Select academic peer-reviewed papers only (no grey literature for this assignment). Order the responses alphabetically by the first author of each paper. Write a SINGLE 300 paragraph for each paper. Write in full sentences using academic writing style Be succinct – mention only significant details in your summary

  Assessment task 1: Health Policy Stakeholders Intent: Provides students with the opportunity to analyse the health policy literature, learn the process and language of health policy and the importance and influence of the involvement of various stakeholder groups. Objective(s): This assessment task addresses subject learning objective(s): A, D and E This assessment task contributes to the development of graduate attribute(s): 1.0, 3.0 and 4.0 Weight: 40% Task: Based on information drawn from class sessions and independent investigation, each student is to provide a succinct descriptive and evaluative annotated summary of six academic papers that have a focus on one or more health policy stakeholders (300 words for each paper). A purpose designed general template will be provided to students to guide the successful completion of assessment task 1. Length: 1800 word annotated bibliography

Annotated Bibliography (Template for successful completion of Assignment 1)

Writing Style

• Select academic peer-reviewed papers only (no grey literature for this assignment).
• Order the responses alphabetically by the first author of each paper.
• Write a SINGLE 300 paragraph for each paper.
• Write in full sentences using academic writing style
• Be succinct – mention only significant details in your summary
• Use transition words (e.g. furthermore, moreover, however, therefore …)
• Use examples from other annotated bibliographies to guide and check your writing style
• Do NOT repeat information (e.g. the title) that is already in your citation
• Do NOT cross reference i.e. do not use any in-text references as you are only writing about a single paper in each paragraph.

Inclusions

1. Citation details (full Harvard UTS reference).
2. A short statement that explains the main focus or purpose of the work.
3. A short summary of the theory, research findings or argument (e.g. intended audience, major arguments, research method/s, conclusions reached etc.).
4. Consideration of the strengths and limitations of the text of the text.
5. An evaluative comment on the work (e.g. critical reflection that describes the usefulness or relevance of the information – how the paper can be used to inform the health policy development process).

Outstanding Quality Good Quality Satisfactory Achievement Unsatisfactory Performance Criterion 1 Accurately identifies and analyses academic papers that are highly relevant to the topic. 30% All annotations are accurate, clear and appropriately and concisely detailed. Each response provides well considered key points and strictly follows the provided guidelines. All sources are from credible, scholarly journals. Each source has an accurate complete citation. Most annotations are accurate and mostly clear and appropriately detailed. Each response provides some wellconsidered key points and strictly follows the provided guidelines. All sources are from credible, scholarly journals. Each source has an accurate complete citation. The majority of the annotations are accurate and mostly clear and appropriately and concisely detailed. Each response provides some wellconsidered key points and strictly follows the provided guidelines. All sources are from credible, scholarly journals. Each source has an accurate complete citation. One or more of the following issues has been identified: The work is sufficiently inaccurate, incomplete, or confusing that the reader is not able to gain enough information of significance to the assignment requirements. Clarity of assignment purpose may be lacking. The student may have used irrelevant or insufficient academic papers and/or may not have accurately referenced selected papers and/or failed to identify papers from credible, scholarly journals. The response may be largely lacking in descriptive and evaluative analysis and/or English language may have been used incorrectly, affecting the reader’s interpretation of the text. Criterion 2 Provides an accurate and concise descriptive annotated and evaluative summary 40% All annotations offer important concise insight into each paper. Responses provided are always clear, appropriate and important to the assignment requirements. Enough detail is presented to allow the reader to clearly understand the content and make judgments about it. Most annotations offer important concise insight into each paper. Responses provided are mainly clear, appropriate and important to the assignment requirements. Enough detail is presented to allow the reader to clearly understand the content and make judgments about it. The majority of the annotations offer some important insight into each paper. Responses provided are somewhat clear, appropriate and important to the assignment requirements. Enough detail is presented to allow the reader to clearly understand the content and make judgments about it. One or more of the following issues has been identified: The work is sufficiently inaccurate, incomplete, or confusing that the reader is not able to gain enough information of significance to the assignment requirements. Clarity of assignment purpose may be lacking. The student may have used irrelevant or insufficient academic papers and/or may not have accurately referenced selected papers and/or failed to identify papers from credible, scholarly journals. The response may be largely lacking in descriptive and evaluative analysis and/or English language may have been used incorrectly, affecting the reader’s interpretation of the text. Criterion 3 Provides sound ideas about the paper and how it can be used to inform the health policy development process 30% All annotations offer excellent insight into each paper and how each can be used to inform the health policy development process. Clear and correct explanations of underlying rationale are provided. Most annotations offer good insight into each paper and how each can be used to inform the health policy development process. Clear and correct explanations of underlying rationale are provided. The majority of the annotations offer some insight into each paper and how each can be used to inform the health policy development process. Some clear and correct explanations of underlying rationale are provided. One or more of the following issues has been identified: The work is sufficiently inaccurate, incomplete, or confusing that the reader is not able to gain enough information of significance to the assignment requirements. Clarity of assignment purpose may be lacking. The student may have used irrelevant or insufficient academic papers and/or may not have accurately referenced selected papers and/or failed to identify papers from credible, scholarly journals. The response may be largely lacking in descriptive and evaluative analysis and/or English language may have been used incorrectly, affecting the reader’s interpretation of the text. Marking Rubric – PPP Assessment item 1

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH AMAZON PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT