Topic: Comparison Matrix Paper: Doctoral Identity

Order Description
Max Points: 205

Details:
Before beginning the synthesis process, it is important to become acquainted with the analysis and comparison of empirical articles. In the previous assignment, you engaged with the Comparison Matrix, a tool for analysis and comparison of empirical articles. In this assignment, you will take the next step toward synthesis and write about your observations of the articles you compared using the Comparison Matrix.
General Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:
• Refer to the Comparison Matrix you completed in the Module 2 assignment along with the assignment feedback from your instructor.
• Review: Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641-656. Available at https://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11092904&site=ehost-live&scope=site
• Review: Baker, V., & Lattuca, L. R. (2010). Developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 807-827. https://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=54329722&site=ehost-live&scope=site
• Review: Visser, L., Visser, Y. L., & Schlosser, C. (2003). Critical thinking distance education and traditional education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 401-407. https://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12620957&site=ehost-live&scope=site
• 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.
• You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Directions:
Locate the Comparison Matrix you completed in the Module 2 assignment. Using the outline you developed, the information from the Comparison Matrix, and the feedback provided by your instructor, write a paper (750-1,000 words) that compares all three of the articles. Do that by including the following:
1. A statement of common elements and themes addressed in each of the three articles.
2. A statement of the conclusions that can be drawn when the articles are taken together as a single entity. What is the overall message of the group of articles?
Rubic for Assignment

Comparison Matrix Paper: Doctoral Identity
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% 2
Less Than Satisfactory
73.00% 3
Satisfactory
82.00% 4
Good
91.00% 5
Excellent
100.00%
80.0 %Content
25.0 % Statement of Common Themes A statement of common themes is either missing or not evident to the reader. A statement of common themes is present, but inaccurate or illogical. A statement of common themes is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. A statement of common themes is present and thorough. A statement of common themes is thoroughly presented with rich detail.
25.0 % Statement of Conclusions A statement of the conclusions is not presented. A statement of the conclusions is presented, but inaccurate or illogical. A statement of the conclusions is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. A statement of the conclusions is presented and thorough. A statement of the conclusions is thoroughly presented with rich detail.
20.0 % Integration of Instructor Feedback Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader. Integration of instructor feedback is vaguely attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions. Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. 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.
10.0 % Synthesis and Argument 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
10.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
10.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. 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. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.
10.0 %Format
5.0 % Mechanics of Writing Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. 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. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
5.0 % APA Format Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used. 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. 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. 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. 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.
100 % Total Weightage