Call us

Course Design, Delivery and Evaluation

Order this Paper

Assessment Two

Write an Evaluation Report. You are expected to draw on what you have learned in Modules One, Two and Three of Course Design, Delivery and Evaluation. To demonstrate your

Understanding of these concepts you are asked to review literature, select a curriculum context, design an evaluation protocol and apply it by

Evaluating the curriculum context you selected, and then write a report encompassing all phases of your evaluation of the identified curriculum. Your written report should be no more than 3000 words in length, plus references and appendices where


Analyse the concepts and processes of curriculum design

Examine flexible approaches to curriculum design, including the foundations and issues associated with online /technologically-mediated learning

Embed, use and critically reflect upon the use of learning technologies in curriculum design

Assess standards and issues in curriculum evaluation, evaluation models, types, methods and tools

Apply discipline knowledge

Thinking skills

(use analytical skills to solve problems)

Information skills

(confidence to investigate new ideas)


Executive Summary

The executive summary provides an insightful, concise detailed overview of the purpose, scope, achievements, main points, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report.


Review of Literature

A detailed review of relevant literature is included and integrated throughout the report. Key concepts are analysed, evaluated and reflected upon. An extensive range of sources are included.



The context, rationale, methodology, results, findings, conclusion, recommendations and evaluation protocol included in Appendix are exceptionally well aligned to course concepts, described and explained in detail and supported by reference to an extensive range of sources.


Academic writing standard

The report is exceptionally well written in a suitable structure. Professionally presented. Organisation of sentences and paragraphs gives high degree of clarity and flow.

Point of view and style are appropriate throughout.

Contains virtually no typographical or spelling and punctuation errors.


APA referencing technique

An extensive range of sources cited using APA referencing correctly and consistently throughout.

All cited references included in the end of text reference list.



Belanger, D. (2016). Educational standards are important guidelines that prescribe what students should learn. [Weblog]. Retrieved from


Bernstein, J. L. (2014). Review of University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach. Teaching & Learning Inquiry The ISSOTL Journal, 2(1), 3-4.


Biggs, J. (2012). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 39-55.


Caffarella, R. S. (2002). Planning Programs for Adult Learners: A Practical Guide for Educators, Trainers, and Staff Developers (2nd ed.). (pp. 166-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2003).Qualitative difference in university teaching, in Malcolm Tight (Ed.), Access and Exclusion: International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, (pp.185-216). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Gazioğlu, S. (2012). Online course design: a statistics course example. Teaching Statistics An International Journal for Teachers, 35(2), 98-102.


Gehlen-Baum, V., Weinberger, A., Pohl, A., & Bry, F. (2014). Open Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities. In C. Rensing (Ed.), Technology Use in Lectures to Enhance Students’ Attention, (pp. 125-137). Switzerland: Springer.


Hicks, O. (2007). Curriculum in higher education in Australia – Hello?, in Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference [CD-ROM], Adelaide, 8-11 July.


Land, R. (2012). Discipline-based teaching. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), UNIVERSITY TEACHING IN FOCUS: A learning-centered approach, (pp. 38-55). New York, USA: Routledge.


Loveland, T. (2012).Educational Technology and Technology Education. In P. J. Williams (Ed.), Technology Education for Teachers, (pp. 115-136). Netherlands: Sense Publishers.


Osborn, P. G. (2004). Book Review: The Three Dimensions of Learning: Contemporary Learning Theory in the Tension Field Between the Cognitive, the Emotional and the Social. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 72-73.

Stromquist, N. (2004). The educational nature of feminist action. In G. Foley (Ed.) Dimensions of adult learning. Adult education and training in a global era, (pp. 35-52). NSW: Allen & Unwin.


Stewart, M. (2013). UNDERSTANDING LEARNING: THEORIES AND CRITIQUE. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), UNIVERSITY TEACHING IN FOCUS: A learning-centered approach, (pp. 3-18). New York, USA: Routledge.


Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J.D. (2008). Instructional Technology and Media for Learning (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.


Tracey, M. W., & Baaki, J. (2014). Design, designers, and reflection-in-action. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio, (pp. 1-13). New York: Springer.


Tuckman, B. W., & Harper, B. E. (2012). CONDUCTING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, (6th ed.). United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

Order this Paper

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes