Instructional Design

Final Project

There are many forms of assessment. Briefly, the formative and summative
assessments will be discussed. In addition, some assessments can act as both.
ObjectivesWhen preparing a course and/or as series of modules, the instructor will develop a
set of objectives. The general rule is that you dont want to include more than five
to seven per course, although there are exceptions. The goal is to create a course to
include delivery of the content along with the assessment and activities that help
the student achieve learning of these objectives. Ultimately, the assessment of
these objectives will demonstrate to what degree a student has mastered the
individual objectives. In order to achieve this goal, assessments must be utilized
throughout the course. The frequency and type will depend on the individual course.
FormativeThese are assessments that are designed to give the student feedback as they
proceed throughout a course. In general, there is no grade associated with it or it is
pass/fail. The idea is to provide information to the student about their progress
towards learning goals. Ultimately, this will be done in a form of cyber coaching; a
multi-media approach may be utilized. In general, it will be written however where
appropriate, audio and/or screen casting will be utilized.
SummativeSummative assessments act as score card for the student. It allows them to see the
progress of their achievement and/or mastery of the individual learning objectives.
The course and the assessments can be developed so students can review their
learning in relationship to each individual objective verses just an overall grade. It is
important that each individual objective is assessed in such a way to allow for this
determination.
AssessmentsA variety of assessments were used for the four modules. These include:

Analysis of scores of outcome assessmentsThe students will submit outcome assessments showing patient progress or
lack thereof. They will explain their analysis of the scores and the many
variables that may affect the interpretation.
Self-Reflection of patient record submissionsStudents will submit patient records according to the University and Federal
guidelines. They will then be given a rubric to follow and self-reflect on the
quality of their submissions.

Submission of evidence-based treatment planStudents will submit a treatment plan supported by the appropriate literature.
Posting of clinical reasoning algorithmStudents will create and submit an algorithm with rationale for each section
of the algorithm.

The following is a sample assessment including the rubric for the module with the
terminal objective of: creating a differential diagnoses by applying clinical
reasoning.
The students will review one of their patient files and post on the discussion board,
maintaining confidentiality, the history with an important element missing that
would support the diagnosis. Their peers would respond to the post discussing what
element that may be. Based on that submission, the student would then select the
most appropriate examination procedure(s) to help determine the diagnosis. This
would be the start of a working, differential diagnosis algorithm. It would be
submitted for review by the instructor and additional information would be supplied
to the student and this would consist of positive or negative diagnostic test. The
student would then complete an algorithm to include history examination and how
it leads to a differential diagnosis. With explanation of the rationale, it would then
be posted for peer comments. The differential diagnoses would initially include
three possible primary diagnoses and then the primary one.

Rubric for Algorithm

Carefully read directions and use this rubric as a guide for your submission.

Criterion

History

Organized: All the

exam information is
collected and
and
presented in a
Diagnos logical manner
tic Tests
Complete
Submission:
All three differential
Diagnos diagnoses and
information that
es
supports each one is
presented
tial

Organized and
Organize Somewhat
Thorough History d and
Organized
Thoroug History w/
Organized: All the h
Minor
history information
History
Omissions
is collected and
w/ Minor
presented in a
Omissio
logical manner
ns

Exam

Differen

Organize
d exam
w/ Minor
Omissio
ns

Somewhat
Organized
exam w/
Minor
Omissions

Appropri Diagnoses
ate
w/ One
diagnose Lacking: only
s: all
two of the
three
three
differenti
differential
al
diagnoses
diagnoses
were
were
supported by
submitted
clinical
; however reasoning.
the
clinical
reasoning
has not
been
clearly
explained
.

Points

Major Omissions,
Unacceptable
Submission

Major Omissions,
Unacceptable
Submission

Failed to List
Appropriate
Diagnoses

Appropriate
Diagnoses w/
Diagnosi Exceptional
Clinical
s
Reasoning: Of the
three diagnoses,
one was chosen in a
clinical reasoning
was submitted that
clearly supported
the reason for the
one chosen
diagnoses.
Primary

Appropri
ate
Diagnosi
s: Of the
three, it
was the
best
diagnosis;
however
the
clinical
reasoning
was
insufficien
t and did
not
support
the
submissio
n.

History &
History and Exam
Exam did
did not support
not Fully
Diagnosis
support
Diagnosis:
Most of the
history and
exam was
appropriate
for the
diagnoses but
it was still
incomplete.
For example,
certain tests
that may gold
standard were
not listed.