Assessing Community Needs week 9 Discussion

Order Description

Mobilizing Communities Through Engagement
Community mobilization, a key strategy for increasing the demand for and use of health services, is a process that helps communities identify their own needs, as well as respond to and address these needs. Gaining the participation of community members can help you, the health educator, raise awareness of both health issues at the community level and social and cultural issues that may promote or inhibit the use of information and services. Using this strategy in conjunction with community engagement can lead to a better understanding of health-related concepts and, most importantly, to positive behavioral change that results in improved public health outcomes for the entire community.
For this Discussion, select your own community or a community with which you are familiar. Consider how you can engage the population of your selected community in building a healthy community environment. A healthy community refers to a community in which community members work as a team to empower each other and other community members to create successful and long-term healthy behavior change.
Post by Day 3 a summary description of your chosen community. Explain the strategies you think would best engage the population in building a healthy community environment. Justify your rationale.
Remember to begin interacting with your colleagues in the Discussion no later than Day 5 and continue engaging through Day 7 by asking questions on your colleague’s post or providing additional/alternative strategies for engaging people in your colleague’s chosen community.
Support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources as appropriate. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure that your in-text citations and reference list are correct.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made.

HLTH 6205 Discussion Rubric

Timeliness    On Time    Late    Missing Post(s)

Timeliness Indicators    All internal and final deadlines for Discussion were met
One or more deadlines missed

(No postings allowed after the last day of the week, Day 7)    One or more Discussion posts missing

(No postings allowed after the last day of the week, Day 7)
Grade Impact    No impact    10% reduction in overall Discussion score per day for each late post up to last day of week, Day 7    50% reduction in overall Discussion score per missing post

Discussion Indicators    Excellent
Above Average
Average
Fair
Poor
Score
Communication Quality and Clarity

15 Possible Points

Professional, appropriate, and clear communication, including correct spelling and sentence structure
AND
Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source.

(15 points)    Professional, appropriate, and clear communication, but occasional minor spelling or sentence structure errors
AND
Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source.

(12–14  points)    Professional and appropriate
BUT
Writing not always clear,
and there may be occasional minor spelling or sentence structure errors.
BUT
Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source.

(11 points)    Professional and appropriate, but writing often not clear
AND/OR
Frequent spelling or sentence structure errors
AND/OR
Statements normally requiring references or citations were not always validated with the source.

(9–10 points)    Communications were not professional or not appropriate.
AND/OR
Writing frequently unclear and difficult to follow
AND/OR
Statements normally requiring references or citations were not validated with the source.

(0–8 points)

Content Relevance

15 Possible Points
Contributions were always extremely relevant to the Discussion topic.

(15 points)    Contributions were usually very relevant to the Discussion topic.

(12–14  points)    Contributions were sometimes not relevant to the Discussion topic.

(11 points)
Contributions were often not relevant to the Discussion topic, too vague, or rambled so that the point was difficult to find.

(9–10 points)    Contributions were frequently off topic or very vague.

(0–8 points)         Uniqueness and Depth of Contribution

15 Possible Points
Contributions always provided new, insightful, thought-provoking, and original content.
AND
Ideas and comments were always of substantial depth.

(15 points)    Contributions always provided new, insightful, thought-provoking, and original content, but not always of substantial depth.

(12–14 points)    Contributions usually provided new, insightful, thought-provoking, and original content, but not always of substantial depth.

(11 points)
Contributions often did not provide new, insightful, thought-provoking, and original content.
AND/OR
Ideas and comments were often not of substantial depth (e.g., some reliance on “I agree” statements without follow up).

(9–10 points)    Contributions did not provide new, insightful, and original content.
AND/OR
Ideas and comments were superficial (e.g., many “I agree” statements without follow up).

(0–8 points)

Engagement and Community Response

15 Possible Points
Postings were always designed to engage others and often stimulated multiple peer responses that furthered the Discussion.
AND
Strong follow up with peer questions/ comment, demonstrating a true scholarly conversation

(15 points)    Postings were designed to engage others.
AND
Postings usually stimulated multiple peer responses that furthered the Discussion.
AND
Good follow up to peer questions/ comments, demonstrating a good conversational flow

(12–14 points)    Postings usually, but not always, were designed to engage others or further the Discussion.
AND/OR
Sometimes no follow-up responses to peer questions/ comments, somewhat inhibiting a good conversational flow

(11 points)    Postings often were not designed to engage others or further the Discussion.
AND/OR
Often no follow-up responses to peer questions/ comment, limiting meaningful conversational flow

(9–10 points)
Postings were not designed to engage others or further the Discussion.
AND/OR
No follow-up responses posted to peer questions/ comment, leading to little or no meaningful conversational flow

(0–8 points)

Initial Score (60 possible points):         Instructor comments:

Instructor comments (timeliness):
Timeliness Factor (late points deducted):
Total Score (60 possible points):

Assessing Community Needs week 9 Discussion

Order Description

Mobilizing Communities Through Engagement
Community mobilization, a key strategy for increasing the demand for and use of health services, is a process that helps communities identify their own needs, as well as respond to and address these needs. Gaining the participation of community members can help you, the health educator, raise awareness of both health issues at the community level and social and cultural issues that may promote or inhibit the use of information and services. Using this strategy in conjunction with community engagement can lead to a better understanding of health-related concepts and, most importantly, to positive behavioral change that results in improved public health outcomes for the entire community.
For this Discussion, select your own community or a community with which you are familiar. Consider how you can engage the population of your selected community in building a healthy community environment. A healthy community refers to a community in which community members work as a team to empower each other and other community members to create successful and long-term healthy behavior change.
Post by Day 3 a summary description of your chosen community. Explain the strategies you think would best engage the population in building a healthy community environment. Justify your rationale.
Remember to begin interacting with your colleagues in the Discussion no later than Day 5 and continue engaging through Day 7 by asking questions on your colleague’s post or providing additional/alternative strategies for engaging people in your colleague’s chosen community.
Support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources as appropriate. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure that your in-text citations and reference list are correct.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made.

HLTH 6205 Discussion Rubric

Timeliness    On Time    Late    Missing Post(s)

Timeliness Indicators    All internal and final deadlines for Discussion were met
One or more deadlines missed

(No postings allowed after the last day of the week, Day 7)    One or more Discussion posts missing

(No postings allowed after the last day of the week, Day 7)
Grade Impact    No impact    10% reduction in overall Discussion score per day for each late post up to last day of week, Day 7    50% reduction in overall Discussion score per missing post

Discussion Indicators    Excellent
Above Average
Average
Fair
Poor
Score
Communication Quality and Clarity

15 Possible Points

Professional, appropriate, and clear communication, including correct spelling and sentence structure
AND
Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source.

(15 points)    Professional, appropriate, and clear communication, but occasional minor spelling or sentence structure errors
AND
Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source.

(12–14  points)    Professional and appropriate
BUT
Writing not always clear,
and there may be occasional minor spelling or sentence structure errors.
BUT
Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source.

(11 points)    Professional and appropriate, but writing often not clear
AND/OR
Frequent spelling or sentence structure errors
AND/OR
Statements normally requiring references or citations were not always validated with the source.

(9–10 points)    Communications were not professional or not appropriate.
AND/OR
Writing frequently unclear and difficult to follow
AND/OR
Statements normally requiring references or citations were not validated with the source.

(0–8 points)

Content Relevance

15 Possible Points
Contributions were always extremely relevant to the Discussion topic.

(15 points)    Contributions were usually very relevant to the Discussion topic.

(12–14  points)    Contributions were sometimes not relevant to the Discussion topic.

(11 points)
Contributions were often not relevant to the Discussion topic, too vague, or rambled so that the point was difficult to find.

(9–10 points)    Contributions were frequently off topic or very vague.

(0–8 points)         Uniqueness and Depth of Contribution

15 Possible Points
Contributions always provided new, insightful, thought-provoking, and original content.
AND
Ideas and comments were always of substantial depth.

(15 points)    Contributions always provided new, insightful, thought-provoking, and original content, but not always of substantial depth.

(12–14 points)    Contributions usually provided new, insightful, thought-provoking, and original content, but not always of substantial depth.

(11 points)
Contributions often did not provide new, insightful, thought-provoking, and original content.
AND/OR
Ideas and comments were often not of substantial depth (e.g., some reliance on “I agree” statements without follow up).

(9–10 points)    Contributions did not provide new, insightful, and original content.
AND/OR
Ideas and comments were superficial (e.g., many “I agree” statements without follow up).

(0–8 points)

Engagement and Community Response

15 Possible Points
Postings were always designed to engage others and often stimulated multiple peer responses that furthered the Discussion.
AND
Strong follow up with peer questions/ comment, demonstrating a true scholarly conversation

(15 points)    Postings were designed to engage others.
AND
Postings usually stimulated multiple peer responses that furthered the Discussion.
AND
Good follow up to peer questions/ comments, demonstrating a good conversational flow

(12–14 points)    Postings usually, but not always, were designed to engage others or further the Discussion.
AND/OR
Sometimes no follow-up responses to peer questions/ comments, somewhat inhibiting a good conversational flow

(11 points)    Postings often were not designed to engage others or further the Discussion.
AND/OR
Often no follow-up responses to peer questions/ comment, limiting meaningful conversational flow

(9–10 points)
Postings were not designed to engage others or further the Discussion.
AND/OR
No follow-up responses posted to peer questions/ comment, leading to little or no meaningful conversational flow

(0–8 points)

Initial Score (60 possible points):         Instructor comments:

Instructor comments (timeliness):
Timeliness Factor (late points deducted):
Total Score (60 possible points):