PSY/605 PSY605 PSY 605 WEEK 1 DISCUSSION
- ashford university / PSY 605
- 02 May 2018
- Price: $7
- Other / Other
PSY 605 WEEK 1 DISCUSSION
Theory & Research |
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.