Major assignment 2

Background Statement--

Excellent 90 (20%) - 100 (22.22%)

Paper includes a background statement of approximately 1–2 pages that includes (a) what the student has learned about social change as a social issue and (b) what the student has learned about social change as a research problem. All insights are supported with academic citations from the Learning Resources. The paper describes the gap that the study will address, including a purpose statement that addresses the research question: What is the meaning of social change for Walden graduate students?

Good 80 (17.78%) - 89 (19.78%)

Paper includes a background statement of approximately 1–2 pages that includes (a) what the student has learned about social change as a social issue and (b) what the student has learned about social change as a research problem. Only some insights are supported with academic citations from the Learning Resources. The paper describes the gap that the study will address, including a purpose statement that addresses the research question: What is the meaning of social change for Walden graduate students?

Fair 70 (15.56%) - 79 (17.56%)

Paper includes a background statement of approximately 1–2 pages that includes topics relating to social change, but the distinction between the social problem and research problem are unclear. Few insights are supported with academic citations from the Learning Resources. The paper describes the gap that the study will address, but it is poorly written and/or missing information. Its connection to social change for Walden graduate students is not clear.

Poor 0 (0%) - 69 (15.33%)

Paper includes a background statement of approximately 1–2 pages that includes topics relating to social change, but the distinction between the social problem and research problem are unclear, and there are no academic citations from the Learning Resources. The paper does not describe the gap that the study will address.

Role of the Researcher--

Excellent 90 (20%) - 100 (22.22%)

Paper provides a clear description of the role of the student researcher, including any/all roles that the student is playing in the process (e.g., graduate student, classmate, interviewer). The paper includes a thorough review of analytic memos written through each aspect of data collection, with an examination of the student’s role and experience and how the student’s role has shaped his/her experience. Any ethical issues that could or did arise during the data collection process are sufficiently and clearly described.

Good 80 (17.78%) - 89 (19.78%)

Paper provides a description of the role of the student researcher, including the roles that the student is playing in the process (e.g., graduate student, classmate, interviewer). The paper includes a review of analytic memos written through some (but not all) aspects of data collection. There may be several aspects missing of the student’s experience or how the student’s role has shaped his/her experience. Ethical issues that could or did arise during the data collection process are described.

Fair 70 (15.56%) - 79 (17.56%)

Paper provides a description of the role of the student researcher, including the roles that the student is playing in the process (e.g., graduate student, classmate, interviewer), but the description is either unclear or is missing in detail. The paper includes a review of analytic memos written through only some aspects of data collection. There are various aspects of the student’s experience that are either missing or are unclear. Ethical issues that could or did arise during the data collection process are only partially described.

Poor 0 (0%) - 69 (15.33%)

Paper provides an unclear or insufficient description of the role of the student researcher. The paper does not include any analytic memos. There are various aspects of the student’s experience that are either missing or are unclear. Ethical issues that could or did arise during the data collection process are not described.

Analysis and Results--

Excellent 90 (20%) - 100 (22.22%)

Paper provides a clear write-up of the results of the student’s data analyses. The report includes data sources, instrumentation, and data analysis, with clear and sufficient detail in each section.

Good 80 (17.78%) - 89 (19.78%)

Paper provides a write-up of the results of the student’s data analyses. The report includes data sources, instrumentation, and data analysis, although additional detail may be necessary to demonstrate complete transparency and credibility.

Fair 70 (15.56%) - 79 (17.56%)

Paper provides a write-up of the results of the student’s data analyses, but there is missing or unclear information in more than one of the following: data sources, instrumentation, and data analysis.

Poor 0 (0%) - 69 (15.33%)

The paper is either missing the results section or it is too poorly written to understand.

Trustworthiness and Summary--

Excellent 90 (20%) - 100 (22.22%)

Paper provides a strong explanation for the commonalities and distinctions among the emergent themes in the project findings, and discusses the findings’ trustworthiness in terms of (a) credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability. The paper includes a clear summary, which addresses the question, “What is the meaning of social change for Walden graduate students?” The paper also includes a self-reflection, which includes a critical evaluation of one’s growth and the applicability of the three reviewed social change articles to student’s interests.

Good 80 (17.78%) - 89 (19.78%)

Paper provides an explanation for the commonalities and distinctions among the emergent themes in the project findings. Trustworthiness is addressed, but it is not illustrated through all four indicators of (a) credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability. The paper includes a summary, which addresses the question, “What is the meaning of social change for Walden graduate students?” The paper includes a self-reflection, which includes an evaluation of one’s growth and the applicability of the three reviewed social change articles to the student’s interests.

Fair 70 (15.56%) - 79 (17.56%)

Paper provides an explanation for the emergent themes in the project findings, but there is scant analysis on the commonalities or distinctions in the themes. Trustworthiness is only partially addressed through two or fewer of the indicators of (a) credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability. The paper includes a summary and self-reflection, but it lacks a critical assessment of the student’s role in the process and/or the applicability of the three reviewed social change articles to the student’s interests.

Poor 0 (0%) - 69 (15.33%)

Paper provides either an unclear or insufficient analysis on the themes. Trustworthiness is not addressed. The paper’s summary and/or self-reflection is either missing or unclear.

Writing--

Excellent 45 (10%) - 50 (11.11%)

Paper is well organized, uses scholarly tone, follows APA style, uses original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate-level writing style. Paper contains multiple, appropriate and exemplary sources expected/required for the assignment.

Good 40 (8.89%) - 44 (9.78%)

Paper is mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style. Paper may have some small or infrequent organization, scholarly tone, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors, and/or somewhat less than the expected number of or type of sources.

Fair 35 (7.78%) - 39 (8.67%)

Paper is somewhat below graduate-level writing style, with multiple smaller or a few major problems. Paper may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or shows moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing. Paper may contain inferior resources (number or quality).

Poor 0 (0%) - 34 (7.56%)

Paper is well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or relies excessively on quoting. Paper may contain few or no quality resources.

Name: RSCH_8310_Week_10_Assignment_Rubric

Description: RSCH 7310 Assignment Week 10 Rubric – RSCH 6310 Assignment Week 10 Rubric