Assignment: Programmatic Competencies
Assignment: Programmatic Competencies
Assignment of programmatic competencies: View the library’s tutorial on how to use the GCU databases as well as the empirical journal checklist. Go to the library and look for a scholarly peer-reviewed journal. Choose a research study (complete with Method, Results, and Discussion sections).
Analyze the article in 750-1,000 words.
In the programmatic competencies article, list the research question(s)/hypothesis under consideration.
Also, summarize the study’s findings, including the study’s purpose.
Furthermore, describe the method and design that were used to test the research question(s)/hypothesis, including:
Discuss whether you believe the method and design were appropriate for the study. If not, what method and design suggestions do you have?
Describe the variables, their definitions, and how they are operationalized.
Finally, consider whether the study is ethically sound. What’s the point? What elements are present or absent to demonstrate that it is ethically sound?
Programmatic competencies assignment requirements
Include at least two to four scholarly sources.
Prepare this programmatic competencies assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
according to Assignment: Programmatic Competencies, This assignment uses a rubric. So, please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Thus, please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: 3.2: Critically evaluate psychological research; 3.4: also, apply ethical standards to evaluate psychological science and practice; and 4.1 Effective writing for scientific purposes.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS
Discussion Questions (DQ)
- Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, including a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
- Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
- One or two-sentence responses, simple statements of agreement, or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
- I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
- Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
- In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
- Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
- Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality
- Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
- Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
- I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Utilization of Direct Quotes
At the Masters’ level, I discourage the use of direct quotes in DQs and assignments and deduct points accordingly.
As stated in Assignment: Programmatic Competencies, it is crucial that you be able to critically assess and comprehend information from journal articles and other sources as a Masters’ level student. Simply repeating someone else’s words does not demonstrate comprehension or critical examination of the material.
It is preferable to paraphrase and cite your sources.
Policy of LopesWrite
Before you complete a “final submit” to me for tasks that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please make sure you have got your report and SI percentage.
Please examine your report after you have got it. This report will highlight any grammatical, punctuation, or spelling mistakes that may be corrected quickly. Instead of being penalized for these errors, take a few extra minutes to review.
Examine your parallels. Did you forget to include a reference? Didn’t you do a good enough job of paraphrasing? Is your paper primarily composed of someone else’s ideas rather than your own?
For advice on boosting your paper and SI score, go to the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, which may be found under the Resources tab in LoudCloud.
Late Policy https://www.google.com/search?q=google&oq=google&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i67i131i199i433i465j69i59j0i67i433j0i67i131i433j69i60l3.3914j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&sourceid=chrome&sourceid=chrome&
The university’s late assignment policy is a 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This holds true for late DQ responses as well.
If you think you’ll have to submit an assignment late, please let me know. With advance notice, I am happy to be flexible. Due to extenuating circumstances, we may be able to work out an extension.
The GCU late policy will apply if you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late.
Unless we have negotiated out an extension, I will not accept assignments that are two weeks or more late.
No assignments are accepted after the last day of class, as per policy. Any assignment submitted after the last day of class, at midnight, will not be graded.
Programmatic Competencies (assignment)
The importance of communication cannot be overstated. You can reach out to me in a variety of ways:
This is a fantastic area to ask questions about course content or assignments in the Questions to Instructor forum. If you have a question, chances are that one of your classmates does as well. This is the class’s public forum.
This is a private forum where you may ask me questions or send me messages. At least once every 24 hours, this will be checked.
A new method of evaluation called as programmatic assessment is gaining favor in medical education. Programmatic assessment is a method of gathering, analyzing, and supplementing routine information about a learner’s competence and progress as needed with purposefully collected additional assessment information, with the goal of fully informing the learner and their mentor and allowing for high-stakes decisions at the end of a training phase. For instance, a variety of assessment measures are routinely used [1–3]. Programmatic evaluation is used in a number of medical school settings around the world, and it is gaining popularity in graduate medical education and continuing professional development [4–6]. Although programmatic assessment differs from more traditional assessment programs, the typical’module-test’ building components focus almost entirely on learning assessment. We believe that programmatic evaluation makes more sense from a variety of perspectives, and we’d like to show why by drawing parallels with clinical practice. As a result, we’ll begin with a brief introduction of the programmatic assessment approach before using analogies to demonstrate why it’s critical. We are not seeking to utilize these comparisons as proof of programmatic assessment’s value as an assessment approach – there is a growing body of research on the subject – but rather to explain the concepts of programmatic assessment through a more medical narrative.
The learner receives meaningful feedback from each assessment in the programmatic assessment technique. This feedback can be quantitative, qualitative, or both. Each individual evaluation is designed for the learner to review their own performance, specify explicit learning goals, and demonstrate that they have been met, rather than for “high-stakes” decision-making. Individual assessments are used as components of a collection, such as a portfolio, and then reviewed by a faculty member or committee to produce a comprehensive diagnostic picture that can be used to make defensible high-stakes decisions. For summative judgments, an assessment committee typically analyzes all material on a regular basis, including data from many sources in a content-relevant manner [1, 2, 7]. Sections of a multiple-choice exam, for example, could be combined with parts of a mini-CEX or OSCE exam to make conclusions about the examinee’s performance development in a specific subject. The findings of this inquiry are used to build remediation plans. A constant engagement between the learner and a dedicated staff member further scaffolds the focus on feedback, analysis of competence growth, remediation, and personal development (referred to as mentor, supervisor, or coach in different institutes). Rather than employing a standard assessment method like a high-stakes multiple-choice exam followed by a pass-fail judgment, programmatic evaluation takes into account both the acquired skill levels and the procedures that lead to them. Because there are similarities between programmatic evaluation and clinical healthcare, we will utilize five analogies to explain the concepts behind this approach in this paper.