Instructions:
Methods Section Draft
Important: When compiling your list of references, please do so manually. Most reference generator tools, although they say they will produce an APA formatted reference section, often do not. Furthermore, the format of the reference section generated with these tools prevents instructors from commenting on individual sources.
Instructions
Based on your final research question(s), write a draft of a methodological section (based on the information you know about your study).
Would your study be qualitative or quantitative? Explain why.
Clearly state the anticipated recruiting method of your potential participants. How will they be invited to participate? How many do you expect to be included? Include specific characteristics the reader needs to know about the participants.
How do you expect to collect data? Are you planning to use a survey instrument? If so, is it an original survey instrument, or one that is already validated? Are you planning to interview participants? How will that data be recorded? Will it need to be transcribed or collated?
Use Creswell and Creswell (2023) as a guide to learn about data analysis procedures. What data analysis procedure might be used to analyze your data?
READ Book: Creswell the login:
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/
Login: *********************
Password: Marquis01! Or Mahala07!
My research question is: In what ways do female college administrators in urban public higher education institutions on the East Coast benefit from leadership training programs designed to influence their leadership styles and decision-making processes within their institutions?”
Rubric:
Methods Section Draft
Methods Section Draft
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose
Accomplishes the goal of the assigned task using discipline-specific knowledge.
10 to >8.0 pts
Advanced
Comprehensively meets the assignment goals, surpassing baseline expectations. The target audience is addressed through communication reflecting a thorough understanding of audience exigencies and values. Applies, synthesizes, and/or expands discipline-specific knowledge. The research question directly relates to leadership or has a direct leadership lens.
8 to >5.0 pts
Proficient
Adequately addresses minimum assignment requirements. Adequately addresses target audience. Appropriately and sufficiently incorporates discipline-specific knowledge. The research question indirectly relates to leadership or has an indirect leadership lens.
5 to >0 pts
No Marks
Fails to meet one or more assignment goals. Some relevant audiences are not sufficiently addressed or the writing is addressed to the wrong audience. Incompletely or incorrectly applies discipline-specific knowledge. The research question does not relate to leadership and does not have a direct leadership lens.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization
Ideas are arranged logically, cohesively, and clearly.
10 to >8.0 pts
Advanced
Logical structure and arrangement of thesis/ideas. Cohesive paragraphs that convincingly develop the central argument/ ideas. Major and supporting ideas are presented clearly. Smooth transitions between ideas at sentence, paragraph, and section level.
8 to >5.0 pts
Proficient
Appropriate structure and arrangement of thesis/ideas. Cohesive paragraphs that develop the central argument/ideas. Major ideas are presented clearly. Adequate transitions between ideas at sentence and paragraph level.
5 to >0 pts
No Marks
Ineffective structure and arrangement of thesis/ideas, lack of focus. Generally unified arguments/ideas but with gaps in cohesion. Hierarchy of ideas is unclear. Weak or ineffective transitions between ideas at sentence and paragraph level.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence
Selection and integration of high-quality sources to support claims.
10 to >8.0 pts
Advanced
Selects superior quality sources to support claims. Discussion of sources provides clear and logical support for the claims. Comprehensively and effectively integrates high-quality evidence. Applies source documentation conventions correctly (e.g., few errors).
8 to >5.0 pts
Proficient
Selects relevant sources to support claims. Discussion of sources adequately supports claims. Effectively integrates evidence. Applies some source documentation conventions correctly (e.g., some errors in some conventions).
5 to >0 pts
No Marks
Generally supports claims but some evidence may not be relevant. Discussion of sources in relation to claims is general, vague, or not relevant. Unevenly integrates evidence. Applies few source documentation conventions correctly (e.g. faulty use of quotations, citations, paraphrasing).
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis/Interpretation
Evaluation, integration, and synthesis of information/knowledge.
10 to >8.0 pts
Advanced
Discusses strengths and limitations of all relevant perspectives. Seamless integration of relevant information/knowledge into a coherent or new whole. A thorough discussion of outcomes/findings and their significance. Insightful and thorough discussion of implications. A thorough analysis of all relevant data to reach a well-reasoned and accurate conclusion(s).
8 to >5.0 pts
Proficient
Discusses strengths and limitations of varied, but not all, perspectives. Sufficient integration of relevant information/knowledge, but may lack a unifying theme. Adequate discussion of outcomes/findings without addressing overall significance. Important implications are noted but may not be thoroughly addressed. Data are used correctly to reach the proper conclusion(s).
5 to >0 pts
No Marks
Fails to consider the strengths and limitations of perspectives or approaches is superficial. Irrelevant or poorly integrated information/knowledge. Incomplete, or uneven, discussion of outcomes/findings. Only the most obvious implications are noted. Misuse of, or reliance on, poorly collected data leads to faulty conclusion(s).
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLanguage Conventions
Format, style and specialized vocabulary that constitute standardized written communication in a discipline and use of APA style.
10 to >8.0 pts
Advanced
Clearly and concisely follows writing style conventions. Applies discipline-specific terminology correctly and consistently. Supporting data and visuals are correct and appropriate. Mechanics (grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling) follow the rules of Standard English and adhere to APA style..
8 to >5.0 pts
Proficient
Mostly follows writing style conventions. Mostly applies discipline-specific terminology correctly. Supporting data and visuals are generally correct and appropriate. Mechanics (grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling) follow the rules of Standard English and adhere to APA style.
5 to >0 pts
No Marks
Inconsistently follows writing style conventions. Insufficiently or incorrectly applies discipline-specific terminology. Supporting data and visuals are absent, extraneous, or incorrectly presented. Mechanics (grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling) follow the rules of Standard English and adhere to APA style.
10 pts
Total Points: 50
PreviousNext
