Task description
The following assessment item invites students to analyse a family interaction through the lens of family strengths, growth and development theory and the impact of family, environment and culture on health outcomes for children and families. This assessment enables students to address unit learning outcomes 1,3,4,5 primarily.
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Video Analysis
Just from $13/Page
After watching and analysing this 6 minute video depicting an Indigenous Australian family at mealtime, answer
two (2) of the three (3) following prompt questions.
https://raisingchildren.net.au/for-professionals/aboriginal-torres-strait-islanders-parents/food-and-nutrition-aboriginal-parents/nutrition-aboriginal-parents (Links to an external site.)
1. Observing the family dynamics and interactions in the video what can you determine are the characteristics of this family unit using a family strengths approach?
2. Utilising child development theory, what observations and conclusions can you draw regarding the children in the video?
3. Based on the observable content within the video, what might be the influence of family, culture and environment on health outcomes for the children.
Use evidence from credible and contemporary sources to support and inform your analysis and discussion.
Submission Details:
· Please provide a cover sheet with the unit number, unit name, assessment item title and your student number.
· Please double space your work and use Times New Roman 12 size font
· 2.54cm margins are to be applied to document (these are the ‘normal’ standard margins in a word document)
· The responses to the 2 chosen questions will be a minimum of 2 pages and maximum of 3 pages TOTAL
· Indicate the question chosen prior to beginning your response. Each response should have a brief introductory paragraph, then the analysis should focus on a few salient observations supported by relevant theory, and a brief concluding paragraph.
· A reference list will be included at the end of the document, it will be correctly formatted using APA 7th edition referencing style to acknowledge any sources cited within the document.
|
10196 Assessment 2: video analysis (1)
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomePrompt question 1
Observing the family dynamics and interactions in the video what can you determine are the characteristics of this family unit using a family strengths approach?
(10 Marks)
|
Exceeds expectations
Sophisticated analysis of the observed family dynamics/ interactions integrating well considered links to family strengths theory. Discussion demonstrates insight into characteristics that will support family functioning. Analysis and claims are supported by relevant, contemporary theory which is integrated into discussion and is correctly cited in text and in the reference list. (10 – 8.5 Marks)
Meets Expectations
Very good analysis of the observed family dynamics/ interactions examining links to family strengths theory. Discussion demonstrates insight into characteristics that will support family functioning. Analysis and claims are supported by relevant theory, contemporary which is integrated into discussion and is correctly cited in text and in the reference list. (7 – 8 Marks)
Meets Expectations
Good analysis of the observed family dynamics/ interactions identifying links to family strengths theory. Discussion demonstrates some insight into characteristics that will support family functioning. Analysis and claims are for the most part supported by relevant, contemporary theory, occasional citation errors only. (6.5 Marks)
Satisfactory
Satisfactory identification of family dynamics/ interactions with some links to family strength theory; the analysis lacks depth. The discussion demonstrates some insight into family functioning. Analysis and claims are for the most part supported by relevant theory; some sources may be variable in quality, some citation errors. (6 – 5 Marks)
Unsatisfactory
Poor/limited identification of family dynamics/ interactions with underdeveloped or absent links to family strength theory. The discussion demonstrates limited insight into family functioning. Analysis and claims are unsatisfactorily or incorrectly supported by theory and/or poorly cited in text and reference list. Document length (for question responses) is not adhered to ie is more than 3 pages or fewer than 2 pages. (4.5 – 0 Marks)
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomePrompt question 2
Utilising child development theory, what observations and conclusions can you draw regarding the children in the video?
(10 Marks)
|
Exceeds expectations
Sophisticated and objective analysis of the video content enables articulate communication of key observations with well considered links to growth and development theory. Analysis and claims are supported by relevant, contemporary theory which is integrated into discussion and is correctly cited in text and in the reference list. (10 – 8.5 Marks)
Meets Expectations
Very good analysis of the video content enables communication of key observations with thoughtful links to growth and development theory. Analysis and claims are supported by relevant theory, contemporary which is integrated into discussion and is correctly cited in text and in the reference list. (8-7 Marks)
Meets Expectations
Good analysis of the video content enables clear communication of some observations with considered links to growth and development theory. Discussion may lack some depth or specificity. Analysis and claims are for the most part supported by relevant, contemporary theory, occasional citation errors only. (6.5 Marks)
Satisfactory
Adequately identifies and communicates some observations of the childrens’ growth and development related to theory. Discussion lacks depth and/or specificity. Analysis and claims are for the most part supported by relevant theory; some sources may be variable in quality, some citation errors. (6 – 5 Marks)
Unsatisfactory
Poor/limited identification of observable growth and development considerations in relation to the children in the family. Links to theory are limited or absent and discussion lacks depth. Analysis and claims are unsatisfactorily or incorrectly supported by theory and/or poorly cited in text and reference list. Document length (for question responses) is not adhered to ie is more than 3 pages or fewer than 2 pages. (4.5 – 0 Marks)
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomePrompt question 3
Based on the observable content within the video, what might be the influence of family, culture, and environment on health outcomes for these children.
(10 Marks)
|
Exceeds expectations
Sophisticated analysis enables articulate discussion linking what is known about health outcomes for children in relation to family, culture, and environment and what can be observed in the video. Analysis and claims are supported by relevant, contemporary theory which is integrated into discussion and is correctly cited in text and in the reference list. 10 – 8.5 Marks)
Meets Expectations
Very good analysis enabling discussion linking what is known about health outcomes for children in relation to family, culture, and environment and what can be observed in the video. Analysis and claims are supported by relevant theory, contemporary which is integrated into discussion and is correctly cited in text and in the reference list. (8-7 Marks)
Meets Expectations
Good analysis enables clear articulate discussion linking what is known about health outcomes for children in relation to family, culture, and environment and what can be observed in the video. Analysis and claims are for the most part supported by relevant, contemporary theory, occasional citation errors only. (6.5 Marks)
Satisfactory
Adequately identifies and communicates some observations of the childrens’ growth and development related to theory. Discussion lacks depth and/or specificity. Analysis and claims are for the most part supported by relevant theory; some sources may be variable in quality, some citation errors. (6 – 5 Marks)
Unsatisfactory
Poor/limited identification of observable growth and development considerations in relation to the children in the family. Links to theory are limited or absent and discussion lacks depth. Analysis and claims are unsatisfactorily or incorrectly supported by theory and/or poorly cited in text and reference list. Document length (for question responses) is not adhered to ie is more than 3 pages or fewer than 2 pages. (4.5 – 0 Marks)
|
· The responses to your chosen questions will be written in a scholarly way, drawing on contemporary (typically within the last 8 years – you can also use seminal child development theories which are more dated) and credible sources.
