Group work GCH 535
Description
Title Page
Background (description of public health emergency including preparedness challenges)
Assessment of Public Health Response (positives and negatives of the public health response)
- Compare and Contrast Public Health Emergency (relate to similar emergency and compare)
Summary of Recovery Efforts (provide overview of disaster recovery efforts)
- Recommendations (suggestions to improve/mitigate against adverse effects of the public health emergency incident)
Reference List (scholarly references and governmental sources as appropriate)
GCH 535 Group Collaborative Project Case Study Assignment For this assignment, you will be assigned to a small workgroup (1 – 2 or 3 – 4 students) and tasked to select a significant public health emergency (natural disaster, emerging/re-emerging infectious disease incident, man-made disaster or terrorist-related incident) that occurred domestically in the United States, or internationally. The collaborative group project will involve a case study of the public health emergency. The group will conduct a case study analysis and develop a report. As a result of the group’s collaboration, you will submit a case study, which will be a written 5 to 7-page (double spaced) summary that provides a description of the incident, known preparedness challenges or concerns, and an assessment of the response and recovery efforts of the local government (state and/or local jurisdiction). The critique may also consider the response and recovery contributions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The report assessment must outline the positives and negatives to the response and propose recommendations for future response operations, to include preparedness efforts which could help mitigate against the adverse effects of the public health emergency incident. The narrative must also include a compare and contrast of the selected incident with a significant public health emergency that was similar in nature; but, was managed more appropriately. The case study paper should contain the following, and each item below must be reflected by an appropriately labeled section header with appropriate narrative content: 1. Title Page (include names of group members) 2. Background (description of public health emergency including preparedness challenges) 3. Assessment of Public Health Response (positives and negatives of the public health response) 4. Compare and Contrast Public Health Emergency (relate to similar emergency and compare) 5. Summary of Recovery Efforts (provide overview of disaster recovery efforts) 6. Recommendations (suggestions to improve/mitigate against adverse effects of the public health emergency incident) 7. Reference List (scholarly references and governmental sources as appropriate) For this assignment, use peer-reviewed, scholarly articles in addition to the resources provided in the modules, to support your paper (government documents and sources may also be used/considered). During Week 2, students will be assigned to a workgroup. At the end of Week 5, a selected group member will be required to submit the group’s case study topic. The group will be required to submit only one case study report, with the contributions of each member incorporated (in one voice) into the manuscript. The group will be required to select an individual group member to submit the final document. The document must include a reference list for all resources used in its preparation. This assignment will be due by the end of Week 10, on Sunday, by 11:59 p.m. (ET)
| 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 | |||||