Revision of this was then and this is now
rnixon@123
Revisionofthiswasthenandthisisnow.docxRevision of "That Was Then, This Is Now"
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
The iterative process in the doctoral journey is invaluable to novice scholar. The iterative process involves the ongoing interactive participation of learner and instructor (later chair and committee) in reading, writing, specific instructor feedback, reflection, and revision. In this assignment, you will reflect on the written work you submitted in Topic 2 and the feedback provided by the instructor to create a revised and updated version of the “That Was Then, This Is Now” paper and makes appropriate revisions based on that feedback. This assignment will offer the opportunity to experience the scholarly interaction and collaborative climate that you will experience with your doctoral chair-to-be.
General Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the 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 Chapters 2-4 of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.) for specific guidelines related to doctoral-level writing. These chapters contain 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:
1. Write a reflection (250-300 words) that provides a list of the changes you made to the paper and discusses your revision process including how you incorporated the feedback of the instructor into the revised version. Similar to an abstract, this section will receive its own page following the title page and preceding the introduction to the paper.
2. List your changes in bullet fashion on this single page following your title page.
3. Add a section to the paper regarding how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes on the role of the special education leader.
4. Incorporate 2-4 additional current empirical citations in your revision.
5. The revised paper will incorporate instructor feedback and accomplish the following: clarify the thesis statement; solidify supporting arguments; edit for grammar, spelling, and punctuation; adjust word choice to display professional and scholarly language; and adjust sentence structure for improved readability.
Rubric
Reflection
5. Target
20 points
A reflection is thoroughly presented and demonstrates thoughtful insight. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are impactful.
4. Acceptable
18.2 points
A reflection is present and reasonable. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are reasonable.
3. Approaching
16.4 points
A reflection is presented, but is cursory and lacking depth of insight. A list of revisions made is present, but lacks specificity; the revisions noted are not substantive.
2. Insufficient
14.6 points
A reflection is present, but is incomplete. A list of specific revisions made is not present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A reflection is either missing or not evident to the reader.
collapse Integration of Instructor Feedback assessment
Integration of Instructor Feedback
50 points
Criteria Description
Integration of Instructor Feedback
5. Target
50 points
Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. It is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
4. Acceptable
45.5 points
Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
3. Approaching
41 points
Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
2. Insufficient
36.5 points
Integration of instructor feedback is attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader.
collapse Revision of Thesis and Argument assessment
Revision of Thesis and Argument
40 points
Criteria Description
Revision of Thesis and Argument
5. Target
40 points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. The argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Acceptable
36.4 points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. The argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
3. Approaching
32.8 points
Thesis apparent and appropriate to purpose. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
2. Insufficient
29.2 points
Thesis and/or main claim remain insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. The argument presented remains disorganized and unclear. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No improvements to the thesis and argument are evident.
collapse Revision of Writing Mechanics assessment
Revision of Writing Mechanics
40 points
Criteria Description
Revision of Writing Mechanics
5. Target
40 points
Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. Writer demonstrates command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Acceptable
36.4 points
Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. 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. Approaching
32.8 points
Changes to the writing components are present. 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. Insufficient
29.2 points
Changes to the writing components are largely cosmetic rather than substantive. Mechanical errors continue to be a distraction to the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice remain present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No improvements to the writing mechanics are evident.
collapse Additional Section Discussing How Current Legislation Affects Leadership Responsibilities assessment
Additional Section Discussing How Current Legislation Affects Leadership Responsibilities
40 points
Criteria Description
Additional Section Discussing How Current Legislation Affects Leadership Responsibilities
5. Target
40 points
A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is clearly presented. Discussion is thorough and insightful. Research is from scholarly and current sources.
4. Acceptable
36.4 points
A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is clearly presented. Discussion is convincing. Research is from original sources; most are authoritative, but some are outdated.
3. Approaching
32.8 points
A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is present, but done at a cursory level.
2. Insufficient
29.2 points
A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is present., but undeveloped or inadequate.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is not presented.
collapse APA Format assessment
APA Format
10 points
Criteria Description
APA Format
5. Target
10 points
The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
4. Acceptable
9.1 points
Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g., headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
3. Approaching
8.2 points
Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g., font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present.
2. Insufficient
7.3 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. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.
Problem Statement/Research Questions
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
The process of articulating a problem statement and the related research questions requires a significant amount of reading and reflection. Doctoral learners at this point in the program must consider a problem to research for the dissertation and begin to articulate that problem. In this assignment, you will articulate a potential problem statement for your dissertation research and pose several potential research questions that could address the problem statement. Please note that a passing score on this assignment does not indicate an approved problem statement or research questions. You will work with your dissertation chair and methodologist to further refine and focus these items once you enter the dissertation phase of the program.
General Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the 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 Chapters 2-4 of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.) for specific guidelines related to doctoral-level writing. These chapters contain 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: Write a paper (750-1,000 words) in which you articulate a potential problem statement for your dissertation research and pose several potential research questions that could address the problem statement. Include the following in your paper:
1. A clearly articulated and focused potential problem statement for the dissertation study you might conduct. What is the area of research you intend to explore? What are the key concepts of your focus? What is the context of the problem? Who are the subjects of this research focus?
2. A research-supported rationale for exploring the problem. What is the need or defined gap as supported by at least four current and relevant sources of research literature?
3. Four potential research questions that could guide your collection of data in addressing the problem statement. Reflect on the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the problem statement to gain a broader perspective on the problem statement. What analytical questions need to be asked related to the data that must be collected to address the defined gap? Articulate these ideas into research questions that focus on the relevant data that needs to be collected.
Rubric
Criteria Description
Clearly Articulated and Focused Potential Problem Statement
5. Target
28 points
A clearly articulated and focused potential problem statement is thoroughly presented. Components are all addressed with rich detail.
4. Acceptable
24.36 points
A clearly articulated and focused potential problem statement is reasonable and scholarly. Components are all addressed with reasonable detail.
3. Approaching
22.12 points
A clearly articulated and focused potential problem statement is presented, but is cursory and addresses most components superficially
2. Insufficient
20.72 points
A clearly articulated and focused potential problem statement is included, but is incomplete and does not address all necessary components.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A clearly articulated and focused potential problem statement is not presented.
collapse Research-Supported Rationale for Exploring the Problem assessment
Research-Supported Rationale for Exploring the Problem
35 points
Criteria Description
Research-Supported Rationale for Exploring the Problem
5. Target
35 points
A research-supported rationale for exploring the problem is thoroughly presented. Sources in support of the gap or need are scholarly current or seminal research.
4. Acceptable
30.45 points
A research-supported rationale for exploring the problem is reasonable and scholarly, but some research used to support the gap or need is outdated.
3. Approaching
27.65 points
A research-supported rationale for exploring the problem is presented, but is cursory. Most of the research used to support the gap or need is outdated.
2. Insufficient
25.9 points
A research-supported rationale for exploring the problem is included, but is incomplete or illogical.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A research-supported rationale for exploring the problem is not presented.
collapse Four Potential Research Questions assessment
Four Potential Research Questions
35 points
Criteria Description
Four Potential Research Questions
5. Target
35 points
Four potential research questions are meaningful and scholarly. The research questions demonstrate clear alignment with the problem statement presented.
4. Acceptable
30.45 points
Four potential research questions are reasonable and scholarly. The research questions demonstrate relative alignment with the problem statement presented.
3. Approaching
27.65 points
Four potential research questions are presented, but are not all valid. The research questions demonstrate little alignment with the problem statement presented.
2. Insufficient
25.9 points
questions are included, but are illogical or unreasonable. The research questions demonstrate no alignment with the problem statement presented.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Four potential research questions are not presented.
collapse Synthesis and Argument assessment
Synthesis and Argument
14 points
Criteria Description
Synthesis and Argument
5. Target
14 points
Synthesis of source information is present and is scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Acceptable
12.18 points
Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
3. Approaching
11.06 points
Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
2. Insufficient
10.36 points
Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.
collapse Thesis Development and Purpose assessment
Thesis Development and Purpose
7 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Target
7 points
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Acceptable
6.09 points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. Approaching
5.53 points
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Insufficient
5.18 points
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
collapse Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) assessment
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
7 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Target
7 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Acceptable
6.09 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. Approaching
5.53 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. Insufficient
5.18 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
collapse Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) assessment
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
7 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. Target
7 points
All format elements are correct.
4. Acceptable
6.09 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
3. Approaching
5.53 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
2. Insufficient
5.18 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
collapse Research Citations assessment
Research Citations
7 points
Criteria Description
Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Target
7 points
In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
4. Acceptable
6.09 points
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
3. Approaching
5.53 points
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.
2. Insufficient
5.18 points
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No reference page is included. No citations are used.
