DOCS 714 UP Week 7 Doctor of Health Administration Questions

  • Post category:Business
  • Reading time:8 mins read
  • Post author:

DOCS 714 UP Week 7 Doctor of Health Administration Questions

Description

 

 

Question 1:Based on the work that you completed in RES/709: Research Conceptualization and Design, review and revise your research method and design. Remember this is a fluid process and you should expect some suggestions for fine-tuning your method and design.

For the peer review:

  • State your program of study.
  • State your 1-sentence problem statement.
  • State your 1-sentence purpose statement.
  • Post your research methodology (proposed method and design).

Your faculty member and classmates will provide feedback in preparation for the Wk 7 – Prospectus: Research Methodology (Proposed Method and Design) and Research Questions assignment submission.

Question 2:Based on the work that you completed in RES/709: Research Conceptualization and Design, review and revise your research question(s). Remember this is a fluid process and you should expect some suggestions for fine-tuning your research question(s).

For the peer review:

  • State your program of study.
  • State your 1-sentence problem statement.
  • State your 1-sentence purpose statement.
  • Post your revised research methodology from Wk 7 Discussion 1 – Research Methodology (Proposed Method and Design).
  • Post your research question(s). If you are proposing a quantitative study, also post your hypotheses.

1. Program of Study 2. Doctor of Health Administration 3. Problem Statement The primary problem is that remote working inhibits social and group interactions, resulting in lower motivation levels through loneliness and isolation of employees. Remote working has suddenly become the new way of working in various sectors; therefore, there is plenty of literature on this issue. The primary purpose of this study on remote working is to address the impact of remote work on employee motivation. Motivation is instrumental in having high-producing workers working from home (Zamani et al., 2021). Past studies have shown that working from home increases the motivation of employees (Zamani et al., 2021). However, this might not be the case. Working from home offers workers the flexibility they need; they decide what time is best for them to work, increasing their production. However, when employees work from home, positive work experience is not visible; therefore, their motivation to work is affected. Remote working predisposes workers to unrealistic performance expectations and numerous online meetings; therefore, their motivation is significantly affected (Zamani et al., 2021). Additionally, the pressure to meet deadlines also results to stress among workers. On the other hand, it’s vital to note that a work-life conflict emerges due to remote working. Among female workers, it might not be easy to work due to domestic responsibilities. What we do not yet know about this phenomenon is how organizations will deal with this issue. This study explores how remote working inhibits social and group interactions, resulting in lower motivation levels through employees’ loneliness and isolation. Reference Zamani, N. F., Ghani, M. H., Radzi, S. F., Rahmat, N. H., Kadar, N. S., & Azram, A. A. (2021). A study of work-from-home motivation among employees. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 11(8), 388-398. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1.2021.118.388.398

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100