Research Paper

profilewlwlli
week4assignmentinstructions.docx
Home>English homework help>Research Paper

Below are four categories that I focus my feedback on for the research proposal assignment. If you scroll further, you will also see the assessment areas – these include the assignment instructions criteria, components checklist, and rubric (scores for each area of assessment). I highlight these aspects to show any unmet criterion/components and then assessment ranks in the rubric.

1. Topic Feedback:

· Is the topic appropriate for the Analytical Research Report assignment?

· Is the topic scope ideal for completing the assignment in the assigned duration of the course?

2. Use of Research Feedback:

· Are sources used in the most ideal place in the report?

· Are sources integrated well, so that your own voice/content smoothly transitions to the source’s voice/content and back to your own voice/content? (in other words, your own voice/content introduces or sets up the source’s materials, then your present the source’s materials, and finally, you comment on the meaning or significance of the source’s materials?)

· Are the sources correctly cited using APA format?

3. Genre Feedback:

· Does the report include all of the required formatting/design elements and components for the assigned genre?

· Is the report structure logically ordered and meet the user’s needs and expectations for the genre?

4. Writing Style Feedback:

· Does the writing style support effective readability/usability?

Assignment Instructions:

1. Complete this assignment using Microsoft Word.

2. Write 8 pages of total single-spaced content - this includes front matter (title page and table of contents, and if needed a list of figures) to back matter (references page and if needed glossary list of terms/appendix) 

3. Use at least 8 sources (other than the course books/eReadings) and cites sources using APA format. 

4. Save the document using your last name, underscore, “Assignment4”. (As an example, a student with the last name of Smith should save the document as Smith_Assignment4.doc.)

5. Submit your assignment via the Assignment area in LEO as an attachment for assessment.

Assignment Scenario:

Your instructor wants to know the answer to the research question(s) that you developed in Assignment 2 (the Planning Proposal).

In Assignments 1-3, you have identified a research topic, the target audience, scope of content the audience needs to know and have developed a research plan to answer the specific research question(s) and began researching sources to answer those questions. Now, in Assignment 4 (Analytical Research Report), you will summarize your research findings and present the findings in a formal report.

Assignment Components:

1. The report must use a formal format with a title page and appropriate front matter:

· Cover page includes a title, identifies who the report is written for (the intended audience – not me, your instructor), who the report is written by, and the date the report was completed.

· Front matter (executive summary) explains in a few brief paragraphs what the goal(s) of the study were, the methods used to achieve the goal(s), the outcome(s)/recommendation(s) of the study, and an overview of the report structure.

· Front matter (table of contents) lists the major headings (H1) and minor headings (H2, H3, & H4 – as needed) with the page number where the headings are located in the report.

· Front matter (list of figures) lists any figure or table presented in the report with the page number where the figures/tables are located in the report.

2. The report must provide an introduction that states the purpose of your report, orients the reader to the topic, and states the claim/action desired.

3. The report must provide a body section that explains the following:

· Body section (background of problem/situation) that explains the current situation that calls for changing/improving. It answers the question:

· Why is it important for us to consider changing/improving?

· Body section (overview of alternative solution(s) that explains what alternative solution(s) exist to address the problem/situation. It answers the question:

· What are the important features of the alternative solution(s) that we must consider when changing/improving the current situation? (HINT: These are usually tied to cost, ease of use/implementation, number of people affected by the change, features & benefits of a new tool/equipment/process.)

· Body section (criteria) that explains options to consider for evaluating/weighing the alternatives. It answers the question:

· What are our necessary criteria and are they reasonable and appropriate? (HINT: These explain expectations or constraints tied to cost, ease of use/implementation, number of people affected by the change, features & benefits of a new tool/equipment/process. For example, “We have a budget of 200K; therefore any new product we buy cannot exceed this bottom-line cost.” Or “We have a small window of 3 months to implement this change; therefore, we cannot upgrade a process/tool that will take 4 months to roll over.”)

· Body section (methods & evaluation) that explains the research methods used to identify the problem(s) & the solution(s) and your assessment to evaluate/weigh the alternatives. It answers the question:

· Are your facts reliable?

· How do the alternative solution(s)weigh against/meet your criteria?

4. Conclusion(s) that explain the outcomes of your study (what you found) and the analysis of your study (what it means to your reader). It answers the question:

a. What overall conclusions do you draw about the alternative solution(s)?

5. Recommendation(s) that explain what you want the decision-maker to do. It answers the question:

a. What do you think we should do?

b. Is it feasible to carry out your recommendation?

6. The report uses a formal format with back matter (references page), and if needed for your target audience a glossary list of terms or any other appropriate content in an appendix:

a. Back matter (references) that provides all sources used to conduct the feasibility study and presents sources in APA format.

b. Back matter (appendix – as needed) provides the reader with supplemental content/photos/images or instrumentation devices (like a survey used) for their additional interest.

c. Back matter (glossary – as needed) provides the reader with definitions to terms that may need clarification.

 

A (Excellent) 90-100 Points

B (Good) 80-89 Points

C (Average) 70-79 Points

D (Weak) 60-69 Points

F (Failing) 0-59 Points

Audience

(20 pts max)

 

(16-20 points)

· Excellent match of document to audience needs(the document provides the right content and level of details)

· An ethical approach to the communication situation

(11-15 points)

· Adequate match of document to audience needs (the document provides the right content, but more details are needed)

· An ethical approach to the communication situation

(6-10 points)

· Some mismatches of document to audience needs (the document provides mostly the right content, but may be missing key content or significantly more details are needed)

· An ethical approach to the communication situation

(1-5 points)

· Significant mismatches of document to audience needs (the document provides some of the right content, but is missing several key content areas or significantly more details are needed)

· Questionable ethics

(0 points)

· Failure to match audience needs (the document fails to provide the right content or level of details)

· Unethical aspects

Design

(20 pts max)

(16-20 points)

· Excellent match of design elements to document genre

· Effective use of design principles such as repetition, alignment, contrast, proximity, etc.

· Clear, readable typography for the given content section

· Excellent and ethical use of graphics

(11-15 points)

· Good match of design elements to document genre

· Good use of design principles such as repetition, alignment, contrast, proximity, etc.

· Clear, readable typography for the given content section, but a few minor issues exist

· Good and ethical use of graphics

(6-10 points)

· Adequate match of design elements to document genre

· Decent use of design principles such as repetition, alignment, contrast, proximity, etc. in most areas; but some areas lack design implementation

· Unclear, less readable typography for the given content section, and a few major issues exist

· Adequate and ethical use of graphics

(1-5 points)

· Poor match of design elements to document genre

· Poor use of design principles such as repetition, alignment, contrast, proximity, etc.; most areas lack design implementation

· Unclear, less readable typography for the given content section, and significant major/minor issues exist

· Poor use of graphics or graphics with questionable ethics

(0 points)

· Failure to match design elements to document genre

· Lacking use of design principles such as repetition, alignment, contrast, proximity, etc.; no design implementation whatsoever

· Severe problems with typography exist that defeat readability

· Lack of required graphics or unethical graphics

Style & Editing

(20 pts max)

(16-20 points)

· Clear and succinct prose

· Excellent matching of level of formality and technicality to audience

· Gender- and culture-appropriate language

· No grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors

· Errors do not affect readability/usability

(11-15 points)

· Almost always clear and succinct prose

· Good matching of level of formality and technicality to audience

· Gender- and culture-appropriate language

· 1-3 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors

· Errors mildly affect readability/usability

(6-10 points)

· Somewhat unclear or wordy prose

· Mostly good matching of level of formality and technicality to audience

· Gender- and culture-appropriate language

· 4-5 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors

· Errors affect readability/usability

(1-5 points)

· Significantly unclear or wordy prose

· Clear mismatches of level of formality and technicality to audience

· Some problems with sexist or racist language

· 6-7 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors

· Errors distract or unintentionally amuse users; errors significantly affect readability/usability

(0 points)

· Unclear and wordy prose throughout

· Extensive mismatches of level of formality and technicality to audience

· Significant problems with sexist or racist language

· 8 or more grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors

· Errors make the document fail in its goals; errors severely affect readability/usability

Structure

(20 pts max)

(16-20 points)

· Follows structural arrangement and conventions for the genre

· Uses coherent and clear headings, sub-heading, and transitions

· Arranges parts logically

· States the purpose clearly

(11-15 points)

· Follows arrangement and conventions for the genre; some deviations exist, but do not affect user’s expectations of the genre

· Uses mostly coherent and clear headings, sub-heading, and transitions

· Arranges parts logically, but a few minor illogical arrangements exist

· States the purpose mostly clearly

(6-10 points)

· Follows structural arrangement and conventions for the genre; some deviations exist that affect user’s expectations of the genre

· Uses a few incoherent and unclear headings, sub-heading, and transitions

· Includes several minor illogical arrangements

· States the purpose, but not clearly

(1-5 points)

· Fails to follow some structural arrangement and conventions for the genre; several deviations exist that affect user’s expectations of the genre

· Uses ambiguous or non-descriptive headings, sub-heading, and transitions

· Includes significant/major illogical arrangements that cause difficulty in reading

· States the purpose in a way that confuses the reader

(0 points)

· Fails to follow significant structural arrangement and conventions for the genre; severe deviations exist that affect user’s expectations of the genre

· Fails to use headings, sub-heading, and transitions successfully

· Includes severe illogical arrangements that cause difficulty in reading

· Does not state the purpose

Assignment completion

(20 pts max)

(16-20 points)

· Fulfills assignment description precisely and fully

· Includes all parts of the assignment

· Complete, appropriate, and correct citation of sources

(11-15 points)

· Fulfills assignment description mostly

· Includes all parts of the assignment, but a few minor aspects are missing or underdeveloped

· Complete, appropriate, and correct citation of sources, but one or two minor weaknesses exist

(6-10 points)

· Fulfills assignment description mostly

· Missing one or more minor parts of the assignment

· Complete, appropriate, and correct citation of sources, but several minor weaknesses exist

(1-5 points)

· Does not adequately fulfill assignment

· Missing a significant part of the assignment

· Incomplete, inappropriate, and/or incorrect citation of sources; several major weaknesses exist

(0 points)

· Does not fulfill the assignment

· Missing multiple significant parts of the assignment

· Incomplete, inappropriate, and/or incorrect citation of sources; severe major/minor weaknesses exist or completely missing source information