Unit 4 Post

In the article titled Social Marketing for Public Health, the authors explore the use of social marketing as a technique that can change behavior and improve public health (p.104). In my opinion, social marketing encompasses both positive and negative effects. In essence, social marketing includes the utilization of television, mass media, videos, the radio, and the internet. I believe when using social marketing to improve public health, it is important to modify attitudes and behaviors of people through providing information and raising awareness, not through the consumption of products. In other words, social marketing works best when there is no endorsement of a particular service or product. For example, when I was in elementary school, I recall watching a public service announcement that showed an old woman who placed her cigarette inside the hole of her neck and she breathed in the smoke. In that public service announcement, she states in her raspy voice: “They said smoking isn’t bad for you…but, they were wrong.” This particular public service announcement served as a campaign against smoking and tobacco use. I firmly believe it was effective in getting the message across and it did not endorse any products or services. It simply addressed the issue of smoking. Another example that comes to my mind is the “Live Above the Influence” message seen on television. This is another campaign against drug abuse. On the other hand, some pharmaceutical companies use social marketing as a way to get patients to use their products. For example, I have seen many commercials that advertise sleeping prescriptions such as Ambien, weight loss pills such as Xenical, or allergy medications such as Zyrtec. These pharmaceutical companies give the impression that lack of sleep, weight loss, or allergies are public health problems that can only be resolved if people consume their products. This is where social marketing can have a negative effect because the focus is not on a particular health issue, instead it is on the product itself. Generally speaking, when products or services are promoted, typically large amounts of money is involved. Instead of helping patients improve their health, pharmaceutical companies become greedy and simply desire to sell their products. Therefore, I do agree with the authors to some extent that social marketing is an effective technique that can be used to convince people to improve the quality of their health. However, when using social marketing tactics, it is important not to advocate the consumption of a particular product or service because then it just becomes a commercial advertisement that fails to raise awareness or provide significant information regarding a public health related issue.
Reference
Walsh et al. (1993). “Social Marketing in Public Health.” Health Affairs. P.104-119.

Unit 3 Post

In the article titled A New Generation on the Horizon, Collins and Tilson discuss the characteristics of different generational groups: Silent, Boomers, Gen-X, and Millennials. According to the authors, understanding the characteristics of these generational groups can help educators design better instructional techniques. Collins and Tilson mention that individuals who were born in 1982 and later, fall under the Millennial category (p. 174). I agree with the authors statement that for Millennials, “the use of technology in everything they do is expected” (p.173). Since I am a part of the Millennial group, I can honestly say that individuals from my generation are constantly exposed to advanced technology. For instance, Millennials have become accustomed to using the internet, ipods, and video games. Also, I agree with the statement that Millennials tend to “lean towards math and the sciences rather than the humanities, arts, and history” (p. 174). For my undergraduate career, I enrolled at UC Irvine. Interestingly, a large percentage of students at UCI typically graduate from the School of Biological Sciences, the School of Engineering, and the School of Physical Sciences. A smaller percentage of students actually graduate with a Bachelor’s Degree in Humanities or Art. On the other hand, I do not agree with the statement that Millennials “will be conformists who can get any task done if given the proper guidance, objectives, and feedback” (p. 174). Using the word “conformists” makes it seem that Millennials are merely a bunch of “followers,” who do not have minds of their own. I firmly believe that Millennials are not conformists. Instead, majority of Millennials are strong-minded individuals who have the potential to become promising leaders. Moreover, Collins and Tilson introduce different methods of instruction for Millennials. One particular method of instruction that interested me was the progression of analog learning to digital learning. Analog learning includes “TV, video, tapes, textbooks, course notes, face-to-face light projection, slides and overheads. Digital learning includes conventional computer-assisted instruction (drills, tutorials, games); hypermedia courses, digital forums, multiuse domains, and simulators” (p.175). When I was an undergraduate student, I remember all of my biology professors would incorporate analog learning. They would use overheads for their lectures, make students watch biology videos, as well as require students to take notes and read the textbooks. They barely implemented digital learning in their instruction. If I was an educator who taught biology, I would have used digital learning as a teaching strategy. For example, I would compel students to engage in biology related projects that require the use of the internet and Microsoft Office. Moreover, I would have students participate in amusing online biology games and activities that provide digital images and animations. In conclusion, in order to enhance a student’s learning ability, I truly believe educators should learn how to integrate both analog and digital learning in their instruction.
References
Collins D.E. & Tilson E.R. A New Generation on the Horizon. Teaching Techniques. (3) 2: pp. 172-176.

Unit 2 Post

In the article titled Understanding Health Literacy: An Expanded Model (Zarcadoolas et al, 2005), the authors explore the importance of improving health literacy in the United States by presenting a multi-dimensional model that consists of four imperative domains: fundamental, science, civic, and cultural literacy. Interestingly, the authors employ various examples from the 2001 anthrax threat in order to demonstrate the significance of each domain. In my opinion, the domain that carries more weight in increasing the health literacy of an individual or a population is fundamental literacy. According to Zarcadoolas et al. (2005), fundamental literacy “refers to the skills and strategies involved in reading, speaking, writing and interpreting numbers“ (p.197). The Zarcadoolas et al article states that during the anthrax threat, majority of the information from the US government derived from the Centers for Disease Control home page (p. 198). At the time, CDC presented a case definition for anthrax that presumably placed several readers in a state of confusion. For instance, CDC defined anthrax as a gram-positive, non-motile, spore-forming bacterial rod that has three major clinical forms: cutaneous, inhalation, and gastrointestinal (CDC, 2002). Although the case definition contains various details, most individuals will undeniably experience difficulty in understanding all of the terminology. Personally, the only reason why I was able to understand the definition was because when I was an undergraduate, I took several biology courses at UC Irvine and I received a Bachelor’s Degree in Biological Sciences. Yet, most people cannot decipher the anthrax definition presented by the CDC. Also, in the article, the authors state that “when a text is hard to read, readers will generally persist, rearranging the text to make some meaning, even if it is not the text’s intended meaning“ (p.198). I completely agree with this statement because in reality, people do not have the patience or the time to read sentences word for word. People often like to receive and interpret information as quickly as possible. How many of us have gone through our textbooks and skipped over words that we did not know the definition to or how many of us have skipped over sentences that were too hard to comprehend? I know I have done that numerous times. Basically, it takes effort to look up words in the dictionary and some people would rather “skip” and “guess” the meaning of a particular text. Unfortunately, at times, the act of “skipping and guessing” compels people to jump to the wrong conclusions and become misinformed (p. 198). For experimental purposes, I decided to put the importance of fundamental literacy to the test. Essentially, I decided to test two of my best friends: one of them graduated from UC Irvine with a Bachelor’s in Political Science, while the other one is currently majoring in business at UC Davis. I requested both of them to read the CDC’s description and definition of anthrax shown in the Zarcadoolas et al article. Interestingly, they both claimed they did not understand a lot of the terminology. In other words, they did not understand the concept of “clinical forms” and were perplexed by some of the vocabulary such as “gram-positive,” “spore-forming,” and “cutaneous.” At the end, they came to the simple conclusion that anthrax leads to death. This is the same conclusion that most people would come to (p. 198). It’s not that my friends are unintelligent and that is why they could not understand the definition for anthrax. Instead, the truth is that “complex language does not meet basic needs of most readers” (p.199). Overall, I firmly believe that in order to increase health literacy, everyone should take part in building their vocabulary, as well as enhancing their reading, writing, and speaking skills. Also, in order to help improve health literacy, a more shared or common language should be utilized when conveying vital messages to a large network of people (p. 199). Furthermore, I believe that difficult terms and complex sentence structures should be clearly defined or explained in a way that can be comprehended by the general public.
References
Zarcadoolas et.al. “Understanding Health Literacy: An Expanded Model.” Health Promotion International, March 2005, (20)2.