| Course | HW499 Bachelor's Capstone in Health and Wellness |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Program design |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health and Wellness |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HW499 Unit 5
Activity at 3:20, Not 5:00: A Unit 5 Program Design for Moving Afternoons at Six After-School Sites
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HW499: Bachelor's Capstone in Health and Wellness
Unit 5 Program Design
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Cotter Bend, Moving Afternoons and every figure are composite; the after-school intervention research cited is real.
Design Logic
Every core component answers a finding from the needs assessment and rests on evidence from the review. Components that answer a finding but lack evidence are kept separate and labeled, so the department can see which parts of the program are tested and which are hopes.
Crosswalk
1. Schedule change. Finding: more than a third of the roster has left by five o'clock. Evidence: interventions that protected scheduled activity time increased children's activity (Beets et al., 2015).
2. Game menu without elimination. Finding: about half of gym time in elimination games. Evidence: modified games that keep all children involved produced more moderate-to-vigorous activity than traditional versions (Brazendale et al., 2015).
3. Staff training and support. Finding: 7 of 26 leaders ever trained in games; staff joining play in about one scan in five. Evidence: staff-focused interventions in after-school programs increased the share of children meeting activity standards (Beets et al., 2015).
Component One: Schedule
The new afternoon runs as follows:
1. 2:45 to 3:00: arrival and attendance.
2. 3:00 to 3:20: snack.
3. 3:20 to 4:00: activity block, forty minutes, indoors or outdoors.
4. 4:00 to 4:45: homework, trimmed from sixty to forty-five minutes.
5. 4:45 to 5:30: choice time, crafts, reading or a second, optional active game.
6. 5:30 to 6:00: quiet activities and pickup.
Choice time includes an optional active game because children tend to be more active in free play than in tightly structured sessions (Trost et al., 2008), and some will choose to keep moving.
The activity block now comes when nearly every child is present. Homework is shortened but kept, honoring the department's commitment to parents. The needs assessment found that most early pickups happened after 4:30, so the 3:20 block reaches almost all children.
Component Two: Games
Each site receives a menu of about two dozen games on laminated cards, all designed to keep every child moving: tag variations where tagged players do a quick task and return, small-sided games of three or four per team so no one waits, relays without lines and cooperative challenges. No game on the menu sends a child out. A separate indoor card offers games for the cafeteria or a classroom on days when the school needs the gym. Each card lists the space needed, the equipment and one way to make the game harder or easier.
Component Three: Staff
All leaders receive six hours of training before launch, in two three-hour sessions: one on running the new games, practiced as players, and one on leading and encouraging play rather than supervising from the side. Site supervisors receive two additional hours on coaching leaders. After launch, each site holds a twenty-minute monthly huddle to share what is working, and the program manager makes coaching visits, observing a block and giving each leader one specific suggestion.
The three core components work together: the schedule gives every child forty minutes of active time, the games keep them moving during it, and the training gives leaders the skill to run those games well.
A Day at a School Site
At a school site on a typical Tuesday, children arrive at 2:45 and sign in. Snack runs until 3:20. At 3:20 the leaders take the group to the gym, or to the cafeteria if the gym is booked. A leader explains the first game from the menu card, for example a tag game in which tagged players do five jumping jacks and rejoin. After ten minutes, the leaders switch to a small-sided relay, then to a cooperative challenge. Leaders play along and call out encouragement. At 4:00 the group moves to homework tables for forty-five minutes. Choice time follows, with crafts, reading or a second game for children who want one. Parents pick up from 5:30. On a day when the gym is unavailable, the cafeteria version uses the indoor card's games, which need only cones and open floor space.
Equipment
Each site receives a kit of balls, cones, pinnies, jump ropes, scarves and a portable speaker, chosen to support every game on the menu. Kits are labeled by site so equipment is not borrowed between buildings.
Why Not Simply Add More Time
One alternative would be to add a second activity period rather than move the first. That would require cutting homework or crafts further, or extending hours, and the department has promised parents both. Moving the existing period to a time when children are present achieves more with no change in total time. It also keeps the design within what leaders can manage in a three-hour afternoon.
Two Unsupported Additions
Two additions were proposed by staff and are included only as optional, labeled as unsupported by the reviewed evidence:
1. A "move minute" during homework, one minute of stretching or jumping every fifteen minutes. Leaders like the idea, but the review found no studies of this practice in after-school settings.
2. A monthly family game night at each site. It might build support among parents, but there is no evidence it changes children's activity during the program.
These additions will not be evaluated as part of Moving Afternoons and will not be described as evidence-based.
Launch
The design proposes launching at all six sites at once in January, after training in December. A staggered launch is an alternative to be considered with the evaluation plan.
How Leaders Were Involved
Leaders shaped the design. Their survey answers, asking for games that work with large groups in small spaces, led directly to the small-sided formats and the indoor card. Two leaders tested draft game cards with their groups in November and suggested simpler wording. Their ideas for a move minute and a family game night were kept in the design, labeled honestly, rather than dropped without explanation.
What the Design Does Not Change
The design does not change snack, pickup policies or staffing levels. It does not add new programs or extend hours. It asks leaders to do different things in the same time, rather than more things, which matters for part-time staff whose shifts cannot grow.
Risks
Gym access at school sites remains the largest risk; the indoor card addresses it partly. Leader turnover means new staff will arrive without training, which the logistics plan must address. Parents may object to shorter homework time; the design keeps forty-five minutes and will be explained in a letter home.
References
Beets, M. W., Weaver, R. G., Turner-McGrievy, G., Huberty, J., Ward, D. S., Pate, R. R., Freedman, D., Hutto, B., Moore, J. B., & Beighle, A. (2015). Making policy practice in afterschool programs: A randomized controlled trial on physical activity changes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 48(6), 694-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.012
Brazendale, K., Chandler, J. L., Beets, M. W., Weaver, R. G., Beighle, A., Huberty, J. L., & Moore, J. B. (2015). Maximizing children's physical activity using the LET US Play principles. Preventive Medicine, 76, 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.03.012
Trost, S. G., Rosenkranz, R. R., & Dzewaltowski, D. (2008). Physical activity levels among children attending after-school programs. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(4), 622-629. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318161eaa5
HW499 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
The design unit asks students to describe the program they will propose, grounded in their needs assessment and evidence review. Prompts commonly expect a rationale, a crosswalk linking components to findings and evidence, a detailed description of each component, staffing and training, a schedule, equipment and risks. Start each component from a specific finding. Cite the evidence that supports it. Give enough detail that a site supervisor could run a day from the design. Keep components without evidence clearly separate and labeled. Explain alternatives you rejected. Show how staff were involved. Name the riskiest assumptions. Seven to eight pages, often with a schedule and a crosswalk table, is typical.
How this HW499 Unit 5 example is built
A short design logic opens the paper, followed by a three-line crosswalk linking schedule, games and staff to findings and studies. The schedule component lists the new afternoon from arrival to pickup and explains the optional active game in choice time. The games component describes the cards and the indoor card. The staff component covers training, huddles and coaching visits, and the highlighted sentence shows how the three depend on each other. A walk through a typical Tuesday follows, then why time was moved rather than added, how leaders shaped the design, equipment, two unsupported additions, the launch plan, what stays the same and risks. Every component is introduced with the finding it answers.
HW499 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
HW499 design rubrics generally weight alignment most: each component must answer a need and rest on evidence. Detail sufficient for implementation earns substantial credit under feasibility. Points go to honest labeling of unsupported components and to explaining rejected alternatives. Involvement of staff or participants is often scored under stakeholder engagement. Identification of risks and constraints, such as space or turnover, earns credit under planning. A usable schedule, a crosswalk and correct citations take the remaining marks. A design that strings activities together with no finding behind each, or that dresses untested ideas as proven, usually loses points. A walkthrough of an ordinary day is a common way graders test whether the design could actually run.
Common HW499 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Capstone designs often add every promising idea, which makes the program hard to run and impossible to evaluate. Another weakness is describing components in general terms, such as staff training, without hours, content or follow-up. Students sometimes present untested additions as if the evidence supported them. Constraints from the needs assessment are frequently ignored in the design. A day-in-the-life walkthrough, which shows whether the design is workable, is rarely included. If your findings are clear and you need a design that answers them, the findings table is the starting point, and from it each component can be traced to a need and a study.
Get an HW499 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Bring the needs assessment findings and evidence review, since every component should trace to both, along with the design prompt and rubric for Unit 5. Each part of the design arrives paired with the finding it answers and the study behind it, trade-offs stated. One first sample at no charge; allow 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HW499 papers and BS in Health and Wellness samples
- HW499 Unit 1: Capstone Problem Post
- HW499 Unit 2: Project Proposal
- HW499 Unit 3: Evidence Review
- HW499 Unit 4: Needs Assessment Report
- HW499 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HW499 Unit 7: Budget and Logistics Plan
- HW499 Unit 8: Evaluation Framework
- HW499 Unit 9: Executive Summary
- HW499 Unit 10: Capstone Portfolio
- HD420 Unit 5: Access Barrier Study
- HW425 Unit 5: Budget and Resource Plan
- HD440 Unit 5: Goal and Objective Set
- HW420 Unit 5: Meaning and Purpose Case Study
HW499 Unit 5 questions, answered
Can a capstone design include components without strong evidence?
Sometimes, if they are labeled honestly and kept apart from the core. A supporting component may be reasonable on practical grounds, but presenting it as evidence-based when no study supports it in this setting costs credibility. Many designs place such items in a clearly marked box, so the instructor and classmates can judge them on their own merits.
How detailed should the daily program schedule be?
Detailed enough that a site supervisor could run a day from it: start and end times, what happens in each block, who leads and what equipment is needed. Feasibility often carries real weight in grading, and the schedule is where it shows. Later costing depends on these times and roles, so precision here prevents contradictions in the budget.
Does the design need to name a theory?
If the prompt asks for one, yes, and the theory should shape the components rather than sit in an opening paragraph. Environmental and organizational change approaches often fit setting-level designs like this better than individual behavior models. Where no theory is required, a clear chain from finding to component to objective does much of the same work.
Where can I find a free HW499 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds a complete Unit 5 program design for the Cotter Bend after-school sites, with a crosswalk, schedule, training plan, margin notes and APA references.
Why keep two staff ideas but label them unsupported?
Leaders proposed them and liked them, so they were kept as optional. Labeling them makes clear the reviewed evidence does not support them, so they are not mistaken for proven parts of the program.