Synthesis Paper Write a paper (1,000-1,250 words)

Synthesis Paper Write a paper (1,000-1,250 words)

 

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:

  1. An introduction that introduces and provides context for the topic. This includes presenting a clear thesis statement.
  2. Support for your identified themes with evidence from each article. Synthesize your discussion of the topic to support your thesis.
  3. 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. 5: Excellent

21 points

An introduction is thoroughly presented and vividly contextualizes the topic.

4. 4: Good

19.11 points

An introduction is present and adequately contextualizes the topic.

3. 3: Satisfactory

17.22 points

An introduction is presented, but does not contextualize the topic well.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

15.33 points

An introduction is present, but incomplete or illogical.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

An introduction is either missing or not evident to the reader.

Criteria Description

Support of Common Themes

5. 5: Excellent

42 points

Support of common themes is thoroughly presented with rich detail.

4. 4: Good

38.22 points

Support of common themes is present and thorough.

3. 3: Satisfactory

34.44 points

Support of common themes is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

30.66 points

Support of common themes is present, but inaccurate or illogical.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Support of common themes is either missing or not evident to the reader.

Criteria Description

Discussion of Conclusions

5. 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. 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. 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. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

30.66 points

A discussion of the conclusions is presented, but inaccurate or illogical.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A discussion of the conclusions is not presented.

Criteria Description

Integration of Instructor Feedback

5. 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. 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. 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. 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.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader.

Criteria Description

Synthesis and Argument

5. 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. 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. 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. 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.

1. 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. 5: Excellent

21 points

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.

4. 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. 3: Satisfactory

17.22 points

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

15.33 points

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing

5. 5: Excellent

10.5 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 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. 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. 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.

1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.