(Personal note: The last essay I submitted with essaypro on communication, I got a 22/50. Please make an effort to get an A on the assignment before the deadline!!! ALSO, PLEASE MAKE SURE NOT TO EXCEED 3.5 PAGES!!! THE ESSAY WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF IT IS LONGER THAN THAT!!!! Also, when using a personal example in the essay, please make it relevant to a 20-year-old male college student who has limited job experience. Maybe make the personal example about being the Vice President of the student government in your community college?)
Paper #2 : Theory of Planned Behavior(TPB); Social Exchange Theory in relationships; or Relational Dialectic (pick one)
You should:
1) Briefly review all the major sections of a research article (rationale, methods, results and discussion) on either: TPB; Social Exchange Theory in relationships; or Relational Dialectic (pick one). The research piece (Human experimental only) must be taken from a communication journal (or related field) and cited using APA style (in-text and reference page). Use a library database to find the article. Make sure the journal is available first (in full text).
2) You must provide a mass media example of this “concept” in action. This is your example and not an example or connection that someone else has made. If the study you pick deals with Dialectics and dating, this section and the following should have nothing to do with dating. Provide logical support for how this example is in line with the communication concept. Don’t use examples from the research piece. The example should be taken from popular culture (books, films, commercials, billboards, Internet). i.e. you must provide enough detail about the example to make it clear how the example fits the concept you pick. Make sure you address all the context levels clearly, richly and directly. (Cited in APA in-text and References). Again, this is a single interaction. So, a scene from a show or film or an interaction in the book or media clip, but one context only with the 5-levels richly addressed.
3) Provide a specific “Personal” and “interpersonal” (happen to you, for real, with someone you are close with) example of this concept being used. Provide logical support for how this example is in line with the communication concept. Make sure you address all the context levels in that interaction clearly, richly and directly.
Papers will be graded based on:
- Clarity of writing.
- Completeness.
- Quality of examples and support.
- Organization (Intro, thesis, body, clear transitions and conclusion).
- Logic in drawing conclusions.
- Writing quality.
The paper must be double-spaced, typed, and may not exceed 3.5 pages, excluding title page and references (using a 12pt. font, times new roman, 1inch margins all around). Place your name, RU ID and page numbers on the running head. No late papers are accepted. Use APA style for the whole paper. Early papers will be accepted. If you have any questions please email or come by our office hours. Only PDF, .DOC or .DOCX files accepted. Late papers and improper files will earn a zero.
———————————————————-
Rubric:
Paper #2 Rubric
| Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeJournal Selection
|
5 pts
Excellent
The study picked is: peer-reviewed, experimental, from the proper database, published, from communication or closely related field, a theory that is assigned is a major part of the study
|
4 pts
Very good
One of the elements from the excellent criteria is missing
|
1 pts
Poor/failing
Multiple elements from the excellent category are missing
|
|
5 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStudy Rationale
|
5 pts
Excellent
The rationale for why the study is being done is clearly articulated with multiple cited examples from the study. Examples are provided from prior research that informs the researchers choice to conduct the study.
|
4 pts
Very Good
Some overview is provided for the rationale behind the study. One or two vague links from the article are provided as support.
|
1 pts
Poor/Failing
The rationale for the study isn’t addressed in a meaningful way and no specific examples are cited
|
|
5 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStudy Methods
|
5 pts
Excellent
A strong and detailed description of the procedures, measures and sample/population makeup are discussed. These examples are cited directly from the study.
|
4 pts
Very good
Many elements of the methods are alluded to but are lacking in depth and detail. A very good sense of the methods employed by the researchers is created.
|
1 pts
Poor/Failing
The methods of the study are not covered in a meaning way and no specific cited details are provided that demonstrate and understand of these steps.
|
|
5 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStudy Results
|
5 pts
Excellent
Major findings are specifically discussed and significant discussion of what hypotheses and research question were supported or not.
|
4 pts
Very Good
Some outcomes are mentioned, but some of the details are missing. Major findings are omitted but clearly alludes to the general results.
|
1 pts
Poor/Failing
No results are clearly cited and addressed. Lacking a clear picture of what the study found.
|
|
5 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStudy Discussion
|
5 pts
Excellent
The implication of the findings are cited with a strong review of the limitations and potential for future research
|
4 pts
Very Good
Section provides a good overview what the study means, but lacks some of the details on limitations or implications for future study
|
1 pts
Poor/Failing
No meaningful effort is made to address the implications, limitations or directions for future study.
|
|
5 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMedia Context Levels
|
10 pts
Excellent
All 5 levels of context are clearly addressed with rich details and specific elements that color the communication interaction are provided, the context described is a single communication interaction.
|
8.5 pts
Very Good
All 5 elements of context are clearly addressed but are lacking in depth and detail, a single context is described
|
7.5 pts
Average
One or two of the context levels not addressed in a clear and meaningful way, a sense of context is proved but it is vague and lacks depth and richness
|
6 pts
Poor
Some sense of context is provided, but there are major disconnects. Many of the context elements are not clearly addressed
|
3 pts
Failing
None of the context levels are addressed and if so, are not addressed in a way that is indicative of understanding them
|
|
10 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMedia Link to Theory
|
10 pts
Excellent
A strong argument is made for how the behavior in the media example link to the theory and all of the major principles of the theory, the example is a different context than the study, specific details from the media example are provided, to help illuminate the link to the theory
|
8.5 pts
Very Good
A clear connection is present between the media example and the theory but the rationale for the connection could be clearer and some of the major elements that link to the theory are not flushed out, a few details for the media context allude to the relationship
|
7.5 pts
Average
A connection is present between the media example and the theory but the rationale for the connection isn’t made and most of the major elements that link to the theory are not flushed out, limited specific details for the media context allude to the relationship
|
6 pts
Poor
A murky connection is present between the media example and the theory, the rationale for the connection is absent and all of the major elements that link to the theory are not flushed out, no details from the media context are specifically brought to bear on the section
|
3 pts
Failing
No attempt is made to link the assigned theory to a specific media context and there is no evidence of an understanding of the theory constructs.
|
|
10 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePersonal & Interpersonal Context Levels
|
10 pts
Excellent
All 5 levels of context are clearly addressed with rich details and specific elements that color the communication interaction are provided, the context described is a single communication interaction that is personal (really happened to you) and interpersonal (between you and someone you have an above mid-point level of relational closeness)
|
8.5 pts
Very Good
All 5 elements of context are clearly addressed but are lacking in depth and detail, a single context is described hat is personal (really happened to you) and interpersonal (between you and someone you have an above mid-point level of relational closeness)
|
7.5 pts
Average
One or two of the context levels not addressed in a clear and meaningful way, a sense of context is proved but it is vague and lacks depth and richness, the context is either not personal (really happened to you) or not interpersonal (between you and someone you have an above mid-point level of relational closeness)
|
6 pts
Poor
Some sense of context is provided, but there are major disconnects. Many of the context elements are not clearly addressed and could be spanning multiple contexts and is no personal (really happened to you) and not interpersonal (between you and someone you have an above mid-point level of relational closeness)
|
3 pts
Failing
None of the context levels are addressed and if so, are not addressed in a way that is indicative of understanding them, elements don’t provide insight at all into an understanding of what is personal (really happened to you) and/or interpersonal (between you and someone you have an above mid-point level of relational closeness)
|
|
10 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePersonal & Interpersonal Example Link to Theory
|
10 pts
Excellent
A strong argument is made for how the behavior in the Personal/IP section link to the theory and all of the major principles of the theory, the example is a different context than the study, specific details from the Personal/IP example are provided, to help illuminate the link to the theory
|
8.5 pts
Very Good
A clear connection is present between the personal/IP example and the theory but the rationale for the connection could be clearer and some of the major elements that link to the theory are not flushed out, a few details for the personal context allude to the relationship
|
7.5 pts
Average
A connection is present between the Personal/Interpersonal example and the theory but the rationale for the connection isn’t made and most of the major elements that link to the theory are not flushed out, limited specific details for the Personal/IP context allude to the relationship
|
6 pts
Poor
A murky connection is present between the Personal/IP example and the theory, the rationale for the connection is absent and all of the major elements that link to the theory are not flushed out, no details from the personal/IP context are specifically brought to bear on the section
|
3 pts
Failing
No attempt is made to link the assigned theory to a specific personal/IP context and there is no evidence of an understanding of the theory constructs.
|
|
10 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Style Use
|
5 pts
Full Marks
The formatting, body text and parenthetical and reference page are all compliant with APA guidelines and the assignment instructions
|
3.5 pts
Partial Marks
One of the areas for full marks for APA isn’t compliant with APA guidelines
|
0 pts
No Marks
Two or more areas for APA evaluation are not compliant with APA guidelines
|
|
5 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Issues
|
5 pts
Full Marks
All basic writing conventions are followed, the paper is virtually free grammar and spelling issues
|
3.5 pts
Partial Marks
Some basic writing conventions are missing or poorly done. Grammar, spelling and/or tense issue are noticeable
|
0 pts
No Marks
Basic writing convents are not followed. Numerous spelling, grammar and tense issues make the paper difficult to read… additional point may be deducted for egregious issues
|
|
5 pts
|
|
Total Points: 75
|