Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Top of Form
Discussion: Theories of Human Development Across the Life Span
As a social worker, you will never have the privilege of seeing a client grow and evolve over the entire length of their life. Even if you do work with a client for a long time, you won’t witness their evolution firsthand; rather, the client will convey to you what they are experiencing. For the purposes of the HBSE I and II courses, though, you have gotten this front-row seat into someone else’s life. You have seen Ray navigate hardship in childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, middle adulthood, and now later adulthood. You have seen him find a sense of joy and meaning.
Through Ray’s case, you can refine your application of human development theories in the context of an aging client who has lived a full life. For this Discussion, you do just that, selecting a theory and examining how it illuminates Ray’s life.
To Prepare:
By 02/02/2021
Post your application of a theory of human development to Ray’s life. How does the theory deepen your understanding of Ray’s experience? How might this application of theory assist you as a social worker engaging with Ray? Finally, what does Ray’s example tell you about the human spirit, resiliency, and the capacity to evolve?
Bottom of Form
Required Readings
Document: Life Span Interview (PDF)
Required Media
Meet Ray: Age 69 to 87
Time Estimate: 2 minutes
Transcript – Meet Ray: Age 69 to 87 [PDF]
Follow Rubric
Initial Posting: Content
14.85 (49.5%) – 16.5 (55%)
Initial posting thoroughly responds to all parts of the Discussion prompt. Posting demonstrates excellent understanding of the material presented in the Learning Resources, as well as ability to apply the material. Posting demonstrates exemplary critical thinking and reflection, as well as analysis of the weekly Learning Resources. Specific and relevant examples and evidence from at least two of the Learning Resources and other scholarly sources are used to substantiate the argument or viewpoint.
Follow-Up Response Postings: Content
6.75 (22.5%) – 7.5 (25%)
Student thoroughly addresses all parts of the response prompt. Student responds to at least two colleagues in a meaningful, respectful manner that promotes further inquiry and extends the conversation. Response presents original ideas not already discussed, asks stimulating questions, and further supports with evidence from assigned readings. Post is substantive in both length (75–100 words) and depth of ideas presented.
Readability of Postings
5.4 (18%) – 6 (20%)
Initial and response posts are clear and coherent. Few if any (less than 2) writing errors are made. Student writes with exemplary grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation to convey their message.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
|