wordpress-seo domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/intelligentwr/nursingassignmentcrackers/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Resources<\/strong><\/p>\n Read\/review the following resources for this activity:<\/p>\n Chapters 1 \u2013 2 (Silke)<\/p>\n Section 1-4 (Borum) pp 1-21<\/p>\n Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism Report (SPT) (Hudson) Page 1-21<\/p>\n Activity Instructions<\/strong><\/p>\n This assignment is designed as an exercise in case conceptualization to develop your skill in reviewing and assessing an actual terrorist group. The task is to present a comprehensive formulation which integrates etiology, theory, and research, as they apply to a specific case (a terrorist group).<\/p>\n Choose one of the terrorist group provided in the following links or in the handouts for this activity, or obtain approval for a group not listed:<\/p>\n Terrorist Organization Profiles:<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.start.umd.edu\/start\/data_collections\/tops\/<\/a><\/p>\n Terrorists Lists (Groups):<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.nctc.gov\/site\/groups.html<\/a><\/p>\n In a written report explain the following\u00a0(use as headings in your paper)<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Briefly summarize the background of the including group demographics (e.g. year of founding, acts committed, number of members, etc.)<\/p>\n The\u00a0external or environmental factors<\/strong>\u00a0(social) that might be relevant in the etiology of the group\u2019s behavior.<\/p>\n The different\u00a0psychological concepts or perspectives in your readings or independent research<\/strong>\u00a0which might be applicable to this particular group and how they apply. You can choice one (or more) theory and apply it to the case (e.g. group or social psychology concepts and\/or research-\u201cthis group\u2019s behavior may be a result of strong social control and obedience aspect.). See readings or research for theory suggestions\u2014need to do\u00a0independent research as well as course materials).<\/strong><\/p>\n References are expected for this case paper, but watch use of web-page citations. Research articles and books as references will help you get more points. Wikipedia and like web sites are not acceptable references in an academic paper. One can use government web-sites(as given) for the background research on the groups\/persons (subject) of your profile\u2014but theory section references should be from\u00a0good peer-reviewed references such as an academic book or article.<\/strong><\/p>\n Remember these papers are to answer the question of \u201cWHY\u201d and \u201cHOW\u201d did this group\/person do what they did? What caused it? What were the critical psychological events or processes that laid the foundation for their acts.<\/p>\n What\u00a0preventative actions or intervention\/counterterrorism approaches<\/strong>\u00a0may have made a difference in this group case? Be sure to cite relevant literature if possible (hint: look at course texts).<\/p>\n To\u00a0complete<\/a>\u00a0this assignment, you will need to be concise in covering each of the above five items.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supported by at least three current, credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supported by at least three credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n Responds to some of the discussion question(s).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Post is cited with two credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains some APA formatting errors.<\/td>\n Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains only one or no credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Not written clearly or concisely.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Posts main post by day 3.<\/td>\n Does not post by day 3.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n Response is on topic and may have some depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are missing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.<\/td>\n Response is on topic and may have some depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Responses to faculty questions are missing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No credible sources are cited.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.<\/td>\n Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Case Analysis Description Resources Read\/review the following resources for this activity: Chapters 1 \u2013 2 (Silke) Section 1-4 (Borum) pp 1-21 Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism Report (SPT) (Hudson) Page 1-21 The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches Author(s): Jeff Victoroff Reviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":6}},"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Excellent<\/strong><\/td>\n Good<\/strong><\/td>\n Fair<\/strong><\/td>\n Poor<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n Main Posting<\/strong><\/td>\n 45\u00a0(45%)\u00a0– 50\u00a0(50%)<\/p>\n 40\u00a0(40%)\u00a0– 44\u00a0(44%)<\/p>\n 35\u00a0(35%)\u00a0– 39\u00a0(39%)<\/p>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 34\u00a0(34%)<\/p>\n \n Main Post: Timeliness<\/strong><\/td>\n 10\u00a0(10%)\u00a0– 10\u00a0(10%)<\/p>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/p>\n \n First Response<\/strong><\/td>\n 17\u00a0(17%)\u00a0– 18\u00a0(18%)<\/p>\n 15\u00a0(15%)\u00a0– 16\u00a0(16%)<\/p>\n 13\u00a0(13%)\u00a0– 14\u00a0(14%)<\/p>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 12\u00a0(12%)<\/p>\n \n Second Response<\/strong><\/td>\n 16\u00a0(16%)\u00a0– 17\u00a0(17%)<\/p>\n 14\u00a0(14%)\u00a0– 15\u00a0(15%)<\/p>\n 12\u00a0(12%)\u00a0– 13\u00a0(13%)<\/p>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 11\u00a0(11%)<\/p>\n \n Participation<\/strong><\/td>\n 5\u00a0(5%)\u00a0– 5\u00a0(5%)<\/p>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/td>\n 0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 0\u00a0(0%)<\/p>\n \n Total Points: 100<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n