[Solved] Due 2/25

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

see attached

**files (5)**

– ## DiscussionCaseStudyAssignmentInstructions.docx

– ## DiscussionGradingRubric.pdf

– HerbertSimonIssandOughtsAfterSixtyYears.pdf
– Marini-UsesLiteratureExploration-1992.pdf
– ReadFischerpp.1325.pdf

**## DiscussionCaseStudyAssignmentInstructions.docx**

PADM 700

**Discussion: Case Study Assignment Instructions**

Students will take part in 4 Discussions in which you will conduct a case study of an observed study in a public administration context. The analysis will be based upon the concepts you learned and discussed in the previous module’s essay assignment, writing 450-500 words in the initial thread. For the case study, students are welcome to cite a scholarly source, but if they do, it must not be merely a theoretical/philosophical discussion. Instead, whatever source is used for the actual case study must focus on
_a real-world public administration situation that is being discussed and analyzed in the chosen articl_ e. Students will in turn apply concepts discussed in the previous Module: Week’s essay to analyze the situation, in addition to the required reading and presentations from the current Module: Week. Remember: it will be important to do both!

Then, students will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Reply comments must engage the case study observations made by classmates and must bring to light concepts from the required reading from the current Module: Week as well as additional reading. Thus, merely posting the same reply in 3 places is not sufficient and may be treated as a form of academic misconduct. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week in addition research from two scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.

**Thread:**

· 450-500 words

· Ideas and citations from
**_all_** the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week

· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources

· Case Study of a real public administration situation related to the concepts discussed in the prior week.

In this course, Discussions play an exceptionally important role. Consider these threads and replies to be formal communications on the same level as those you would conduct with employers, clients, or colleagues in the professional, political, or academic world. As such, they must be free of grammatical errors, must be properly formatted in current APA style, and must consist of well-reasoned, contemplative, and substantive posts and replies, rather than mere ipse dixit.

Page 1 of 2

**## DiscussionGradingRubric.pdf**

Criteria Ratings Points

Thread

Content

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

• Each question/prompt is
answered thoroughly and
logically. • Major points are
stated clearly and effectively.
• Clear, logical flow to post;
stayed on topic.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

• Each question/prompt is
answered. • Major points are
stated clearly and effectively for
the most part. • Clear, logical
and focused for the most part.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Not all facets
of the
prompt/questions
are answered.
• Lack of clarity,
coherence, logic
and focus in key
areas.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Thread

Research
Engagement

13 to >10.0 pts

Advanced

• Ideas from all the required
reading and presentations
from the Module: Week and 2
scholarly sources are
integrated. • Relates topic to
Scripture/biblical principles
where appropriate.

10 to >8.0 pts

Proficient

• Ideas from most the required
reading and presentations from
the Module: Week and 2
scholarly sources are
integrated. • Scripture/biblical
principles are included but
unfocused at times.

8 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Ideas from few
of the required
reading and
presentations
from the Module:
Week and 2
scholarly sources
are integrated.
• Missing Biblical
integration.

0 pts

Not
Present

13 pts

Reply

Content

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads. • Moves
the conversation forward with
new ideas, research, and
analysis. • Student’s response
delivered in a thorough,
thoughtful, and analytical
manner with the student’s
position clearly evident.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

• At least 2 unique interaction
posts with classmates • One
reply posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads. • New
ideas, research, and analysis
are not always included.
• Some commentary is
repetitive from one reply to the
next. • At times, reply posts do
not seem to actually build upon
classmate’s post.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Missing one or
more reply posts.
• Reply posts
are redundant.
• Little in the
way of new
ideas, research,
and analysis are
not always
included.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Discussion Grading Rubric

Criteria Ratings Points

Reply

Research
Engagement

10 to >8.0 pts

Advanced

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads.
• Relates topic to
Scripture/biblical principles
where appropriate.
• Contains abundant citations
from required reading,
presentations, and 2 scholarly
sources.

8 to >6.0 pts

Proficient

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2 classmates’
threads. • Scripture/biblical
principles are included but
unfocused at times. • Contains
some citations from reading,
presentations, and scholarly
sources.

6 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Missing one or
more reply posts.
• Missing Biblical
integration.
• Limited
citations from the
required reading
and
presentations.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Grammar,
Spelling, &
APA

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

Minimal to no errors in
grammar, spelling, or APA.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

Some errors in grammar,
spelling, or APA.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Numerous errors
in grammar,
spelling, or APA.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Word Count 7 to >5.0 pts

Advanced

Appropriate word count:
450-500 words for thread;
200–250 words per reply.

5 to >3.0 pts

Proficient

100 words more or less than
the required length.

3 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Over 100 words
more or less than
the required
length.

0 pts

Not
Present

7 pts

Total Points: 75

Discussion Grading Rubric

**HerbertSimonIssandOughtsAfterSixtyYears.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/herbertsimonissandoughtsaftersixtyyears-pdf-10504545)

**Marini-UsesLiteratureExploration-1992.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/marini-usesliteratureexploration-1992-pdf-10504541)

**ReadFischerpp.1325.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/readfischerpp-1325-pdf)

**ReadFischerpp.1325.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/readfischerpp-1325-pdf)

**## DiscussionCaseStudyAssignmentInstructions.docx**

PADM 700

**Discussion: Case Study Assignment Instructions**

Students will take part in 4 Discussions in which you will conduct a case study of an observed study in a public administration context. The analysis will be based upon the concepts you learned and discussed in the previous module’s essay assignment, writing 450-500 words in the initial thread. For the case study, students are welcome to cite a scholarly source, but if they do, it must not be merely a theoretical/philosophical discussion. Instead, whatever source is used for the actual case study must focus on
_a real-world public administration situation that is being discussed and analyzed in the chosen articl_ e. Students will in turn apply concepts discussed in the previous Module: Week’s essay to analyze the situation, in addition to the required reading and presentations from the current Module: Week. Remember: it will be important to do both!

Then, students will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Reply comments must engage the case study observations made by classmates and must bring to light concepts from the required reading from the current Module: Week as well as additional reading. Thus, merely posting the same reply in 3 places is not sufficient and may be treated as a form of academic misconduct. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week in addition research from two scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.

**Thread:**

· 450-500 words

· Ideas and citations from
**_all_** the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week

· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources

· Case Study of a real public administration situation related to the concepts discussed in the prior week.

In this course, Discussions play an exceptionally important role. Consider these threads and replies to be formal communications on the same level as those you would conduct with employers, clients, or colleagues in the professional, political, or academic world. As such, they must be free of grammatical errors, must be properly formatted in current APA style, and must consist of well-reasoned, contemplative, and substantive posts and replies, rather than mere ipse dixit.

Page 1 of 2

**## DiscussionGradingRubric.pdf**

Criteria Ratings Points

Thread

Content

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

• Each question/prompt is
answered thoroughly and
logically. • Major points are
stated clearly and effectively.
• Clear, logical flow to post;
stayed on topic.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

• Each question/prompt is
answered. • Major points are
stated clearly and effectively for
the most part. • Clear, logical
and focused for the most part.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Not all facets
of the
prompt/questions
are answered.
• Lack of clarity,
coherence, logic
and focus in key
areas.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Thread

Research
Engagement

13 to >10.0 pts

Advanced

• Ideas from all the required
reading and presentations
from the Module: Week and 2
scholarly sources are
integrated. • Relates topic to
Scripture/biblical principles
where appropriate.

10 to >8.0 pts

Proficient

• Ideas from most the required
reading and presentations from
the Module: Week and 2
scholarly sources are
integrated. • Scripture/biblical
principles are included but
unfocused at times.

8 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Ideas from few
of the required
reading and
presentations
from the Module:
Week and 2
scholarly sources
are integrated.
• Missing Biblical
integration.

0 pts

Not
Present

13 pts

Reply

Content

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads. • Moves
the conversation forward with
new ideas, research, and
analysis. • Student’s response
delivered in a thorough,
thoughtful, and analytical
manner with the student’s
position clearly evident.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

• At least 2 unique interaction
posts with classmates • One
reply posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads. • New
ideas, research, and analysis
are not always included.
• Some commentary is
repetitive from one reply to the
next. • At times, reply posts do
not seem to actually build upon
classmate’s post.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Missing one or
more reply posts.
• Reply posts
are redundant.
• Little in the
way of new
ideas, research,
and analysis are
not always
included.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Discussion Grading Rubric

Criteria Ratings Points

Reply

Research
Engagement

10 to >8.0 pts

Advanced

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads.
• Relates topic to
Scripture/biblical principles
where appropriate.
• Contains abundant citations
from required reading,
presentations, and 2 scholarly
sources.

8 to >6.0 pts

Proficient

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2 classmates’
threads. • Scripture/biblical
principles are included but
unfocused at times. • Contains
some citations from reading,
presentations, and scholarly
sources.

6 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Missing one or
more reply posts.
• Missing Biblical
integration.
• Limited
citations from the
required reading
and
presentations.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Grammar,
Spelling, &
APA

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

Minimal to no errors in
grammar, spelling, or APA.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

Some errors in grammar,
spelling, or APA.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Numerous errors
in grammar,
spelling, or APA.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Word Count 7 to >5.0 pts

Advanced

Appropriate word count:
450-500 words for thread;
200–250 words per reply.

5 to >3.0 pts

Proficient

100 words more or less than
the required length.

3 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Over 100 words
more or less than
the required
length.

0 pts

Not
Present

7 pts

Total Points: 75

Discussion Grading Rubric

**HerbertSimonIssandOughtsAfterSixtyYears.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/herbertsimonissandoughtsaftersixtyyears-pdf-10504545)

**Marini-UsesLiteratureExploration-1992.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/marini-usesliteratureexploration-1992-pdf-10504541)

**ReadFischerpp.1325.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/readfischerpp-1325-pdf)

**## DiscussionCaseStudyAssignmentInstructions.docx**

PADM 700

**Discussion: Case Study Assignment Instructions**

Students will take part in 4 Discussions in which you will conduct a case study of an observed study in a public administration context. The analysis will be based upon the concepts you learned and discussed in the previous module’s essay assignment, writing 450-500 words in the initial thread. For the case study, students are welcome to cite a scholarly source, but if they do, it must not be merely a theoretical/philosophical discussion. Instead, whatever source is used for the actual case study must focus on
_a real-world public administration situation that is being discussed and analyzed in the chosen articl_ e. Students will in turn apply concepts discussed in the previous Module: Week’s essay to analyze the situation, in addition to the required reading and presentations from the current Module: Week. Remember: it will be important to do both!

Then, students will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Reply comments must engage the case study observations made by classmates and must bring to light concepts from the required reading from the current Module: Week as well as additional reading. Thus, merely posting the same reply in 3 places is not sufficient and may be treated as a form of academic misconduct. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week in addition research from two scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.

**Thread:**

· 450-500 words

· Ideas and citations from
**_all_** the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week

· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources

· Case Study of a real public administration situation related to the concepts discussed in the prior week.

In this course, Discussions play an exceptionally important role. Consider these threads and replies to be formal communications on the same level as those you would conduct with employers, clients, or colleagues in the professional, political, or academic world. As such, they must be free of grammatical errors, must be properly formatted in current APA style, and must consist of well-reasoned, contemplative, and substantive posts and replies, rather than mere ipse dixit.

Page 1 of 2

**## DiscussionGradingRubric.pdf**

Criteria Ratings Points

Thread

Content

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

• Each question/prompt is
answered thoroughly and
logically. • Major points are
stated clearly and effectively.
• Clear, logical flow to post;
stayed on topic.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

• Each question/prompt is
answered. • Major points are
stated clearly and effectively for
the most part. • Clear, logical
and focused for the most part.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Not all facets
of the
prompt/questions
are answered.
• Lack of clarity,
coherence, logic
and focus in key
areas.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Thread

Research
Engagement

13 to >10.0 pts

Advanced

• Ideas from all the required
reading and presentations
from the Module: Week and 2
scholarly sources are
integrated. • Relates topic to
Scripture/biblical principles
where appropriate.

10 to >8.0 pts

Proficient

• Ideas from most the required
reading and presentations from
the Module: Week and 2
scholarly sources are
integrated. • Scripture/biblical
principles are included but
unfocused at times.

8 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Ideas from few
of the required
reading and
presentations
from the Module:
Week and 2
scholarly sources
are integrated.
• Missing Biblical
integration.

0 pts

Not
Present

13 pts

Reply

Content

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads. • Moves
the conversation forward with
new ideas, research, and
analysis. • Student’s response
delivered in a thorough,
thoughtful, and analytical
manner with the student’s
position clearly evident.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

• At least 2 unique interaction
posts with classmates • One
reply posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads. • New
ideas, research, and analysis
are not always included.
• Some commentary is
repetitive from one reply to the
next. • At times, reply posts do
not seem to actually build upon
classmate’s post.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Missing one or
more reply posts.
• Reply posts
are redundant.
• Little in the
way of new
ideas, research,
and analysis are
not always
included.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Discussion Grading Rubric

Criteria Ratings Points

Reply

Research
Engagement

10 to >8.0 pts

Advanced

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads.
• Relates topic to
Scripture/biblical principles
where appropriate.
• Contains abundant citations
from required reading,
presentations, and 2 scholarly
sources.

8 to >6.0 pts

Proficient

• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates • One reply
posted to each of 2 classmates’
threads. • Scripture/biblical
principles are included but
unfocused at times. • Contains
some citations from reading,
presentations, and scholarly
sources.

6 to >0.0 pts

Developing

• Missing one or
more reply posts.
• Missing Biblical
integration.
• Limited
citations from the
required reading
and
presentations.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Grammar,
Spelling, &
APA

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

Minimal to no errors in
grammar, spelling, or APA.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

Some errors in grammar,
spelling, or APA.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Numerous errors
in grammar,
spelling, or APA.

0 pts

Not
Present

15 pts

Word Count 7 to >5.0 pts

Advanced

Appropriate word count:
450-500 words for thread;
200–250 words per reply.

5 to >3.0 pts

Proficient

100 words more or less than
the required length.

3 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Over 100 words
more or less than
the required
length.

0 pts

Not
Present

7 pts

Total Points: 75

Discussion Grading Rubric

**HerbertSimonIssandOughtsAfterSixtyYears.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/herbertsimonissandoughtsaftersixtyyears-pdf-10504545)

**Marini-UsesLiteratureExploration-1992.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/marini-usesliteratureexploration-1992-pdf-10504541)

**ReadFischerpp.1325.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/readfischerpp-1325-pdf)