This authentic assessment is from the Graduate Certificate in Planetary Health, the unit is called 'Planetary health: A place-based approach'.

Contributing academics are Dr. Jillian Marsh & Associate Professor Jeannie Rea.

Example briefing paper & oral report

Briefing Paper:

  • Length/Duration: 1000 words
  • Weighting: 25%
  • Due: After Session 7 of 8
  • AQF level: 8

Oral Report:

  • Length/Duration: 2-3 minutes
  • Weighting: 5%
  • Due: In Session 8
  • AQF level: 8

The purpose of this assessment task is to:

  • Articulate, in writing and orally, place-based planetary health concepts by applying them to the key arena of implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG(s))
  • Use research evidence to make a critical case for a place-based planetary health approach within this context
  • Address the key principles within UNDRIP to prioritise the values and beliefs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, recognising that the UNDRIP articles are designed to enable all colonised countries to recognise, respect and promote the First Nations peoples and cultures

It aligns with the following learning outcomes:

LO3: Formulate advocacy perspectives from research evidence, and through Indigenous standpoints and perspectives

LO5: Articulate and apply place-based planetary health concepts to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were developed in recognition of the need for a planetary health approach, bringing together and interrogating previous goals for human health and environmentally sustainable development. The SDGs are increasingly framing global to local policy and action and are therefore a key focus in applying place-based planetary health concepts. Consequently, organisation leaders need to articulate implementation approaches and strategies on SDGs utilising place-based planetary health concepts.

Respond to this task as a policy officer with a government agency, business or NGO and prepare a two-part report to brief your CEO/Director on one or more SDG(s).

1. Briefing Paper

The Briefing Paper in your report must:

  • Provide an introduction and a describe the SDG(s) that you have focused on
  • Justify the use of a place-based planetary health approach 
  • Apply place-based planetary health concepts/approaches to the challenges of implementing the SDG(s)
  • Provide a conclusion (e.g. is there anything you particularly want to draw the CEO’s attention to?)
  • Use professional language, accurate terminology and appropriately reference your work 

2.Oral Report

In your Oral Report you must:

  • Present the key message from your Briefing Paper to the CEO/Director 
  • Decide on the critical message in your report that you want to deliver to the CEO/Director 
  • Consider: how can the CEO/Director apply a place-based planetary health lens on the issues you highlight? 
  • Be succinct – practice your presentation to ensure that you limit yourself to 3 minutes

  1. Carefully read the assessment requirements, criteria and rubric for this task
  2. Decide which SDG(s) you want to address, depending on your experience, interests and/or curiosity (e.g. women and girls; clean water; access to education – none of these are addressed in just one SDG)
  3. Place yourself as a policy officer within an organisation (name the organisation or category)
  4. Think of a possible context where the CEO/Director may want this report (e.g. maybe they have been asked to respond to this report: Calls for Australia to tackle the SDG(s) with the same urgency as COVID-19)
  5. Investigate the problem through a place-based planetary health lens (refer to your notes from Week 1)
  6. Prepare the Briefing Paper and Oral Report, ensuring you’ve covered everything that’s included in this task
  7. Submit the Briefing Paper to the dropbox the day after Session 7
  8. Present the Oral Report in Session 8

 

Criterion 1: Description of the SDG(s)

Criterion 2: Application and justification of place-based planetary health concepts to view SDG(s)

Criterion 3: Use of terminology and professional language

Criterion 4: Use of sources, structure and writing

Criterion 5: Verbal advocacy

Authentic assessment briefing paper and oral report

 

 

Full rubric

CRITERIA

HIGH DISTINCTIONS (80-100%)

DISTINCTIONS (70-79%)

CREDIT (60-69%)

PASS (50-59%)

FAIL (0-49%)

Description of SDG(s)

(20%)

Provides an insightful critical analysis of the SDG(s) in relation to the problem.

Critically analyses the SDG(s) in relation to the problem.

Exhibits engagement with the SDG(s) in relation to the problem.

Shows a developing engagement with the SDG(s) in relation to the problem.

Shows superficial engagement with the SDG(s) in relation to the problem.

Application and justification of place-based planetary health concepts to view SDG(s)

(20%)

Interrogates SDG(s) drawing from a justified range of place-based planetary health concepts

Justification leads up to a strong conclusion based on evidence presented.

Interrogates SDG(s) drawing from a range of place-based planetary health concepts.

Offers a clear conclusion based on evidence.

Explains SDG(s) drawing from place-based planetary health concepts.

Draws upon evidence and leads up to a conclusion.

Shows a developing engagement with SDG(s) and place-based planetary health concepts.

Draws upon limited evidence and leads up to a narrow/limited conclusion.

Shows superficial engagement with SDG(s) and place-based planetary health concepts.

Ambiguous or no conclusions offered.

Use of terminology and professional language

(20%)

Precise and consistent use of appropriate terminology and professional language seamlessly integrated into submission.

Consistent use of appropriate terminology and professional language.

Demonstrates an attempt to use appropriate terminology and professional language with occasional imprecise use.

Demonstrates an attempt to use appropriate terminology with some imprecise use.

Imprecise use of terminology.

Use of sources, structure and writing

(15%)

 

Demonstrates skilful use of high quality, relevant sources to develop ideas.

Systematically and consistently links the literature to the discussion.

Writes with clarity and fluency and is error-free. 

Error-free use of Harvard referencing including a compliant reference list of all sources.

Demonstrates consistent use of relevant sources to support ideas.

Clearly links the literature to the discussion.

Writes with clarity and is virtually error-free. 

Mostly error-free use of Harvard referencing and a mostly compliant reference list of all sources.

Demonstrates an attempt to use relevant sources to support ideas.

Mostly links the literature to the discussion.

Writes clearly and generally conveys meaning.

Mostly error-free use of Harvard referencing and a mostly compliant reference list of the majority of sources.

Demonstrates an attempt to use sources to support ideas.

Occasional links made between the literature and discussion.

Writing generally conveys ideas and may include some errors.

Attempts to use Harvard referencing in reference list.

Demonstrates limited attempts to use sources to support ideas.

Links made between the literature and discussion are unclear or absent.

Writing sometimes impedes meaning due to errors in usage.

Minimal or no use of Harvard referencing.

Verbal advocacy

(25%)

Advocates succinctly, carefully selecting key points using professional language.

Length of presentation and response to audience is within the time limits.

Advocates selecting key points using professional language.

Length of presentation and response to audience is within the time limits.

Explains using essential information and some supporting details. Mostly uses professional language.

Length of presentation is within 10% of the time limits. Time allocated to points mostly reflect their relative importance.

Explains using most essential information, details are somewhat sketchy. Inconsistent use of professional language.

Length of presentation is outside the time limits and marginally disrupts others’ schedule.

Includes some essential information with most details missing.

Length of presentation is significantly outside the time limits.