Title:	Program Planning and Evaluation
Keywords:	Planning and programming Monitoring and evaluation Management Health systems Evidence based medicine
Country:	Indonesia
Institution:	Indonesia - Post Graduate Programme, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta
Course coordinator:	Riris Andono Ahmad
Date start:	2026-08-09
Date end:	2026-09-10
About duration and dates:	The application deadline is usually 8 weeks before the first face-to-face course day. Pre-reading materials will be distributed 1 week before course commencement. The course is delivered over 5 weeks
Classification:	advanced optional
Mode of delivery:	Blended-learning
Course location: Public Health Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, UGM, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
ECTS credit points:	4 ECTS credits
SIT: Self-paced online / Pre-course (Week 1-2), using UGM Moodle-Based Learning Management System (LMS) 1. Pre-reading and asynchronous lecture = 5 hours 2. Pre-test = 1 × 1 hour = 1 hour 3. Self-directed learning = 8 x 4 hours = 32 hours Total:38 hours Face-to-face Learning (Weeks 3-4) Face-to-Face (Offline) at week 2 and 3 1. In-class lectures = 10 × 100 minutes = 20 hours 2. Assignment for tutorials (group discussion)= 4 × 2 hours = 8 hours 3. Tutorial sessions (presentation and discussion of assignment)= 4 × 2 hours = 8 hours Total: 68 hours Independent group work (Week 5) - Final assignment preparation = 25 hours Final examination - offline presentation = 1 × 2 hours = 3 hours Total: 27 hours Overall course workload: 102 hours (38 + 36 + 25 + 3 hours) ~ 4 ECTS
Language:	English
Description: At the end of the module, the student should be able to: 1. Design a health program evaluation, including selecting an appropriate evaluation framework, study design, and data collection plan, and apply it to a real-world health program in the student's local context. 2. Distinguish between monitoring and evaluation, and explain how each function contributes to health program management, accountability, and improvement. 3. Analyze the strengths and limitations of different health program evaluation designs, considering internal and external validity, data credibility, and appropriateness for the program context. 4. Apply a health program planning cycle to develop a structured program plan that incorporates stakeholder analysis, monitoring and evaluation indicators, and the distinction between monitoring and evaluation. 5. Justify evaluation findings and communicate them effectively to relevant stakeholders, including decision-makers and program managers, using appropriate formats and evidence standards.
Assessment Procedures: Assessment components and weights: A. Pre-test | Weight: 10% Pre-test (1 hour, online via Moodle upon enrolment): evaluates baseline knowledge and analytical readiness. Results are shared with students to guide self-directed study priorities. The pre-test is formative; it counts toward the grade, but no fail/resit applies to this component alone. B. Attendance and Participation | Weight: 10% Assessed as in-class participation quality and attendance across all sessions Assessed by facilitator observation. A minimum of 75% attendance is required to sit the final exam. Students who meet the attendance threshold are graded on the quality of their in-session contributions, engagement with tutorial exercises, and peer collaboration. C. Presentation / Skill-based Assessment (SBA) | Weight: 30% (rubrics are used) Group presentation (15 minutes per group + 15 minutes discussion): each group presents their health program evaluation case study findings to the class. Individual grades are assigned based on each student's personal contribution and performance during Q&A. Alternatively, the course coordinator may substitute a Skill-based Assessment (SBA) for the group presentation, depending on cohort size; the SBA involves individual demonstration of evaluation design skills through a structured task. Individual grades will be determined by a combination of each student's contribution to the group project and their performance during the question-and-answer session. Written feedback on the final report will be provided within two weeks of submission. Verbal feedback is given during tutorial sessions. D. Final assignment | Weight: 20% Individual written assignment: each student submits a project output or case study report (2,000–2,500 words) on a health program evaluation conducted in their local area. Due 1 week after the final course day. Written feedback provided within 2 weeks of submission. E. Final Exam or Presentation | Weight: 30% The final assessment is a 3-hour in-class session: Structured group presentation of the project output with examiner Q&A. The course coordinator confirms the format at the beginning of the course. Both formats assess the same learning objectives. Passing Standard and Resit Policy Students must achieve a minimum overall score of 50% (Grade D or above) to pass the course. Students who receive a Grade E (overall score below 50%) will be deemed to have failed the course and must re-enrol and retake the course when it is next offered. There is no supplementary examination or resubmission opportunity for students receiving a failing grade. Resubmission of individual assessment components is not permitted unless otherwise approved under University regulations for exceptional circumstances. Feedback mechanism: Written feedback is provided on group reports within 2 weeks of submission. Verbal feedback is given during tutorial sessions and at the final exam debrief. Individual exam feedback is available upon request. Academic integrity (online assessment): The pre-test/individual assignment is completed online via LMS. It is designed as a baseline diagnostic — students are not expected to have mastered the content, so the incentive to misrepresent personal work is low. Students complete the assignment individually and must submit a declaration of originality. The course coordinator may request an oral follow-up if academic integrity is in question. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools Students should declare in writing the use of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude) to support learning activities such as brainstorming, literature searching, language editing, and data analysis. However, all submitted work must reflect the student's own understanding, critical thinking, and academic judgement. Students are responsible for verifying the accuracy of any AI-generated content and must acknowledge any substantial use of AI in their assignments. AI-generated content may not be submitted as original work without critical review and revision. During presentations and oral examinations, students must be able to explain and defend all aspects of their work independently. Failure to disclose substantial AI use or misuse of AI may be considered a breach of academic integrity and will be managed according to University regulations. Students should also refer to the official UGM Guidelines on the Ethical Use of Generative AI in Higher Education for further guidance on responsible, transparent, and ethical use of AI in academic activities. Grade scale: A = 85-100% B = 65-84% C = 50 - 64% D = 40 - 49% E = < 40%
Content: 1. Introduction to health program management (including the program cycle) 2. Developing a health program plan 3. Health program evaluation: difference between monitoring and evaluation 4. Framework of health program evaluation 5. Tutorial 1: Develop a framework for health program evaluation 6. Stakeholder engagement in health program evaluation 7. Tutorial 2: Identify stakeholders for health program evaluation 8. Types and designs of health program evaluation 9. Research design for health program evaluation 10. Tutorial 3: Choose type and design for health program evaluation 11. Internal and external validity in health program evaluation 12. How to collect credible data for evaluation 13. Tutorial 4: Plan data collection for health program evaluation 14. Justify and disseminate evaluation findings 15. Project assignment session 16. Recap and course debrief
Methods: Students receive course materials 7 days in advance via Moodle for self-directed pre-reading (5 hours). Upon enrolment, students complete a 1-hour online pre-test to assess baseline readiness. During the 2-week face-to-face period, learning progresses through three stages: (1) in-class lectures introduce theoretical frameworks for program planning and evaluation; (2) tutorial sessions guide students through the stepwise development of their project output (a health program evaluation case study); (3) assignment tutorials allow groups to present draft findings and receive structured feedback before final submission.
Prerequisites: Applicants must be enrolled in an MPH or MSc program. English proficiency requirement: Applicants must provide evidence of English proficiency with a minimum TOEFL score of 550 (paper-based), 213 (computer-based), or 79–80 (internet-based), or an IELTS score of at least 6.0. Applicants whose previous degree was taught entirely in English may submit an official letter from their institution confirming English as the medium of instruction. Native English speakers are exempt from this requirement. Students from tropEd Home Institutions will be considered sufficiently fluent in English Applicants must have reliable internet access to access Moodle-based learning management systems (LMS) pre-reading materials and complete the online pre-test.
Attendance: Minimum number of students: 10 (below this number, the course will not take place). Maximum number of students: 30. Maximum number of MPH students: 20. Maximum number of tropEd students: 10.
Selection: First-come, first-served.
Fees: The tuition fee is €500 (EUR 500), excluding living costs, visa, and accommodation.
Scholarships: Not applicable.
tropEd accreditation: Accredited in Antwerp, in June 2026. This accreditation is valid until June 2031
Remarks: Key references: 1. Rossi PH, Lipsey MW, Henry GT. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 8th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2018. 2. WHO. Practical Guidance for Health Program Evaluation Planning. Geneva: WHO; 2016. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241510042 3. Stufflebeam DL, Zhang G. The CIPP Evaluation Model: How to Evaluate for Improvement and Accountability. New York: Guilford Press; 2017. 4. Newcomer KE, Hatry HP, Wholey JS (eds). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2015. 5. Patton MQ. Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2008.
Email Address:	risandono_ahmad@ugm.ac.id
Date Of Record Creation:	2026-07-01 08:17:41 (W3C-DTF)
Date Of Record Release:	2026-07-01 08:25:43 (W3C-DTF)
Date Record Checked:	2026-06-30 (W3C-DTF)
Date Last Modified:	2026-07-01 08:25:43 (W3C-DTF)