testing for medicines. Put in my own words, it goes like this: First, it seems obvious that animals of certain complexities feel pain and have interests. Second, we have that Utilitarianism is correct, meaning that the right action is the one that causes the best outcome (the greatest amount of pleasure once the pain is subtracted). As it turns out, the pain and suffering caused by the process of raising animals for slaughter outweighs the pleasure to us in eating them.  Therefore, killing animals for food is morally wrong.

Although there are several replies to this argument, including, but not limited to, Speciesism, human excellence, and almost any non-consequentialist theory, the one which I will focus on originates from Rene Descartes. Descartes, as we covered in this class, held that the world was made of two substances, the mental and the physical (substance dualism). Experiencing pain and having interests requires that the being have this mental substance beyond merely having a physical form. Descartes held that only humans can have these souls or mental substances. Only people feel pain or have interests. As a result, non-human animals, like a cat, can’t feel pain. An injured animal, for Descartes, is nothing more than a broken machine. This means that the pain animals are supposed to feel doesn’t exist and doesn’t feature in the ethics of eating meat.

There are several things wrong with this reply, though I can understand why people of certain beliefs would think it is correct. The one which stood out to me was physicalism. Physicalism is directly opposed to dualism. It holds that there is only one substance in the world, physical, rather than there being two. Whatever explanation which the physicalism can give to the experience of pain can easily be applied to non-human animals and does not require that they have some manner of oogy-boogy substance over and above the physical. This reply takes the wind out of Descartes’ sails, his stance can’t get off the ground if it is correct.

I find this reply to Descartes to be very powerful. It cuts through to the very assumption made in getting the stance off of the ground and shows that it is not so obvious. At the end of the day. I find the Animal Suffering Argument to make various assumptions which can be questioned (such as whether all cases of meat consumption are wrong, which could be argued against, saying that this only applies to some), but dualism and Descartes can’t say with certainty that the argument is flawed.

  Formulate your claim – what issue do you have with the topic you chose as the website argues about it?

/in /by

B. http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/articles (Links to an external site.)

Go to “Creation Moments” website using the above link, click on “Resources,” and scroll down to search topic areas you have an interest in.  Write an argumentative paper. The argument is all based on some article you pick from this website and your reaction and detective work on the topic of your article and research the holes or inconsistencies in the argument that you detect.  Every argument does have some questionable part, there is no such thing as a perfect argument, not in this world, so find some flaw and search it out, draw your conclusions what these flaws are, cite them in the paper, explain them, and then draw your conclusion.

Pick a topic that you have an interest in or know something about, but have a question with how Creation Moments argues for it.  They always argue from the argument of design.  Always in the argument of design, there is a point of leap of faith that a conclusion is drawn without evidence.  .

1.  Formulate your claim – what issue do you have with the topic you chose as the website argues about it?  Creation Moments’ claim is, always, that Design by the Creator is true and evolution is false.  This will be the underlying assumption of your claim.  Is it really the case for design and not evolution?

2.  Do some research, bring up sources that further explain the topic and tell you something about the subject of your article. Wikipedia is fine, but see if you can’t find a couple other sources, as well, to cite.

3.  Now, test the evidence.  Test to see if the claims made in the article hold up to the evidence you bring in regarding the subject.

4.  Look for clear contradictions in wording of the article. Look for errors in Creation Moment’s discussion of the topic, not just evidence, but even in the conclusions they draw.

5.  Conclusion:  there was is some truth to the idea of their articles but there is always some flaw to their thinking, as well, regarding the topic they are discussing.  Does Creation Moments create a “leap of faith” between the evidence they bring in and their conclusion, or, do they accurately defend the argument of design (which means that all of creation is created with some function/purpose, and only an intelligent creator could have created the world in this way) that the evidence they bring in directly leads to their conclusion about intelligent design?

Always get the facts.  Challenge anything you just don’t agree with.  That is what you are doing in this paper.

Here is the link for argument of design:  http://www.alevelphilosophy.co.uk/handouts_religion/ArgumentsFromDesign.pdf (Links to

Instructions:  The paper should be 7 pages, no title page is needed or footnotes, just citations would go on page 8.  1″ margins all around, double-spaced, 12″ Arial font.   No GoogleDocs or Zip files.