DHA/711 v8 Integrative Paper
DHA/711 v8 Integrative Paper Guidelines
The assignments in this course are designed around developing an integrative paper that takes students step-by-step through a scholar-practitioner-leader approach to problem-solving. During Weeks 2, 4, and 7, individual sections of the paper are completed, leading to the final paper, due at the end of Week 7. The final integrative paper must be 3,500 to 4,375 words, excluding the title page and references. The breakdown of the word count is shown below. Week Section Minimum Word Count Maximum Word Count 2 Part 1 (Breadth) 1,050 1,225 4 Part 2 (Depth) 1,050 1,225 7 Part 3 (Application) 1,050 1,225 7 Part 3 (Conclusion) 350 700 7 Final Paper (Integrative) 3,500 4,375 The final integrative paper will be an APA-formatted paper that includes the following sections (in the order shown): • Title page • Introduction • Breadth: Systems Theories and Conceptual Models • Depth: Contemporary Research in Complex Adaptive Systems and Innovation • Application: Opportunity for Improvement and Recommended Solutions • Conclusion • References When completed, the final integrative paper should logically flow and read as a single, cohesive discussion, not as a compilation of three parts. This requires a review and possible revision of previous parts with references back to earlier discussions as you advance to the application of the theories, conceptual models, and contemporary research in developing recommended solutions to the opportunity for improvement. Refer to the individual assignment content descriptions and grading rubrics in Weeks 2, 4, and 7 for more details. Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved. Assignment Content Upon completion of this first of three parts to your Integrative Paper, you will have laid the foundation of systems theories and models that you will apply to a problem or innovation opportunity at a health care organization of your choosing. Read the Integrative Paper Guidelines to prepare you for this set of three assignments during this course. Choose 2 topics from the list of systems theories and conceptual models below: o General systems theory o Chaos theory o Complexity theory o Learning organization theory o Systems model of change o Viable systems model Write a 1,050- to 1,225-word paper in which you do the following: o Describe each of the 2 selected theories/models including an overview and details in the form of key elements and relationships between the elements. Visual depictions are encouraged. o Compare and contrast the 2 selected theories/models. Consider the following: o What phenomenon or phenomena is the theory or model addressing? o How are the elements of each theory/model similar? How do they differ? o Where do the theories/models complement one another in explaining organizations as systems? o Explain what complex adaptive systems (CAS) thinking is and how the 2 theories/models inform or support CAS. A visual depiction of CAS is encouraged. Note: This paper will become the “Breadth” section of your final integrative paper.
| 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 | |||||