INHE 2001 Week 9 Peer Critique Replies Example

Week 9 Discussion: Peer Critique of an Education Plan

Held to Their Own Constraints: Two Peer Critique Replies Testing Classmates' Education Plans Against Limits the Classmates Stated Themselves

Reply to Marisol: The Forty-Minute Workshop on a Twenty-Minute Break

Marisol, your plan for the warehouse pickers' back safety program is clear, and your audience analysis was one of the most specific in our section. That is why I want to hold the plan to it. In your Week 4 analysis you wrote that pickers get one 20-minute break mid-shift and that "anything longer than the break will not be attended." Your teaching plan in Week 7, though, schedules a 40-minute workshop with a slide presentation, a video and a practice segment.

I can see why each block is there. The practice segment in particular fits what we read about self-efficacy, which grows when people perform a skill successfully themselves (Bandura, 2004). But by your own constraint, half the workshop has no audience. If the workshop runs anyway, the people who stay may be those already most interested, which would make your evaluation look better than the program is.

Your objectives might also need a second look. Your behavioral objective asks pickers to use the team-lift rule for every box over 50 pounds within six weeks, but the workshop blocks spend more time on spine anatomy than on the team-lift rule. Planning texts treat each block as accountable to an objective (Green & Kreuter, 2005), and I could not match the anatomy video to any of yours.

One item would settle this: which block would you keep if you had only the 20-minute break? If it is the practice segment, that might be your whole session.

Reply to Devon: A Bilingual Card Nobody Has Tested

Devon, your plan for the restaurant line cooks' burn-prevention card has a strong materials draft. Your readability numbers are excellent, and putting the cold-water step first is exactly right. My question comes from your own needs assessment, where you labeled the cooks' preference for Spanish materials as an assumption because "no one has asked." Your materials draft then prints the card only in Spanish, at a fourth-grade level, and your evaluation plan counts burns from the incident log.

By your own labels, the language choice is still untested. If some cooks read English more easily, or read neither language comfortably, the card could reach fewer people than planned, and the incident log would not show why. Plain-language guidance recommends testing materials with members of the intended audience before final production (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019), and your plan has room for that in Week 8's revision.

There is also a timing issue you raised yourself. You noted that burns cluster during the Friday dinner rush, when nobody reads anything. A card might work during setup, but the moment of risk might need a different cue, such as a supervisor's reminder at 5:30 p.m.

One item would settle the language question: a two-minute read-back with three cooks before printing. Would you be able to add that before the card goes up?

References

Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). The CDC clear communication index: A tool for developing and assessing CDC public communication products. https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/

Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.