SUSS PSY353 Positive Psychology ECA July 2026: Well-Being Report Critiquing an AI Assessment, Singapore

PSY353 Positive Psychology: End-of-Course Assessment, July 2026 (SUSS)

In this SUSS PSY353 ECA you interview one person about their relationships and happiness, run their details through a generative AI tool, and then write a 2,000-word scientific essay that tests the AI report against positive psychology theory. The essay assesses well-being levels, analyses three factors and how far each is a personal choice, and ends with three recommendations you write yourself.

Marks Allocation

• Question 1: Individual Attendance and Class Participation (5 marks)
• Question 2: Well-Being Report, 2,000 words (90 marks)
• References (5 marks)
• English competency: up to 5 marks deducted; 5 marks deducted for an incomplete or missing cover page

Question 1: Attendance and Class Participation (5 marks)

Credit is given for attending classes and contributing meaningfully to discussions. Students who miss a seminar can earn partial credit with a reflective post of at least 300 words on the weekly discussion board within seven days of the seminar.

Question 2: Well-Being Report (90 marks)

Write the report as a scientific essay, not in the Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion format.

Interview and AI Assessment

• Obtain consent from one person who is not taking PSY353 this semester (a schoolmate, friend, colleague, family member or relative) and interview them about their social relationships, happiness and well-being. The interview may be purely qualitative or may include short well-being measurement scales.
• Use any generative AI tool with this prompt: “Based on the following information, generate a report assessing the well-being of the interviewee, and identify three major factors influencing the interviewee’s well-being.” Do not upload any identifying information.
• Declare and cite all AI use, with a table of any additional prompts and outputs.
• Include in an Appendix (i) interview notes covering the questions asked and the answers, and (ii) the AI-generated report. Up to 20 marks are deducted if this evidence is missing. Use a pseudonym throughout.

Key Points the Report Must Address

1. With reference to the AI report, assess the interviewee’s well-being levels using theoretical models of well-being. Critique the AI report: point out inaccuracies, add missing details, and supply the theory and empirical evidence it left out. Do not simply edit the AI report.
2. Analyse three distinct factors (for example personality, social relationships, emotionality, culture, health, work experiences or finances) that contribute to or hinder the interviewee’s well-being, and evaluate how far each is open to personal choice. You may build on the AI’s factors or add ones it missed, again with critique and evidence.
3. Propose three recommendations to improve the person’s well-being. This section must be your own work, not AI-generated. For each, critically evaluate its limitations and challenges and suggest how the interviewee could overcome or reduce them.
4. Use empirical evidence and concrete examples from the interviewee throughout.

References (5 marks)

Accurate APA in-text citations and reference list with at least five valid academic sources (peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books or chapters). Websites, blogs, videos, theses and the iSmartGuide do not count.

Learning Outcomes Assessed in Question 2

• Analyse how various factors may enhance or undermine well-being.
• Appraise a person’s well-being levels and identify the factors influencing them.
• Design programmes to improve well-being by integrating positive psychology theories and findings.
• Propose recommendations on how limitations or challenges to applying positive psychology can be overcome.

Get Expert Help with SUSS PSY353

Treat the AI report as evidence to critique, not text to polish: name each inaccuracy or gap, then fix it with a well-being model (for example PERMA or subjective well-being) and peer-reviewed findings. For the three factors, show both how each shapes the interviewee’s well-being and how much is under their control, and keep every recommendation tied to a limitation and a way around it.

Our scientific essay writing help can guide the structure and argument, and you can send us your PSY353 brief for a quick review of what each key point needs. For another SUSS July 2026 reflection task, see the NCO201 TMA01 reflection brief.