PUBH6007 Assessment 3: Reflection on the Collaborative Process of Program D
| Question # 48675 | Writing | 1 year ago |
|---|
| $18 |
|---|
ASSESSMENT 3
BRIEF
Subject Code and Title
PUBH6007 Program Design, Implementation and Evaluation
Assessment
Assessment 3: Reflection on the Collaborative Process of Program Design, Implementation and Evaluation
Individual/Group
Individual
Length
Reflective Report (800 words)
Learning Outcomes
The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by the successful completion of the task below include:
a) Interpret the importance of performing a needs analysis in public health Program development. Apply different methodologies of needs assessment to establish and prioritise community needs;
b) Develop a Program logic model and critically analyse the link between the components of the Program logic model and Program theory in public health Program design;
c) Develop an evidence-based Program and evaluation plan for the implementation and evaluation of a public health Program;
d) Critically examine and apply the principles and strategies of community and stakeholder engagement;
e) Critically examine and apply the principles of evaluation, comparing the types and stages of evaluation utilised in public health Program development
f) Critically reflect on the collaborative process of public health Program design, implementation and evaluation.
Submission
Due by 11.59 pm* AEST/AEDT on the Sunday at the end of Module 12
Weighting
15%
Total Marks
100 marks
*Please note: This time is AEST or AEDT (Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra). Please convert to your own time zone (e.g., Adelaide = 11.25 pm).
Assessment Task
Critical reflection is an important part of professional development as a public health practitioner. The final assessment in this subject provides each individual group member with the opportunity to write a reflection (800 words +/–10%) on the process of public health Program planning. A template is provided with questions to help facilitate your reflection on the challenges you have faced and the growth you have experienced working in a collaborative environment to create a complex and comprehensive public health Program.
Assessment Flow Chart
Please ensure that you read the Portfolio Assessment Brief before completing this assessment.
1. Needs assessment (Individual)
2. Part A: Objectives, Strategies & Logic Model (Group)
2. Part B: Program Planning,
Implementation
& Evaluation Plan (Group)
3. Reflection: Program Planning Process and
Colaboration
(Individual)
Context
To improve the health outcomes of the population you serve, it is crucial to be self-aware. To achieve self-awareness, it is important to reflect on your experiences, feedback from peers/lecturers and your own perspective of your personal abilities. This reflective assessment has been designed to develop the cognitive and critical thinking skills essential for a career in public health. This assessment will allow you to broaden your own understanding of each topic by engaging in academic discourse while developing your skills to reflect in formal discussions with your peers. It will allow you to develop your ability to reflect on learning content and discuss and share ideas in a professional manner.
Task Instructions
Please reflect on the following questions and fill in the template provided.
Reflect on the Process of Program Design—Needs Assessment, Design, Planning, Implementation and Evaluation
1. What are the most pertinent things that you have learnt about Program design? Identify three and discuss how these will be important to your practice as a public health professional. (Approx. 200 words).
2. What are the most challenging things you have learnt about Program design? Identify and describe three challenges. (Approx. 200 words).
3. How has this experience influenced your personal and professional growth? Reflect on your above answers, select one key learning and one key challenge, and discuss how these have influenced your personal or professional growth. (Aprox.200 words).
Reflection on Group Dynamic and Collaboration
Please rate each group member’s contribution by answering yes (1) or no (0) to the statements below.
1. Attended scheduled meetings.
2. Contributed to the presentation development.
3. Completed tasks fully and on time.
4. Made suggestions, sought feedback, showed interest in team decision making and planning.
5. Shared information.
6. Worked cooperatively with others
7. Contributed their ‘fair share’ to the team project.
8. Carried out tasks without overly depending on other team members.
9. Good consistent communication.
10. Made individual contributions to promote a successful team meeting.
Next, total your ratings for each team member to obtain a score out of 10.
2. Reflect on your team members’ scores. Identify one or two key strengths and two areas of improvement for your team. Comment on how you may have more effectively addressed the areas of improvement during your collaboration. (Approx. 200 words).
Submission Instructions
Submit this task via the Assessment 3 link in the main navigation menu in PUBH6007: Program Design and Implementation.
The learning facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the Blackboard portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that all the work submitted is their own and has been appropriately referenced and academically written according to the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to have read and be aware of the Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online.
Students must also keep a copy of all submitted materials and any assessment drafts.
Assessment Rubric
Assessment Attributes
Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard)
0–49%
Pass (Functional) 50–64%
Credit (Proficient) 65–74%
Distinction (Advanced) 75–84%
High Distinction (Exceptional) 85–100%
Reflection on Program design, planning, implementation and evaluation.
Percentage for this criterion = 40%
Self-enquiry and analysis is lacking; personal and professional challenges, and their solutions in the context of Program design are not identified.
Reflection does not outline areas of growth and learning, and examples are lacking.
Reflection demonstrates a limited level of self- enquiry and analysis, and personal and professional challenges and their solutions are not clearly identified or discussed.
Reflection outlines some areas of growth and learning, but examples are limited.
Reflection demonstrates a good level of self- enquiry and analysis and personal, and professional challenges and their solutions in the context of Program design are identified and discussed.
Reflection outlines areas of growth and learning and provides adequate examples.
Reflection demonstrates a very good level of self- enquiry and analysis, and personal and professional challenges and their solutions in the context of Program design are clearly identified and discussed.
Reflection outlines clear and considered areas of growth and learning and provides appropriate
examples.
Reflection demonstrates a sophisticated level of self-enquiry and analysis, and personal and professional challenges and their solutions in the context of Program design are clearly identified and discussed.
Reflection outlines clear and considered areas of growth and learning and provides exceptional
examples.
Reflection on group collaboration, dynamic and personal contribution.
Percentage for this criterion = 40%
Peer evaluation is not completed.
Benefits and challenges experienced within the collaborative process are not identified, and discussion on their areas of strength and areas of growth is limited or lacking.
Reflection on personal contribution to the group dynamic is not stated, and solutions are not provided to address the challenges identified.
Peer evaluation is not completed correctly, or lacks clarity.
Reflection presents the benefits and challenges experienced through the collaborative process, but discussion on their areas of strength and areas of growth is limited.
Reflection on personal contribution to the group dynamic is limited, as are the solutions provided to address the challenges identified.
Peer evaluation is completed correctly.
Reflection presents the benefits and challenges experienced through the collaborative process well and their areas of strength and areas of growth are identified.
Reflection on personal contribution to the group dynamic is good, and solutions are provided that address the challenges identified.
Competent and equitable peer evaluation.
Reflection clearly presents the benefits and challenges of the collaborative process experienced and articulates their areas of strength and areas of growth.
Reflection on personal contribution to the group dynamic is well presented, and sophisticated solutions are provided that address the challenges identified.
Highly competent and equitable peer evaluation.
Reflection impressively presents the benefits and challenges of the collaborative process experienced and clearly articulates their areas of strength and areas of growth.
Reflection on personal contribution to the group dynamic is insightful and candid, and solutions to the challenges are identified
that are intuitive and sophisticated.
Quality of reflection, academic writing skills and use of template.
Percentage for this criterion = 20%
Presents information, but clarity is lacking.
Template is not completed correctly. Errors in structure, sequence, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Communicates in a readable manner that largely adheres to the given format.
Template is not completed correctly.
Some errors are evident in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation.
Communicates in a coherent and readable manner that adheres to the given format.
Template is completed correctly.
Occasional minor errors are present in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation.
Communicates coherently and concisely in a manner that adheres to the given format.
Template is completed correctly.
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are free of errors.
Communicates eloquently. Expresses meaning coherently, concisely and creatively within the given format.
Template is completed correctly.
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are free of errors.
The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment
SLO a)
Interpret the principles of needs analysis to different community need, and demonstrate the ability to prioritize and apply different methodologies within a needs assessment
SLO b)
Develop a Program logic model and critically analyse the link between the components of Program logic model and Program theory
SLO d)
Critically examine and apply the principles and strategies of community and stakeholder engagement.
SLOe)
Critically examine and apply the principles of evaluation, comparing the types and stages of evaluation utilised in public health Program development
SLO f)
Critically reflect on the collaborative process of public health program design, implementation and evaluation
Attachments:
