Psychology

This is a graded discussion: 3 points possible

due Jul 13 at 10:58pm

Week 5 – Discussion 2

No unread replies. No replies.

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.

Personality Theories in Perspective: Honor Student or Killer?

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read the transcript Seven Day of Rage: The Craigslist Killer from CBS News and review Chapter 7 from the Harré (2006) e-book as well as the Maslow (1943), Freud (1910), and Bandura (1999) articles.

In this discussion you will assume the role of a Psychology instructor creating a short graduate level presentation on personality. The case study for the presentation will center on Phillip Markoff, also known as an alleged Craigslist Killer. To begin, choose one of the personality theories from the required readings and research a minimum of one peer-reviewed article on your chosen theory in the Ashford University Library. Create a PowerPoint presentation of four-seven slides (not including the title and reference slides). The presentation must begin with a Title slide that provides the title of the lecture, your name, the course name and number, your instructorâs name and the date submitted. The presentation must end with a Reference slide that includes all the resources used for your lecture presentation cited in APA format as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

The body of the presentation must include the following elements.

  • Provide a definition and brief description of the chosen theory.
  • Evaluate Phillip Markoff’s personality from the standpoint of your chosen theory.
  • Explain how the chosen theoretical perspective provides insights into Markoff’s behavior.

For assistance in creating effective PowerPoint presentations you may access Garr Reynoldsâs Top Ten Slide Tips (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. . Be certain to support your statements within the presentation with a minimum of three references. These may include up to two required resources for this week. Once you have created your PowerPoint, you will present your lecture in a screencast. You may use any screencasting software you choose. (Quick-start guides are available for Screen-Cast-O-Matic for your convenience.) It is recommended that you create a script for, and practicing your lecture presentation before recording it as you will be limited to a screencast of no more than five minutes. Although you are required to include the Title and Reference slides in the presentation, you should not read these slides during the screencast. Create the screencast of your lecture presentation using the software of your choice. Attach your PowerPoint presentation to your initial post and copy and paste the URL for your screencast into your discussion forum response before submitting it.

Guided Response: Review several of your classmates’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers who selected a different theory than you by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion. Summarize your reaction(s) to your peerâs theoretical selection as applied to Markoffâs case. Critically examine your peer’s presentation and suggest improvements or alternatives concerning content, layout, delivery, or any other aspect you think might help them moving forward. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until 5:00 p.m. MST on Day 7 of the week and respond to anyone who replies to your initial post.

This is a graded discussion: 3 points possible

due Jul 20 at 10:58pm

Week 6 – Discussion 1

No unread replies. No replies.

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.

Self-Help or Self-Harm?

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read the required Bemecker (2014), Kosovski and Smith (2011), Mullins (2014), and Roose, Fuentes, and Cheema (2012) articles.

Flip through the channels on a television set or walk into any bookstore in the United States, and you are likely to encounter various self-help reality shows or books offering insights into how you can help yourself with mental health issues.

For this discussion, pick one self-help television show or book to evaluate (Dr. Phil, Hoarders, Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Managing Your Moods, Learn How to Boost Your Self Esteem, etc.). Identify your selection and provide enough information on the topic of the show or book to create adequate context. Analyze the validity, reliability, benefits, and value of the popular resource based on your reading and study of the science of psychology across the course. Describe the presentation of the content within the book or television show in terms of the role of authority the author or host takes. (Is the presentation informational or authoritative?) Explain any theoretical foundations or shortcomings found in the material. Evaluate the ability of the book or show to apply the methods within the presented material to the target population. Describe any efforts on the part of the author(s) or host(s) to apply ethical principles and professional standards of psychology in the delivery of the content. Note any ethical issues not addressed by the chosen resource.

Guided Response: Review several of your classmates’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion.

This is a graded discussion: 3 points possible

due Jul 20 at 10:58pm

Week 6 – Discussion 2

No unread replies. No replies.

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.

Psychology Versus Pop Psychology

There is often a wide discrepancy between content presented in the mainstream media and that which is presented in the scientific literature. In this discussion, you will choose one contemporary psychological issue that is prevalent today (depression, body image, bullying, media influences, self-esteem, etc.). Research your selected topic in a popular publication (Psychology Today, Newsweek, New York Times, etc.). Then, using the Ashford University Library, locate a peer-reviewed journal article on the same topic. In your initial post, briefly identify your topic and provide enough detail for an adequate understanding. Compare and contrast the information presented by detailing commonalities and differences that exist in the two sources. Assess the contributions of the peer-reviewed source to the topic and identify any missing element in the popular source. Evaluate how adequately the popular article addresses the major components of the selected contemporary topic in psychology for a general population. Guided Response: Review several of your classmateâs posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion. Considering the contemporary topic presented, did your classmate provide enough information for a clear understanding of the comparison? Examine your classmateâs perspective(s) regarding the peer-reviewed versus the popular article. Note anything new you may have learned from your classmateâs comparison. Respectfully point out any areas you disagree with and provide information from your resources to support your statements. Suggest alternatives that might provide your colleague with more or better insight into the topic. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until 5:00 p.m. MST on Day 7 of the week and respond to anyone who replies to your initial post.

Article Review

The purpose of an article review is to provide the academic community with a description, summary, and evaluation of the completed work. For the article review, students will assume the role of an expert who is critically evaluating contemporary research in the field of psychology. Students will incorporate material from across the course, analyzing and applying theories and principles of psychology, into a cohesive and well-written article review. This learning activity will facilitate the development of research skills, critical thinking, and writing skills that are necessary to success in the field of psychology. The article for review was chosen in Week Two of the course and must be used in this review. Carefully read the selected article, and then write the Article Review.

  • Begin with a well-written introduction to the article that:
    • Analyzes the article and identifies the professional area of psychology it represents
    • Assesses the roles of psychology professionals within this area and describes whether or not the article clearly and correctly represents these roles.
  • Evaluate the theoretical perspective on which the study is based
  • Detail the hypotheses presented in the study or the relationship of interest
  • Describe the sample(s) presented in the study (how participants were obtained, selected, sample size, etc.)
  • Discuss where the study was conducted: university setting (lab), organization (field), etc.
  • Examine the ethical concerns in the study using the APA Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct as a guide.
  • Summarize the results of the study. Be certain to specify the findings and whether or not the hypotheses were supported.
  • Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the study (usually found in the discussion section of the article).
  • Evaluate possible contemporary applications of the results within the article
  • Create a conclusion that includes a synopsis of professional insights about the study.

In the creation of the Article Review, it is paramount to include information in the form of peer-reviewed research to support any statements made. A minimum of five peer-reviewed articles, not including the article chosen for this assignment, are required for this paper.

Attention Students: The Masters of Arts in Psychology program is utilizing the Pathbrite portfolio tool as a repository for student scholarly work in the form of signature assignments completed within the program. After receiving feedback for this Article Review, please implement any changes recommended by the instructor, go to Pathbrite (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and upload the revised Article Review to the portfolio. (Use the Pathbrite Quick-Start Guide to create an account if you do not already have one.) The upload of signature assignments will take place after completing each course. Be certain to upload revised signature assignments throughout the program as the portfolio and its contents will be used in other courses and may be used by individual students as a professional resource tool. See the Pathbrite (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. website for information and further instructions on using this portfolio tool.

Writing the Final Paper

  • Must be three to five double-spaced pages in length and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
  • Must include a title page with the following:
    • Title of paper
    • Studentâs name
    • Course name and number
    • Instructorâs name
    • Date submitted
  • Must begin with an introductory paragraph that includes an analysis of the article and identification of the professional area of psychology it represents, as well as an assessment of the clear description of the roles of psychology professionals within the area presented.
  • Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought.
  • Must end with a conclusion that includes a synopsis of professional insights about the study.
  • Must use at least five peer-reviewed sources, including a minimum of two from the Ashford University Library. The article being reviewed will not count toward this total.
  • Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
  • Must include a separate reference page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing CenterDescription: Total Possible Score: 27.00

    Introduction Analyzes the Article and Identifies the Professional Area of Psychology it Represents

    Total: 1.25

    Distinguished – The introduction clearly and comprehensively analyzes the article and identifies the professional area of psychology it represents.

    Proficient – The introduction analyzes the article and identifies the professional area of psychology it represents. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – The introduction partially analyzes the article and identifies the professional area of psychology it represents. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Below Expectations – The introduction attempts to analyze the article and identifies the professional area of psychology it represents; however, significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance – The analysis is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Introduction Assesses the Roles of Psychology Professionals Within the Area Presented and Describes Whether or Not the Article Clearly and Correctly Represents These Roles

    Total: 1.25

    Distinguished – The introduction provides a thorough assessment of the roles of psychology professionals within the area presented and describes whether or not the article clearly and correctly represents these roles.

    Proficient – The introduction assesses the roles of psychology professionals within the area presented and describes whether or not the article clearly and correctly represents these roles. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – The introduction provides a minimal assessment of the roles of psychology professionals within the area presented and whether or not the article clearly and correctly represents these roles.Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – The introduction attempts to provide an assessment of the roles of psychology professionals within the area presented and whether or not the article clearly and correctly represents these roles; however, significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance -The assessment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Evaluates the Theoretical Perspective On Which the Study is Based

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Clearly and comprehensively evaluates the theoretical perspective on which the study is based.

    Proficient – Evaluates the theoretical perspective on which the study is based. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Minimally evaluates the theoretical perspective on which the study is based. Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the theoretical perspective on which the study is based; however, significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance – The evaluation of the theoretical perspective on which the study is based is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Details the Hypotheses Presented in the Study or the Relationship of Interest

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Clearly and comprehensively details the hypotheses or the relationship of interest as presented in the study.

    Proficient – Details the hypotheses or the relationship of interest as presented in the study. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Minimally details the hypotheses or the relationship of interest as presented in the study. Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Attempts to detail the hypotheses or the relationship of interest as presented in the study; however, significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance -The article review does not detail the hypotheses or the relationship of interest as presented in the study or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Describes the Sample(s) Presented in the Study

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Thoroughly and clearly describes the sample(s) presented in the study.

    Proficient – Describes the sample(s) presented in the study. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Minimally describes the sample(s) presented in the study. Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Attempts to describe the sample(s) presented in the study; however, significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance -The description of the sample(s) presented in the study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Discusses Where the Study Was Conducted

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Thoroughly and clearly discusses where the study was conducted.

    Proficient – Discusses where the study was conducted. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Minimally discusses where the study was conducted.Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Attempts to discuss where the study was conducted. Significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance – The discussion of where the study was conducted is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Examines the Ethical Concerns in the Study

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Thoroughly and clearly examines the ethical concerns in the study.

    Proficient -Examines the ethical concerns in the study. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Minimally examines the ethical concerns in the study. Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Attempts to examine the ethical concerns in the study. Significant details are missing and/or unclear

    Non-Performance – The examination of the ethical concerns in the study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Summarizes the Results of the Study Including Specific Findings and a Determination of Whether or Not the Hypotheses Were Supported

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly summarizes the results of the study including specific findings and a determination of whether or not the hypotheses were supported.

    Proficient – Summarizes the results of the study including specific findings and a determination of whether or not the hypotheses were supported. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Partially summarizes the results of the study including specific findings and a determination of whether or not the hypotheses were supported. Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Attempts to summarize the results of the study including specific findings and a determination of whether or not the hypotheses were supported; however, significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance – The summary of the results of the study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Analyzes the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Clearly and thoroughly analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

    Proficient – Analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Partially analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Attempts to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the study; however, significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance – The analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Evaluates Possible Contemporary Applications of the Results Within the Article

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Clearly and comprehensively evaluates possible contemporary applications of the results within the article.

    Proficient – Evaluates possible contemporary applications of the results within the article. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Minimally evaluates possible contemporary applications of the results within the article. Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate possible contemporary applications of the results within the article; significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance – The evaluation of possible contemporary applications is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Creates a Conclusion That Includes a Synopsis of Professional Insights About the Study

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Creates a clear and comprehensive conclusion that includes a synopsis of professional insights about the study.

    Proficient – Creates a conclusion that includes a synopsis of professional insights about the study. Minor details are missing or unclear.

    Basic – Creates a conclusion that includes a minimal synopsis of professional insights about the study. Relevant details are missing or unclear.

    Below Expectations – Creates a conclusion that attempts to include a synopsis of professional insights about the study; significant details are missing and/or unclear.

    Non-Performance – The conclusion is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

    Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Clearly and comprehensively explains the issue to be considered, delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding.

    Proficient – Clearly explains the issue to be considered, delivering enough relevant information for an adequate understanding.

    Basic – Briefly explains the issue to be considered, delivering minimal information for a basic understanding.

    Below Expectations – Briefly explains the issue to be considered, but may not deliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.

    Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

    Written Communication: Content Development

    Total: 2.00

    Distinguished – Uses appropriate, pertinent, and persuasive content to discover and develop sophisticated ideas within the context of the discipline, shaping the work as a whole.

    Proficient – Uses appropriate and pertinent content to discover ideas within the context of the discipline, shaping the work as a whole.

    Basic – Uses appropriate and pertinent content but does not apply it toward discovering or developing ideas. Overall, content assists in shaping the written work.

    Below Expectations – Uses content, though it may be unrelated or inappropriate to the topic. Content does not contribute toward the development of the written work and may distract the reader from its purpose.

    Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

    Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics

    Total: 0.75

    Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.

    Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.

    Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.

    Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.

    Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

    Written Communication: APA Formatting

    Total: 0.75

    Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.

    Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.

    Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.

    Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.

    Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

    Written Communication: Page Requirement

    Total: 0.50

    Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.

    Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.

    Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.

    Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.

    Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

    Written Communication: Resource Requirement

    Total: 0.50

    Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

    Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

    Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.

    Below Expectations – Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.

    Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Search entries or author Filter replies by unread Unread

 

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH COLLEGE NURSING PAPERS AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT!

The post Psychology appeared first on College Nursing Papers.


Psychology was first posted on November 6, 2020 at 5:46 am.
©2019 "College Nursing Papers". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at admin@collegenursingpapers.com

I absolutely LOVE this essay writing service. This is perhaps the tenth time I am ordering from them, and they have not failed me not once! My research paper was of excellent quality, as always. You can order essays, discussion, article critique, coursework, projects, case study, term papers, research papers, reaction paper, movie review, research proposal, capstone project, speech/presentation, book report/review, annotated bibliography, and more.

STUCK with your assignments? Hire Someone to Write Your papers. 100% plagiarism-free work Guarantee!

PLACE YOUR ORDER