Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia

Vicerrectoría Académica y de Investigación

Course: Geopolitics and environment
Code: 151021

Activity Guide and Assessment Rubric – Unit 1 - Task

2 - Problematic
1. Activity Description
Type of Activity: Collaborative
Evaluation Moment: Intermediate Unit 1
Highest Activity Score: 175 points
The activity starts on: Wednesday, The activity ends on:
September 9, 2020 Sunday, October 18,
2020
With this activity, the following learning outcomes are expected:

Analyze of the health situation for different contexts in the health problems
that arise from the relationship between geopolitics, environmental,
determinants in health and sustainable development
The activity consists of:

Individual activity:
Read bibliographic sources of Unit 1.

Choose a role to develop in the collaborative group and share it on the

forum: Director, Co-Director, Leader of the debate, Rapporteur and
Compiler.

Topics: Geopolitics and environment, determinants of health and

sustainable developments.

Review the material of Unit 1, from there select a problematic situation that
creates affects the context where you live and / or work. You must propose
a problematic situation in the first week from the opening of the activity.
You must select only One problematic situation.

Identify a problem situation in your city or region associated with air

1
pollution, water pollution or soil pollution and the effects on human health.
Make a video in You tube. The video must have a maximum duration
of 4 (four) minutes. The video is in Spanish language.

In this include:

- Cover page
- Goals of the task
- Problematic Situation: To propose a problematic situation and a
human disease caused by the environmental impact.
- Causes and impacts on the h u m a n health: to explain the causes and
impacts on human health of the chosen problem.
- Epidemiological Data: To describe epidemiological data associated
with mortality, morbidity, and severity of the disease.
- Conclusions: To write 2 (two) conclusions.
- Bibliographic references according to APA standards. Minimum 5 (five)
bibliographic references, this include scientific articles and government
pages (Example: OMS, PAHO, PNUD, MinSalud).

Total weighting: 85 points/175 points

Collaborative activity

Assuming the chosen role, generate a debate as a group about the identified
problems and select only one for the deliverable. The group must select
only one situation problematic.

The title of the situation problematic must include the population and the
city or region affected.

Choose a role and responsibility for the deliverable: Compiler, Reviewer,

Evaluator, Deliveries, Alerts.

Analysis: As a group create a document in word format, where the group

must include the same information that constructed in the individual
activity for the health problem, characterizes and sustains it from the
concepts learned.

You must create a document of maximum 4 (four) pages and upload the

2
task in the evaluation environment.
Total weighting: 90 points/175 points
keep in mind for the development of the activity:

In the Initial Information Environment, you must: revise the course agenda

In the Learning Environment, you must: read the bibliographical references

in the Unit 1. In the forum you can participate by publishing the doubts and
concerns that you have during the development of the Task 1: Collaborative
Work 1. So, upload the video and your contributions for the deliverable in
the forum.

In the Evaluation Environment, you must: as final product you must upload
the deliverable in word Format, maximum four (4) pages. In the same
document you must attach the links of video in YouTube of everyone.

Individual Work Evidences:

The individual evidence to be submitted is:

- Presentation in the forum, choose the role and definition of

problematic situation in the first week.
- A proposal of the collaborative work planning in the first or second
week.
- Contributions in the first and second week. Minimum Four (4)
contributions.
- Upload the video you tube format Maximum in the third week. It is
individual.

Deliverable´s Format:

• Document in Word
• Page size: Letter
• Typeface: Arial
• Font size: 12
• Interline spacing: 1.5 cm

3
Collaborative Evidences:

The collaborative evidence to be submitted is:

- Proposal for collaborative work planning.

- Contributions in the forum with bibliographical references APA.

Performance of the role in the forum and the deliverable

2. General Guidelines for the Development of Evidences to

Submit.

For Individual evidence, consider the following: The video in you tube
format is an activity individual. Everyone must present de video maximum
in the third week, then of opening the forum. Excellent writing and use of
grammar rules. You can include images and diagrams.
For Collaborative evidence, consider the following: The deliverable in Word
format is an activity Collaborative. Must include: Cover page, goals of the
task, problematic situation, causes and impacts on the human health,
epidemiological data, conclusions, and bibliographic references according
to APA standards. Excellent writing and use of grammar rules. Not use
tables, diagrams, or images. It is a plain text. You must upload the
deliverable for review of the Turnitin tool.

• All members of the group must participate with their

contributions in the development of the activity in the forum.
• In each group a single member will be chosen to submit the requested
product in the environment indicated by the teacher.

• Before submitting the requested product, students should check that

it meets all the requirements mentioned in this activity guide.

• Only the members of the group that participated with contributions

during the time assigned for the activity should be included as
authors of the submitted product.

Roles to perform by the student in the collaborative group (Debate):

4
 • Director: Organize, coordinate, directing and evaluate based on
their experience on the topic, the debate within the group.
• Co-director: Complement and highlight the contributions that are
relevant to the final product.
• The leader of the debate: Generate the academic debate required
to highlight concepts and domains on the topic of discussion. It
permanently questions the group in the search for bridges between
what has been learned and what is proposed.
• Rapporteur: To argue rigorously to enrich the subject, is the one
that collects and systematizes the information to be delivered to the
compiler.
• Compiler: Elaborate the document that is constituted as the final
product of the debate and the academic synthesis within the
collaborative group and the cooperative and ensures compliance with
the criteria of the rubric.

Roles and responsibility for the delivery of products by students:

•
Compiler: Consolidate the document that is constituted by the final
product of the debate, considering that the participants included were
only who intervened in the process. You must inform the person in
charge of the alerts to whoever, notifies those who did not
participate, that they are not included in the product to be delivered.
• Reviewer: Ensure that the writing complies with the presentation
rules of the work required by the teacher.
• Evaluator: Ensure that the document contains the criteria present in
the rubric. You must inform the person in charge of the alerts so that
you inform the other members of the team in case any adjustments
need to be made on the subject.
• Deliveries: Alert on the delivery times of the products and send the
document in the stipulated times, using the resources destined for
the shipment, and indicate to the other partners that the delivery has
been made.
• Alerts: Ensure that the members of the group are notified of new
developments at work and inform the documents in the work forum
and messaging of the course, which has sent the document.
Please keep in mind that all individual or collaborative written products
must comply with the spelling rules and presentation conditions defined in
this activity guide.
Regarding the use of references, consider that the product of this activity

5
 must comply with APA Format.
Under the Academic Code of Conduct, the actions that infringe the
academic order, among others, are the following: paragraph e) "Plagiarism
is to present as your own work all or part of a written report, task or
document of invention carried out by another person. It also implies the
use of citations or lack of references, or it includes citations where there is
no match between these and the reference" and paragraph f) "To
reproduce, or copy for profit, educational resources or results of research
products, which have rights reserved for the University ". (Acuerdo 029 -
13 de diciembre de 2013, Artículo 99)

The academic penalties students will face are:

a) In case of academic fraud demonstrated in the academic work or
evaluation, the score obtained will be zero (0.0) without any disciplinary
measures being derived.
b) In case of proven plagiarism in academic work of any nature, the score
obtained will be zero (0.0), without any disciplinary measures being
derived.

Type of Activity: Collaborative

Evaluation Moment: Intermediate Unit 1
Highest Activity Score: 175 points
First Evaluation High Level: The student publishes the video in YouTube
Criterion: format maximum in the third week with the requested
elements in the guide and fully complies the proposal of
Video in You tube format the collaborative work planning.

This criterion represents If your work is at this level, you can get between 21
40 points of the total of points and 40 points
175 points of the activity.
Average Level: The student publishes the video in
YouTube format with some of the requested elements in
the guide and fully complies the proposal of the
collaborative work planning.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 1
point and 20 points

6
 Low level: The student did not publish the video in you
tube format with the requested elements in the guide or
publishes later or does not comply the proposal of the
collaborative work planning.

If your work is at this level, you can get 0 points.

High level: The student publishes a proposal of the
Second Evaluation
collaborative work planning maximum in the second
Criterion: week and make your contributions in the forum
according to this.
Proposal of the
collaborative work. If your work is at this level, you can get between 11
points and 20 points
This criterion represents
20 points of the total of Average Level: The student publishes a proposal of the
175 points of the activity. collaborative work planning, maximum in the second
week, but did not perform them satisfactorily or on time.

If your work is at this level, you can get between 1

point and 10 points

Low level: The student did not publish a proposal of the

collaborative work planning or did not perform them
satisfactorily or on time.

If your work is at this level, you can get 0 points.

Third Evaluation High Level: The student in the first week choose
Criterion: their roles and performed them satisfactorily.

Choice and If your work is at this level, you can get between 6
performance of points and 10 points
roles.

7

This criterion represents
10 points of the total of
175 points of the activity.
Fourth Evaluation
Criterion:
Define the problematic
situation
This criterion represents Average Level: The student defines the problematic
15 points of the total of situation. But the title does not include (temporal and
175 points of the activity. spatial dimension) and population affected.
Fifth Evaluation
Criterion:
Individual participation in
the debate.
Average Level: The student in the second week
choose roles but did not perform them satisfactorily or
on time.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 1
point and 5 points
Low level: The student did not choose their roles
in the collaborative work forum or did not perform
them.
If your work is at this level, you can get 0 points.
High Level: The student defines the problematic
situation. Use a title and include
(temporal and spatial dimension) and
population affected.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 9
points and 15 points
If your work is at this level, you can get between 1
point and 8 points
Low level: The student does not define the problematic
situation. And do not include a tittle with temporal and
spatial dimension and population affected.
If your work is at this level, you can get 0 points.
High Level: The student participated in the forum with
at least
5 pertinent and opportune contributions for the
development of the debate and these contributed to the
activity.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 11
points and 20 points
8
This criterion represents Average Level: The student participated in the forum
20 points of the total of with at least 2 relevant and timely contributions for the
175 points of the activity. development of the debate and these contributed to the
activity.

If your work is at this level, you can get between 1

point and 10 points
Low level: The student did not participate in the forum
or their contributions were not relevant for the
development of the debate.
If your work is at this level, you can get 0 points.
Sixth Evaluation High Level: The analysis fully complies with the
Criterion: requested aspects and the format is adequate.

If your work is at this level, you can get between 31

Analysis. points and 60 points

This criterion Average Level: The analysis does not fully comply with
represents 60 points of the requested aspects or is not presented in the
the total of 175 points appropriate format.
of the activity.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 1
point and 30 points

Low level: The analysis does not comply with the

requested aspects; it is not presented in the appropriate
format or the student does not present analysis.

If your work is at this level, you can get 0 points.

9
Seventh
Evaluation
Criterion:
Bibliographical references
and grammatical norms.
This criterion represents
10 points of the total of
175 points of the activity.
High Level: The handling of references and
Grammatical Norms is satisfactory. The APA referencing
standards are used.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 6
points and 10 points
Average Level: Bibliographic references are presented
but APA standards are not used. The grammatical Norms
is satisfactory.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 1
point and 5 points
Low level: Bibliographical sources are not
referenced. The grammatical norms are not satisfactory
If your work is at this level, you can get 0 points.
10