Construction, Identification, and Evaluation of Dengue Promotional Campaign Posters in a Language Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotional campaign as the practice of encouraging people to improve health has increased over the last decades in response to various health problems. This paper highlights strategies used by students to develop persuasive promotional campaign posters regarding the dengue health problem. Communication and media studies students were involved to show the combined results between the knowledge of health communication and the effective use of media in constructing an effective and persuasive health messages. A total of 56 students from two cohorts, i.e. twenty-five master’s students and thirty-one undergraduates were selected. Kurt Lewin’s model of action research was used to set the tasks: campaign objectives, information on dengue, themes/slogans to write the posters either by drawing or designing using a computer. The students were divided into groups where each group was monitored to record, check and evaluate their message writing performances. This study uses the Health Message Review Tool for data analysis which is grounded in the theories of Extended Parallel Process Model and Persuasion Hierarchy Effect. The findings revealed that the participants were able to construct, identify and evaluate major multi modal features in the dengue posters and persuasive elements which included: verbal texts, images, colours, graphic designs, metaphors, 1-sided and 2-sided message, firm conclusion and frames with more effective appeals. It was concluded that similar strategies may well be used in producing other campaign materials such as brochures, pamphlets, and billboards. The linguistic and pedagogic implications are also discussed at the end.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".