CQUniversity Unit Profile.

Assessment One – Written Assessment

Due Date: Part A is due Friday of Week 4 at 4:00pm AEST, Part B is due Friday of Week 6 at 4:00pm AEST

Weighting: 40%; 20% for Part A and 20% for Part B

Minimum Mark or Grade: Yes, 50%

Task Type: Written Assessment

Title: Analysis of models of health and health promotion and their application in the field

Weighting: Graded

Submission: Online via Moodle

Referencing Style: American Psychological Association or Harvard

Description

This individual written assessment is divided into two parts: Part A and Part B.

Part A is due in Week 4 and is worth 20/40 marks.

Part B is due in Week 6 and is worth 20/40 marks.

Part A (due Week 4):

Part A consists of two components.

The first component of Part A is that you must create a handwritten/hand-drawn concept map to provide a visual depiction that compares and contrasts 3 models of health and health promotion that we have learned about in Weeks 1-3. You can choose from any of the models that we have learned about in this unit in those weeks.

When creating this concept map, you should include points with:

1) information about the similarities or differences in terms of the elements of the models and what they posit;

2) strengths and weaknesses of the 3 models;

3) discussion about how well the models align (or do not align) with the different action areas of the Ottawa Charter,

4) similarities or differences in the types of health promotion contexts (e.g., certain settings or with certain populations) in which the models could be useful; and

5) discussion about how well placed the models are to target social determinants of health.

This concept map must be created by hand and cannot be developed using digital software, website, or platforms.

You do not need to write anything for this section in terms of written paragraphs. Here, the written concept ‘bubbles’ are all you need to write.  You only need to include a photo or scanned PDF of your concept map. Please ensure that the image quality is clear enough that the content can be properly read. As an alternative to a photo, you can scan your concept map and upload it as a separate document.

For the second component of Part A, select 2 models of health that you focused on in your concept map and select 1 case study from the options below.

Write a 400-word (+/- 10%) response to compare and contrast how these 2 models that you selected could be applied to the chosen case study to change behaviour or promote health. In other words, what does one model offer that the other does not? What are the different benefits of each of these 2 models for promoting health for application in the selected case study?

Note: your answers to these questions should be in a paragraph form and not in a bullet list. Thus, it must adhere to academic writing conventions. This part should also be evidence-based, drawing on high-quality academic sources. To credit these sources, APA or Harvard referencing is required, including in-text citations and a full reference list.

You must use the mandatory template on Moodle and upload your assignment as a Word document (.doc).

Please select ONLY 1 of the case study options below for Part B.

Case Study 1: Middle‑Aged Man Delaying Emergency Care in a Coastal Community

Peter, a 58‑year‑old man, lives alone in a small coastal town and works casually as a fishing deckhand. One night, he develops severe chest tightness and nausea but decides not to immediately call emergency services. He believes the pain is caused by stress or indigestion and thinks calling an ambulance would be “overreacting.” He is also worried about ambulance fees and missing work. Peter has limited knowledge of heart attack symptoms and believes serious heart problems only happen to people much older than him. He rarely visits a doctor and feels uncomfortable asking medical professionals questions. Most of his friends value being “tough” and avoiding hospitals unless absolutely necessary. The nearest hospital is over 45 minutes away, and he does not own a car.

Case Study 2: Young University Student Adjusting to Campus Life and Mental Health Challenges

Sofia is an 18‑year‑old domestic student who has moved from a rural area to study at a metropolitan university. Over the semester, she begins experiencing ongoing anxiety, difficulty sleeping, and fear of speaking in tutorials. She believes that stress is “just part of uni life” and worries that asking for help means she is weak. Sofia knows counselling services exist on campus but thinks they are only for students with serious mental illness. Her friends also avoid discussing mental health and encourage her to “push through.” She follows several influencers on social media who promote productivity and perfection, which increases her self‑pressure. While the university has wellbeing programs and peer‑support services, Sofia has not attended them and doubts they would help her. She feels unsure about how to manage her stress and lacks confidence in using coping strategies.

Case Study 3: International Student Managing a Newly Diagnosed Chronic Condition

Wei, a 33‑year‑old international postgraduate student from Vietnam, has recently been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. His doctor has explained the importance of diet, physical activity, and regular health monitoring. Wei understands that his condition is serious but feels overwhelmed by the information. He lives in shared accommodation with limited kitchen access and relies on inexpensive, convenient foods. Wei believes healthy food in Australia is expensive and unfamiliar, and he is unsure how to make changes using foods from his own culture. Language barriers make it difficult for him to ask questions, and he worries about misunderstanding medical advice. Wei does not know other students with diabetes and has no family nearby for support. Although he wants to manage his health better, he is unsure where to start and does not feel confident making long‑term behaviour changes.

Case Study 4: Casual Worker in a Warehouse with Ongoing Musculoskeletal Pain

María, a 45‑year‑old temporary warehouse worker, experiences regular shoulder and lower‑back pain from repetitive lifting tasks. She has noticed that her pain worsens during long shifts but rarely reports it to supervisors. She worries that raising concerns could reduce her shifts or result in being replaced. María believes workplace injuries are common and unavoidable in this type of job. Many of her co‑workers continue working through pain, and she feels pressure to do the same. The workplace provides little information about injury prevention, and safety training is brief and rarely repeated. Outside of work, María balances caring for her children and managing household responsibilities, leaving little time for rest or exercise. She feels unsure whether reporting her injury would actually lead to positive change.

Case Study 5: Primary School Child with Poorly Controlled Asthma

Liam, an 8‑year‑old child, attends a public primary school and frequently misses class due to asthma flare‑ups. He lives in rental housing near a major road, where air quality is poor. His family struggles financially, and heating is rarely used during winter. Liam has an asthma action plan, but his parent finds it difficult to follow due to work commitments and limited understanding of trigger management. Teachers are aware of his condition but are unsure how to respond during mild asthma symptoms. The school has limited health education programs focused on asthma. There are few community supports available, and the family is unaware of local services that could assist with housing conditions or asthma education.

Part B (Due Week 6): 

Part B should be a written response of 750 words (+/- 10%).

Select one of the intervention topics (1, 2 or 3) below to focus Part B on. Do not focus on all three topics!

Using the background information and source articles provided (see Moodle), additional literature, and the unit content, analyse the impact and application of models and principles of health and health promotion in real-life health promotion interventions and studies targeting your chosen intervention topic (i.e., 1, 2 or 3).

Here are some guiding questions to address in your analysis:

·       Overall, how well does the intervention demonstrate the practical use of health and health promotion models?

·       How could models of health and health promotion have been applied to the intervention? Given one example explaining how a model of health that we have covered in this unit could have been applied to the intervention?

·       Which social determinants of health were targeted?  

·       Which social determinants of health could have been targeted? Explain how they could be targeted (i.e., what approaches or strategies could be used) if the program were modified.

·       Does this intervention primarily address upstream, midstream or downstream approaches? Provide examples to explain which approaches were used using supporting examples. 

·       Which health promotion action areas (e.g. building skills, creating supportive environments, strengthening community action) are most evident?

Note: your answers to these questions should be in a paragraph form and not in a bullet list. Thus, it must adhere to academic writing conventions. This part should also be evidence-based, drawing on high-quality academic sources. To credit these sources, APA or Harvard referencing is required, including in-text citations and a full reference list.

You must use the mandatory template on Moodle and upload your assignment as a Word document (.doc).

Intervention Topic 1: Addressing mental health in the workplace

Problem and context:

A poor work environment can cause stress, which can harm both physical and mental health, including increasing the risk of depression, anxiety, and substance use. Stress at work is linked to problems like missing work, lower productivity, and low job satisfaction. Some jobs, such as healthcare, construction, and IT, are especially stressful and have higher risks of burnout and mental health problems. These issues can be made worse by long working hours, job insecurity, and negative attitudes toward mental health. Creating supportive workplaces and offering mental health programs can help people feel better, work more effectively, and reduce stigma around mental health.

Intervention:

The intervention is based on a clear plan for how to create a mentally healthy workplace. It uses an integrated approach, which means it supports individuals, teams, leaders, and the whole organisation. The program was developed using research studies, reviews of workplace mental health programs, and feedback from workers, managers, and experts from the construction, healthcare, and ICT sectors.

The main goal of the intervention is to improve mental health at work, reduce stigma around mental illness, and support mental wellbeing. It is delivered through the MENTUPP Hub, which is an online platform. The Hub includes easy‑to‑use learning materials, tools, and links to other helpful supports.

All materials are delivered online so people can take part easily, including during COVID‑19 restrictions. The Hub includes written information, videos, short quizzes, animated stories, role‑play videos, breathing and mindfulness exercises, and simple stress‑management activities. These materials help people learn skills to cope with stress and reduce burnout.

The content in the Hub is adapted for three sectors: construction, healthcare, and ICT. Examples in the videos and stories show real situations that people in these jobs may experience. The Hub includes general information for everyone, and special sections for employees and for leaders or managers. Workplaces are encouraged to use what they learn in their daily work.

The MENTUPP Hub is available in several languages, including English, Spanish, German, Dutch, Albanian, and Hungarian. Users move through the materials by themselves at their own pace.

The intervention has three main parts. Component A focuses on mental wellbeing, stress, burnout, and early signs of depression. It helps people understand mental health, manage stress, and support each other at work. Leaders also learn how to improve the work environment and communicate better with staff. Component B focuses on depression and anxiety. It explains what these conditions are, why they happen, and how to get help. Leaders learn about suicide prevention and how to support employees who may be struggling. Component C focuses on reducing stigma about mental health. It helps people feel more comfortable talking about mental health and supporting others at work.

Source: See Moodle for intervention sources

Intervention Topic 2: Promoting physical activity among children in schools

Problem and context:

Being physically active is very good for children’s bodies, minds, and social lives. However, most children around the world do not get the recommended 60 minutes of exercise every day and spend too much time sitting, especially using screens. Sitting too much, like watching a lot of TV, has been linked to unhealthy weight gain. Because children spend most of their time at school and at home, these places are important for helping them move more and sit less. Schools and families can help by encouraging active lessons, movement breaks, less screen time, and more opportunities to be physically active.

Intervention:

The Transform- Us! school- based and home- based intervention was developed to determine the impact of strategies to promote children’s moderate- to- vigorous physical activity versus reduce sedentary behaviour or a combination of these strategies, on behavioural and health outcomes. The intervention was run over two and a half school years, from July 2010 to December 2012. It was based on three main ideas: people learn from others, people make choices about their behaviour, and behaviour is influenced by the environment. The program was delivered by classroom teachers and focused on increasing physical activity and reducing sitting time at school and at home.

The program used many different strategies, including learning activities, teaching methods, behaviour change techniques, social support, and changes to the school environment. Teachers and staff from the Victorian Department of Education and Training and health and physical education organisations helped design the program and teacher training. Over time, more than 17 organisations were involved as partners.

Teachers received half‑day, face‑to‑face training from the research team. This training taught teachers how to use the program in class, such as running active lessons and short movement breaks. Because teachers change each year, Year 3 teachers were trained at the start of the program, Year 4 teachers were trained the following year, and Year 5 teachers received written materials only.

Teachers were supported after the training through follow‑up visits, where they discussed any problems and shared ideas. Teachers who were using the program well helped others who had difficulties. The focus was on making sure the program was used correctly and consistently. Overall, the intervention aimed to help children sit less, move more, and learn healthy habits that could continue over time.

Source: See Moodle for intervention sources

Intervention Topic 3: Colorectal cancer screening and flu vaccinations

Problem and context:

Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in Western countries (e.g., Australia) but many deaths can be prevented with regular screening. Adults aged 50 to 75 years are advised to be screened using tests such as yearly home stool tests or less frequent medical procedures like colonoscopies. Although screening rates are improving, people with lower income or fewer resources are still less likely to be screened. Many clinics serving these communities mostly use simple home tests, which can be hard to manage every year because of limited staff and time. One helpful idea is offering these tests when people come in for their flu shot, which can make screening easier and reach more patients.

Intervention:

The intervention is designed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRC) among adults. The intervention allows health care providers to promote screening to patients at the time of their annual flu vaccine, offering a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kit, instructions, and a return envelope. The FLU‑FOBT intervention consisted of multiple elements, including training non‑physician clinic staff, primarily medical assistant, to identify patients who were due for FOBT screening and to appropriately offer the test to eligible individuals. Standing orders were used to ensure FOBT kits were provided to eligible patients whenever they received an annual influenza vaccine. Additional components included the use of FLU‑FOBT logs to record influenza vaccinations, as well as patient education materials explaining the importance of FOBT and instructions on how to complete the test. These materials included visual aids, low‑literacy instructions in multiple languages, and an educational video that could be shown in the clinic. Patients were also given stamped envelopes so completed FOBT kits could be mailed directly to the clinical laboratory. Clinics were encouraged, but not required, to use the FLU‑FOBT logs to track test completion and follow up abnormal results. The main outcome of the RCT was the change in colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) rates among patients who received influenza vaccines during the intervention and control periods, measured from September 2009 to March 2010.

Source: See Moodle for intervention sources

Word count

As per Moodle page and marking rubric +/-10%, excluding the cover page and the reference list. Calculate your word count minus exclusions before submission and include this on the cover page.

Grading rubric

Please refer to the Moodle site for additional assessment information, such as the assignment marking rubric and mandatory template.

Turnitin

All submissions are subject to Turnitin scans, and all Turnitin reports are scrutinised. All instances of plagiarism are reported to the Academic Misconduct Board for review.

Assessment Criteria

This assignment is worth 40% of the overall mark for the unit: 20% for Part A and 20% for Part B.

The assessment criteria for this unit are in the form of a detailed marking rubric, which is available from the Moodle site.

Check Moodle for an assessment template and marking criterion/rubric.

Presentation requirements

You must use the Assessment Task One Template located in the Assessment Tile in Moodle.

Submit your document in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx)

Use of Generative AI

Level of Gen AI Use allowed: AI Planning (Level 2): You may use AI for planning, idea development, and research. Your final submission should show how you have developed and refined these ideas. 

In accordance with CQUniversity policy, please note that a declaration must be provided if Generative Artificial Intelligence is used on this assessment and Generative Artificial Intelligence must also be included in-text citations and the reference list. 

Please note that if you used Generative Artificial Intelligence tools for the aforementioned permitted uses, then you MUST: 1) include a declaration in your assessment stating the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence and how it was used and 2) you need to cite it in-text and in the reference list. Please see resources on the Moodle site for guidance on appropriate declaring and referencing of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Examples of Generative Artificial Intelligence tools include but are not limited to: ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, Gemini, Grammarly AI, DALL-E, and Bard.

Broadly, you will be assessed on:

• A highly detailed concept map has been created for Part A linking various key concepts (e.g., similarities and differences of models, linking models to the Ottawa Charter action areas, similarities or differences in the types of health promotion contexts the models that are useful; linking models to social determinants of health).
• The comparison and contrasting of the models are critical and highly comprehensive with insightful, detailed, and explicit explanation of how the models could be applied to the case study and intervention, how they relate to the action areas of the Ottawa Charter, and social determinants of health in the context of the case study and intervention selected for the assessment 
• The analysis and evaluation of the impact of the principles and models of health and health promotion in real-world interventions is comprehensive, highly critical and detailed. 
• There is consistent acknowledgement of sources of information throughout assessment, and the critical discussion uses several high-quality, current and relevant academic sources.
• The written assessment is professionally presented with minimal grammatical or spelling errors or errors in APA or Harvard referencing, and the discussion has used a consistent voice that reflects unit content. 

Assessment Two – Group Assessment

Due Date: Tuesday of Week 10 at 4:00pm AEST

Weighting: 40%

Minimum Mark or Grade: Yes, 50% minimum mark

Task Type: Group Assessment

Title: Health Promotion Program Presentation

Weighting: Graded

Submission: Online via Moodle

Referencing Style: American Psychological Association or Harvard

Description

You are part of a team of Health Promotion Officers working in the Preventive Health and Health Promotion Department within the newly established Australian Centre for Disease Control. As part of your role, your team is working on developing and modifying health promotion programs for implementation in parts of Australia. There are a range of health promotion programs that exist in practice, many of which could be changed to better 1) support behaviour change, 2) address the social determinants of health, and 3) target most or all the action areas of the Ottawa Charter.

Your Team Manager in the department has tasked you and your fellow Health Promotion Officers with preparing a presentation on one health promotion program that you think should receive funding support from senior employees at the Australian Centre for Disease Control in order to enhance the program. Your Team Manager has given you a list of existing health promotion programs that have been developed and implemented in Australia. However, your Team Manager thinks that these programs could be modified by better drawing on models of health and health promotion, targeting of the social determinants of health, and aligning with the action areas of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. You and your team must select ONE of the health promotion programs from the list provided by your Team Manager to focus this task on (see below). Upon selection of a program, you and your team will need to analyse it and present suggestions for its modification.

Instructions: 

Your lecturer will assign students to groups with fellow classmates, and you will work together on this assessment collaboratively.

Present a 15-minute narrated PowerPoint (i.e., oral presentation). The presentations will be conducted either via Zoom or in-person depending on whether you are distance or Melbourne-campus student during the Week 10. For Melbourne students, these presentations are in-person during the Week 10 tutorial. For distance students, alternative times for the Zoom presentations will be arranged for Week 10.

To prepare for this presentation:

• Choose ONE of the health promotion programs listed below.
• Research the program using the sources provided for that chosen program, readings from the unit e-reading list, and any other relevant peer-reviewed literature.
• In this presentation, you will need to 1) critically examine the role of partnerships in the intervention and 2) analyse the program with respect to the impact and application of models of health and principles of health Promotion (e.g., social determinants of health, downstream/midstream/upstream approaches, Ottawa Charter action areas).

Note that there is an embedded individual component of this assessment, which includes your individual portion of the presentation (your slides created and your verbal delivery of your section).

The suggested presentation outline is as follows:

1. Present a brief introduction of the program (e.g., the health problem it is trying to address, what the program involves).
2. Analyse the program and determine how well it targeted the social determinants of health.
   1. Which social determinants of health were targeted?
   2. Which social determinants of health could have been targeted? Explain how they could be targeted (i.e., what approaches or strategies could be used) if the program were modified.
3. Critique the Health Promotion Action approaches used in the program with respect to whether they were downstream (primary care approaches), midstream (lifestyle/behaviourist), and/or upstream (socio-ecological).
   1. If the approach was more downstream, how could midstream or upstream approaches have been applied?
   2. How do you suggest modifying the program to use upstream approaches?
4. Analyse the application (or lack thereof) of models of health and health promotion in the program.
   1. At minimum, pick one model that you have learned about in this unit and discuss how the program could be modified to use this model to promote health. You can use the work you did for Assessment 1 to support you here.
5. Analyse the program components in terms of how well they target the action areas of the Ottawa Charter using Table 3 (Appraisal Table of Program Designs) in the following article: Fry D, Zask A. Applying the Ottawa Charter to inform health promotion programme design. Health Promot Int. 2017 Oct 1;32(5):901-912. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daw022
   1. Should you identify gaps or aspects where there could be greater alignment between the program and the action areas of the Ottawa Charter, suggest how the program could be modified accordingly (i.e., to better align with the Ottawa Charter action areas) and discuss why 
   2. If you do not identify gaps or areas where there could be greater alignment with the action areas of the Ottawa Charter, ensure that you explain why the program should remain unchanged and discuss how it targeted the actions areas well.
6. Discuss the different stakeholders who were involved (based on the information provided) or who could have been involved in the health promotion program. Drawing on content from this unit and other relevant peer-reviewed literature, examine the role that partnerships could play to support the impact and effectiveness of the program.
   1. What partnerships (e.g., promoters, funders, community leaders, champions, etc.) would be useful to establish as part of the program?
   2. What stakeholders would you suggest the program staff partner with and why?
   3. What theories concerning partnerships would be useful to guide partnership development and why?

Program 1: Paramedic-led community-based health promotion program

CP@clinic is a weekly, walk‑in program that delivers a range of preventive health services, including screening for blood pressure, diabetes, and fall risk; health education and promotion activities; linkage to appropriate community‑based resources; identification of individuals at elevated health risk with referral to health‑care services; and ongoing sharing of participants’ health information with their family physician. Sessions took place in shared areas within residential buildings and were delivered by community paramedics who had completed structured training, consisting of online interactive learning modules and webinar‑based instruction. The program was implemented by paramedics working modified duties, such as those who were pregnant or temporarily injured or disabled and therefore unable to perform full paramedic roles, given their expertise in conducting health risk assessments and their capacity to respond to medical emergencies that could arise among this high‑risk population.

Participants were evaluated using the Canadian Diabetes Risk Questionnaire (CANRISK), which was administered at baseline and repeated every six months. Individuals who scored in the moderate‑ to high‑risk range were invited to attend a follow‑up appointment for a fasting capillary blood glucose test.

Predefined clinical pathways were used to guide paramedics in referring participants to suitable services. Those identified as high risk were directed immediately to appropriate health‑care providers. Participants assessed as having moderate risk were referred to community‑based programs aimed at supporting health management, with a particular focus on modifiable chronic disease risk factors, including physical inactivity, poor diet, tobacco use, harmful alcohol consumption, mental health concerns, and stress. Participants requiring urgent medical care were advised to attend urgent care services or the emergency department, using either personal transportation or ambulance services, depending on clinical need.

Program Resources: See Moodle for resources

Program 2: Workplace-based weight loss program

The 3‑month Workplace POWER (WP) intervention, conducted between 2009-2010, is comprised four primary components.

1) Information session:
A single 75‑minute face‑to‑face session was delivered by one of the male researchers (PJM). During the first 60 minutes, participants received education on energy balance, the specific dietary and physical activity challenges associated with shift work, weight loss strategies tailored for men, and core behaviour change techniques such as self‑monitoring, goal setting, and the use of social support.

2) Study website:
The remaining 15 minutes of the session provided a technical demonstration to introduce participants to a freely available public weight‑loss website (http://www.calorieking.com.au) used throughout the program. Participants were instructed to record their body weight online weekly and to complete daily online food intake and physical activity diaries for the first four weeks, two weeks during the second month, and one week in the third month. Each participant who submitted diary data received up to seven personalized feedback reports via email over the course of the program. These reports summarized weekly diary entries and offered tailored recommendations to support weight loss, decrease energy intake, and increase physical activity. Participants were also able to contact the research team by email with any questions, which were addressed on a weekly basis by two research assistants qualified in health and physical education (ATC) or nutrition and dietetics (BB).

3) Resources:
Participants in the WP group received a weight‑loss handbook, instructions for using the study website, and a Yamax SW200 pedometer to support self‑monitoring.

4) Group‑based financial incentive:
Two small financial incentives were incorporated into the program. Work crews were eligible to receive an AU$50 gift voucher per individual, redeemable at a local sporting equipment retailer, awarded to the crew achieving the greatest average percentage weight loss at both the one‑month assessment and at the end of the intervention period.

The WP program was based on an earlier effective weight‑loss initiative designed specifically for men. Several aspects of the intervention, including the educational session, booklet content, and feedback mechanisms, were adapted to better suit this population, taking into consideration the unique difficulties faced by shift workers when attempting to improve dietary behaviors, increase physical activity levels, and achieve weight loss.

Program Resources: See Moodle for resources

Program 3: Live Lighter Program

The LiveLighter (LL) campaign centered on a 30‑second primary advertisement that visually portrayed large amounts of harmful visceral fat surrounding an overweight individual’s internal organs. The advertisement was designed to motivate behaviour change by increasing awareness of the health risks associated with excess weight and by confronting viewers with the physical consequences of being overweight. This served as the campaign’s central “why change” message and aimed to provoke interest, surprise, and self‑relevant concern by emphasizing personal vulnerability to health threats. Four additional supporting advertisements reinforced the visceral imagery while providing practical “how to change” guidance, demonstrating small, achievable improvements in diet and physical activity that could be implemented immediately to reduce risk. Emphasising immediate, manageable actions was integral to the campaign’s rationale, as it encouraged positive self‑reinforcement, reduced alarm responses, and supported habit formation. This combined approach was intended to minimize defensive reactions by reframing overweight as a public health issue and offering clear solutions. All advertisements were rigorously pre‑tested using qualitative research with both overweight and healthy‑weight adults.

The LL campaign was launched in Western Australia in June 2012 and primarily targeted adults aged 25–64 years, a group at higher risk of weight gain. The main advertisement aired across two media waves, supported by shorter advertisements focused on diet and physical activity, and later by an ad promoting the campaign website where further information was available. Television advertising was supplemented by cinema, radio, print, and online promotion, with a budget comparable to commercial campaigns. The advertising formed part of a broader strategy to build public, media, and political support for policies and environmental changes that promote healthy eating and physical activity.

Program Resources: See Moodle for resources

Submission

Please upload and submit your assessment as a Microsoft PowerPoint file on Moodle.

Late submissions will be accepted, but penalties will accrue at 5% for every partial or full calendar day past the due date.

File format

A template for the assessment (Microsoft PowerPoint) is provided on Moodle, which you must use for this assessment.

Submit your document as a Microsoft Word (doc or .docx) file.

Grading rubric

Please refer to the Moodle site for additional assessment information, such as the assignment marking rubric.

Turnitin

All submissions are subject to Turnitin scans, and all Turnitin reports are scrutinised. All instances of plagiarism are reported to the Academic Misconduct Board for review.

Assessment Criteria

This assignment is worth 40% of the overall mark for the unit. You must achieve a score of at least 50% (20 out of 40) on this assessment to pass the unit. 

The assessment criteria for this unit are in the form of a detailed marking rubric, which is available on the Moodle site.

Use of Generative AI

Level of Gen AI Use allowed: AI Planning (Level 2): You may use AI for planning, idea development, and research. Your final submission should show how you have developed and refined these ideas. 

In accordance with CQUniversity policy, please note that a declaration must be provided if Generative Artificial Intelligence is used on this assessment and Generative Artificial Intelligence must also be included in-text citations and the reference list. 

Please note that if you used Generative Artificial Intelligence tools for the aforementioned permitted uses, then you MUST: 1) include a declaration in your assessment stating the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence and how it was used and 2) you need to cite it in-text and in the reference list. Please see resources on the Moodle site for guidance on appropriate declaring and referencing of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Examples of Generative Artificial Intelligence tools include but are not limited to: ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, Gemini, Grammarly AI, DALL-E, and Bard.

Broadly, you will be assessed on:

• The analysis and evaluation of the impact of the principles and models of health and health promotion in a real-world program is comprehensive, critical and detailed. 
• The examination of the role of leadership within health promotion partnerships is comprehensive and highly detailed.
• The information is presented in a clear, logical and interesting sequence, and the topic, key points, and purpose of the presentation are introduced clearly and interestingly.
• The visual aids are well designed and confidently used, the information is presented clearly, there is consistently accurate spelling and grammar, and APA or Harvard is consistent with APA or Harvard style referencing.
• The contributions made to the group assessment are clearly insightful, significant and extensive (exemplified in slides, speaker notes, verbal delivery). 

Assessment Three – Reflective Essay

Due Date: Wednesday of Week 12 at 4:00pm AEST

Weighting: 20%

Minimum Mark or Grade: 50%

Task Type: Individual Written Assessment

Title: Working in Partnership Reflective Essay 

Weighting: Graded

Submission: Online via Moodle

Referencing Style: American Psychological Association or Harvard

Description

This assessment consists of two parts and is a reflective essay of approximately 1,500 words.

Part A

Part A requires you to examine and reflect on how you worked in partnership with your groups for Assessment 2 regarding contributing to each other's learning through the presentation on modifying a health promotion program.

You will need to relate your experiences and reflections to the academic literature and unit content on partnerships.

In this part, you should focus on examining the styles of leadership when working in partnership with your group for Assessment 2 and relate this to the literature to discuss how your experiences and learnings may be applied in your future work in health promotion partnerships in practice.

Additionally, when reflecting on your experiences and learnings of working in partnership with your classmates, you should examine how these insights can be applied to working in health promotion contexts and the role of partnerships in the field. 

This part should be written in essay form and draw on relevant academic evidence. In this section, you should demonstrate your evidence-informed understanding of teamwork, collaboration, and partnership in the health promotion discipline.

Part B

Part B requires you to create a journey map that illustrates your learnings and experiences from working in partnership with your peers in Assessment 2.

A journey map involves charting or diagramming learning moments, noting both positive and negative experiences on a chronological scale (start to end of Assessment 2 group work).

The journey map should visually represent key moments, challenges, and insights gained during your collaborative activities. In this map, you should also describe, detail, and reflect on memorable learning moments.

In your discussion of your memorable learning moments, you should mention: 1) timescale (when this learning moment happened); 2) context (activities or aspects of the task you were working on that led to this learning moment); 3) interactions (the interactions you had with your peers where this learning moment took place, such as online discussions, in-person conversation); 4) thoughts and feelings (reflect on your thoughts and emotions during the learning moment); 5) the highs and lows (positive and negative/challenging parts of this learning moment); 6) reflection (learnings and insights you gained from working in partnership with your peers).

At minimum, your journey map should include 6 memorable learning moments. 

Part B does not require you to link to the literature, only Part A does. The journey map should also include pictures or graphics to illustrate your memorable learning moments.

You can decide how much of the 1,500 words for this assessment to use for this section.

To assist you with your reflection, here is a framework to guide you:

1. Experience: What happened? What were your thoughts and feelings at the time?
2. Reflection: Reflect on the experience –What worked well and what didn’t work? Why did I respond the way I did? How does this link to my skills (e.g., teamwork), thinking and knowledge?
3. Conceptualisation: Learn from your experience – Why did the experience play out in this way? How could I improve? What could I have done differently?
4. Experimentation: Put your learning into practice - How can I apply what I have learned to future situations? What are my new strategies and why is this relevant?

A detailed marking rubric with grading criteria is provided on Moodle in addition to an example journey map.

Please use the Assessment 3 – Reflective Essay Microsoft Word template for this assessment. 

Submission

Please upload and submit your assessment as a Microsoft Word file on Moodle.

File format

A mandatory template for the assessment (Microsoft Word) is provided on Moodle, which you must use for this assessment.

Submit your document as a Microsoft Word (doc or .docx) file.

Grading rubric

Please refer to the Moodle site for additional assessment information, such as the assignment marking rubric.

Turnitin

All submissions are subject to Turnitin scans, and all Turnitin reports are scrutinised. All instances of plagiarism are reported to the Academic Misconduct Board for review.

Assessment Criteria

This assignment is worth 20% of the overall mark for the unit. You must achieve a score of at least 50% (10 out of 20) on this assessment to pass the unit. 

The assessment criteria for this unit are in the form of a detailed marking rubric, which is available on the Moodle site.

Use of Generative AI

Level of Gen AI Use allowed: AI Planning (Level 2): You may use AI for planning, idea development, and research. Your final submission should show how you have developed and refined these ideas. 

In accordance with CQUniversity policy, please note that a declaration must be provided if Generative Artificial Intelligence is used on this assessment and Generative Artificial Intelligence must also be included in-text citations and the reference list. 

Please note that if you used Generative Artificial Intelligence tools for the aforementioned permitted uses, then you MUST: 1) include a declaration in your assessment stating the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence and how it was used and 2) you need to cite it in-text and in the reference list. Please see resources on the Moodle site for guidance on appropriate declaring and referencing of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Examples of Generative Artificial Intelligence tools include but are not limited to: ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, Gemini, Grammarly AI, DALL-E, and Bard.

Broadly, you will be assessed on:

• The journey map is highly detailed and comprehensive with discussion of several memorable learning moments with clarity and detail.
• There is deep reflexivity concerning the influence of the learnings, skills, knowledge and experiences gained from working in partnership with peers with specific examples.
• The examination of the role of leadership and styles of leadership within health promotion partnerships is comprehensive and critical.
• The written assessment is professionally presented with minimal grammatical or spelling errors or errors in APA or Harvard referencing and the discussion has used a consistent voice that reflects unit content.