NUR 654 Module 7 Milestone Three Example

Milestone Three: A CIPP Evaluation Plan for a New Online RN to BSN Program

[Student Name]

Southern New Hampshire University

NUR 654: Curriculum Foundations in Nursing Education

Module Seven Milestone Three

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Milestone Three: A CIPP Evaluation Plan for a New Online RN to BSN Program

Many program evaluations are planned after a program is running and focus on a single question: did students succeed? For a new program, that question arrives too late to help. By the time the first cohort graduates, two years of decisions have been made, and problems that could have been fixed in the first term have shaped the program. The composite college's new online RN to BSN program takes its first students next fall. This milestone plans an evaluation that begins now and continues through the first graduates. It argues that the CIPP model, which evaluates context, inputs, process and products, suits a new program because it is designed to inform decisions at each stage, not only to judge results at the end.

Choosing an Evaluation Model

Frye and Hemmer (2012) reviewed program evaluation models used in health professions education, including experimental and quasi-experimental designs, Kirkpatrick's four levels, logic models and the CIPP model. They noted that experimental models assume programs are simple and stable, while educational programs are often complex systems in which many parts interact and change over time. They described the CIPP model as especially useful for programs under development because it treats evaluation as a tool for improvement and decision making, addressing the program's environment, design, implementation and outcomes. A new online RN to BSN program, with many moving parts and partners, fits that description.

The CIPP Model

Stufflebeam and Zhang (2017) describe the CIPP model as a comprehensive framework for evaluations intended to improve programs and hold them accountable. Context evaluation assesses needs, problems, assets and opportunities to define and judge goals. Input evaluation assesses alternative approaches, plans, budgets and resources to choose and strengthen a program design. Process evaluation monitors, documents and assesses implementation, providing feedback so that problems can be corrected. Product evaluation identifies and assesses outcomes, intended and unintended, short and long term. The authors emphasize that the four components can be used in any order, that each should serve specific decisions and that stakeholders should be involved throughout.

Context and Input Evaluation

Context evaluation began during planning and will be repeated before the second cohort. Its questions are whether the program's goals match the needs of associate degree nurses and employers in the region and whether those needs are changing. Data sources include the survey of 180 associate degree nurses, interviews with nurse leaders at partner organizations, regional workforce data and the accreditation requirements mapped in Milestone One. The decision it informs is whether to adjust program goals.

Input evaluation is under way now. Its questions are whether the curriculum design, faculty, technology, student support and partnership arrangements are adequate to achieve the goals. An external reviewer, an experienced RN to BSN director from another state, will review the curriculum map, course designs and support services against the Essentials and national quality standards for online courses. Faculty readiness will be assessed through completion of online teaching training. The decision it informs is whether the program is ready to launch and what must be strengthened first.

Process Evaluation and Early Warning

Process evaluation will be the busiest component in the first year, because it can catch problems while they can still be fixed. Bawa (2016) reviewed literature on retention in online courses and found that attrition is typically higher online than in face-to-face courses and is associated with factors such as competing work and family demands, a sense of isolation, limited technical skills, weak course design and insufficient instructor presence. The review suggested that institutions can reduce attrition through orientation, early engagement, responsive faculty and support services that reach students before they fall behind.

Pine Ridge's process evaluation will therefore track weekly learning management system activity, submission of the first two assignments and participation in group discussions, flagging students who miss two consecutive weekly activities for a call from an adviser within three days. At the end of each course, students will complete a brief survey on workload, instructor presence and group functioning, and faculty will record what they would change. Mentors in the practice partnership will report monthly on capstone progress. The decisions this informs are immediate course revisions, outreach to students at risk and adjustments to mentor preparation.

Product Evaluation

Product evaluation addresses outcomes. Short-term outcomes include course completion, term-to-term retention and performance on key assessments mapped to program outcomes, such as the community health assessment and the capstone. Longer-term outcomes include graduation within three years of enrollment, graduates' self-assessed competence in population health, leadership and evidence-based practice, employer ratings of graduates on the same competencies and graduates' career moves, such as promotion or enrollment in graduate study. Unintended outcomes will also be sought, for example effects on students' work schedules or on staffing at partner units during practice experiences, through open-ended questions to students and partners. The decisions product evaluation informs include continuing, expanding or redesigning the program and reporting to accreditors and partners.

Stakeholders and Reporting

An evaluation committee of two faculty, a student representative, a partner representative and the program director will oversee the plan, review findings each term and ensure results reach decision makers. A one-page summary will go to faculty each term, a fuller report to the partnership council each year and the product findings will form the core of the accreditation self-study. Students will receive a short summary of what changed in response to their feedback, which encourages honest responses in later surveys.

The evaluation has a modest budget: about a quarter of one faculty member's time, a small stipend for the external reviewer and survey software the college already licenses. Keeping the plan within these resources matters, since an evaluation too ambitious to sustain is often abandoned after the first year, leaving a program without the information it needs most when problems appear.

Conclusion

The CIPP model gives Pine Ridge an evaluation that starts before launch and serves decisions at every stage: whether goals fit needs, whether the design and resources are ready, whether delivery is working and whether students achieve the intended outcomes. With early warning measures shaped by retention research and stakeholders involved throughout, the evaluation can improve the program while there is still time to act.

References

Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions. A literature review. SAGE Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621777

Frye, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE Guide No. 67. Medical Teacher, 34(5), e288-e299. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Press.