Tag: Nursing

[Solved] SOAP 3

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering SOAP 3.

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

November 5, 2026
[Solved] Discussion

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Discussion.

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

November 5, 2026
[Solved] case study

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

– ## Week7SoapNote.docx **## Week7SoapNote.docx** **Week 7 Soap Note** Submit a correctly formatted SOAP note on the identified patient. Titile: “Adult Female with Amenorhea” (Women’s Health) Example: 26-year-old female presents to the clinic with complaints of not having a menstrual period for 4mon…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

– ## Week7SoapNote.docx

**## Week7SoapNote.docx**

**Week 7 Soap Note**

Submit a correctly formatted SOAP note on the identified patient.

Titile: “Adult Female with Amenorhea” (Women’s Health)

Example: 26-year-old female presents to the clinic with complaints of not having a menstrual period for 4months

· Follow this sample Soap Note Format

Student name

Institutional affiliation

Course name

Professors name

Due date

Adult Pulmonary (COPD)

ID: J.T., DOB: 03/25/1956, Age: 69, African American male presents to the clinic accompanied by his wife, and he is a reliable historian

SUBJECTIVE

CC: "I'm more short of breath and wheezing than usual, and I’ve been coughing up more phlegm for three days."

HPI:

PMH:

· COPD (GOLD II)

· Hypertension

· Hyperlipidemia

· GERD

Surgical History:

· Appendectomy (age 20)

· Right hip replacement (2020)

Allergies:

· NKDA

Medications:

· Tiotropium bromide 18 mcg inhaled once daily (LAMA)

· Albuterol 90 mcg inhaler PRN

· Lisinopril 10 mg daily

· Atorvastatin 20 mg nightly

· Omeprazole 20 mg daily

Vaccination History:

· Influenza: Oct 2024

· Pneumococcal (PPSV23 and PCV15): up-to-date

· COVID-19: Last booster Nov 2024

Social History:

· Occasional alcohol use; denies recreational drugs

· Retired mechanic; lives with wife; enjoys gardening

· Moderate physical activity limited by dyspnea

Family History:

· Father: deceased age 72, MI

· Mother: alive age 90, HTN

· Siblings: Two brothers with hypertension

· Maternal Grandmother CHF

· Maternal grandfather, colitis

· Paternal Grandmother COPD

· Paternal grandfather

ROS:

· General: Reports increased fatigue; denies weight loss

· HEENT: No headache, no sinus congestion

· Cardiovascular: Denies chest pain or palpitations

· Respiratory: (+) Dyspnea, (+) increased cough, (+) sputum production, (+) wheezing

· GI: Denies nausea or abdominal pain

· MSK: Mild exertional fatigue, no joint pain

· Neuro: Denies dizziness, no confusion

· Psych: Mild anxiety due to breathing issues

OBJECTIVE

Vital Signs:

· Temp: 98.2°F

· BP: 138/78 mmHg

· HR: 94 bpm

· RR: 24/min

· SpO₂: 89% on room air

· Ht: 70 in

· Wt: 198 lbs

· BMI: 28.4

Physical Exam:

· General: Mild respiratory distress; alert and oriented x4

· Skin: Warm, no cyanosis or pallor

· HEENT: Oropharynx clear; nasal mucosa mildly inflamed

· Neck: No lymphadenopathy or JVD

· Lungs: Diffuse expiratory wheezes; decreased breath sounds bilaterally; no rales

· Cardio: Regular rhythm, no murmurs

· Extremities: No edema, cap refill <2 sec

· Neuro: No focal deficits

Diagnostics:

· Pulse oximetry: 89% on RA → improved to 94% on 2L nasal cannula

· Chest X-ray: Ordered – pending

· CBC/CMP: Ordered – pending

· COVID-19 and Influenza rapid swab: Negative

ASSESSMENT

Primary Diagnosis:

1. Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (AECOPD) – J44.1

Over the last three days, the patient has developed AECOPD symptoms, include severe dyspnea, wheezing, and sputum volume and color changes. According to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), an acute exacerbation is a rapid worsening of respiratory symptoms requiring further medication (Franklin et al., 2021). Additionally, the patient's increasing albuterol inhaler usage and recent tiotropium nonadherence destabilize symptoms. The lack of fever and improvement in oxygen saturation with supplementary oxygen suggest simple AECOPD without pneumonia. This is the most likely diagnosis given his mild COPD history and clinical appearance.

Differential Diagnoses:

2. Acute Bronchitis – J20.9

Acute bronchitis presents similarly to AECOPD, with symptoms such as increased cough, sputum production, and wheezing. However, this diagnosis is less likely. CAP remains a possible but less likely differential in this patient. Increased sputum production and systemic symptoms such as chills raise concern for a bacterial infection; however, the absence of fever, pleuritic chest pain, and localized findings on lung auscultation (e.g., crackles or egophony) reduce the likelihood of pneumonia (Singh et al., 2024). Furthermore, his oxygenation improved with low-flow oxygen therapy, which would be atypical in moderate to severe CAP. A chest X-ray is pending and will help confirm or exclude this diagnosis, but the clinical presentation currently favors a non-infectious AECOPD rather than an alveolar infiltrative process consistent with pneumonia..

3. Community-Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) – J18.

CAP remains a possible but less likely differential in this patient. Increased sputum production and systemic symptoms such as chills raise concern for a bacterial infection; however, the absence of fever, pleuritic chest pain, and localized findings on lung auscultation (e.g., crackles or egophony) reduce the likelihood of pneumonia (Regunath & Oba, 2024). Furthermore, his oxygenation improved with low-flow oxygen therapy, which would be atypical in moderate to severe CAP. A chest X-ray is pending and will help confirm or exclude this diagnosis, but the clinical presentation currently favors a non-infectious AECOPD rather than an alveolar infiltrative process consistent with pneumonia.

4. Heart Failure Exacerbation – I50.9

Heart failure exacerbation can mimic respiratory conditions such as AECOPD, particularly with symptoms like dyspnea and fatigue. However, this patient lacks hallmark features of volume overload, including peripheral edema, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and jugular venous distension (Malik et al., 2025). Lung examination does not reveal bibasilar crackles, and the patient's SpO₂ levels improved rapidly with oxygen therapy, which is more characteristic of obstructive pulmonary issues rather than cardiac decompensation. Additionally, there is no past medical history or supporting clinical evidence for heart failure, making this a much less likely cause of his current symptoms.

PLAN

Diagnostics:

· Chest X-ray (to rule out pneumonia)

· CBC with diff, BMP (to assess infection, electrolytes)

· Sputum culture if symptoms persist

· Consider spirometry at follow-up if symptoms resolve (Singh et al., 2024).

Treatment:

· Prednisone 40 mg PO daily x 5 days (no taper needed) – GOLD, 2024

· Azithromycin 500 mg PO day 1, then 250 mg daily x 4 days (if bacterial infection suspected based on sputum/purulence) – GOLD, 2024

· Albuterol inhaler 90 mcg: 2 puffs q4h PRN SOB

· Tiotropium 18 mcg inhaled daily – Reinstitute LAMA therapy

· Oxygen therapy: 2L via nasal cannula to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 90%

Education:

· Educated on signs of worsening COPD: increased sputum, fever, worsening SOB

· Avoid exposure to tobacco smoke, pollutants, cold air

· Importance of medication adherence, especially tiotropium

· Discussed correct inhaler technique and spacing medications (Marko et al., 2025)

· Encourage pulmonary hygiene: hydration, expectoration techniques

· Avoid alcohol while on antibiotics

· Use spacer with albuterol if needed

· Reviewed potential side effects of prednisone and azithromycin

Follow-up:

· Follow up in 48-72 hours to assess response

· Return sooner if symptoms worsen (e.g., fever, hemoptysis, chest pain, confusion)

· Encourage yearly spirometry to monitor lung function

· Refer to pulmonary rehab if patient continues with functional decline

· Influenza and pneumococcal vaccine reminders at next visit if not up to date

## **References**

Franklin, B. J., Li, K. Y., Somand, D. M., Kocher, K. E., Kronick, S. L., Parekh, V. I., Goralnick, E., Nix, A. T., & Haas, N. L. (2021). Emergency department provider in triage: Assessing site‐specific rationale, operational feasibility, and financial impact.
_Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open_,
_2_(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12450

Malik, A., Chhabra, L., & Shams, P. (2025).
_Congestive heart failure_. National Library of Medicine; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430873/

Marko, M., Klimczak, M., Sobczak, M., Wojakiewicz, M., Dębowski, T., Emeryk, A., & Pawliczak, R. (2025). Effective inhaler technique education is achievable – assessment and comparison of five inhaler devices errors.
_Frontiers in Pharmacology_,
_16_. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1538283

Regunath, H., & Oba, Y. (2024).
_Community-acquired pneumonia_. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430749/

Singh, A., Avula, A., & Zahn, E. (2024).
_Acute Bronchitis_. Nih.gov; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448067/

Singh, D., Stockley, R., Anzueto, A., Agusti, A., Bourbeau, J., Celli, B. R., Criner, G. J., Han, M. K., Martinez, F. J., Montes, M., Ozoh, O. B., Papi, A., Pavord, I., Roche, N., Salvi, S., Sin, D. D., Troosters, T., Wedzicha, J., Zheng, J., & Volgelmeier, C. (2024). GOLD Science committee recommendations for the use of pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry for the diagnosis of COPD.
_European Respiratory Journal_,
_65_(2), 2401603–2401603. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01603-2024

**## Week7SoapNote.docx**

**Week 7 Soap Note**

Submit a correctly formatted SOAP note on the identified patient.

Titile: “Adult Female with Amenorhea” (Women’s Health)

Example: 26-year-old female presents to the clinic with complaints of not having a menstrual period for 4months

· Follow this sample Soap Note Format

Student name

Institutional affiliation

Course name

Professors name

Due date

Adult Pulmonary (COPD)

ID: J.T., DOB: 03/25/1956, Age: 69, African American male presents to the clinic accompanied by his wife, and he is a reliable historian

SUBJECTIVE

CC: "I'm more short of breath and wheezing than usual, and I’ve been coughing up more phlegm for three days."

HPI:

PMH:

· COPD (GOLD II)

· Hypertension

· Hyperlipidemia

· GERD

Surgical History:

· Appendectomy (age 20)

· Right hip replacement (2020)

Allergies:

· NKDA

Medications:

· Tiotropium bromide 18 mcg inhaled once daily (LAMA)

· Albuterol 90 mcg inhaler PRN

· Lisinopril 10 mg daily

· Atorvastatin 20 mg nightly

· Omeprazole 20 mg daily

Vaccination History:

· Influenza: Oct 2024

· Pneumococcal (PPSV23 and PCV15): up-to-date

· COVID-19: Last booster Nov 2024

Social History:

· Occasional alcohol use; denies recreational drugs

· Retired mechanic; lives with wife; enjoys gardening

· Moderate physical activity limited by dyspnea

Family History:

· Father: deceased age 72, MI

· Mother: alive age 90, HTN

· Siblings: Two brothers with hypertension

· Maternal Grandmother CHF

· Maternal grandfather, colitis

· Paternal Grandmother COPD

· Paternal grandfather

ROS:

· General: Reports increased fatigue; denies weight loss

· HEENT: No headache, no sinus congestion

· Cardiovascular: Denies chest pain or palpitations

· Respiratory: (+) Dyspnea, (+) increased cough, (+) sputum production, (+) wheezing

· GI: Denies nausea or abdominal pain

· MSK: Mild exertional fatigue, no joint pain

· Neuro: Denies dizziness, no confusion

· Psych: Mild anxiety due to breathing issues

OBJECTIVE

Vital Signs:

· Temp: 98.2°F

· BP: 138/78 mmHg

· HR: 94 bpm

· RR: 24/min

· SpO₂: 89% on room air

· Ht: 70 in

· Wt: 198 lbs

· BMI: 28.4

Physical Exam:

· General: Mild respiratory distress; alert and oriented x4

· Skin: Warm, no cyanosis or pallor

· HEENT: Oropharynx clear; nasal mucosa mildly inflamed

· Neck: No lymphadenopathy or JVD

· Lungs: Diffuse expiratory wheezes; decreased breath sounds bilaterally; no rales

· Cardio: Regular rhythm, no murmurs

· Extremities: No edema, cap refill <2 sec

· Neuro: No focal deficits

Diagnostics:

· Pulse oximetry: 89% on RA → improved to 94% on 2L nasal cannula

· Chest X-ray: Ordered – pending

· CBC/CMP: Ordered – pending

· COVID-19 and Influenza rapid swab: Negative

ASSESSMENT

Primary Diagnosis:

1. Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (AECOPD) – J44.1

Over the last three days, the patient has developed AECOPD symptoms, include severe dyspnea, wheezing, and sputum volume and color changes. According to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), an acute exacerbation is a rapid worsening of respiratory symptoms requiring further medication (Franklin et al., 2021). Additionally, the patient's increasing albuterol inhaler usage and recent tiotropium nonadherence destabilize symptoms. The lack of fever and improvement in oxygen saturation with supplementary oxygen suggest simple AECOPD without pneumonia. This is the most likely diagnosis given his mild COPD history and clinical appearance.

Differential Diagnoses:

2. Acute Bronchitis – J20.9

Acute bronchitis presents similarly to AECOPD, with symptoms such as increased cough, sputum production, and wheezing. However, this diagnosis is less likely. CAP remains a possible but less likely differential in this patient. Increased sputum production and systemic symptoms such as chills raise concern for a bacterial infection; however, the absence of fever, pleuritic chest pain, and localized findings on lung auscultation (e.g., crackles or egophony) reduce the likelihood of pneumonia (Singh et al., 2024). Furthermore, his oxygenation improved with low-flow oxygen therapy, which would be atypical in moderate to severe CAP. A chest X-ray is pending and will help confirm or exclude this diagnosis, but the clinical presentation currently favors a non-infectious AECOPD rather than an alveolar infiltrative process consistent with pneumonia..

3. Community-Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) – J18.

CAP remains a possible but less likely differential in this patient. Increased sputum production and systemic symptoms such as chills raise concern for a bacterial infection; however, the absence of fever, pleuritic chest pain, and localized findings on lung auscultation (e.g., crackles or egophony) reduce the likelihood of pneumonia (Regunath & Oba, 2024). Furthermore, his oxygenation improved with low-flow oxygen therapy, which would be atypical in moderate to severe CAP. A chest X-ray is pending and will help confirm or exclude this diagnosis, but the clinical presentation currently favors a non-infectious AECOPD rather than an alveolar infiltrative process consistent with pneumonia.

4. Heart Failure Exacerbation – I50.9

Heart failure exacerbation can mimic respiratory conditions such as AECOPD, particularly with symptoms like dyspnea and fatigue. However, this patient lacks hallmark features of volume overload, including peripheral edema, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and jugular venous distension (Malik et al., 2025). Lung examination does not reveal bibasilar crackles, and the patient's SpO₂ levels improved rapidly with oxygen therapy, which is more characteristic of obstructive pulmonary issues rather than cardiac decompensation. Additionally, there is no past medical history or supporting clinical evidence for heart failure, making this a much less likely cause of his current symptoms.

PLAN

Diagnostics:

· Chest X-ray (to rule out pneumonia)

· CBC with diff, BMP (to assess infection, electrolytes)

· Sputum culture if symptoms persist

· Consider spirometry at follow-up if symptoms resolve (Singh et al., 2024).

Treatment:

· Prednisone 40 mg PO daily x 5 days (no taper needed) – GOLD, 2024

· Azithromycin 500 mg PO day 1, then 250 mg daily x 4 days (if bacterial infection suspected based on sputum/purulence) – GOLD, 2024

· Albuterol inhaler 90 mcg: 2 puffs q4h PRN SOB

· Tiotropium 18 mcg inhaled daily – Reinstitute LAMA therapy

· Oxygen therapy: 2L via nasal cannula to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 90%

Education:

· Educated on signs of worsening COPD: increased sputum, fever, worsening SOB

· Avoid exposure to tobacco smoke, pollutants, cold air

· Importance of medication adherence, especially tiotropium

· Discussed correct inhaler technique and spacing medications (Marko et al., 2025)

· Encourage pulmonary hygiene: hydration, expectoration techniques

· Avoid alcohol while on antibiotics

· Use spacer with albuterol if needed

· Reviewed potential side effects of prednisone and azithromycin

Follow-up:

· Follow up in 48-72 hours to assess response

· Return sooner if symptoms worsen (e.g., fever, hemoptysis, chest pain, confusion)

· Encourage yearly spirometry to monitor lung function

· Refer to pulmonary rehab if patient continues with functional decline

· Influenza and pneumococcal vaccine reminders at next visit if not up to date

## **References**

Franklin, B. J., Li, K. Y., Somand, D. M., Kocher, K. E., Kronick, S. L., Parekh, V. I., Goralnick, E., Nix, A. T., & Haas, N. L. (2021). Emergency department provider in triage: Assessing site‐specific rationale, operational feasibility, and financial impact.
_Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open_,
_2_(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12450

Malik, A., Chhabra, L., & Shams, P. (2025).
_Congestive heart failure_. National Library of Medicine; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430873/

Marko, M., Klimczak, M., Sobczak, M., Wojakiewicz, M., Dębowski, T., Emeryk, A., & Pawliczak, R. (2025). Effective inhaler technique education is achievable – assessment and comparison of five inhaler devices errors.
_Frontiers in Pharmacology_,
_16_. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1538283

Regunath, H., & Oba, Y. (2024).
_Community-acquired pneumonia_. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430749/

Singh, A., Avula, A., & Zahn, E. (2024).
_Acute Bronchitis_. Nih.gov; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448067/

Singh, D., Stockley, R., Anzueto, A., Agusti, A., Bourbeau, J., Celli, B. R., Criner, G. J., Han, M. K., Martinez, F. J., Montes, M., Ozoh, O. B., Papi, A., Pavord, I., Roche, N., Salvi, S., Sin, D. D., Troosters, T., Wedzicha, J., Zheng, J., & Volgelmeier, C. (2024). GOLD Science committee recommendations for the use of pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry for the diagnosis of COPD.
_European Respiratory Journal_,
_65_(2), 2401603–2401603. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01603-2024

November 5, 2026
[Solved] Ethical issues

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

See instructions; Do not use adolescents using birthcontol and do not use anything that has to do with parent refusal of life saving measure such as Jehovah witness. The topic is chosen already located at the top. \ CurrentEthicalIssuesinMyAPNTrackPresentation.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

See instructions; Do not use adolescents using birthcontol and do not use anything that has to do with parent refusal of life saving measure such as Jehovah witness. The topic is chosen already located at the top.
\
CurrentEthicalIssuesinMyAPNTrackPresentation.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/currentethicalissuesinmyapntrackpresentation-docx "CurrentEthicalIssuesinMyAPNTrackPresentation.docx")

November 5, 2026
[Solved] Psychopharmacology

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

**Scenario:** A 13 year old boy is accompanied by his parents into the community mental health clinic for the evaluation of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Both parents are impatient, demanding and requesting for you to start their child on a CNS stimulant medication. **Based on thi…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

**Scenario:** A 13 year old boy is accompanied by his parents into the community mental health clinic for the evaluation of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Both parents are impatient, demanding and requesting for you to start their child on a CNS stimulant medication.
**Based on this scenario, respond to the following prompts:**
1. Which neurotransmitter(s) are involved in ADHD? How will you approach this clinical case?
2. According to the DSM V-TR, what is the criteria for this condition? What is the NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scale and how will you apply it to this case study?
3. If the child meets diagnostic criteria for ADHD, what diagnostic(s) or lab(s) will you order prior to prescribing a CNS stimulant drug? Why is it important to assess and monitor a child’s weight and height once you start treatment for ADHD?
### **Assignment Guidelines**
– **Format:** Your response must be written in **APA format**.

November 5, 2026
[Solved] NGR6910C Research

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

**Coding Assignment** – ## CodingAssignmentInstructions.rtf – ## CodingAssignment.docx **## CodingAssignmentInstructions.rtf** **Coding Assignment: Instructions** **Purpose**: The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize you with the process of coding and analyzing qualitative data. **Instructio…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

**Coding Assignment**

– ## CodingAssignmentInstructions.rtf

– ## CodingAssignment.docx

**## CodingAssignmentInstructions.rtf**

**Coding Assignment: Instructions**

**Purpose**: The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize you with the process of coding and analyzing qualitative data.

**Instructions:**

– Download the Qualitative Coding Assignment

Read through the entire document and complete the code book using the instructions provided.

Submit the final code book along with a summary of the major themes or most common pet peeves noted to the drop box. Your analysis of the data should be a minimum of
**3-4 full paragraphs**.

You can submit the last page of the assignment with the code book and analysis. You do not need a formal APA paper with a title page and references. No references are required for this assignment. Simply provide your assessment based on the data that you coded.

**## CodingAssignment.docx**

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

Content coding is one way to identify the themes or patterns found in the narrative text of qualitative research studies. The qualitative research assignment for Week 8 requires you to content code the narrative pet peeves of 10 nursing and social work students taking courses in a “brick and mortar” university. These students were asked to anonymously describe the problems (or “pet peeves”) they experienced in previous courses that detracted from their learning experience.

**To complete this assignment**, you need the
**three** documents: the student narrative text on pet peeves, the code scheme, and the code sheet. Below is a description of each of these documents. All of the needed resources can be found in this document.

**Student Narrative Text on Course Pet Peeves (Page 3):** You will see the narrative text written by each of the 10 students in this document. Each student has a unique identification (ID) number. For example, 001 is the ID number of the first student and 010 is number for the last student. Some students only wrote about one pet peeve, whereas others listed up to two or more pet peeves. If a student listed two or more pet peeves, a “vertical bar”
**|** is used to separate each them. Take a look at the student whose ID number is 002. This student’s first pet peeve about course readings is separated from the second one by a vertical bar (
**|** ).

**Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data (Page 4):** A code scheme has unique numbers linked to different types of content or themes found in narrative text. For this assignment, you will see a unique number for each different type of pet peeve. For example, a pet peeve on not being able to locate required readings is assigned the number “01”. Sometimes the content of narrative text cannot be categorized, because it is unclear or doesn’t make sense. For this assignment, this type of narrative text is given the code number “99”. If narrative text is not a pet peeve, it is given the code number “97”.

**Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data (Page 5):** This is the form that you use to enter the code scheme number for each pet peeve in a student’s narrative text. The first column of the code sheet lists the student’s unique ID number. The next column (Code 1) is used to write the number from the code scheme that best describes the content of the first pet peeve listed by the student. The second column (Code 2) is for the second pet peeve, and the third column (Code 3) is for the last one.

## **Example**

Here is an example of how to code the narrative text on course pet peeves. In this example, the student described the following pet peeves in courses she had taken in the past:

186 Assignments that are just “busy work” with no perceived value.
**|**
Lack of feedback.

**ID**

First, the number “186” is the unique ID number for this student. When you code this student’s pet peeves, you need to write them on the line for this ID number.

**Codes**

Next you will see a vertical bar | in the narrative text on page 3 which means there are more than one pet peeve listed by the student.

**Code Sheet Example (Refer to Coding Scheme page 5)**

The first pet peeve is about assignments that are considered to be “busy work”. When you review the code scheme for student pet peeves, it looks like the number “08” (Assignments not geared to learning [e.g., busy work]) best describes this student’s pet peeve. You then enter the number “08” into the second column (Code 1) of the code sheet (see below).

In the next pet peeve, the student writes about “lack of feedback”. While her response is not very specific, it is most likely to related to code number “13” (Assignments returned without comments or feedback). You then enter “13” in the third column of the code sheet. Because this student did not list a third pet peeve, you then leave the fourth column (Code 3) blank.

Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data

| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **ID #** | **Code 1** | **Code 2** | **Code 3** |
| 186 | 08 | 13 | |

You are now ready to start content coding the narrative text of pet peeves for the 10 students in this assignment on page 3. When you are finished, you need to submit your completed code sheet on page 7 to the submission link in Week 5.

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Student Narrative Text on Course Pet Peeves**

001 Professors who “don’t allow” students to disagree with their opinions.
**|**
Professors who grade based on the placement of commas and the number of spaces typed between words rather than on the ideas and thoughts developed.
**|**
Professors who give me reason to feel about 2 inches tall when I give an incorrect answer to a question.

002 Ridiculous amounts of reading to be done in a short period of time.
**|**
Not having an opportunity to discuss different viewpoints or different facets of a topic-issue.

003 I get frustrated with instructors that behave as though we have nothing else going on in our lives except their class and their assignments.

004 I don’t like to read material that doesn’t have a practical benefit. I want to leave here with a marketable skill, not a head filled with historical facts or scientific jargon.

005 Students who use the classroom to show how
**smart** they are and to
**build** themselves up.
**|**
Those who rattle their candy and gum wrappers or chip bags.

006 When required readings are not available.
**|**
When instructors put-down students.
**|**
When assignments are too difficult.

007 Professor who believe their view is the
**only** one acceptable.
**|** Disorganized classes.
**|** Dry readings.

008 Professors who are condescending toward students.
**|** Test questions that come out of the blue.

009 People make noise – opening snacks, chewing loud (pretzels).
**|** When people monopolize class.

010 Allowing personal bias to dictate evaluations of students work. (e.g., If you disagree, then you’re wrong.)
**|** When expectations for grades are unclear.

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data**

**Course Requirements**

**01** = Can’t locate required readings

**02** =
_Unclear_ expectations of students

**03** =
_Unrealistic_ expectations of students (e.g., too many readings, assignments too difficult)

**04** = Working in groups (e.g., too much, meaningless)

**05** = Course doesn’t follow syllabus

**Course Content**

**06** = Content of required readings (e.g., irrelevant, inappropriate, boring, dry)

**07** = No clinical, policy or real-life application of course content

**08** = Assignments not geared to learning (e.g., busy work)

**09** = Too little time spent on the most important topics

**Teacher – Student Relationship**

**10** = Teacher doesn’t encourage students to voice opinions that are different from their own

**11** = Teacher talks down to students (e.g., condescending, makes students feel stupid)

**12** = Teacher has low expectations of students (e.g., intelligence, experience, ability to complete assignments)

**Teaching Behavior**

**13** = Assignments returned without comments or feedback (e.g., papers)

**14** = Personality of teacher (e.g., opinionated, egotistical, arrogant, thinks their approach is the only way)

**15** = Unfair or inappropriate grading (e.g., papers, exams, final grades)

**16** = Poor facilitator of class discussions

**Student Behavior**

**17** = Students who monopolize class time

**18** = Irrelevant comments or discussions by other students (e.g., personal stories)

**19** = Limited or no development of peer relationships with classmates

**20** = Overbearing, intimidating, and/or opinionated students

**21** = Students making noises in class (e.g., rattling papers, unwrapping food)

**98** = Other: Student’s written response not a pet peeve or doesn’t fit coding scheme

**99** = Unable to decipher meaning of student response

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data**

**Qualitative Analyses:** The analytic method you will use to analyze the narrative data for this Assignment is called content analysis. It requires you to read each student’s narrative and then code its content using the thematic categories on page 4 (Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data). Once you have completed the coding, you will need to describe the most common types of “pet peeves” that students have about their courses.

| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **ID #** | **CODE 1** | **CODE 2** | **CODE 3** |
| 001 | | | |
| 002 | | | |
| 003 | | | |
| 004 | | | |
| 005 | | | |
| 006 | | | |
| 007 | | | |
| 008 | | | |
| 009 | | | |
| 010 | | | |

After you complete the code sheet,
**summarize the major themes** or most common pet peeves described by the 10 students in their previous courses:

**## CodingAssignment.docx**

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

Content coding is one way to identify the themes or patterns found in the narrative text of qualitative research studies. The qualitative research assignment for Week 8 requires you to content code the narrative pet peeves of 10 nursing and social work students taking courses in a “brick and mortar” university. These students were asked to anonymously describe the problems (or “pet peeves”) they experienced in previous courses that detracted from their learning experience.

**To complete this assignment**, you need the
**three** documents: the student narrative text on pet peeves, the code scheme, and the code sheet. Below is a description of each of these documents. All of the needed resources can be found in this document.

**Student Narrative Text on Course Pet Peeves (Page 3):** You will see the narrative text written by each of the 10 students in this document. Each student has a unique identification (ID) number. For example, 001 is the ID number of the first student and 010 is number for the last student. Some students only wrote about one pet peeve, whereas others listed up to two or more pet peeves. If a student listed two or more pet peeves, a “vertical bar”
**|** is used to separate each them. Take a look at the student whose ID number is 002. This student’s first pet peeve about course readings is separated from the second one by a vertical bar (
**|** ).

**Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data (Page 4):** A code scheme has unique numbers linked to different types of content or themes found in narrative text. For this assignment, you will see a unique number for each different type of pet peeve. For example, a pet peeve on not being able to locate required readings is assigned the number “01”. Sometimes the content of narrative text cannot be categorized, because it is unclear or doesn’t make sense. For this assignment, this type of narrative text is given the code number “99”. If narrative text is not a pet peeve, it is given the code number “97”.

**Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data (Page 5):** This is the form that you use to enter the code scheme number for each pet peeve in a student’s narrative text. The first column of the code sheet lists the student’s unique ID number. The next column (Code 1) is used to write the number from the code scheme that best describes the content of the first pet peeve listed by the student. The second column (Code 2) is for the second pet peeve, and the third column (Code 3) is for the last one.

## **Example**

Here is an example of how to code the narrative text on course pet peeves. In this example, the student described the following pet peeves in courses she had taken in the past:

186 Assignments that are just “busy work” with no perceived value.
**|**
Lack of feedback.

**ID**

First, the number “186” is the unique ID number for this student. When you code this student’s pet peeves, you need to write them on the line for this ID number.

**Codes**

Next you will see a vertical bar | in the narrative text on page 3 which means there are more than one pet peeve listed by the student.

**Code Sheet Example (Refer to Coding Scheme page 5)**

The first pet peeve is about assignments that are considered to be “busy work”. When you review the code scheme for student pet peeves, it looks like the number “08” (Assignments not geared to learning [e.g., busy work]) best describes this student’s pet peeve. You then enter the number “08” into the second column (Code 1) of the code sheet (see below).

In the next pet peeve, the student writes about “lack of feedback”. While her response is not very specific, it is most likely to related to code number “13” (Assignments returned without comments or feedback). You then enter “13” in the third column of the code sheet. Because this student did not list a third pet peeve, you then leave the fourth column (Code 3) blank.

Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data

| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **ID #** | **Code 1** | **Code 2** | **Code 3** |
| 186 | 08 | 13 | |

You are now ready to start content coding the narrative text of pet peeves for the 10 students in this assignment on page 3. When you are finished, you need to submit your completed code sheet on page 7 to the submission link in Week 5.

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Student Narrative Text on Course Pet Peeves**

001 Professors who “don’t allow” students to disagree with their opinions.
**|**
Professors who grade based on the placement of commas and the number of spaces typed between words rather than on the ideas and thoughts developed.
**|**
Professors who give me reason to feel about 2 inches tall when I give an incorrect answer to a question.

002 Ridiculous amounts of reading to be done in a short period of time.
**|**
Not having an opportunity to discuss different viewpoints or different facets of a topic-issue.

003 I get frustrated with instructors that behave as though we have nothing else going on in our lives except their class and their assignments.

004 I don’t like to read material that doesn’t have a practical benefit. I want to leave here with a marketable skill, not a head filled with historical facts or scientific jargon.

005 Students who use the classroom to show how
**smart** they are and to
**build** themselves up.
**|**
Those who rattle their candy and gum wrappers or chip bags.

006 When required readings are not available.
**|**
When instructors put-down students.
**|**
When assignments are too difficult.

007 Professor who believe their view is the
**only** one acceptable.
**|** Disorganized classes.
**|** Dry readings.

008 Professors who are condescending toward students.
**|** Test questions that come out of the blue.

009 People make noise – opening snacks, chewing loud (pretzels).
**|** When people monopolize class.

010 Allowing personal bias to dictate evaluations of students work. (e.g., If you disagree, then you’re wrong.)
**|** When expectations for grades are unclear.

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data**

**Course Requirements**

**01** = Can’t locate required readings

**02** =
_Unclear_ expectations of students

**03** =
_Unrealistic_ expectations of students (e.g., too many readings, assignments too difficult)

**04** = Working in groups (e.g., too much, meaningless)

**05** = Course doesn’t follow syllabus

**Course Content**

**06** = Content of required readings (e.g., irrelevant, inappropriate, boring, dry)

**07** = No clinical, policy or real-life application of course content

**08** = Assignments not geared to learning (e.g., busy work)

**09** = Too little time spent on the most important topics

**Teacher – Student Relationship**

**10** = Teacher doesn’t encourage students to voice opinions that are different from their own

**11** = Teacher talks down to students (e.g., condescending, makes students feel stupid)

**12** = Teacher has low expectations of students (e.g., intelligence, experience, ability to complete assignments)

**Teaching Behavior**

**13** = Assignments returned without comments or feedback (e.g., papers)

**14** = Personality of teacher (e.g., opinionated, egotistical, arrogant, thinks their approach is the only way)

**15** = Unfair or inappropriate grading (e.g., papers, exams, final grades)

**16** = Poor facilitator of class discussions

**Student Behavior**

**17** = Students who monopolize class time

**18** = Irrelevant comments or discussions by other students (e.g., personal stories)

**19** = Limited or no development of peer relationships with classmates

**20** = Overbearing, intimidating, and/or opinionated students

**21** = Students making noises in class (e.g., rattling papers, unwrapping food)

**98** = Other: Student’s written response not a pet peeve or doesn’t fit coding scheme

**99** = Unable to decipher meaning of student response

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data**

**Qualitative Analyses:** The analytic method you will use to analyze the narrative data for this Assignment is called content analysis. It requires you to read each student’s narrative and then code its content using the thematic categories on page 4 (Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data). Once you have completed the coding, you will need to describe the most common types of “pet peeves” that students have about their courses.

| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **ID #** | **CODE 1** | **CODE 2** | **CODE 3** |
| 001 | | | |
| 002 | | | |
| 003 | | | |
| 004 | | | |
| 005 | | | |
| 006 | | | |
| 007 | | | |
| 008 | | | |
| 009 | | | |
| 010 | | | |

After you complete the code sheet,
**summarize the major themes** or most common pet peeves described by the 10 students in their previous courses:

**## CodingAssignmentInstructions.rtf**

**Coding Assignment: Instructions**

**Purpose**: The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize you with the process of coding and analyzing qualitative data.

**Instructions:**

– Download the Qualitative Coding Assignment

Read through the entire document and complete the code book using the instructions provided.

Submit the final code book along with a summary of the major themes or most common pet peeves noted to the drop box. Your analysis of the data should be a minimum of
**3-4 full paragraphs**.

You can submit the last page of the assignment with the code book and analysis. You do not need a formal APA paper with a title page and references. No references are required for this assignment. Simply provide your assessment based on the data that you coded.

**## CodingAssignment.docx**

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

Content coding is one way to identify the themes or patterns found in the narrative text of qualitative research studies. The qualitative research assignment for Week 8 requires you to content code the narrative pet peeves of 10 nursing and social work students taking courses in a “brick and mortar” university. These students were asked to anonymously describe the problems (or “pet peeves”) they experienced in previous courses that detracted from their learning experience.

**To complete this assignment**, you need the
**three** documents: the student narrative text on pet peeves, the code scheme, and the code sheet. Below is a description of each of these documents. All of the needed resources can be found in this document.

**Student Narrative Text on Course Pet Peeves (Page 3):** You will see the narrative text written by each of the 10 students in this document. Each student has a unique identification (ID) number. For example, 001 is the ID number of the first student and 010 is number for the last student. Some students only wrote about one pet peeve, whereas others listed up to two or more pet peeves. If a student listed two or more pet peeves, a “vertical bar”
**|** is used to separate each them. Take a look at the student whose ID number is 002. This student’s first pet peeve about course readings is separated from the second one by a vertical bar (
**|** ).

**Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data (Page 4):** A code scheme has unique numbers linked to different types of content or themes found in narrative text. For this assignment, you will see a unique number for each different type of pet peeve. For example, a pet peeve on not being able to locate required readings is assigned the number “01”. Sometimes the content of narrative text cannot be categorized, because it is unclear or doesn’t make sense. For this assignment, this type of narrative text is given the code number “99”. If narrative text is not a pet peeve, it is given the code number “97”.

**Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data (Page 5):** This is the form that you use to enter the code scheme number for each pet peeve in a student’s narrative text. The first column of the code sheet lists the student’s unique ID number. The next column (Code 1) is used to write the number from the code scheme that best describes the content of the first pet peeve listed by the student. The second column (Code 2) is for the second pet peeve, and the third column (Code 3) is for the last one.

## **Example**

Here is an example of how to code the narrative text on course pet peeves. In this example, the student described the following pet peeves in courses she had taken in the past:

186 Assignments that are just “busy work” with no perceived value.
**|**
Lack of feedback.

**ID**

First, the number “186” is the unique ID number for this student. When you code this student’s pet peeves, you need to write them on the line for this ID number.

**Codes**

Next you will see a vertical bar | in the narrative text on page 3 which means there are more than one pet peeve listed by the student.

**Code Sheet Example (Refer to Coding Scheme page 5)**

The first pet peeve is about assignments that are considered to be “busy work”. When you review the code scheme for student pet peeves, it looks like the number “08” (Assignments not geared to learning [e.g., busy work]) best describes this student’s pet peeve. You then enter the number “08” into the second column (Code 1) of the code sheet (see below).

In the next pet peeve, the student writes about “lack of feedback”. While her response is not very specific, it is most likely to related to code number “13” (Assignments returned without comments or feedback). You then enter “13” in the third column of the code sheet. Because this student did not list a third pet peeve, you then leave the fourth column (Code 3) blank.

Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data

| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **ID #** | **Code 1** | **Code 2** | **Code 3** |
| 186 | 08 | 13 | |

You are now ready to start content coding the narrative text of pet peeves for the 10 students in this assignment on page 3. When you are finished, you need to submit your completed code sheet on page 7 to the submission link in Week 5.

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Student Narrative Text on Course Pet Peeves**

001 Professors who “don’t allow” students to disagree with their opinions.
**|**
Professors who grade based on the placement of commas and the number of spaces typed between words rather than on the ideas and thoughts developed.
**|**
Professors who give me reason to feel about 2 inches tall when I give an incorrect answer to a question.

002 Ridiculous amounts of reading to be done in a short period of time.
**|**
Not having an opportunity to discuss different viewpoints or different facets of a topic-issue.

003 I get frustrated with instructors that behave as though we have nothing else going on in our lives except their class and their assignments.

004 I don’t like to read material that doesn’t have a practical benefit. I want to leave here with a marketable skill, not a head filled with historical facts or scientific jargon.

005 Students who use the classroom to show how
**smart** they are and to
**build** themselves up.
**|**
Those who rattle their candy and gum wrappers or chip bags.

006 When required readings are not available.
**|**
When instructors put-down students.
**|**
When assignments are too difficult.

007 Professor who believe their view is the
**only** one acceptable.
**|** Disorganized classes.
**|** Dry readings.

008 Professors who are condescending toward students.
**|** Test questions that come out of the blue.

009 People make noise – opening snacks, chewing loud (pretzels).
**|** When people monopolize class.

010 Allowing personal bias to dictate evaluations of students work. (e.g., If you disagree, then you’re wrong.)
**|** When expectations for grades are unclear.

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data**

**Course Requirements**

**01** = Can’t locate required readings

**02** =
_Unclear_ expectations of students

**03** =
_Unrealistic_ expectations of students (e.g., too many readings, assignments too difficult)

**04** = Working in groups (e.g., too much, meaningless)

**05** = Course doesn’t follow syllabus

**Course Content**

**06** = Content of required readings (e.g., irrelevant, inappropriate, boring, dry)

**07** = No clinical, policy or real-life application of course content

**08** = Assignments not geared to learning (e.g., busy work)

**09** = Too little time spent on the most important topics

**Teacher – Student Relationship**

**10** = Teacher doesn’t encourage students to voice opinions that are different from their own

**11** = Teacher talks down to students (e.g., condescending, makes students feel stupid)

**12** = Teacher has low expectations of students (e.g., intelligence, experience, ability to complete assignments)

**Teaching Behavior**

**13** = Assignments returned without comments or feedback (e.g., papers)

**14** = Personality of teacher (e.g., opinionated, egotistical, arrogant, thinks their approach is the only way)

**15** = Unfair or inappropriate grading (e.g., papers, exams, final grades)

**16** = Poor facilitator of class discussions

**Student Behavior**

**17** = Students who monopolize class time

**18** = Irrelevant comments or discussions by other students (e.g., personal stories)

**19** = Limited or no development of peer relationships with classmates

**20** = Overbearing, intimidating, and/or opinionated students

**21** = Students making noises in class (e.g., rattling papers, unwrapping food)

**98** = Other: Student’s written response not a pet peeve or doesn’t fit coding scheme

**99** = Unable to decipher meaning of student response

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data**

**Qualitative Analyses:** The analytic method you will use to analyze the narrative data for this Assignment is called content analysis. It requires you to read each student’s narrative and then code its content using the thematic categories on page 4 (Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data). Once you have completed the coding, you will need to describe the most common types of “pet peeves” that students have about their courses.

| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **ID #** | **CODE 1** | **CODE 2** | **CODE 3** |
| 001 | | | |
| 002 | | | |
| 003 | | | |
| 004 | | | |
| 005 | | | |
| 006 | | | |
| 007 | | | |
| 008 | | | |
| 009 | | | |
| 010 | | | |

After you complete the code sheet,
**summarize the major themes** or most common pet peeves described by the 10 students in their previous courses:

**## CodingAssignmentInstructions.rtf**

**Coding Assignment: Instructions**

**Purpose**: The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize you with the process of coding and analyzing qualitative data.

**Instructions:**

– Download the Qualitative Coding Assignment

Read through the entire document and complete the code book using the instructions provided.

Submit the final code book along with a summary of the major themes or most common pet peeves noted to the drop box. Your analysis of the data should be a minimum of
**3-4 full paragraphs**.

You can submit the last page of the assignment with the code book and analysis. You do not need a formal APA paper with a title page and references. No references are required for this assignment. Simply provide your assessment based on the data that you coded.

**## CodingAssignment.docx**

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

Content coding is one way to identify the themes or patterns found in the narrative text of qualitative research studies. The qualitative research assignment for Week 8 requires you to content code the narrative pet peeves of 10 nursing and social work students taking courses in a “brick and mortar” university. These students were asked to anonymously describe the problems (or “pet peeves”) they experienced in previous courses that detracted from their learning experience.

**To complete this assignment**, you need the
**three** documents: the student narrative text on pet peeves, the code scheme, and the code sheet. Below is a description of each of these documents. All of the needed resources can be found in this document.

**Student Narrative Text on Course Pet Peeves (Page 3):** You will see the narrative text written by each of the 10 students in this document. Each student has a unique identification (ID) number. For example, 001 is the ID number of the first student and 010 is number for the last student. Some students only wrote about one pet peeve, whereas others listed up to two or more pet peeves. If a student listed two or more pet peeves, a “vertical bar”
**|** is used to separate each them. Take a look at the student whose ID number is 002. This student’s first pet peeve about course readings is separated from the second one by a vertical bar (
**|** ).

**Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data (Page 4):** A code scheme has unique numbers linked to different types of content or themes found in narrative text. For this assignment, you will see a unique number for each different type of pet peeve. For example, a pet peeve on not being able to locate required readings is assigned the number “01”. Sometimes the content of narrative text cannot be categorized, because it is unclear or doesn’t make sense. For this assignment, this type of narrative text is given the code number “99”. If narrative text is not a pet peeve, it is given the code number “97”.

**Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data (Page 5):** This is the form that you use to enter the code scheme number for each pet peeve in a student’s narrative text. The first column of the code sheet lists the student’s unique ID number. The next column (Code 1) is used to write the number from the code scheme that best describes the content of the first pet peeve listed by the student. The second column (Code 2) is for the second pet peeve, and the third column (Code 3) is for the last one.

## **Example**

Here is an example of how to code the narrative text on course pet peeves. In this example, the student described the following pet peeves in courses she had taken in the past:

186 Assignments that are just “busy work” with no perceived value.
**|**
Lack of feedback.

**ID**

First, the number “186” is the unique ID number for this student. When you code this student’s pet peeves, you need to write them on the line for this ID number.

**Codes**

Next you will see a vertical bar | in the narrative text on page 3 which means there are more than one pet peeve listed by the student.

**Code Sheet Example (Refer to Coding Scheme page 5)**

The first pet peeve is about assignments that are considered to be “busy work”. When you review the code scheme for student pet peeves, it looks like the number “08” (Assignments not geared to learning [e.g., busy work]) best describes this student’s pet peeve. You then enter the number “08” into the second column (Code 1) of the code sheet (see below).

In the next pet peeve, the student writes about “lack of feedback”. While her response is not very specific, it is most likely to related to code number “13” (Assignments returned without comments or feedback). You then enter “13” in the third column of the code sheet. Because this student did not list a third pet peeve, you then leave the fourth column (Code 3) blank.

Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data

| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **ID #** | **Code 1** | **Code 2** | **Code 3** |
| 186 | 08 | 13 | |

You are now ready to start content coding the narrative text of pet peeves for the 10 students in this assignment on page 3. When you are finished, you need to submit your completed code sheet on page 7 to the submission link in Week 5.

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Student Narrative Text on Course Pet Peeves**

001 Professors who “don’t allow” students to disagree with their opinions.
**|**
Professors who grade based on the placement of commas and the number of spaces typed between words rather than on the ideas and thoughts developed.
**|**
Professors who give me reason to feel about 2 inches tall when I give an incorrect answer to a question.

002 Ridiculous amounts of reading to be done in a short period of time.
**|**
Not having an opportunity to discuss different viewpoints or different facets of a topic-issue.

003 I get frustrated with instructors that behave as though we have nothing else going on in our lives except their class and their assignments.

004 I don’t like to read material that doesn’t have a practical benefit. I want to leave here with a marketable skill, not a head filled with historical facts or scientific jargon.

005 Students who use the classroom to show how
**smart** they are and to
**build** themselves up.
**|**
Those who rattle their candy and gum wrappers or chip bags.

006 When required readings are not available.
**|**
When instructors put-down students.
**|**
When assignments are too difficult.

007 Professor who believe their view is the
**only** one acceptable.
**|** Disorganized classes.
**|** Dry readings.

008 Professors who are condescending toward students.
**|** Test questions that come out of the blue.

009 People make noise – opening snacks, chewing loud (pretzels).
**|** When people monopolize class.

010 Allowing personal bias to dictate evaluations of students work. (e.g., If you disagree, then you’re wrong.)
**|** When expectations for grades are unclear.

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data**

**Course Requirements**

**01** = Can’t locate required readings

**02** =
_Unclear_ expectations of students

**03** =
_Unrealistic_ expectations of students (e.g., too many readings, assignments too difficult)

**04** = Working in groups (e.g., too much, meaningless)

**05** = Course doesn’t follow syllabus

**Course Content**

**06** = Content of required readings (e.g., irrelevant, inappropriate, boring, dry)

**07** = No clinical, policy or real-life application of course content

**08** = Assignments not geared to learning (e.g., busy work)

**09** = Too little time spent on the most important topics

**Teacher – Student Relationship**

**10** = Teacher doesn’t encourage students to voice opinions that are different from their own

**11** = Teacher talks down to students (e.g., condescending, makes students feel stupid)

**12** = Teacher has low expectations of students (e.g., intelligence, experience, ability to complete assignments)

**Teaching Behavior**

**13** = Assignments returned without comments or feedback (e.g., papers)

**14** = Personality of teacher (e.g., opinionated, egotistical, arrogant, thinks their approach is the only way)

**15** = Unfair or inappropriate grading (e.g., papers, exams, final grades)

**16** = Poor facilitator of class discussions

**Student Behavior**

**17** = Students who monopolize class time

**18** = Irrelevant comments or discussions by other students (e.g., personal stories)

**19** = Limited or no development of peer relationships with classmates

**20** = Overbearing, intimidating, and/or opinionated students

**21** = Students making noises in class (e.g., rattling papers, unwrapping food)

**98** = Other: Student’s written response not a pet peeve or doesn’t fit coding scheme

**99** = Unable to decipher meaning of student response

## **Week 10: Qualitative Coding Assignment**

## **Code Sheet: Student Pet Peeve Data**

**Qualitative Analyses:** The analytic method you will use to analyze the narrative data for this Assignment is called content analysis. It requires you to read each student’s narrative and then code its content using the thematic categories on page 4 (Coding Scheme: Student Pet Peeve Data). Once you have completed the coding, you will need to describe the most common types of “pet peeves” that students have about their courses.

| | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| **ID #** | **CODE 1** | **CODE 2** | **CODE 3** |
| 001 | | | |
| 002 | | | |
| 003 | | | |
| 004 | | | |
| 005 | | | |
| 006 | | | |
| 007 | | | |
| 008 | | | |
| 009 | | | |
| 010 | | | |

After you complete the code sheet,
**summarize the major themes** or most common pet peeves described by the 10 students in their previous courses:

– 1
– 2

November 5, 2026
[Solved] CBT video critique

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

**Objectives:** 1. Critically appraise the therapy session and determine if the applicable principles are applied throughout the shown session. 2. Demonstrate your ability to evaluate your own reactions to the session. 3. Analyze how you feel this therapeutic modality may affect, enhance or apply to…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

**Objectives:**
1. Critically appraise the therapy session and determine if the applicable principles are applied throughout the shown session.
2. Demonstrate your ability to evaluate your own reactions to the session.
3. Analyze how you feel this therapeutic modality may affect, enhance or apply to your future PMHNP practice.
**Purpose:**
1. IS NOT to evaluate the acting in the portrayals.
2. Is to demonstrate you can identify (include in your write-up) the principles of the applicable therapeutic modality.
3. Is to include how you felt the principles of the modality is or is not included in the therapeutic exchange.
**Directions:**
1. Review the video clip and critique the psychotherapy counseling session using the assessment tools below.
2. You can review the critique tool below and then click on the link below to download the [MH708 Video Critique form-1.docx](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4965/files/2908918?wrap=1 "MH708 Video Critique form-1.docx") [Download MH708 Video Critique form-1.docx](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4965/files/2908918/download?download_frd=1). Complete the assignment and then upload completed assignment file for submission
3. Please answer the questions directly on that form. Do not write long paragraphs
4. For Question 2, use this handout from Module 2 to pick out the communication techniques: [TherapeuticCommunication handout.pdf](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4965/files/2908845/download?wrap=1 "TherapeuticCommunication handout.pdf") [Download TherapeuticCommunication handout.pdf](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4965/files/2908845/download?download_frd=1)
Video: https://youtu.be/W3hMmZQAdhw
\
MH708VideoCritiqueform.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/mh708videocritiqueform-docx-10358095 "MH708VideoCritiqueform.docx")
\
TherapeuticCommunicationhandout.pdf](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/therapeuticcommunicationhandout-pdf-10358103 "TherapeuticCommunicationhandout.pdf")

November 5, 2026
[Solved] Differentiating Between Qualitative & Quantitative

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research methods? Give an example of each. **Submission Instructions:** – Your initial post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in current APA style with accurate DOI numbers and with support from at least 2 academic sources p…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research methods? Give an example of each.
**Submission Instructions:**
– Your initial post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in current APA style with accurate DOI numbers and with support from at least 2 academic sources published within the last five years.
– in paragraph form, no bullet points or numbering.

November 5, 2026
[Solved] Nursing Introduction & PICOT Question Assignment

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

For this assignment, you will write an introduction. **Your Introduction must include:** **see notepad** – ## sourcesnur611.docx **## sourcesnur611.docx** References Bulto, L. N., Roseleur, J., Noonan, S., Pinero de Plaza, M. A., Champion, S., Dafny, H. A., Pearson, V., Nesbitt, K., Gebremichael, L….

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

For this assignment, you will write an introduction.
**Your Introduction must include:**
**see notepad**

– ## sourcesnur611.docx

**## sourcesnur611.docx**

References

Bulto, L. N., Roseleur, J., Noonan, S., Pinero de Plaza, M. A., Champion, S., Dafny, H. A., Pearson, V., Nesbitt, K., Gebremichael, L. G., Beleigoli, A., Gulyani, A., Schultz, T., Hines, S., Clark, R. A., & Hendriks, J. M. (2023). Effectiveness of nurse-led interventions versus usual care to manage hypertension and lifestyle behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
_European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing_,
_23_(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvad040

Clemente, M. R. C., Felix, N., Navalha, D. D. P., Pasqualotto, E., Morgado Ferreira, R. O., Braga, M. A. P., Nogueira, A., Costa, T. A., Marinho, A. D., & Fernandes, A. (2024). Long-term impact of home-based monitoring after an admission for acute decompensated heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
_eClinicalMedicine_,
_71_, 102541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102541

Margolis, K. L., Bergdall, A. R., Crain, A. L., JaKa, M. M., Anderson, J. P., Solberg, L. I., Sperl-Hillen, J., Beran, M., Green, B. B., Haugen, P., Norton, C. K., Kodet, A. J., Sharma, R., Appana, D., Trower, N. K., Pawloski, P. A., Rehrauer, D. J., Simmons, M. L., McKinney, Z. J., … O’Connor, P. J. (2022). Comparing pharmacist-led Telehealth Care and clinic-based care for uncontrolled high blood pressure: The hyperlink 3 pragmatic cluster-randomized trial.
_Hypertension_,
_79_(12), 2708–2720. https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.122.19816

Mihevc, M., Mori Lukančič, M., Zavrnik, Č., Virtič Potočnik, T., Ružić Gorenjec, N., Petek Šter, M., Klemenc-Ketiš, Z., & Poplas Susič, A. (2025). Impact of 12-month mhealth home telemonitoring on clinical outcomes in older individuals with hypertension and type 2 diabetes: Multicenter Randomized Controlled trial.
_JMIR mHealth and uHealth_,
_13_. https://doi.org/10.2196/59733

Ogedegbe, G., Teresi, J. A., Williams, S. K., Ogunlade, A., Izeogu, C., Eimicke, J. P., Kong, J., Silver, S. A., Williams, O., Valsamis, H., Law, S., Levine, S. R., Waddy, S. P., & Spruill, T. M. (2024). Home blood pressure telemonitoring and nurse case management in black and Hispanic patients with stroke.
_JAMA_,
_332_(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.6609

**## sourcesnur611.docx**

References

Bulto, L. N., Roseleur, J., Noonan, S., Pinero de Plaza, M. A., Champion, S., Dafny, H. A., Pearson, V., Nesbitt, K., Gebremichael, L. G., Beleigoli, A., Gulyani, A., Schultz, T., Hines, S., Clark, R. A., & Hendriks, J. M. (2023). Effectiveness of nurse-led interventions versus usual care to manage hypertension and lifestyle behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
_European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing_,
_23_(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvad040

Clemente, M. R. C., Felix, N., Navalha, D. D. P., Pasqualotto, E., Morgado Ferreira, R. O., Braga, M. A. P., Nogueira, A., Costa, T. A., Marinho, A. D., & Fernandes, A. (2024). Long-term impact of home-based monitoring after an admission for acute decompensated heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
_eClinicalMedicine_,
_71_, 102541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102541

Margolis, K. L., Bergdall, A. R., Crain, A. L., JaKa, M. M., Anderson, J. P., Solberg, L. I., Sperl-Hillen, J., Beran, M., Green, B. B., Haugen, P., Norton, C. K., Kodet, A. J., Sharma, R., Appana, D., Trower, N. K., Pawloski, P. A., Rehrauer, D. J., Simmons, M. L., McKinney, Z. J., … O’Connor, P. J. (2022). Comparing pharmacist-led Telehealth Care and clinic-based care for uncontrolled high blood pressure: The hyperlink 3 pragmatic cluster-randomized trial.
_Hypertension_,
_79_(12), 2708–2720. https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.122.19816

Mihevc, M., Mori Lukančič, M., Zavrnik, Č., Virtič Potočnik, T., Ružić Gorenjec, N., Petek Šter, M., Klemenc-Ketiš, Z., & Poplas Susič, A. (2025). Impact of 12-month mhealth home telemonitoring on clinical outcomes in older individuals with hypertension and type 2 diabetes: Multicenter Randomized Controlled trial.
_JMIR mHealth and uHealth_,
_13_. https://doi.org/10.2196/59733

Ogedegbe, G., Teresi, J. A., Williams, S. K., Ogunlade, A., Izeogu, C., Eimicke, J. P., Kong, J., Silver, S. A., Williams, O., Valsamis, H., Law, S., Levine, S. R., Waddy, S. P., & Spruill, T. M. (2024). Home blood pressure telemonitoring and nurse case management in black and Hispanic patients with stroke.
_JAMA_,
_332_(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.6609

November 5, 2026
[Solved] Week 3. response (class 2)

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Week 3. response (class 2).

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

November 5, 2026