2 different assignments, separated by headings. PLEASE USE THE ATTACHED FEEDBACK TO CORRESPONDNG ASSIGNMENT.Week 4: Analyzing the EvidenceImagine this:During your research, you read that the rate of cancer deaths in the state of Maine is 177.5 per 100,000 people (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). You extract that information to use in your paper. You wonder: Is that a high number or a low number? Without the context of how that rate compares to other states and to the country as a whole, and without analysis explaining the relevance to your argument, the statistic is worthless.Evidence does not mean much on its own without analysis. Analysis establishes the perspective from which readers view and understand the evidence—and it is an important part of crafting an argument. Through analysis, you can connect the dots or, in other words, show the reader your reasoning.This week, you add analysis to clarify and give meaning to the evidence you paraphrased last week. You also track your progress through application and recording of feedback.Reference:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). U.S. cancer statistics data visualizations tool, based on November 2017 submission data (1999–2015). Retrieved from https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.htmlLearning OutcomesBy the end of this week, you should be able to:Analyze evidence in support of an argumentReflect on the process of analyzing evidenceDraft original writingReport on writing feedback1- Assignment 1: Writing WorkshopWriting Workshop Assignments provide an opportunity to receive feedback on your writing.To prepare for this Assignment:Access your Feedback Journal and consider how you will apply any writing feedback you have received thus far.You have four options for completing this Assignment:Select an upcoming Assignment or Discussion from the program course you are taking alongside this writing course (such as Foundations). Write a first draft of at least 1 page of the Assignment or Discussion.Select a previously submitted Assignment or Discussion from the program course you are taking alongside this writing course (such as Foundations). Choose a 1-page excerpt from the Assignment or Discussion on which you would like feedback.Select a previously submitted Assignment or Discussion from a previous course. Choose a 1-page excerpt from the Assignment or Discussion on which you would like feedback.Revise the 1-page excerpt you submitted as a previous assignment for this class for further feedback.****Submit 1 double-spaced page (around 250 words) of the writing you are working on. Please paste the Assignment instructions into your draft so that your Instructor understands the purpose of the Assignment. Your Instructor will provide feedback by Day 6. The feedback will focus on the writing aspects only.Rubric DetailSelect Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.Name: CAEX_6065_Week_4_Assignment_1_RubricGrid ViewList View Show DescriptionsWriting workshop–Completed 10 (100%) pointsStudent submits 1 page of new or revised writing.Not Completed 0 (0%) pointsStudent does not submit or submits previous work that does not demonstrate revision.2- Discussion: AnalysisTo generate analysis, scholarly writers ask themselves questions about the evidence, such as What does this piece of evidence mean? How does it bolster my argument? How does this piece of evidence connect to another piece? What do I want my readers to understand or “get” from this evidence?In this Discussion, you practice answering these questions by analyzing the evidence from Week 3.To prepare for this Discussion:Review the Week 3 Discussion for your paraphrased evidence as well as any feedback received.Review the Learning Resources on analysis.Recall the argument you are making.****Post your initial 1- to 2-paragraph response that addresses the following:Using the evidence you identified and paraphrased in Week 3, analyze that evidence in the context of the argument you are making.Additionally, reflect on the process of analyzing the evidence. Pose any questions and/or explain challenges that came up during the process.Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.Name: CAEX_6065_Week_4_Discussion_RubricGrid ViewList View Show DescriptionsSkill practice: Analyze evidence–Exemplary 5 (25%) – 5 (25%)Clear and relevant analysis included. Compelling reasons, detail, and/or examples are provided.Acceptable 4 (20%) – 4 (20%)Argument lacks sufficient analysis. Reasons, detail, and/or examples are included but are not clearly linked to the evidence provided.Approaching Acceptable 3 (15%) – 3 (15%)Analysis is poorly developed. Vague or unsupported reasons, details, and/or examples are given.Needs Significant Improvement 0 (0%) – 2 (10%)No attempt has been made to analyze evidence.Grammar and mechanics–Exemplary 5 (25%) – 5 (25%)Grammar, punctuation, and presentation are always consistent with the conventions of academic English.Acceptable 4 (20%) – 4 (20%)Grammar, punctuation, and presentation are mostly consistent with the conventions of academic English.Approaching Acceptable 3 (15%) – 3 (15%)Grammar, punctuation, and presentation are somewhat consistent with the conventions of academic English.Needs Significant Improvement 0 (0%) – 2 (10%)Grammar, punctuation, and presentation are unacceptable for scholarly writing.Reflection–Exemplary 5 (25%) – 5 (25%)Reflection is detailed, relates to analyzing, and includes at least one challenge or question.Acceptable 4 (20%) – 4 (20%)Reflection is clear and relates to analyzing but does not include a specific challenge or question.Approaching Acceptable 3 (15%) – 3 (15%)Reflection is poorly developed or does not address the topic.Needs Significant Improvement 0 (0%) – 2 (10%)No attempt has been made to reflect.Responses to other students–Exemplary 5 (25%) – 5 (25%)Responds to at least two colleagues in a thoughtful or probing way to extend the conversation.Acceptable 4 (20%) – 4 (20%)Responds to at least two colleagues, but the responses are general.Approaching Acceptable 3 (15%) – 3 (15%)Responds to only one colleague completely or to two colleagues incompletely.Needs Significant Improvement 0 (0%) – 2 (10%)Does not respond to anyone or responds only superficially (e.g., “Great post!”).Total Points: 20Name: CAEX_6065_Week_4_Discussion_RubricRESOURCES:Rogers-Shaw, C., & Carr-Chellman, D. (2018). Developing care and socio-emotional learning in first year doctoral students: Building capacity for success. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 233–252. https://doi.org/10.28945/4064http://waldenwritingcenter.blogspot.com/2014/05/breaking-down-meal-plan-adding-analysis.html
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Running head: Writing Workshop
This paper is being submitted, for
Prof. Jaclyn S Chupeck
CAEX-6065/CAEX-6066 Graduate Writing II: Intermediate Composition
The research was aimed at exploring the use of social-emotional learning, learning care and
ethical care in first-year doctoral study. One piece of evidence supporting these research findings
is the use of phenomenological methods, which focused on early experiences for returning adult
doctoral students during their first semester of studies (Rogers-Shaw & Carr-Chellman, 2018).
The other notable evidence is the use of a deductive method that applied socio-emotional
learning and central concepts to the data, which gave the results of the study (Rogers-Shaw &
Carr-Chellman, 2018). The process of evidence paraphrasing was straightforward since after
understanding the evidence applied it was easy to use own words to explain the same concept.
In general, my feedback is always with mistakes on writing grammar. I feel little more
confident, but my first language is not English, so it is hard sometimes, even if I used Grammarly
to fix issues to work toward 100% accuracy. I hope to continue learning how to use my
punctuation correctly and the use of transitions words much better.
Rogers-Shaw, C., & Carr-Chellman, D. (2018). Developing care and socio-emotional
Learning in first-year doctoral students: Building capacity for success. International
Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 233–252.
Purchase answer to see full