Critical analysis is a crucial part of the literature review process, so it is important to understand their unique roles and impacts. How are these concepts different from one another, and how do they contribute to research development?
To prepare for this Discussion, consider the difference between reviewing the literature and creating a literature review, including how the process of synthesizing your understanding can impact both the literature review and your personal research philosophy. For this Discussion, locate a current business research study (within the last 5 years) from the Walden Library, and determine whether it is viable and substantive enough for inclusion in a literature review.
By Day 3
Post an evaluation of critical analysis within the context of a literature review, using your selected business research study as evidence for your assertions. Your evaluation should include the following:
- Briefly describe the study’s key components, such as purpose, problem, framework, and findings.
- Assess the study’s viability within a literature review, including characteristics like current knowledge, substantive data, and relevance. Be sure to include supportive examples.
- Explain how critical analysis of the literature on your topic (problem/phenomenon) can inform your view of the problem and your ultimate research philosophy. Be sure to include supportive examples.
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 2 Discussion Rubric for specific grading elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your work.
Name: DDBA_8300_Week_2_Discussion_Rubric
| Superior Criteria | Excellent Criteria | Satisfactory Criteria | Marginal Criteria | Unsatisfactory Criteria | Not Submitted | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Element 1a: Initial Post – Key Components | Points: 10 (10%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed description of the study’s key components, such as purpose, problem, framework, and findings. Several sources and examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 9.5 (9.5%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed description of the study’s key components, such as purpose, problem, framework, and findings. There are one or two minor errors. Feedback: |
Points: 8.5 (8.5%)
Student presents a description with some details of the study’s key components, such as purpose, problem, framework, and findings. Some sources and examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 7.5 (7.5%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete description with vague or missing details of the study’s key components, such as purpose, problem, framework, and findings. Few sources or examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 5 (5%)
Does not meet minimal standards. Feedback: |
Points: 0 (0%)
Did not submit element. Feedback: |
| Element 1b: Initial Post – Study’s Viability |
Points: 10 (10%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed assessment of the study’s viability within a literature review, including characteristics like current knowledge, substantive data, and relevance, and includes supportive examples. Several sources and examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 9.5 (9.5%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed assessment of the study’s viability within a literature review, including characteristics like current knowledge, substantive data, and relevance, and includes supportive examples. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors. Feedback: |
Points: 8.5 (8.5%)
Student presents an assessment with some details of the study’s viability within a literature review, including characteristics like current knowledge, substantive data, and relevance, and includes supportive examples. Some sources and examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 7.5 (7.5%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete assessment with vague or missing details of the study’s viability within a literature review, and/or does not include characteristics like current knowledge, substantive data, and relevance, and includes supportive examples. Few sources or examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 5 (5%)
Does not meet minimal standards. Feedback: |
Points: 0 (0%)
Did not submit element. Feedback: |
| Element 1c: Initial Post – Critical Analysis |
Points: 10 (10%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of how critical analysis of the literature on his/her topic (problem/phenomenon) can inform his/her view of the problem and his/her ultimate research philosophy, and includes supportive examples. Several sources and examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 9.5 (9.5%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of how critical analysis of the literature on his/her topic (problem/phenomenon) can inform his/her view of the problem and his/her ultimate research philosophy, and includes supportive examples. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors. Feedback: |
Points: 8.5 (8.5%)
Student presents an explanation with some details of how critical analysis of the literature on his/her topic (problem/phenomenon) can inform his/her view of the problem and his/her ultimate research philosophy, and includes some supportive examples. Some sources and examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 7.5 (7.5%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of how critical analysis of the literature on his/her topic (problem/phenomenon) can inform his/her view of the problem and his/her ultimate research philosophy, and/or does not include supportive examples. Few sources or examples support thinking. Feedback: |
Points: 5 (5%)
Does not meet minimal standards. Feedback: |
Points: 0 (0%)
Did not submit element. Feedback: |
| Element 1d: Scholarly Sources for Initial Post |
Points: 10 (10%)
Student supports his/her initial post with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources. Feedback: |
Points: 9.5 (9.5%)
Student supports his/her initial post with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources. There are one or two minor errors in format or relevance of sources. Feedback: |
Points: 8.5 (8.5%)
Student supports his/her initial post with only one specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources. Feedback: |
Points: 7.5 (7.5%)
Student supports his/her initial post with at least one scholarly source provided. Feedback: |
Points: 5 (5%)
Does not meet minimal standards and/or no sources supported post. Feedback: |
Points: 0 (0%)
Did not submit element. Feedback: |
| Element 2: Response to Colleagues’ Postings |
Points: 30 (30%)
Responses are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to more than two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response. Feedback: |
Points: 28.5 (28.5%)
Responses are very good and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response. Feedback: |
Points: 25.5 (25.5%)
Responses are good and somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response. Feedback: |
Points: 22.5 (22.5%)
Responses are weak and do not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with at least one scholarly source provided for each response. Feedback: |
Points: 15 (15%)
Does not meet minimal standards and/or no sources supported response. Feedback: |
Points: 0 (0%)
Did not submit element. Feedback: |
| Element 3: Written Delivery Style & Grammar |
Points: 15 (15%)
Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are no spelling or grammar errors. Feedback: |
Points: 14.25 (14.25%)
Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are one or two minor errors in spelling or grammar. Feedback: |
Points: 12.75 (12.75%)
Student mostly follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are some errors in spelling or grammar. Feedback: |
Points: 11.25 (11.25%)
Student does not follow APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style and does not communicate in a cohesive, logical style. Feedback: |
Points: 7.5 (7.5%)
Does not meet minimal standards. Feedback: |
Points: 0 (0%)
Did not submit element. Feedback: |
| Element 4: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations) |
Points: 15 (15%)
Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are no APA errors. Feedback: |
Points: 14.25 (14.25%)
Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format. Feedback: |
Points: 12.75 (12.75%)
Student mostly adheres to scholarly reference requirements and/or mostly adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Some errors in APA format and style are evident. Feedback: |
Points: 11.25 (11.25%)
Student demonstrates weak or inconsistent adherence scholarly reference requirements and/or weak or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Several errors in APA format and style are evident. Feedback: |
Points: 7.5 (7.5%)
Does not meet minimal standards. Feedback: |
Points: 0 (0%)
Did not submit element. Feedback: |
Element 1a: Initial Post – Key Components—
Feedback:
Element 1b: Initial Post – Study’s Viability—
Feedback:
Element 1c: Initial Post – Critical Analysis—
Feedback:
Element 1d: Scholarly Sources for Initial Post—
Feedback:
Element 2: Response to Colleagues’ Postings—
Feedback:
Element 3: Written Delivery Style & Grammar—
Feedback:
Element 4: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations)—
Feedback:
Name: DDBA_8300_Week_2_Discussion_Rubric
