Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Rewrite the literature review section and rewrite the theoretical framework sect
Rewrite the literature review section and rewrite the theoretical framework section and method section of the paper. It needs to make sense in comparison to the thesis and/or question. The research question should be in Literature Review section. Expand on what I have already.
No passive voice.
Write paper in past tense.
Qualitative Research
Research Question (Thesis)
Content Analysis:
Clarity of purpose; critical and original thought; use of examples
10 pts
Exemplary
Research question (thesis) and purpose are clear to the reader; align with the study’s research design and posit an answerable question given the data collected; the research question delineates how the researcher answers the question by selecting the most appropriate methodological research approach.
8 pts
Meets Expectations
The research question (thesis) and purpose are fairly clear to the reader; align with the study’s research design and posit an answerable question given the data collected; the research question somewhat delineates how the researcher answers the research question by selecting an appropriate methodological research approach.
6 pts
Approaching
The research question (thesis) and purpose are somewhat vague; somewhat align with the study’s research design but there is uncertainty as to whether the research question is answerable given the data collected and the chosen methodological research approach.
4 pts
Inadequate
The research question (thesis) and purpose are too broad to answer; the research design does not provide clarity as to how the researcher will answer the research question given the data collected; the chosen methodological research approach seems arbitrary to the research question posited.
0 pts
No Remarks
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction
Essay Structure: Organization; Flow of thought; Transitions; and Format
3 pts
Exemplary
Paper presents a logically organized introduction; includes a hook or an attention grabber that immediately draws in the reader; provides relevant context to the topic that directly relates to essay prompt and provides background knowledge to the topic and allows understanding of the relevance of the topic; introduces substantial evidence related to the essay prompt and explains the intent to how this evidence will be examined throughout the paper; the content included in the introduction has a strong correlation to the essay prompt that directly supports the thesis.
2.4 pts
Meets Expecations
Paper presents a logically organized introduction; provides relevant context to the topic that directly relates to essay prompt; introduces evidence intended to examine throughout the paper that directly supports a clear and concise thesis.
1.8 pts
Approaching
Paper attempts to present a logically organized introduction; provides some relevant context to the topic that directly relates to essay prompt; does not include evidence intended to examine throughout the paper that directly supports a seemingly clear thesis.
1.2 pts
Inadequate
Paper neglects to present a logically organized introduction; provides no relevant context to the topic that directly relates to essay prompt; does not include evidence intended to examine throughout the paper that directly supports a clear and concise thesis.
0 pts
No Marks
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLiterature Review & Theoretical (Conceptual) Framework
Evaluation of Existing Studies:
Define and clarify the problem; summarize prior research; identify relationships, contradictions, gaps & inconsistencies; suggestions for next steps and steps to solve the problem; appropriate use of a theoretical framework
20 pts
Exemplary
Important issues or ideas were raised, which may not have been represented in the literature cited. The gaps in current knowledge were clearly identified, and significant directions and approaches that fill these gaps were identified. The literature review was clearly connected to the study’s methodology and measures. The research design and method of analysis reflected a sophisticated understanding of the research problem. Subheadings were used effectively and transitions were provided between subheadings. Literature review was comprehensive and extensive. Don’t overuse quotes. Identified and justified an appropriate theoretical (conceptual) framework that best enables the researcher to analyze the data.
16 pts
Meets Expectations
Related literature was credibly summarized. The gaps in current knowledge were identified, and directions and approaches that fill these gaps were identified. The literature review was connected to the study’s methodology and measures. The research design and method of analysis were appropriate for the research problem. Sub-headings were effectively used to categorize related research. Literature review was comprehensive in both depth and scope. Don’t overuse quotes. Identified a theoretical (conceptual) framework that enables the researcher to analyze the data.
12 pts
Approaching
Related literature was summarized. The gaps in current knowledge and approaches that fill these gaps were not always identified. The literature review was minimally connected to the study’s methodology and measures. The research design and method of analysis were not implicitly connected to the research problem, but the reader identified some relevance. Related research was not always synthesized or integrated. Sub-headings were not always used or used correctly. Literature review was incomplete at times and did not always explore the depth and scope of the available literature. Quotations & paraphrases may be too long and/or inconsistently referenced. Identified a theoretical (conceptual) framework to analyze the data, but absent of justification; another framework may be more appropriate for the analysis of the data.
8 pts
Inadequate
Related literature was not always summarized. The gaps in current knowledge and approaches that fill these gaps were not identified. The literature review was not connected to the study’s methodology and measures. The research design and method of analysis were not connected to the research problem. Related research was not synthesized or integrated. Sub-headings were not used or used incorrectly. Literature review was incomplete and did not explore the depth and scope of the available literature. Quotations & paraphrases may be too long, overused, and/or inconsistently referenced. Possibly uses source material without acknowledgment. Did not identify a theoretical (conceptual) framework that enables the researcher to analyze the data.
0 pts
No Marks
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMethodology & Results
Research Design:
Appropriate methodology; procedures; sample size, power, & precision; measures & covariates; research design
15 pts
Exemplary
The methodology section clearly explained the purpose of the quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods used. The study justified the specific approach for the research design and specified the reason for the technique and process used for data collection, and connected this information back to the literature review. The study’s results were thoroughly and logically explained and directly related to the review of literature. The results were directly related to the research question(s) or hypothesis(es) and were reported in logical segments. Data tables were clearly labeled, accurate, and well designed for ease of understanding. For each analysis, the use of appropriate jargon, techniques, and procedures in the study occurred. The results section had maximum clarity.
12 pts
Meets Expectations
The methodology section implicitly explained the purpose of the quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods used. The study may have justified the use of the specific approach for the research design and potentially specified the reason for the technique and process used for data collection. A connection back to the literature review justifying the research design was somewhat specified or implicit. The study’s results section referenced the review of literature. The results were directly related to the research question(s) or hypothesis(es). The reporting of results followed a logical sequence. Data tables were clearly labeled and accurately reported the findings. For each analysis, the use of appropriate jargon, techniques, and procedures in the study occurred. The results section provided clarity.
9 pts
Approaching
The methodology section may provide the purpose of the quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods used, but not clearly understood. The study did not justify the use of the specific approach for the research design and/or the reason for the technique and process used for data collection. A connection back to the literature review justifying the research design was not definitively identifiable. The study’s results section was not always supported by the literature review and only partially related to the research question(s) or hypothesis(es). There was not always a sequence to the reporting of the results and data tables lack clarity.
6 pts
Inadequate
The methodology section may provide the purpose of the quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods used, but not clearly understood. The study did not justify the use of the specific approach for the research design and/or the reason for the technique and process used for data collection. A connection back to the literature review justifying the research design was not definitively identifiable. The study’s results section was not always supported by the literature review and only partially related to the research question(s) or hypothesis(es). There was not always a sequence to the reporting of the results and data tables lack clarity.
0 pts
No Marks
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion
Content Analysis:
Clarity of purpose; critical and original thought; connection to the literature; use of examples
25 pts
Exemplary
The discussion is supported by related literature, findings are compared and contrasted, and theoretical connections are made to your research results. Findings are interpreted using a minimal amount of technical jargon. Implications and future directions are identified.
20 pts
Meets Expectations
The discussion is supported by related literature and findings are compared and contrasted to other studies included in the review section. Findings are interpreted using some statistical jargon. Results are placed in context and implications for future research are identified.
15 pts
Approaching
The discussion is not consistently supported by related literature. Findings are summarized, but not consistently interpreted (the researcher simply repeats the findings from the results section in the discussion section). The discussion does not always seem to place the findings in context or include implications for future studies.
10 pts
Inadequate
The discussion is minimally supported by related literature. Findings are summarized, but not interpreted (the candidate simply repeats the findings in the results section). The discussion fails to place the findings in context or include implications for future studies.
0 pts
No Marks
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion
Essay Structure: organization; flow of thought; transitions; and format
8 pts
Exemplary
Paper presents a strong and convincing conclusion supported by the evidence introduced throughout the paper; the conclusion connects the evidence with the thesis of the paper
6.4 pts
Meets Expectations
Paper presents a proficient conclusion with some support from the evidence presented throughout the paper; the conclusion demonstrates a connection to the thesis though somewhat vague.
4.8 pts
Approaching
Paper attempts to have a conclusion that supports the evidence presented throughout the paper; the conclusion makes no connection to the thesis
3.2 pts
Inadequate
Paper has no clear conclusion supported by the evidence presented in the paper; the conclusion makes no connection to the thesis.
0 pts
No Marks
8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar & Usage
Sentence structure; punctuation/mechanics
4 pts
Exemplary
Manipulates complex sentences for effect/impact; no punctuation or mechanical errors.
3.2 pts
Meets Expectations
Use complex sentences; few punctuation or mechanical errors.
2.4 pts
Approaching
Uses compound sentences; too many punctuation and/or mechanical errors.
1.6 pts
Inadequate
Uses simple sentences.
0 pts
No Marks
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn-text Citations
Reference Manual Guidelines:
Proper use of references and citations; adherence to the appropriate manual guidelines for in-text citations
10 pts
Exemplary
he proposal consistently models the reference manual’s language and conventions used in the scholarly/professional literature appropriate for publication. Electronic sources were identified correctly within the document and on the reference list. Original sources were clearly identified and correctly cited in both the body of the text and the reference section. Et. al. was consistently used appropriately with no errors in the document. The reviewer found all cited sources on the reference list.
8 pts
Meets Expectations
While there may have been minor errors, conventions for reference manual’s style and format were used consistently throughout the document. Less than two references in the document were not on the reference list or vice versa. The majority of electronic sources were cited correctly and could be found on the reference list. Et. al was consistently used appropriately with less than three errors in the proposal. Reviewer found minor inconsistencies between citing in the text and on the reference list.
6 pts
Approaching
Consistent citing mistakes were made within body of the proposal including references in text but not on reference list and/or items on reference list and not cited in document (at least three). Electronic sources were incorrectly cited in the text and/or on the reference list. Et. al. was used incorrectly or inconsistently throughout the body of the document. Consistently, the reviewer had difficulty finding cited in text references on the reference list.
4 pts
Inadequate
Inconsistent citing mistakes throughout the paper including references in the text; Consistently, the reviewer had difficulty finding cited in-text references on the reference list.
0 pts
No Marks
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeManuscriipt Format
Reference Manual Guidelines:
Proper formatting of the manuscriipt in accordance with the appropriate manual guidelines
5 pts
Exemplary
Properly formatted cover page; properly formatted reference/bibliography page; included all required elements of a manuscriipt, including the proper use of headings and page numbers, as required by the appropriate manual guidelines with minimal to no errors.
4 pts
Meets Expectations
Included cover page and properly formatted most of the content; included a reference/bibliography page and properly formatted most of the content, but some errors existed.
3 pts
Approaching
Included cover page but formatting had significant errors; included a reference/bibliography page but formatting had significant errors; used footnotes or in-text citations as detailed in the reference guide but had significant errors.
2 pts
Inadequate
No cover page included; no reference/bibliography page included; consistent errors using footnotes or in-text citations as detailed in the reference guide.
0 pts
No Marks
5 pts
Total Points: 100
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.