Reference no: EM131249414

Criteria

Accurately evaluate documentation style in writing.

Non performance

Does not evaluate documentation style in writing.

Basic

Evaluates documentation style in writing, but there are one or more errors.

Proficient

Accurately evaluates documentation style in writing

Distinguished

Accurately evaluates documentation style in writing, citing examples and applicable guidelines.

Criteria

Accurately evaluate structure of writing.

Non performance

Does not evaluate structure of writing.

Basic

Evaluates structure of writing, but there are one or more errors.

Proficient

Accurately evaluates structure of writing.

Distinguished

Accurately evaluates structure of writing, citing examples and applicable guidelines.

Criteria

Accurately evaluate appropriateness of voice, tone, and point of view in writing.

Non performance

Does not evaluate the appropriateness of voice, tone, and point of view in writing.

Basic

Evaluates appropriateness of voice, tone, and point of view in writing, but there are one or more errors.

Proficient

Accurately evaluates appropriateness of voice, tone, and point of view in writing.

Distinguished

Accurately evaluates appropriateness of voice, tone, and point of view in writing, citing examples and applicable guidelines.

The nature verses nurture examination is one subject that is very captivating and persistent to advance and enhance discussion to the growth of the psychological as well as psychosocial discussion. At the first dint of the discussion the two representations seem to be totally different from one another and able to resolve that one is answerable for a person's free will and growth; though, it would be somewhat short noticed for individual to complete that whichever an inner issue or an outside issue are the solitaryintellectual for an person's growth. In the textbook, demonstrates that both of these issues essentially work together to form how a person grows/ develops in the psychosocial area and not just the physiologically area or the psychologically area. They demonstrate that concentrating on one prototypical vs. the other only warrants for half of the conversation; the genes, or the inner issues, are dependent on the ecological, or outside issues, to form how a person grows (Broderick, Blewitt, 2015). Keeping this in mind researches and researchers are skilled to broaden their opportunity and understand the levelheadedness for the two sides of the disagreement to complete which occasion is accountable for determining the response and management of numerous circumstances.

Broderick and Blewitt also stay to share that the previous in growth, meaning early juvenile and youths, are more powerfully swayed by their parental influences then their social influences in growth; this then withdrawn in early maturity and in the specialized life when one is more ambitious by their exterior influences or cultivated reply then their inner leader.

In other investigation on the subject titled the perennialdebate: Nature, nurture, or choice? Afro Americans and Caucasian Americans' explanations for individual differences, it suggests that hereditary influences are not the end of the conversation but just a step along the development of a person. It was also tested over 1,200 people, equally Afro Americans and Caucasian, Male and Female, and found that both among Afro Americans' they saw a higher level of relationship of genetics, or inner influences, played a bigger role in individuals choice; whereas Caucasian Americans' saw a larger connotation amid the social, or exterior issues, in an persons' choices and growth. This opens the nature versus nurture discussion into a matter of destiny versus free will discussion which is far more ethical then psychological (Jayaratne et al, 2009).

References:

Broderick, P. C., &Blewitt, P. (2015). The life span: Human development for helping professionals (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon. ISBN: 9780132942881.

Jayaratne, T. et al. (2009) The perennial debate: Nature, nurture, or choice? Black and White Americans' explanations for individual differences. Review of General Psychology, Vol 13(1), Mar, 2009. pp. 24-33.