Revise your Final Project Proposal from LIB 356, based on the feedback you received from your instructor in that course. Then, by Day 3, upload your proposal to the discussion board. Do not copy and paste your proposal into the discussion; rather attach the document file, using the Add/Remove button at the bottom of the discussion Response screen.
Next, you will choose two of your classmates, and download their proposals. Finally, complete a Peer Review Worksheet for both proposals, and upload the document file back to the discussion board, again attaching it with the Add/Remove button in a response to the original proposal. In order to ensure each proposal is reviewed by at least two peers, do not review a proposal that already has at least two reviews. You are only allowed to review one that already has been reviewed by two other classmates if every other proposal also has two reviews. After choosing the proposal that you will review, reply to the original post stating that you will be doing the peer review. This will help ensure that the each proposal gets reviewed. Note that, even though the peer review process utilizes the discussion forum, this is not a typical discussion assignment. You do not need to discuss the proposals or your feedback. All you need to do is attach your proposal and two completed Peer Review Worksheets. You will be graded on your proposal (5 points) as well as the quality of the feedback you give to your two peers (5 points each).
This is the Proprosal review I did in LIB356 class: The actual paper is attached: Along with the Peer review worksheet.
Tasha – there are some significant parts missing in this proposal; you need to read pp. 33-35 of the Course Guide to see what you need to put in here. This reads more like a finished paper than a research project proposal. You don’t have the parts required in A or C of the directions, and I need to see those parts here before I can re-grade. Part B, the Review of Current Scholarship, should be ok as is, although you need to read my notes throughout – your syntax is a little confusing at times, at least for me.
Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., & Williams, J.M. (2008). The Craft of Research. (3rd Ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
The organization of your paper should be:
a. Paper topic (in the Week 2 format, explain the problem you’re researching, and the consequences of not answering your research question)
b. Review of Current Scholarship (basically what you have, but read the directions under B)
c. Thesis statement (in the Week 4 format – “Although…I claim….because….”) and a summary of your argument; again, read the directions under C.
You just need to “tweak” your document to include those parts that are missing, resend it, and I’ll regrade it.
(0 / 5) Revised Research Topic
Non-Performance – Does not attempt to state a research topic.
(10 / 10) Reviews Current Scholarship about the Chosen Topic
Distinguished – Thoroughly reviews current scholarship about the chosen topic, and comprehensively justifies how student’s research will advance human knowledge about the topic.
(0 / 5) States a Thesis and Outlines Reasons and Evidence
Non-Performance – Does not attempt to state a thesis or provide an outline.
(2 / 2) Resource Requirement
Distinguished – Uses more than 10 scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
(1.76 / 2) Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.
(0.64 / 1) Written Communication: APA Formatting
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Overall Score: 14.4 / 25