wordpress-seo domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/intelligentwr/nursingassignmentcrackers/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Hi<\/p>\n
this is 2000 words reflective part about the group work which we have done on improving physical health ,<\/p>\n
and plagiarism must be 0 in turnitin software.<\/p>\n
i’ll provide the group work and u have to discuss the highlighted terms in the picture below stated.<\/p>\n
PUBLIC INFORMATION Dashboard > M Unit Profile Unit Contacts News forum Assessmen ASSESSMENT This is an INDIV partnerships with throughout the te \u2022 The g \u2022 The e \u2022 The re A minimum of tv Assessment 1: Forum Posts and Responses Assessment 2A: Intervention Presentation Assessment 2B: Evaluation Presentation Assessment 2 Reflective Practice Assignment Group Scenarios Behaviour Change Complex adaptive thinking Planning and Evaluation Tools Healthy Settings Community Development Advocacy and Activism *** DUE Review Submission This assignmen Submission s Grading statu SUPPORT Due date Assessment Extension Request IT Help Type here to search nment X S SOLUTION: PBHL cross cultural x + ssign\/view.php?id=1025004 AGP PBHL20004 (HT2, 2019) ) PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION AND EVALUATION Dashboard > My units > 2019 Term 2 > PBHL20004_2192 > Assessments > Assessment 3 Reflective Practice Assignment Assessment 3 Reflective Practice Assignment This is an INDIVIDUAL assessment Based on your informal reflections throughout the term, you will explore your ability to develop effective partnerships with others, including establishing relationships and collaborative learning. In a 2000 word essay, reflect on your group partnership throughout the term. In your essay, you will need to focus on: The group process in establishing and maintaining relationships throughout the term \u2022 The effectiveness and experience of collaborative learning within the group \u2022 The relevance of this experience in undertaking community-based public health actions and evaluations. A minimum of two appropriately cited references is required. *** DUE Review\/Exam Week (18 October 2019)*** Submission status<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n| Excellent<\/strong><\/td>\n | Good<\/strong><\/td>\n | Fair<\/strong><\/td>\n | Poor<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n | Main Posting<\/strong><\/td>\n | 45\u00a0(45%)\u00a0– 50\u00a0(50%)<\/p>\n | Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supported by at least three current, credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n 40\u00a0(40%)\u00a0– 44\u00a0(44%)<\/p>\n | Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supported by at least three credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n 35\u00a0(35%)\u00a0– 39\u00a0(39%)<\/p>\n | Responds to some of the discussion question(s).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Post is cited with two credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains some APA formatting errors.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 34\u00a0(34%)<\/p>\n | Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains only one or no credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Not written clearly or concisely.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Main Post: Timeliness<\/strong><\/td>\n | 10\u00a0(10%)\u00a0– 10\u00a0(10%)<\/p>\n | Posts main post by day 3.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n | 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n | 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/p>\n | Does not post by day 3.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n First Response<\/strong><\/td>\n | 17\u00a0(17%)\u00a0– 18\u00a0(18%)<\/p>\n | Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n 15\u00a0(15%)\u00a0– 16\u00a0(16%)<\/p>\n | Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n 13\u00a0(13%)\u00a0– 14\u00a0(14%)<\/p>\n | Response is on topic and may have some depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 12\u00a0(12%)<\/p>\n | Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are missing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Second Response<\/strong><\/td>\n | 16\u00a0(16%)\u00a0– 17\u00a0(17%)<\/p>\n | Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n 14\u00a0(14%)\u00a0– 15\u00a0(15%)<\/p>\n | Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n 12\u00a0(12%)\u00a0– 13\u00a0(13%)<\/p>\n | Response is on topic and may have some depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 11\u00a0(11%)<\/p>\n | Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are missing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Participation<\/strong><\/td>\n | 5\u00a0(5%)\u00a0– 5\u00a0(5%)<\/p>\n | Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n | 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n | 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/p>\n | Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Total Points: 100<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Public Health Relations Discussion Description Hi this is 2000 words reflective part about the group work which we have done on improving physical health , and plagiarism must be 0 in turnitin software. i’ll provide the group work and u have to discuss the highlighted terms in the picture below stated. PUBLIC INFORMATION […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":6}},"yoast_head":"\n |