Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS

Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS

Sample Answer for Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS Included After Question

Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS

Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS, STAKEHOLDERS IN STANDARD SETTING, AND ENFORCEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION This SLP evaluates the role of public participation in the standard-review and standard-setting process. Answer the following questions in 3–4 pages and support your answers with the literature. 1. Identify all stakeholders and describe their perspectives. 2. Examine the level of participation of each stakeholder group. 3. Compare and contrast the effectiveness and impact of 2 of the stakeholders in the standard-setting process. Resources Relevant to the SLP Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2017). All workplace safety & health topics. Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). Safety and health topics: Alphabetical listings of topics. United States Department of Labor. Accessed at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/text_index.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Chemicals and toxic topics. Accessed at https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/chemicals-and-toxicstopics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Substance registry services. Accessed at https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/LandingPa ge.do Module 2 – Case EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND DATA COLLECTION Case Assignment After reading the required background materials for this module (including the PowerPoint presentations on Evaluation Frameworks and Evaluation Questions) and consulting the relevant peer-reviewed literature, please address the following questions in a four-page essay. Explain the key factors to consider in selecting an appropriate design for evaluation research. How would you explain the terms internal and external validity (University of Kansas, 2018)? In what ways would you ensure the validity of your evaluation research? Be sure to provide your rationale/justification for each of these questions. Assignment Expectations Length: Assignment should be between 3 to 4 pages (7501000 words) in length. Resources: Required Reading Click to view a PowerPoint presentation of some Evaluation Questions Key Concepts. Click the link for a PowerPoint presentation on some key concepts associated with Data Collection and Data Analysis. Peersman, G. (2014). Overview: Data Collection and Analysis Methods in Impact Evaluation. Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation 10. Accessed via https://www.unicefirc.org/publications/pdf/brief_10_data_collection_analysis_eng.pdf University of Kansas (2018). The community tool box. Operations in Evaluating Community Interventions. Chapter 37, Section 1 – Choosing Questions and planning the evaluation. Retrieved from https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-ofcontents/evaluate/evaluate-community-interventions/chooseevaluation-questions/main University of Kansas (2018). The community tool box. Operations in Evaluating Community Interventions. Chapter 37, Section 4 – Selecting an Appropriate Design for the evaluation. Retrieved from https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-ofcontents/evaluate/evaluate-community-interventions/experimentaldesign/main Module 2 – SLP EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND DATA COLLECTION Consult the background materials for this module and the relevant peer-reviewed literature. After doing so, address the following questions in a 3- to 4-page paper: 1. Present the evaluation questions you would pose and some data collection questions you would ask to answer those evaluation questions; then discuss the specific data collection methods you would use to answer these for the purposes of your hypothetical evaluation. 2. Summarize this information in a table, with the evaluation questions in one column, corresponding data collection questions in the next, and methods in the third. SLP Assignment Expectations Length: Assignment should be between 3 to 4 pages (7501000 words) in length. Resources: Required Reading Click to view a PowerPoint presentation of some Evaluation Questions Key Concepts. Click the link for a PowerPoint presentation on some key concepts associated with Data Collection and Data Analysis. Peersman, G. (2014). Overview: Data Collection and Analysis Methods in Impact Evaluation. Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation 10. Accessed via https://www.unicefirc.org/publications/pdf/brief_10_data_collection_analysis_eng.pdf University of Kansas (2018). The community tool box. Operations in Evaluating Community Interventions. Chapter 37, Section 1 – Choosing Questions and planning the evaluation. Retrieved from https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-ofcontents/evaluate/evaluate-community-interventions/chooseevaluation-questions/main University of Kansas (2018). The community tool box. Operations in Evaluating Community Interventions. Chapter 37, Section 4 – Selecting an Appropriate Design for the evaluation. Retrieved from https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-ofcontents/evaluate/evaluate-community-interventions/experimentaldesign/main

 

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS

Title: Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS

Module 2 - SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS
Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Module 2 – SLP CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS

A

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100