| Course | HLTH 5091 Capstone Experience for Health Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Reflective analysis |
| 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 3
What the Work Taught Me: A Reflective Analysis of Three Capstone Artifacts on Tanning Norms, Tai Chi Data and a Walking School Bus Using Gibbs's Reflective Cycle
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5091: Capstone Experience for Health Education
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
September 21, 2026
Introduction
Module 2 matched one artifact to each program outcome. This paper looks closely at three of them: the tanning paper from the behavioral practices course, the tai chi pilot analysis and the walking program design. I chose these three because together they span the most change, from how I think about behavior, to how I read data, to how I design a program. For each, I follow the six stages Gibbs (1988) set out, which move from describing what happened through feelings, evaluation and analysis to a conclusion and an action plan. The cycle keeps reflection honest by requiring me to say what went badly as well as what went well, and by ending with a change in practice rather than a feeling.
Artifact 1: The Tanning Analysis
Description. In the behavioral practices course I used Ajzen's model to explain why girls at a composite rural high school seek a tan and skip sunscreen, taking each of the model's three predictors of intention in turn (Ajzen, 1991) and proposing survey items to measure each. Feelings. I began confident, because I had taught sun safety for years, and ended uneasy, because the analysis showed how little my old lessons addressed what actually drives the behavior.
Evaluation and analysis. What went well was the construct-by-construct structure, which forced me to find evidence for each part of the theory rather than asserting it. What went badly was my first draft's treatment of norms. I described what friends think as a single influence, and my instructor pointed out that the theory's subjective norm covers the approval of every person who matters to the girl, which in this town included mothers who tanned themselves or bought salon sessions for their daughters. That comment changed the analysis and my practice: I had been designing peer-focused lessons for a behavior that families were teaching. When I revised, I added mothers and boyfriends to the normative beliefs and, in the limits section, argued that the theory assumes reasoned choices when much sun exposure is habitual and says little about where attitudes and norms come from.
Artifact 1: Conclusion and Action
Conclusion. The artifact taught me that a theory is a tool for asking better questions, not a label for a lesson plan, and that its limits are part of what it teaches. Action plan. Before designing any new lesson, I now write out whose approval matters to the audience for the behavior in question, and I include at least one activity aimed at those people. This year, my sun safety sessions at two rural schools will include a short take-home activity for families, and I will ask the schools' counselors which adults students most often mention.
Artifact 2: The Tai Chi Data Analysis
Description. For the assessment and evaluation course I worked through the numbers from a tai chi pilot's opening twelve weeks at two senior centers, where older adults with painful knees took twice-weekly classes. I put who was reached and how classes were delivered ahead of any outcome, then set the outcomes beside a third center's. Feelings. I dreaded this assignment. Numbers have always made me anxious, and I expected to produce a list of averages without knowing what they meant.
Evaluation and analysis. The part that went well surprised me. By reporting reach first, I noticed that members aged 75 and older were about a third of the people enrolled, although they made up close to half of the members living with arthritis, and that gap became the first recommendation for the next session. The encouraging outcome results, such as arthritis self-efficacy rising from 5.2 to 6.5 on a ten-point scale against almost no change at the comparison center, mattered less to the program's next step than the gap in reach did. What went badly was interpretation. My first draft said the program caused the improvements. My instructor asked how I knew the comparison center was comparable, and I had to admit that it differed in size and transportation. The revised paper treats the findings as encouraging rather than conclusive and names the differences between centers as a limitation. Looking back, I see that anxiety pushed me toward overclaiming, as though strong conclusions would compensate for my uncertainty about the methods.
Artifact 2: Conclusion and Action
Conclusion. The artifact showed me that data analysis in health education is mostly about asking who was reached, what was delivered and what can honestly be claimed, questions I can answer without advanced statistics. Action plan. Every program report I write will now begin with reach and delivery before outcomes, will state the comparison's weaknesses in the same paragraph as the results and will be reviewed by a colleague before it goes to a school. I also plan to take a short course in basic statistics for program evaluation next spring to address the gap Module 2 identified.
Artifact 3: The Walking School Bus Design
Description. The program design course asked me to turn a chosen program into a design, and mine was a morning walking group, led by adults, at a composite elementary school whose students mostly live close by yet are driven. Feelings. This was the assignment I enjoyed most, because it drew on everything I had learned about theory, evidence and data.
Evaluation and analysis. What worked best was that every activity answered a cause from my earlier assessment and drew on a named theory of how confidence grows. The weakest part, in the first draft, was the targets. I originally set a goal of tripling the share of walkers because the Houston pilot had more than doubled active commuting in five weeks (Mendoza et al., 2011). My instructor noted that the pilot used research staff, lasted five weeks and measured fourth graders, and asked whether a volunteer program for all grades over a full year could expect the same. That question led me to calibrate the target against a second, year-long trial and to discount it for the first year. I now see that I had treated published results as promises rather than as evidence produced under particular conditions.
Artifact 3: Conclusion and Action
Conclusion. The artifact taught me that good program design is as much about restraint as ambition: setting targets a program can meet, and naming the conditions under which evidence was produced. Action plan. When I propose a program to a school, I will write a short paragraph beside each target explaining where it came from and how our conditions differ from the study's. I will also share draft targets with the school's staff before finalizing them, since they know the conditions better than any trial.
Patterns Across the Three Artifacts
Reading the three reflections together, I see one pattern. In each case my first draft was too confident: too sure that peers drove tanning, too sure that the tai chi program caused improvement and too sure that a published result would transfer. In each case instructor feedback asked me to look at conditions I had skipped. This pattern fits the account of practitioners who become skilled by noticing the surprises in their own work and reframing the problem in response (Schön, 1983). It also fits the finding of a systematic review that reflection develops through supportive feedback and the learning context, not only through individual effort (Mann et al., 2009). The practical lesson is that I should build feedback into my own practice deliberately, by asking colleagues and school partners to question my plans before they are final.
Conclusion
The three artifacts reflect growth in how I understand behavior, read data and design programs, and each produced a concrete change in how I work. The pattern across them, early overconfidence corrected by feedback, is the most useful thing this capstone has shown me so far. Module 4 will turn from artifacts to dispositions and examine how my professional habits and values have changed alongside my skills.
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
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.
Mann, K., Gordon, J., & MacLeod, A. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 595-621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9090-2
Mendoza, J. A., Watson, K., Baranowski, T., Nicklas, T. A., Uscanga, D. K., & Hanfling, M. J. (2011). The walking school bus and children's physical activity: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics, 128(3), e537-e544. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3486
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
What the HLTH 5091 Module 3 instructions ask for
In the third HLTH 5091 module, prompts typically ask for deeper reflection on a few of your artifacts rather than a brief note on all of them. You may be asked what each artifact shows, how it was developed, what feedback you received, how you revised it and how the experience affects your professional practice. Some instructors name a reflective model; others leave the method to you, though a named model makes the structure easier to follow. Choose artifacts that show real growth, not only your best grades, and be prepared to write about weaknesses. Use the first person, stay specific and connect each reflection to a change in what you do. Check how many artifacts your section wants examined.
How this HLTH 5091 Module 3 example is built
A brief introduction explains why three artifacts were chosen and introduces the six stages of the reflective cycle. Each artifact then receives two sections: one covering description, feelings, evaluation and analysis, with the instructor's feedback and the resulting revision described specifically, and one giving the conclusion and a concrete action plan with a time frame. Figures from the tai chi analysis and the trial behind the walking school bus target are used to show exactly what changed. A dedicated section on patterns reads the three reflections together and connects the shared weakness to sources on reflective practice. The conclusion points toward the dispositions module.
Where the points sit in the HLTH 5091 Module 3 rubric
Reflection is usually graded on depth, specificity and evidence of change. Instructors tend to reward reflections that describe particular decisions, feedback and revisions over general statements that the course was valuable. Following a named reflective model, visibly and in order, often earns credit, as does ending each reflection with an action plan that could be observed. Honesty about weaknesses is typically read as maturity. Drawing patterns across artifacts shows higher-order thinking. Professional first-person writing and correct APA 7 citations for the reflective model and any studies mentioned complete the paper. Keep the tone analytical even when describing feelings, and let the action plans show how practice has already changed.
HLTH 5091 Module 3 help from the desk
Capstone reflections often slide into gratitude for the program or summaries of each assignment. If you are struggling to reflect on your own work with enough depth, or to apply a model like Gibbs's cycle, a writer can help you structure it. Share the artifacts you plan to use, any instructor feedback and the prompt; with those in hand, a writer can lay out a Module 3 model showing how to move from description to analysis and action. Because reflection must describe your own experience, use the example to see structure and depth, then write about your own decisions and revisions. We can also review a draft you have written and point out where it needs more specifics.
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 2: Artifact and Outcome Alignment
- HLTH 5091 Module 4: Dispositions and Growth
- HLTH 5091 Module 5: Capstone and Professional Plan
- HLTH 5443 Module 3: Access and Literacy Analysis
- HLTH 5473 Module 2: Partner Analysis
- HLTH 5423 Module 5: Age-Appropriate Education Plan
- HLTH 5463 Module 3: Neuroscience Analysis
HLTH 5091 Module 3 questions, answered
What does HLTH5091 Module 3 usually ask for?
HLTH5091's third module usually asks for in-depth reflection on selected artifacts: what you did, what worked, what feedback changed and how the work affects your practice now.
What is Gibbs's reflective cycle?
A six-stage model for reflection: description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion and action plan, moving from what happened to what you will do differently.
How do I make a capstone reflection specific?
Name particular sections, decisions, feedback comments and revisions, and end each reflection with a concrete change in your practice.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5091 Module 3 sample paper?
This page carries a full Module 3 reflection working three artifacts, a tanning theory analysis, tai chi pilot data and a walking school bus design, through each stage of Gibbs's cycle.
Is it acceptable to write about mistakes in a capstone reflection?
Yes. Describing a weakness, the feedback that exposed it and how you revised the work is some of the strongest evidence of growth you can offer.