Provide peer feedback for two fellow learners, using the Peer Assessment Rubric provided in the Resources area.

/in /by

  • For this assignment, you will complete an analysis of a case study that deals with one of the following stages of lifespan development:

    • Middle Childhood.
    • Adolescence.

    You will select one of the following case studies from your Broderick and Blewitt textbook to complete an analysis of the developmental and contextual issues related to the selected case. Each of the case studies includes a set of questions that can guide your analysis of the pertinent issues for the particular case.

    Select one of the following case studies to analyze:

    • Hyun-Ki, page 322.
    • Dean, page 365.
    • Mark, page 405.

    Expectations

    For each case study you will be expected to:

    • Analyze lifespan development theories to determine the most appropriate theory/theories to apply to the case study.
    • Apply the appropriate lifespan development theory to support an identified intervention process.
    • Describe the potential impact of individual and cultural differences on development for the current age and context described in the case study.
    • Write in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with expectations for graduate-level composition and expression.

    Content

    The case study analysis should be a maximum of 5 pages, including the introduction and conclusion, each of which should be approximately one half-page in length. The body of the paper should not exceed 4 pages.

    Provide the following content in your paper:

    • An introduction that includes an overview of the paper contents, including a brief summary and background information regarding the case study.
    • The body of the case study, including:
      • The presenting challenge(s) and primary issue(s).
      • Appropriate lifespan development theory and research-based alternatives that explain the presenting challenges.
      • Potential impact of individual and cultural differences on development for the current age and context described in the case study.
      • Evidence-based support from lifespan development theory and current scholarly research to support appropriate interventions.
    • A conclusion that summarizes what was introduced in the body of the paper with respect to the case study context, challenges, and interventions.

    Requirements

    Submit a professional document, in APA style, that includes the following required elements identified with headings and subheadings

    • Title page.
    • Introduction (half-page).
    • Case study analysis (4 pages).
    • Conclusion (half-page).
    • Reference Page: Include a minimum of five scholarly sources from current peer-reviewed journals as references in addition to referencing the text book in which the case study is embedded.
    • Font: Times New Roman, 12-point.

  • Hyun-Ki: Case Study Analysis (Due Week 6)

    Note: Participate in this discussion only if you analyzed the Hyun-Ki case study in your course text. If you analyzed the Dean or Mark cases, please participate in the corresponding discussion.

    For this discussion:

    1. Post your Hyun-Ki Case Study Analysis for peer review. Note: You are expected to post a completed Case Study Analysis, not an outline or an incomplete draft. This allows you to receive valuable feedback on your work that you may want to incorporate into your final draft. It also honors your peers’ time and efforts, as it is difficult to review an incomplete assignment. You will receive reduced credit for this discussion if you fail to submit your case study, or if your case study is incomplete.
    2. Provide peer feedback for two fellow learners, using the Peer Assessment Rubric provided in the Resources area. A document that has examples of basic and proficient feedback, Sample Comments for Peer Assessment Rubric, is also provided in the Resources area; use it to help you understand how to craft your feedback.

    Your instructor and/or teaching assistant may also provide feedback. You will combine this with the feedback of your fellow learners to make any modifications to your case study analysis prior to submitting it for grading by the end of Week 7.

    Follow these steps to complete your peer review:

    1. Post your analysis of the case study for Hyun-Ki by Wednesday of Week 6. Be sure to include the title of the case study in the title of your paper.
    2. Select two case study analyses to review from this discussion. (Note: If you see that a learner has already received two peer reviews, please review another learner’s case study; the goal is for all learners to receive at least two peer reviews.)
    3. Use the Peer Assessment Rubric located in the Resources section. Peruse it carefully along with the Sample Comments document; both will help you understand what you should be looking for as you review the case study analyses.
    4. Carefully read your peers’ case study analyses. Take notes as you read through them, using the Peer Assessment Rubric as your guide.
    5. Complete the Peer Assessment Rubric for each analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday of Week 6. Make sure that your written feedback is balanced, specific, and substantial. Responses such as “Good Job!” “I agree,” or “I don’t understand” are not acceptable. Your comments should help learners to understand what they have done correctly and how they can improve their work.

    After you have received your feedback, be sure to incorporate anything that you feel will strengthen your analysis prior to submitting it for a grade.

    Note: Although you will only be critiquing analyses from the discussion question you selected, you are encouraged to review the analysis of the other case studies your classmates selected to enhance your learning.

  • Dean: Case Study Analysis (Due Week 6)

    Note: Participate in this discussion only if you analyzed the Dean case study in your course text. If you analyzed the Hyun-Ki or Mark cases, please participate in the corresponding discussion.

    For this discussion:

    1. Post your Dean Case Study Analysis for peer review. Note: You are expected to post a completed Case Study Analysis, not an outline or an incomplete draft. This allows you to receive valuable feedback on your work that you may want to incorporate into your final draft. It also honors your peers’ time and efforts as it is difficult to review an incomplete assignment. You will receive reduced credit for this discussion if you fail to submit your case study, or if your case study is incomplete.
    2. Provide peer feedback for two fellow learners, using the Peer Assessment Rubric provided in the Resources area. A document that has examples of basic and proficient feedback, Sample Comments for Peer Assessment Rubric, is also provided in the Resources area; use it to help you understand how to craft your feedback.

    Your instructor and/or teaching assistant may also provide feedback. You will combine this with the feedback of your fellow learners to make any modifications to your case study analysis prior to submitting it for grading by the end of Week 7.

    Follow these steps to complete your peer review:

    1. Post your analysis of the case study for Dean by Wednesday of Week 6. Be sure to include the title of the case study in the title of your paper.
    2. Select two case study analyses to review from this discussion. (Note: If you see that a learner has already received two peer reviews, please review another learner’s case study; the goal is for all learners to receive at least two peer reviews.)
    3. Use the Peer Assessment Rubric located in the Resources section. Peruse it carefully along with the Sample Comments document; both will help you understand what you should be looking for as you review the case study analyses.
    4. Carefully read your peers’ case study analyses. Take notes as you read through them, using the Peer Assessment Rubric as your guide.
    5. Complete the Peer Assessment Rubric for each analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday of Week 6. Make sure that your written feedback is balanced, specific, and substantial. Responses such as “Good Job!” “I agree,” or “I don’t understand” are not acceptable. Your comments should help learners to understand what they have done correctly and how they can improve their work.

    After you have received your feedback, be sure to incorporate anything that you feel will strengthen your analysis prior to submitting it for a grade.

    Note: Although you will only be critiquing analyses from the discussion question you selected, you are encouraged to review the analysis of the other case studies your classmates selected to enhance your learning.

  • Mark: Case Study Analysis (Due Week 6)

    Note: Participate in this discussion only if you analyzed the Mark case study in your course text. If you analyzed the Hyun-Ki or Dean cases, please participate in the corresponding discussion.

    For this discussion:

    1. Post your Mark Case Study Analysis for peer review. Note: You are expected to post a completed Case Study Analysis, not an outline or an incomplete draft. This allows you to receive valuable feedback on your work that you may want to incorporate into your final draft. It also honors your peers’ time and efforts, as it is difficult to review an incomplete assignment. You will receive reduced credit for this discussion if you fail to submit your case study, or if your case study is incomplete.
    2. Provide peer feedback for two fellow learners, using the Peer Assessment Rubric provided in the Resources area. A document that has examples of basic and proficient feedback, Sample Comments for Peer Assessment Rubric, is also provided in the Resources area; use it to help you understand how to craft your feedback.

    Your instructor and/or teaching assistant may also provide feedback. You will combine this with the feedback of your fellow learners to make any modifications to your case study analysis prior to submitting it for grading by the end of Week 7.

    Follow these steps to complete your peer review:

    1. Post your analysis of the case study for Mark by Wednesday of Week 6. Be sure to include the title of the case study in the title of your paper.
    2. Select two case study analyses to review from this discussion. (Note: If you see that a learner has already received two peer reviews, please review another learner’s case study; the goal is for all learners to receive at least two peer reviews.)
    3. Use the Peer Assessment Rubric located in the Resources section. Peruse it carefully along with the Sample Comments document; both will help you understand what you should be looking for as you review the case study analyses.
    4. Carefully read your peers’ case study analyses. Take notes as you read through them, using the Peer Assessment Rubric as your guide.
    5. Complete the Peer Assessment Rubric for each analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday of Week 6. Make sure that your written feedback is balanced, specific, and substantial. Responses such as “Good Job!” “I agree,” or “I don’t understand” are not acceptable. Your comments should help learners to understand what they have done correctly and how they can improve their work.

    After you have received your feedback, be sure to incorporate anything that you feel will strengthen your analysis prior to submitting it for a grade.

    Note: Although you will only be critiquing analyses from the discussion question you selected, you are encouraged to review the analysis of the other case studies your classmates selected to enhance your learning.

  • Periodically, information will be posted in this space for the good of the class.

  • This thread was created to provide a convenient space for you to ask questions—questions about particular assignment and discussion activities, questions about the course in general, questions about expectations. If there is something that you feel you could use help with, please post your question here. Most likely, some of your classmates will have the same concern, so your post may help several learners. If you feel your question is private, please use the Messages tool found under Notifications.

  • This thread was created to provide a convenient space for you to ask your TA questions – questions about particular assignment and discussion activities, questions about expectations, or questions covering topics in writing, critical thinking, Capella resources or discussion and assignment content. If there is something that you feel you could use help with, please post your question here. Most likely, some of your classmates have the same concern, so your post may help several learners.

    • For this assignment, you will complete an analysis of a case study that deals with one of the following stages of lifespan development:

      • Middle Childhood.
      • Adolescence.

      You will select one of the following case studies from your Broderick and Blewitt textbook to complete an analysis of the developmental and contextual issues related to the selected case. Each of the case studies includes a set of questions that can guide your analysis of the pertinent issues for the particular case.

      Select one of the following case studies to analyze:

      • Hyun-Ki, page 322.
      • Dean, page 365.
      • Mark, page 405.

      Expectations

      For each case study you will be expected to:

      • Analyze lifespan development theories to determine the most appropriate theory/theories to apply to the case study.
      • Apply the appropriate lifespan development theory to support an identified intervention process.
      • Describe the potential impact of individual and cultural differences on development for the current age and context described in the case study.
      • Write in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with expectations for graduate-level composition and expression.

      Content

      The case study analysis should be a maximum of 5 pages, including the introduction and conclusion, each of which should be approximately one half-page in length. The body of the paper should not exceed 4 pages.

      Provide the following content in your paper:

      • An introduction that includes an overview of the paper contents, including a brief summary and background information regarding the case study.
      • The body of the case study, including:
        • The presenting challenge(s) and primary issue(s).
        • Appropriate lifespan development theory and research-based alternatives that explain the presenting challenges.
        • Potential impact of individual and cultural differences on development for the current age and context described in the case study.
        • Evidence-based support from lifespan development theory and current scholarly research to support appropriate interventions.
      • A conclusion that summarizes what was introduced in the body of the paper with respect to the case study context, challenges, and interventions.

      Requirements

      Submit a professional document, in APA style, that includes the following required elements identified with headings and subheadings

      • Title page.
      • Introduction (half-page).
      • Case study analysis (4 pages).
      • Conclusion (half-page).
      • Reference Page: Include a minimum of five scholarly sources from current peer-reviewed journals as references in addition to referencing the text book in which the case study is embedded.
      • Font: Times New Roman, 12-point.

    • Hyun-Ki: Case Study Analysis (Due Week 6)

      Note: Participate in this discussion only if you analyzed the Hyun-Ki case study in your course text. If you analyzed the Dean or Mark cases, please participate in the corresponding discussion.

      For this discussion:

      1. Post your Hyun-Ki Case Study Analysis for peer review. Note: You are expected to post a completed Case Study Analysis, not an outline or an incomplete draft. This allows you to receive valuable feedback on your work that you may want to incorporate into your final draft. It also honors your peers’ time and efforts, as it is difficult to review an incomplete assignment. You will receive reduced credit for this discussion if you fail to submit your case study, or if your case study is incomplete.
      2. Provide peer feedback for two fellow learners, using the Peer Assessment Rubric provided in the Resources area. A document that has examples of basic and proficient feedback, Sample Comments for Peer Assessment Rubric, is also provided in the Resources area; use it to help you understand how to craft your feedback.

      Your instructor and/or teaching assistant may also provide feedback. You will combine this with the feedback of your fellow learners to make any modifications to your case study analysis prior to submitting it for grading by the end of Week 7.

      Follow these steps to complete your peer review:

      1. Post your analysis of the case study for Hyun-Ki by Wednesday of Week 6. Be sure to include the title of the case study in the title of your paper.
      2. Select two case study analyses to review from this discussion. (Note: If you see that a learner has already received two peer reviews, please review another learner’s case study; the goal is for all learners to receive at least two peer reviews.)
      3. Use the Peer Assessment Rubric located in the Resources section. Peruse it carefully along with the Sample Comments document; both will help you understand what you should be looking for as you review the case study analyses.
      4. Carefully read your peers’ case study analyses. Take notes as you read through them, using the Peer Assessment Rubric as your guide.
      5. Complete the Peer Assessment Rubric for each analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday of Week 6. Make sure that your written feedback is balanced, specific, and substantial. Responses such as “Good Job!” “I agree,” or “I don’t understand” are not acceptable. Your comments should help learners to understand what they have done correctly and how they can improve their work.

      After you have received your feedback, be sure to incorporate anything that you feel will strengthen your analysis prior to submitting it for a grade.

      Note: Although you will only be critiquing analyses from the discussion question you selected, you are encouraged to review the analysis of the other case studies your classmates selected to enhance your learning.

    • Dean: Case Study Analysis (Due Week 6)

      Note: Participate in this discussion only if you analyzed the Dean case study in your course text. If you analyzed the Hyun-Ki or Mark cases, please participate in the corresponding discussion.

      For this discussion:

      1. Post your Dean Case Study Analysis for peer review. Note: You are expected to post a completed Case Study Analysis, not an outline or an incomplete draft. This allows you to receive valuable feedback on your work that you may want to incorporate into your final draft. It also honors your peers’ time and efforts as it is difficult to review an incomplete assignment. You will receive reduced credit for this discussion if you fail to submit your case study, or if your case study is incomplete.
      2. Provide peer feedback for two fellow learners, using the Peer Assessment Rubric provided in the Resources area. A document that has examples of basic and proficient feedback, Sample Comments for Peer Assessment Rubric, is also provided in the Resources area; use it to help you understand how to craft your feedback.

      Your instructor and/or teaching assistant may also provide feedback. You will combine this with the feedback of your fellow learners to make any modifications to your case study analysis prior to submitting it for grading by the end of Week 7.

      Follow these steps to complete your peer review:

      1. Post your analysis of the case study for Dean by Wednesday of Week 6. Be sure to include the title of the case study in the title of your paper.
      2. Select two case study analyses to review from this discussion. (Note: If you see that a learner has already received two peer reviews, please review another learner’s case study; the goal is for all learners to receive at least two peer reviews.)
      3. Use the Peer Assessment Rubric located in the Resources section. Peruse it carefully along with the Sample Comments document; both will help you understand what you should be looking for as you review the case study analyses.
      4. Carefully read your peers’ case study analyses. Take notes as you read through them, using the Peer Assessment Rubric as your guide.
      5. Complete the Peer Assessment Rubric for each analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday of Week 6. Make sure that your written feedback is balanced, specific, and substantial. Responses such as “Good Job!” “I agree,” or “I don’t understand” are not acceptable. Your comments should help learners to understand what they have done correctly and how they can improve their work.

      After you have received your feedback, be sure to incorporate anything that you feel will strengthen your analysis prior to submitting it for a grade.

      Note: Although you will only be critiquing analyses from the discussion question you selected, you are encouraged to review the analysis of the other case studies your classmates selected to enhance your learning.

    • Mark: Case Study Analysis (Due Week 6)

      Note: Participate in this discussion only if you analyzed the Mark case study in your course text. If you analyzed the Hyun-Ki or Dean cases, please participate in the corresponding discussion.

      For this discussion:

      1. Post your Mark Case Study Analysis for peer review. Note: You are expected to post a completed Case Study Analysis, not an outline or an incomplete draft. This allows you to receive valuable feedback on your work that you may want to incorporate into your final draft. It also honors your peers’ time and efforts, as it is difficult to review an incomplete assignment. You will receive reduced credit for this discussion if you fail to submit your case study, or if your case study is incomplete.
      2. Provide peer feedback for two fellow learners, using the Peer Assessment Rubric provided in the Resources area. A document that has examples of basic and proficient feedback, Sample Comments for Peer Assessment Rubric, is also provided in the Resources area; use it to help you understand how to craft your feedback.

      Your instructor and/or teaching assistant may also provide feedback. You will combine this with the feedback of your fellow learners to make any modifications to your case study analysis prior to submitting it for grading by the end of Week 7.

      Follow these steps to complete your peer review:

      1. Post your analysis of the case study for Mark by Wednesday of Week 6. Be sure to include the title of the case study in the title of your paper.
      2. Select two case study analyses to review from this discussion. (Note: If you see that a learner has already received two peer reviews, please review another learner’s case study; the goal is for all learners to receive at least two peer reviews.)
      3. Use the Peer Assessment Rubric located in the Resources section. Peruse it carefully along with the Sample Comments document; both will help you understand what you should be looking for as you review the case study analyses.
      4. Carefully read your peers’ case study analyses. Take notes as you read through them, using the Peer Assessment Rubric as your guide.
      5. Complete the Peer Assessment Rubric for each analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday of Week 6. Make sure that your written feedback is balanced, specific, and substantial. Responses such as “Good Job!” “I agree,” or “I don’t understand” are not acceptable. Your comments should help learners to understand what they have done correctly and how they can improve their work.

      After you have received your feedback, be sure to incorporate anything that you feel will strengthen your analysis prior to submitting it for a grade.

      Note: Although you will only be critiquing analyses from the discussion question you selected, you are encouraged to review the analysis of the other case studies your classmates selected to enhance your learning.

    • Periodically, information will be posted in this space for the good of the class.

    • This thread was created to provide a convenient space for you to ask questions—questions about particular assignment and discussion activities, questions about the course in general, questions about expectations. If there is something that you feel you could use help with, please post your question here. Most likely, some of your classmates will have the same concern, so your post may help several learners. If you feel your question is private, please use the Messages tool found under Notifications.

    • This thread was created to provide a convenient space for you to ask your TA questions – questions about particular assignment and discussion activities, questions about expectations, or questions covering topics in writing, critical thinking, Capella resources or discussion and assignment content. If there is something that you feel you could use help with, please post your question here. Most likely, some of your classmates have the same concern, so your post may help several learners.

Read the article “The Efficient Measurement of Job Satisfaction: Facet-Items Versus Facet Scales.” Consider the rationale when choosing facet items versus facet scales in measurement instruments.

/in /by

In order to select the most effective instrument for a specific assessment of job satisfaction, you must analyze the instruments and consider the factors they measure. Not all instruments will contain the set of work factors needed (e.g., pay, opportunities for promotion, environment) to adequately measure job satisfaction or facets of job satisfaction across all groups. Only a few of the instruments may meet reliability and construct validity criteria. Investigators measure constructs using reliable and valid instruments. A reliable instrument provides a consistent measurement every time it is used. For example, a standard 12-inch ruler is an example of a reliable instrument—it will always measure 12 inches. Even if the instrument is reliable, you still need to know whether it is valid. Validity is the idea that your instrument empirically measures what it is intended to measure.

Now consider what you know about measuring job satisfaction and what you have observed about the employees’ problems with job satisfaction at Walden Sports. For this Discussion you will select a suitable instrument to measure job satisfaction and describe the psychometric properties of the instrument.

To prepare for this Discussion:

  • Using the Learning Resources and Walden Library, search for an instrument to measure job satisfaction at Walden Sports.
  • Recall the stages of the consulting cycle and where measurement would fall in the cycle. Also consider the value of communicating to the client psychometric properties and how that explains the rationale for using an instrument in helping them solve organizational problems. You likely covered many aspects of the consulting cycle in a previous Walden learning experience; however, review Optional Resources for more information on the consulting cycle if necessary. (Some texts listed in Optional Resources you may have acquired in a previous course.)
  • Read the article “Moderating Role of Job Satisfaction on Turnover Intention and Burnout Among Workers in Primary Care Institutions: A Cross-Sectional Study.” Identify the model of testing job satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intention and the items and surveys used to do so.
  • Read the article “Measuring of Job Satisfaction: The Use of Quality of Work Life Factors.” Review the methods employed by the study to evaluate instrument and item selections.
  • Read the article “The Efficient Measurement of Job Satisfaction: Facet-Items Versus Facet Scales.” Consider the rationale when choosing facet items versus facet scales in measurement instruments.
  • Review the website Tests Reviewed in the Mental Measurements Yearbook Series. Identify potential instruments for measuring job attitudes.

By Day 3

Post a response to the following:  

Provide a description of the instrument you selected to measure job satisfaction of the employees at Walden Sports. Then, explain why this instrument is appropriate for measuring job satisfaction. Finally, provide an example item, taken from the instrument you selected to measure job satisfaction or another relevant instrument, one that you might use in a diagnostic survey. Then, describe the scale anchors used to score the instrument and the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of the instrument. Finally, post how instrument selection fits in the consulting cycle stages and how it would be presented to the client. Keep in mind that your client might not be familiar with job satisfaction questionnaires or psychometric properties, so explain how you would address your audience in your presentation at this stage of consulting.

Post by Day 3 a brief description of two OD interventions and a rationale for each intervention selected. Also, give an explanation of two factors to be considered when selecting an intervention.

/in /by

When planning for change, a consulting professional needs to carefully consider the intervention strategies that best fit an organization’s change goals and the unique characteristics of the internal and external environments. Yet change and interventions affect not only the organization but also the people within the organization. When an intervention directly affects employees’ work relationships, work activity, work knowledge, and workspace, the commitment and involvement of those to which the intervention is aimed are critically important. Consultants must make part-scientific, part-artistic, part-political choices when selecting effective interventions that match organizational change needs.

Organizational consultants may be called on to determine under which circumstances an intervention target is appropriate. This requires comparing the effectiveness of intervention targets based on a range of internal and external factors. ODs then evaluate the potential an intervention target has for improving organizational performance and health.

To prepare:

  • Review this week’s Learning Resources.
  • Consider appropriate OD intervention strategies for different systems.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post by Day 3 a brief description of two OD interventions and a rationale for each intervention selected. Also, give an explanation of two factors to be considered when selecting an intervention.

PART 2- If money and time were not an issue, what emerging issues would you like to research in multicultural psychology? 

PART 3- Review this week’s course materials and learning activities, and reflect on your learning so far this week. Respond to one or more of the following prompts in one to two paragraphs:

  1. Provide citation and reference to the material(s) you discuss. Describe what you found interesting regarding this topic, and why.
  2. Describe how you will apply that learning in your daily life, including your work life.
  3. Describe what may be unclear to you, and what you would like to learn.

Conduct an evaluation of the organization based on strategic planning analysis, which includes the strengths and/or weaknesses that are internal to the organization and opportunities and/or threats external to the organization. 

/in /by

 

Conduct an evaluation of the organization based on strategic planning analysis, which includes the strengths and/or weaknesses that are internal to the organization and opportunities and/or threats external to the organization.  Your strategic plan analysis must include at least three strengths and three weaknesses that are internal to the organization and at least three opportunities and three threats that are external to the organization. You must utilize at least five valid sources in your analysis. Examples of valid sources include organizational websites, annual reports, personal interviews with organizational leadership, investigative reports, government reports, and conference transcripts.  Your Final Paper must address at least five key areas, concepts, and strategies that are outlined in the course text.  These include:

 

•Internal and external assessments

 

•Competitive marketing analysis

 

•Identification of stakeholders

 

•Overview and assessments of services provided

 

•Competencies and resource

 

•Public entities and regulatory requirements

 

•Demographics served

 

•Strategic financial planning

 

•Financial and operational outcomes

 

•Current and future direction of the organization of choice

 

 

The Final Paper:

 

1. Must be 8 to 10 double-spaced pages in length, excluding the title and references pages, and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

 

2. Must include a title page with the following:

 

a. Title of paper

 

b. Student’s name

 

c. Course name and number

 

d. Instructor’s name

 

e. Date submitted

 

3. Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement.

 

4. Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought.

 

5. Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.

 

6. Must use at least five scholarly sources, including a minimum of two from the Ashford University Library.

 

7. Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

 

8. Must include a separate reference page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.