Assignment: Programmatic Competencies
Assignment: Programmatic Competencies
Assignment: Programmatic Competencies
Programmatic competencies assignment: View the library tutorial on using the GCU databases and the empirical journal checklist. Find a scholarly peer reviewed journal from the library. Select a research study (complete with Method, Results, and Discussion sections).
In 750-1,000 words, analyze the article.
List the research question(s)/hypothesis under consideration in the programmatic competencies article.
Also, summarize the conducted study, including the purpose of the study.
Moreover, describe the method and design used to test the research question(s)/hypothesis, including:
Discuss if you believe the method and design was the correct method and design for the study. If not what would your suggestion for method and design be.
Describe the variables, their definition and operationalization.
Finally, discuss if the study is ethically sound. Why or why not. What elements are present, or lacking, to show 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.
Assignment: Programmatic Competencies
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.
Weekly Participation
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.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment: Programmatic Competencies
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.
Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’s level and deduct points accordingly.
Assignment: Programmatic Competencies states that As Masters’s level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
LopesWrite Policy
For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
https://www.google.com/search?q=google&oq=google&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i67i131i199i433i465j69i59j0i67i433j0i67i131i433j69i60l3.3914j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8Late Policy
The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Assignment: Programmatic Competencies
Communication
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
In medical education, a novel technique to evaluation known as programmatic assessment is gaining traction. Programmatic assessment is a method of collecting, analyzing, and supplementing routine information about a learner’s competence and progress with purposefully collected additional assessment information as needed, with the goal of fully informing the learner and their mentor and allowing for high-stakes decisions at the end of a training phase. A number of assessment instruments are commonly employed for this [1–3]. Programmatic evaluation is employed in a variety of medical school settings around the world, and it is also gaining traction in graduate medical education and continuous professional development [4–6]. The typical’module-test’ building components focus nearly totally on assessment of learning, although programmatic assessment is somewhat different from more traditional assessment programs. We believe that programmatic evaluation makes greater sense from a variety of angles, and we’d like to illustrate why using clinical medicine parallels. As a result, we’ll start with a brief overview of the programmatic evaluation approach and then use analogies to show why it’s important. We are not attempting to use these parallels as proof for the usefulness of programmatic assessment as an assessment approach – there is a growing amount of research on the subject – but rather to explain the concepts of programmatic assessment via a more medical narrative.
Each assessment in the programmatic assessment technique provides the learner with useful input. This feedback can be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of the two. Each individual evaluation is not intended for “high-stakes” decision-making at the outset, but rather for the learner to review their own performance, define explicit learning goals, and demonstrate that they have been met. Individual evaluations are utilized as components to be collected, such as in a portfolio, and then analyzed by a faculty member or committee to create a rich diagnostic picture that will allow for defensible high-stakes decisions. Typically, an assessment committee reviews all material on a regular basis for summative judgements, incorporating data from diverse sources in a way that is content-relevant [1, 2, 7]. Results from portions of a multiple-choice examination, for example, may be merged with parts of a mini-CEX or OSCE examination to make inferences about the examinee’s development in a performance domain. Remediation plans are created based on the findings of this investigation. The focus on feedback, analysis of competence growth, remediation, and personal development is further scaffolded by a constant interaction between the learner and a dedicated staff member (referred to as mentor, supervisor, or coach in different institutes). Rather than using a traditional assessment method such as a high-stakes multiple-choice exam followed by a pass-fail judgment, programmatic evaluation considers both the acquired competency levels and their development processes. Because there are parallels between programmatic evaluation and clinical healthcare, we will give five analogies between the two in this paper to clarify the concepts behind this approach.
Order Now
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ONLINE NURSING PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT