Word limit: 1500 (+/- 10%)

Your assignment should be presented with the following sections:

Title page

Including your own name and the name of the program and/or intervention you are
evaluating.

Description of the program and/or intervention

You are required to identify and describe a program that is in some way based on
positive psychology (https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/resources-support/digital-
tools-apps/bite-back/)

. You may choose to describe a program running in your own area or a program that
operates anywhere in Australia.

Examples of such programs might be:

● a signature strengths based program

● a program based on mindfulness and/or meditation
● a program based on creativity (art, theatre, dance, music).

The program can be based on the general population or a specific population e.g. those
suffering from depression. The most important thing is that your chosen program is
related to positive psychology in some way.

You are to base your description on information publicly available in resources, such as
brochures or information over the internet. You are not to approach staff of such
programs for more information. Having numerous psychology students directly
approaching staff would prove burdensome for people running such programs.
However, since the quality of information and amount of detail provided in publicly
available sources is highly variable, this aspect of the assignment has a small weighting
compared to the evaluation described below.
You are to develop a brief 250 word description of the program. This summary will only
include a description of the program and not the effectiveness of such programs that
you have discovered from your literature review.

Literature review of the effectiveness of programs of this type

You are required to undertake a critical review (around 1000 words) regarding the
effectiveness of programs of this type. You will need to use four to seven (4–7)
references (cited within the body of your evaluation and properly referenced in a
reference list) in order to:

● critically review factors that influence program effectiveness

● think critically about what makes programs of this sort work, and find literature
that helps to establish this.

In undertaking this review, you will be required to use library resources such as
PSYCINFO or other types of library databases to locate relevant scholarly references
from books or journals. You are not to rely on populist articles about programs in
newspapers or magazines, nor should you be using web sites for your reference
material. These sources of information, however, may alert you about programs you
might like to evaluate. You will then need to more formally seek out information. You are
not required to do an exhaustive literature review, but rather to locate four to seven (4–
7) relevant references (peer–reviewed journal articles and books—not websites). For
those who do not know how to do searches using electronic databases, you may like to
visit the Research

Links to an external site.

guide.

You need to evaluate the past literature on programs of the kind you have chosen. You
need to demonstrate critical analysis of the material to ensure you provide a rationale
for your claims. You will need to search more generally as you are unlikely to find
information exactly linked to the program you review. We want you to do the review
rather than paraphrase someone else’s review. Questions you might like to consider:
 ● Has the literature demonstrated what makes the program work?
● Have important factors in the program’s success been defined or not?
● If you were designing such a program, based on empirical evidence, what
would you include? (This is a helpful question for the major report in this unit).
● Have studies been done to carefully establish what factors make the program
more or less successful?

Note: you can suggest points in your review if this has not been done or
include what sorts of studies need to be done to establish what the important
factors are. Remember you are meant to be operating as scientists and
practitioners.

Conclusion

Write a brief (250 word) conclusion of your evaluation, touching on the key points.

Reference list

Include a full reference list for all material cited within your evaluation. You reference list
is not included as part of the final word count.

1. Description of the program—one paragraph (250 words).

2. Past and/or relevant research—credibility and relevance of sources.
3. Critical evaluation.
4. Writing style, structure, format, presentation.
5. In-text APA referencing, reference list, originality.

Your work will be assessed using the following marking guide:

Criteria No Pass Pass Credit Distinction High

Distinction
50–59% 60–69% 70–79%
80–100%
 Not shown. Brief or
Description Adequate Clearly Clearly and
vague
of the description describes comprehensi
descriptio
program— with minor program vely identifies
n, with
one some errors that under the program
paragraph mention of mentions considerati under
(250 words) aims, but aims and on, with consideration
little some minor , its aims,
considerat techniques errors in techniques
(5%)
ion of used by identificatio used to
technique
chosen n of aims, achieve
s or
program. target, those aims
effective
Lists effective techniques and
outcomes
outcomes but used by outcomes
of
program. not chosen providing a
comprehensi program, or strong
vely. outcomes. rationale for
the review.
Chosen
program
must be
credible—i.e.
positive
psychology
based,
current, and
Australian.

Reference
Past and/or Studies Provides Good Clearly and
s are not
relevant are vague some details comparison comprehensi
 from peer–
research— or not of studies of chosen vely uses
reviewed
credibility relevant to relevant to program to literature to
or
and chosen chosen past evaluate type
scholarly
relevance materials. program. program, with studies with of program
of sources Some some an under
technique comparison indication consideration

(15%) s from to studies of insight , showing

similar relevant to and insight and
programs the chosen understandi clear
identified, program. One ng. understandin
but are not to two Integration g of the
clearly references may need reviewed
linked to from non– some papers.
current credible improveme Suitable
program. sources. nt, or one integration of
Only one or two papers
or two references shown. Four
additional may not be to seven
references entirely references
from relevant to offered that
peer– chosen are from
reviewed, program. primary
scholarly sourced
sources. material,
peer–
reviewed, not
web-based,
not opinion
based, not
Wikipedia
 and relevant
to the
program.

Critical No clear Summaris Identifies Clear Clearly and

evaluation understand es some some factors identificatio comprehensi
ing of factors responsible n of key vely critically

(60%) factors responsibl for change. elements evaluates the

relevant to e for Some critical responsible effectiveness
effectivene change analysis of for change, for factors
ss of relevant to program but further responsible
program, the outcomes in detail still for change in
or not program, relation to required. relation to
related to but essential Critical indicators,
positive mentions versus non– examinatio with
psychology non– essential n of comparison
principles. essential factors. strengths of essential
factors. Conclusions and versus non–
Effective about the weaknesse essential
indicators chosen s present factors.
or program are but may Strengths
outcomes not clearly need and
not clearly linked to further weaknesses
described evaluation. detail or are
or linked Some lacks considered,
to consideration connection and
program of further to program. comprehensi
outcomes. research is Conclusion vely draw the
Some clearly evaluation
 suggestio required. summarise together to
ns for s justify
further perspective conclusions,
research. in relation identify
to strengths limitations
and and areas
weaknesse that require
s, but more further
detail is consideration
required. to determine
effectiveness
of chosen
program.

Message is
Writing Intended The Message is The
clear and
style, message message clear, despite document
concise,
structure, of the of the several is typed,
follows APA
format, writer is writer is grammatical, double format, with
presentatio unclear conveyed spelling, or spaced, little to no
n due to using presentation has grammatical
several informal inconsistenci indented or spelling
grammatic writing es. Word paragraphs errors. The
(10%)
al and style, with count falling and minor presentation
of the report
spelling many slightly errors.
adheres to all
errors errors in outside of the Writing
specifications
affecting expressio -/+ 10% limit. style is
throughout.
readability. n, spelling, Overall, the generally
Overall, the
or organisation clear, organisation
grammar. and structure concise, and structure
 are excellent.
However, are adequate. and
Includes title
overall unambiguo
page and
meaning us. Word
cover sheet
is still count falls or
relatively within the declaration.
clear. May -/+ 10%
be too limit.
long or too Overall
short. organisatio
n and
structure is
good.
 The
In-text APA Does not Many APA Some APA A few APA
document
referencing conform to style style errors, style errors,
conforms to
, reference APA errors or some or minor
APA format
list, format for throughout recurring issues in —in–text
originality the . Non– issues in originality referencing
document APA originality of of writing to and
or the formatted writing to support reference list
(10%)
referencing references support argument. correctly
. Problems are cited argument. APA
formatted.
with in text or
Evidence of
originality reference
originality
of writing. list. Some
must be
evidence
clear.
of
originality
of writing.