Purpose
Applying research is just
as important as doing research. Unfortunately, there isn't much
evidence that most practitioners, e.g., teachers or instructional
designers, do an adequate job of applying relevant research to their
work. This task is designed to improve this lack of transfer of
research to practice.
This task can take different directions depending on your interests and
needs. For example, you can fulfill this task by developing a
synthesis of
the research literature in an area with a particular audience in mind,
e.g., instructional designers or middle school teachers. Your synthesis
could take the form of writing an article for publication, e.g., "The
Implications of Research on Course Management Systems for University
Faculty." Or it could take the form of a workshop that you might
provide to practitioners to help them benefit from the findings of your
literature review, e.g., "What Every Science Teacher Ought To Know
about Brain
Research." Or you might develop a Web resource that provides
guidance for practitioners on how to apply the findings of a body of
research literature, e.g., "A Guide to Using Media Education Research
in Middle School."
Whatever form this task takes, it will require you to review research
literature much more extensively than was done for Task 1. For
example, Task 1 only requires you to critique 5 research papers. For
this task, you should review 15 - 25 articles.
(This number could include the articles reviewed for Task 1 if you are
focusing on the same topic.)
The task is worth
50 points.
Guidelines
There are three deliverables for this project: 1) a brief
one page description of the approach you are taking to this task (due October 12), 2)
your actual research synthesis in the
form of a) a
publishable paper, b) a workshop plan with materials, c) a Web
resource, or d) any other meaningful
format (40 points), and 3) a presentation to the class about your
synthesis
(10 points).
Project Assessment
Rubric
|
0-1
|
2
|
3-4
|
5
|
Score
|
Rationale for the Project
|
Poor or confusing explanation of the rationale for
the project.
|
Gives vague explanation of the rationale.
|
Gives adequate explanation of the rationale, but
may
be rambling, verbose, or lack some details.
|
Presents a clear and concise statement of the
rationale for the project.
|
|
Literature Review
|
Project is not informed by relevant research
literature.
|
Project is only informed by vague linkages to
related research literature.
|
Project is informed by an adequate
literature review.
|
Project is informed by a high quality literature
review.
|
|
|
Project Design
|
Project is poorly designed
|
The project design is confusing and lacks detail.
|
The project design is understandable, but there is
a lack of clarity.
|
The project design is excellent.
|
|
|
Effort
|
There is little evidence that sufficient effort
went into the project.
|
The project shows some evidence of effort, but it
is modest at best.
|
The project indicates that a sufficient effort was
made to complete the project.
|
The project shows evidence of extraordinary effort.
|
|
Value
|
There is little evidence that this project will
have value for intended audience
|
The project shows some evidence of value for the
audience, but it is modest at best.
|
The project shows evidence of value to the intended
audience.
|
The project is likely to be viewed as having
extraordinary value for the intended audience.
|
|
|
Grammar & Spelling
|
Very frequent grammar and/or spelling errors.
|
More than two errors.
|
Only one or two errors.
|
All grammar and spelling are correct.
|
|
|
References
|
Does not adhere to APA guidelines.
|
Follows APA guidelines, but there are many errors.
|
Follows APA guidelines, but there are a few errors.
|
Follows APA guidelines with no errors.
|
|
|
Timeliness
|
Project handed in more than one week late.
|
Up to one week late.
|
Up to two days late.
|
Project handed in on time.
|
|
Presentation Assessment
Rubric
|
0
|
1
|
1.5
|
2
|
Score
|
Organization and
Presentation
|
Audience cannot understand
presentation because there is no sequence of information.
|
Audience has difficulty
following presentation.
|
Student presents information in
logical sequence which audience can follow.
|
Student presents information in
logical, interesting sequence which audience finds compelling.
|
|
PowerPoint
Slides or Website
|
Poorly designed presentation.
Student uses superfluous graphics or no graphics.
|
Student occasionally uses
graphics, but they rarely support text and presentation.
|
Adequate presentation. Graphics
relate to text and presentation in most instances.
|
Excellent presentation. Graphics
explain and reinforce screen text and presentation.
|
|
Accuracy
|
Student's presentation has four
or more spelling errors and/or grammatical errors.
|
Presentation has three
misspellings and/or grammatical errors.
|
Presentation has no more than
two misspellings and/or grammatical errors.
|
Presentation has no misspellings
or grammatical errors.
|
|
|
Delivery
|
Student mumbles, incorrectly
pronounces terms, and speaks too quietly for students in the back of
class to hear.
|
Student's voice is low. Student
incorrectly pronounces terms. Audience members have difficulty hearing
presentation.
|
Student's voice is clear.
Student pronounces most words correctly. Most audience members can hear
presentation.
|
Strong delivery. Student uses a
clear voice and correct, precise pronunciation of terms so that all
audience members can hear presentation.
|
|
|
Eye Contact
|
Student reads all of report with
no eye contact.
|
Student occasionally uses eye
contact, but still reads most of report.
|
Student maintains eye contact
most of the time but frequently returns to notes.
|
Student maintains eye contact
with audience, seldom returning to notes.
|
|
|
