Discussion: Recognizing Examples of Academic Integrity Violations

/in /by

Now that you understand Walden’s policy on academic integrity, you will examine writing samples that may or may not adhere to Walden’s policy. This exercise will help you learn how to identify appropriate and inappropriate use of source material.To prepare for this Discussion:Review the Week 2 Resources. Pay special attention to the videos on effective and ineffective paraphrasing.By Day 3Post a 1- to 2-paragraph analysis of three paraphrases of a source passage. In your own words, identify which paraphrase you think is most effective, and explain why. Also, explain why the other paraphrases are less effective and why they may constitute violations of Walden’s academic integrity policy.Source passage:“Policymakers are challenged to broaden their outlook of preferred plagiarism prevention measures and look towards those strategies that take into account the reasons students give for their plagiarism in the first place, and to build on the value that most students place upon their personal integrity” (Awdry & Sarre, 2013, p. 45).Student A’s paraphrase:Policymakers should broaden their outlook of plagiarism prevention measures by considering the reasons students give for plagiarism and by emphasizing the value most students place on personal integrity.Student B’s paraphrase:Education experts should expand their vision of strategies to reduce plagiarism by considering the explanations students give for committing plagiarism and by remembering that most students respect the need for academic integrity (Awdry & Sarre, 2013).Student C’s paraphrase:According to Awdry and Sarre (2013), policymakers are challenged to broaden their outlook of preferred plagiarism prevention measures and look towards those strategies that take into account the reasons students give for their plagiarism in the first place, and to build on the value that most students place upon their personal integrity.Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

Psychologyy

/in /by

In 1921 Lewis Terman began his study of 1,000 gifted  children, in one of the longest and most interesting longitudinal studies of our time!  He gathered information about these people (overwhelmingly White males and females) through test scores and interviews, throughout their lifetime to gather information about their lives and show that those children identified as “intelligent” were destined for greatness.  He also held the belief that this intelligence was innate, or hereditary and proposed identifying these children to foster their success for the betterment of society.  But was Terman right?Original CommentAfter reading Open Stax 7.6 – Sources of intelligence, you will also read The Vexing Legacy of Lewis Terman (Stanford Magazine).  Then answer these questions to demonstrate your understanding of the origins of intelligence and its relationship with success:Summarize Terman’s research methodology in 2-3 sentences.In what ways were the “Termites” remarkable and unremarkable compared to the average population?What were the 3 big differences between the most and least successful “Termites”?Does research on the “Termites” conclusively show that intelligence is a predictor of success?How has this research impacted your mindset about intelligence?

Human growth

/in /by

Compare and contrast Erikson’s generativity versus stagnation stage with his ego-integrity versus despair stage for middle and late adulthood. Include at least three examples from your text as you compare and contrast the two stages.Write a well thought-out paragraph for each of the following:• The occurrences that can affect positive or negative outcomes in Erickson’s generativity versus stagnation stage.• Three proactive changes you can make personally to improve your generativity in your lifetime.3. Describe the physical and cognitive changes that occur in late adulthood, including how some of these changes may lead to decline and eventual death4. Explain how the processes of death and dying can have different outcomes or scenarios depending on choosing different paths. Use at least three examples of supportive evidence from your text.5 Write a well thought-out paragraph on each of the following:• Three proactive ways you personally can improve your physical health• Three ways you personally can improve your cognitive health in your lifetime

Mock IRB Application

/in /by

Mock IRB Application-Part 1MOCK IRB APPLICATION EXERCISE-PT. 1Psychological experiments that are conducted on human or animal subjects must go through a review by an administrative body known as an Institutional Review Board (IRB).  Approval must be gained by an IRB before a study can be funded or conducted.  Researchers, whether they are faculty, students, or other affiliated personnel, must complete a detailed application that is presented to the IRB for its review.APUS has an IRB, much like that of any research-producing university or institution.  Attached you will find an amended version of the actual application that researchers must submit to the IRB in advance of conducting psychological research. ***This is a mock version of the application.  You are not actually submitting anything to the real APUS IRB while conducting this exercise.For this exercise, you will choose one of the psychological experiments listed at the bottom of these instructions.  These are experiments that have already been conducted and published.  Several are “classic” experiments in social psychology of which you should already be aware.  You will read the published article carefully and then you will take the knowledge gleaned from the article to complete the IRB application AS IF you were the Principal Investigator applying for approval to conduct the study.For some of the questions included on the application, you may need to “stretch” your knowledge a bit.  For example, the published article may say that college students were given extra credit for participation, but may not go into a lot of detail regarding the process used to recruit those students.  In such a situation, you may need to use your imagination to fill in some blanks.In addition, please remember that the goal here is to put yourself in the principal investigator’s shoes at the time that he/she conducted the experiment.  If the experiment was conducted in the 1970s, for example, remember that the standards for human experimentation were different back then.  Answer the questions as the investigator WOULD have answered them (based upon what you read about the experiment), not as they SHOULD have answered them based upon today’s ethical standards.=================================================================================================================Please choose ONE of the following experiments to read:1.The Milgram Obedience Study:Found on pp. 27-40 in Readings About The Social Animal, 11th Edition.2.The Stanford Prison Experiment:Original article available at the following: http://www.zimbardo.com/downloads/1973%20A%20Study%20of%20Prisoners%20and%20Guards,%20Naval%20Research%20Reviews.pdf3.Deindividuation and Anger-Mediated Interracial Aggression:  Unmasking Regressive Racism:Found on pp. 341-356 in Readings About The Social Animal, 11thEdition.4.Arbitrary Social Norms Influence Sex Differences in Romantic Selectivity:Found on pp. 568-579 in Readings About The Social Animal, 11th Edition.Assignment Instructions (Please complete both #1 and #2 below)1.         After carefully reading your article, please complete the attached document.  You will complete the second half of the Mock IRB Application in Part 2 of this assignment in a later week in the semester.  The attached document is editable, so please place your responses directly into the document.  Be sure to save the document on your hard drive and then upload it into the slot for the assignment.2.         After completing the Mock IRB Assignment-Part 1, please answer the following questions in a 3-page Word Document (.docx format) and upload as an attachment to the slot for the assignment.a.         What was the most challenging section of the Mock IRB Application-Part 1 to complete?  Why was it challenging?b.         Were there any sections of the Mock IRB Application-Part 1 that you felt the authors of your article did not adequately address (either in terms of not doing it or not addressing it in their write-up of their Method/Procedure)?c.          If you were actually the Principal Investigator of this study, what might you do differently in order to adequately address all the questions asked on Part 1 of this Mock IRB Application?d.         How do you think ethical standards have changed (if at all) since the Principal Investigator of your chosen study filled out his/her own IRB Application?