Demystifying Dissertation Writing Discussion Assignment
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Demystifying Dissertation Writing Discussion Assignment
Discussion: Review Capstone Examples
Think about how great works are produced. As an example, imagine the studio of the great Italian Renaissance artist, Michelangelo Buonarroti, as he begins work on a sculpture. In the center of the studio is a huge block of pristine Carrara marble. Michelangelo positions his chisel and hits it with his hammer. Chips of stone break off and fall to the ground. Each day, for many days and months, chunks of expensive marble fall to the floor as his masterpiece slowly emerges.
Though you are not sending chunks of expensive Carrera marble to the floor, the capstone editing process may make you feel that you are sacrificing excellent material. Like Michelangelo, your task is to remove unnecessary material.
Your goal is to narrow the problem so that it is current, meaningful, grounded, and original.
To prepare:
Go to the Walden Library and retrieve this dissertation:
Lyle, V. (2010). Teacher and administrator perceptions of administrative responsibilities for implementing the Jacobs model of curriculum mapping (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=dilley
Then:
Review the problem statement on Page 14.
Use the appropriate EdD doctoral Capstone Rubric and checklist (found in the Learning Resources) to analyze the quality of the dissertation’s problem statement.
By Day 3
To complete:
Explain whether you think this draft meets checklist and Rubric standards.
Justify for your evaluation.
Use APA style with citations.
Single, P. B. (2010). Demystifying dissertation writing: A streamlined process from choice of topic to final text. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Chapter 3, “Interactive Reading and Note Taking
Intro and Section 3.1, “Scholarly Reading is the Foundation of Your Dissertation” (pp. 55–58)
Section 3.4, “Interactive Reading in Practice (pp. 63–64)
Butin, D. W. (2010). The education dissertation: A guide for practitioner scholars. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Chapter 4, “Structuring Your Research” (pp. 63–69)
http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=dilley
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016e). Dr. Research: Refining the problem statement, drafting the purpose statement [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow