Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 | Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages: 5-10 |
Instructions:
A component of your proposal dedicated to a more careful evaluation and synthesis of earlier studies relating to the research subject under inquiry is connected to the context and significance of your study. The goal is to situate your project within the greater context of current research while also proving to your viewers that your work is unique and inventive. Consider what questions other researchers have posed, the methods they utilized, and how you interpret their findings, and, if applicable, their suggestions.
Because a literature review is loaded with material, it’s critical that this section is well-structured so that a reader can understand the essential points that support your planned study in comparison to those of other researchers. Rather of systematically or chronologically describing groupings of things one at a time, it is a useful practice to separate the literature into “conceptual categories” [themes]. It’s worth noting that conceptual categories usually emerge after you’ve studied the majority of the relevant literature on your subject, so adding new categories is a continuous process of discovery as you read more studies. How do you know you’ve addressed all of the study literature’s important conceptual categories? When you start to witness recurrence in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made, you may be confident that all of the key conceptual categories have been discovered.
NOTE: Do not be afraid to question existing study conclusions as a basis for justifying the need for your proposal. Examine what you believe is missing, and explain how past research has failed to thoroughly investigate the topic your study addresses.
Consider the “five C’s” of drafting a literature review to assist outline your proposal’s analysis of existing research:
To keep the primary focus on the literature relevant to your study subject, cite (ASA style: https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/documents/teaching/pdfs/Quick Tips for ASA Style.pdf).
What do the authors agree on when it comes to the numerous arguments, hypotheses, techniques, and findings expressed in the literature? Who uses the same methods to analyze the study problem?
Compare and contrast the numerous arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that have been presented in the literature: what are the primary areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
Examine the literature to see which arguments are more convincing and why. Which methods, conclusions, and procedures appear to be the most trustworthy, valid, or appropriate, and why? Take note of the verbs you employ to explain what an author says or does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, and so on].
Connect the literature to your own field of study and research: how does your own work build on, deviate from, synthesize, or contribute a new viewpoint to what has been expressed in the literature?
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
|