Assignment 2: Sampling & Data Analysis (Group Assignment)

Objectives: After completing this assignment, you will be able to

• Explain the sampling and data analysis procedures used in research reports
• Determine whether the researcher wants to generalize his/her specific findings and/or
conclusions to a group of people larger than those included in the sample and evaluate the
degree to which a given sample is adequate for generalizing findings and/or conclusions
beyond the participants
• Identify and interpret the results of statistical analyses presented in research reports
• Explain the techniques used in qualitative data analysis and assess whether the researcher
moved beyond description to analysis
• Evaluate the degree to which a study provides reliable and generalizable results or findings
• Assess the degree to which the results or findings support (or warrant) the claims that the
researcher makes, the conclusions that s/he draws, and the implications or recommendations
for practice that the researcher makes
• Assess the contribution of a piece of research to the body of knowledge

Your Tasks and How I Will Assess Your Work

This is a group assignment. I will assign the members. Your grade will be a group grade.

You will analyze two articles. There are two components to the assignment. (1) One is the Flow Chart
for Articles You Read for both the List A and List B articles you select to analyzed. Do not spend too
much time on this. The total points for your work on the flow chart are 40 out of 200. The purpose of the
flow chart is for you to have all information needed based purely on what the authors say in the article.
(2) The second and most important component is your responses to the discussion questions. These
responses account for 160 of 200 points. I will grade your work on the List A and List B articles
separately, scoring each on the basis of 200 points. I average the two scores to produce a group grade
for the assignment as a whole.

There is a discussion board for each group on canvas. You can use this space to share documents and
work together on the assignment. It’s the best tool to use for collaboration in terms of getting input and
assistance from me and to be able to share documents during class meetings when you get time to
work on the assignment in class. However, you can use other collaborative platforms like Teams
(Microsoft) or Google Docs. I will not be able to routinely check those –would not have access at all
unless you give me access to each folder that you set up. To be quite honest, I do not want the all
folders on multiple platforms with multiple passwords, etc. that I would have to manage for the 8
groups that will be working on this assignment (there are two sections to the class). However, I do not
want to force you to use Canvas either. You will have some time in class to work on the assignment on
October 08 and October 22. You must have boxes 1-3 of the flow chart for each other posted to your
team’s weekly discussion board on October 8. You must have boxes 4-8 posted by October.

Submission of the Assignment

ONE member of your team should submit the assignment. Do not submit multiple versions. You will
upload four Word documents, two for each article using the document file name given in the table
below. The document “Flow Chart for Articles You Read” is linked through home page: Click on
Documents by Swisher and you will find the link to this document in the second row of the table

Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 1

(Finding, Selecting & Reading Research Literature). Use the following file names for your submissions,
listing list the names of your team members by last name only in alphabetical order.

Document to Submit File Name of Document

Completed flow chart for articles you LastName1_LastName2_LastName3_A3_Article_A_Flow
read – List A article
Responses to discussion questions – LastName1_LastName2_LastName3_A3_Article_A_Discuss
List A article
Completed flow chart for articles you LastName1_LastName2_LastName3_A3_Article_B_Flow
read – List B article
Responses to discussion questions – LastName1_LastName2_LastName3_A3_Article__Discuss
List B article

Assessment of Your Work

There are two tables at the end of this document that delineate my assessment procedures. The first
one is a general set of assessment criteria, specific to this assignment. This is the tool I use to assign
points to each component of your work. The second table provides the detailed factors I use in deciding
how many points to award for each component in the general assessment. I use a qualitative approach
for each factor – rating your responses as excellent, satisfactory or needs improvement. I then consider
the overall pattern of response to determine the numerical score for the first table. I provide the first
table and comments for each assignment.

Completing the Flow Chart

I would encourage each member of the group to develop a flow chart for both the List A and the List B
article, using the template for Flow Chart for ARTICLES YOU READ. However, I understand the time
limitations that we all face and if your team decides that this is not feasible, at least two people should
develop a flow chart for each article. This is important because there will be time in class for you to
compare your flow charts and develop a single chart based on group consensus. This chart provides
the basis for your responses to the discussion questions. It is important not make mistakes about the
basic content of the article. Therefore, multiple versions are much better than only one.

I provide an example of a Completed Flow Chart for Articles you Read. Provide enough detail in the
flow chart for me to understand how well you grasp the material in the article and your ability to apply
what we are learning in this class to your work on this assignment. If you provide “super short” answers
of a couple of words on the flow chart, I will not be able to assess whether you understood the article
and were able to identify the specific components in the article that you have to address in this
assignment. Do not write paragraphs or long discussion, but do not be vague: specific but brief
answers. For example, for sampling do not say something like “random sample” – specify the specific
type of random sample, e.g., systematic random sample.

Please take care to make sure that you do not misstate the author’s objectives, research
question, and theoretical hypotheses. If you get these wrong, everything else in your analysis is
likely to be wrong. For example, your assessment of the adequacy of the sample will depend on
whether the sample was “good enough” to answer the research question. If you misunderstand or
misstate the research question, you will not be able to assess the adequacy of the sample. You may
not like the author’s objectives or question. You may think s/he should have asked a different or

Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 2

broader question. However, the researcher determines the question and objectives – not the reader.
One very common error is to confuse the problem the author wants to address or the potential uses of
the new knowledge s/he creates with the research question and objectives. In one article that I have
used for the example of a flow chart (not this year) I have seen students say that the author’s objectives
are to improve people’s stress management skills or to improve women’s stress management skills. It
is true that the author of this article does want to improve workplace stress management for employees
and he is specifically concerned about stress management for women because of the dual family &
workplace stress many women experience. However, research deals with creating knowledge that we
can then use to solve problems. So his objective here is not to implement some training or “fix” the
problem through some program. He has two main objectives: (1) determine if training actually does
improve stress management and (2) if gender affects response to training. A training program is his
intervention or treatment in a quasi-experimental study. It is NOT the objective of his research.

Responding to the Discussion Questions

Discussion Questions are THE CORE OF THE ASSIGNMENT. You will provide a description of what
the author did in the flow chart. In answering the discussion questions, you will assess the quality of
the procedures used and the overall value of the work. Do not repeat what you said in the flow chart.
Concentrate on evaluating what the author(s) did. Answer the discussion questions in narrative form. I
suggest you use very short paragraphs with each paragraph making a separate point – sort of
“elaborated” bullet points. Start each paragraph with a key sentence in bold typeface that states
clearly the point you want to make. Long rambling paragraphs filled with unsubstantiated statements
will convince me that you do not understand the key concepts we discuss in this class and that you did
not use the research design literature to assess the article. Here is an example of a paragraph that
would be appropriate as part of an answer to Q3 about qualitative data analysis:

Overall, the authors were not specific about the analytic procedures used.

(1) The authors do not include any details about the specific steps they used to reach
conclusions, saying only that they used a “grounded theory” approach in their work.
Saini & Shlonsky (2012, p. 116) argue that “…regardless of the epistemological or
ontological assumptions guiding a particularly qualitative study, the ‘story’ should be told in a
consistent, transparent way and should adhere to the highest standard of methods
associated with the philosophical traditions the investigators purportedly draw from.” Simply
saying “grounded theory” fails to meet this kind of standard.
(2) Their view of grounded theory as an approach to qualitative data analysis seems to
ignore its similarities to other ways of conducting qualitative analyses. Renne (2000)
reflects what we found in our analysis of this study: “… we view most core methodological
writings on grounded theory as rather insular, placing too little emphasis on making
connections with other traditions of qualitative inquiry and ways of conceptualizing, justifying
and practicing social science research.”
(3) The authors of our article make no attempt to explain which of the many approaches
to grounded theory they believe they used in this study, leaving us uncertain of the
reliability of the very interesting conclusions they reached.
(4) In their final discussion, the authors employed none of the four kinds of questions
that researchers should address when they use qualitative analysis identified by
Patton (2002, p.467). Two of these were, in our view, particularly important omissions. The
authors provided no discussion of the degree to which their findings are supported by
previous research (qualitative or quantitative in nature), nor did they discuss the degree to
which their findings are new, or innovative.

Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 3

Develop your responses to the Discussion Questions as a group process. Do NOT try to “divide up”
the work. That always fails because the answers are not consistent. E.g., one team member discusses
the sample as though it is a probability sample and another member discussing generalization makes
comments that are applicable only to non-probability samples. Each of you should decide your answer
first independently. Write down your ideas – a phrase or a few words are all you need. You can then
have a fruitful team meeting to reach agreement.

Practice critical thinking, not criticism. Be neither over critical nor too willing to accept “pretty much
anything.” I am not upset if you give answers that are “kind of yes and kind of no” – as in we thought
maybe the sample was adequate because…. But then we also thought there were some problems with
the sample because… I want to know how well you understand the principles of research design. It’s
all about your explanations – how sophisticated they are and whether they show a good grasp
of the materials we have covered.

Consider multiple perspectives about research design in your response. For example, you will find
that disparate view about the value of case study designs in the literature. If you are discussing a case
study design, I want to see that you understand these differences. Use the research design literature
abundantly – above and beyond required readings.

Focus on showing that you can think about design in a sophisticated way. There are no “right”
and “wrong” answers to the discussion questions. You may have actual “wrong things” on the flow chart
– but here I want to see your thought processes. I’m not looking for a single “right” answer. There isn’t
one. You have to demonstrate what you’ve learned. In fact, as you answer the discussion questions
you may spot errors in the flow chart. Do not spend time changing the flow chart. Rather use this as an
opportunity to demonstrate that you thought about your responses carefully. Draw attention to the error,
explain what is “wrong” with your comment on the flow chart and explain what you now think is a better
interpretation of the material in the article.

se, cite and reference materials about research design. Do not try to do the assignment first and
then add some references. I expect you to indicate how you used the reference in your responses to
the discussion questions. Use the required materials and additional materials indicated at the course
website as well as materials that you find for yourself. Use, cite and reference all materials consulted.

State responses to all questions in your own words, including what you put in the flow chart. Do
not “copy and paste” from the article. I base my assessment of your comprehension and ability to apply
key concerns in large part on your ability to state things in your own terms. When you can explain
things in your own words, I know whether you understand the concepts or not. Your task is to apply
what you have learned – not rote repetition.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. What is your assessment of the degree to which the features of the design were adequate to
answer the researcher’s question and respond to his/her hypotheses or propositions in a
convincing way? This refers to the confidence (internal validity) that one can have in the
conclusions reached by the author. Show that you have a good understanding the relationships
between the research question, the author’s hypotheses or propositions and the sampling and
analysis procedures the author employed – and how all of these together, as a system, affect the
confidence that we can have in the conclusions (or claims) that the author makes. A good approach
to answering this question is to identify both the strengths and weaknesses in the study. For
example, one can use statistical methods to account for unexplained variance, which can improve
both internal and external validity. Using multiple comparison groups greatly improves ability to

Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 4

 reach conclusions about causal relationships. Think about all of the components of the design.
Consult, cite and reference the research design literature. Go beyond the required readings. Make
extensive use of the literature as you answer this question

2. Which, if any, of the conclusions do you think the author can generalize in the way that s/he
wanted to generalize them? Distinguish between theoretical and statistical generalization. An
author may want to generalize theoretically, for example, but be relatively uninterested in statistical
generalization – or vice versa. Consider all aspects of the study as you answer this question. For
example, even though we rarely get the “perfect” sample, there ways to offset the impact of a “less
than perfect” sample – like carefully defining the theoretical population to reduce inherent variance
that would have to be taken into account in a sample of the “general population” of some city, state
or nation. Refer to the research question as you think about this. For example, there are some
instances in which the ability to generalize will depend greatly on having a probability sample. Do
you think the researcher needed a probability sample? If the researcher needed and/or tried to get
a probability sample, did the sample meet all requirements for a true probability sample? If you think
the sample failed to meet all requirements, what aspects of the sampling procedure do you think
violated the requirements? One way to think about this is to ask yourself if the sample is
“representative enough” to achieve the kind of generalization the author wants to make.

3. What is your assessment of the explanatory power of this study? Explanatory power refers to
our ability to add to the body of knowledge. I know that you may not know much about the theory or
the topic of the study and I am not grading this based on your expertise in that regard. Make sure
you specifically comment on the degree to which the author (1) expanded the empirical evidence in
the literature, (2) added to our overall understanding of the phenomenon of interest, such as new
or novel explanations for how and why it occurs, and (3) added to theory through theory-testing,
theory-building or both. Remember, research does not have to produce “earthshaking” results to be
good, solid work that contributes. However, not all research really adds much to what we know. To
answer this question, you need to assess the overall “quality” of the research question, examine the
degree to which the researcher draws conclusions (moves beyond results), and the degree to which
the design decisions about sampling and design affect explanatory power.

Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 5

Assignment 2 Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria Possible Your

Points Points
FLOW CHART 40
Identified and described key components of the study accurately 40
Provided enough detail to show thorough understanding – for example, did
not just say “probability” sample but rather identified the specific
characteristics of the probability sample, listed every hypothesis
represented by statistical tests
Stated and interpreted the researcher’s question and intended
contributions to the body of knowledge correctly
Distinguished between the theoretical or research hypotheses and the
statistical hypotheses (if used)
Distinguished between results and conclusions and stated each accurately
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 160
Research Question & Design 40
Explained the degree to which this specific design depended on an
intervention or external event (a poke), temporal effects, and/or
comparison groups to warrant claims of causality and make
comparisons
Explained how the authors controlled for non-experimental (or non-study)
factors and gave specific examples
Correctly distinguished between causality and direct cause and effect
Assessed the adequacy of the author’s procedures used to eliminate,
account for, or test alternative explanations other than the proposed
(theoretical, hypothesized) explanation in the study and gave examples
Identified most or all of the relevant specific aspects of the design that
enhanced or weakened the internal validity of the conclusions reached
Explained why or how the specific design features you identified
strengthened or weakened external validity
Correctly identified the most important specific features of the design that
contributed to the explanatory power this contribution (study) makes to
the body of knowledge
Formulated a well-balanced (not super-critical, not “anything is fine”)
assessment of the quality of the author’s research question and his/her
contribution to the body of knowledge based on your considerations
Sampling 40
Your task is to identify specific aspects of the sampling approach and
procedures that strengthened or weakened internal validity, external
validity and explanatory power – focus on these considerations in
your answers
Explained specifically why (or why not) the sampling approach was
appropriate for answering the question based on the nature or type of
questions the authors posed
Adequately assessed the degree to which the sample is representative of
the theoretical population
Used specifics and provided examples to show how the strengths and
weaknesses of the sampling approach and procedures used affect the

Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 6

 degree to which the conclusions can be generalized theoretically and
statistically
Made a “fair and reasonable” assessment of the responsiveness of the
conclusions to the research question
Analysis 40
Your task is to identify the specific components in the data analysis and
discuss whether they are appropriate and adequate to address the
research question with regard to internal validity, external validity
and explanatory power – focus on the logic of the relationship
between research question, sampling, and data analysis in the article
Identified both advantages and disadvantages of the data analysis
techniques based on the nature of the research question and the
authors’ objectives
Explained why specific statistical data analyses were used and interpreted
the results correctly
If qualitative data analysis was used, assessed the rigor of the approach
and was able to distinguish between descriptive analysis and analytic or
explanatory analysis
Correctly identified and stated the results of the analyses
Research Design Literature 40
Used extensive materials about research design to develop your
responses to the discussion questions including materials about
sampling, design choice, and analysis
Includes materials other than the required readings
Consistently explained how you used the information in each resource to
reach conclusions
Cited all materials you use in the responses to the discussion questions in
APA format
Included full references for all materials consulted
When appropriate, cited materials with opposing or conflicting perspectives
and explained which perspective you employed in your responses and
why you chose those perspectives
Based your responses on a critical realist perspective of scientific
knowledge and research
Total 200

Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 7

Performance Standards – Assignment 2

Excellent Satisfactory Needs Improvement

Identify & Describe the Components in the Article (Mostly Based on the Flow Chart)
Correctly identified all components and accurately Identified most components correctly and only Consistently misidentified components or misstated
described what the author(s) did, even occasionally distorted or misunderstood what the what the author(s) die and failed to explain any
components that were unclear or erroneously author(s) did not explain unclear or confusing but the most straightforward and clear
stated in the article components well components of the article
Correctly stated and interpreted the researcher’s Correctly stated but failed to interpret the Stated the researcher’s intent and question
intent and question researcher’s intent and question incorrectly
Correctly distinguished between the theoretical or Identified some of the differences between the Did not distinguish between the theoretical or
research hypotheses and the statistical theoretical or research hypotheses and the research hypotheses and the statistical
hypotheses (if used) statistical hypotheses (if used) hypotheses (if used)
Correctly identified the components in the sampling Correctly identified major components in the Correctly identified few components in the sampling
procedure, the implementation of the study, and sampling procedure, the implementation of the procedure, the implementation of the study, and
the analysis of the information (data) collected study, and the analysis of the information (data) the analysis of the information (data) collected,
Correctly distinguished between results and collected, but lacked detail but lacked detail
conclusions and stated each accurately Did not fully distinguish between results and Did not distinguish between results and
conclusions and tended to misstate them conclusions
Apply Design Concepts to Assess Internal Validity, External Validity & Explanatory Power of the Conclusions
(Mostly Based on Discussion Questions)
Clearly explained the degree to which this specific Explained in broad terms how this general group Limited the discussion of causality to broad
design depended on an intervention or or type of design uses an intervention or generalities about the role of an intervention or
external event (a poke), the temporal external event (a poke), the temporal relationship external event (a poke), the temporal relationship
relationship of cause and effect, and/or of cause and effect, and/or comparison groups to of cause and effect, and/or comparison groups to
comparison groups to warrant claims of warrant claims of causality and make warrant claims of causality and make
causality and make comparisons comparisons comparisons
Showed a sophisticated understanding of the Showed an understanding of the concept of Could not identify the presence or absence of
concept of controlling for non-experimental (or controlling for non-experimental (or non-study) techniques used to control for non-experimental
non-study) factors in scientific explanation and factors in scientific explanation but did not give (or non-study) factors in scientific explanation
could give specific examples in the study specific examples in the study Confused causality and direct cause and effect
Correctly distinguished between causality and Correctly distinguished between causality and Did not analyze the adequacy of the author’s
direct cause and effect direct cause and effect procedures used to eliminate, account for, or test
Discussed in some detail the adequacy of the Discussed the adequacy of the author’s procedures alternative explanations other than the proposed
author’s procedures used to eliminate, account used to eliminate, account for, or test alternative (theoretical, hypothesized) explanation in the
for, or test alternative explanations other than explanations other than the proposed (theoretical, study in general terms, with few or no examples
the proposed (theoretical, hypothesized) hypothesized) explanation in the study in general
explanation in the study and used examples terms, with few or no examples
Correctly identified & explained the key Correctly identified and explained the broad Did not correctly identify the broad features of the
components of the sampling approach and features of the sampling approach sampling approach
procedures in detail Stated a few specifics and some generalities about Stated generalities about the relationship between
Explained specifically why (or why not) the why (or why not) the sampling approach was sampling approach and research question
sampling approach was appropriate for appropriate for answering the question
answering the question
Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 8
 Made a reasoned assessment of the degree to Identified some relevant considerations with regard Misstated factors that could affect the degree to
which the sample is representative of the to the degree to which the sample is which the sample is representative of the
theoretical population representative of the theoretical population theoretical population
Assessed the representativeness of the sample Identified some specific traits of the procedures and Repeated generalizations about how sampling can
based on specific traits or characteristics of this sample that could affect the results of this study, affect results rather than give specifics relevant to
specific sample that could affect the results of this but over-relied on generalizations about sampling this study
study Identified few specific aspects of the sampling Misidentified or failed to identify specific aspects of
Identified specific aspects of the sampling approach approach and procedures that strengthened or the sampling approach and procedures that
and procedures that strengthened or weakened weakened internal validity strengthened or weakened internal validity
internal validity Explained largely in general terms how sampling Drew broad, general conclusions not specific or
Used specifics and provided examples to show how approaches and procedures used could affect relevant to this study about how the general
the strengths and weaknesses of the sampling the degree to which the conclusions can be approach to sampling can affect the degree to
approach and procedures used affect the degree generalized theoretically and statistically and which conclusions can be generalized
to which the conclusions can be generalized justified and explained your conclusions theoretically or statistically and justified and
theoretically and statistically Drew on the some relevant key concepts about explained your conclusions
Distinguished correctly between results and sampling that we have discussed to explain how Explanation of statistical data analyses were
conclusions decisions about sampling affected the adequacy inaccurate in several ways and indicated only a
Stated the authors conclusions accurately in your of the sample in terms of the research question broad, basic examination of the process
own words posed in the article, but some concepts were
Made a “fair and reasonable” assessment of the misstated or misapplied
responsiveness of the conclusions to the Some comments were specific to the sampling
research question scheme and context in the article, but some were
generalities about sampling
Assessed both advantages and disadvantages of Limited discussion largely to the general Significant errors about the relationship of data
the data analysis techniques for the research appropriateness of the data analysis techniques analysis to question were stated
question posed for the research question posed Explanation of statistical data analyses were not
Explanation of statistical data analyses were Explanation of statistical data analyses were accurate
accurate and showed that the team understood accurate but lacked detail and use of examples The discussion of statistical analyses identified
the results, including providing examples of the that would demonstrate a thorough incorrectly stated relationships between data
different types of results produced understanding analysis, sampling approach and nature of the
The discussion of statistical analyses identified the The discussion of statistical analyses identified only research question
logic of the relationship between research the overall general logic of the relationship If qualitative data analysis was used, there was no
question, sampling, and data analysis decisions between research question, sampling, and data distinction made between descriptive analysis
and was specific to this article (not generalities) analysis decisions and analytic or explanatory analysis
If qualitative data analysis was used, assessed the If qualitative data analysis was used, little
rigor of the approach and was able to distinguish assessment of the quality of and rigor of the
between descriptive analysis and analytic or process was provided with little distinction made
explanatory analysis between descriptive analysis and analytic or
explanatory analysis
Overall Consistency, Sophistication and Completeness of Your Analysis
Correctly identified most or all of the relevant Correctly identified some of the specific aspects of Relied almost completely on generalities about
specific aspects of the design that enhance or the design that enhance or weaken the internal design features that strengthen or weaken
weaken the internal validity of the conclusions validity of the conclusions reached internal validity and design in your discussion of
reached internal validity
Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 9
 In each case, explained in your own words the Misidentified some specific design features and/or Did not offer explanations that were specific to the
reasons why you believe the specific design over-relied or focused on generalities about actual features of the design in your study
features you identified strengthened or weakened internal validity rather than specific components Formulated an unrealistic (probably either super-
internal validity of this study critical, or “anything is fine”) assessment of the
Correctly identified the most important specific Correctly identified overall features of the design quality of the author’s research question
features of the design that contributed to the that contributed directly to the explanatory power Did not justify that your assessment grew out of
explanatory power this contribution (study) makes this contribution (study) makes to the body of your consideration of internal validity, external
to the body of knowledge knowledge validity & explanatory power
Considered all three components of the body of Considered some of the components of the body of
knowledge in your assessment of the way design knowledge in your assessment of the way
decisions were used to enhance explanatory design decisions were used to enhance
power explanatory power
Formulated a well-balanced (not super-critical, not Formulated a well-balanced(not super-critical, not
“anything is fine”) assessment of the quality of the “anything is fine”) assessment of the quality of
author’s research question based on your the author’s research question, but did not
considerations in Q7-9 provide evidence that your assessment grew out
of your considerations in Q7-9

Other
Responded to all aspects of this assignment in Responded to many aspects of this assignment in Consistently relied upon direct quotes and
your own words, even the complex components your own words, but had difficulty expressing or paraphrases in your responses
Relied little on direct citations or paraphrased explaining more complex ideas in your own Consulted and referenced few materials about
repetition of what the authors’ say words research design in your responses, especially
Consulted and referenced extensive materials Tended to rely on direct citations or paraphrased materials about sampling, design choice, and
about research design in your responses, repetition of what the authors’ say analysis, and included very few materials other
especially materials about sampling, design Consulted and referenced some materials about than the required readings
choice, and analysis, including materials other research design in your responses, especially Failed to cite several of the references in the body
than the required readings materials about sampling, design choice, and of the document
Cited all references in the body of the document analysis, including materials other than the Did not explain how you used the information in
Consistently explained how you used the required readings each resource to reach conclusions
information in each resource to reach conclusions Cited most, but not all, of the references in the Never cited materials with opposing or conflicting
When appropriate, cited materials with opposing or body of the document perspectives
conflicting perspectives and explained which Sometimes explained how you used the Often seems to “throw in” citations or references
perspective was used and why information in each resource to reach conclusions not directly relevant to the discussion
Rarely cited materials with opposing or conflicting
perspectives

Assignment 2, FYC 6800 – Page 10