Choose a person with a published biography and compile an 8-10 page case study, incorporating the following elements: 1

Question

Choose a person with a published biography and compile an 8-10 page case study, incorporating the following elements:

1. A short summary of the biography focusing on the life outcome of the person and the relevant influences of that outcome. For example, if your selected subject was George Washington, the main foci of your summary could be on his being the first president of the United States, and the life events that ultimately shaped him into that person. (1-2 pages)

2. A summary of three different theoretical perspectives within psychology as they relate to the outcome and influences of this case study. Using the example of George Washington, you might elect to view this story through the lens of evolutionary psychology and you might draw conclusions about the role that ancestry played in his ascension to the presidency. (2-3 pages)

3. An explanation of how the relevant psychological principles, processes and concepts of behavior from each theoretical perspective explain the life outcome. This is a continuation of the last step. Here you would, for example, articulate how the relevant principles, processes, and concepts of behavior from evolutionary psychology explain the outcome of George Washington’s life. (1-2 pages)

4. Considerations of any research limitations, biases, or ethical problems that might be present in the biography. In our example of George Washington, you may want to focus on the possible biases of the author of a biography on this figure who occupies such a primary role in the history of a nation. You might address the “mythological” proportions such a figure has taken in the culture of the author of the biography and how that could impact the way that George Washington’s life was presented in the biography. (1-2 pages)

5. A conclusion summarizing key points, arguments, and limitations (1-2 pages)

?At least one source from a peer reviewed article

?At least one source from a scholarly website

?Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information for your project, and will not be credited.

?All resources should be cited following APA standards.

riteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary of biography

70 pts

Summary is thorough and draws clear connections between situations, events, and their influence on the life outcome

56 pts

Summary is complete, and events and many situations necessary to describe the life outcome are addressed

49 pts

Summary is cursory, and some events and only some situations necessary to describe the life outcome are addressed

0 pts

Summary is disjointed; details of events and situations necessary to describe the life outcome are absent

70 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary of theoretical perspectives

70 pts

Summary makes relevant connections from three theoretical perspectives and clearly integrates relevant elements of the biography

56 pts

Summary discusses three theoretical perspectives, and the purpose is clear

49 pts

Summary discusses some theoretical perspectives, but the purpose is unclear

0 pts

Summary provides cursory mention of theoretical perspectives, has no mention of the biography, and the purpose is unclear

70 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDetailed application of theoretical perspectives to life outcome

70 pts

Application includes multiple relevant key points from each theoretical perspective; arguments are compelling, clear, properly cited, and key points are clearly related to the biography

56 pts

Application includes at least three key points from each theoretical perspective; arguments are clear, and key points are related to the biography

49 pts

Application includes fewer than three key points from each theoretical perspective; arguments are somewhat scattered, and key points are vague in their relationship to the biography

0 pts

Application includes inaccurate characterization of key points from each theoretical perspective; arguments are poorly conceived, very few citations, and key points are absent

70 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCriticism of biases and ethical concerns

70 pts

Ethical concerns are discussed and analyzed, and possible biases on the part of the biographer are examined

56 pts

Ethical concerns are discussed and possible biases on the part of the biographer are addressed

49 pts

Ethical concerns are given cursory treatment

0 pts

Ethical concerns are absent or largely overlooked

70 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCriticism of research limitations

70 pts

Limitations are analyzed, conflicts among theoretical perspectives are examined, and problems with applying broad, general principles to a specific individual are thoroughly criticized

56 pts

Limitations are discussed, and some conflicts among theoretical perspectives and problems with applying broad principles to a specific individual are addressed

49 pts

Limitations are mentioned, but major conflicts among theoretical perspectives or problems with applying broad principles to a specific individual are only minimally addressed

0 pts

Limitations are largely misunderstood, absent, or overlooked

70 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion

70 pts

Conclusion clearly articulates the strongest arguments made in the explanation of the case study and outlines specific limitations

56 pts

Conclusion recognizes strongest arguments and limitations discussed in the explanation of the case study

49 pts

Conclusion lacks focus, some arguments and limitations addressed in the explanation of the case study are missing.

0 pts

Conclusion is poorly formulated, arguments and all limitations addressed in the explanation of the case study are ignored

70 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArticulation

40 pts

There are no detectable writing convention errors

32 pts

There are some writing convention errors, but they do not impede comprehension of the work

28 pts

There are multiple writing convention errors that somewhat limit comprehension of the work

0 pts

There are multiple writing convention errors that severely impede comprehension of the work

40 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA format and referencing

40 pts

A minimum of one source is a peer reviewed article from ProQuest PLUS A minimum of one additional source is a scholarly article from ProQuest AND All source citations follow APA formatting with no detectable errors

32 pts

A minimum of one source is a peer reviewed article from ProQuest PLUS A minimum of one additional source is a scholarly article from ProQuest AND The source citations may have some APA formatting errors

28 pts

A minimum of one source is a peer reviewed article from ProQuest PLUS A minimum of one additional source is a scholarly article from ProQuest AND The source citations may have multiple APA formatting errors

0 pts

Does NOT include: a minimum of one source is a peer reviewed article from ProQuest PLUS A minimum of one additional source is a scholarly article from ProQuest OR No attempt to cite sources is evident

40 pts