M5 Evaluating Qualitative Data Assignment
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
M5 Evaluating Qualitative Data Assignment
Description
PLEASE READ DIRECTIONS CAREFULLY!! Also, please do not let the attached documents overwhelm you. They are only 1)The directions and 2) Pages from one of the resources listed on the directions page.
NOTE: Please use APA 7th ed. for referencing and in-text citations please!! (NO .com references! Only scholarly and peer-reviewed!!!) If you do not have a completed reference (where you retrieved it from if no doi…..), I will cancel the order!! All references need to be in alphabetical order, as 7th ed. APA requires!
To be used as guidance:
1. Caldwell, B. W., & Halupa, C. (2014, June). A pilot study of an online accelerated statics course with intensive video delivery. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/32/papers/9090/ viewThis article is the final published version of the raw interview field notes that was presented in Learning Activity 2. This is provided to you as an example of how this type of data is analyzed for peer-reviewed presentations and journals. This paper was presented in 2014 and published in a journal in 2015 as well.]
2. O’Connor, H., & Gibson, N. (n.d.). A step-by-step guide to qualitative data analysis. Community Associates Training Workshop. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292432218_A_Step-By- Step_Guide_To_Qualitative_Data_AnalysisDirections:
Review The Steps at the New York Public Library qualitative field notes (attached), analyze the data and report the results in an acceptable form for qualitative research results. The overall length of this assignment should be approximately 3 pages. Please see the example provided in this module for guidance.(given above, only as guidance)Some hints:
Compare and contrast the data, and identify similarities and differences among participants. Was there a common theme across all or most of the participants (that all or most participants did during your responses)? Who did something different compared to everyone else?
Provide descriptive statistics for your observations. Descriptive statistics in the context of this paper refers to percentages (e.g., three out of five participants used…or 100% of the participants didnt ).Were there any outliers?NOTE: I am a mental health social worker if this should be needed to complete this assignment.
M5 Evaluating Qualitative Data Assignment
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 M5 Evaluating Qualitative Data Assignment