| Course | HLTH 6005 Introduction to Health and Wellness Education Profession |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Development plan |
| Length | About 1,260 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Health Education and Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6005 Week 10
A Development Plan Aimed at One Posting: Health Educator II in a County Chronic Disease Unit, With Evidence, a Named Gap and a Dated Action for Each of the Nine HESPA III Areas of Responsibility
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6005: Introduction to Health and Wellness Education Profession
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Development Plan Aimed at One Posting: Health Educator II in a County Chronic Disease Unit, With Evidence, a Named Gap and a Dated Action for Each of the Nine HESPA III Areas of Responsibility
The Target
This plan aims at a specific seat: Health Educator II, Chronic Disease Prevention, at a composite county health department, Marlow County Health. The posting, typical of such roles, asks for a master's degree in health education or public health, CHES certification or eligibility to sit for the examination within a year, two years of experience planning and evaluating community programs, experience writing grant reports and the ability to supervise community health workers. I am completing a master's degree, work part time as a program assistant at a community nonprofit and have no certification yet. A plan without a target cannot identify a gap, so every entry below is measured against this posting.
The Framework
The plan is organized by the nine areas of responsibility identified in the 2025 Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis, which will form the basis of the CHES examination from 2027 (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing [NCHEC], n.d.-c). Because I intend to sit for the April 2027 examination, I am using the 2025 framework rather than the 2020 version, even though most current course materials follow the older eight areas.
Area by Area
Area I: Assessment
Evidence now: I co-wrote a needs assessment survey for my nonprofit's food pantry clients and analyzed 212 responses. Gap: I have never used secondary data, such as county health rankings or hospital needs assessments, to define a community's needs. Action: by December 15, 2026, complete a secondary data profile of one census tract in Marlow County for my program planning course and ask the nonprofit's director to review it. Evidence of completion: the reviewed profile in my portfolio.
Area II: Planning
Evidence now: I wrote objectives for a six-week cooking class. Gap: I have not written a logic model linking activities to outcomes. Action: draft a logic model for the cooking class by January 31, 2027, and have my faculty advisor critique it. Evidence: the revised logic model.
Area III: Implementation
Evidence now: I have facilitated 14 class sessions. Gap: none against the posting; this is my strongest area. Action: maintain by facilitating the spring session series. Evidence: session logs.
Area IV: Evaluation
Evidence now: I tallied attendance and satisfaction forms. Gap: I have not designed an outcome evaluation. This was the gap the county practitioner I interviewed in Week 6 described as most underfunded, which makes it more valuable to an employer, not less. Action: design a pre-post knowledge and behavior measure for the spring cooking classes by February 28, 2027, and report results by June 30. Evidence: the evaluation report.
Area V: Research
Evidence now: course assignments only. Gap: I have not contributed to a study. Action: ask the course instructor in my research methods course about assisting on a faculty project in summer 2027. Evidence: a confirmed role by May 1, 2027.
Area VI: Advocacy
Evidence now: none. Gap: complete. Action: attend two county board of health meetings by March 31, 2027, and draft one public comment on a chronic disease agenda item. Evidence: the submitted comment.
Area VII: Communication
Evidence now: I wrote three flyers for the pantry. Gap: I have not tested materials with readers. Action: pretest the cooking class flyer with five clients by February 15, 2027. Evidence: a one-page pretest memo.
Area VIII: Administration and Management
Evidence now: none against the posting. Gap: grant reporting and supervision. Action: ask the nonprofit director to let me draft the next quarterly report to its foundation funder, due April 2027, and to shadow her supervision of two volunteers. Evidence: the drafted report and the director's written feedback.
Area IX: Ethics, Leadership and Professionalism
Evidence now: I have read the profession's code, and my degree's health education coursework meets the academic route to examination eligibility (NCHEC, n.d.-a). Gap: I have not applied it under pressure. Action: register for the CHES examination in the early registration period, November 1 to 30, 2026, for the April 22 to May 1, 2027, window, at the $250 student fee (NCHEC, n.d.-b), and complete one continuing education activity on ethics by March 2027. Evidence: the registration confirmation and certificate.
What Could Go Wrong
Three things could knock the plan off course, and naming them now makes them easier to manage. The first is time. The actions in Areas I, II, IV and VII all fall between December and February, alongside coursework and my part-time job; if one slips, the evaluation report due in June slips with it. I have ordered the actions so that the logic model is finished before the evaluation design, since the second depends on the first. The second risk is access. Two actions, drafting the foundation report and shadowing supervision, depend on the nonprofit director's agreement. I will ask her in November, before the plan's first deadline, and if she declines I will seek a volunteer role with grant reporting duties at another organization. The third risk is the examination itself. The April 2027 examination will be the first built on the 2025 framework, so published practice materials may lag. I will use the framework's own list of areas as my study outline and join a study group, rather than relying on materials written for the older eight areas.
What Success Looks Like in a Year
By October 2027 the plan should leave me with a CHES result, an evaluation report with real outcome data, a drafted grant report reviewed by a supervisor and a portfolio that answers each line of the Health Educator II posting with a document rather than a claim. If any of those is missing, the quarterly reviews should already have shown why.
Summary Table
Table 1
Development Plan Against the Health Educator II Posting
| Area | Gap | Action | Date | Evidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I Assessment | Secondary data | Census tract profile | December 15, 2026 | Reviewed profile | |
| II Planning | Logic models | Draft and critique | January 31, 2027 | Revised model | |
| III Implementation | None | Spring sessions | Ongoing | Session logs | |
| IV Evaluation | Outcome design | Pre-post measure and report | February 28 and June 30, 2027 | Report | |
| V Research | No study role | Faculty project | May 1, 2027 | Confirmed role | |
| VI Advocacy | No experience | Board meetings and comment | March 31, 2027 | Comment | |
| VII Communication | No pretesting | Pretest flyer | February 15, 2027 | Memo | |
| VIII Administration | Grant reports, supervision | Draft report, shadow | April 2027 | Report and feedback | |
| IX Ethics and professionalism | Credential | Register for CHES, ethics activity | November 30, 2026; March 2027 | Confirmation, certificate | |
Dates fall within the April 2027 examination cycle; the plan will be reviewed with my advisor each quarter.
Why the Order Matters
Two actions carry the most weight against the posting: registering for the examination and building evidence in evaluation and administration. The posting accepts eligibility within a year, but an applicant who has already sat for the examination is a stronger candidate. Evaluation and grant reporting are the two areas where the posting asks for experience I do not have, and both fall within the training needs that a national survey analysis examined among governmental health educators (Cinnick et al., 2023).
Review
Each quarter closes with a plan review alongside my faculty advisor, and any action that slips by more than a month gets revised. A plan that is never reopened is not a plan; the dates and evidence column exist so that someone else can check whether I did what I said.
References
Cinnick, S., Gambatese, M., Auld, M. E., Escoffery, C., & Moon, T. (2023). Health educators in state/local public health departments: Training needs and awareness of emerging areas of public health practice. Health Promotion Practice, 24(3), 523-535. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399221098345
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (n.d.-a). CHES exam eligibility. https://www.nchec.org/ches-exam-eligibility
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (n.d.-b). CHES schedule and fees. https://www.nchec.org/ches-schedule-fees
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (n.d.-c). Responsibilities and competencies. https://www.nchec.org/responsibilities--competencies
Reading the HLTH 6005 Week 10 instructions
The tenth week asks for a professional development plan that someone else could audit. The prompt usually expects the plan to start from a target position described as a real posting, since a plan without a target cannot identify gaps. Students then work through the profession's areas of responsibility, stating for each what they can already evidence, what is missing and what action will close the gap. Gaps should be stated as missing capabilities rather than wishes, and actions should be specific enough to schedule, with a date and a way to tell they happened. A table is common. Many prompts also ask students to prioritize, explaining which actions matter most for the target role. Risks to the plan and a review schedule add realism. The plan should use the current framework that the credentialing examination will follow. Vague goals such as "improve evaluation skills" do not satisfy the assignment.
How this HLTH 6005 Week 10 example is built
The plan opens with the target posting's requirements and the writer's current position. A framework section explains the choice of the 2025 analysis over the 2020 version. Nine area sections follow, each with evidence now, a gap, an action with a date and the proof of completion: a census tract profile by December, a logic model by January, an outcome evaluation designed by February and reported by June, a research role by May, board meetings and a public comment by March, a flyer pretest by February, a drafted foundation report and supervision shadowing by April, and CHES registration in November with an ethics activity by March. A nine-row table summarizes the plan. A section explains why the credential, evaluation and administration carry the most weight, a risks section addresses time, access and examination materials, and a quarterly review schedule plus a one-year picture of success close it.
HLTH 6005 Week 10 rubric: what earns full marks
Development plans are typically graded on the target, coverage of the framework, how precise the gaps and actions are, prioritization and auditability. A concrete target position earns the first row. Graders check that every area of responsibility in the current framework appears and that each has evidence, a gap and an action. Gaps are judged on precision, stated as missing capabilities. Actions earn credit when they are specific, dated and paired with proof of completion; undated or vague actions lose heavily. Prioritization rewards an explanation of which actions matter most for the target and why. A review process and named risks show that the plan is meant to be used. Using the framework that the next examination will follow demonstrates attention to current requirements. Mechanics include a clear table and APA entries for the credentialing body's pages and a journal article.
Common HLTH 6005 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Development plans most often fail because they have no target, so every area is described as something to improve in general. Another frequent problem is actions with no date or no way to check them. Students also use an outdated framework or skip areas where they have no experience. Before submitting, describe the position you are aiming for as if it were a posting. Use the current framework and include every area. For each, write what you can prove now, what is missing and one dated action. Add how you will show the action happened. Rank your actions by importance to the target. Name two or three risks and how you will handle them. Set a review schedule. A custom plan can be built around a different target, such as a hospital community health educator or a university wellness coordinator.
Get a HLTH 6005 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 10 prompt, your section's rubric and the role you are aiming at, and the plan you get carries gaps, dated actions and a verification column filled against the published responsibility areas. Free the first time, back inside 24 to 48 hours. Your transcript and supervisor feedback are never invented here.
More HLTH 6005 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6005 Week 1: Health Education Role Post
- HLTH 6005 Week 2: Role Comparison Paper
- HLTH 6005 Week 3: CHES Credential Brief
- HLTH 6005 Week 4: Ethics Analysis Paper
- HLTH 6005 Week 5: Peer Reply Example
- HLTH 6005 Week 6: Practitioner Reflection Paper
- HLTH 6005 Week 7: Scope of Practice Analysis
- HLTH 6005 Week 8: Practice Settings Analysis
- HLTH 6005 Week 9: Certification Position Paper
- HLTH 6005 Week 11: Professional Identity Synthesis
HLTH 6005 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6005 Week 10 sample paper?
A complete Week 10 development plan aimed at a county Health Educator II posting, covering all nine areas with dated actions and a summary table, appears on this page.
Which framework does the HLTH 6005 Week 10 example use?
The nine areas of responsibility from the HESPA III 2025 practice analysis, because the CHES examination will be based on it from 2027.
What makes a development plan auditable?
Each area has evidence of current ability, a gap stated as a missing capability, an action with a date and a stated way to tell that the action happened.
When should a student register for the April 2027 CHES exam?
The plan registers in the early period, November 1 to 30, 2026, at the $250 student fee, for the April 22 to May 1, 2027, examination window.
Which areas matter most for the target position?
The credential, evaluation and administration, because the posting accepts eligibility but rewards a sitting candidate and asks for evaluation and grant reporting experience.