Create one 10-12-slide PowerPoint presentation (in addition to a title slide and references slide) outlining an intervention for each case study. One of the interventions must include critical incident stress debriefing (CISD).

/in /by

Read the following case studies:

  • Case Study: Joshua
  • Case Study: Desert Viejo Elementary School

Create one 10-12-slide PowerPoint presentation (in addition to a title slide and references slide) outlining an intervention for each case study. One of the interventions must include critical incident stress debriefing (CISD). It is up to you to decide which type of intervention is best suited for each scenario. Include the following in your interventions:

  • Step-by-step description of each intervention plan
  • Rationale for choosing each intervention
  • Community resources that are available in your local community that you would include as part of an intervention for each scenario

Include a minimum of three scholarly references in addition to the textbook.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

This assignment is informed by the following CACREP Standards:

2.F.5.l. Suicide prevention models and strategies.

2.F.5.m. Crisis intervention, trauma-informed, and community-based strategies, such as Psychological First Aid.

Provide an operational definition of intelligence. What is the role of operational definitions within quantitative research? What are the strengths and weaknesses of operational definitions within psychology research?

/in /by

Provide an operational definition of intelligence. What is the role of operational definitions within quantitative research? What are the strengths and weaknesses of operational definitions within psychology research?

D

In some quantitative studies the terms “external validity” and “generalizability” are portrayed as synonymous. In contrast, Reichardt (2011) makes the claim that external validity and generalizability should be considered distinct concepts. What is external validity? What are the merits of distinguishing between external validity and generalizability of quantitative results?

 

Resources

1. Criticisms of and an Alternative to the Shadish, Cook, and Campbell Validity Typology

Reichardt, C. S. (2011). Criticisms of and an alternative to the Shadish, Cook, and Campbell validity typology. New Directions for Evaluation, (130), 43-53. doi:10.1002/ev.364

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60975808&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 

2. Preliminary Concepts in Inference

McGrath, R. E. (2011). Preliminary concepts in inference. In Quantitative models in psychology (pp. 13-33). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12316-001

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-19907-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 

3. Reflections on the Status and Direction of Psychology: An External Historical Perspective

Giorgi, A. (2013). Reflections on the status and direction of psychology: An external historical perspective. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 44(2), 244-261. doi:10.1163/15691624-12341257

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=93356310&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 

4. Threats to the Validity of Research

Parker, R. M. (1993). Threats to the validity of research. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 36(3), 130-138.

 

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9608306758&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Examine at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument. (Note: Refer to the specific types of biases discussed in Chapter 2 of the Webtext.)

/in /by

Seeking someone who can master this….

Must be done in APA format, citing all references, 4 full pages, and complete reference page.  Also subtitles must be included to response to each question….subtitles are in bold below.  Must be finished by Sunday May 5th, by 9pm.

I have attached the logistics and the rubric as a guide to follow.

 

Assignment 1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay

Due Week 4 and worth 130 points

When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist confirmation bias by seeking out sources that might contradict your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking. This assignment is divided into two (2) parts. In Part I of the assignment, you will read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes, review one (1) Website in order to gather information, and engage in pre-writing to examine your thoughts. In Part II of the assignment, you will write an essay geared towards synthesizing your ideas. As author E.M. Forster said, “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”

Part I

Preparation and Pre-writing: Follow the steps below to explore an issue through reading and writing –

  1. Read “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful” by Peter Elbow at http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/believinggame.pdf. Devise strategies for playing the “Believing Game” and the “Doubting Game,” which are discussed in the Elbow article. According to the article, “the doubting game represents the kind of thinking most widely honored and taught. It’s the disciplined practice of trying to be as skeptical and analytic as possible with every idea we encounter. The believing game is the mirror image of the doubting game or critical thinking. It’s the disciplined practice of trying to be as welcoming as possible to every idea we encounter.”
  2. Select one (1) of the issues from ProCon.org that your professor has approved as a topic choice for your essay. Go to www.procon.org, scroll to the list of issues, click on the issue you selected, and read the background information section on the issue.
      1. To play the “Believing Game,” read either the Pro section or the Con section on the www.procon.org Website – whichever argument is in opposition to your position on the chosen issue. Consider at least three (3) of the premises (reasons) listed in that section. Apply the “believing” questions suggested by Elbow, such as “What’s interesting or helpful about the view? What would you notice if you believed this view? … In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?”
      2. To play the “Doubting Game,” read either the Pro column or the Con column on the www.procon.org Website – whichever argument is in agreement with your position. Consider at least three (3) of the premises (reasons) listed in that section. Apply the “doubting” questions suggested by Elbow, such as the journalistic questions who, what, when, where, why, how.

Part II

Synthesizing and Writing: Now that you have examined your thinking about an issue by pre-writing about your ideas –

Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you (SUBTITLES)

  1. Present an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises.
  2. Identify three (3) premises of the argument in opposition to your conclusion, and describe your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow, such as “What’s interesting or helpful about the view? What would you notice if you believed this view? In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?”
  3. Identify three (3) premises of the argument in agreement with your conclusion, and explain your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow, such as the journalistic questions who, what, when, where, why, and how.
  4. Examine at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument. (Note: Refer to the specific types of biases discussed in Chapter 2 of the Webtext.)
  5. Describe whether or not your position on the issue has changed. Indicate whether or not your premises supporting the issue have changed. Explain why or why not.

 

The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:

  • Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.
  • Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.
  • Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

  • Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
  • Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

You must follow these submission guidelines:

  • Submit the essay to Turnitin.com and then submit the originality report and final essay with any needed revisions to Blackboard.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

  • Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language.
  • Write clearly and concisely about critical thinking using proper writing mechanics.
  • Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.

RUBRIC:

Grading for this assignment will be based on quality, logic / organization, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.

 

Points: 130 Assignment 1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay
Criteria  

Unacceptable

Below 60% F

 Meets Minimum Expectations

60-69% D

  

Fair

70-79% C

  

Proficient

80-89% B

  

Exemplary

90-100% A
1. Present an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises.

Weight: 15%

 Did not submit or incompletely presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises. Insufficiently presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises. Partially presentedan argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises. Satisfactorily presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises. Thoroughly presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises.
2. Identify three (3) premises of the argument in opposition to your conclusion, and describe your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow.

Weight: 15%

 Did not submit or incompletely identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; did not submit or incompletely described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow. Insufficiently identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; insufficiently described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow. Partially identifiedthree (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; partially described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow. Satisfactorily identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; satisfactorily described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow. Thoroughly identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; thoroughly described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow.
3. Identify three (3) premises of the argument in agreement with your conclusion, and explain your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow.

Weight: 15%

 Did not submit or incompletely identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, did not submit or incompletely explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow. Insufficiently identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, insufficiently explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow. Partially identifiedthree (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, partially explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow. Satisfactorily identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, satisfactorily explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow. Thoroughly identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, thoroughly explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow.
4. Examine at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument.

Weight: 15%

 Did not submit or incompletely examined at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument. Insufficiently examined at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument. Partially examinedat least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument. Satisfactorily examined at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument. Thoroughly examined at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument.
5. Describe whether or not your position on the issue has changed. Indicate whether or not your premises supporting the issue have changed. Explain why or why not.

Weight: 10%

 Did not submit or incompletely described whether or not your position on the issue has changed. Did not submit or incompletely indicated whether or not your premises supporting the issue have changed. Did not submit or incompletely explained why or why not. Insufficiently described whether or not your position on the issue has changed. Insufficiently indicated whether or not your premises supporting the issue have changed.Insufficientlyexplained why or why not. Partially describedwhether or not your position on the issue has changed. Partially indicated whether or not your premises supporting the issue have changed. Partiallyexplained why or why not. Satisfactorily described whether or not your position on the issue has changed. Satisfactorily indicated whether or not your premises supporting the issue have changed.Satisfactorilyexplained why or why not. Thoroughly described whether or not your position on the issue has changed. Thoroughly indicated whether or not your premises supporting the issue have changed.Thoroughlyexplained why or why not.
6. Follow APA Style requirements for format, in-text citation of quotes and paraphrases, and references page.

Weight: 10%

 Did not complete the assignment or had more than 9 errors in following APA Style requirements. Had 8-9 errors in following APA Style requirements. Had 6-7 different errors in following APA Style requirements. Had 4-5 different errors in following APA Style requirements. Had 0-3 different errors in following APA Style requirements.
7. Follow guidelines for clear and organized writing: include an introductory and concluding paragraph; address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.

Weight: 10%

 Did not submit or incompletely followed guidelines for clear and organized writing. Insufficiently followed guidelines for clear and organized writing: did not include an introductory and / or concluding paragraph; did not address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Partially followed guidelines for clear and organized writing: included a partially developed introductory and / or concluding paragraph; partially addressed main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Sufficiently followed guidelines for clear and organized writing: included an introductory and concluding paragraph; sufficiently addressed main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Thoroughly   followed guidelines for clear and organized writing: included an engaging introductory and thoughtful concluding paragraph; thoroughly addressed main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and detailed supporting sentences.
8. Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Weight: 10%

 Did not complete the assignment or had more than 9 errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling. Had 8-9 errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling. Had 6-7 different errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling. Had 4-5 different errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling. Had 0-3 different errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling.

Explain how social workers can respond to the stereotypes and assumptions you have identified in the Johnson case and how you might advocate for social change related to sexism while working with families, clients, and groups and collaborating with other professionals.

/in /by

Explain gender and sexist stereotypes and assumptions around sexual assault made by a professional you observe in the case study episode. Explain how these stereotypes perpetuate violence against women.

social work skills for social change advocacy to address sexism.

Explain how social workers can respond to the stereotypes and assumptions you have identified in the Johnson case and how you might advocate for social change related to sexism while working with families, clients, and groups and collaborating with other professionals.

Be specific about the skills you would apply and the actions you would take.

Part B -MAX OF 1 PARAGRAPH

Provide 1 additional or alternative ways to respond to the stereotypes and assumptions identified by your colleagues in the Johnson case. MUST HAVE AT LEAST 1 REFERENCE

Part C-MAX OF 1 PARAGRAPH

Provide additional or alternative ways social workers can address these assumptions and advocate for social change related to sexism while collaborating with other professionals to address the needs of clients.   MUST HAVE AT LEAST 1 REFERENCE

Instructions

Psychology is a contemporary science. Listed below are several recent papers. For the first part of this assignment, choose two papers to briefly summarize in a paragraph each, focusing on the contribution each makes to psychological knowledge in general.

The second part of the paper should be a discussion of the contributions and limitations of the field of psychology in our general knowledge. In addition, please discuss the follow;

  • What can we expect to learn in the future?
  • What are the possible problems we may face with psychology in the future?

This paper should be 2-3 pages in length and use APA formatting (cover page, paper body formatting, citations, and references: see Rasmussen’s APA guide in the Resources tab, or by clicking here. Prior to submitting your paper, be sure you proofread your work to check your spelling and grammar. If you use any outside sources, please site those sources in APA citation format.

Ponder, J. D., & Haridakis, P. (2015). Selectively social politics: The differing roles of media use on political discussion. Mass Communication & Society, 18(3), 281-302. doi:10.1080/15205436.2014.940977

Edlund, J. E. (2016). Invited editorial: Let’s do it again: A call for replications in Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. Psi Chi Journal Of Psychological Research, 21(1), 59-61.

Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relations with college students’ self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition And Learning, 10(3), 293-311. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9128-9.

Paper discusses psychological issues from both papers intelligently and methodically