Description
Synthesis Paper Assignment
In that assignment, you identified two themes, supported them with evidence from the articles, built a thesis claim and outlined your paper. In this week’s assignment, you will build on your outline and write a synthesis paper about the role of a researcher using evidence from the articles to support your themes.
General Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:
Review the articles by Coffman, Putman, Adkisson, Kriner and Monaghan (2016), Garcia and Yao (2019), and Inouye and McAlpine (2017) located in the Topic Resources.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
Refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for specific guidelines related to doctoral-level writing. The manual contains essential information on manuscript structure and content, clear and concise writing, and academic grammar and usage.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Directions:
Write a paper (1,000-1,250 words) that synthesizes the Coffman, Putman, Adkisson, Kriner and Monaghan (2016), Garcia and Yao (2019), and Inouye and McAlpine (2017) articles. Your paper should include the following:
An introduction that introduces and provides context for the topic. This includes presenting a clear thesis statement.
Support for your identified themes with evidence from each article. Synthesize your discussion of the topic to support your thesis.
A conclusion that demonstrates support of your thesis statement, brief summary of the main points from your two themes, and recommendations for future research on the topic.
Rubric
Criteria Description
Introduction
- 5: Excellent
21 points
An introduction is thoroughly presented and vividly contextualizes the topic.
- 4: Good
19.11 points
An introduction is present and adequately contextualizes the topic.
- 3: Satisfactory
17.22 points
An introduction is presented, but does not contextualize the topic well.
- 2: Less Than Satisfactory
15.33 points
An introduction is present, but incomplete or illogical.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
An introduction is either missing or not evident to the reader.
Criteria Description
Support of Common Themes
- 5: Excellent
42 points
Support of common themes is thoroughly presented with rich detail.
- 4: Good
38.22 points
Support of common themes is present and thorough.
- 3: Satisfactory
34.44 points
Support of common themes is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth.
- 2: Less Than Satisfactory
30.66 points
Support of common themes is present, but inaccurate or illogical.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
Support of common themes is either missing or not evident to the reader.
Criteria Description
Discussion of Conclusions
- 5: Excellent
42 points
A discussion of the conclusions is thoroughly presented including an overall summary of themes found in the articles and is strongly connected to the thesis statement.
- 4: Good
38.22 points
A discussion of the conclusions is presented and includes an overall summary of themes found in the articles and reasonably connects to the thesis statement.
- 3: Satisfactory
34.44 points
A discussion of the conclusions is presented, but it does not include an overall summary of themes found in the articles or does not connect well to the thesis statement.
- 2: Less Than Satisfactory
30.66 points
A discussion of the conclusions is presented, but inaccurate or illogical.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
A discussion of the conclusions is not presented.
Criteria Description
Integration of Instructor Feedback
- 5: Excellent
42 points
Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. It is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
- 4: Good
38.22 points
Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
- 3: Satisfactory
34.44 points
Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.
- 2: Less Than Satisfactory
30.66 points
Integration of instructor feedback is vaguely attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader.
Criteria Description
Synthesis and Argument
- 5: Excellent
21 points
Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
- 4: Good
19.11 points
Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
- 3: Satisfactory
17.22 points
Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
- 2: Less Than Satisfactory
15.33 points
Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
- 5: Excellent
21 points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.
- 4: Good
19.11 points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
- 3: Satisfactory
17.22 points
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
- 2: Less Than Satisfactory
15.33 points
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing
- 5: Excellent
10.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
- 4: Good
9.56 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
- 3: Satisfactory
8.61 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
- 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.67 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
Criteria Description
APA Format
- 5: Excellent
10.5 points
The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
- 4: Good
9.56 points
Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
- 3: Satisfactory
8.61 points
Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present.
- 2: Less Than Satisfactory
7.67 points
Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used.
- Unsatisfactory
0 points
Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.