This is the simple version, the other consideration is the 3d build

This is another option on how to present it

Font consistency, spacing etc.

Another idea is the interactive html below

My suggestion is to make this into an interactive html embed with their final avatar personas (AI generated)

For the video, I am thinking if theres a possibility if we can make it more visual and animated, to set-up the VET learners in their journey.

Additionally, for all the personas to be consistent across the courses.

Hi Jo, is this the image you imagine here [image peg]

Do you think we need to present this alphabetically

or transform this image and content to a hotspot?

Please check the image idea peg

Open item for us where to store the files that they will download

Do we need a graphics that will represent the process?

Add image here

NEW SECTION — scaffolding and time estimates.

Key Assessment Information block. The four values are exactly as in the legacy header; four rows are added.

Retained content and page

NEW SECTION — required by Blueprint §7.3: “technical guidance for the voice-over PowerPoint (recording, file size, accessibility)”.

STRUCTURE — the three criteria and their 10 point values are unchanged, word for word and number for number. Two columns are added. “Which process it assesses” is the co-design signposting decision applied to the rubric: it makes visible that criterion 2 carries both process 2 and process 3, which is precisely where students drop the evaluation.

Emphasis

CHANGE — CONFIRMED IN CO-DESIGN, 4 September 2026: “Assessment 2 must highlight and repeatedly signpost the three HRD processes students are assessed on and tend to forget: (1) training needs analysis; (2) develop the training program; (3) evaluate the program. The brief, checklist, rubric and the Week 3–4 activities name all three explicitly.” Recorded in Blueprint §1.3, §5.5 (“Three processes” design principle) and §7.3, and made a QA check in §9.2. All three are already required by the legacy brief — they are spread across the Overview, the task steps and the Assessment Guideline over three pages, which is exactly why students miss one. Nothing is added to the task. Please check the wording of each of the three names: they now appear identically in five places in this document and must match the rubric and the Focus on Assessment 2 page.

STRUCTURE — Blueprint §7.3 Key Assessment Information block. The four values are exactly as in the legacy header; four rows are added, including the three processes and the topic carried from Assessment 1.

Retained content and page

Retained content and page

NEW SECTION — point-of-need resources.

NEW SECTION — one of the four changes confirmed in the co-design session of 4 September 2026: “Generative AI: no use permitted in any assessment. Every brief states clearly what is and is not allowed.”

GAP — the brief specifies the font, size and line spacing, and the Submission Format section says “one single file”, but no format is named. Curio proposes accepting either; if RMIT Online requires one format for Turnitin, tell us which.

CHANGE — the third and last topic reference in this brief. Co-design decision, 4 September 2026. The rest of the paragraph is unchanged.

UPDATED v2.0: wording aligned to the refined topics (SME review, 14 September 2026).

NEW SECTION — scaffolding and time estimates.

STRUCTURE — the four criteria and their 7.5 point values are unchanged, word for word and number for number. They are set as a table so the brief and the rubric can be read side by side. The two added columns satisfy Blueprint §7.3: “Every rubric criterion is taught and practised in a named weekly activity before it is assessed, and the brief lists those scaffolding activities”, and the §9.2 scaffolding-visibility check that no assessed criterion lacks at least one named scaffolding activity. Activity numbers are traced to the Blueprint §6 Module 1 and 2 topic tables — please confirm against the storyboards as they are authored. Note the criterion text says “essay and presentation” twice in the fourth criterion; there is no presentation in this assessment. Left verbatim; flagged in the open items.

CHANGE — CONFIRMED IN CO-DESIGN, 4 September 2026:

“Assessment 1 topics change. Students choose one of: talent acquisition; skills gap for retention. (Replaces discrimination and bullying / diversity and inclusion.) The chosen topic is carried into Assessment 2.”

Recorded in Blueprint §1.3 and §7.2. This is the substantive change in this brief. It appears in three places here and three places in Assessment 2; all six are marked. Nothing else about the task changes — same role, same audience, same criteria, same word limit.

UPDATED v2.0 (SME review, 14 September 2026): topics refined to “talent management and skills gaps; or, employee wellbeing, resilience and mental health” (Blueprint v2.0 §1.3, §7.2). The Coordinator also supplied two refereed readings per topic (Koeppe et al. 2024; Garavan et al. 2021 / Bartram et al. 2024; Li et al. 2024), set in Week 1 and referenced here so students start from them.

Every brief opens with a Key Assessment Information block: type, due date (with timezone), length, weighting — nothing a learner must hunt for.” The four values are exactly as in the legacy header; they are set as a table so a screen reader announces each label with its value, and four rows are added. Note the source header records the due date as “Sunday, Week 3, 23:59 (Melbourne time)”, which already matches the co-design confirmation.

Nothing here changes the task or the weighting. Task, weighting, criteria and point values, word limits and due dates are as recorded in Blueprint v2.

The substantive changes are the four confirmed in the co-design session of 4 September 2026 and refined in the SME review of 14 September 2026 (Blueprint v2.0), each marked as such: the Assessment 1 topics, the corrected course learning outcomes, the three HRD processes in Assessment 2, and the no-generative-AI position.

Everything else is structure, scaffolding and accessibility, per Blueprint.

New checklist of the four artefacts learners should have produced this week before Week 2 opens.

New signpost to Week 2 and to the Focus on Assessment 1 page that unpacks the brief.

New summary block: four takeaways that mirror the week’s outcomes, so learners can self-check before Week 2.

As you asked, the nine legacy references are deleted and replaced with a single reading list of every article set on pages 1.0 to 1.7, with required readings asterisked and the page each sits on named.

New discussion where learners declare their topic with one sentence of reasoning, so facilitators can see who has chosen what by the end of Week 1.

New block carrying the no-generative-AI position in the blueprint’s wording, repeated on the Assessment 1 brief.

The wellbeing topic and its two readings are kept here so both topics stay live. Would you like a wellbeing counterpart page to match this one, or is this enough?

The Assessment 1 topic decision now sits on this page so learners choose straight after reading the talent articles, which keeps the choice in Week 1 as the blueprint requires.

You gave the two readings without questions, so this prompt is ours. Keep it, replace it, or would you like set questions like the ones on pages 1.2 and 1.3?

Both readings use the RMIT permalinks and DOIs you supplied.

This is a new page, built from your “1.6 Talent management and skills gaps” item. There is no legacy equivalent.

New bridge: Talent Management and Health, Safety and Wellbeing are the two assessment topics in AHRI’s own language, which ties this framework to the learner’s chosen topic.

New accessibility block: the competency pyramid described in full text for anyone who cannot see the diagram.

The legacy page calls ASTD the Australian Society for Training and Development, but it is the American Society for Training and Development and the Davis et al. source is American. Shall we correct it?

The knowledge check is rewritten. The old answer was the “workforce and workplace designer” role, which no longer exists in the framework, so the answer is now Talent Management.

New accordion: the seven capabilities with their skills and knowledge areas, then the ten behaviours, then the legacy HRM practice-area mapping retained at the end.

The AHRI Model of Excellence is replaced with the 2025 Australian HR Capability Framework, as you asked, and the page text, diagram, accordion and knowledge check are all rebuilt around it.

New discussion: learners post a one-paragraph investment case with a source for each benefit, which becomes the opening argument of their essay.

New H5P Summary: learners build a four-statement summary of the benefits by choosing the correct claim in each group.

New signpost: these three steps become the Assessment 2 structure in Weeks 3 and 4, so the link across assessments is visible from Week 1.

These quotations are retained, but Hyland et al. (2005) has never had a full reference anywhere in the course. Can you supply it?

New diagram proposed: it shows HRD investment producing organisational and employee outcomes together rather than as a trade-off. Alt text is drafted; the graphic still needs to be made.

Your note asked to move 1.6 to 1.5. We have kept Benefits of HRD here because it carries the benefits strand of MLO1.3 and the three-step process Assessment 2 builds on, which makes the week run to 1.8. Does that work, or did you intend to drop this page?

The reading is retained on the legacy RMIT link. We could not confirm the volume and issue number for the reading list; do you have them?

New discussion board so learners can compare how the same principles look across different industries. Happy to keep it, or would you rather remove it?

The three principles are unchanged in wording but now sit in expandable panels rather than one long block of text, so learners take them one at a time.

New H5P single choice: learners match a described practice to the right principle, with the skills-profile principle as the answer.

New watch-out note: if an organisation holds no skills data, that absence is itself a finding for the essay.

We have rewritten the activity questions: the legacy pair asked about discrimination and bullying “in 2024”, which no longer matches the assessment topics. Keep this version, or restore the original?

New H5P single choice on what SHRM, CIPD and AHRI all say development is for, with feedback that points back to each body’s own wording.

The legacy myHRfuture video is kept here as optional watching rather than removed, as agreed.

The two SHRD questions were framed around diversity and inclusion, which no longer matches the assessment topics, so we have reframed them to the learner’s chosen topic. Do they still ask what you want asked?

New reading: Shet (2020) on the RMIT permalink you supplied, with your “identify three issues” reflection used word for word.

The Stovall diversity and inclusion TED talk is removed and replaced with your Honest HR video, embedded to play from the start, with your two questions beneath it.

These two readings are on DOI links for now. RMIT Library permalinks for Garavan (2023) and Poell et al. (2024) are the last two we need from you.

The reflection is now framed as the draft opening of the Assessment 1 essay, so each page leaves the learner with something the essay can use.

New H5P multiple choice: learners place the two definitions at societal rather than organisational level, which sets up why the new readings matter for the essay.

The legacy task also asked learners to place their organisation on the Mitsakis maturity scale, which leaves with that reading. Would you like an equivalent step built from the new articles?

Both new readings are editorials rather than empirical studies, which suits the “main arguments” question well. Are you comfortable with that, or would you like one research article alongside them?

Mitsakis (2019) is removed and replaced with your two readings, Garavan (2023) and Poell et al. (2024), and your three questions are used word for word.

Both definitions and the commentary around them are retained word for word from the legacy page, including the Harbison and Myers wording.

This legacy short article is retained, but we have not been able to confirm its original source. Is this the article you intend, or would you like a replacement?

New accessible alternative: the completed statements as plain text for anyone who cannot use the drag interaction.

New H5P Drag the Words: six statements where learners sort HRD work from HRM work, with feedback that teaches rather than just marking. Workforce planning is the deliberate trap.

Padlet retained and embedded as you asked, using the cleaned board. The prompt is repeated in page text with a fallback route for anyone who cannot use Padlet.

The full episode runs 69 minutes, so we have made the Garavan segment the core listen and left the rest optional. Should the whole episode be required instead?

This new block carries your “1.1 Readings”: Han and Stieha (2020) on the RMIT permalink you supplied, and the AHRD Strategic HRD podcast with Thomas Garavan and Holly Hutchins.

New ABLE structure on every task page: challenge, output, task, instructions, then supporting resources. It makes the purpose and the artefact explicit before the learner starts.

New block pointing learners to the help board and the Welcome orientation, so questions have one obvious home.

Proposed synthesia video intro

New for the refresh: the week now opens with a map of all seven pages, their times and the outcome each one builds. From the co-design session, this is the visible scaffolding thread.