Week 2 RES 820A

Week2RES820A.docx

Home >Literature homework help >Week 2 RES 820A

Hello, I need your help with an assignment it is due 2/4/2022. I’m getting all the work together.

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 Description

Successful completion of a doctoral dissertation requires significant amounts of independent, critical reading on the research topic. This allows the doctoral researcher to become familiar with the scope of the topic and to identify problem spaces within the existing literature that become the source of the dissertation research. In this assignment, you will engage with a strategy to critically read scholarly literature.

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

· Locate the resource "Reading Research" for use with 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.

· While APA style is not required for this assignment, solid academic writing is expected.

· 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:

Complete this assignment using the directions in "Reading Research." Submit a single document that collects your work on all of the requirements presented in the resource.

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.

Uploaded Files

UPLOAD FILES

File Name

Uploaded Date

Similarity Report

Actions

No files have been uploaded.

Rubric

Rubric

collapse Part 1: Relevance of Artifacts assessment

Part 1: Relevance of Artifacts

28.5 points

Criteria Description

Part 1: Relevance of Artifacts

5. 5: Excellent

28.5 points

The artifact most relevant to the learner's program and emphasis was correctly identified. All key questions are thoroughly addressed. There is overwhelming evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions.

4. 4: Good

25.94 points

The artifact most relevant to the learner's program and emphasis was correctly identified. All key questions are reasonably addressed. There is appropriate evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions.

3. 3: Satisfactory

23.37 points

The artifact most relevant to the learner's program and emphasis was correctly identified. All key questions are addressed. There is minimal evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

20.81 points

The artifact most relevant to the learner's program and emphasis was correctly identified. Key questions from the template are not addressed or are incorrectly addressed. Evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is lacking.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

No artifact was identified, or the artifact that was identified did not align to the learner's program and emphasis.

Part 2: Reading Strategy assessment

Part 2: Reading Strategy

57 points

Criteria Description

Part 2: Reading Strategy

5. 5: Excellent

57 points

Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are complete. All key questions are thoroughly addressed. There is overwhelming evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions.

4. 4: Good

51.87 points

Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are present. All key questions are reasonably addressed. There is appropriate evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions.

3. 3: Satisfactory

46.74 points

Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are present. All key questions are addressed if only in a cursory manner. There is minimal evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

41.61 points

Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are present but incomplete or illogical. Key questions from the template are not addressed. Evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is lacking.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are either missing or not evident to the reader.

Part 3: Gathering Additional Resources

38 points

Criteria Description

Part 3: Gathering Additional Resources

5. 5: Excellent

38 points

Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is clear. All key questions are fully addressed and display strong evidence of understanding the purpose of the technique.

4. 4: Good

34.58 points

Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is present. All key questions are reasonably addressed and display evidence of emerging understanding of the purpose of the technique.

3. 3: Satisfactory

31.16 points

Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is present. All key questions are addressed if only in a cursory manner.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

27.74 points

Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is present but incomplete or inaccurate. Key questions from the template are not addressed.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is either missing or not evident to the reader.

collapse Part 4: Reflection assessment

Part 4: Reflection

47.5 points

Criteria Description

Part 4: Reflection

5. 5: Excellent

47.5 points

A reflection is clear, thorough, and scholarly. Clear evidence of critical thought is present. The reflection connects directly to the articles read and the reading strategy employed.

4. 4: Good

43.23 points

A reflection is present. Clear evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is present. The reflection connects to the articles read and the reading strategy employed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

38.95 points

A reflection is cursory. Some evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is present. All key questions are addressed if only in a cursory manner. There is a vague connection to the articles read and the reading strategy employed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

34.68 points

A reflection is present but illogical or unreasoned. Critical thought and scholarly reflection are not evident. Key questions from the template are not addressed. Connection to the articles read and the reading strategy is not evident.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

A reflection is either missing or not evident.

Mechanics of Writing assessment

Mechanics of Writing

19 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing

5. 5: Excellent

19 points

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

4. 4: Good

17.29 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

15.58 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

13.87 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.

Resources

Initial Course Survey

In an effort for continuous improvement, Grand Canyon University would like you to provide feedback about your experience with the univer

1. Leadership and Small Firm Performance: The Moderating Effects of Demographic Characteristics

Read this article if applicable to your discipline:

Flanigan, R. L., Bishop, J. L., Brachle, B. J., & Winn, B. A. (2017). Leade

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1152195

Reading Research

Use this for the Topic 2 assignment, entitled "Reading Research."

RES-820-RS-ReadingResearch.docx

2. Assessing the Impact of a Race-Based Course on Counseling Students: A Quantitative Study

Read this article if applicable to your discipline:

Paone, T. R., Malott, K. M., & Barr, J. J. (2015). Assessing the impact of

GCU Doctoral Research: The Literature Landscape

Read Chapter 2.

https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/grand-canyon-university/2020/gcu-doctoral-research_the-literature-landscape_1e.php

3. Full-Range Leadership as a Predictor of Extra Effort in Online Higher Education: The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction

Read this article if applicable to your discipline:

Barnett, D. E. (2019). Full-range leadership as a predictor of extra effort in

4. Changes in Time-Related Academic Behaviour Are Associated With Contextual Motivational Shifts

Read this article if applicable to your discipline:

Strunk, K. K., Lane, F. C., & Mwavita, M. (2017). Changes in time-related a

5. Management, Social Sustainability, Reputation, and Financial Performance Relationships: An Empirical Examination of U.S. Firms

Read this article if applicable to your discipline:

Sroufe, R., & Gopalakrishna-Remani, V. (2019). Management, social sustainab

Analysis of the Demand for Healthcare Services

Read:

Marcikic, A., Pejanovic, R., Sedlak, O., Radovanov, B., & Ciric, Z. (2016). Quantitative analysis

of the demand for

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/lo