Menu

[Get Answer ]-Writing Need Help Please 211

Question Description

Week Three CaseStudies

Choose three case studies from the following chapters; Chapter Seven(pp. 190-191), Chapter Eight (pp. 210-211), Chapter Nine (pp. 238-240), andChapter Ten (pp. 266-267). No two case studies can come from thesame chapter. Answer the “Questions for Discussion” of the case studies youhave chosen. The answers to your discussion questions will help you write yourCase Study Analysis.

Writing the Case Study Analysis:

  1. Must be at least four double-spaced pages in length(exclusive of title and reference pages), and formatted according to APAstyle as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
  2. Must include a title page with the following:
    1. Title of paper
    2. Student’s name
    3. Course name and number
    4. Instructor’s name
    5. Date submitted
  3. Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has asuccinct thesis statement.
  4. Must address the case study question with criticalthought.
    1. Individual Case Study Review: Analyze each individual case study separately and useheadings for each of the articles
    2. Analysis Paragraph:Provide an analysis paragraph following the individual review of each ofthe case studies that addresses the concepts highlighted in your chosencase studies. (Be sure to relate your analysis to the case studydiscussion question.)
  5. Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.
  6. Must use at least two scholarly resources (at least oneof which can be found in the Ashford Online Library).
  7. Must document all sources in APA style, as outlined inthe Ashford Writing Center.
  8. Must include a separate reference page, formattedaccording to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate yourassignment. Actually this is the first case study

(p.191)Case Study #2 Seeing the World(and Subordinates) Through Rose-Colored Glasses

Sgt. Wilcox is a 10-year veteran, having worked mostly inthe fraud section of detectives. She is recently assigned to day shift patroldivision and assumes responsibilities for a team of mostly experienced andcapable officers. Wilcox believes in a participative management style andtherefore thinks that her officers should be involved in setting their workgoals and objectives and should participate in the performance evaluationprocess. Wilcox meets with her team and outlines her approach to performance evaluations.Believing that this should be a positive experience for all, she instructs herofficers to keep an individual log of their more notable achievements duringthe performance period. At the end of the rating period, Wilcox uses their topfive accomplishments as a basis for their annual evaluation. When the firstrating period is completed, Wilcox is pleased to find that her officersreceived some of the highest performance ratings in the department. However,she recently learns from her lieutenant that other supervisors are voicingcriticisms of her evaluation methods. She is now confused about her evaluationmethod.

Questions forDiscussion

1.

What, if any,do you perceive to be the good aspects of Wilcox’s personal method ofevaluation?

2.

What problemsmight arise from Sgt. Wilcox’s rating system?

3.

What ratererrors are being committed, if any? What might be the basis for the peersupervisors’ criticisms?

(Case number 212), Case Study #2 AnAgency at the End of Its ROP

Hill City is a relatively small community of about 80,000people, whose police department has developed an aggressive Repeat OffenderProgram (ROP). Its eight hand-picked and specially 210211trained officersengage in forced entries into apartments and houses, serving search warrants onthe “worst of the worst” wanted felons. Their work is dangerous and physical,thus all of ROP’s officers are in top physical condition. The supervisoroverseeing the ROP team, Sgt. Lyle, was a drill instructor in the militaryprior to joining the force. He has developed an impressive training regimen forthe ROP officers. They usually work out on their own time at least once a week,have high esprit de corps, and pride themselves on never losing a suspect or aphysical confrontation. They often go out partying together to “blow offsteam.” They generally consider themselves to be elite and “head and shouldersabove the rest.” One day, while the team was attempting to serve a robberywarrant at a local motel, the suspect escaped through a rear window and ledthree ROP officers on a foot pursuit. After running extremely hard for aboutsix blocks, the officers became exhausted and were unable to maintain theirchase.

The following week, the same suspect robbed a fast-foodestablishment, and during his escape he killed a clerk and seriously wounded apolice officer. Irate because the ROP team failed to catch the suspect earlier,many Hill City patrol officers begin to criticize the ROP team—whose membersthey consider to be overly exalted prima donnas—with one officer stating to anewspaper reporter that the entire team should be disciplined and that ROPshould be disbanded. In one instance, a fight nearly ensued between twoofficers. The situation has now reached a boiling point, causing nearly all officersto take one side or another, fomenting a lot of stress and turmoil within thesmall agency, and causing officer requests for sick leave and vacation time tospike as never before. Sensing the urgency of the situation, and that hisagency is being torn apart both from within and without, the chief asks alladministrators (two deputy chiefs) and middle managers (four lieutenants) forinput to deal with the public and the press, reduce the internal strife, anddetermine if any procedural or training issues require the department’sattention. He further asks his six supervisors to provide input concerningmeans of reducing or ending the high level of hostility among patrol officers.

Top of Form

Questions forDiscussion

1.

Should Sgt.Lyle shoulder any responsibility for the suspect situation and its aftermath(dissension within the department)? What kinds of inquiries might you make todetermine whether or not this is the case?

2.

Given that thisseems to have become an agency-wide stress problem, what might the deputychiefs, lieutenants, and sergeants recommend to the chief?

3.

Should the ROPteam be disbanded or continued under different supervision, training, andmethods of operation

Case study number 3, p. 239), CaseStudy #1 Company’s Comin’

You and your partner, a senior deputy, are dispatched ona “found property” call. When you contact the reporting persons, they tell youthey have found what appears to be stolen property in the field behind theirfence. You find the following: a high-powered microscope, an HD television set,and a DVD player; obviously the burglar got scared away and left the items inthe field. You inventory the property and give a receipt to the reportingparty, who states they wish to claim the property if, after 30 days, therightful owner is not found. When you return to the patrol car, your partnertells you 238239he is expecting a “hoard” of people at his home this weekendfor the Super Bowl, and that he could really use the television set to “takethe load off” their living room. He adds that he is going to “borrow” it for afew days, take it home for the Super Bowl, and then return it on Monday to theproperty room.

Questions forDiscussion

1.

How would youhandle this situation? Would you discuss this matter with anyone? If so, withwhom?

2.

Is there anyway(s) in which this situation can be made worse? How?

(Case study number 4, p. 267). CaseStudy #1 Making Enemies Fast: The “Misunderstood” Disciplinarian

Sgt. Jerold Jones does not understand why his officers appealall of his disciplinary recommendations. He takes matters of disciplineseriously; it commonly takes him three to four weeks to investigate minormatters—three to four times longer than other supervisors. Jones believes thatby doing so, he shows great concern for his officers and, in fact, does noteven question the officers about their behavior until the investigation isnearly complete and he has interviewed everyone involved in the matter. Jonesdecides to speak to his officers about the matter. He is surprised when theytell him that they do not trust him. Indeed, they fail to understand why somuch time is needed for him to investigate the minor incidents. They believethat he is being secretive and is always looking for ways to find fault with theirperformance. Jones argues that his recommendations are consistent with those ofother sergeants and provides some examples of similar cases that were handledby various supervisors. Apparently unconvinced by Jones’s argument, the nextday an officer appeals one of Jones’s disciplinary recommendations concerning aminor traffic accident.

Questions forDiscussion

1.

Are theofficers’ allegations of Sgt. Jones’s unfairness valid?

2.

What requisitesof sound disciplinary policy may Jones not understand that may be leading tothe officers’ appeals?

3.

Under thecircumstances, should Jones simply ignore the officers’ complaints? Are theirperceptions that important?

Description:

Total Possible Score: 9.00

Introduction Paragraph, Thesis, and Conclusion

Total: 1.80

Distinguished- Paper is logically organized with a well-written introduction, thesisstatement, and conclusion.

Proficient- Paper is logically organized with an introduction, thesis statement, andconclusion. One of these requires improvement.

Basic- Paper is organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion.One or more of the introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion requireimprovement.

BelowExpectations – Paper is loosely organized with an introduction, thesis statement,and conclusion. The introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion requiremuch improvement.

Non-Performance- The introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion are either nonexistent orlack the components described in the assignment instructions.

Analysis: Case Study #1

Total: 1.80

Distinguished- Comprehensively analyzes all major concepts highlighted in the case studywith critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussionquestions and is supported with specific and relevant examples.

Proficient- Analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with criticalthought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and issupported with relevant examples. Minor details are missing.

Basic- Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with somecritical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussionquestions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details aremissing.

BelowExpectations – Attempts to analyze the major concepts highlighted in the casestudy; however, the analysis conveys little critical thought, is unrelated tothe case study discussion questions, and/or is missing significant details.

Non-Performance- The analysis of the case study is either nonexistent or lacks the componentsdescribed in the assignment instructions.

Analysis: Case Study #2

Total: 1.80

Distinguished- Comprehensively analyzes all major concepts highlighted in the case studywith critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussionquestions and is supported with specific and relevant details.

Proficient- Analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with criticalthought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and is supportedwith relevant examples. Minor details are missing.

Basic- Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with somecritical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussionquestions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details aremissing.

BelowExpectations – Attempts to analyze the major concepts highlighted in the casestudy; however, the analysis conveys little critical thought, is unrelated tothe discussion questions, and/or is missing significant details.

Non-Performance- The analysis of the case study is either nonexistent or lacks the componentsdescribed in the assignment instructions.

Analysis: Case Study #3

Total: 1.80

Distinguished- Comprehensively analyzes all major concepts highlighted in the case studywith critical thought. The analysis relates to the case study discussionquestions and is supported with specific and relevant details.

Proficient- Analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with criticalthought. The analysis relates to the case study discussion questions and issupported with relevant examples. Minor details are missing.

Basic- Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with somecritical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussionquestions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details aremissing.

BelowExpectations – Attempts to analyze the major concepts highlighted in the casestudy; however, the analysis conveys little critical thought, is unrelated tothe discussion questions, and/or is missing significant details.

Non-Performance- The analysis of the case study is either nonexistent or lacks the componentsdescribed in the assignment instructions.

Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues

Total: 0.23

Distinguished- Clearly and comprehensively explains in detail the issue to be considered,delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding.

Proficient- Clearly explains in detail the issue to be considered, delivering enoughrelevant information for an adequate understanding.

Basic- Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, delivering minimal informationfor a basic understanding.

BelowExpectations – Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, but may notdeliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.

Non-Performance- The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in theinstructions.

Integrative Learning: Connections toExperience

Total: 0.23

Distinguished- Creates meaningful correlations among experiences outside of the classroom todeepen understanding of field of study and to broaden own viewpoints.

Proficient- Compares life experiences and academic knowledge to distinguish differencesand similarities while acknowledging perspectives other than own.

Basic- Recognizes correlation between life experiences, academic texts, and ideasperceived as similar and related to own interests.

BelowExpectations – Briefly comments about connections between life experiences andacademic texts.

Non-Performance- The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in theinstructions.

Reading: Relationship to Text

Total: 0.22

Distinguished- Analyzes texts for scholarly significance and pertinence within and acrossthe various disciplines, assessing them according to their contributions andconsequences.

Proficient- Utilizes texts in the context of scholarship to expand a foundation ofdisciplinary knowledge and to raise and discover significant inquiries.

Basic- Employs texts with the intent and expectation of increasing knowledge.

BelowExpectations – Approaches texts only within the context of assignment.

Non-Performance- The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in theinstructions.

Written Communication: Context and Purpose forWriting

Total: 0.22

Distinguished- Demonstrates methodical application of organization and presentation ofcontent. The purpose of the writing is evident and easy to understand.Summaries, quotes, and/or paraphrases fit naturally into the sentences andparagraphs. Paper flows smoothly.

Proficient- Demonstrates sufficient application of organization and presentation ofcontent. The purpose of the writing is, for the most part, clear and easy tounderstand. There are some problems with the blending of summaries,paraphrases, and quotes. Paper flows somewhat smoothly.

Basic- Demonstrates a limited understanding of organization and presentation ofcontent in written work. The purpose of the writing is somewhat evident, butmay not be integrated throughout the assignment. There are many problems withthe blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper does not flowsmoothly in all sections.

BelowExpectations – Organization and presentation of content is extremely limited.The purpose of the writing is unclear. There is little or no blending ofsummaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper does not flow smoothly when read.

Non-Performance- The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in theinstructions.

Written Communication: Control of Syntax andMechanics

Total: 0.23

Distinguished- Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics,such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors, and is very easyto understand.

Proficient- Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such asspelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors, and ismostly easy to understand.

Basic- Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling andgrammar. Written work contains a few errors, which may slightly distract thereader.

BelowExpectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics,such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors, whichdistract the reader.

Non-Performance- The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in theinstructions.

APA Formatting

Total: 0.23

Distinguished- Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page,and reference page.

Proficient- Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a fewminor errors.

Basic- Exhibits basic knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layoutdoes not meet all APA requirements.

BelowExpectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There arefrequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.

Non-Performance- The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in theinstructions.

Page Requirement

Total: 0.22

Distinguished- The paper meets the specific page requirement stipulated in the assignmentdescription.

Proficient- The paper closely meets the page requirement stipulated in the assignmentdescription.

Basic- The paper meets over half of the page requirement stipulated in theassignment description.

BelowExpectations – A fraction of the page requirement is completed.

Non-Performance- The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in theinstructions.

Resource Requirement

Total: 0.22

Distinguished- Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compellingevidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and citedcorrectly within the body of the assignment.

Proficient- Uses required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources onthe reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of theassignment.

Basic- Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sourcesmay not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within thebody of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.

BelowExpectations – Uses inadequate number of sources that provide little or nosupport for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on thereference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations arenot formatted correctly.

Non-Performance- The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in theinstructions.

You need to answer all questions as it pertains tothe case, list references, I included the grading rubric you so can see how wewill be graded. This needs done just like you completed the first one. Must useat least two scholarly resources (at least one of which can be found in theAshford Online Library).I picked four case studies but you only have tochoose  three,  up to you which three. Any questions pleaseask. Thanks

HTML tutorial

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.