Describe some of the people who might participate in the intervention. Provide a rationale for including these individuals. Describe the qualified professional to guide the process. Explain why this person would be qualified.

/in /by

Assignment: Scholar Practitioner Project: Addiction Intervention

Most individuals do not decide to seek treatment on their own. Often, some form of leverage from outside influences is required to provide the necessary incentive to seek treatment. The broad term for this leverage is intervention. Interventions are not limited to the confrontational family scenarios currently popularized by reality television. Intervention can be any action taken by others to persuade the person with problems with addiction to seek help.

There are several models of family interventions, but the one used most often is the Johnson Model, developed several decades ago by Episcopal priest Vernon Johnson (Clark, 2012). In this model, an addiction professional guides family members and significant others in rehearsing and carrying out an unannounced confrontation with the person with problems with addiction. The end goal is to have this person agree to enter into a prearranged treatment setting.

In this assignment, you apply intervention strategies to address Marge’s addiction and you consider potential ethical dilemmas related to the intervention.

In a 2- to 3-page APA-formatted paper, address the following:

Using the Johnson Model, design an intervention as it might have occurred six weeks prior to Marge’s admission into treatment. Include the following:

  • Describe some of the people who might participate in the intervention. Provide a rationale for including these individuals.
  • Describe the qualified professional to guide the process. Explain why this person would be qualified.
  • Explain the preparation process prior to Marge’s intervention.
  • Provide three examples of strategies that participants might take in Marge’s intervention.
  • Describe three potential sanctions that participants might employ if Marge refuses treatment.
  • Explain any ethical dilemmas that might arise from Marge’s intervention.

If anyone identifies as feminist, what does the identity mean to you personally, and what/where do you think that the primary struggle is?  If anyone identifies as anti-feminist, why; what are you against?

/in /by

1) Feminism 

Feminism, defined in the reading, focuses on the movements and discourses around the struggle for women’s equality.  It is one thing to assert, as most people now do, that men and women are equal, and that this equality ought to be political, economic, and social.  It is quite another to theorize as to how this equality can be achieved.

Vocabulary terms to focus on in the reading: patriarchy, agency, first wave feminism, second wave feminism, intersectionality.

If anyone identifies as feminist, what does the identity mean to you personally, and what/where do you think that the primary struggle is?  If anyone identifies as anti-feminist, why; what are you against?

I am not going to ask a lot more questions, because there’s a lot of material in the reading, and I would like people to respond to it in their own way.  I will shortly post two more forums, one on feminism and religious doctrine, and one on the #metoo controversy with ‘Grace’ and Aziz Ansari.

2) Circular Reasoning, Religion, and Feminism

‘We are different kinds of dust.’

Resistance to first wave-feminism is frequently based on an appeal to tradition and to religion.  It is easy to oppose this in the same vein as any other form of systemic inequality: we have never had a female president because of sexism, and have probably never had a female Pope for the same reason.  That seems logical enough,

One of my former college roommates is named Luke; now a history teacher, he is a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, and he and I once had a series of conversations about what seemed to me a contradiction: he supported the basic feminist goal of equality, in that he believed women were equal to men spiritually and intellectually, and also that women should be able to run for office, run businesses etc……however, on the other hand, he resolutely supported his faith’s position: that women should not be priests, bishops, or popes (his faith has more than one pope).  I have detected some version of his reasoning in conversations with Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and Catholics. The reasoning goes something like this:

There is a shrine in each home, and then there are the sacraments administered in Church; the shrine at home is not understood in Orthodox theology to be any less important than the church; it is simply different.  Women maintain the shrine at home, are, in some translations, even called Priests of the home. God is both male and female; it is not a difference in importance.

I pushed back as hard as I could: There is a difference in power.  Priests are professional religious leaders and thinkers; they are paid for their work, and they decide doctrine for for the whole faith.  Objectively speaking, they are political and intellectual leaders of their faith. Any faith that does not allow women to be a political or intellectual leader is inherently sexist.

He pushed back, and we reached an impasse: He explained that the Orthodox church has existed in non-capitalist societies where the priests were given only a little food by their community, and many were also farmers; it is a modern secular misconception that being a priest or a bishop is about ‘power.’  It is, in theory, a very humble role. All power, unless wielded for the service of humankind, is evil. A woman should never seek power because she wants it, and neither should a man. There are corrupt priests and bishops, evil people in the church, because it is a fallen world.

No man becomes a priest because he wants power; he becomes a priest because he feels called by God.  God’s calling, in his faith (and, in different ways, also in Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Islam) is interpreted by and through religious scripture and doctrine.  Therefore, it is wrong to imagine a woman deciding to be a bishop, a Rabbi, or an Imam because she thinks she would be good at it: she would have to feel called, and if she believed in her faith, then she couldn’t feel called, because her faith speaks through doctrine and theology, and doctrine and theology say that being in that priestly role is nothing, not actually powerful at all, not any more important than anything else…but that it is simply not a woman’s role.

That perfectly circular argument might help explain why religious faiths as big as the Catholic church will not be changing anytime soon on this issue.  Luke’s parting shot in our conversations was this: he truly believed that his faith did not teach that men were better than women, simply that they were different.  An ambitious male politician, in Luke’s view, was just as sinful as an ambitious female one: the Church was a haven where things were kept in their proper place, but it was not a hierarchy: compared to God, we are all dust, so we were simply different types of dust.

Needless to say, this view overlaps massively with secular debates about feminism: many so-called anti-feminists would claim that they are not saying that men are better than women in any sense, simply that they are different.  Many non-religious conservative writers have put the phrase, “Men and women are different,” on their basic list of conservative beliefs, alongside limited government and free-market capitalism. The implication is that feminists believe that men and women are exactly the same, which is not necessarily the case, of course.

Much of religion resists feminism at every turn: Religious leaders have been at the forefront of opposing first wave feminism, of opposing the proliferation of birth control and sex education and other hallmarks of second-wave feminism, and (today) of a call-back to more traditional values and roles.  I share the story about Luke to relate that religious view on this topic are much more complex than merely saying that God thinks men should have power and women should make babies; indeed, that is almost never the case. Instead, Luke’s theological commitment taught me something about just how entrenched these ideas are: he’ll proudly vote for female politicians he supports, but he still believed that his faith, where no woman will ever lead a Church service or serve as bishop or pope, represents an enactment of how things, ‘should be,’ in terms of gender roles.

There are significant movements in every Abrahamic religion to allow women to serve in leadership roles (ie, reformed Judaism, some branches of Protestantism), but they are minority movements when you look worldwide.  The thought structure of this type of sexual discrimination are quite different, which leads me to the broader point I would like to make: If John were to say, “I believe that my faith teaches that being gay is wrong and that women can’t serve as religious leaders,” it is easy to assume that John is sexist.  In many cases, however, John really doesn’t like believing that, doesn’t particularly want to believe it, and it does not correlate with other politics that John has (ie, he might support gay marriage and vote for Hillary Clinton. The reason why he believes what he believes is that that’s simply what he thinks that his scripture says.  Millions of conservative Jews, Christians, and Muslims around the world have intellectually contorted themselves trying to agree with the progressives within their faiths… but they simply can’t, because their minds tell them that their scripture is clear.

Therefore, we should have intellectual empathy and compassion for the plight of theologically conservative, politically progressive people among us (there are more than you think).  If you are religious, like Luke, you can’t simply make your scripture mean what you want it to mean; you have an intellectual and spiritual duty to believe what you think it truly says, and that might be politically inconvenient.

Does anyone know anyone with this sort of plight, where they desperately want to support something popular like gay marriage or women having equal access to all jobs…but they just can’t, because of their faith?  What is the way forward for feminism amidst dynamics such as this?

3) Feminism & Aziz Ansari: a generational divide? 

NOTE: All articles cited in this post are linked at the bottom of the post (note: the articles are not required reading, nor is this post; it is an expansion on the feminism discussion, but in terms of material for the final, the downloadable reading is the only required reading).

4 years ago, in September of 2014, California passed the nation’s first, “ affirmative consent,”  laws regarding sexual assault. in preparing to talk to my class about it at the time, I read the entire text of the law, and was quite astounded at how misrepresented it was in much of the media. Not just and right-wing blogs, but even in mainstream newspapers like the San Jose Mercury and the New York Times, columnists weighed in on at the law, claiming it that demanding that a verbal affirmative and continuous consent law turn to normal sexual interactions into crimes.  And yet the law itself does not contain the word verbal anywhere, and makes it clear through this omission that there can be different types of consent.

Polls  at the time showed the first evidence of a substantial generational difference regarding this issue.   Many adults (not always a majority, but a substantial percentage) over 40 tended to find the idea of redefining consensual sex as  requiring affirmative, continuous, and enthusiastic consent as either offencive or unnecessary. In every poll done, college students basically are in favor of these laws.  Indeed, it seems overwhelmingly clear that the concept of affirmative consent, not just as a definition of what good sex is, but it definition of what legal sex is, speaks to young people in a way that it does not speak as often or as much to people about my age (40 and over).  In general, the controversy regarding affirmative consent laws died down for a while, particularly in light of the #metoo and #timesup campaigns; pretty everyone seemed on board with the idea, but I found myself a little bit intellectually queasy, thinking that there were some basic assumptions about agency that had not really been sorted out.  The best summary I’ve found for affirmative consent laws is Jaclyn Freeman’s summary: “The idea is simple: In matters of sex, silence or indifference aren’t consent. Only a freely given “yes” counts. And if you can’t tell, you have to ask.” They key phrase, of course, is, ‘have to.’ Should you, ‘have to,’ morally, or should you, ‘have to,’ legally?  This is not a small or a simple question.

In the midst of a profound sense of sisterhood and coalescence around common purpose, the #metoo movement  hit perhaps its biggest most publicly talked about snag a few months ago when an anonymous woman accused popular comedian Aziz Ansari of sexual assault on the website babe.net.   Her account was extraordinarily, unnervingly detailed, and one of the few things that everyone agrees on afterwards is that a mainstream media organization, such as the New York Times, would probably not have have published the story, and definitely would not have published it in the same way.  That doesn’t make it wrong, of course. Speaking broadly, her account is this:

‘Grace’ met Aziz at a party, asked him out.  She was very excited about the date, went into it with positive energy and high expectations.  He was pushy and in a hurry from their first conversation, and she didn’t like how quickly they wound up back at his place with their clothes off, and made this clear when he kept asking about ‘f–king,’ saying to him, “Next time.”  From the article:

“And he goes, ‘Oh, you mean second date?’ and I go, ‘Oh, yeah, sure,’ and he goes, ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’” He then poured her a glass and handed it to her.”

This exchange may result in doctoral disstertations in Women’s Studies departments, alongside the song, Baby, it’s Cold outside!  Before and after the exchange, as it is legally defined, ‘Grace’ and Aziz had sex.  She hated all of it, wound up crying in the hallway outside his apartment. She said, ‘next time,’ and he replied with a clever line about the glass of wine being the second date. She also said that she, ‘didn’t want to feel forced,’ but did not actually say that she felt forced.  When she unequivocally said no, he apparently stopped and suggested that they watch Seinfeld. She took days to mull over hos tramatized she was, and, in her words, ‘validate’ the encounter as sexual assault.

The reaction to the article was swift and brutal.  Bari Weiss, a female New York Times columnist, wrote their most clicked column of the year: “Aziz Ansari is Guilty.  Of not being a mind reader.” She (Weiss) claimed that the babe.net story was, “arguably the worst thing that has happened to the #MeToo movement since it began in October. It transforms what ought to be a movement for women’s empowerment into an emblem for female helplessness.”  Lucia Brawley wrote for CNN Opinion that it was fair to compare what ‘Grace’ did to a bad Yelp review, and that, “if men publicly shared details about bad sexual experiences with women, we would call them misogynist monsters.” Caitlyn Flannegan, a longtime writer for the New Yorker the Atlantic, wrote that, as a 50 year old, the sexual morality that would call Aziz’s actions sexual assault seemed like, “science fiction,” and that, “Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab.”   I mention these specific writers because The New Yorker, The New York Times, and CNN are not exactly men’s rights forums; the reaction was brutal in exactly the places where we expect ‘woke’ feminist discourse.  And the reason is simple enough: this is a debatable issue. A committee of human sexuality and women’s studies theorists, if you gave them a year to come up with a text, could not have done a better job of creating a text perfectly designed to divide feminists, divide women, divide all of us, over the issues of affirmative consent.  There simply are two sides to this type of sexual encounter, and this makes us understandably uncomfortable: there are not two sides to sexual assault, in general.

Dozens of articles came out in ensuing weeks, notably Samantha Bee’s brilliant rant against Grace’s detractors, and thousands of blog posts and facebook messages, mostly from women about Grace’s age, claiming that they had suffered similar encounters, and that this was the next great leap forward in the #metoo campaign, talking about encounters that may fall short of rape but were still deeply traumatizing.

My own opinion: Anyone who reads ‘Grace’s account, and is not moved and cannot feel how such an encounter could lead to her feeling completely horrible, has something a bit wrong with them.  This woman should not be made fun of, and I am very glad that the account was anonymous, because I cannot imagine the hatred she would unjustifiably endure otherwise. She did not particularly want to write about this: babe.net sought her out.  Her ‘validation’, several days after the fact, that what took place was sexual assault, is exactly how millions of people think now, and this absolutely must be taken seriously. Women expect to be treated well, not manipulated into doing things that anyone paying any amount of attention would see that they don’t want to do.

However…

Anyone who doesn’t understand the fairly brutal reaction, from women who are a bit older, including fairly prominent feminists, needs to think clearly for a moment about what Grace’s story says about female agency.  Essentially, she went home with Aziz, took her clothes off, and had sex with him all before saying no, all the while ‘giving off non-verbal cues,’ but ‘puzzled’ that he didn’t pick on them.  And then the key: she said no; he said, ‘c’mon, please; I want you so bad!’ and then she kept having sex.  The implication is that all a man has to do to force or coerce a woman to have sex with him, to make the act illegal, is to aggressively ask her to have sex following her saying that she would rather not.  To quote Bari Weiss, she is concerned not so much about Grace herself, but instead about the idea that her article will become an ‘emblem’ for other young women to imitate: it would take us, “back to the era of smelling salts and fainting couches.”  She is referring to cliches of the Victorian age of England, when women were believed to have no sexual agency at all. Even talking about sex would cause a woman to faint, and it was not believed that women could be trusted to make decisions about their own sexuality, hence the practice of always having a male chaperone on every date.

Rape has been traditionally thought of not as having sex that you would rather not have, but as being forced or coerced into having sex that you would rather not have.  Until now, it has been believed that it is possible to consent to bad sex, even very bad sex.  Bad sex is bad, but it is not criminal.  In Grace’s account, Aziz’s force/coercion essentially consisted of enthusiastic, manipulative, repeated asking.  If manipulation (ie, the joke about the second glass of wine equaling the second date) equates to assault, that could be argued to be taking us back about 100 years in terms of feminist progress.

And yet…the backlash against the backlash has been extraordinary.  Babe.net has exploded as a cultural force, and people my age and older are being told that we just don’t understand.  Aziz has disappeared completely from the public scene to the same level as Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby, and so I ask all of you: what do you think of all of this?  Am I reading too much into it? Is there a compromise that can be reached?

Articles cited in this post; again, these are not required reading:

The original babe.net story:

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Articles by Weiss, Brawley, Flanagan:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=A228A47683E092A12B2F7D768BC4C2DB&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/opinions/lets-be-honest-about-aziz-ansari-brawley/index.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Samantha Bee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II-OP6vdMs8 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Conduct individual research from professional literature to critically analyze the essence of the selected cases in forensic psychology.

/in /by

 

What I have down for what I am willing to pay is what I am paying, nothing more nothing less.

 

Individual Research: Overview

As a forensic psychology professional, you need to critically analyze statutory and case laws related to psycholegal issues and correctly apply the knowledge from your analysis in your work. The individual research course projects will provide you with the opportunity to analyze the landmark cases related to psycholegal issues.

 

In Module 1, identify at least one landmark legal case or court decision for each of these important psycholegal areas: CST, criminal responsibility (MSO), the right to mental health treatment, the right to refuse psychiatric treatment, coercion to mental health treatment, and participation in treatment and civil commitment of sex offenders.

 

Critically analyze the essence of the selected cases.

You may be asking what it means to discuss the “essence” of a court decision. The essence of a court decision involves two things: (1) the issue under dispute and (2) how the court decided that issue. You can usually summarize this information in one or two paragraphs. Remember that you need to identify the final decision by the highest court. Landmark cases are almost always the cases that have been appealed to higher courts for a ruling on an issue of law.

 

Looking Ahead

Through Modules 2 and 3, you should continue to conduct research on professional literature to find additional information regarding the selected cases to create a case report. Note that professional literature may include the Argosy University online library resources, relevant textbooks, peer-reviewed journal articles, and websites created by professional organizations, agencies, or institutions (.edu, .org, and .gov).

 

You may refer to the following links for additional information:

In M4 Assignment 2, you will create and submit a case report for each case related to competency and criminal responsibility right to treatment, right to refuse treatment, coercion, and participation in treatment and civil commitment of sex offenders. You are highly encouraged to work on these case reports on a weekly basis and not wait until Module 4 to complete. Write each case report in 2–3 paragraphs, providing your analysis and interpretation of the case. In addition, analyze the roles and responsibilities of a forensic psychology professional in the circumstances presented in each case.

 

Click here to view a sample case report, which you will use as a template in your M4 Assignment 2 to write your case reports.

 

Note: Remember that you do not need to use the sample report in this assignment. You only need to write about the essence of the case. You will utilize the sample case format in Module 4.

 

Landmark Case Selection

In this assignment, you will research specific cases, describe the essence of each case, and critically analyze how each relates to the practice of forensic psychology.

 

Click here to view a list of landmark cases.

 

Tasks:

  • Select one case for each of the following six legal areas:
    • CST
    • Criminal responsibility (MSO)
    • Right to receive mental health treatment
    • Right to refuse psychiatric treatment
    • Coercion to mental health treatment
    • Participation in treatment and civil commitment of sex offenders

Conduct individual research from professional literature to critically analyze the essence of the selected cases in forensic psychology. Note that professional literature may include the Argosy University online library resources, relevant textbooks, peer-reviewed journal articles, and websites created by professional organizations, agencies, or institutions (.edu, .org, and .gov). Present your choices, as well as your critical analysis of the essence of each case, in 2- to 3-paragraphs in a Microsoft Word document.

 

All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.

 

Submission Details:

  • By Wednesday, April 19, 2017, save your documents as M1_A3_Lastname_Firstname.doc and submit it to the M1 Assignment 3 Dropbox.
Assignment 3 Grading Criteria Maximum Points
Articulated the essence of each selected case related to the six legal areas. 80
Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation. 20
Total: 100

Choose one (1) of the problem scenarios as a topic choice for your paper (Note: Your professor must approve your topic choice before you begin work on the assignment.)

/in /by

 

When faced with a problem, what do you do to solve it? This assignment asks you to apply a six-step to problem solving process to a specific problem scenario. You will write a paper that presents a synthesis of your ideas about solving the problem using this systematic approach. As Voltaire said, “No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.”

 

Choose one (1) of the problem scenarios as a topic choice for your paper (Note: Your professor must approve your topic choice before you begin work on the assignment.)

 

Scenario 1: You have worked at your company for eleven (11) years. You have returned to college to earn a Bachelor’s degree in order to increase your chances for a promotion. You are nearly finished with your degree, when a supervisor’s position in a competing company becomes available in another state. The start date is in two (2) weeks, during your final exam period for your courses. The position offers a $15,000 per year salary increase, a car allowance, and relocation expenses. Your former supervisor works for the company and is recommending you for the position based on your outstanding job performance; if you want the job, it’s yours. All of the other supervisors at this level in the company have Master’s degrees, so you know that you would be expected to earn your Bachelor’s degree and continue on to a Master’s degree. Your present company offers tuition reimbursement, but the new company does not.

 

Scenario 2: Your child comes home from school with an assignment sheet for a school project. He / she is very excited about the project and begins work immediately, doing research on the Internet and gathering materials. You read over the assignment sheet and notice that your child is not including all of the required items in the project, and you have some ideas for how to improve the quality of the presentation. You recently read an article in a parenting magazine about the importance of a child developing responsibility for his/ her own learning. You recall the many ways in which your parents took over your school projects. You, on the other hand, want to encourage your child’s confidence in his / her ability to complete a project independently. The next day, you are at the grocery store when you see a parent of a student in your child’s class. That parent has spent over $30 in supplies for the science project and is taking a day off of work to put the pieces of the project together.

 

Scenario 3: You have two jobs—one during the week from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and one on Saturday from 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm. You are taking two classes—one that meets from 6:00 to 10:00 pm, and one class online. You have two kids—one who plays soccer, and one who is in band. You have two elderly parents who no longer drive. You have two siblings—one who lives two (2) miles away, and one who lives in another state. You have two (2) papers due in your classes the same week that one (1) of your children has a soccer tournament, and the other child has a band concert. You are coaching the soccer team, and you are in charge of fundraising for the band. You have a goal to complete your degree in two (2) years. Your doctor tells you that your blood pressure, your cholesterol, and your weight are too high and recommends several medications that cost you nearly $200 per month after your insurance co-pay.

 

Scenario 4: You are a sales representative for a company that encourages staff to log time in the field and away from the office. You are expected to begin and end your day at the office. You notice that each day when you arrive and return another co-worker is already there, and you wonder whether this person spends most of his / her time at the office. At your weekly sales meeting, you are informed of your co-workers’ outstanding sales performance. You suspect that this co-worker is spending more time flattering the boss instead of working leads in the field, and as a result is getting the best client referrals. Your own sales numbers have steadily decreased since this other sales representative was hired.

 

Scenario 5: Professor’s Choice – problem scenario presented by your professor.

 

Scenario 6: Student’s Choice – Problem scenario presented by you.

 

Review the six-step problem solving process outlined in the webtext, based on the article “The Problem Solving Process” located at http://www.gdrc.org/decision/problem-solve.html:

 

    • Step One: Define the problem
    • Step Two: Analyze the problem
    • Step Three: Generate options
    • Step Four: Evaluate options
    • Step Five: Make your decision
    • Step Six: Implement and reflectWrite a four to five (4-5) page paper in which you:
      1. Define the problem in the scenario that you have chosen.
      2. Analyze the problem in the scenario.
      3. Generate options for solving the problem in the scenario.
      4. Evaluate the options for solving the problem.
      5. Decide on the best option for solving the problem.
      6. Explain how you will implement the decision made and reflect on whether this option was the most effective.

      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 should follow these submission guidelines:
    • Submit the paper draft to Turnitin.com and then submit the originality report with the draft to Blackboard.The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
    • Recognize the hindrances to the decision-making process in order to apply problem-solving skills to a variety of situations.
    • Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
    • Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.Click here to view the grading rubric..

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

 

Points: 150 Assignment 2: Problem Solving
Criteria  

Unacceptable
Below 60% F

 Meets Minimum Expectations
60-69% D		  

Fair
70-79% C

  

Proficient
80-89% B

  

Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Define the problem in the scenario chosen.
Weight: 20%		 Did not submit or incompletely defined the problem in the scenario chosen. Insufficiently defined the problem in the scenario chosen. Partially defined the problem in the scenario chosen. Satisfactorily defined the problem in the scenario chosen.
.		 Thoroughly defined the problem in the scenario chosen.
2. Analyze the problem in the scenario.
Weight: 10%		 Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the problem in the scenario. Insufficiently
analyzed the problem in the scenario.		 Partially analyzed the problem in the scenario. Satisfactorily
analyzed the problem in the scenario.		 Thoroughly
analyzed the problem in the scenario.
3. Generate options for solving the problem in the scenario.
Weight: 10%		 Did not submit or incompletely generated options for solving the problem in the scenario. Insufficiently generated options for solving the problem in the scenario. Partially generated options for solving the problem in the scenario. Satisfactorily generated options for solving the problem in the scenario. Thoroughly generated options for solving the problem in the scenario.
4. Evaluate the options for solving the problem.
Weight: 10%		 Did not submit or incompletely evaluated the options for solving the problem. Insufficiently evaluated the options for solving the problem. Partially evaluated the options for solving the problem. Satisfactorily evaluated the options for solving the problem. Thoroughly evaluated the options for solving the problem.
5. Decide on the best option for solving the problem
Weight: 10%		 Did not submit or incompletely decided on the best option for solving the problem. Insufficiently decided on the best option for solving the problem. Partially decided on the best option for solving the problem. Satisfactorily decided on the best option for solving the problem. Thoroughly decided on the best option for solving the problem.
6. Explain how you will implement the decision made and reflect on whether this option was the most effective.
Weight: 10%		 Did not submit or incompletely explained how the decision made will be implemented and reflected on whether this option was the most effective. Insufficiently explained how the decision made will be implemented and reflected on whether this option was the most effective. Partially explained how the decision made will be implemented and reflected on whether this option was the most effective. Satisfactorily explained how the decision made will be implemented and reflected on whether this option was the most effective. Thoroughly explained how the decision made will be implemented and reflected on whether this option was the most effective.
7. 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.
8. 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. Fully followed guidelines for clear and organized writing: included an engaging introductory and thoughtful concluding paragraph; fully addressed main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and detailed supporting sentences.
9. 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, grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling. Had 6-7 different errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling. Had 4-5 different errors in grammar, grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling. Had 0-3 different errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling.