NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
Grand Canyon University NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review-Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Grand Canyon University NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Grand Canyon University NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
The introduction for the Grand Canyon University NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
How to Write the Body for NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management
Week 6 Assignment
Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
In Part A, you described the population and quality initiative related to your PICOT (Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Time to achieve the outcome) statement. In this assignment, you will formalize your PICOT and research process.
Use the GCU Library to perform a search for peer-reviewed research articles. Find five peer-reviewed primary source translational research articles.
In a paper of 1,250-1,500 words, synthesize the research into a literature review. The literature review should provide an overview for the reader that illustrates the research related to your particular PICOT. Include the following:
Introduction: Describe the clinical issue or problem you are addressing.
Methods: Describe the criteria you used in choosing your articles
Synthesize the Literature: Part A: Discuss the main components of each article (subjects, methods, key findings) and provide rationale for how this supports your PICOT; Part B: Compare and contrast the articles: Discuss limitations, controversies, and similarities/differences of the studies.
Areas of Further Study: Analyze the evidence presented in your articles to identify what is known, unknown, and requires further study.
You are required to cite five to 10 sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please 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. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Sample Answer for NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
The Coronavirus disease of 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic remains one of the most dreaded infectious diseases that the world ever witnessed. The condition led to diverse measures to control and stop its spread and adverse effects like mortality and severe disease. One of the initiative that the World Health Organization (WHO) in collaboration and cooperation with different stakeholders used was the development of a vaccine and offering shots to people to protect them against the condition. However, effective uptake of vaccines was hampered due to several reasons, key among them lack of awareness and information about these inoculations (Kaim et al., 2021). Health education about Covid-19 for the general population is essential in raising awareness and information on the up take of the vaccines to deal with the health issue.
Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires one to develop a PICOT question to tackle the identified health issue, in this case increased public health education to improve vaccinations against Covid-19. The PICOT question for the project is: Among the general population and individuals at risk of Covid-19 (P) will the use of health education about covid-19 vaccination plans (I) as compared to no intervention (C) lead to a 50% increased willingness to take covid-19 vaccine (O) within six months (T)? The purpose of this paper is to review articles selected for the EBP project on health education to increase up take of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population.
Search methods
The search of existing literature focused on getting peer-reviewed articles that support the PICOT question through known or relevant databases, use of related key terms like Covid-19 pandemic, use of health education for vaccine up take, and role of nurses. The literature review search focused on different databases that included PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and MEDLINE as well as Google Scholar. The paper also employed the key terms and words from the PICOT question to improve the search and limit the possible articles that addressed the issue of public health education related to increasing up take of Covid-19 jabs in the general population. The strategy also entailed a keen focus on using systematic reviews and meta-analyses as highest levels of evidence. The search also narrowed down to articles produced in English without any translation. The key words aligned the search to the PICOT question. The other aspects of the search were to filter the articles using the CRAAP approach where articles were evaluated based on the currency, accuracy, authority, and purpose to the selected issue.
Synthesis of Literature Based on the Articles
The first article by Motta et al. (2020) discusses the need for effective health communication to encourage the public to take the Covid-19 vaccine. The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of educational messages in increasing the willingness to have Covid-19 vaccine. The study integrated 7064 individuals to determine if effective messaging from public health entities improved vaccine up take. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows the effectiveness of the proposed intervention, health education, to encourage and increase public’s up take of the Covid-19 jab.
The second article by James (2021) focuses on the effects of persuasive messaging in increasing up take of Covid-19 vaccines. The authors contend that low up take of vaccines will prolong the pandemic. However, a core aspect of convincing the public to take vaccines is through health education. The quantitative study used educational messages that it sent to individuals to improve their uptake vaccines. The authors are categorical that using persuasive messaging allows more people to focus on their responsibility to stop the spread of the condition. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows the efficacy of persuasive messages to the public as an intervention to improve vaccine taking by individuals.
The third article by Jensen et al. (2022) aims at evaluating the effectiveness of video-based messages to reduce vaccine hesitancy and use for the general population to prevent and reduce the rise in Covid-19 and associated severe effects. The authors use online experiment to demonstrate that willingness to get vaccinated is influenced by the kind of messaging that stakeholders. These messages increase confidence in Covod-19 vaccines and perceived behavioral approaches for vaccination. These messages altered the perception of the skeptical people who had no confidence in Covid-19 vaccines. Imperatively, the article supports the PICOT question by showing the effectiveness of messages to improve uptake of the developed vaccines to reduce the spread and severity of Covid-19 pandemic.
The fourth article by Piltch-Loeb et al. (2021) examines the effects of different communication and messaging channels in information dissemination to increase acceptance of the Covid-19 jab. The quantitative study used education as an intervention to improve confidence in the Covid-19 vaccines. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows that educational interventions are essential in improving acceptance and uptake of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population.
The fourth article by Li et al. (2022) discusses the effect of an education intervention on Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Using an education intervention that comprised a PowerPoint presentation, the study shows that having sufficient information through education is essential to dealing altering perception and improving uptake of vaccines in different populations like the American military. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows that health education is an integral part of improving acceptance of any intervention to tackle public health problems like infectious diseases.
The fifth article is by Miller et al. (2022) discusses the impact pf education, partisanship and biological literacy on understanding the Covid-19 disease. At the core of the study was the use of different approaches, including education to improve understanding of Covid-19 among the general population. The study supports the PICOT question based on the data that it provides to justify the role of health education for people to accept these vaccines and be willing to get shots to reduce its overall effects.
The sixth article by Piltch-Loeb et al. (2022) tests that effectiveness of attitudinal inoculation videos in improving acceptance of Covid-19 vaccine. Using different intervention groups, the article observes that vaccinated individuals do not accept misinformation. These findings support the PICOT question as they show the need to have effective education that expands and helps people make better choices, like taking vaccines.
The seventh article by Davis et al. (2019) explores the importance of accessing the right information to influence one’s taking of the vaccine. The quantitative study used 481 participants to assess the efficacy of education and information on Covid-19 to improve uptake of vaccines. The article supports the PICOT question for the EBP project as it shows that education and information are essential components of an effective public health system.
The eighth article addresses the role of vaccine campaign through an educational approach in shifting the willingness of persons to get vaccinated against the Covid-19 pandemic. Using a sample population of 2000 adults from Latin America, the authors show that the proposed intervention is essential in relaying messages to improve uptake of Covid-19 vaccine. Imperatively, the article supports the PICOT question as it illustrates that the use of education is important in having effective awareness and demystifying any negative perception on the role of vaccines.
Comparison of the Articles
The articles show differences and similarities in their themes and conclusions. They all demonstrate that use of education and information as ways of improving uptake of Covid-19 vaccines among the general population. The consistency of themes in these articles demonstrate that educational interventions through effective messaging can reduce the adverse effects of Covid-19 by allowing those affected or not to have vaccination. All the articles show limitations based on their settings and researchers’ overall aim of their research work. However, their conclusions are emphatic that using educational approaches improve confidence in the Covid-19 leading to the willingness for individuals to have their shots or jabs to prevent the spread of the disease. None of the articles discusses any controversy but explore the effects of Covid-19 information and awareness among different demographics in the country and the world at large.
Suggestions for Future Research
These articles provide existing evidence on the efficacy of having health education to improve uptake of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population. However, there is need for future research as intimated by a majority of the researchers. The identified gaps include demonstrating beyond doubt that the use of health education and how it can enhance uptake of Covid-19 vaccines among individuals in society. Future research needs to focus on interventions that can be implemented through technologies to improve confidence in the vaccines and overall efforts to deal with the pandemic. Education is essential in improving uptake of Covid-19 jabs since inoculated people do not depend on misinformation to accept or decline the vaccines.
Conclusion
The review of literature demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed intervention by the PICOT question. As such, this synthesis paper illustrates that the intervention is effective and should be embraced by all interested in getting vaccines. These articles emphasize the need for information and awareness to improve uptake and acceptance of the vaccines as developed by the World Health Organization.
References
Davis, C. J., Golding, M., & McKay, R. (2022). Efficacy information influences the intention to
take the COVID‐19 vaccine. British Journal of Health Psychology, 27(2), 300-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12546
Piltch-Loeb, R., Su, M., Hughes, B., Testa, M., Goldberg, B., Braddock, K., … & Savoia, E.
(2022). Testing the Efficacy of attitudinal inoculation videos to enhance COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: quasi-experimental intervention trial. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 8(6), e34615. https://doi.org/10.2196/34615
James, E. K., Bokemper, S. E., Gerber, A. S., Omer, S. B., & Huber, G. A. (2021). Persuasive
messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. Vaccine, 39(49), 7158-7165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.039
Jensen, U. T., Ayers, S., & Koskan, A. M. (2022). Video-based messages to reduce COVID-19
vaccine hesitancy and nudge vaccination intentions. PloS One, 17(4), e0265736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265
Kaim, A., Siman-Tov, M., Jaffe, E., & Adini, B. (2021). Effect of a concise educational program
on COVID-19 vaccination attitudes. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 767447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.767447
Li, P. C., Theis, S. R., Kelly, D., Ocampo, T., Berglund, A., Morgan, D., … & Burtson, K.
(2022). Impact of an education intervention on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Military Medicine, 187(Special Issue_13), e1516-e1522. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usab363
Miller, J. D., Ackerman, M. S., Laspra, B., Polino, C., & Huffaker, J. S. (2022). Public attitude
toward Covid‐19 vaccination: The influence of education, partisanship, biological literacy, and coronavirus understanding. The FASEB Journal, 36(7). https://doi.org/10.1096%2Ffj.202200730
Motta, M., Sylvester, S., Callaghan, T., & Lunz-Trujillo, K. (2021). Encouraging COVID-19
vaccine uptake through effective health communication. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 630133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.630133
Piltch-Loeb, R., Savoia, E., Goldberg, B., Hughes, B., Verhey, T., Kayyem, J., … & Testa, M.
(2021). Examining the effect of information channels on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Plos One, 16(5), e0251095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251095
Sample Answer 2 for NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
Diabetes is one of the health problems that have acted as a source of significant burden to the world’s population. Statistics reported by the Center for Disease Control has demonstrated that there are about 1.4 million people in America were diagnosed with diabetes in 2015. The population of people with diabetes during this period was reported to be 30.2 million, which represented 12.2% of all the adults in the US (CDC, 2017). It therefore proves necessary that effective interventions be embraced to reduce the prevalence and impacts of diabetes in the state. African-Americans in the US have been shown in research to be affected disproportionately by diabetes. This can be seen in the high rates of prevalence of type 2 diabetes among them and worsening of the progression of the disease. The high burden of disease among them can also be attributed to poor adherence to treatment by this population. Accordingly, there is low level of adherence to treatment in patients that are diagnosed with chronic conditions in most of the developed nations. The level of adherence is projected to be poor in the developing countries (Elsous et al., 2017). Often, low or poor adherence to diabetes treatment result in health outcomes that include worsening of the existing conditions, high rates of mortalities due to diabetes, increased hospital visits and stays, more spending on healthcare, and decline in the individual and social productivity (Alqarni et al., 2019). Interventions that improve the adherence to treatment in African-American patients with type 2 diabetes should be embraced. The use of health information technologies such as telemedicine and mHealth have been explored in research on their efficacy in improving adherence to treatment (Conway & Kelechi, 2017). Therefore, this research paper provides a review of literature on the possible benefits of using health information technologies to improve adherence to treatment in patients suffering from diabetes type 2.
Methods
Peer reviewed articles were used in this research. They were obtained from GCU Library. A search criterion was developed for use in the determining the suitable articles that support the PICOT question. The selection of the articles was based on whether they met the pre-developed inclusion and exclusion criteria. One of the aspects that were taken into consideration in the selection of the articles was the language used. The articles must have been written in English language. The other criteria were that the articles must have focused on the use of health information technologies in improving the management of type 2 diabetes. The third criterion was the year of publication of the articles. The articles must have been published with thin the last five years. The obtained articles that did not meet the above criteria were excluded for use in this review of literature.
Literature Synthesis
The research articles by Greenwood et al. (2017), Hashmi and Khan (2018), Xu et al. (2018), Yoshida et al. (2018), and Huang et al. (2019) were selected for this review of literature. The research by Greenwood et al. (2017) is a systematic review of the technologies used in promoting self-management and educational support by patients with diabetes. The methodology entailed a review of high quality research articles as well as meta-analyses on the use of technology for self-management and education in diabetes. The articles used in the review were published between 2013 and 2017. The results from 25 articles that were included in the review showed that health information technologies promoted a reduction in the level of A1c post-intervention. The reduction was attributed to improved communication, adherence, feedback, and education (Greenwood et al., 2017). This article supports my PICOT statement by demonstrating that the use of health information technologies can improve the outcomes of care in patients with type 2 diabetes. It shows that the technologies promote positive behavioral change in the patients, hence, better management of the condition. Despite the use of this article in my research, it is associated with weaknesses that include its failure to use human subjects to determine the effect of the intervention and use of studies that were prone to bias. However, since there is a shortage in the evidence on the intervention, the article informs the importance of technology in diabetes management.
The research article by Hashmi and Khan (2018) is an interventional study that investigated the use of mobile health in improving adherence to diabetic guidelines in Pakistan. The study used 62 medical officers and trainees who were placed to either intervention or control groups. their knowledge and adherence to guidelines of diabetes management were obtained at the beginning and end of the study to determine the effect of the intervention. The treatment group received regular SMS on the guidelines for five months. The outcomes showed that the use of m-Health technology resulted in significant improvement in knowledge, practice and adherence to guidelines among the participants. Therefore, the authors concluded that the improvement in adherence with the use of technology could also be replicated in patients with diabetes. This article supports my PICOT by showing the effectiveness of health information technologies in improving adherence to treatment in patients with diabetes. this article is associated with the strength that it used human subjects to determine the effect of the intervention. However, it has weaknesses that include the small sample used in the research and lack of direct focus on patients with diabetes.
The article by Xu et al. (2018) investigated the use of telemedicine in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. The researchers used veterans with the condition who resided in rural Georgia and Alabama. The methods utilized included retrospective review of patient charts with a focus on the level of hemoglobin A1c. The results from 32 patients who received telehealth care revealed that there was a decrease in the mean level of hemoglobin A1c and variability in glucose. There was also increased adherence among patients (88%) to scheduled appointments and 100% satisfaction with the use of telehealth. Therefore, the authors recommended the use of telehealth in improving adherence and other treatment outcomes in diabetes management. This article supports my PICOT statement by demonstrating the efficacy of health information technology in promoting adherence to treatment in patients with diabetes. It also shows that it improves other metrics of care such as satisfaction with care. This article is superior to the earlier articles due to its use of patients with diabetes. There is also a focus on other metrics of care besides level of Hb A1c. However, the small samples size makes its findings not generalizable to a larger population. Nevertheless, it is an important source of evidence on the efficacy of the intervention in adherence to diabetes treatment.
The research by Yoshida et al. (2018) is a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health information technologies in glycemic control in patients suffering from type 2 diabetes. The researchers searched for relevant articles from databases that included Medline, Cochrane Library and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Results from 34 studies that were included in the analysis showed that the use of health information technologies result in statistically as well as clinically reduced level of Hba1c. Mobile-based interventions were found to have the largest effect when compared to the other interventions. Therefore, this article supports my PICOT statement by showing that health information technologies can be utilized to achieve effective glycemic control in patients with diabetes. This article is associated with the strength that it used multiple studies on the topic. The findings can therefore be generalized to a larger population of patients with diabetes. However, it has weaknesses that include lack of use of human subjects and studies that were prone to biases.
The research by Huang et al. (2019) investigated the use of a Smartphone app to enhance the adherence to medication in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Asian region. The researchers randomized 51 patients with type 2 diabetes into control and treatment groups. The control group received normal care while the intervention group received usual care of the condition plus Medisafe app. The outcomes of the study showed that the average rate of medication adherence in the intervention group was higher than that of the control group. More than 80% of the participants in the intervention group also reported that the use of the app was easy and improved their level of adherence to medication. Therefore, this article supports my PICOT statement by demonstrating that the ease use of health information technologies can improve the level of adherence to medication by patients with type 2 diabetes. This article has the highest level of quality of evidence when compared to the above. This can be seen by the methods that were utilized and minimization of bias through randomization. Therefore, it can be utilized as a vital source of evidence in this research.
Areas of Further Study
A cumulative analysis of the above articles reveals that the use of health information technologies can improve the adherence to medication by patients with type 2 diabetes. However, there exist weaknesses that threaten the use of the evidence presented in them. They include the lack of utilization of human subjects, study bias, and small sample sizes that cannot be generalized to the larger population. The studies also did not use African-American patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, there is a need for a study that focuses on the use of health information technologies in these patients to bridge the gaps in evidence.
References
Alqarni, A. M., Alrahbeni, T., Al Qarni, A., & Al Qarni, H. M. (2019). Adherence to diabetes medication among diabetic patients in the Bisha governorate of saudi Arabia–a cross-sectional survey. Patient preference and adherence, 13, 63.
CDC. (2017). Diabetes 2017 Report Card. Retrieved on 23rd Jan. 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/library/diabetesreportcard2017-508.pdf
Conway, C. M., & Kelechi, T. J. (2017). Digital health for medication adherence in adult diabetes or hypertension: an integrative review. JMIR diabetes, 2(2), e20.
Elsous, A., Radwan, M., Al-Sharif, H., & Abu Mustafa, A. (2017). Medications adherence and associated factors among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Frontiers in endocrinology, 8, 100.
Greenwood, D. A., Gee, P. M., Fatkin, K. J., & Peeples, M. (2017). A systematic review of reviews evaluating technology-enabled diabetes self-management education and support. Journal of diabetes science and technology, 11(5), 1015-1027.
Hashmi, N. R., & Khan, S. A. (2018). Interventional study to improve diabetic guidelines adherence using mobile health (m-Health) technology in Lahore, Pakistan. BMJ open, 8(5), e020094.
Huang, Z., Tan, E., Lum, E., Sloot, P., Boehm, B. O., & Car, J. (2019). A Smartphone App to Improve Medication Adherence in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Asia: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(9), e14914.
Xu, T., Pujara, S., Sutton, S., & Rhee, M. (2018). Peer reviewed: Telemedicine in the management of type 1 diabetes. Preventing chronic disease, 15.
Yoshida, Y., Boren, S. A., Soares, J., Popescu, M., Nielson, S. D., & Simoes, E. J. (2018). Effect of health information technologies on glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Current diabetes reports, 18(12), 130.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS
Discussion Questions (DQ)
Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Weekly Participation
Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality
Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
LopesWrite Policy
For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
Late Policy
The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.