RES811 Grand Canyon University Success in Doctoral Education Essay

Content Type

User Generated

User

whfgzr123

Subject

Writing

Course

RES811

School

Grand Canyon University

Description

General Requirements:

Locate the Synthesis Worksheet you completed in Topic 3.
Locate and download "Synthesis Paper Template" from the Course Materials for this topic.
Review the articles by Baker & Pifer (2011), Gardner (2009), and Smith & Hatmaker (2014) located in the Course Materials for this topic.
This assignment uses a rubric. 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. Review the GCU APA Style Guide for Writing 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:

Using the Synthesis Worksheet you completed in Topic 3 and considering the themes you developed and the feedback provided by your instructor, write a paper (1,000-1,250 words) that synthesizes the three articles. Your paper should include the following:

An introduction that introduces and provides context for the topic. This includes giving a brief description of each article and its purpose, identifying the three themes that emerged from your reading, describing how they will be discussed in the paper, and presenting a clear thesis statement.
Support for your identified themes with evidence from each article. Provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative.
A discussion 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?

Please see attached!

here is the rubric.

1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%	2 Less than Satisfactory 73.00%	3 Satisfactory 82.00%	4 Good 91.00%	5 Excellent 100.00%
100.0 %Criteria
10.0 %Introduction	An introduction is either missing or not evident to the reader.	An introduction is present, but incomplete or illogical.	An introduction is presented, but does not contextualize the topic well.	An introduction is present and adequately contextualizes the topic.	An introduction is thoroughly presented and vividly contextualizes the topic.
20.0 %Support of Common Themes	Support of common themes is either missing or not evident to the reader.	Support of common themes is present, but inaccurate or illogical.	Support of common themes is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth.	Support of common themes is present and thorough.	Support of common themes is thoroughly presented with rich detail.
20.0 %Discussion of Conclusions	A discussion of the conclusions is not presented.	A discussion of the conclusions is presented, but inaccurate or illogical.	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.	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.	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.
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 %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.
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

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running head: THE DOCTORAL STUDENTS JOURNEY CHALLENGES THE DOCTORAL STUDENTS JOURNEY CHALLENGES Nicole Daniels Grand Canyon University 3/7/2018 1 THE DOCTORAL STUDENT YOURNEY CHALLENGES Synthesis Worksheet Introduction Capture interest: The Doctoral Student Challenging Journey: The essential elements required to transition and evolve into a successful scholar.The transitional stages are all prevalent in helping create an individualized voice (Spiro et.al. 2015). Context: Smith and Hatmaker (2015) A public affairs research investigating doctoral student’s socialization and professional individuality construction process along withrelationships. Gardner (2009) explored the perception of success at one research extensive institution regarding experience in doctoral academic. Baker &Pifer (2011) the importance of stage 2 of the program as a doctoral student and understanding the preparation for academic practices in depth with success. Statement of common themes: Three themes emerge from the three studies: Doctoral Journey, relationships with faculty and friends, identity development Thesis statement: Theme One: Baker and Pifer (2011): There are many factorsand strategies that play a role in beingsuccessful in completing a Doctoral Degree. AcademicSuccess During stage 2 there is a huge transition from student to scholar through identity changes. They argue that doctoral students are going through identitygrowth processto a scholar academicrole while at the same time beginning to demonstrate oneself as a scholar. Gardner (2009): Success among the differences in disciplines while attending as a doctoral student can be beneficial to some while others need to become more self-directed. There are some disciplines departments with high and low completion rates and one must know what it takes to succeed. Smith and Hatmaker (2015): The transition from a student to a scholar includes gaining skills and knowledge of being part of the experts’ organization. Developing an identity can be vital during a particular stage of the journey. This can include becoming self-directed while conducting a research. Theme Two: Baker and Pifer (2011): Relationships In transitioning to stage 2 the relationships during the doctoral journey with faculty, networking, family and friendsprovide purpose and outcome. Relationships are vital in the process of being an expert in both the student role and scholar role. THE DOCTORAL STUDENT JOURNEY CHALLENGES Gardner (2009): Smith and Hatmaker (2015): Theme Three: Baker and Pifer (2011): Gardner (2009): Smith and Hatmaker (2015): Statement of Conclusion The faculty in the different disciplines plays an important role of the dedication given throughout the different stages particularly when it came to being self-directed. The mentoring from faculty relationships and other programs can lead the doctoral student to being successful throughout the doctoral journey of research.Doctoral student can benefit from formal or informal mentoring from faculty. Identitydevelopment. The identity development is also known as role learning and is considered vital while during the doctoral student journey. Articulating identity development takes place in stage 2 and requires a shift of thinking to become more self- directed. Identity development differs within the seven disciplines and each has structured programs that offer different services throughout the doctoral journey. The oceanography, communication disciplines demonstrates a high level of identity development and being selfdirected. The psychology department has doctoral students who are naturally talent and self directed that leads to above average completion rate. There are many components to be considered in identity development which include institutionalized, socialization, faculty mentoring and student proactivity. When pursuing a doctoral degree academic success, relationships, and self-direction play a vital role in highly completing the journey successfully. The doctoral student must gain highly developed skills and transform from a student to scholar. There are several factors that play a part in becoming a successful scholar.The challenges transitioning to a doctoral student mandated changes in all aspects of one’s life. THE DOCTORAL STUDENT JOURNEY CHALLENGES References Baker, V. L., & Pifer, M. J. (2011). The role of relationships in the transition from doctor to independent scholar. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 5-17. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2010.515569 Smith, A. E., &Hatmaker, D. M. (2014). Knowing, doing, and becoming: Professional identity construction among public affairs doctoral students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 545-564. Gardner, S. K. (2009). Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in seven disciplines. The Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 383-406. doi: 10.1353/rhe.0.0075 Spiro, J., butcher, D., Greenway, K., Harding, J., & Twisssell, A. (2015). Paving the way: creating space for the doctoral journey. Education Journal of living Theories. 8(1), 75-94 McApline, L &Amundsen, C. (2009) identity and agency: pleasures and collegiality among the challenges of the doctoral journey. Studies in Continuing Education, 31(2), 109-125. doi:10.1080/0158037090927378 Running head: SYNTHESIS PAPER 1 Synthesis Paper Student A. Sample Grand Canyon University: RES-811 SYNTHESIS WORKSHEET 2 Title The title does not receive bold font, but the rest of the headings do. Provide an introduction that includes a brief description of each article and its purpose. Identify the three themes that emerged from your reading and how they will be discussed in the paper. Conclude the introduction with your thesis statement. Theme One Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative. Theme Two Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative. Theme Three Support your identified theme with evidence from each article and provide analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative. Conclusion Provide a conclusions that can be drawn can be drawn when the articles are taken together as a single entity. What is the overall message of the group of articles? The reference list should appear at the end of a paper (see the next page). It provides the information necessary for a reader to locate and retrieve any source you cite in the body of the paper. Each source you cite in the paper must appear in your reference list; likewise, each entry in the reference list must be cited in your text. A sample reference page is included below; this page includes examples of how to format different reference types (e.g., books, journal articles, SYNTHESIS WORKSHEET information from a website). The examples on the following page include examples taken directly from the APA manual. The word Reference does not receive bold font. 3 SYNTHESIS WORKSHEET 4 References American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Daresh, J. C. (2004). Beginning the assistant principalship: A practical guide for new school administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Herbst-Damm, K. L., & Kulik, J. A. (2005). Volunteer support, marital status, and the survival times of terminally ill patients. Health Psychology, 24, 225-229. doi:10.1037/02786133.24.2.225 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2003). Managing asthma: A guide for schools (NIH Publication No. 02-2650). Retrieved from http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/ health/prof/asthma/asth_sch.pdf
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tags: APA synthesis doctor doctoral journey mechanical errors

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Please find attached

Running Head: DOCTORAL STUDENTS’ IDENTITY

Doctoral Students’ Identity
Student’s Name
Course/Number
Due Date
Faculty Name

DOCTORAL STUDENTS’ IDENTITY

2

Doctoral Students’ Identity

Doctoral studies have become the core of academic practices. Research on doctoral education in
the past identified various complementary factors which contribute to a person’s doctoral
experience. Successful study at the PhD level of education is a matter of complexity because as
much as PhD students may be a highly select group, a good number never complete their journey.
Past studies on doctoral experience suggest that a good portion of doctoral students face several
difficulties during the course of their studies. This has caused attrition rates among doctoral
students to range from thirty percent to fifty percent, which is dependent on the country and
discipline in question. In higher education, the term ‘success’ has been used broadly to define
multiple outcomes such as models of better understanding how students can improve success rates,
practices that are most suitable for increased success and the influence that certain variables have
on success over time.

It has been suggested that in doctoral education, only half of the students that begin actually go
on to complete their education. Due to lack of a coherent view of what success in doctoral
education means, the measurements and outcomes expected to be achieved by students remain
ambiguous (Gardner, S. K. 2009). For quite some time, public administration scholars have
examined how doctoral students are trained to conduct research. Scholars identify the necessity of
professional identity development, socializing and mentoring among doctoral students in public
affairs (Smith, A. E., & Hatmaker, D. M. 2014). From the time doctoral students get admitted...