For this assignment, you will select two plausible conceptual or theoretical \u201cfoundational lens\u201d under which your research focus might be explored. If you are pursuing a theoretical (PhD) research study then it is advisable, but not necessary for this assignment, to limit your selections to theories. If you are pursuing an applied doctorate then you may select either theoretical or conceptual, or one of each. The intent of this assignment is to initiate thinking through how a conceptual or theoretical framework might be applied toward a research study. It is acknowledged that these frameworks may or may not result in the final selection for your dissertation research study.<\/p>\n
Review the literature to identify two frameworks that are appropriate for your degree type. Include an introduction to your research focal topic and then section your assignment document using headers to identify each framework.<\/p>\n
For each of the frameworks, complete the following:<\/p>\n
References: Include a minimum of 6 scholarly resources, three for each framework.<\/p>\n
| Criteria<\/td>\n | \n Does Not Meet Expectations (0% – 69%)<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/th>\n \n | Below Expectations (70%-79%)<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/th>\n \n | Meets Expectations (80%-89%)<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/th>\n \n | Exceeds Most Expectations (90%-93%)<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/th>\n \n | Exceeds All Expectations (94%-100%)<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/th>\n \n | Criterion Score<\/div>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n | \n \n Recommend Two Perspectives (“Lens Foundation) Appropriate to a Research Study (30%) This assignment addresses complex thinking to search for and identify plausible conceptual or theoretical “foundational lens”<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 3.14955 points<\/div>\n \n Discussion demonstrates a weak or unclear understanding of the selected broad area of study or indication of unpreparedness in developing the assignment response.<\/p>\n Assignment instructions are minimally or not followed. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 3.59955 points<\/div>\n \n Less than on plausible foundational lens is identified. <\/p>\n Discussion of one, or both, foundation lens is unclear and demonstrates minimal understanding of the selected frameworks.<\/p>\n Assignment instructions are minimally followed. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 4.04955 points<\/div>\n \n Two plausible foundational lens are identified. <\/p>\n Discussion of each foundational lens demonstrates a sufficient understanding of each foundational lens.<\/p>\n Relevant terms are defined. <\/p>\n Discussion of each foundational lens is supported by a minimum of 3 (each) scholarly sources from a reputable, trusted source. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 4.22955 points<\/div>\n \n Two plausible foundational lens are identified. <\/p>\n Discussion of each foundational lens demonstrates sufficient understanding and information for Readers to understand basic concepts of each foundational lens. <\/p>\n Relevant terms are defined and interpreted. <\/p>\n Discussion of each foundational lens is supported by 3 (each) or more scholarly sources from a reputable, trusted source. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 4.5 points<\/div>\n \n Two plausible foundational lens are identified. <\/p>\n Discussion of each foundational lens demonstrates a deep understanding of each foundational lens. <\/p>\n Relevant terms are clearly defined and interpreted with nuance of understanding.<\/p>\n Discussion is sufficient for Readers to understand each foundational lens. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n | \n Score of Recommend Two Perspectives (“Lens Foundation) Appropriate to a Research Study (30%) This assignment addresses complex thinking to search for and identify plausible conceptual or theoretical “foundational lens”,<\/div>\n \/ 4.5<\/p><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n | \n \n Evaluate, Interpret, and Analyze (30%) This criteria addresses use of evidence and ability to detect extrinsic relationships that allows for a high level of understanding.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 3.14955 points<\/div>\n \n Discussion includes reiteration of few assignment sources. <\/p>\n Integral relationships essential to the issue are not recognized.<\/p>\n Work is not supported by scholarly articles.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 3.59955 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response includes reiteration of assignment required sources. <\/p>\n Integral relationships essential to the issue are minimally recognized. <\/p>\n Work is weakly supported by less than three scholarly articles or articles are not related to the selected broad area of study. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 4.04955 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response includes discussion of why both theoretical lens may or may not be applied to view the research topic and problem focus. <\/p>\n Integral relationships essential to the issue are acknowledged. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 4.22955 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response includes a clear critical analysis of why both theoretical lens may or may not be applied to view the research topic and problem focus. <\/p>\n Integral relationships essential to the issue are explored. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 4.5 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response includes critical analysis and a comprehensive synthesis of why both foundational lens may or may not be applied to view the research topic and problem focus. <\/p>\n Integral relationships essential to the issue are assessed in depth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n | \n Score of Evaluate, Interpret, and Analyze (30%) This criteria addresses use of evidence and ability to detect extrinsic relationships that allows for a high level of understanding.,<\/div>\n \/ 4.5<\/p><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n | \n \n Ethics & Inclusion (10%) This criteria addresses diverse thinking and open-minded exploration of conflicting hypotheses.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.04985 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response demonstrates failed recognition of fact-based world view.<\/p>\n Discussion contains multiple levels of bias. <\/p>\n Discussion lacks respect or professional presentation. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.19985 points<\/div>\n \n Fact-based world view(s) are not present or poorly developed in the discussion. <\/p>\n Discussion may contain unrecognized bias. <\/p>\n Discussion presents limited respect or professional presentation. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.34985 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response demonstrates recognition of a fact-based world views. <\/p>\n Plausible bias is recognized, as applicable to the topic. <\/p>\n Discussion is professional.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.40985 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response demonstrates a developed exploration of fact-based world views. <\/p>\n Assignment response recognizes multiple interpretations of fact-based world views. <\/p>\n Recognition of plausible bias is addressed, as applicable to the topic. <\/p>\n Discussion is professional. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.5 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response demonstrates comparative and contrasting interpretations of multiple fact-based world views. <\/p>\n Recognition of plausible bias is demonstrated, as applicable to the topic. <\/p>\n Discussion is purposeful, respectful, and professional.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n | \n Score of Ethics & Inclusion (10%) This criteria addresses diverse thinking and open-minded exploration of conflicting hypotheses.,<\/div>\n \/ 1.5<\/p><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n | \n \n Creative Thinking (10%) This criteria addresses ability to weigh alternative hypotheses and present informed decision making.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.04985 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response holds no relationship with evidence or presentation of original thought. <\/p>\n Approaches to problem solving are not present. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.19985 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response presents minimal original thought founded on evidence. <\/p>\n Approaches to problem solving are minimal. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.34985 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response explores original thought established with illustration of evidence. <\/p>\n Approaches to problem solving are explored. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.40985 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response presents original thought established from exploring evidence. <\/p>\n Approaches to problem solving or creative ideas based on curiosity are expressed. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.5 points<\/div>\n \n Assignment response justifies original thought established through critique of evidence.<\/p>\n Approaches to problem solving or creative ideas based on curiosity are effectively expressed. <\/p>\n A contribution to the academic or professional field is incorporated, as appropriate to the assignment. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n | \n Score of Creative Thinking (10%) This criteria addresses ability to weigh alternative hypotheses and present informed decision making.,<\/div>\n \/ 1.5<\/p><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n | \n \n Academic Writing or Presentation (10%) This criteria applies to various assignment outcome types, for example written, oral, mixed, mind-maps, brochures, etc.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.04985 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation do not meet minimum expectations for appropriate academic voice.<\/p>\n Writing or presentation do not include satisfactory language, logical order, or explanation of key concepts of the assignment. <\/p>\n Writing or presentation does not address audience at an appropriate level. <\/p>\n Text is unreadable.<\/p>\n Inappropriate or no reference of evidence by presenter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.19985 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation is below expectations for appropriate academic voice. <\/p>\n Writing or presentation includes satisfactory language with logical order and partial or unclear explanation of key concepts of the research topic.<\/p>\n Writing or presentation does not address the audience at an appropriate level. <\/p>\n Text is unclear or unreadable.<\/p>\n Minimal or inappropriate referencing of evidence by presenter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.34985 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation is in appropriate academic voice. <\/p>\n Writing or presentation includes satisfactory language with logical order and explanation of key concepts of the research topic.<\/p>\n Writing or presentation addresses audience at an appropriate level. <\/p>\n Text is readable and clear. <\/p>\n Appropriate referencing of evidence by presenter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.40985 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation exceeds most expectations for academic voice.<\/p>\n Writing or presentation includes satisfactory language with logical order and clear explanation of key concepts of the research topic.<\/p>\n Writing or presentation addresses audience at an appropriate level. <\/p>\n Text is readable and clear. <\/p>\n Appropriate referencing of evidence by presenter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.5 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation exceeds all expectations for academic voice.<\/p>\n Writing or presentation includes satisfactory language with logical order and clear explanation of key concepts of the research topic.<\/p>\n Writing or presentation addresses audience at an appropriate level. <\/p>\n Text is readable and clear. <\/p>\n Appropriate referencing of evidence by presenter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n | \n Score of Academic Writing or Presentation (10%) This criteria applies to various assignment outcome types, for example written, oral, mixed, mind-maps, brochures, etc.,<\/div>\n \/ 1.5<\/p><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n | \n \n Mechanics (10%) This assignment includes punctuation, grammar, word usage, and APA style.<\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n On Accounting<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.04985 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation does not meet expectations for proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, and citations.<\/p>\n Significant typographical issues.<\/p>\n Significant APA formatting issues. <\/p>\n Reference do not match text citations, significant errors for quotes and in-text citations.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.19985 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation is below expectations for proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, and citations.<\/p>\n Frequent typographical issues.<\/p>\n Frequent APA formatting issues. <\/p>\n References do not match text citations. There are multiple errors for quotes and in-text citations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.34985 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation includes proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, and citation of evidence.<\/p>\n Limited typographical issues.<\/p>\n Few APA-style issues.<\/p>\n References match in-text citations. Some errors for quotes and in-text citations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.40985 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation exceeds most expectations of proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, and citation. Fewer than two APA formatting issues. <\/p>\n References match citations and fewer than two errors found in quotes and in-text citations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n | \n 1.5 points<\/div>\n \n Writing or presentation exceeds all expectations and includes proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, and citation.<\/p>\n Free of typographical issues.<\/p>\n APA formatting complete. <\/p>\n References match citations and are properly quoted and cited throughout.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Background For this assignment, you will select two plausible conceptual or theoretical \u201cfoundational lens\u201d under which your research focus might be explored. If you are pursuing a theoretical (PhD) research study then it is advisable, but not necessary for this assignment, to limit your selections to theories. If you are pursuing an applied doctorate then […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[44],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/10829"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10829"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/10829\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=10829"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=10829"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=10829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} |
|---|