The following is feedback my friend received on an assignment project with them. It was related to an International Education research project. Overall, the answers were pretty good, but not up to PhD-level standard. My friend also gave them more guidelines on how to rewrite the incorrect parts.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REWRITING THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 1.This doctorate level assignment Paper must be 12-point font Times New Roman and one inch margins all around. Paper must be written in APA 6 format. Reference will continue to be on last page. The request is to thoroughly answer question number one. The question must be on its on page and the answer to the question must follow starting on the next page. The 15-17 page paper must answer the question, show strong critical thinking. All points should be addressed individually and linked. Qualitative, quantitative and/or a mixed method approach should be present and Blooms cognitive levels of evaluation, analysis etc should be engaged.
The writer answered 3 questions for me on 3/6/2013 and only question no. one (which is attached) will need to be re-written. Unfortunately, question 1 did not meet expectations of thoroughly answering the question. I am requesting that question no. one be re-written at the Ph.D level. PLEASE, the answer must be 15-17 pages and thoroughly answer the question. I'm not sure of how many word count 15-17 pages would be. Below is feedback for questions no. one and two that were answered by the writer. Questions 2 and 3 were good! see feedback below for assistance with how to answer question number one. The feedback below for question 1 shows what lacked in the writer's answer to question 1. Use the critique below to help rewrite question 1.
QUESTION 1 Critique of the writer's answer:The writing style might fit a conversation and/or presentation, but is not at the PhD level. Use of references and analysis are minimal. It is difficult to determine the organizational structure and flow of this paper (as well as the other two). The writer does not demonstrate a scholarly understanding for reliability and validity, the pillars of survey research. Some citations need updating. Overall, informal writing and lack of critical analysis detract from the paper's quality. Please note frequent misuse of colons.The author spent a major part of the paper defining and describing surveys. Validity and reliability were well addressed. The application was underdeveloped. Conversational tone makes for accessible reading but may be too conversational for academic writing. Examples of crossing this line are on page 5 ("imagine a study about church attendance and belief in God" and on page 6 with "Think of a penny flipped ten times"; there is also frequent use of colloquial phrases and terminology). Grammar and mechanics are fairly solid but the writer uses commas in ways that are either incorrect or result in awkward pauses and pacing of the written word.
Incorrect statement on page 2 with "As long as the human subjects have agreed to be a part of the study, no problems attach from the ethical perspective" (there are actually several ways in which ethical issues can appear in a study even if consent is obtained). It takes a bit too long for the writer to get set up the problem and course of action in the introduction. The writer does not cite any scholarly literature until near the end of the fourth page of the essay. The review of different types of surveys and their various uses is acceptable, but needs to incorporate a broader collection of scholarly resources. The sections on validity and reliability and on "how and when to create a new survey" very much needs to be augmented with references from the literature.
QUESTION 2 Critique of the writer's answer:The writer offers some commentary on retention and international students. It is very difficult to follow the analysis, here. Again, the informal writing style directly interferes with the need for PhD quality work. While Kuh's research is very relevant, the learner presents 2007 data, rather than current/recent NSSE data and results.The author provided an adequate explanation of Astin's Theory of Involvement as well as Banyard and Cantor's Ideas of Resilience. Conclusions are clear that the more involved students are the more likely they will be successful. The higher their self image the more resilient they are likely to be when facing the challenges of college. Finally, the more connected students are with faculty the more likely they will persist. All in all, the question was adequately addressed. The writer advocated for the college to provide appropriate responses to ensure student success. Many of the same issues and shortcomings present in the response to Question 1 are present here. The writer does do a better job of sourcing and reviewing a broader range of literature, including fairly recent application of seminal theories. The weaving of the application into the discussion of the theories is well done.
