A finished DNP-837A Topic 6 program assessment plan example, sampling work across the sequence and judging it against outcomes rather than against course grades. Searches like "dnp 837a topic 6 assignment example", "dnp837a topic 6 sample" and "dnp-837a topic 6 example" land here.
What a finished DNP-837A Topic 6 program assessment plan looks like
The finished plan is a sampling design, not a list of measures. For each of six outcomes it names the artifact that will be collected, the point in the sequence it comes from, how many will be pulled and how they will be selected. Two outcomes draw on work produced near the end, because a claim about what a graduate can do needs evidence from the end. Scoring is done by two faculty who did not teach the course, against a rubric written for the outcome rather than for the assignment, and disagreement between the two readers is reported rather than averaged away. One outcome yielded eleven usable artifacts, which the plan states is too few to support any conclusion, and it says what would have to change next cycle.
How a DNP-837A Topic 6 example is structured
The plan is ordered so that every claim the program wants to make has a collection behind it before anybody schedules a meeting. It opens with the six outcomes and, for each, the strongest claim the program intends to defend. A second part chooses the artifact for each claim and justifies the choice, including why a course grade will not serve. A third specifies sampling: where in the sequence, how many, drawn how, and what makes an artifact unusable. A fourth sets out scoring, naming who reads, against which rubric, and how disagreement between readers is handled. A fifth states what will be done with the results, including which body receives them and what decision each finding can drive. The closing part reports the outcome whose sample was too thin and refuses to draw a conclusion from it.
A sampling design, not a list
Each outcome specifies which artifact, from where in the sequence, how many and drawn how, which is what makes the finding defensible.
Terminal claims need terminal evidence
Two outcomes are evidenced from work produced near the end, because what a graduate can do is a claim about the end.
Read by faculty who did not teach
Two readers outside the course score each artifact against an outcome rubric, so the judgment is not the same one that awarded the grade.
Disagreement reported, not averaged
Where the two readers differ, the plan records the split, because an averaged score conceals the fact that the criterion is unclear.
One sample too thin to use
Eleven artifacts are declared insufficient and no conclusion is drawn, with a statement of what the next cycle must change.
Where marks go in DNP-837A Topic 6
The plan that fails at this level reports course grades and calls them program evidence, which is the substitution the whole topic exists to prevent. A second failure is collecting artifacts with no sampling rule, so nobody can say whether the work examined represents the cohort or the eleven files that happened to be accessible. Plans where the instructor scores their own learners against the program outcome have folded two different judgments into one. Marks also go for results with no destination, since evidence that reaches no committee and drives no decision has been gathered for its own sake. Averaging away reader disagreement hides an unclear criterion. Conclusions drawn from a handful of artifacts claim more than the sample can carry.
Get a DNP-837A Topic 6 example written to your instructions
Send the DNP-837A Topic 6 assignment instructions and the rubric your classroom posts, with the program outcomes and any reporting template your section requires. We write a custom example to those criteria, with an artifact and a sampling rule for every outcome, scoring by readers outside the course, and one thin sample reported honestly, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
DNP-837A Topic 6 questions, answered
Why is a course grade not program evidence?
Because it answers a different question. A grade says how well somebody did in a course, blending several criteria and often some judgment about effort. Program evidence has to say whether a graduate can do a specific thing, judged against that thing alone. The two can point in opposite directions, and a program that never separates them cannot report anything defensible.
How much work has to be sampled?
Enough that a reader would accept the conclusion, which is fewer artifacts than people fear and more than most plans collect. What matters more than the number is the rule: random selection from a defined pool beats whatever was convenient to retrieve. Where the pool is small, report the number and limit the claim rather than writing as though it were large.
Who should score the artifacts?
Somebody other than the person who taught the course, and preferably two of them. An instructor scoring their own class against a program outcome is being asked to judge their own teaching, which is a poor design regardless of anybody's integrity. Two outside readers also give you disagreement, and disagreement is diagnostic: it usually means the criterion needs rewriting before the next cycle.