| Course | C921 Assessment and Evaluation Strategies for Measuring Student Learning |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 1 |
| Paper type | Assessment and evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | MSN Nursing Education |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for C921 Task 1
An Assessment and Evaluation Plan for the Community Health Assessment: Formative Checks at Each Stage, an Analytic Rubric With Anchors, a Short Test Blueprint and How the Results Will Change the Course
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
C921: Assessment and Evaluation Strategies for Measuring Student Learning, Task 1
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
An Assessment and Evaluation Plan for the Community Health Assessment: Formative Checks at Each Stage, an Analytic Rubric With Anchors, a Short Test Blueprint and How the Results Will Change the Course
Context and Purpose
This plan measures learning in the composite RN-to-BSN program's online community health course, which runs for eight weeks and in which 24 working nurses complete a community health assessment in four two-week stages: observing a community, finding secondary data, prioritizing problems and proposing a nursing intervention. The course objectives ask students to collect primary data through structured observation, retrieve and interpret at least five secondary indicators, compare them with benchmarks, prioritize problems using stated criteria and propose an intervention with partners and a measure of success. The plan distinguishes assessment, which gathers evidence of what each student has learned, from evaluation, which judges the quality of that learning and of the course itself (Oermann & Gaberson, 2021). Every instrument below is tied to an objective, and every result is used for something.
Formative Assessment at Each Stage
Formative assessment is feedback given while learning is still under way, and it has a well-documented effect on achievement when students receive specific information about the gap between current and expected performance and act on it (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Each stage of the course therefore ends with a formative check that carries no grade but must be completed before the next stage opens.
Stage one: students submit five observations with one inference each, and faculty reply within 72 hours marking any inference that goes beyond what was observed. Stage two: students submit their data table, and an automated check confirms that each indicator has a source, a year and a comparison value; faculty comment on one interpretation per student. Stage three: peer groups of four use the same criteria grid the final rubric uses to review each other's priority statements, which teaches the standard as well as applying it. Stage four: an optional coaching appointment reviews the draft intervention against the rubric.
Summative Assessment: The Community Assessment Paper
The final paper is scored with an analytic rubric of five criteria, one per objective, each at four levels: exemplary, competent, developing and beginning. Analytic rubrics give students feedback on each part of a complex task and make scoring more consistent than a single holistic judgment, especially when the rubric is specific to the task, includes examples and raters are trained together (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007). The table shows the competent level for each criterion; the full rubric describes all four levels.
| Criterion (objective) | Competent performance | Anchor example kept for raters |
|---|---|---|
| Primary data (1) | At least ten observations across physical environment, services and people, with inferences labeled as inferences | A student paper noting 'no sidewalks on three of four routes to the elementary school' |
| Secondary data (2) | Five or more indicators, each with source, year and denominator | Adult obesity rate from county health rankings with year and population |
| Benchmarks (3) | Each indicator compared with state and national values, with direction of difference stated | Teen birth rate above state and national rates by stated amounts |
| Prioritization (4) | Problems ranked with stated criteria such as size, severity and community concern, and the choice justified | Criteria grid with scores and a paragraph explaining the top choice |
| Intervention (5) | A nursing intervention with at least one named community partner and one measurable outcome | School-based blood pressure screening with the parish nurse network and a referral completion measure |
A Short Objective Test
Midway through the course, a 20-item quiz checks the vocabulary and data literacy that the paper depends on. It is low stakes and can be retaken once, because its purpose is to catch misunderstandings early. The blueprint distributes items across the objectives and cognitive levels so that the quiz samples what matters rather than what is easiest to write.
| Content area | Remember and understand | Apply and analyze | Total items |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rates, denominators and age adjustment | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Public data sources and their limits | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Comparing with benchmarks | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Prioritization criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Determinants of health | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 8 | 12 | 20 |
Feedback Students Can Use
Feedback on the final paper is written against the rubric criteria, not as general comments, and each student receives one sentence per criterion naming what met the standard and one specific change that would raise the weakest criterion. Students may revise one criterion within a week of receiving scores, because the course's aim is competence in community assessment rather than a single attempt at it. Revision requests are logged, and a criterion that many students ask to revise is treated as a signal about the teaching, not only about the students.
Validity, Reliability and Fairness
Validity rests on alignment: each rubric criterion and each block of quiz items maps to an objective, and no criterion rewards something the course never taught, such as formatting beyond basic APA style. Reliability is supported by rater calibration: before scoring, the two faculty members independently score three anchor papers, compare results criterion by criterion and discuss any difference of more than one level. During scoring, ten percent of papers are double scored. Fairness is supported by letting students choose their own community, allowing data sources in languages other than English where they exist, and offering the quiz retake. Quiz items will be reviewed after the first administration using item difficulty and discrimination, and any item that most high-scoring students miss will be checked for a keying or wording problem.
Evaluating the Course With the Results
Assessment results become evaluation data at the end of each cohort. If more than a quarter of students score developing or below on the same criterion, the matching stage of the course is revised before the next cohort; for example, weak benchmark comparisons would lead to a new worked example in the data stage. Student comments from the stage pulse surveys are read alongside scores, since a stage that students found confusing and scored poorly on points to teaching rather than to the students. Results are summarized for the program's curriculum committee each term, which connects this course to program-level outcomes on population health.
Conclusion
The plan uses feedback during learning, a rubric that makes the standard visible, a small test that catches misunderstandings early and a routine for turning results into course changes. Each piece answers one question: is this student learning to assess a population, and is this course helping them do it?
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2021). Evaluation and testing in nursing education (6th ed.). Springer Publishing.
What the C921 Task 1 instructions ask
The first C921 task asks you to plan how learning will be assessed and how the results will be used. Most versions ask you to describe the context and objectives, design formative and summative assessments, include a rubric or test with a blueprint, explain how feedback will be given, address validity, reliability and fairness, and describe how assessment data will inform course evaluation. The plan should fit a real or realistic course. The evaluator reads for assessments that match the objectives, a rubric with clear criteria and levels, and an honest account of how the plan protects the quality and fairness of the judgments made about students. Some versions ask for a test blueprint as well as a rubric.
How this C921 Task 1 example is built
The plan opens with the course, its learners and the objectives the assessments must measure. Formative assessment is placed at the end of each stage of the community assessment, with a brief rationale from research on feedback. The summative rubric is described criterion by criterion, one per objective, with four levels and anchors that describe performance. A short test uses a blueprint that maps items to objectives. The feedback section explains how comments will be tied to rubric criteria. Validity, reliability and fairness are handled in separate paragraphs with concrete steps. The final section sets a threshold for when rubric results trigger a change to the course. The feedback approach promises one sentence per criterion, which keeps comments short enough for working nurses to read.
Where the C921 Task 1 rubric puts the marks
C921 Task 1 aspects are scored competent, approaching competence or not evident. Context and objectives aspects check that the plan starts from clear learning outcomes. Formative and summative aspects look for assessments that measure those outcomes at the right points. A rubric or test aspect wants criteria, levels and a blueprint that make the standard visible. A feedback aspect asks how students will receive usable information. Validity, reliability and fairness aspects each need specific strategies, not definitions. An evaluation aspect asks how results will improve the course. APA citations of assessment research and professional writing complete the rubric. A plan that shows how the same rubric will be used by several instructors, with calibration, tends to earn the reliability aspect.
C921 Task 1 help: what sends it back
Assessment plans are returned most often because the rubric does not match the objectives. Give each objective its own criterion and describe performance at each level in observable terms. Second, formative assessment is described as a quiz with no feedback; the point is information students can use before the final submission. Third, validity and reliability are defined but not addressed. Say how you will align items with objectives and how raters will agree on scores. Fourth, fairness is often limited to a sentence on accommodations. Consider workload, language and access for working students. Finally, close the loop by stating what result would lead you to revise the course.
Get a C921 Task 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Task 1 instructions and rubric aspects from your C921 course of study. We write a custom assessment plan to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
Other Nursing (MSN) sample papers
- C798 Task 1 SDLC Plan and Gantt Chart
- C797 Task 1 Clinical Data Analysis
- D029 Task 1 Population Health Data Paper
- C918 Task 1 Nurse Educator Role Analysis
C921 Task 1 questions, answered
Should the C921 plan include a full rubric?
Most versions expect enough of the rubric to show criteria and performance levels. The sample describes five criteria with four levels and anchors, one criterion per course objective.
How is reliability addressed in a C921 plan?
Through clear criteria, anchor examples and rater calibration, where instructors score the same samples and discuss differences before grading. The sample plans calibration at the start of each cohort.
Does C921 cover course evaluation as well as student assessment?
Yes. The plan should explain how assessment results feed back into the course. The sample sets a threshold: if a quarter of students struggle on one criterion, that part of the course is revised.
Is the C921 course in the sample real?
No. The online course and its 24 students were invented for teaching. The assessment and feedback research the plan relies on is published and cited in APA style.
Where can I find a free C921 Task 1 sample paper?
The complete plan, rubric description and blueprint are on this page with notes. Send the C921 instructions with your course's objectives, and the desk will write a first custom plan at no charge.