Natalie Lin (111ZM1005@g.nccu.edu.tw)

• The course is structured around the creation of a capstone/thesis proposal, and it is this proposal that will constitute 85% of the course grade. However, this grade will be divided into four subsections that each have a different due date.
  
  
  
  • Introduction – 20%
  
  
  • Theoretical Background – 30%
  
  
  • Methodology – 25%
  
  
  • Final proposal – 10%
    
    
    
    • The final proposal will be graded based on your edits of the feedback given on the previous three parts. This will not constitute writing a new proposal, but rather putting together and editing the three previous sections upon which you have already received feedback.
    
    
    
    
  
  
  • Individual rubrics will be presented in class for each assignment, but generally-speaking, you will be graded on 1) formatting, 2) English quality, and 3) content accuracy/mastery for each of the three subsections of the proposal that are handed in.
  
  
  
  


• Final presentation – 15%
  
  
  
  • This will be a 10-minute presentation describing …
    
    
    
    • What your research topic is
    
    
    • The current state of the literature
    
    
    • The importance of your topic
    
    
    • Your research questions and/or hypotheses
    
    
    • Your proposed research design
    
    
    
    
  
  
  • It will be graded as follows:
    
    
    
    • Staying within 9-11 minutes (-1 for each minute off) = x/5
    
    
    • Covering all of the above elements (-1 for each element missing) = x/5
    
    
    • Answering at least 2 questions from the class = x/2
    
    
    • Asking at least one question of another speaker = x/1
    
    
    • Presentation coherence/clarity = x/2
    
    
    • Total = x/15
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• Grades can be expected for each assignment within 2-3 weeks of handing in the assignment. If you do not receive your grade in that timeframe (and the professor has not indicated that it will be taking longer), please contact the professor to ensure that the original submission was received.


• All due dates are indicated in the syllabus, and all assignments (except the final presentation) can be handed in by email to christinelcook@outlook.com.

1. Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W. Jr., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. Sage Publications Inc.


2. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Sage Publications Ltd.


3. Purdue University College of Liberal Arts. (2023). APA style workshop. Purdue Online Writing Lab. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_overview_and_workshop.html


4. British Psychological Association. (2021). BPS code of human research ethics. The British Psychological Society. Retrieved from https://explore.bps.org.uk/content/report-guideline/bpsrep.2021.inf180


5. Ryerson University Research Ethics Board. (2017). Guidelines for recruitment of research participants. Ryerson University. Retrieved from https://www.torontomu.ca/content/dam/research/documents/ethics/guidelines-for-recruitment-of-research-participants.pdf


6. White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22-45. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053


7. Dye, T. (2023). Qualitative data analysis: Step-by-step guide (manual vs. automatic). InSights. Retrieved from https://getthematic.com/insights/qualitative-data-analysis/


8. George, T. (2022, December 2). Types of interviews in research: Guide & examples. Scribbr. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/interviews-research/#:~:text=An%20interview%20is%20a%20qualitative,by%20their%20level%20of%20structure.


9. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633