7-minute recorded presentation (no specified format)
Weighting
50 % of module mark
Submission
Single file via Blackboard and Yuja
1.2 The task
Choose a nutrition-related public health concern and develop a campaign to address it. Your presentation should take the audience from the problem through to a campaign proposal and an outline of how you would know whether it worked.
You may choose any diet-related topic relevant to public health. Your campaign can target any population group and work in any setting.
1.3 What to cover
Your presentation should address:
The problem — what it is, who is affected, and why it matters
The campaign — what you propose to do, for whom, and how
Evaluation — how you would measure whether the campaign was successful
There is no prescribed format. Slides with narration, a talking-head video, or any other approach is acceptable, provided it communicates clearly within the time limit.
1.4 Marking scheme
Marks are awarded mainly for content and reasoning, not production quality or format choice.
Criterion
Marks
Problem identification — clear public health concern, supported by evidence
25
Campaign proposal — appropriate, logical, and targeted
40
Evaluation — realistic plan linked to the campaign goals
20
Presentation — clear, well-structured, within time
15
Total
100
1.4.1 Problem identification (25 marks)
Band
Marks
Descriptor
Distinction
21–25
Problem clearly defined; affected population identified; magnitude or burden evidenced; strong justification for why this is a public health priority.
Merit
16–20
Problem identified with reasonable justification; some supporting evidence; population described.
Pass
10–15
Problem named but justification thin or vague; population not clearly defined.
Fail
0–9
No clear problem identified; no justification.
1.4.2 Campaign proposal (40 marks)
Band
Marks
Descriptor
Distinction
34–40
Target population, message, and approach are well matched; campaign is coherent and feasible; considers both what the campaign will do and why that approach is appropriate.
Merit
26–33
Coherent campaign with most elements present; some choices lack justification.
Pass
16–25
Campaign outlined but elements are vague, poorly matched to the problem, or not clearly justified.
Fail
0–15
Campaign absent, superficial, or unrelated to the identified problem.
1.4.3 Evaluation (20 marks)
Band
Marks
Descriptor
Distinction
17–20
Realistic evaluation plan; clear link between what is measured and the campaign goals; distinguishes what was delivered from what changed.
Merit
13–16
Evaluation described; mostly linked to goals; process and outcome implied if not explicit.
Pass
8–12
Evaluation mentioned but vague or weakly connected to the campaign.
Fail
0–7
No evaluation plan.
1.4.4 Presentation (15 marks)
Band
Marks
Descriptor
Distinction
13–15
Clear structure; easy to follow; within time; visual or audio elements support rather than duplicate the narration.
Merit
10–12
Mostly clear; minor issues with structure or timing.
Pass
6–9
Understandable but poorly organised or significantly over/under time.
Fail
0–5
Difficult to follow; major structural or technical problems.
Source Code
# Assessment 2 – Public Health Nutrition Campaign## Overview| | ||---|---|| **Format** | 7-minute recorded presentation (no specified format)|| **Weighting** | 50 % of module mark || **Submission** | Single file via Blackboard and Yuja |---## The taskChoose a nutrition-related public health concern and develop a campaign to address it. Your presentation should take the audience from the problem through to a campaign proposal and an outline of how you would know whether it worked.You may choose any diet-related topic relevant to public health. Your campaign can target any population group and work in any setting.---## What to coverYour presentation should address:- **The problem** — what it is, who is affected, and why it matters- **The campaign** — what you propose to do, for whom, and how- **Evaluation** — how you would measure whether the campaign was successfulThere is no prescribed format. Slides with narration, a talking-head video, or any other approach is acceptable, provided it communicates clearly within the time limit.---## Marking schemeMarks are awarded mainly for **content and reasoning**, not production quality or format choice.| Criterion | Marks ||---|---|| Problem identification — clear public health concern, supported by evidence | 25 || Campaign proposal — appropriate, logical, and targeted | 40 || Evaluation — realistic plan linked to the campaign goals | 20 || Presentation — clear, well-structured, within time | 15 || **Total** | **100** |---### Problem identification (25 marks)| Band | Marks | Descriptor ||---|---|---|| Distinction | 21–25 | Problem clearly defined; affected population identified; magnitude or burden evidenced; strong justification for why this is a public health priority. || Merit | 16–20 | Problem identified with reasonable justification; some supporting evidence; population described. || Pass | 10–15 | Problem named but justification thin or vague; population not clearly defined. || Fail | 0–9 | No clear problem identified; no justification. |### Campaign proposal (40 marks)| Band | Marks | Descriptor ||---|---|---|| Distinction | 34–40 | Target population, message, and approach are well matched; campaign is coherent and feasible; considers both what the campaign will do and why that approach is appropriate. || Merit | 26–33 | Coherent campaign with most elements present; some choices lack justification. || Pass | 16–25 | Campaign outlined but elements are vague, poorly matched to the problem, or not clearly justified. || Fail | 0–15 | Campaign absent, superficial, or unrelated to the identified problem. |### Evaluation (20 marks)| Band | Marks | Descriptor ||---|---|---|| Distinction | 17–20 | Realistic evaluation plan; clear link between what is measured and the campaign goals; distinguishes what was delivered from what changed. || Merit | 13–16 | Evaluation described; mostly linked to goals; process and outcome implied if not explicit. || Pass | 8–12 | Evaluation mentioned but vague or weakly connected to the campaign. || Fail | 0–7 | No evaluation plan. |### Presentation (15 marks)| Band | Marks | Descriptor ||---|---|---|| Distinction | 13–15 | Clear structure; easy to follow; within time; visual or audio elements support rather than duplicate the narration. || Merit | 10–12 | Mostly clear; minor issues with structure or timing. || Pass | 6–9 | Understandable but poorly organised or significantly over/under time. || Fail | 0–5 | Difficult to follow; major structural or technical problems. |
