RES 831

Review Details

Take a moment to review the details of this assignment below and gather any necessary files. Once you're ready to submit your assignment, move on to Step 2.

Assessment Traits

Requires Lopeswrite

Assessment Description

In your upcoming Residency, you will be asked to defend your choices of potential research topic, background to the problem, problem space, theoretical foundation, initial literature review, problem statement, variables, research questions and hypotheses, study methodology, and study feasibility. In this assignment, you will draft an initial defense of these items assuming your study will use a quantitative methodology.

General Requirements: Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

· Refer to your submission of "Dissertation Development" from RES-820.

· Locate the presentation template "RES-831 Quantitative Study Defense" attached to this assignment.

· This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

· Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.

· Refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for specific guidelines related to doctoral level writing. The Manual contains essential information on manuscript structure and content, clear and concise writing, and academic grammar and usage.

· This assignment requires that at least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.

· You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Directions:

Refer to your potential dissertation topic from your submission of "Dissertation Development" in RES-820. For this assignment, you must use a quantitative methodology. Using the presentation template "RES-831 Quantitative Study Defense," complete the template slides to prepare a presentation to describe and defend your choices of the following as a quantitative study:

1. Proposed Dissertation Topic Title

2. Literature Review: Background to the Problem

3. Literature Review: Problem Space

4. Literature Review: Theoretical Foundations

5. Literature Review: Review of Literature

6. Problem Statement

7. Variables

8. Research Questions and Hypotheses

9. Methodology Justification 

10. Feasibility

Your choices must be defended with relevant current research.

Attachments

RES-831-RS-QuantitativeStudyDefense.pptx

step 22

Upload Files

Start by clicking Upload Files in the table below. Make sure to add all of the files required for your submission.

This assignment requires a Similarity Report.

You can request one within the table after uploading your files. Files submitted to your instructor without a Similarity Report will automatically receive one upon submission.

· Note: Once a Similarity Report is created for a file, it cannot be deleted.

step 33

Submit Assignment

Click the checkbox next to any files you would like to submit and click Submit Assignment to send them to your instructor.

Rubric

Collapse All RubricCollapse All

collapse Defense of Proposed Topic, Background, and Problem Space assessment

Defense of Proposed Topic, Background, and Problem Space

28.5 points

Criteria Description

Defense of the Proposed Study Topic, Background of the Problem, and Problem Space

5. 5: Excellent

28.5 points

A defense of the proposed study topic, background of the problem, and problem space is thorough. Scholarly research is used for support and is current or seminal. The proposed topic and research gap/need directly emerge from a synthesis of the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

4. 4: Good

25.94 points

A defense of the proposed study topic, background of the problem, and problem space is thorough. The research used for support is current. There is a connection to the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.

3. 3: Satisfactory

24.22 points

A defense of the proposed topic, background of the problem, and problem space is cursory. The research used for support is outdated. There is a vague connection to the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

20.81 points

A defense of the proposed study topic, background of the problem, and problem space is illogical or inaccurate. The proposed study topic and research gap/need does not emerge from a synthesis of the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A defense of the proposed study topic, background of the problem, and problem space is either missing or not evident.

collapse Defense of Proposed Foundational Theory assessment

Defense of Proposed Foundational Theory

19 points

Criteria Description

Defense of Proposed Foundational Theory

5. 5: Excellent

19 points

A defense of the proposed foundational theory is thorough. Scholarly research is used for support and is current or seminal. The proposed foundational theory directly emerges from a synthesis of the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

4. 4: Good

17.29 points

A defense of the proposed foundational theory is thorough. The research used for support is current. There is a connection to the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.

3. 3: Satisfactory

16.15 points

A defense of the proposed foundational theory is cursory. The research used for support is outdated. There is a vague connection to the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

13.87 points

A defense of the proposed foundational theory is illogical or inaccurate. The foundational theory does not emerge from a synthesis of the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A defense of the proposed foundational theory is either missing or not evident.

collapse Defense of Initial Literature Review assessment

Defense of Initial Literature Review

19 points

Criteria Description

Defense of Initial Literature Review

5. 5: Excellent

19 points

A defense of the proposed initial literature review is thorough. Scholarly research is used for support and is current or seminal. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

4. 4: Good

17.29 points

A defense of the proposed initial literature review is thorough. The research used for support is current. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.

3. 3: Satisfactory

16.15 points

A defense of the initial literature review is cursory. The research used for support is outdated. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

13.87 points

A defense of the initial literature review is illogical or inaccurate. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A defense of the initial literature review is either missing or not evident.

collapse Defense of Proposed Research Problem assessment

Defense of Proposed Research Problem

19 points

Criteria Description

Defense of Proposed Research Problem

5. 5: Excellent

19 points

A defense of the proposed research problem is thorough. Scholarly research is used for support and is current or seminal. The proposed research problem directly emerges from a synthesis of the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

4. 4: Good

17.29 points

A defense of the proposed research problem is thorough. The research used for support is current. There is a connection to the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.

3. 3: Satisfactory

16.15 points

A defense of the proposed research problem is cursory. The research used for support is outdated. There is a vague connection to the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

13.87 points

A defense of the proposed research problem is illogical or inaccurate. The proposed research problem does not emerge from a synthesis of the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A defense of the proposed research problem is either missing or not evident.

collapse Defense of Proposed Variables assessment

Defense of Proposed Variables

19 points

Criteria Description

Defense of Proposed Variables

5. 5: Excellent

19 points

A defense of the proposed variables is thorough. Scholarly research is used for support and is current or seminal. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

4. 4: Good

17.29 points

A defense of the proposed variables is thorough. The research used for support is current. There is a connection to the cited literature. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.

3. 3: Satisfactory

16.15 points

A defense of the proposed variables is cursory. The research used for support is outdated. There is a vague connection to the cited literature. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

13.87 points

A defense of the proposed variables is illogical or inaccurate. The proposed variables do not emerge from a synthesis of the limitations Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A defense of the proposed variables is either missing or not evident to the reader.

collapse Defense of Proposed Research Questions and Hypotheses assessment

Defense of Proposed Research Questions and Hypotheses

19 points

Criteria Description

Defense of Proposed Research Questions and Hypotheses

5. 5: Excellent

19 points

A defense of the proposed research questions and hypotheses is thorough. Scholarly research is used for support and is current or seminal. The proposed research questions and hypotheses are directly derived from the research problem. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

4. 4: Good

17.29 points

A defense of the proposed research questions and hypotheses is thorough. The research used for support is current. There is a connection to the cited literature. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.

3. 3: Satisfactory

16.15 points

A defense of the proposed research questions and hypotheses is cursory. The research used for support is outdated. There is a vague connection to the cited literature. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

13.87 points

A defense of the proposed research questions and hypotheses is illogical or inaccurate. The proposed research questions and hypotheses do not emerge from a synthesis of the cited literature. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A defense of the proposed research questions and phenomenon is either missing or not evident to the reader.

collapse Defense of Proposed Methodology assessment

Defense of Proposed Methodology

28.5 points

Criteria Description

Defense of Proposed Methodology

5. 5: Excellent

28.5 points

A defense of the proposed methodology is thorough. Scholarly research is used for support and is current or seminal. The proposed methodology is directly derived from the research problem. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

4. 4: Good

25.94 points

A defense of the proposed methodology is thorough. The research used for support is current. There is a connection to the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.

3. 3: Satisfactory

24.22 points

A defense of the proposed methodology is cursory. The research used for support is outdated. There is a vague connection to the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

20.81 points

A defense of the proposed methodology is illogical or inaccurate. The proposed methodology does not emerge from a synthesis of the limitations or future study ideas from the cited literature. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A defense of the proposed methodology is either missing or not evident to the reader.

collapse Defense of Study Feasibility assessment

Defense of Study Feasibility

19 points

Criteria Description

Defense of Study Feasibility

5. 5: Excellent

19 points

A defense of the study feasibility is thorough. Scholarly research is used for support and is current or seminal. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

4. 4: Good

17.29 points

A defense of the study feasibility is thorough. The research used for support is current. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.

3. 3: Satisfactory

16.15 points

A defense of the study feasibility is cursory. The research used for support is outdated. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

13.87 points

A defense of the study feasibility is illogical or inaccurate. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A defense of the study feasibility is either missing or not evident to the reader.

collapse Mechanics of Writing assessment

Mechanics of Writing

9.5 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing

5. 5: Excellent

9.5 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good

8.65 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3. 3: Satisfactory

8.08 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

6.94 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.

collapse APA Format assessment

APA Format

9.5 points

Criteria Description

APA Format

5. 5: Excellent

9.5 points

In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.

4. 4: Good

8.65 points

Required format is used, but minor errors are present. Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory

8.08 points

Required format is generally correct. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present.Blank

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

6.94 points

Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.