the lifespan

Families are impacted by an innumerable number of influences across the lifespan, and we are only able to discuss a limited portion of these in CDFS 110. The purpose of these two short “special topics” papers is to give students exposure to these types of issues that impact the development of individuals and families during the various periods of development. For each short paper, students will read a popular press article about a family issue from the list provided by the instructor (see page 3 of this document). Students will then answer a series of questions about the article and how it relates to individual and family development at the specified point of the lifespan.

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

In your paper, answer all four of the questions in the order specified below. Each answer should be approximately 1 paragraph (about 1/2 page) in length. See the rubric on pages 4-5 of these instructions for more information about how each section of the paper will be graded.

1. Identify the key issues for individual or family development at this point of the lifespan that are described in this article? In other words, what is the main idea/are the main ideas of this article? Identify and explain these ideas in your own words. It’s best to focus on the main concepts that you will mention again later in your paper. You must cite the author(s) of the article in order to give them appropriate credit for their ideas (see the examples below).

2. Concerning this same key issue, what is important to know about it, according to Berk (2014) in the course textbook? Refer specifically to the content on the specified pages of the textbook in the table on page 3. Summarize this information in your own words, but make sure you are drawing the information from the textbook. This can be achieved by making statements such as “Berk (2014) states…” or by following the example citation format (see below).

3. Identify two points of connection between the article and in Berk (2014) about this key issue. In other words, how does the information in this article correspond to Berk’s (2014) presentation of this topic in the text? Does one expand upon/further extend or even contradict the ideas in the other source? How, or in what ways? Be as specific as possible when describing or explaining at least two substantive, relevant and meaningful connections. You must support your ideas with citations to the textbook and article (see below).

4. Please describe how families as a unit and how individuals within families are likely to be impacted by the issue or special topic discussed in this article. In other words, what are this issue’s potential benefits or costs to individual development, family functioning, etc.? Is each impact likely to be positive or negative? Immediate or delayed? Be specific and explain your answers, providing at least two conclusions (i.e., at least one for families and one for individuals within families). You must support your ideas with citations to Berk (2014) and the article (see below). Do not discuss how individuals and families could be impacted by reading the article itself. Do not discuss your personal opinion or experiences in your answer.

FORMATTING & SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Citations. Citations are used to “give credit” to the source of an idea. When citing the special topics article or the text, cite the author(s) and publication date in parentheses, for example (Berk, 2014) or (Champagne & Mashoodh, 2009). The citation should be placed at the end of the relevant sentence. The reader must be able to identify which idea goes with which source; this is not possible if the two citations only are used together at the end of a paragraph.

Direct quotes may not be used under any circumstances in any of your answers. If you use direct quotes, you will receive the lowest possible score for that section (see the grading rubric). If any direct quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks, then in addition to this penalty you will also be reported to the Office of Student Conduct for plagiarism. Adding a citation to a direct quote of any length is still plagiarism if that direct quote is not enclosed in quotation marks.

Use past tense when discussing ideas from the article and text.

Do not write about your personal opinion. Do not make I-statements.

Do not use a cover sheet: Type your name and the article number in the upper left corner of the first page.

Do not retype the article’s title or the assignment questions in your paper: Start each indented paragraph with the number to signify which paragraph corresponds to each question. Including the title or questions artificially inflates the TurnItIn commonality score.

All Special Topics papers must be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font, have 1.5 line spacing and 1” margins on all sides. The maximum paper length is 3 pages. If you deviate from the formatting instructions your paper will be returned to you with no grade and your resubmission with correct formatting will be subject to the late submission penalty (see below).

All papers must be submitted electronically to TurnItIn via eCampus. Paper or emailed copies of the papers will not be accepted for any reason. You will receive your score and feedback through eCampus.

PAPER DEADLINES

Note that each developmental period has a separate due date. Submit your paper to TurnItIn on eCampus by 11:59 P.M. on the date it is due. Any submissions after 11:59 P.M. are considered late. The late submission penalty is a deduction of 2.5 points per day that the paper is late, capped at a maximum of 10 points. Weekends and holidays count for late submission penalties. Papers will not be accepted more than two weeks following the initial due date. As indicated in the course syllabus, absolutely no papers will be accepted after FINAL CUTOFF date for any reason.

EXTRA CREDIT

You may earn up to a total of 5 points of extra credit for selecting your articles by Sunday, September 9th provided that you do not change your selections after that deadline . Review the options below, and submit your preferences on eCampus (see the link in the “Special Topics Papers” folder).

SELECTING & LOCATING ARTICLES

Students must select a total of two articles from the list below, and these two must be from separate developmental periods. DO NOT CHOOSE TWO ARTICLES FROM THE SAME DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD; only one paper will be graded for any and all students who submit two papers for the same developmental period/deadline.

The articles are available electronically through the course’s eReserve. To login to the eReserve, open a web browser and go to https://reserves.lib.wvu.edu/. Please contact the library for assistance (https://reserves.lib.wvu.edu/contactus) if you are unable to login to the eReserve.

ARTICLES & DEADLINES

Article/ Topic/Deadline	Citation	REVEL Location
Infancy/Toddlerhood
Article 1	Barron, C. (2015, May 15). How technical devices influence children’s brains: Dangers, delights, 5 do’s and 5 don’ts. Psychology Today.	Under REVEL section “What’s Ahead in Chapter 5” click on SOCIAL ISSUES: EDUCATION Baby Learning from TV and Video: The Video Deficit Effect.
Article 2	Belluck, P. (2014, June 16). After Baby, an Unraveling. A case study in maternal mental illness. The New York Times.	Under REVEL section “What’s Ahead in Chapter 6” click on BIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Parental Depression and Child Development.
Early/Middle Childhood –
Article 3	Smith, B. L. (2012, April). The Case Against Spanking: Physical discipline is slowly declining as some studies reveal lasting harms for children, Monitor on Psychology.	Under REVEL section “What’s Ahead in Chapter 8” click on Child Rearing and Emotional and Social Development.
Article 4	Samuelson, K. (2016, August 20). What life is like for the children of war-torn Aleppo. Time.	Under REVEL section “What’s Ahead in Chapter 10” click on CULTURAL INFLUENCES Impact ethnic and political violence on children.
Adolescence/Emerging Adulthood –
Article 5	Paul, A. M. (2013, May). You’ll never learn! Slate.	Under REVEL section “What’s Ahead in Chapter 11” click on SOCIAL ISSUES: EDUCATION Media Multitasking Disrupts Learning.
Article 6	Senior, J. (2010, July 12). All joy and no fun: Why parents hate parenting. New York Magazine.	Under REVEL section “What’s Ahead in Chapter 14” click on Parenthood.
Midlife/Late Adulthood –
Article 7	Scommegna, P. (2012). More U.S. children raised by grandparents. Population Reference Bureau.	Under REVEL section “What’s Ahead in Chapter 16” click on SOCIAL ISSUES: HEALTH Grandparents Rearing Grandchildren: The Skipped-Generation Family.
Article 8	Chamberlin, J. (2014). Retiring minds want to know. APA Monitor, 45. 61	Under REVEL section “What’s Ahead in Chapter 18” click on Retirement

GRADING RUBRIC

Question 1: Identification of the key developmental issue (5 points)

5 points Superior. Student accurately identified the article’s key developmental issue and described it in a superior fashion. All points are clear and all statements are fully relevant. The article is cited according to instructions. No direct quotes were included.

4 points Satisfactory. Student accurately identified the article’s key developmental issue and described it in a satisfactory fashion. The points referenced were mostly clear, accurate and relevant; however, it may include1-2 somewhat vague, irrelevant, or inaccurate points. The article is cited according to instructions. No direct quotes were included.

3 points Unsatisfactory. Student did not explicitly identify the article’s key developmental issue, or they inaccurately identified the article’s key developmental issue. They may have described it inaccurately, incompletely, or in an otherwise unsatisfactory fashion. Three or more points are vague or irrelevant. The article is not cited according to instructions (i.e., the citation was omitted or does not follow the provided instructions). Direct quotes were used in this section of the paper.

0 points Omitted. No response to Question 1 was included in the paper.

Question 2: Summary of the issue as presented in the text (5 points)

5 points Superior. Student summarized the information about the key developmental issue provided in the text in a superior fashion. All points were clear and all statements were fully relevant. Berk (2014) is cited according to instructions. No direct quotes were included.

4 points Satisfactory. Student summarized the information about the developmental issue provided in the text in a satisfactory fashion. The points referenced were mostly clear, accurate and relevant; however, it may include 1-2 somewhat vague, irrelevant, or inaccurate points. Berk (2014) is cited according to instructions. No direct quotes were included.

3 points Unsatisfactory. Student summarized the information about the developmental issue provided in the text in an unsatisfactory fashion. They may have summarized an incorrect portion of Berk (2014); or the summary was inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise unsatisfactory in nature. Three or more points were vague or irrelevant. Berk (2014) is not cited, or the citation format does not follow the provided instructions. Direct quotes were used in this section of the paper.

0 points Omitted. No response to Question 2 was included in the paper.

Question 3: Connections between the article and Berk (2014) (15 points)

15 points Superior. Student connected the information conveyed in the article to the text in a superior fashion, referring to at least two clear examples of how this article contained confirmatory and/or contradictory information. This response provided strong evidence of synthesis across the two sources. The explanation was fully clear and all points raised were relevant and substantive. Citations were used in a superior fashion; the source of each idea is cited clearly and the citation formatting is consistent with provided instructions. No direct quotes were included.

12 points Satisfactory. Student connected the information conveyed in the article to the text in a satisfactory fashion, referring to two examples of how this article contained confirmatory and/or contradictory information. One example was stronger than the other. This response provided evidence of satisfactory synthesis across the two sources. The explanation was mostly clear and most points raised were relevant and substantive; however, there may be 1-2 minor points that are vague or irrelevant. Both the article and the text were cited in a satisfactory fashion. Citations were used in a satisfactory fashion; the source of each idea is cited, though the placement of one citation may be confusing or imprecise. The citation formatting is consistent with provided instructions. No direct quotes were included.

9 points Unsatisfactory. Student connected the information conveyed in the article to the course and/or text in an unsatisfactory fashion. At least one example of confirmatory and/or contradictory information was described clearly; one or more additional examples were provided but were discussed in a confusing or contradictory manner. The explanation may have been unclear or vague in three or more points, or the examples were irrelevant or lacking in substance. This response provided evidence of partial synthesis across the two sources. Citations were used in an unsatisfactory fashion (e.g., both citations were included but were not linked to specific ideas; citations to one source were omitted entirely [i.e., either Berk (2014) or the article were not cited]; both sources were included but the citation format deviated from the provided instructions). No direct quotes were included.

6 points Poor. Student connected the information conveyed in the article to the course and/or text in a poor fashion. They highlighted one or more examples of how the article contained confirmatory and/or contradictory information; all examples were discussed in a confusing and contradictory manner. The explanation may have been unclear or vague in three or more points, or the examples were irrelevant or lacking in substance. This response provided evidence of limited synthesis across the two sources, or may have been incomplete. Citations were used in a poor fashion (e.g., no citations were used; citations to one source were omitted entirely [i.e., either Berk (2014) or the article were not cited]; both sources were included but the citation format deviated from the provided instructions; one or more citations were included but were not linked to specific ideas). Cited or uncited direct quotes (i.e., plagiarism) were used in this section of the paper.

0 points Omitted. No response to Question 3 was included in the paper.

Question 4: Impact on individuals/families (15 points)

15 points Superior. Student discussed at least two ways in which individuals and families could be impacted by the developmental issue. This response provided strong evidence of superior synthesis across the two sources. All questions raised in the instructions were addressed with detailed explanations and explicit support from the text and article. The response was fully clear and all points raised were relevant and substantive. Citations were used in a superior fashion; the source of each idea is cited clearly and the citation formatting is consistent with provided instructions. No direct quotes were included.

12 points Satisfactory. Student discussed at least two ways in which individuals and families could be impacted by the developmental issue. This response provided evidence of satisfactory synthesis across the two sources. Most of the questions raised in the instructions were addressed, with 1-2 minor points in the explanation lacking in terms of explicit detail, clarity, relevance, or support from the text and article. The explanation was primarily clear and most points were relevant and substantive. Both the article and the text were cited in a satisfactory fashion; the source of each idea is cited, though the placement of one citation may be confusing or imprecise. The citation formatting is consistent with provided instructions. No direct quotes were included.

9 points Unsatisfactory. Student discussed at least one way in which individuals and/or families could be impacted by the developmental issue. This response provided evidence of partial synthesis across the two sources. Some of the questions raised in the instructions were addressed, with 3 or more points in the explanation lacking in terms of explicit detail, clarity, relevance, or support from the text and article. The explanation was vague, and included several points that were irrelevant or lacking in substance. Citations were used in an unsatisfactory fashion (e.g., both citations were included but were not linked to specific ideas; citations to one source were omitted entirely [i.e., either Berk (2014) or the article were not cited]; both sources were included but the citation format deviated from the provided instructions). No direct quotes were included.

6 points Poor. Student discussed only one way in which individuals or families could be impacted by the developmental issue. This response provided evidence of limited synthesis across the two sources, or may have been incomplete. Few to none of the questions raised in the instructions were addressed, with 3 or more points in the explanation significantly lacking in terms of explicit detail, clarity, relevance, or support from the text and article. The explanation was confusing or contradictory, included points that were irrelevant or lacking in substance, or referred to personal opinions or experiences. Citations were used in a poor fashion (e.g., no citations were used; citations to one source were omitted entirely [i.e., either Berk (2014) or the article were not cited]; both sources were included but the citation format deviated from the provided instructions; one or more citations were included but were not linked to specific ideas). Cited or uncited direct quotes (i.e., plagiarism) were used in this section of the paper.

0 points Omitted. No response to Question 4 was included in the paper.

Writing, formatting, etc. (10 points)

10 points Superior. Student followed all formatting directions as outlined in the assignment. The paper was well-written and free of grammatical, spelling, and/or typographical errors.

8 points Satisfactory. Student followed most of the formatting directions as outlined in the assignment instructions. The paper was written satisfactorily but may have had 1-2 minor grammatical, spelling, and /or typographical errors that did not interfere with the clear communication of ideas.

6 points Unsatisfactory. Student followed some of the formatting directions as outlined in the assignment instructions. The paper was poorly written, and contained at least 3-4 minor grammatical, spelling, and/or typographical errors that did not interfere with clear communication of ideas, or 1-2 substantial grammatical, spelling and/or typographical errors that significantly undermined the clear communication of ideas.

4 points Poor. Student followed few of the formatting directions as outlined in the assignment instructions. The paper was written poorly and a lack of effort was evident. The paper contained 5 or more grammatical, spelling, and typographical errors that collectively undermined the clear communication of ideas.