Who are the various stakeholders when it comes to this issue?
Subject: Composition II (GT-CO2)
Deadline:
Format: APA
Number of sources: 9
Number of pages: 3
Spacing: double spaced
Topic: Closing the Gap Between College and Career
Details: Research Proposal and Preliminary Bibliography
In Module 2, you began conducting research for your final paper examining one of the themes noted in the course.
For this Critical Thinking Assignment, provide a short research proposal and cite 7 or more credible sources in an annotated bibliography. You may use the sources you worked with in this week’s discussion.
This Critical Thinking Assignment has two parts.
Part 1: Research Proposal
Address the following in your proposal:
What topic/question do you plan to research? Why? What sparks your interest in this issue? And why does this issue matter to others beyond yourself?
Who are the various stakeholders when it comes to this issue? Then, who your intended audience? What specific group of individuals has the power to make change when it comes to this issue?
How have you narrowed this topic/question to make it more manageable? How could you keep narrowing it if needed?
What makes your topic/question debatable? What are 3-5 open-ended questions within this topic?
Based on your preliminary bibliography, how researchable does this question seem? Have you found a wealth of diverse sources and opinions? How credible and reliable do your sources seem? How easy or difficult was it to find peer-reviewed/scholarly sources? Which sources are most promising? Why?
NOTE: This assignment is not a full research essay. For now, you are writing a few paragraphs defending your research topic, why it matters, what its central questions are, etc.
Your research proposal must be approved by your instructor to move forward with your research.
Part 2: Annotated Bibliography
Address the following for the annotated bibliography:
APA formatting for the citations
Citations/sources listed in alphabetical order
Note how each source will help you explore your topic more fully.
All sources should be print books, eBooks from the library, articles from the library databases, or articles (print or web) from local, regional, and national/international newspapers and magazines. No general websites, .com websites, wiki sites, personal blogs, etc.
At least 2 of your sources need to be peer-reviewed/scholarly journal articles from the library databases. What is a peer-reviewed scholarly article? Watch the following video: The Peer Review Process (Links to an external site.)
All sources should be from the last five years (approx.) to avoid out of date information. Include annotations for at least 4-5 sources cited in the discussion board.
Use the following template:
Research Proposal and Preliminary Bibliography Template (Template found in the Module folder.)
Required elements to turn in with submission:
Research Proposal
Annotated Bibliography
Appendix – following references:
Pattern of error log (Template found in the Module folder.)
Turnitin report (provide similarity score and any comments)
Requirements:
Part 1 Length: Minimum of 300 words
Part 2 Length: 1-2 paragraphs
Refer to the Critical Thinking Assignment Rubric available in the Module 3 Folder for more information on assignment expectations and grading.
Rubric
ENG102 Mod 3 CT
ENG102 Mod 3 CT
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequirements
10.0 to >8.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Includes all of the required components, as specified in the assignment.
8.0 to >6.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Includes most of the required components, as specified in the assignment.
6.0 to >4.0 pts
Below Expectation
Includes some of the required components, as specified in the assignment.
4.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Includes few of the required components, as specified in the assignment.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProposal Content
25.0 to >20.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Demonstrates strong or adequate knowledge of the topic, how appropriate it is as a research topic, and the stakeholders. Notes a strong working thesis.
20.0 to >15.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Some significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge. Notes a working thesis.
15.0 to >10.0 pts
Below Expectation
Major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge. Notes a thesis that needs some work
10.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials. Does not note a working thesis.
25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Summary 1
10.0 to >4.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Source meets required criteria and is well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
4.0 to >3.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Source meets required criteria but is less than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
3.0 to >2.0 pts
Below Expectation
Source does not meet required criteria and is poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
2.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Source selection is clearly deficient.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Summary 2
10.0 to >4.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Source meets required criteria and is well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
4.0 to >3.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Source meets required criteria but is less than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
3.0 to >2.0 pts
Below Expectation
Source does not meet required criteria and is poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
2.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Source selection is clearly deficient.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Summary 3
10.0 to >4.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Source meets required criteria and is well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
4.0 to >3.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Source meets required criteria but is less than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
3.0 to >2.0 pts
Below Expectation
Source does not meet required criteria and is poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
2.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Source selection is clearly deficient.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Summary 4
10.0 to >4.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Source meets required criteria and is well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
4.0 to >3.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Source meets required criteria but is less than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
3.0 to >2.0 pts
Below Expectation
Source does not meet required criteria and is poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
2.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Source selection is clearly deficient.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Summary 5
10.0 to >4.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Source meets required criteria and is well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
4.0 to >3.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Source meets required criteria but is less than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
3.0 to >2.0 pts
Below Expectation
Source does not meet required criteria and is poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
2.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Source selection is clearly deficient.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Summary 6
10.0 to >4.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Source meets required criteria and is well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
4.0 to >3.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Source meets required criteria but is less than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
3.0 to >2.0 pts
Below Expectation
Source does not meet required criteria and is poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
2.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Source selection is clearly deficient.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Summary 7
10.0 to >4.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Source meets required criteria and is well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
4.0 to >3.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Source meets required criteria but is less than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
3.0 to >2.0 pts
Below Expectation
Source does not meet required criteria and is poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
2.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Source selection is clearly deficient.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates college-level proficiency in organization, grammar and style.
10.0 to >8.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Project is clearly organized, well written, and in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Strong sentence and paragraph structure; few errors in grammar and spelling.
8.0 to >6.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Project is fairly well organized and written and is in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Reasonably good sentence and paragraph structure; significant number of errors in grammar and spelling.
6.0 to >4.0 pts
Below Expectation
Project is poorly organized; does not follow proper paper format. Inconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph development; numerous errors in grammar and spelling.
4.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Project is not organized or well written and is not in proper paper format. Poor quality work; unacceptable in terms of grammar and spelling.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates proper use of APA style
10.0 to >8.0 pts
Meets Expectation
Project contains proper APA formatting, according to the CSU Global resources on APA citation style, with no more than one significant error.
8.0 to >6.0 pts
Approaches Expectation
Few errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global resources on APA citation style, with no more than two to three significant errors.
6.0 to >4.0 pts
Below Expectation
Significant errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global resources on APA citation style, with four to five significant errors.
4.0 to >0 pts
Limited Evidence
Numerous errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global resources on APA citation style, with more than five significant errors.
10.0 pts
Total Points: 125.0
Image preview for who are the various stakeholders when it comes to this issue?
APA
1237 words