The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective People

/in /by

Discussion Board Forum 1

 

 

TOPIC: The reading from The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

THREAD: Do you think Covey’s approach to organizing your life is consistent with a Christian worldview? Pick just one particular idea from what you have read this week or last and discuss that. Evaluate whether it is consistent with a Christian worldview. Use citations from Covey and from Scripture to support your point. You should not pick the entire reading as a topic; instead, pick one specific portion or idea. For instance, you could talk about the dichotomy between production and production capability or the idea of having a mission statement, but you wouldn’t want to assess an entire chapter and everything in it. Try not to pick something too obvious.

REPLIES: Respond to two of your classmates’ threads; respond to their arguments with your own perspective being sure to cite Covey and Scripture in your response. There is no word count minimum, but do not use more than 150 words per response.

 

You are required to create a thread in response to the provided prompt for each forum. The thread must be written in APA format, no more than 300-400 words and demonstrate course-related knowledge. In addition to the thread, you are required to reply to the thread of at least 2 classmates. Each reply must be no more than 150 words.

Safety Programing

/in /by

SF 345 Safety Management Programs

 

Assignment – Performance Measures

 

You are to read the three articles provided. You are to select and respond to five (5) of the questions below. Of the 5 questions you select, you must select at least one question related to each of the three articles. You are free to then select any 2 of the remaining questions.

 

Your responses are to identify which article your question addresses, be typed and organized so your answers are complete. Lastly you are to submit your answers by the due date.

 

1) Other than safety perception surveys, in the article Leading Measures, did the authors provide any other examples of leading measures that might be used to measure an organization’s safety performance? (Blair)

 

2) In the article Targeting Zero, does the author support the contention that zero is a good target? What are his arguments for, or against? (Burnham)

 

3) In the article Strategic Safety Measurements, the author uses the term Leading Indicators as a means of measuring safety performance. How does the author define this term? How does this differ from the definition used in the other articles? (Benefits)

 

4) Which guidance document was referenced for performance measurements in the Blair article? (Blair)

 

5) In the Leading Measures article, the authors discuss “soft measures”. What are some of these measures? What is your opinion of these measures? (Blair)

 

6) Define SMART goals. Provide an example of a smart goal for measuring the safety performance of a single site organization. (Benefits)

 

7) What scientific evidence is provided that supports safety and health audits as an effective and impactful indicator of safety performance? (Blair)

 

8) In the Strategic Safety Measurement article the author mentions means for management to make safety more visible. What did they suggest in the article to accomplish this objective? (Benefits)

 

9) In the Burnham article, he suggests that there may be factors outside the company’s control that may contribute to mishaps in the workplace. Describe several (at least 3) of these factors; tell me why the author suggests them as outside the control of a company’s management. To what degree do you agree or disagree with Mr. Burnham? (Burnham)

 

10) The authors introduce a new term, “concurrent measurement.” What is a concurrent measurement and do you think these add value to an organization’s safety efforts? Be sure to provide some substance to your answer. (Blair)

 

11) How many different types of safety measurements (IE lagging, concurrent, leading) indicators do Blair and O’Toole suggest to be used when measuring an organization’s safety performance? (Blair)

Review Capstone Examples

/in /by

C:\Users\mbrown3\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\3QIURI7L\MC900441498[1].pngEdD Capstone Rubrics and Checklists by Stage

Revised EdD Rubrics and Checklists…Can you explain clearly what forms are required when?

The stages and timing of the University Research Review process have not fundamentally changed; only the documents have changed. However, the following outline may help clarify.

Proposal Writing Stage

Student : Complete the proposal and the appropriate Doctoral Study Checklist by identifying the page number where items are located in the proposal. Use the comment blocks to provide any clarifying information for the reviewers.

Student : Submit the proposal and Doctoral Study Checklist to the Committee Chair.

 

Committee Chair : Review the proposal and the Doctoral Study Checklist and evaluate the proposal.

· If the proposal is assessed as not ready for committee review based on the criteria in the Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric, the Committee Chair provides feedback to the student using the Checklist and/or the Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric (depending on the nature of the feedback).

· If the proposal is assessed as ready for further review, the Committee Chair forwards the proposal, the Doctoral Study Checklist, and his/her completed Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric to the Committee Member for review.

· Once the Committee Chair and Committee Member agree that the proposal has met all the Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric criteria (items 1-8 of the 10 criteria), the proposal is ready for Committee URR review. The Committee Chair then forwards to the Committee URR: 1) proposal document; 2) Turnitin Report; 3) the completed Doctoral Study Checklist completed by the student and with any comments by the committee Chair and/or Member; and 4) the Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubrics completed by each member indicating that the applicable standards have been met (it is best to keep the history of comments to the student for Committee URR to review as well).

Doctoral Study Writing Stage

Student : Complete the doctoral study and extend the Doctoral Study Checklist by identifying the page number where items are located in the final doctoral study. Add directly to the checklist used for the proposal, when possible. Use the comment blocks to provide any clarifying information for the reviewers.

Student : Submit the completed doctoral study and Doctoral Study Checklist to the Committee Chair.

Committee Chair: Review the final study and the Doctoral Study Checklist and evaluate the final study.

· If the study document is assessed as not ready for committee review based on the criteria in the Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric, the Committee Chair provides feedback to the student using the Checklist and/or the Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric (depending on the nature of the feedback).

· If the final study is assessed as ready for further review, the Committee Chair forwards the study, the Doctoral Study Checklist, and a completed Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric to the Committee Member for review.

· Once the Chair and Committee Member agree that the final doctoral study has met all the Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric criteria (all of the 10 criteria), the doctoral study is ready for Committee URR review. The Committee Chair then forwards to the Committee URR: 1) final doctoral study document; 2) Turnitin Report; 3) the completed Doctoral Study Checklist completed by the student and with any comments by the committee Chair and/or Member; and 4) the Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubrics completed by each member indicating that all standards have been met (it is best to keep the history of comments to the student for Committee URR to review as well).

Final Study Stage/Post-Oral Defense (pre-CAO review)

Committee Chair and Committee Member:

· Chair forwards the final study document and final quality rubric from each committee member directly to the URR, while copying doctoralstudy@waldenu.edu

Committee URR:

· Forwards review (brief statement to chair, final document, and final quality rubric—indicating if approved for CAO review) to committee chair, while copying doctoralstudy@waldenu.edu

Clinical Field Experience A: Listening, Speaking, And Vocabulary Strategies

/in /by

Allocate at least 5 hours in the field to support this field experience.

Observe at least one grade PreK-3 classroom with ELLs. Focus your observations on the strategies utilized to develop listening, speaking, and vocabulary. Discuss with your mentor teacher strategies they employ to differentiate instruction and assessment to meet the learning needs of all students.

Use any remaining field experience hours to assist the mentor teacher in providing instruction and support to the class.

Write a 250-500 word reflection regarding your observations. Your reflection should include an example of the effective use of a strategy within each of the following domains:

  • Listening
  • Speaking
  • Vocabulary development

How could these strategies be differentiated to accommodate ELLs at various levels of English language proficiency?

APA format is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.

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

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Document the locations and hours you spend in the field on your Clinical Field Experience Verification Form.

Submit the Clinical Field Experience Verification Form to the learning management system in the last topic. Directions for submitting can be found on the College of Education site in the Student Success Center.