No Evidence (0%) Marginal (25%) Average (50%) Good (75%) Excellent (100%)

No Evidence (0%) Marginal (25%) Average (50%) Good (75%) Excellent (100%)

Citations (5%)

Did not cite the required number of sources; No variety of sources; cites only one type of source. Did not cite the required number of sources; Poor variety of sources. Cited the required number of sources; Adequate variety of sources Cited the required number of sources; Good variety of sources. Cited the required number of sources; excellent variety of sources.

Introduction (10%)

Made no attempt to summarise sources. OR Incorrectly/ unsatisfactorily summarised main idea of some or all sources. Attempted to summarise sources, but are less clear about their main idea. Clearly summarised the main idea of each source, but their connection to argument is less apparent. Clearly summarised the main idea of each source and made an explicit connection to argument for most sources. Clearly summarised the main idea of each source and can make an explicit connection to argument.

Aims; Methods/ Approach

(10%)

No attempt to discuss research aim; methods or approach; Incorrectly explained where some or all sources got their information. Some attempt to discuss aim and research methods/approach but this was poorly executed; superficially explained how and where each source got its information. Solid attempt to explain the research method/approach and aim of the paper; solid attempt to explain how and where each source got its information. Good attempt made to explain the research method/approach and aim of the paper; good attempt made to explain how and where each source got its information. Clearly and succinctly explains research method/approach and aim; clearly and succinctly explained how and where each source got its information.

Limitations & Strengths (10%) No limitations or strengths included or discussed; no discussion of reliability; no attempt to reflect on the trustworthiness of sources Some limitations or strengths included and discussed; poor discussion of reliability of text Strengths and limitations of texts included and solidly discussed; solid discussion of reliability of text Good presentation and discussion of both strengths and limitations of texts; good discussion of reliability of text Excellent presentation and discussion of both strengths and limitations of texts; clear and succinct discussion of reliability

Conclusions & recommendations

(10%)

No conclusions made; didnt include authors' recommendations. Some conclusions made but incomplete or superficial; superficially covered authors' recommendations. Solid conclusions made for all citations; Provided solid authors' recommendations. Provided solid explanation of how this work illuminates topic. Good conclusions made for all citations; Provided good authors' recommendations. Provided a good explanation of how this work illuminates topic. Excellent conclusions made for all citations; Provided clear and succinct authors' recommendations. Provided high level explanation of how this work illuminates topic.

Reflections (10%) Didnt state how sources were useful & relevant to research; didnt link back to unit concepts or health promotion competencies, knowledge or ethical values. Superficially stated how most sources were useful & relevant to research; superficially covered links to unit concepts or health promotion competencies, knowledge or ethical values. Solidly stated how each source was useful & relevant to research. Solid attempt to point out in what way the text relates to key unit concepts or health promotion competencies, knowledge or ethical values. Clearly stated how each source was useful & relevant to research. Clearly pointed out in what way the text relates to unit concepts or health promotion competencies, knowledge or ethical values. Clearly and succinctly stated how each source was useful & relevant to research; Clearly highlighted how text relates to key unit concepts or health promotion competencies, knowledge or ethical values.

1.2 Recommendations

(25%) No synthesised, referenced recommendations developed based on the key findings from annotations Poor, incomplete or superficial recommendations developed based on the key findings from annotations with little synthesis or referencing; Recommendations poorly address barriers or challenges to promoting health in this area; Poor inclusion of health promotion theory, principles and practice Solid recommendations synthesised and developed based on the key findings from annotations with references; Recommendations address some barriers or challenges to promoting health in this area; Some inclusion of health promotion theory, principles and practice Well developed, synthesised, referenced recommendations based on key findings from annotations; Recommendations address barriers or challenges to promoting health in this area; Inclusion of health promotion theory, principles and practice Highly developed, synthesised, referenced recommendations based on key findings from annotations; Recommendations clearly and succinctly address barriers or challenges to promoting health in this area; Thoughtful inclusion of health promotion theory, principles and practice

Academic Integrity (10%)

No or very few citations when requiredNo or few cited references listedA high level of insufficient paraphrasing matched by TurnitinMany quotes unmarked or incorrectly marked & matched by TurnitinMajor errors in citation & referencing technique so sources of a significant amount of information unclearSome insufficient paraphrasing matched by TurnitinSeveral quotes incorrectly marked & matched by Turnitin Minor inconsistent errors in citation & referencing techniqueSources of all information citedGood paraphrasing

Any quotes correctly marked as quotes

All sources cited are in the reference list Good citation & referencing technique no errorsSources of all information very clear via effective citations

Information from cited sources integrated into students own proseExcellent citation with correct reference list

Sources of all information completely clear via highly effective citations & use of links words/phrases to show when consecutive information from same source. Seamless integration

Conventions (10%)

Lacking in completeness, thought, and/or writing quality. Major errors. Does not use appropriate terminology. Lacking in completeness, thought, and/or writing quality. Errors present. Infrequent use of appropriate terminology. Some components well written but some lacking in completeness, thought, and /or writing quality. Minor errors. Generally uses appropriate terminology. Thoughtful, complete, and well written. Minor errors. Mostly uses appropriate terminology. Thoughtful, complete, and well written. Free from errors. Uses correct terminology.

Length:1000 words (no 10% leeway)

Annotated bibliography (700 words; 175 words/annotation)

Recommendations (300 words; approx 100 words/recommendation)

RequirementsHaving a thorough understanding of the issues is critical in order to effectively develop health promotion programs and interventions. This is particularly the case when issues are strongly contested or where the arguments used are often not informed by evidence. This activity requires you to undertake a critical review of the literature and to demonstrate your understanding of key issues and ideas via an annotated bibliography and a series of recommendations.

An annotated bibliography provides a brief summary of the research on a particular issue. It is a list of references in which the creator of the bibliography includes comments on the value of each of the references. The following is a helpful description from the University of New South Wales which suggests that an annotated bibliographyis a list of research sources that includes concise descriptions and evaluations of each source. The annotation usually contains a brief summary of content and a short analysis or evaluation. Depending on your assignment you may be asked to reflect,summarise, critique, evaluate oranalysethe source. An annotated bibliography may be a component of a larger project or it may be a stand-alone assignment. While an annotation can be as brief as one sentence, the standard annotated bibliography consists of a citation followed by a short paragraph.

These activities will develop a topic over the semester, building on each other and will link to a group assessment where students will be allocated to a group, and each group will be allocated a topic to focus on for this assessment.

Topics to be allocated will be:

Disability and Public Health

Migration and Public Health

LGBTIQA+ and Public Health

Ageing and Public Health

First Nations Peoples and Public Health

You can sign up to one of these topics using the sign up lists below. First come, first served. ONLY SIGN UP ONCE!

Activity 1.1 Exploring the Issues

This activity requires a combination of reading and critical written reflection.

1. Complete the two assigned readings below on your allocated topic (available via the Reading list).

A. Disability and Public Health

Physically disabled women and sexual identity: aPhotoVoicestudy.

Public Opinion on the Sexuality of People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Review of the Literature.

B. Migration and Public Health

Exploring the Intersections of Migration, Gender, and Sexual Health with Indonesian Women in Perth, Western Australia.

Public Health Interventions to Address Housing and Mental Health amongst Migrants from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds Living in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.

C.Ageing andPublic Health

The World Health Organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing.

Let's talk about sex: older people's views on the recognition of sexuality and sexual health in thehealthcaresetting.

D.Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer, Asexual + and Public Health

Health4LGBTI Network; A review of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) health and healthcare inequalities.

Advancing LGBTQI health research.

E.First Nations Peoplesand Public Health

In Their Own VoiceIncorporating Underlying Social Determinants into Aboriginal Health Promotion Programs.

Evaluation of the Young, Deadly, Syphilis Free multi-media campaign in remote Australia.

2. Find and read a further two relevant peer reviewed journal articles (2022 or later) on this allocated topic. You will need to do some research here.The two articles that you are required to find yourself cannot come from any of the supporting readings that we have posted for the unit via the unit reading list. So to summarise-use the two readings we have provided above and find your own two articles through research using the university databases. Check the reading list to make sure that the articles that you have found are not also located there.

3. You will then develop an annotated bibliography. Complete a short annotation ofeach of the four readings(a summary of key points) using the following structure (175 words for each annotation - your citation for each annotation is not included in this word count):

Citation - Provide the full bibliographic citation (referenced correctly according to the unit referencing style) (not included in your word count)

Introduction - Outline the main argument or reason for the paper and the author viewpoint

Aims & Methods/Approach - Identify the key aim and methods (if applicable) or approach

Limitations and Strengths - State the strengths and limitations of the text or research

Conclusions/Recommendations - Identify conclusions/key recommendations made by the author/s

Reflection - Point out in what way the text relates to key unit/course themes or concepts and what health promotion knowledge, ethical values or competencies are evident; Present your view or reaction to the text

Below is the EXACT layout (including colours) that you should use for each annotation and an example annotation. Please note - this article CANNOT be used as part of your bibliography.

Drummond, P. D.,Mizan, A.,Brocz, K., & Wright, B. (2011). Using peer education to increase sexual health knowledge among West African refugees in Western Australia.Health Care for Women International, 32(3), 190-205.

(1)West African refugees living in Western Australia experience poor sexual health literacy, negative sexual health outcomes and help-seeking barriers, including stigma.Peer education may benefit sexual health promotion efforts with this population.

(2)This mixed methods research explored effects of peer education on sexual health knowledge and attitudes amongst the target group. Trained community leaders (n=10) conducted health workshops with peers and administered questionnaires to evaluate target group outcomes (n=65).

(3)Recruitment bias may have occurred; more women than men participated. Whether outcomes led to behavioural change is unknown. The study explored an underserved issue and received ethics approval.

(4)Peer-led education increased knowledge and awareness, however comparison with other forms of social influence would be beneficial. Sexualhealth peer-education is potentially culturally sensitive. Greater engagement with men is recommended to determine the influence of gender.

(5)This article articulates a model for culturally responsive community interventions. Unit concepts of culture and stigma were evident. It highlights health promotion knowledge related to community development, specifically empowerment, participation and capacity building. It is a descriptive paper building on previous findings.

(Word count 175) Key

(1) Introduction

(2)Aims & Methods/approach

(3)Limitations & Strengths

(4)Conclusions& Author Recommendations

(5)Reflections

Activity 1.2 Recommendations from Research

This second part of the activity requires you to develop three recommendations for practice, policy or research based on the key findings from your annotated bibliography.The recommendations should address barriers or challenges to promoting health in this area and should be based on key theory and principles in health promotion. A total of around 100 words per recommendation (300 words max) of synthesised recommendations (in referenced dot points) should be presented from your research overall.

This component of the assessment will also link to assessment three.Other supporting literature can be included in your recommendations that relate to unit concepts and health promotion models and frameworks (only) as long as all four annotations have been included.

General instructions

Use Arial font, size 11 (DO NOT USE TIMES NEW ROMAN)

Include a coverpage, plagiarism declaration, contents page and reference list (as per the Guide to Assignment Presentation)

Use numbered headings

Please submit as one document

Use your Surname and Assessment One in the file name