Who would be able to complete this in a timely manner?

**FOLLOW THE GRADING RUBRIC, There should be no written grammatical errors and meet ALL page limit requirements as well as source limits**

EDU 671

Intervention/Innovation Method

Instructions: For this assignment, you will write a method paper than contains the items listed in the content below.

Content
The assignment needs to include the following areas of content.

Intervention – Overview (.5 point): In no more than one page, explain your proposed intervention.
Intervention – Literature Review (1 point): In no more than one page, discuss your literature review and how it informs your proposed intervention.
Intervention – Benefits (.5 point): In no more than one page, explain why you think your population will benefit from the intervention. Ensure your explanation draws on the literature you are using to support this choice of intervention.
Intervention Plan (2 points): In one- to two-pages, describe in chronological order how you will implement your intervention and provide a hypothetical yet practical timeframe for these steps.
Ethics – Philosophy (.5 point): In one- to two-paragraphs, explain how this intervention fits within your philosophy of teaching. You may have written a philosophy in EDU623 or another prior course.
Ethics – Social Principles (.5 point): In one- to two-paragraphs, explain how this intervention relates to your social principles as an educator.
Ethics – Harm (1 point): In one- to two-paragraphs, explain how the literature you reviewed leads you to believe what you are doing is an appropriate intervention.
Ethics – Protection (.5 point): In one- to two-paragraphs, explain your planned measures to ensure you are protecting the study participants and doing no harm.
Ethics – Bias (.5 point): In one- to two-paragraphs, explain your planned measures to ensure the study yields unbiased results.
Data Collection Procedures (1 point): In one page, revise your triangulation matrix from the Week Three Triangulation discussion adding a column that includes how and when you will collect your data. This timeline will be hypothetical and approximate. The Data Collection Procedures section can follow this example:
**The example is attached to this as a file as a PICTURE**PLEASE FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE!!!***
***I Have also attached my week 3 Assignment, just in case you need to follow from last week’s assignment**

Written Communication
The assignment needs to adhere to the following areas for written communication.

Page Requirement (.5 point): The assignment must be five to six pages, not including title and references pages.
APA Formatting (.5 point): Use APA formatting consistently throughout.
Syntax and Mechanics (.5 point): Display meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Your written work should contain no errors and be very easy to understand.
Source Requirement (.5 point): Use no less than three scholarly sources in addition to the course textbooks, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page need to be used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Hey, all…just an IMPORTANT reminder, be sure your two and ONLY TWO research questions follow the template below:

Template:

Quantitative research question:

What is the difference in (scores, behavior, achievement, etc) when (your intervention) is applied over (period of time)?

Qualitative research question:

What is the perspective of (stakeholders, teachers, students, parents, etc) in regards to (your intervention)?

Review and Submit the Assignment
Review your assignment with the Grading Rubric to be sure you have achieved the distinguished levels of performance for each criterion. Next, submit the assignment to the course room for evaluation no later than day 7 of the week.

Carefully review the

Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

Running Head: DRAFT ACTION RESEARCH PLAN Edwards 1

Draft Action Research Plan

Markis’ Edwards

EDU 671: Fundamentals of Educational Research

Dr. Deborah Naughton

January 5, 2018

Area of Focus

The purpose of this study is to come up with better ways or retaining employees at the place I work for. There are high numbers of employees every month who are terminating their services with the institution. This is forcing the institution to constantly carry out new hiring processes to replace employees who have exited the institution (Holder-Winfield, 2014).

Problem interest

The institution is constantly losing talented employees almost on a weekly basis. The institutions have several theories that support the reason for this; employees are not satisfied with the salaries and the remuneration package that they are receiving, the employees feel that there is little room for career growth and that there is constant head hunting for the employees from rival institutions.

The human resource department has recorded that it loses 20 to 25 employees every month. This is causing instability in the institution as the human resource has to hire new employees and train them in order to replace the employees who have exited the institution. The human resource department is worried that the training process for the new employees is taking too much time and delaying the daily functions of the institution. There is also a worry from the current employees of the organization, they are uncertain about the future of the organization. Current employees are worried that the constant exit of fellow employees might trigger a collapse of the institution.

Background

The issue of constant employee exits was recorded to have started a year ago. Prior to the constant exits, the institution recorded to be losing employees at a lower rate; 5 to 10 employees per year. The institution that I work for used to be very stable and every function of the institution was carried out as expected. This was quite remarkable considering that the institution was fairly a new one; it has been in existence for the last 11 years. As of three years ago, the institution’s remuneration package was slightly lower than its industry’s remuneration payout.

In the first five years, the organization’s expansion was rapid considering it is a banking institution; the expansion was noted in the acquiring and opening of new bank branches and also the number of employees employed by the institution. However, after the fifth year, the rapid expansion stopped, the employees settled into their positions in the institution. Nine years into the existence of the institution there was a slowdown from the employees with grumbles of lack of room for career growth and inequality of remuneration package of the institution compared to that of the industry that it was in.

Prior Interventions

Two months after the grumble fellow human resources and I tried to get to the root cause of the grumble and dissatisfaction of the small number of employees. Once it was established the human resource met up with not contented members and offered to increase their remuneration packages. This move was meant to stop the spread of the grumbles to other employees. The not contented members were reluctant to take the new packages claiming that it was a payout to shut them up, however, they eventually took the new packages. As part of the human resource department of the institution, we assured them that we would take up the issue of career growth with the top management of the organization.

The top management advised that we should create room for career growth for the grumbling employees as they were only a handful of them. To that effect, new positions were created and given to the grumbling members. A year later a new protest from a significantly huge number of employees took place. Their complaints were similar to the earlier handful grumblers. To that effect, the top management advised the HR department to offer voluntary early retirement to employees that were dissatisfied. This led to the termination of services from many employees in that year. to that effect, it was crucial to find an employee retention strategy that would sort the institution once and for all.

Participant Description

To come up with an effective strategy I decided to have a list of participants that will aid me to decide on good employee retention styles. I decided to pick a representative from each department of the institution. The departments included the IT department, branch operations department, credit department, debt recovery department, legal department, administration department, central processing unit department, marketing department, sales department, risk and audit department, money transfer department, forensic and physical security department.

I also randomly selected 6 employees who met different criteria; two employees that have worked in the institution for three or less years, two other employees who have worked in the institution for more than three years but less than six years and the final two employees who met the criteria of working in the institution for not less than six years.

Justification of participants

I settled on these participants as they represent a large percentage of the institution’s employees. Having a member from each department will give an overall view of the department’s take on employee retention. Each department representative will highlight the plight of their department. Also by having a representative from each department will align the institution to the common goal of employee retention as every department will feel that they had a role to play in the eventual strategy.

By having employees who have worked in the institution for a different number of years will help align the expectations of employees depending on their stay in the organization. These participants will give a representative view of their expected career growth and remuneration packages. The participants will also represent the various age groups in the organization.

Research Questions

The two questions I settled for my research are as below

Question 1: What do you think will retain the most number of employees in the institution and what will be the possible side effect of applying your employee retaining strategy?

Question 2: What do you think will be the perspective of your fellow employees in regards to your employee retaining strategy (Hinchey, 2016)?

Idea-Teaching and Learning

My idea is an issue that will involve teaching and learning. The top management and HR department will learn of the expectations of the employees. They will also learn better employee retaining mechanisms. As the research is taking place the participants who are representatives of fellow employees, will learn about the organization’s expectations of employees and learn about realistic employee retention strategies (Ragoonaden, 2015).

Locus of Control

I believe that my idea is within my locus of control. I believe that through my interactions with the participants, I can influence the outcomes of the research to favor both the institution and employees. My idea will also influence the internal locus of control of the employees as they will believe that they had full control of the outcome as far as employee retention is concerned (LEFCOURT, 2017).

Passion

I feel that my idea is something that I am passionate about. My passion originates from both my life experience and professional practice. My desire to have employees who are satisfied or who have little complaints about the institution they work for motivates me to come up with a solution for such an issue. Through my life experience, I have discovered that satisfied people or employees for this matter perform better if they feel that their needs and demands are looked into and that they are addressed.

Inspiration

My idea inspires change, as employees feel they are part of the employee retention strategy. My idea will improve the employee plight in the institution and as a result, it may save the institution’s state; the institution will not collapse as employees will be retained and the functions of the institution will be carried out as expected.

References

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form

Blaikie, N. W. H., & Priest, J. (2016). Social research: Paradigms in action. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Hinchey, P. H. (2016). A critical action research reader.

Holder-Winfield, N. (2014). Exclusion: Strategies for improving diversity in recruitment, retention, and promotion.

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research.

LEFCOURT, H. M. (2017). LOCUS OF CONTROL. S.l.: PSYCHOLOGY PRESS.

McNiff, J. (2014). Writing and doing action research.

Ragoonaden, K. (2015). Mindful teaching and learning: Developing a pedagogy of well-being.