Assignment 2-1: Describe why you might use more than one framework, theory, or model in a Quality Improvement (QI)

Poetry Directions: After reading the poem The Bean Eaters, analyze it through

Poetry

Directions: After reading the poem The Bean Eaters, analyze it through the SOAPS method.

SOAPS is an acronym to remind you to ask yourself several questions about a poem to establish some background for understanding

S: SUBJECT OF THE POEM-What is the poem about?

O: OCCASION-What is the time and place of the poem and what might have prompted the poet to write it?

A: AUDIENCE-To whom is the poet writing?

P: Purpose-What is the poet’s purpose? Is it to express an emotion, or tell a story, or convince someone of something?

S: SPEAKER-What do you know about the speaker based on the poem?

Complete a SOAPS analysis for The Bean Eaters by Gwendolyn Brooks.

S:

O:

A:

P:

S:

Theory “cheat sheet” Theory Names to know (Theorists) How does development occur?

Assignment 2-1: Describe why you might use more than one framework, theory, or model in a Quality Improvement (QI) Writing Assignment Help Theory “cheat sheet”

Theory

Names to know (Theorists)

How does development occur?

Theory parts and pieces

Strengths/ Weaknessses

Psychoanalytic

Cognitive

Behavioral

Cognitive

Ethological

Ecological

Eclectic

You can put your cursor on any of the vertical lines an “slide” margins to the left and right.

The table boxes (“cells”) will word-wrap and so you don’t need to worry about those margins.

Consider using bullets or numbers to separate your ideas. If you do so, then it will be helpful to make sure it aligns to the left side of the cell.

Grimes, J.

2

Primary Source Worksheet: Analyzing Primary Sources Stephanie Fink De Backer © 2015

Primary Source Worksheet: Analyzing Primary Sources

Stephanie Fink De Backer © 2015

Part I: Getting the basic details in order

Your name:

Source name:

Who created the source and why? Pay attention to information such as: dates (birth/death, or period of activity); social status / occupation; marital status; places of residence that may be pertinent to this source.

What type of source is this? For instance: a letter, a treatise, a law code, a papal bull, a chronicle, etc.

Was the information recorded during the event or time in question, immediately after the event or time in question, or after some lapse of time? How large a lapse of time?

Did the recorder produce the source for personal use, for one or more individuals, or for a large audience? Was the source meant to be public or private?

Was it created through a spur-of-the-moment act, a routine transaction, or a thoughtful, deliberate process?

Was the recorder a neutral party, or did the creator have opinions or interests that might have influenced what was recorded? What clues lead to your answer?

Did the recorder wish to inform or persuade others? Did the recorder have reasons to be honest or dishonest? (Check the use of words in the source. The words may tell you whether the recorder was trying to be objective or persuasive.)

Part II: Identifying the significance of a source with regard to a larger issue.

In what specific historical context does your source “make sense”? What necessary contextual information makes it intelligible? What is going on at the time? Place? etc. Avoid sweeping generalizations—what are the most important issues closely associated with this source?

Identify a larger issue or theme (even if in broad terms) that you think your source addresses.

How does your source provide insight into the time and place (context) relevant to the issue you have identified?

Be precise!

What are the strengths of using your source to address this issue? Be specific!

What are the limitations of using your source to address this issue? Be specific!

What elements of your source are most relevant to the issue you have identified? Note THREE SPECIFIC examples and WHY they are significant.

Case Study: Healing and Autonomy Mike and Joanne are the parents of

Case Study: Healing and Autonomy

Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve.

The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God. Mike and Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis. Yet, Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes that James would be healed by then.

Two days later the family returned and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition had deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier. Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, James’s kidneys had deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter and was in need of a kidney transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them were tissue matches.

James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable, given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as of yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel.

Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real testing of his faith will come in? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death. What could require greater faith than that?”

© 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.