writing need help please

Nov 3rd, 2014
SKTFaker
Category:
Writing
Price: $30 USD

Question description

Week Three Case Studies

Choose three case studies from the following chapters; Chapter Seven (pp. 190-191), Chapter Eight (pp. 210-211), Chapter Nine (pp. 238-240), and Chapter Ten (pp. 266-267). No two case studies can come from the same chapter. Answer the “Questions for Discussion” of the case studies you have chosen. The answers to your discussion questions will help you write your Case 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 APA style 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 a succinct thesis statement.
  4. Must address the case study question with critical thought.
    1. Individual Case Study Review: Analyze each individual case study separately and use headings for each of the articles
    2. Analysis Paragraph: Provide an analysis paragraph following the individual review of each of the case studies that addresses the concepts highlighted in your chosen case studies. (Be sure to relate your analysis to the case study discussion question.)
  5. Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.
  6. Must use at least two scholarly resources (at least one of which can be found in the Ashford Online Library).
  7. Must document all sources in APA style, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
  8. Must include a separate reference page, formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.


Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment. 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 in the fraud section of detectives. She is recently assigned to day shift patrol division and assumes responsibilities for a team of mostly experienced and capable officers. Wilcox believes in a participative management style and therefore thinks that her officers should be involved in setting their work goals and objectives and should participate in the performance evaluation process. Wilcox meets with her team and outlines her approach to performance evaluations. Believing that this should be a positive experience for all, she instructs her officers to keep an individual log of their more notable achievements during the performance period. At the end of the rating period, Wilcox uses their top five accomplishments as a basis for their annual evaluation. When the first rating period is completed, Wilcox is pleased to find that her officers received some of the highest performance ratings in the department. However, she recently learns from her lieutenant that other supervisors are voicing criticisms of her evaluation methods. She is now confused about her evaluation method.

Questions for Discussion

1.

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

2.

What problems might arise from Sgt. Wilcox’s rating system?

3.

What rater errors are being committed, if any? What might be the basis for the peer supervisors’ criticisms?

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

Hill City is a relatively small community of about 80,000 people, whose police department has developed an aggressive Repeat Offender Program (ROP). Its eight hand-picked and specially 210211trained officers engage in forced entries into apartments and houses, serving search warrants on the “worst of the worst” wanted felons. Their work is dangerous and physical, thus all of ROP’s officers are in top physical condition. The supervisor overseeing the ROP team, Sgt. Lyle, was a drill instructor in the military prior to joining the force. He has developed an impressive training regimen for the 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 a physical confrontation. They often go out partying together to “blow off steam.” They generally consider themselves to be elite and “head and shoulders above the rest.” One day, while the team was attempting to serve a robbery warrant at a local motel, the suspect escaped through a rear window and led three ROP officers on a foot pursuit. After running extremely hard for about six blocks, the officers became exhausted and were unable to maintain their chase.

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

Top of Form

Questions for Discussion

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 to determine whether or not this is the case?

2.

Given that this seems to have become an agency-wide stress problem, what might the deputy chiefs, lieutenants, and sergeants recommend to the chief?

3.

Should the ROP team be disbanded or continued under different supervision, training, and methods of operation

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

You and your partner, a senior deputy, are dispatched on a “found property” call. When you contact the reporting persons, they tell you they have found what appears to be stolen property in the field behind their fence. 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 in the field. You inventory the property and give a receipt to the reporting party, who states they wish to claim the property if, after 30 days, the rightful owner is not found. When you return to the patrol car, your partner tells you 238239he is expecting a “hoard” of people at his home this weekend for the Super Bowl, and that he could really use the television set to “take the load off” their living room. He adds that he is going to “borrow” it for a few days, take it home for the Super Bowl, and then return it on Monday to the property room.

Questions for Discussion

1.

How would you handle this situation? Would you discuss this matter with anyone? If so, with whom?

2.

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

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

Sgt. Jerold Jones does not understand why his officers appeal all of his disciplinary recommendations. He takes matters of discipline seriously; it commonly takes him three to four weeks to investigate minor matters—three to four times longer than other supervisors. Jones believes that by doing so, he shows great concern for his officers and, in fact, does not even question the officers about their behavior until the investigation is nearly complete and he has interviewed everyone involved in the matter. Jones decides to speak to his officers about the matter. He is surprised when they tell him that they do not trust him. Indeed, they fail to understand why so much time is needed for him to investigate the minor incidents. They believe that he is being secretive and is always looking for ways to find fault with their performance. Jones argues that his recommendations are consistent with those of other sergeants and provides some examples of similar cases that were handled by various supervisors. Apparently unconvinced by Jones’s argument, the next day an officer appeals one of Jones’s disciplinary recommendations concerning a minor traffic accident.

Questions for Discussion

1.

Are the officers’ allegations of Sgt. Jones’s unfairness valid?

2.

What requisites of sound disciplinary policy may Jones not understand that may be leading to the officers’ appeals?

3.

Under the circumstances, should Jones simply ignore the officers’ complaints? Are their perceptions 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, thesis statement, and conclusion.

Proficient - Paper is logically organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. 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 require improvement.

Below Expectations - Paper is loosely organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. The introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion require much improvement.

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

Analysis: Case Study #1

Total: 1.80

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

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

Basic - Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with some critical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussion questions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details are missing.

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

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

Analysis: Case Study #2

Total: 1.80

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

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

Basic - Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with some critical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussion questions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details are missing.

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

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

Analysis: Case Study #3

Total: 1.80

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

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

Basic - Briefly analyzes the major concepts highlighted in the case study with some critical thought. The analysis is loosely related to the case study discussion questions and is somewhat supported with examples. Relevant details are missing.

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

Non-Performance - The analysis of the case study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described 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 enough relevant information for an adequate understanding.

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

Below Expectations - Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, but may not deliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.

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

Integrative Learning: Connections to Experience

Total: 0.23

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

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

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

Below Expectations - Briefly comments about connections between life experiences and academic texts.

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

Reading: Relationship to Text

Total: 0.22

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

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

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

Below Expectations - Approaches texts only within the context of assignment.

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

Written Communication: Context and Purpose for Writing

Total: 0.22

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

Proficient - Demonstrates sufficient application of organization and presentation of content. The purpose of the writing is, for the most part, clear and easy to understand. 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 of content in written work. The purpose of the writing is somewhat evident, but may not be integrated throughout the assignment. There are many problems with the blending of summaries, paraphrases, and quotes. Paper does not flow smoothly in all sections.

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

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

Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics

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 easy to understand.

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

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

Below Expectations - Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors, which distract the reader.

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

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 few minor errors.

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

Below Expectations - Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.

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

Page Requirement

Total: 0.22

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

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

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

Below Expectations - A fraction of the page requirement is completed.

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

Resource Requirement

Total: 0.22

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

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

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

Below Expectations - Uses inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.

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

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


Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Daniel C.
(997)
School: UCLA
PREMIUM TUTOR

Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students

7 Reviews


Summary
Quality
Communication
On Time
Value
kpcutie
Dec 1st, 2016
" Excellent job "
Hemapathy
Nov 17th, 2016
" all I can say is wow very fast work, great work thanks "
BlueOcean
Nov 4th, 2016
" Awesome! Exactly what I wanted. "
kevin12622
Oct 26th, 2016
" Goes above and beyond expectations ! "
ashleyisgod
Oct 12th, 2016
" Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back! "
likeplum4
Oct 3rd, 2016
" Excellent work as usual "
Molly_Moon
Sep 20th, 2016
" AMAZING as always! "
Ask your homework questions. Receive quality answers!

Type your question here (or upload an image)

1826 tutors are online

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors