Reference no: EM132200668

My research focus will de on blended learning (e-learning ) from information system and Technology perspective.

It's time to start putting all of the pieces together. This assignment is an opportunity to begin drafting your proposal document in earnest, using the structures and rhetorical moves we have been developing throughout the semester.

This assignment will make use of the CaRS structure we saw for introductions, and then allow you to synthesize your research into a coherent narrative about the state of the field on your topic.

Remember, this assignment is being evaluated on how well and to what extent you implement the structures and moves we have worked on; be sure to make it clear (through metadiscourse and signaling words - not only outline structure or headings) where you are in your argument and how you are advancing it. Treat this assignment like a first draft you might submit to your advisor.

Part 1. Introduction

You should be able to write at least one paragraph of decent length, complete with citations, for each of the subordinate points in this section. Don't be afraid to write more; let the nature of your argument dictate your length and pace.

Move 1: Establish a research territory

1) Argue for the centrality of your research area

a) Argue for the importance of your topic area

b) Articulate a problem in your topic area

c) Articulate the harms or effects of the problem

2) Argue that current (real-world) efforts to address the problem are insufficient

a) What has been done to address the problem?

b) Why are those efforts inadequate to address the problem?

Move 2. Establish a (scholarly) niche.

3) What previous scholarly research has been conducted into your problem?

a) What previous research are you building upon? (i.e. extending analysis, using key concepts, following key insights)

b) What are the limitations of previous research?

4) What is the GAP in the existing research that you are going to fill?

Move 3. Occupy the niche.

5) Articulate the purpose of your research (how it fills the niche)

6) State your research questions and/or hypotheses

Part 2. Literature Review

This is definitely an area where you may need more than one paragraph to address each of these points. For instance, articulating your problem may involve linking together several premises (AÞB, BÞC, etc.), so give each one its own paragraph.

This section may be optional if you are dealing with a purely theoretical problem.

You are going to develop this section fully in your literature review. Here, give a summary of the main arguments you are going to make about the state of previous research and what hasn't been done. Use citations as necessary - even if you are going to discuss them more fully in Part 2.

This is your purpose statement, which gives the very general direction of the research...... followed by the very narrow, specific questions you are trying to answer.

Everyone's literature review will look differently depending on the nature of your project. There is no universal structure for this like there was in Part 1. There is only a series of rhetorical objectives, structural principles, and stylistic moves you can use to accomplish those objectives.

Rhetorical Objectives:

• Your overarching objective is to justify your proposed course of research. That means showing:

o How previous research has paved the way for your project; and

o How your project fills a crucial niche in a way no one has done before.

• Your summaries and critiques of scholarly articles should be oriented to their relevance for your project. For any given article or group of articles you are discussing, you should try to answer only two questions:

o Where does this article intersect with my project (summary)?

o How does its limitation point to my gap (critique)?

Structural Principles:

Organize your literature review according to the concepts you are using, not the individual texts.

Think about this as a story where the key concepts are the main characters; what are they doing?

How are they changing? What obstacles do they encounter?

A typical paragraph in your literature might do these things:

o Introduce the key concept in the topic sentence

o Provide definitions or origins of the concept (with citations) o Trace the development of the concept (with citations)

o Critique relevant studies to demonstrate your research gap.

Stylistic Moves:

Use transition words at the beginning of paragraphs (and throughout) to articulate the relation between the previous idea and the one you are introducing.

Use integral citations when you want to focus on the source (e.g. an important study), use non-integral citations when you want to focus on the idea (e.g. trends in a field, accepted facts or premises).

Introduce sources with the formulations given in Swales & Feak p. 211 and 213.

Summarize sources succinctly, highlighting relationships of causality and correlation using the vocabulary on Swales & Feak p. 203.

For extended, in depth summaries, use the reminder phrases given in Swales & Feak pp. 216-17.

When you are aligning or contrasting multiple sources in order to show similarities and/or differences, use the formulations given in Swales & Feak pp. 225-27.

When representing the viewpoints of others, qualify your claims to reflect the strength of the finding, your distance from it, and your assessment of the author's study, following Swales & Feak p. 262 and the Strength of Claim Handout.

Part 3. Conceptual Framework and/or Analytical Lens

If you can, try to write the conceptual framework and/or analytical lens section of your proposal as well (optional). Regardless of your methodology, your main objectives here are to give a description of the systems, processes, and functions that will constitute your categories of analysis (i.e. your variables); this is a chance for you to describe the how of the problem area. This may include:

An overview of the interactions between multiple systems, often in diagram form;

Descriptions of individual processes, relevant problems in them, and analogical models for addressing those problems (e.g. Horan et al. 2006);

Explanation of theoretical constructs from within the field of IS&T for understanding systems' interactions;

Explanation of theoretical constructs from other domains, e.g. psychology, for analyzing objects of inquiry that fall beyond the realm of IS&T, such as human behavior;