Hit The Order Button To Order A **Custom Paper**

>> CLICK HERE TO ORDER 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS FROM AustralianExpertWriters.com <<

27 Nov

Topic: PBIS and the role of the school counselor – NO PLAGIARISM

Assignment Overview:
Critical Review of the Literature (CRL) Assignment
Each class member will write a 20-24 page critical review of the literature (with a minimum of 30 sources, 25 of which must be peer-reviewed) on a topic of your choice. You are expected to pick a topic of importance to your program and field (e.g. C&I students pick a topic related to C&I; HESA students pick one relevant to higher education contexts, etc.).
The CRL will demonstrate that class members can understand, synthesize, critique, and analyze arguments from existing scholarship about a topic/problem of choice, positioning themselves as emerging topic experts. Your CRL should demonstrate a quality of writing expected of masters- level graduates capable of translating this knowledge into highly engaging and professional theory-to-practice in your respective field. Your CRL will be grounded in a theoretical/conceptual perspective while making connections and highlighting contradictions with the appropriate literature base. Class members CRL projects will also provide meaningful recommendations for practice.
Project Instructions
1. Abstract- develop a 150-200 word (maximum) abstract that clearly articulates what your CRL is about.
a. This is an opportunity to immediately hook a reader into your concept/idea/problem and for you to give the reader a taste of what the implications may be for resolving/supporting it.
b. Please follow APA with your Abstract (it belongs on its own page and does not count toward your 20-24 pages of content for this assignment: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
2. Introduction (3.5-4 pages) Use this section to capture the essence of your topic. You need to give the reader the “lay of the land” so that they can situate themselves in your
topic. a. Use at least 3-5 sources when sharing the “lay of the land” portion where you
orient the reader b. Articulate the problem, disruption, or gap you propose to unearth or have
unearthed from your early reading of the literature i. While writing this important portion, you may ask yourself- in what ways
have you made a clear argument/demonstrated a clear problem? Can you demonstrate some sort of a problem, issue, question, some sort of difference/disconnect/problem that needs to be addressed in your field?
ii. Do you have some literature/evidence to support this problem/disruption/gap?
1. This may be a good place to share statistics, numbers or even qualitative evidence
2. If you do choose to share a table at this point, please make it an appendix you refer to
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/iii. Use at least 3-4 citations from the literature as evidence c. Why is this topic/issue important/critical to address and how is your argument
new/different than what has been identified prior? i. Share the significance of this topic from the perspective of your original
argument or in demonstrating your identified problem ii. It would be helpful to add a couple sources here to support why it is
significant if you can (you might also consider it as evidence, as well) d. Purpose statement & research question(s)
i. The purpose statement should flow from the significance of the topic. You can even use signal words like “therefore”; “consequently”, etc.
ii. Create a purpose statement of 1 sentence. You might include another sentence or two (maximum) supporting the purpose if you decide it needs a bit of explanation.
iii. Your 2-3 research question(s) should flow from your purpose and be clearly aligned with your purpose/problem, etc.
1. Is there one overarching RQ? Often, yet not always, is this the best way to go
2. Are there one or two support questions? If you do not believe there are support question(s), then feel free not to articulate any
3. Theoretical/conceptual perspective (1-2 pages) a. Share a theoretical or conceptual perspective that you plan on using to help make
meaning of your problem/purpose/RQ(s) i. Please include a minimum of 3 references that support your choice of
perspective (a couple more may be helpful- use the Witenstein & Saito (2015) paper and others you find to help serve as models
b. Articulate why this theoretical perspective/lens or set of lenses (in combination) is/are the best one(s) for framing/making meaning/shedding light on your problem/purpose/RQ(s)
i. You might even begin a sentence by simply stating something like 1. “theory x is the best lens (or perspective) for making meaning of
this higher education problem because…” 2. “It is critical/necessary to use Theory X to illuminate/frame this
research question and problem for the following reasons: 1) 2) 3), etc.
c. Helpful hint: reflecting back in this section to your topic/problem/purpose and “dialoguing” with it can be a helpful way to make a case for why your perspective
is a meaningful one for making meaning/further understanding the phenomena you have selected
4. Review of the Literature & Discussion (12-14 pages) share approximately 3-4 overarching themes/topics that have their own respective sections in the body of your CRL that support your problem (topic)/purpose/RQ you are addressing. Please consider creating organized subthemes/categories of the overarching ones
a. It may be best to share the theme and demonstrate its relationship to the problem (topic)/purpose/RQ
i. Share at least 7 separate sources for each proposed theme/topic (of course you can cite these sources more than one time in each section)
1. Sources can be utilized in multiple thematic sections, but make sure to use a variety across the whole section
ii. How and why are you selecting articles to utilize in these sections? What makes them compelling components for advancing your argument to the topic/problem you are addressing?
1. Are you making sure to not only share the literature but to make your own interpretations to it as well (of course linked to your purpose/RQs, etc.)?
iii. Bear in mind your theoretical/conceptual perspective as the lens/way you are framing this CRL as you write this portion
1. How does this perspective help shape your discussion and the way in which you are making interpretations about the data as it relates to your Purpose/RQ?
b. Discussion section: You can choose to integrate your Discussion portion with the thematic/topical portion or create a separate section
i. Consider how you are making meaning of the literature and going beyond just sharing what has been said
1. In other words, how do you interpret what you have found in the Review of the Literature section?
2. Said a different way, how do you take what you have unearthed in the Review of the Literature thematic sections and make interpretations that go beyond what you have synthesized.
a. What have you learned, unearthed, unpacked? What does this information mean as it relates back to your problem/purpose, RQ(s), etc.?
b. What connections have you made across thematic sections and within them, especially as it relates to your problem/purpose, RQs, etc.
ii. How do you link it back to the literature you have used for the CRL? 1. How might you have a “conversation” with the literature base and
what you have found, particularly in light of the problem/purpose, RQs, etc., that you are investigating?
iii. Important Note- make sure to use the theoretical perspective/lens in this section quite clearly as you interpret the data. It is the “set of lenses/glasses” through which you are interpreting your CRL
5. Conclusions and Implications (3.5-4 pages) a. This is an opportunity to propose possible conclusions and implications for your
b. The Conclusion gives you an opportunity to tie up loose ends and very clearly to summarize very succinctly, what your project was about and what it achieved.
c. More importantly, it gives the writer the opportunity to share perspectives based on what you found. You now can shape direction, make well-founded propositions based on your hard work and share meaningful steps based upon your critical analysis
i. What ideas can be advanced from your findings? How was this exercise helpful/necessary/meaningful?
ii. How might what you found “move the needle” or change directions/urge a call for changes/new steps as it relates to your Purpose and RQs?
d. Please share your proposed implications and recommendations for practice from your findings, some of which support socially just/equitable practices
i. This might be a good place to share proposed practical new directions, a new model you developed or any type of reframing of the ways in which current contexts play out, or set of steps forward that help advance your problem/purpose/RQs
1. Give meaningful details for how/what you have devised should play out
e. Please share 2-3 proposed implications further research i. Now that you have done this ground work, possibly utilizing a new angle
for making meaning through your CRL, what are some next empirical steps that would be prudent to take for investigation?
ii. What types of studies are needed to support your CRL further? What might that look like?
Paper preparation: 1. Microsoft Word Document 2. Type-written in 12 point font (Times New Roman), double spaced 3. Reference page with a minimum of 30 sources, 25 of which must be peer-reviewed (or
more). Only sources cited in the paper should be included in the Reference section 4. Use APA format
NOTES: 1. Consider using headings/subheadings to make your paper more organized & easy-to-read 2. Write out all contractions into 2 words in academic writing (e.g. that’s should be written
“that is”) 3. Delete and replace “think” or “feel” (and their variants) when you find them in your paper.
These words are vague and therefore do not convey specific meaning to a reader. Use Control F/Command F to find and replace them.
a. Consider changing all other vague words as you edit/proofread. 4. Give yourself time to edit, refine, etc. I often share my work with friends/colleagues and read
my work aloud to catch grammar errors and reflect upon the paper’s logical flow.
Due date: July 28th @ 5:30PM Pacific Time- Papers MUST be handed been by this time.
NOTE: Upload your assignment to the appropriate Moodle portal
Assignment value: 40%
Grading Rubric (400 points possible)
Low Below Average
Average Above Average
#1, #2 & #3 (25%)
#4 (30%) #5 (20%) Social Justice/Equity Implications (5%)
Use of 30 sources in- text (minimum of 25 peer- reviewed) (10%)
Style & grammar (10%)
Total points /400 Percentage %
SOE’s EDUC 637 Developmental Rubric Poor Satisfactory Excellent
Introduction The paper either has no discernible introduction or the introduction offered does little to define the body of literature to be reviewed. Alternatively, the introduction may completely neglect to introduce the reader to anything resembling an original argument or to anything that could be considered an appropriate answer to the “so
what?” question.
The paper has an introduction that clearly defines the body of literature to be reviewed. The introduction does introduce the reader to the author’s original
perspective, but that perspective may be a bit fuzzy or unclear in the introduction. The answer to the “so what?” question may not be
fully articulated in the introduction, but the introduction nevertheless does an adequate job of setting up the ensuing analysis.
The paper begins with a coherent and articulate introduction that clearly defines the body of literature to be reviewed and introduces the reader to the author’s original
perspective on this literature (the author’s own argument about the
literature and what it says). The paper also clearly makes an argument about why the literature under review is important. In other words, this paper clearly answers the question: “so what?”
Original Argument
The paper has no discernible original argument or, perhaps, a very weak or incoherent one. The author may do a fine job of summarizing sources, but the paper seems to have very little of its own to say about these sources and how they relate to one another and the topic under study. The paper may read more like an annotated bibliography in which sources are discussed in a “laundry list”
fashion rather than an appropriate literature review.
The paper has an argument, but the argument may not be completely original, may not be particularly thoughtful, and/or may “disappear” at times throughout the paper due to the author’s failure to link
sources to this argument.
The paper clearly makes an original, thoughtful, and perhaps even innovative argument. The argument clearly comes from the author and is not merely a restatement of arguments and observations that others have made about the literature in question. Throughout the paper, the reader is frequently reminded of this central argument and the literature discussed is adeptly linked to the argument.
Organization and Flow
The paper’s organization may
be confusing or incoherent. The paper likely lacks appropriate “signposting” so that the reader is often confused about how pieces of the paper relate to one another. This paper is likely difficult to read.
The paper generally is intuitively organized, although the reader may become lost in a few places due to inadequate “signposting.” On rare
occasions the author may allow the reader to lose track of the overarching argument. It may be unclear at times how the pieces of the literature review relate to one another or how one or two parts of the literature review relate to and/or serve to strengthen and bolster the author’s original
The paper includes clear “signposting” and the writing
allows the reader to clearly connect each section of the review to the overarching theme or argument. The paper is organized in an intuitive fashion.
Discussion of Sources
This paper fails to draw on a sufficiently substantial body of peer-reviewed work. The author may also demonstrate a lack of understanding about what “peer-reviewed” research is by relying on sources that are journalistic or otherwise non- academic in nature. The paper may have serious shortcomings when it comes to discussing or summarizing the sources it uses. It may rely far too heavily on direct quotation from the works being reviewed. It may not be clear to the reader that the author actually understands the arguments being presented in the works
The paper draws on a body of peer- reviewed scholarship that, while of an adequate size, could be strengthened by the inclusion of additional sources. This paper may discuss a substantial number of sources but overlook one or more major works. The paper generally does a good job of articulately summarizing the sources under review but in one or two places the author may be guilty of over- quotation and/or may not seem to understand the works being summarized.
The paper draws on a substantial body of peer reviewed scholarship. The review succeeds synthesizing and critiquing the ideas and arguments in this scholarship in an articulate and succinct manner. The author of the paper clearly understands the sources s/he cites. The paper discusses the sources in a sophisticated way and does not overly rely on direct quotation.
s/he is discussing. It may also seem to the reader that the author has not properly read many of the sources s/he discusses.
Manner of addressing the cited material
The cited material is presented as an annotated bibliography in which each citation is presented alone in a separate paragraph. Irrelevant details about the study are presented.
References are cited in an integrative manner such as would be found in Review of Educational Research. Only the most salient aspects of the study are reported.
Appropriateness of Implications
The paper may include a section purporting to address the implications of the literature under review in relation to their field (e.g. curriculum and instruction, counseling, education administration, or higher education and student affairs) today, but if so this section is weak and underdeveloped. This may mean that the section does not actually discuss implications at all or that the implications discussed are unreasonable or unrealistic. It may be clear to the reader that this section was simply “tacked-on” or that the author did not think carefully about the literature and its possible meaning(s) for their field. To the extent that this paper addresses implications at all, this discussion does not reflect a sophisticated understanding of the student’s topic in relation to their field (e.g. curriculum and instruction, counseling, education administration, or higher education and student affairs).
This paper effectively addresses some of the implications of the literature under review in relation to their field (e.g. curriculum and instruction, counseling, education administration, or higher education and student affairs) today. Generally, the implications discussed are reasonable and realistic, but the discussion may be lacking in some ways. There may be major or somewhat obvious implications that are overlooked. A small number of implications may be somewhat unreasonable or not terribly realistic. Overall, it is clear that the author has thought carefully about the implications of the literature s/he reviewed, and the discussion of implications reflects a good understanding of the student’s topic in relation to their
field (e.g. curriculum and instruction, counseling, education administration, or higher education and student affairs).
The paper does an impressive job of addressing the implications of the literature under review in relation to their field (e.g. curriculum and instruction, counseling, education administration, or higher education and student affairs) today. The implications may be abstract (as in implications for future scholarship), practical (as in implications for faculty, administrators, students, policy- makers etc.), or both. Whatever the case, it is clear in this paper that the author has thought carefully and creatively about this section and the implications discussed are reasonable and reflect an exceptional, sophisticated, and multi-layered understanding of the student’s
topic in relation to their field (e.g. curriculum and instruction, counseling, education administration, or higher education and student affairs).
Conclusion This paper’s conclusion is either too simple or non- existent. If there is a conclusion at all, it fails to summarize the main themes and arguments of the literature review or does so incoherently.
The paper does have a conclusion that addresses both the main themes of the paper and the argument(s) of the review. Generally, this conclusion does a good job or addressing these issues and tying things together for the reader. However, the conclusion’s
discussion of these issues may be insufficiently developed, unclear, or inconsistent with arguments and ideas presented earlier in the paper.
The paper ends with a conclusion that articulately summarizes the main themes and argument(s) of the literature review.
Quality of Writing
The paper may be poorly- written, insufficiently proofread, and/or rife with unnecessary mistakes (spelling, grammar, etc.). The writing in places may be so muddled that the reader struggles to understand what is being said.
The paper is generally well-written and the reader rarely if ever struggles to understand what is being communicated. Although this paper may contain some spelling or grammatical errors, these errors are minimal and not overly distracting. Despite these errors, the paper was clearly
The writing is clear, cogent, and professional. The paper has few if any grammatical or spelling errors and is carefully proofread.
proofread and not simply thrown together.
Adherence to APA Citation
The paper fails to adhere to APA citation style. It may be unclear to the reader which ideas in the paper come from which sources.
The paper adheres to APA citation style but may contain some errors. Some sources listed in the reference page may not be parenthetically cited or vice versa. There may be some errors.
The paper cites all sources appropriately in text and in a separate reference page. There are few if any errors in the application of APA style.
Note on Plagiarism: Plagiarism on this assignment to any extent and to any degree will result in a failing grade for the course. Formal university channels (see University Catalog) will be used to report and deal with any instances of academic dishonesty. It is your responsibility to know what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it.

READ ALSO  TMGT611 Assessment 2: Individual case study analysis - NO PLAGIARISM


  • Hit The Order Button To Order A **Custom Paper**

>> 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS FROM AustralianExpertWriters.com <<