| Course | HLTH 5091 Capstone Experience for Health Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Artifact alignment |
| Length | 1,340 words, about 5 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | M.Ed. in Health and Wellness Education |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 5091 Module 2
Seven Outcomes, Seven Pieces of Work: Aligning Selected Artifacts From a Health and Wellness Education Master's With the Program Outcomes They Demonstrate
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5091: Capstone Experience for Health Education
Module 2 Assignment
Instructor Name
September 14, 2026
Introduction
In Module 1 I set three professional goals and three criteria for choosing artifacts: each must clearly demonstrate an outcome, represent my best work or visible growth and, as a set, cover several settings and age groups. This paper applies those criteria. For each of the program's seven outcomes, I name the artifact I selected, point to the specific parts of it that show the outcome and note what it does not show. I also indicate which of the profession's eight Areas of Responsibility each artifact touches (Knowlden et al., 2020), since that link will matter when I prepare for certification. The set spans high school girls, adolescents who sleep too little, older adults with arthritis, rural middle school families, ninth graders learning CPR and elementary children walking to school.
Outcome 1: Designing Evidence-Based Programs
The first outcome concerns programs grounded in evidence and built on theories, standards and frameworks. My artifact is the two-year intervention plan from the principles and practice course, which aimed to increase school-night sleep at a working-class suburban high school. The plan is organized by the levels of the ecological model described by McLeroy et al. (1988), with five components running from a classroom unit to family and peer activities, school schedules, outreach to employers of working students and advocacy on start times. The strongest evidence of the outcome is the way each component answers a barrier found at a specific level earlier in the course, rather than listing activities because they seemed useful. The plan also shows its limits: its evidence for the employer component was thin, and I relied on reasoning where research was lacking. The artifact touches the planning and implementation areas of responsibility.
Outcome 2: Culture, Norms, Beliefs and Values
The second outcome concerns the influence of culture, social norms, beliefs, values and practices on health choices. I selected my theory of planned behavior analysis of tanning and sunscreen use among girls at a rural Midwestern high school. The analysis works through attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control one construct at a time (Ajzen, 1991) and uses the school's health survey, on which 64% of girls agreed they looked better with a tan, to show how beliefs about appearance, the approval of friends and boyfriends and mothers who tan or give salon packages as gifts shape intention. What makes it the right artifact is its section on the theory's limits, where I argued that the model assumes reasoned choices when much summer sun exposure is habitual, and that it cannot say where those attitudes and norms come from. That argument shows I can examine culture critically rather than treating it as a background variable. The artifact fits the assessment area of responsibility and, through its implications section, planning.
Outcome 3: Principles of Program Design
The third outcome asks graduates to implement principles of program design with critical thinking. My artifact is the goals, objectives and activities paper for a walking school bus at a composite Title I elementary school. It states one goal, sets nine objectives at the process, impact and outcome levels and links each activity for parents, volunteers, children and the school to a cause identified through PRECEDE-PROCEED (Green & Kreuter, 2005). The critical thinking is most visible in how targets were set: rather than choosing an impressive number, I calibrated the goal of doubling the share of walkers against two trials and discounted it for a volunteer-run first year. The paper's weakness is that its outcome objective relies on a small sample wearing pedometers, which may not represent all walkers. It sits in the planning area of responsibility.
Outcome 4: Analyzing Data to Set Priorities
The fourth outcome concerns analyzing data to determine program priorities and to assess program components. I chose my analysis of the first 12-week session of a tai chi pilot for older adults with knee osteoarthritis at two senior centers. The paper reports reach, fidelity, attendance and dropout before outcomes, and it compares confidence, pain, chair stand performance and activity with members at a comparison center. The part of this paper I value most is the section that found the program under-reaching members aged 75 and older and turned that finding into the first recommendation for the next session. That is the outcome in action: data used to decide what to change. The analysis also follows the CDC framework's step of justifying conclusions against standards agreed with stakeholders (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999). It belongs to the evaluation and research area.
Outcome 5: Coordinating School and Community Communication
The fifth outcome asks graduates to coordinate communication of school and community concerns to change health-related behavior. My artifact is the communication and outreach strategy for a rural middle school partnership on adolescent prediabetes. It segments audiences, frames core messages around strength rather than blame and distinguishes tailored materials, built for individuals, from targeted ones built for groups (Kreuter & Wray, 2003). It also plans two-way listening through church groups, clubs and Friday night games and includes ethical cautions about stigma. I selected it because it shows communication as coordination among a school, families, clinics and faith communities, not as a flyer campaign. Its limitation is that its measures of reach were stronger than its measures of whether messages changed anything. It maps to the communication and advocacy areas.
Outcome 6: Leadership Through Collaboration
The sixth outcome concerns leadership built on collaborative relationships and research-based approaches. I selected the relational leadership paper from the contemporary leadership course, which analyzed the relationships a school pilot on health-related chronic absenteeism depended on. It uses relational coordination, which ties the quality of teamwork to shared goals, shared knowledge, mutual respect and frequent, timely communication (Gittell et al., 2013), to examine how nurses, counselors, teachers and attendance staff worked together, and it describes the coordinator's listening and conflict skills. This artifact is evidence of growth more than polish: my first draft treated leadership as authority, and the instructor's comment that the coordinator had no authority over any of these people pushed me to rewrite it around relationships. It fits the leadership and management area.
Outcome 7: Building Health Literacy
The seventh outcome concerns research-based ways of strengthening health literacy and content knowledge in schools and communities. My artifact is the four-lesson hands-only CPR unit for ninth graders. It builds skill through mastery practice and draws on the sources of self-efficacy, especially performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1977), so that students leave able and willing to act. Spaced refreshers in later grades address the decay of skills over time, and a lesson in which students teach a family member extends the unit beyond the classroom. The unit reflects the view that health literacy includes the ability to act on information and to help others act, not only to understand it (Nutbeam, 2000). It sits in the implementation area.
What the Set Shows and What It Misses
Taken together, the seven artifacts cover six of the eight Areas of Responsibility directly: assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation and research, communication and leadership. Advocacy appears only as a component within the sleep plan and the outreach strategy, and ethics and professionalism appear as sections within artifacts rather than as the focus of any one. The set covers four age groups and school, community and senior center settings. It is weaker on quantitative evaluation beyond descriptive comparisons, a gap that matches the goal I set in Module 1 to build evaluation into every program. In Module 3, I will reflect in depth on three artifacts, the tanning analysis, the tai chi data analysis and the walking school bus design, because they show the widest range of growth.
Conclusion
Each program outcome now has one artifact behind it and a specific passage that demonstrates it. The alignment also exposes where my preparation is thinner, in advocacy and in evaluation methods, which gives the remaining modules and my professional plan something concrete to address.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
Gittell, J. H., Godfrey, M., & Thistlethwaite, J. (2013). Interprofessional collaborative practice and relational coordination: Improving healthcare through relationships. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(3), 210-213. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2012.730564
Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Knowlden, A. P., Cottrell, R. R., Henderson, J., Allison, K., Auld, M. E., Kusorgbor-Narh, C. S., Lysoby, L., & McKenzie, J. F. (2020). Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis II 2020: Processes and outcomes. Health Education & Behavior, 47(4), 642-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120926923
Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(Suppl. 3), S227-S232. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.27.1.s3.6
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500401
Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: A challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International, 15(3), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.3.259
Reading the HLTH 5091 Module 2 instructions
The second HLTH 5091 module commonly asks you to connect the work you have chosen with the program outcomes. Expect a prompt that wants each outcome listed with one or more artifacts and an explanation of how the artifact demonstrates it. Some sections provide an alignment table; others want narrative. Either way, the explanation matters more than the match: name the part of the artifact that shows the outcome and use the outcome's own wording. Instructors often ask you to note limitations or plans for revision, and some want links to professional standards. Keep your Module 1 criteria in view so the choices look deliberate, and check whether revised versions of artifacts are allowed.
How the HLTH 5091 Module 2 example is put together
An opening paragraph restates the selection criteria from Module 1 and lists the ages and settings the set covers. Seven outcome sections follow, each built the same way: the artifact and its course, the specific passage or decision that demonstrates the outcome, one limitation and the area of responsibility it touches. Theories and frameworks used in each artifact are cited so the reader can see the evidence base. One section is written as evidence of growth, describing how instructor feedback changed a draft. A closing analysis shows which areas of responsibility the set covers, where it is thin and which three artifacts Module 3 will examine in depth.
Reading the HLTH 5091 Module 2 rubric
Alignment papers are usually graded on accuracy and specificity. Rubrics tend to reward artifacts matched closely to the wording of each outcome, with a named passage or decision as proof, over general statements that an assignment fits. Balance across outcomes counts, so a strong capstone does not lean on one artifact for everything. Honest notes on limitations, and links to professional standards where the prompt invites them, show judgment. A clear, parallel structure makes the alignment easy to verify. Clean first-person prose and correct APA 7 citations for the theories behind each artifact round out the paper. Graders also notice when the set as a whole covers different settings and ages, since that breadth shows range.
HLTH 5091 Module 2 help from the desk
Many students lose marks here by pasting outcome statements beside assignment titles without explaining the link. If you want help choosing which artifact best fits each outcome, or explaining that fit in specific terms, a writer can work with you. Share your program outcomes, a list of your major assignments and the prompt, and we can draft a Module 2 alignment that points to the evidence inside each artifact and notes its limits. Your artifacts themselves must be your own work, and the sample is meant to show how the explanation is built. We can also map your set to the Areas of Responsibility if your instructor asks for professional standards.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HLTH 5091 and M.Ed. in Health and Wellness Education sample papers
- HLTH 5091 Module 1: Capstone Introduction and Goals
- HLTH 5091 Module 3: Reflective Analysis of Artifacts
- HLTH 5091 Module 4: Dispositions and Growth
- HLTH 5091 Module 5: Capstone and Professional Plan
- HLTH 5483 Module 3: Evaluation Design
- HLTH 5403 Module 1: Culture and Behavior Analysis
- HLTH 5413 Module 5: Intervention Plan
- HLTH 5443 Module 2: Health Informatics Analysis
HLTH 5091 Module 2 questions, answered
What does HLTH5091 Module 2 usually ask for?
HLTH5091's second module often asks you to match selected artifacts from earlier courses to the program outcomes and explain what part of each artifact demonstrates each outcome.
Can one artifact demonstrate more than one outcome?
Yes, but most capstones are clearer when each outcome has a primary artifact; you can note secondary links without stretching one paper to cover everything.
How do I show that an artifact demonstrates an outcome?
Point to a specific section, decision or passage in the artifact and explain how it meets the outcome's wording, rather than saying the whole assignment fits.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5091 Module 2 sample paper?
You can read a full Module 2 alignment here, pairing seven M.Ed. artifacts, from a sleep intervention plan to a CPR unit, with the seven program outcomes and the passages that prove them.
Should I mention weaknesses in my artifacts?
Yes. Naming what an artifact does not show, and how you would improve it, demonstrates judgment and sets up the reflection modules that follow.