PSY/605 PSY605 PSY 605 Week 1 – Discussion

PSY 605 Week 1 – Discussion

Week 1 – Discussion

Prior to completing this discussion, please read the required chapter from the Lerner, Easterbrooks, Mistry, & Weiner (2013) ebook, Baltes (1987), Hudson-Barr (2004), and American Psychological Association (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (2003) articles. Additionally, review the Human Development Theoretical Perspectives document required for this week.

Select one of the perspectives identified in the Theoretical Perspectives to Understand Human Development   document and identify one theory (Freud’s Psychosexual Theory, Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory, etc.) that you    would like to explore more.

Explain the theory you selected providing a well-developed overview. In addition, research one peer-reviewed article from your selected theoretical perspective in the Ashford University Library.  Summarize the article being sure to include research question(s) and/or problem(s), target population and sample (specific group within the target population), measures (tests, instruments, and/or questionnaires used), procedures (how the study was conducted), and conclusions presented in the article.  Analyze the ethical considerations, as well as the benefits and limitations of the research proposing solutions or suggestions for any issues or concerns.

Guided Response: Review several of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers including one response to a classmate in each of the other two groups by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion.

Prior to crafting your responses, critically review the theory and article selected. Did your classmate provide enough detail for you to understand the theory and appropriately identify the specified elements of the article selected? What elements might you suggest he or she consider that were not present in the initial post? Were there ethical concerns presented in the article your colleague studied that were not addressed in his or her post? Was your colleague’s description of the proposed changes clear and appropriate in terms of the information presented in his or her article? Propose at least one change that your colleague did not consider, and explain why it would be an improvement to the study. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) on Day 7 of the week and respond to anyone who replies to your initial post.