Introduction - University of West Florida



UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDACOLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIESDOCTOR OF EDUCATION12-STEP DISSERTATION SUBMISSION PROCESSAPRIL 2018Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc489012145 \h 3Step 1.Degree Audit Verification PAGEREF _Toc489012146 \h 5Step mittee review of final draft PAGEREF _Toc489012147 \h 6Step 3.Predefense review by the DSQAC PAGEREF _Toc489012148 \h 6Step 4.Predefense review by the Doctoral and Dissertation Committee PAGEREF _Toc489012149 \h 8Step 5.Scheduling a room for the defense PAGEREF _Toc489012150 \h 8Step 6.Dissertation defense PAGEREF _Toc489012151 \h 9Step 7.Postdefense review by the DSQAC PAGEREF _Toc489012152 \h 9Step 8.Submission to the Graduate School PAGEREF _Toc489012153 \h 11Step 9.Application for graduation PAGEREF _Toc489012154 \h 12Step 10. Exit survey PAGEREF _Toc489012155 \h 12Step 11. Upload the dissertation to ProQuest PAGEREF _Toc489012156 \h 12Step 12. Final preparations for commencement PAGEREF _Toc489012157 \h 12Appendices PAGEREF _Toc489012158 \h 13Appendix A Degree Audit Verification Form (DAVF) PAGEREF _Toc489012159 \h 14Appendix B Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Part I PAGEREF _Toc489012160 \h 16Appendix B Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Part II Revision Verification Table PAGEREF _Toc489012161 \h 17Appendix C Reference Table Guide PAGEREF _Toc489012162 \h 18Appendix D Dissertation Originality Review Verification Form PAGEREF _Toc489012163 \h 20Appendix E Plagiarism Review Form—Part I PAGEREF _Toc489012164 \h 21Appendix E Plagiarism Review Form—Part III PAGEREF _Toc489012165 \h 25Appendix F UWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC) Manuscript Review Short Form PAGEREF _Toc489012166 \h 26Appendix G1 UWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC) Manuscript Review Long Form—Quantitative Study PAGEREF _Toc489012167 \h 27Appendix G2 UWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC) Manuscript Review Long Form—Qualitative Study PAGEREF _Toc489012168 \h 36Appendix G3 UWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC) Manuscript Review Long Form—Mixed Methods Study PAGEREF _Toc489012169 \h 44Appendix H Announcement of Final Dissertation Defense PAGEREF _Toc489012170 \h 54Appendix I Final Format Review Checklist for Dissertations PAGEREF _Toc489012171 \h 55Appendix J Final Verification of Dissertation Format PAGEREF _Toc489012172 \h 58IntroductionThe University of West Florida Ed.D. 12-Step Dissertation Submission Process provides a road map for students beginning and moving through the dissertation process. Although there is no single format for a dissertation, however there are a number of essential elements. Therefore, the Ed.D. Program Office at UWF, in consultation with the Graduate School, has adopted structural guidelines for the different types (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, etc.) of dissertations undertaken by our students. Students can find these Structural Guidelines for Traditional Proposals and Dissertations in the UWF Ed.D. Dissertation Toolbox ( /dissertation-toolbox/), which is a private platform that hosts information relevant to students’ doctoral journeys.In addition to the Structural Guidelines, the Ed.D. Program Office has also adopted an interactive template using Microsoft Word. Students can find this Dissertation Template in the Dissertation Toolbox. Like many otyher peer-review processes throughout the academy, all students shall use this template. This template incorporates all of the writing style and formatting guidelines and specifications required by the Ed.D. Program and the UWF Graduate School. Together, the Structural Guidelines and the Dissertation Template can be immensely helpful to students in the timely and successful completion of their dissertations.The steps outlined in this 12-Step Dissertation Submission Process apply to all UWF Ed.D. students. All dissertation manuscripts will undergo multiple stages of administrative review before the Graduate School will approve a student for graduation. Therefore, all students must adhere strictly to the steps outlined in this document.While the steps in the process apply to every student, the deadlines outlined in this process apply only to those students who desire to participate in commencement ceremonies in the same semester they defend their dissertations. The University contracts with an outside vendor to organize and implement the commencement ceremonies; thus, the deadlines for inclusion in commencement ceremonies are very strict. In situations where dissertation manuscripts do not meet University standards for quality and rigor, thereby requiring extensive revisions, students will move automatically into the next semester’s commencement timeline. As such, no student will be included in commencement ceremonies for a particular semester if the student is not cleared by the Ed.D. Program Office to submit his or her dissertation to the Graduate School by Monday of the 8th week of the semester and if the Graduate School does not approve the dissertation by Wednesday of the tenth week of the semester. Be aware that UWF does not hold commencement ceremonies in the summer semester.Alternatively, students who do not meet the commencement deadlines may still be eligible to graduate in the same semester they defend their dissertations. In this case, the postdefense deadlines for this 12-step process are more flexible. Ultimately, a student can graduate in the same semester in which he or she defends a dissertation as long as the Graduate School approves the dissertation prior to the beginning of the next semester. However, for students to graduate in the same semester in which they defend their dissertations, they still must defend their dissertations by the Monday of the 5th week of the semester.The dissertation review process before graduation is a multi-tiered review. As outlined in the UWF Graduate Catalog, for degree conferment all students must “be recommended for graduation by the doctoral committee, departmental chairperson, and the Ed.D. Program Office” (). The Graduate School will perform the final review and must approve all dissertations before a student can graduate. Thus, a successful dissertation defense before one’s dissertation committee is only one step in the multi-step review process.As part of this multi-tiered, administrative review process, all students must submit their dissertations to the UWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC) both before and after defending their dissertations. No students will be allowed to defend their dissertations or to submit their postdefense dissertations to the Graduate School until the Director of Doctoral Studies determines that each dissertation meets University standards for quality and rigor. The DSQAC will perform comprehensive reviews on all dissertations and provide feedback to the student’s committee via the DSQAC Faculty Liaison. To facilitate a timely review process, students should make every effort to submit manuscripts in pristine written condition (i.e., of publishable quality) with few grammatical, punctuation, formatting, and/or referencing errors. Failure to do so will delay the progression through the 12-step process outlined below.As part of the review process, the DSQAC and the Graduate School will screen all manuscripts for plagiarism and academic dishonesty. To avoid violations of the code of conduct, students should work with their committee to obtain an iThenticate report and thereafter interpret the results, and to make needed revisions. All manuscripts submitted to the Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center must be accompanied by a current iThenticate report. At its discretion, the DSQAC may run its own iThenticate report on any manuscript submitted for review. If the DSQAC finds reasonable suspicion of plagiarism or academic misconduct, the Director of Doctoral Studies will review the evidence and determine one of three courses of action: Allow the student to revise the manuscript to correct the identified issue(s), Convene a department-level committee to review the evidence, orRefer the matter to the UWF Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (). As indicated in the UWF Academic Misconduct Code and in the UWF Student Handbook (), sanctions after a finding of academic misconduct may range from a reprimand and remediation to expulsion from the University with prejudice.The following are the 12 steps required for graduation:Step 1. Degree Audit Verification - By Friday of the second week of the semester preceding anticipated graduation, students must submit a Degree Audit Verification Form (Appendix A). For example, if a student plans to graduate in the spring semester, the student must submit the form by the end of the second week of the fall semester.Before submitting this form (Appendix A), students must have met the following requirements:Completed 48 semester hours of coursework that satisfy the core and specialization requirements for an Ed.D. pleted at least 12 semester hours of dissertation credit.Obtained a grade of B or better (i.e., a B- grade is not sufficient) in the required 48 coursework credit hours AND a grade of S (Satisfactory) for at least 12 dissertation credit hours.Earned an overall grade point average of 3.25 or higher.Enrolled in the remaining hours of dissertation credit for the upcoming semester in which the student plans to defend the dissertation.Used the appropriate UWF Ed.D. Proposal/Dissertation Assessment Rubric for the chosen methodology to ensure that the manuscript contains all of the necessary components for each chapter/section.Proofread and edited the dissertation manuscript to eliminate all grammar, punctuation, formatting, and referencing errors.Run the iThenticate originality software on the latest version of the manuscript and made all needed revisions based on the iThenticate report AND submit the report with the dissertation manuscript.Submitted the predefense draft of the manuscript to all of the Doctoral and Dissertation Committee members and made revisions based on their feedback, as evidenced by a signed copy of the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II (Appendix B).Submit the Degree Audit Verification Form (Appendix A) to the following address:Ed. D. Program OfficeAttention: Ms. Lucrecia Burnette McCorvey University of West Florida (Building 86/Room 124)11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514For questions, contact Ms. Burnette McCorvey by phone: (850) 474-2768 or email: lburnette@uwf.edu. This application will allow the Ed.D. Program Office and the CEPS Advising Center to undertake an audit of all courses and dissertation hours to ensure that the student has met all of the degree requirements for graduation. The Ed.D. Program Office will send the letter of clearance regarding the degree audit to the student and to the Ed.D./Ed.S. Academic Advisor, who will make a notation in the student’s record in Grades First. Failure of the student to submit the Degree Audit Verification Form in a timely manner may delay review of a student’s dissertation.**Note: Submission of the Degree Audit Verification Form will prompt automatic enrollment of the student into a Predefense Capacity Building Workshop, which will be held on Saturday of the sixth week of the semester preceding the semester of anticipated graduation. Each student is expected to attend in person or remotely and to give a conference-style presentation on his/her research study.Step 2. Committee review of final draft – At least three weeks before the beginning of the semester in which the student intends to graduate, but after the student’s participation in the Predefense Capacity Building Workshop, the student must submit the final draft of his or her dissertation to each member of his/her Doctoral and Dissertation Committee (DDC).Before submitting the manuscript to the DDC, it is important that the dissertation be in publishable quality, to include being properly formatted and free of editing errors. To support this process, students should obtain the services of a professional editor of their choosing to edit their dissertations.An iThenticate report (PDF file) based on the latest version of the manuscript must also accompany the dissertation when submitting the dissertation to the DDC.Each committee member should assess the student’s manuscript using the appropriate UWF Ed.D. Proposal/Dissertation Assessment Rubric based on the chosen research methodology. The committee will then come to consensus as to any needed revisions and supply the student with aggregated rubric-based feedback.The student must then collaborate with his or her committee members to make all necessary revisions noted by the committee. To verify the incorporation of all revisions, students must complete the table included in the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form (Part II of Appendix B) and submit both parts of the form to his/her committee chair for signature.The student may not proceed to Step 3 until the Chair of the DDC signs the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II (Appendix B).Step 3. Predefense review by the DSQAC - By the first day of the first week of the semester of intended graduation, students must submit the following documents to the Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC@uwf.edu):The dissertation in two digital formats (PDF and Microsoft Word).A signed copy of the most recent Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II (Appendix B). A reference table (Appendix C). A current iThenticate report from the latest revised version of the dissertation.A signed copy of the Dissertation Originality Review Verification Form (Appendix D).**Note: The DSQAC review process will not begin until the student submits all six of the required materials.Within a minimum of two weeks from the submission of all of the required documents, the DSQAC will perform the following reviews:The DSQAC will review the iThenticate report for potential issues of plagiarism and/or academic misconduct. Specifically, the DSQAC will review the document for improper referencing, a lack of referencing, and the failure to obtain authorization to use and/or reprint photos, documents, tables, figures, and instrumentation, whether original or adapted, that are protected by copyrights. If the DSQAC finds reasonable suspicion of plagiarism or academic misconduct, the DSQAC staff will not perform a comprehensive review and will submit to the Director of Doctoral Studies a completed Plagiarism Review Form—Part I (Appendix E). The Director of Doctoral Studies will review the evidence of plagiarism and/or academic misconduct and determine the appropriate action as indicated in the Introduction section of this document.The DSQAC will review the dissertation manuscript for grammar, punctuation, formatting, and referencing errors. If a manuscript contains significant errors in grammar, punctuation, formatting, and/or referencing, the DSQAC will return the manuscript without a comprehensive review, accompanied by a DSQAC Manuscript Review Short Form (Appendix F).If no issues are realized the DSQAC will perform a comprehensive review, using the appropriate DSQAC Manuscript Review Long Form (Appendix G1, G2, or G3) to provide feedback.**Note: If the manuscript does not contain all of the necessary discussions as outlined in the Structural Guidelines and is not virtually free of grammar, punctuation, formatting, and referencing errors at the first review, a student’s participation in commencement that semester may not be possible because of the strict timeline discussed in the Introduction to this document.Upon completion of the comprehensive review, the DSQAC will forward the DSQAC Manuscript Review Long Form, Part I of the Plagiarism Review Form (indicating no reasonable suspicion of plagiarism), and the iThenticate report to the Director of Doctoral Studies for review. The Director will sign Part I of the Plagiarism Review Form and provide a copy to the Ed.D. Program Office for inclusion in the student’s file. The Director will then review the dissertation and the DSQAC Manuscript Review Long Form before disseminating the review form to the student’s committee members and department chair via the Faculty Liaison.Once the student receives the DSQAC Manuscript Review Long Form from his or her committee, the student must collaborate with his or her committee members to make all necessary revisions noted in the review form. Once the revisions are made, the student must resubmit the dissertation to the DSQAC for another comprehensive review, accompanied by the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II (Appendix B), which has been signed by both the student and the Committee Chair, verifying that the recommended revisions have been made. Students will be allowed no more than three submissions to the DSQAC. If after the third predefense reviews the Faculty Liaison determines that the quality and rigor of the dissertation does not meet the University’s requirements for defense, the Director of Doctoral Studies will refer the matter to the Ed.D. Committee: Policy Group for a decision regarding the steps forward.Alternatively, if the DSQAC recommends to the Director of Doctoral Studies that the dissertation meets University standards and is ready to be defended and if the Director of Doctoral Studies concurs with the DSQAC recommendation, the Director will sign the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II, authorizing the dissertation defense.Students may not schedule their dissertation defenses until the Director of Doctoral Studies has signed the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II (Appendix B).Step 4. Predefense review by the Doctoral and Dissertation Committee - By Monday of the third week of the semester of intended graduation, a student must submit his/her dissertation to his/her Doctoral and Dissertation Committee (DDC) members, as well as to the department chair and the dean’s representative or designee. If the department chair or the dean’s representative (or their designee) determines that the dissertation is not ready for defense, either or both individuals should communicate this decision to the DDC and to the student within one week of receipt of the dissertation. Committee members will have at least two weeks between the time of submission and the date of defense to review the dissertation.Step 5. Scheduling a room for the defense - By Tuesday of the third week of the semester, the student, in consultation with his/her DDC chair, must ensure that a room has been reserved for the defense of his/her dissertation and that all committee members have been informed of the date, time, and venue of the defense. Once a date is determined, the student must inform the CEPS Communications Coordinator at cepsdean@uwf.edu, using the Announcement of Final Dissertation Defense Form (Appendix H), for an announcement to be placed in the CEPS Newsletter. Since the Newsletter is published every Wednesday, students must submit the announcement by Tuesday of that week to enable the CEPS Communications Coordinator to place the announcement in the Newsletter. Step 6. Dissertation defense - All students must defend their dissertations no later than Monday of the fifth week of the semester of intended graduation. Students holding defenses after the fifth week cannot participate in commencement ceremonies or graduate in that semester. Within one week after successfully defending a dissertation, the student must make all revisions to the dissertation requested by their Doctoral and Dissertation Committee members. To verify the incorporation of all revisions, students must complete the table included in the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form (Part I of Appendix B) and submit both parts of the form to his/her committee chair for signature.Step 7. Postdefense review by the DSQAC – By Monday of the sixth week, students must submit the following documents to the Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC@uwf.edu):The dissertation in two digital formats (PDF and Microsoft Word).A signed copy of the most recent (postdefense) Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II (Appendix B).A reference table (Appendix C).A signed, official letter verifying review by a professional editor.A current iThenticate report.A signed copy of the most recent (postdefense) Dissertation Originality Review Verification Form (Appendix D).**Note: The DSQAC review process will not begin until the student submits all six of the required materials.Within a minimum of two weeks from the submission of all of the required documents, the DSQAC will perform the following reviews:The DSQAC will review the iThenticate report for potential issues of plagiarism and/or academic misconduct. Specifically, the DSQAC will review the document for improper referencing, a lack of referencing, and the failure to obtain authorization to use and/or reprint all photos, documents, tables, figures, and instrumentation, whether original or adapted, that are protected by copyrights. If the DSQAC finds reasonable suspicion of plagiarism or academic misconduct, the DSQAC staff will not complete a comprehensive review and will submit immediately to the Director of Doctoral Studies a completed Plagiarism Review Form—Part I (Appendix E). The Director of Doctoral Studies will review the evidence of plagiarism and/or academic misconduct and determine the appropriate action as indicated in the Introduction to this document.The DSQAC will review the dissertation manuscript for grammar, punctuation, formatting, and referencing errors. If a manuscript contains significant errors in grammar, punctuation, formatting, and/or referencing, the DSQAC will return the manuscript without a comprehensive review, accompanied by a DSQAC Manuscript Review Short Form (Appendix F).If no issues are realized the DSQAC will perform a comprehensive review, using the appropriate DSQAC Manuscript Review Long Form (Appendix G1, G2, or G3) to provide feedback.Upon completion of the comprehensive review, the DSQAC will forward the DSQAC Manuscript Review Long Form, Part I of the Plagiarism Review Form (indicating no reasonable suspicion of plagiarism), and the iThenticate report to the Director of Doctoral Studies for review. The Director will sign Part I of the Plagiarism Review Form and provide a copy to the Ed.D. Program Office for inclusion in the student’s file. The Director will then review the dissertation and the DSQAC Manuscript Review Long Form before disseminating the review form to the student’s committee members and department chair.If the DSQAC (i.e., the Faculty Liaison) recommends to the Director of Doctoral Studies that the dissertation meets University standards and is ready to be submitted to the Graduate School for review and if the Director of Doctoral Studies concurs with the DSQAC recommendation, the Director will sign the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II, authorizing submission to the Graduate School. The student may not submit his/her dissertation to the Graduate School until the Director of Doctoral Studies has signed the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II (Appendix B).By this stage in the review process, the research design elements are expected to be in alignment, the dissertation chapters are expected to include all necessary discussions, and the manuscripts are expected to be virtually error free with respect to grammar, punctuation, formatting, and referencing. Based on these expectations, students will be allowed only one review by the DSQAC. If the Director of Doctoral Studies determines that the quality and rigor of the dissertation does not meet the University’s requirements for defense, the Director of Doctoral Studies will refer the matter to the Ed.D. Committee: Policy Group for a decision regarding the steps forward.Alternatively, once the Director of Doctoral Studies has signed the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II, authorizing submission to the Graduate School, the DSQAC will inform the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator that the student has been cleared to submit the dissertation to the Graduate School for review. The DSQAC will also inform the student that he or she has been cleared to forward the dissertation to the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator (dissertation@uwf.edu). The student will also receive a copy of the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II, signed by the Director of Doctoral Studies, which should accompany the dissertation submission to the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator. Any dissertation sent directly to the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator without clearance and approval from the Director of Doctoral Studies will be returned immediately to the student for re-routing.Step 8. Submission to the Graduate School - By Monday of the eighth week, the student should submit by email (dissertation@uwf.edu) a digital version in PDF format of the approved dissertation to the Graduate School (UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator). A digital copy of the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II signed by the Director of Doctoral Studies must accompany the submission. The student will receive an automatic email confirmation receipt from the Graduate School upon email submission. For dissertation files too large to append to an email, Gmail will provide a drop box option for the submission of large files. Students will submit two copies of their signed signature pages to the Graduate School before uploading the dissertation to ProQuest. Students must use white, acid free, 24-lb paper with a watermark for the signature pages. Hammermill 24-lb, acid free laser paper is also acceptable. Upon receipt of the automated email acknowledging receipt of submission of the dissertation to the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator, the student should submit an application for graduation, along with a copy of the receipt of submission, to the following:Ed. D. Program OfficeAttention: Ms. Lucrecia Burnette McCorveyUniversity of West Florida (Building 86/Room 124)11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514For questions, contact Ms. Burnette McCorvey by phone: (850) 474-2768 or email: lburnette@uwf.edu.The graduation application should have all required signatures, except the signature from the Director of Doctoral Studies. The Ed.D. Program Office will hold the application until the student receives a clearance from the Graduate School to upload his/her dissertation to ProQuest. Only students who receive their clearance from the Graduate School by the Wednesday of the 10th week of the semester will have their applications forwarded for participation in the commencement ceremony for that semester.Upon submission of the dissertation to the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator, the Coordinator will have two weeks to review the dissertation using the Final Format Review Checklist for Dissertation (Appendix I) and to request revisions by email from the student (with a copy of the request sent to the Committee Chair, Department Chair of the specialization, DSQAC, Director of Doctoral Studies, and the Dean of CEPS).A database for both the DSQAC and the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator’s comments and suggestions will be maintained in the DSQAC to determine patterns, areas of strengths, as well as areas of weakness, and to plan appropriate interventions for students and dissertation committee members through workshops and seminars.The feedback and incorporation of revisions between the student and the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator must be completed by Wednesday of the tenth week of the semester.Upon completion of the review, the UWF Thesis/Dissertation Coordinator will email the student, attaching the Final Verification of Dissertation Format (Appendix J), as well as a PDF version of the approved, formatted dissertation to the student to upload to ProQuest. The email will be copied to the student’s committee chair, DSQAC, Ed.D. Program Office, University Registrar, Commencement Coordinator, Director of Graduate School, and Director of Doctoral Studies.Step 9. Application for graduation - By Wednesday of the tenth week, the Ed.D. Program Office will process the student’s application for graduation and forward it to the offices of the Registrar, Graduation, Commencement, and Graduate School. Step 10. Exit survey - The student should complete an exit survey located at this link before uploading the final approved version of their dissertation to ProQuest. Step 11. Upload the dissertation to ProQuest - By Friday of the eleventh week of the semester, the student should upload the final accepted version of the dissertation to ProQuest for publication by the University (). It is important that the completion date on the title page of the dissertation reflects the accurate month and year of graduation before submission to ProQuest.Step 12. Final preparations for commencement - Students should RSVP for graduation and complete all other documentation required for participating in the commencement ceremony and/or graduating. Information about graduation can be found here: ADegree Audit Verification Form (DAVF)Student’s Name: Student’s ID Number: I wish to apply for a Degree Audit clearance to defend my dissertation in (Term, Year). It is my understanding that this application will allow the Ed.D. Program Office and the CEPS Advising Center to undertake an audit of all my courses and dissertation hours.Directions: This form should be completed by Friday of the 2nd week of the semester preceding the semester for intended date of defense of the dissertation. The student should ensure that he/she receives a clearance for 100% Degree Audit through the approval of this form from the Director of Doctoral Studies.By submitting this form, I believe that I meet the following requirements:I have completed 48 semester hours of coursework that satisfy the core and specialization requirements for an Ed.D. degree.I have completed at least 12 semester hours of dissertation credit.I have obtained a grade of B or better in the required 48 coursework credit hours and a grade of S (Satisfactory) for at least 12 dissertation credit hours.I have an overall grade point average of 3.25 or higher.I have enrolled in the remaining hours of dissertation credit for the upcoming semester in which I plan to defend my dissertation.I have used the appropriate UWF Ed.D. Proposal/Dissertation Assessment Rubric for my chosen methodology to ensure that my manuscript contains all of the necessary components for each chapter/section.I have proofread and edited the dissertation manuscript to eliminate all grammar, punctuation, formatting, and referencing errors.I have run the iThenticate originality checking software on the latest version of my manuscript and have made all needed revisions based on the iThenticate report.I have submitted the predefense draft of my manuscript to all of my Doctoral and Dissertation Committee members and have made revisions based on their feedback, as evidenced by a signed copy of the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Parts I & II (Appendix B).Dissertation Title: Student: (signature)(date)Anticipated date of defense: APPROVED: Committee Chair(date)Verified: CEPS Advising OfficeChecklist:?Core credits – 24 or 30 sh?Specialization credits – 18 or 24 sh?Dissertation hours - 12+ shProgram Advisor (signature)(date)Comments: ? Student has been enrolled in the Predefense Capacity Building Workshop Director of Doctoral Studies: (signature)(date)Routing of form:Committee ChairCEPS Advising OfficeDirector of Doctoral StudiesEd.D. Program OfficeAppendix BDissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Part IStudent’s Name: Student’s ID Number: The Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form will be used in Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the dissertation process. The form will be used:To verify that the student’s committee has reviewed the student’s proposal/dissertation prior to all submissions to the Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC) andTo verify that the student has completed all revisions recommended by the student’s committee with support from the DSQAC.Both the student and the committee chair must sign this form. Once the dissertation is cleared by the DSQAC for defense or for submission to the Graduate School, the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form will be signed by the Director of Doctoral Studies with a copy to the Ed. D. Program Office for inclusion in the student’s file.This is a ___ predefense ____ postdefense submission (check whichever is applicable).I certify that my committee has reviewed my manuscript and that I have made all revisions recommended by my committee and/or by the DSQAC prior to (re)submission to the DSQAC.91440020129500457200020129500StudentDateI certify that Each member of the Doctoral and Dissertation Committee has reviewed the student’s dissertation using the appropriate UWF Ed.D. Proposal/Dissertation Assessment Rubric according to the chosen methodology.The DDC has supplied the student with a copy of the rubric after aggregating the comments.The student has made all revisions requested by the DDC and/or the DSQAC.The student has explained using the table below how he/she has made the requested revisions.The DDC has approved the manuscript for (re)submission to the DSQAC. Committee ChairDateThe student’s manuscript is cleared ____ for defense____ for submission to the Graduate School Director of Doctoral StudiesDateRouting: Committee Chair, DSQAC, Director of Doctoral Studies (after clearance from DSQAC)Appendix BDissertation Committee Review Verification Form—Part IIRevision Verification TableStudents must use this table to verify and explain how they have made the requested revisions to their manuscript. This completed table must be attached to the Dissertation Committee Review Verification Form before seeking signature approvals.Requested revisionCurrent page/ paragraphExplanation of revision madeAppendix CReference Table GuideThe purpose of the Reference Table is to provide the list of references used in the dissertation as well as where those references are cited in the paper. The header should be formatted as Full Legal Name in the left heading, "Reference Table" in center heading, and Page x of x in right heading. Attached is a sample Reference Table.Column 1: ReferencesThis column should have every reference used in the paper and listed in the References section. Format the citation as it appears for the first time in the text using the APA (6th ed.) guidelines. For example: “Author, Journalist, and Writer (2001) examined the data and came to a conclusion. The authors also determined something important (Author et al., 2001).” For this example, the reference listed in the Reference Table would appear as follows: Author, Journalist, and Writer (2001).Column 2: LocationsThis column should list every page number in the manuscript where the reference can be found. For example, if Author, Journalist, and Writer (2001) can be found on pages 17, 51, and 97, these numbers should be listed in numerical order in Column 2.Column 3: APA ExampleThis column should include the example number and page number used to format the reference based on the APA Manual (6th ed.). For example, the citation listed above was formatted based on information from example three on page 199 of the APA Manual.Reference TableStudent’s Name: Student’s ID Number: Reference Author. (Year).Page numbers of citations in the narrativeThe APA example and page number used to format the referenceExamples:Author, Journalist, and Writer (Year).17, 51, 97#3, p. 199Bennett, M. J. (1993).5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 30, 31,32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42,45, 46, 51, 52, 56, 85, 93,#25, p. 204Piaget, J. (1952).7, 12, 30, 39#18, p. 203Appendix DDissertation Originality Review Verification FormStudent’s Name: Student’s ID Number: The Dissertation Originality Review Verification Form is used to certify that the originality of written work has been verified by iThenticate. This form should accompany the submission of all manuscripts to the Doctoral and Dissertation Committee and/or the Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center with a copy to the Ed.D. Program Office.I certify that the originality of (provide dissertation title) has been verified through the iThenticate software and that all corrections have been made to reference sources properly.This is a ___ predefense ____ postdefense submission (check whichever is applicable).91440011366500457200011366500StudentDateCopies to:Committee ChairDSQACEd.D. Program Office Appendix EPlagiarism Review Form—Part IThe Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center will use the Plagiarism Review Form—Part I after every manuscript review to report appearances of plagiarism and/or academic dishonesty in the manuscript to the Director of Doctoral Studies. The Director of Doctoral Studies will sign the form and take action as indicated. 1. Student’s Name: Student’s ID Number: Date submitted for documentary analysis: Title of dissertation: 2. Review of documentary analysis report using iThenticate: Based on the review of the documentary analysis report, there does appear to be reasonable suspicion of plagiarism and/or academic dishonesty. See attached Table/Report. Based on the review of the documentary analysis report, there does not appear to be reasonable suspicion of plagiarism and/or academic dishonesty.Date forwarded to Director of Doctoral Studies: Director of Doctoral Studies (Printed Name): (Signature): Date: Date forwarded to members of department-level committee (if applicable): Date forwarded to Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (if applicable): Action taken:____ allow revision of the manuscript to correct the identified issue(s) ____ convene a department-level committee to review the evidence____ refer the matter to the UWF Office of Student Rights and ResponsibilitiesRouting of form:1. If no reasonable suspicion of plagiarism exists, the Director of Doctoral Studies will provide copies of this form to the student, the committee chair, the committee members, and the Ed.D. Program Office for inclusion in the student’s file.2. If a reasonable suspicion of plagiarism exists, the Director of Doctoral Studies will provide copies of this form, along with copies of the dissertation, the DSQAC Manuscript Review Form, and the iThenticate report, to the student, the committee chair, committee members, the CEPS Associate Dean, and the student’s department chair. A copy of this form only will be provided to the Ed.D. Program Office for inclusion in the student’s file.Appendix EPlagiarism Review Form—Part IIThis form is to be completed after a department-level committee meeting has been held to review evidence of plagiarism initiated after a finding of reasonable suspicion of plagiarism by the DSQAC based on a document analysis report generated by iThenticate.Student’s Name: Student’s ID Number: Date of department-level committee meeting: In attendance:Associate Dean for CEPS: Director of Doctoral Studies: Dissertation committee chair: Dissertation committee members:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Department chair: Others in attendance (use additional sheet, if necessary): Evidence presented (list here and attach copies):The undersigned acknowledge that they met to discuss allegations of plagiarism in a dissertation by the above-named student and that the results of the vote were as follow:Associate Dean CEPS:Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain]._____________________________(signature)Director Doctoral Studies:Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain]._____________________________(signature)Dissertation committee chair:Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain].______________________________(signature)Dissertation committee members:Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain]._____________________________(signature)Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain]._____________________________(signature)Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain]._____________________________(signature)Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain]._____________________________(signature)Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain]._____________________________(signature)Department chair:Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive [□ abstain].______________________________(signature)914400179070In the event of a deadlockDean of CEPS: (type or print)Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive. _______________________________(signature)00In the event of a deadlockDean of CEPS: (type or print)Plagiarism □ found □ not found. If found, it was □ limited □ extensive. _______________________________(signature)By a vote of to , plagiarism was_____ not found, and the matter is dismissed._____ found and by a vote of ___ to ___ determined to be limited, requiring a rewrite of the relevant portions of the dissertation._____ extensive, requiring referral to University Judiciaries.In situations where the department-level committee finds plagiarism to be limited, the Department Chair, the Director of Doctoral Studies, the Dissertation Committee Chair, and the Associate Dean of CEPS must meet to discuss conditions for reinstatement (if appropriate) and a plan for revisions of the dissertation. If a majority of the department-level committee finds that plagiarism occurred and that it was extensive, the department chair must refer the matter to University Judiciaries (see Plagiarism Review Form—Part III).Date decision was forwarded to Ed.D. Program office: Copies to:DDC ChairEd.D. Program OfficeAppendix EPlagiarism Review Form—Part IIIThis form will be used when evidence of plagiarism and/or academic misconduct is extensive. The Department Chair will refer the matter to the Dean of Students Office, Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities.Student’s Name: Student’s ID Number: Date referred: Department chair: (signature)Recommendations from the hearing conducted by the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities:The undersigned acknowledge that they met to discuss appropriate conditions for reinstatement of the above-named student and that the recommendations are as follows:Department chair: (signature)Director of Doctoral Studies: (signature)Associate Dean CEPS: (signature)Date: A copy of these recommendations was forwarded to the Ed.D. Program office on the following date: A copy of these recommendations was forwarded to the Dean of CEPS on the following date: Copies to:Ed.D. Program OfficeCEPS Dean’s OfficeDDC ChairAppendix FUWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC) Manuscript Review Short FormStudent Name: Click here to enter text.Date: Click here to enter a date.Chairperson: Click here to enter text.Members: Click here to enter text.? Chapter(s)? Proposal? Dissertation? Predefense? Postdefense? First Review? Second Review? Third Review?__________General Comments: Pursuant to Step 3 of the UWF Ed.D. 12-Step Dissertation Submission Process, the manuscript is being returned without a comprehensive review because the manuscript contains significant errors in grammar, punctuation, formatting, and/or referencing. The following types of errors were found in your manuscript. Please proofread and edit the document to eliminate such errors before resubmitting the manuscript to the DSQAC. ? Unacceptable font style and size? Incorrect margins? Inconsistent spacing of headings and subheadings? Large gaps in the text? Citations, references, and textural stylistic choices, such as treatment of numbers, abbreviations, etc., do not conform to the APA-approved style guide? Incorrect placement of tables and/or figures? Serious typographical and grammatical errors (evidence that the manuscript has not been proofread by the student, committee, or professional editor)See attached report(s):? Grammar/punctuation? APA referencingAppendix G1UWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC)Manuscript Review Long Form—Quantitative StudyStudent Name: Click here to enter text.Date: Click here to enter a date.Chairperson: Click here to enter text.Members: Click here to enter text.? Chapter(s)? Proposal? Dissertation? Predefense? Postdefense? First Review? Second Review? Third Review? Fourth or moreGeneral Comments: The items checked (?) are issues with formatting, referencing, writing style, and/or research design that trend throughout the manuscript. Critical errors are checked and highlighted in yellow (?). These errors must be addressed for you to obtain clearance for graduation. Please confer with your committee to address all of the issues noted in this review form (not just the critical errors) before resubmitting the manuscript to the DSQAC. Ultimately, you are responsible for making all revisions and for producing a dissertation of publishable quality.Note: Only checked boxes indicate areas of concern.If additional notes are provided at the bottom of the form, address all of the notes and the checked boxes.Issues with formatting:? The title page is not formatted properly.? The title is not stated in 12 words or less.? The signature page is not formatted properly.? The dedication page is not formatted properly.? The acknowledgments page is not formatted properly.? The table of contents page is not formatted properly.? The list of tables and/or list of figures pages are not formatted properly.? The abstract is not formatted properly.? Sections within each chapter do not include all of the headings outlined in the Structural Guidelines for the particular research design.? Times New Roman, 12 point font, is not used consistently throughout.? Margins are not 1” on all sides throughout.? Page numbering is not correct throughout.? Line spacing is not double spaced throughout.? Spacing following punctuation at the end of a sentence is not consistent.? Block quote formatting is not used consistently for direct quotes with 40 or more words.? Textural stylistic choices, such as treatment of numbers, abbreviations, acronyms, ellipses, hyphenations, etc., do not conform to the APA style manual.? The Oxford comma is not used consistently throughout.? The terms being defined in the definitions of terms section in Chapter 1 are not formatted as level three headings.? Headings and subheadings are not formatted properly throughout.? Sections contain single subheadings (two or more are required for each level).? The findings in Chapter 4 are not organized under headings according to hypotheses, research questions, themes, or other appropriate organizational schemes, using tables and figures where appropriate.? Tables (including headings) in the text are not formatted properly.? Tables are not placed correctly in the text.? Figures (including headings) in the text are not formatted properly.? Figures are not placed correctly in the text.? Large gaps (white space) occur in the text following tables and figures.? In-text references are not formatted properly.? References in the reference list are not formatted properly.? References in the reference list to journal articles do not contain a doi or journal homepage URL.? References in the reference list are not alphabetized.? Each appendix is not referenced clearly in the text.? Each appendix does not contain a header page.? The appendices are not placed in the order referenced in the text.? Click here to enter text.Issues with referencing:? Numerous statements of fact are not referenced.? Discussions related to application of theory, methodology, or methods do not include appropriate references.? Figures (or tables) created by others or adapted from others’ work are not referenced properly (including copyright information).? Written permission to use and/or reprint preexisting survey instruments or survey items was not referenced and included in the appendix.? References used to support contemporary claims are outdated.? Resources used as references are not credible, scholarly sources.? References are being overused.? References do not support the claim for which they are cited.? Too many secondary or tertiary sources are used.? All references in the text do not appear in the reference list.? All references in the reference list do not appear in the text.? Click here to enter text.Issues with writing style:? The manuscript does not provide adequate contextual information about the topic for a global, cross-disciplinary audience of scholars.? Discussions do not occur in an order that promotes the logical flow of ideas.? The manuscript contains significant typographical and/or grammatical and/or punctuation errors.? Paragraphs need to be revised for proper paragraph format.? Discussions are not organized, clear, and concise.? Transitional devises are not used for smoothness of expression or are not used appropriately.? Too many overgeneralizations are made without any empirical evidence to support them.? The writing style is too conversational.? Some word choices are inaccurate or inappropriate.? Numerous sentences use passive voice, often without a clear subject, which severely weakens the readability of the manuscript.? Many sentences or passages are repeated verbatim (or nearly so) throughout the manuscript.? Terminology specific to the topic, theories, and methodology is not operationalized within the text as they are introduced.? Inappropriate verbs tenses are used throughout.? Direct quotations are overused.? Direct quotations do not include a lead-in phrase or clause.? Personal pronouns without an immediate referent are used inappropriately throughout.? Relative pronouns are used inappropriately.? Subordinate conjunctions are used inappropriately.? Many sentences lack parallel construction.? Anthropomorphism occurs throughout.? Statements reflecting personal opinion, personal perspectives, and/or bias or judgment occur frequently in the manuscript.? Tone is not objective and neutral, but rather suggests that the researcher is advocating a personal perspective or agenda.? Click here to enter text.Issues with research design:? The title does not summarize accurately the main idea of the study.? The abstract does not summarize comprehensively in 250 words or less the elements of the study using key words for indexing.? The introduction to Chapter 1 does not present the specific problem under study clearly and concisely, describe the research strategy, state the thesis, and provide a roadmap of the chapter contents for the reader.? The background statement in Chapter 1 does not provide an accurate and thorough context for the problem under study.? The problem statement in Chapter 1 does not identify clearly and thoroughly a contemporary problem in education that the researcher seeks to address.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 does not align with the problem under study.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 is not stated clearly and concisely in one or two sentences.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 does not include the central phenomenon explored in the study and its parameters, the participants in the study, the research site, and the specific methodological design.? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the whole theory, its history, its refinement, its disciplinary context (within and outside educational research), and each of its constructs (individually and interrelationally).? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not include a justification for its use in the study.? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not indicate clearly how the theory is being used to frame the study.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 do(es) not align with the problem, purpose, and theory.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 is/are not stated clearly and concisely.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 do(es) not include the study population.? Null and alternative hypothes(e)s are not included with quantitative research question(s).? An overview of the methodology and methods was not included in Chapter 1.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the overall methodology and the particular subtype chosen.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not include a justification for the use of the methodology and subtype in the study.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the methods used (or that will be used) to collect and analyze the data.? The assumptions section in Chapter 1 does not discuss clearly and thoroughly any/all assumptions the researcher has made about the problem, phenomenon, population, or participants.? The delimitations and limitations section in Chapter 1 does not include a discussion of all of the delimitations and limitations in the study.? The delimitations and limitations section in Chapter 1 does not discuss thoroughly why the delimitations were chosen and how the limitations might affect the data.? The significance statement in Chapter 1 does not align with the problem and purpose of the study.? The significance statement in Chapter 1 does not discuss clearly and concisely how the study might add to the body of knowledge, develop theory, or affect policy or practice in a meaningful way.? The definitions of terms section in Chapter 1 does not include all of the terms that should be defined or operationalized.?The definitions of terms in Chapter 1 are not stated briefly, clearly, concisely, and concretely.?The definitions of terms in Chapter 1 do not include references to scholarly literature.? The definitions of measures and variables section in Chapter 1 does not include all of the terms that should be defined or operationalized.? The definitions of measures and variables in Chapter 1 are not stated briefly, clearly, concisely, and concretely.? The definitions of measures and variables in Chapter 1 do not include references to scholarly literature.?The organization of the study in Chapter 1 does not summarize clearly and concisely the contents of the entire manuscript (all 5 chapters, even if a proposal).?The chapter summary for Chapter 1 does not summarize clearly and accurately the contents of the chapter and/or does not show how the study elements align.?The introduction to Chapter 2 does not summarize clearly and concisely the chapter contents, state the purpose of the study, and/or justify the use of the theory in relation to the research question(s).?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not identify and discuss all of the central issues and subissues related to the topic/problem?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not analyze and synthesize appropriately the empirical literature related to the theory and the topic under study.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not use a minimum of 40-60 primary, empirical sources that are no more than five years old to support the discussions.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not explain thoroughly the genesis of the theory/model/concept, its disciplinary context, its constructs, its refinement, its application and testing by other scholars, and any criticisms and rebuttal in the field.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not analyze and synthesize appropriately the empirical literature related to the theory/model/concept.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not rely mainly for support on primary sources, the majority of which are empirical research studies.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not reference contemporary sources regarding the current state of knowledge about the theory.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not demonstrate the researcher’s ability to analyze, synthesize, and discuss the relevant literature in the field with depth and breadth.?Chapter 3 does not contain all of the necessary components listed in the “Structural Guidelines” for the type of methodology chosen.?The introduction to Chapter 3 does not summarize clearly and concisely the chapter contents and reiterate the purpose statement and research questions/hypotheses exactly as framed in Chapter 1.?The research design section of Chapter 3 does not identify clearly the overall methodology and the subtype being used and/or does not explain clearly their strengths and weaknesses and/or does not justify their use to achieve the purpose of the study.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not identify clearly the site for the study or how the researcher gained (or will gain) access to the site and the participants.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately the choice of site in relation to the study population and the problem identified.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the characteristics of the site, such as demographics, size, student-teacher ratio, poverty, etc. (as applicable).?The description of the population section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the characteristics of the overall population in which the problem manifests, providing the reader a frame of reference upon which to compare the adequacy and representativeness of the sample population, even if the research design does not promote generalization to a larger population.?The description of the sample section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the characteristics of the representative group in the study and/or the justification of the participant selection in relation to the study (i.e., participant age, gender, educational attainment, length of service, and critical applicable information) that gives a general idea about the sample population.?The description of the sample section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the sample size needed, a power analysis, the sampling frame, the target sample, etc.?The sampling methods section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the participant selection process (e.g., the specific type of sampling used, the number of individuals included and their location, why the particular number and the unit of analysis were selected, the criteria used for inclusion in the sample, and a step-by-step account of how the sample was selected or will be selected).?The ethical issues/permissions section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the ethical issues that might arise from the study and how the issues were (or will be) addressed.?The ethical issues/permissions section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the permissions used in the study, including a justification of how they relate to the study (e.g., informed consent, UWF IRB approval, site IRB approval, co-investigator qualifications and approval).?The section on data sources in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately all of the sources from which the data (data sources) was or will be obtained (i.e., interviews, observation, surveys, existing data sets, etc.); and/or does not explain adequately the advantages and disadvantages of such sources, including how the disadvantages were or will be addressed; and/or does not explain adequately why these sources of data are critical for this study.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately any/all research protocols/instrumentation used (or intended to be used) in the study, the length of time for their completion, and major topics or theory constructs the questions or items cover.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately how the instrument/protocol relates to the study.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately whether and to what extent a preexisting instrument/protocol or items was/were modified or adapted for use in the study.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not indicate that written permission to use and reprint a preexisting instrument/protocol (or items therefrom) was obtained from the original developer and/or does not include the written authorization in the appendix.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately previous efforts by scholars to establish the reliability of a preexisting instrument/protocol or items (e.g., rationale equivalent reliability, equivalent-forms reliability, scorer/rater reliability, test-retest reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, etc.) and/or does not provide the applicable reliability coefficient(s).?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately previous efforts by scholars to establish the validity of a preexisting instrument/protocol or items (e.g., face validity, content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity) and/or does not provide the applicable validity index.?The pilot testing section (if applicable) in Chapter 3 does not report adequately the methods used to pilot test an instrument, including design, sampling, data collection procedures, data analysis, results/findings, and lessons learned and changes adopted for use in the main study.?The pilot testing section (if applicable) in Chapter 3 does not report adequately the methods used to establish reliability (e.g., interrater reliability procedures, criteria for judging competence, how agreements were assessed, percentage of data checked for agreement, and statistics used to calculate agreements) and/or validity (e.g., exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, etc.) of a new or adapted instrument.?The section on data collection procedures in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately all of the data collection procedures prior to, during, and after the study, using a step-by-step description of how the data collection originated and concluded (i.e., indicated by time frame(s), places, etc.).?The section on data collection procedures in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately how and why the data collection procedures relate to the study.?The researcher positionality section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the researcher’s “insider” and “outsider” perspectives (i.e., the lens through which the researcher interpreted the social world and the manner in which the researcher’s background influenced data collection and analyses, e.g., gender, race, class, other socially significant dimensions). ?The research validity section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the potential threats to internal and design validity in the study, the potential issues each threat poses, and the researcher’s plan to address each of the threats in the study design.?The data analysis section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the statistical model(s) that were or will be used and/or does not explain why this/these model(s) is/are the most appropriate based on the research questions and purpose of the study. ?The data analysis section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately all steps that will be (or were) taken to detect anomalies in the data (e.g., outliers, missing data, data outside categorical parameters, etc.) and that will be (or were) used to treat or clean the data in an ethically appropriate manner (e.g., to remove outliers, treat missing values, etc.) before analysis.?The data analysis section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the critical assumptions that must be met to use the statistical model(s), the techniques that will be (or were) used to determine whether the assumptions will be (or were) met, the step-by-step process for employing those techniques, any ethically appropriate techniques that will be (or were) used to transform the data to eliminate any violation of critical assumptions, and any alternative statistical model(s) that may be used if the data violate critical assumptions.?The data analysis section in Chapter 3 does not explain adequately the specific steps that were (or will be) taken to analyze data, including the steps taken if analyzing data using quantitative analysis software (e.g., SPSS).?The introduction to Chapter 4 does not restate the purpose of the study and the research questions/hypotheses and/or does not describe adequately the rationale for the manner in which data were analyzed and/or does not explain adequately whether the chapter is organized according to thematic categories, hypotheses, research questions, or conceptual framework.?The description of participants section in Chapter 4 does not identify and describe adequately the demographics of the participants (e.g., gender, age, experience, etc.).?The data preparation section in Chapter 4 does not summarize adequately how the data were prepared and analyzed.?The presentation of results section in Chapter 4 does not present the results such that they flow logically from the problem, research questions, and design.?The presentation of results section in Chapter 4 does not identify and describe adequately unexpected data, inconsistencies, or discrepant data.?Tables and/or figures in Chapter 4 do not simplify clearly the large amounts of information presented from the findings in a manner that facilitates comprehension of the data.?The analysis of results section in Chapter 4 does not analyze and synthesize adequately the results in light of the hypotheses, research questions, literature review, theoretical framework and/or conceptual framework and/or does not demonstrate a deep understanding of what the results really mean and what lies beneath the results.?The analysis of results section in Chapter 4 does not apply adequately in an integrative manner the techniques identified in Chapter 3 that were used to ensure credibility and rigor.?The analysis of results section in Chapter 4 does not compare emergent patterns in the data against the literature, theoretical framework, and/or conceptual framework for contradictions, confirmations, new scholarship, and extensions of existing scholarship.?The introduction to Chapter 5 does not summarize adequately the chapter’s organization and content (e.g., the summary of the study; important conclusions drawn from the data presented in Chapter 4; implications for theory, practice and/or policy; suggestions for future research; and reflections from the field).?The summary and major research results section in Chapter 5 does not summarize adequately the entire study from background to results so that the reader grasps the entire study without referring to previous chapters.?The conclusions section in Chapter 5 does not provide strong, clear, and concise conclusions (as opposed to subjective opinions) that emerge from a thoughtful and critical reflection of the integration of the study results, analysis, interpretation, and synthesis.?The interpretation of results section in Chapter 5 does not explain adequately the results and conclusions that emerged from the study, does not relate those interpretations to both the purpose of the study and to published results from other studies examined in the literature review, and/or does not explores ideas and possibilities from a subjective perspective.?The implications section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately implications related to theory development, research, practice, education and training, and/or educational policy.?The implications section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately unexpected study outcomes.?The suggestions for future research section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately suggestions for future research framed as topics, issues, problems, or questions for future studies.?The limitations and reflexivity section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately issues with the research design (e.g., sampling, measurement, application of an intervention, data analysis, etc.) that may have affected the reliability of the results and how they may have done so.?The limitations and reflexivity section in Chapter 5 does not discuss adequately what was learned as a person, a professional, and a scholar; what can be done differently in the research process after going through the study; knowledge, inspiration, and insights gained; what has been learned conceptually as a writer and a thinker; lessons learned from undertaking the study; and approaches that worked or did not work and reasons for same.?The chapter summary in Chapter 5 does not adequately tie all of the preceding sections together and offer final comments about significance and implications or possible transferability of the results/findings.?The appendix does not contain all of the documents that should be provided.Appendix G2UWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC)Manuscript Review Long Form—Qualitative StudyStudent Name: Click here to enter text.Date: Click here to enter a date.Chairperson: Click here to enter text.Members: Click here to enter text.? Chapter(s)? Proposal? Dissertation? Predefense? Postdefense? First Review? Second Review? Third Review? Fourth or moreGeneral Comments: The items checked (?) are issues with formatting, referencing, writing style, and/or research design that trend throughout the manuscript. Critical errors are checked and highlighted in yellow (?). These errors must be addressed for you to obtain clearance for graduation. Please confer with your committee to address all of the issues noted in this review form (not just the critical errors) before resubmitting the manuscript to the DSQAC. Ultimately, you are responsible for making all revisions and for producing a dissertation of publishable quality.Note: Only checked boxes indicate areas of concern.If additional notes are provided at the bottom of the form, address all of the notes and the checked boxes.Issues with formatting:? The title page is not formatted properly.? The title is not stated in 12 words or less.? The signature page is not formatted properly.? The dedication page is not formatted properly.? The acknowledgments page is not formatted properly.? The table of contents page is not formatted properly.? The list of tables and/or list of figures pages are not formatted properly.? The abstract is not formatted properly.? Sections within each chapter do not include all of the headings outlined in the Structural Guidelines for the particular research design.? Times New Roman, 12 point font, is not used consistently throughout.? Margins are not 1” on all sides throughout.? Page numbering is not correct throughout.? Line spacing is not double spaced throughout.? Spacing following punctuation at the end of a sentence is not consistent.? Block quote formatting is not used consistently for direct quotes with 40 or more words.? Textural stylistic choices, such as treatment of numbers, abbreviations, acronyms, ellipses, hyphenations, etc., do not conform to the APA style manual.? The Oxford comma is not used consistently throughout.? The terms being defined in the definitions of terms section in Chapter 1 are not formatted as level three headings.? Headings and subheadings are not formatted properly throughout.? Sections contain single subheadings (two or more are required for each level).? The findings in Chapter 4 are not organized under headings according to hypotheses, research questions, themes, or other appropriate organizational schemes, using tables and figures where appropriate.? Tables (including headings) in the text are not formatted properly.? Tables are not placed correctly in the text.? Figures (including headings) in the text are not formatted properly.? Figures are not placed correctly in the text.? Large gaps (white space) occur in the text following tables and figures.? In-text references are not formatted properly.? References in the reference list are not formatted properly.? References in the reference list to journal articles do not contain a doi or journal homepage URL.? References in the reference list are not alphabetized.? Each appendix is not referenced clearly in the text.? Each appendix does not contain a header page.? The appendices are not placed in the order referenced in the text.? Click here to enter text.Issues with referencing:? Numerous statements of fact are not referenced.? Discussions related to application of theory, methodology, or methods do not include appropriate references.? Figures (or tables) created by others or adapted from others’ work are not referenced properly (including copyright information).? Written permission to use and/or reprint preexisting survey instruments or survey items was not referenced and included in the appendix.? References used to support contemporary claims are outdated.? Resources used as references are not credible, scholarly sources.? References are being overused.? References do not support the claim for which they are cited.? Too many secondary or tertiary sources are used.? All references in the text do not appear in the reference list.? All references in the reference list do not appear in the text.? Click here to enter text.Issues with writing style:? The manuscript does not provide adequate contextual information about the topic for a global, cross-disciplinary audience of scholars.? Discussions do not occur in an order that promotes the logical flow of ideas.? The manuscript contains significant typographical and/or grammatical and/or punctuation errors.? Paragraphs need to be revised for proper paragraph format.? Discussions are not organized, clear, and concise.? Transitional devises are not used for smoothness of expression or are not used appropriately.? Too many overgeneralizations are made without any empirical evidence to support them.? The writing style is too conversational.? Some word choices are inaccurate or inappropriate.? Numerous sentences use passive voice, often without a clear subject, which severely weakens the readability of the manuscript.? Many sentences or passages are repeated verbatim (or nearly so) throughout the manuscript.? Terminology specific to the topic, theories, and methodology is not operationalized within the text as they are introduced.? Inappropriate verbs tenses are used throughout.? Direct quotations are overused.? Direct quotations do not include a lead-in phrase or clause.? Personal pronouns without an immediate referent are used inappropriately throughout.? Relative pronouns are used inappropriately.? Subordinate conjunctions are used inappropriately.? Many sentences lack parallel construction.? Anthropomorphism occurs throughout.? Statements reflecting personal opinion, personal perspectives, and/or bias or judgment occur frequently in the manuscript.? Tone is not objective and neutral, but rather suggests that the researcher is advocating a personal perspective or agenda.? Click here to enter text.Issues with research design:? The title does not summarize accurately the main idea of the study.? The abstract does not summarize comprehensively in 250 words or less the elements of the study using key words for indexing.? The introduction to Chapter 1 does not present the specific problem under study clearly and concisely, describe the research strategy, state the thesis, and provide a roadmap of the chapter contents for the reader.? The background statement in Chapter 1 does not provide an accurate and thorough context for the problem under study.? The problem statement in Chapter 1 does not identify clearly and thoroughly a contemporary problem in education that the researcher seeks to address.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 does not align with the problem under study.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 is not stated clearly and concisely in one or two sentences.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 does not include the central phenomenon explored in the study and its parameters, the participants in the study, the research site, and the specific methodological design.? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the whole theory, its history, its refinement, its disciplinary context (within and outside educational research), and each of its constructs (individually and interrelationally).? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not include a justification for its use in the study.? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not indicate clearly how the theory is being used to frame the study.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 do(es) not align with the problem, purpose, and theory.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 is/are not stated clearly and concisely.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 do(es) not include the study population.? An overview of the methodology and methods was not included in Chapter 1.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the overall methodology and the particular subtype chosen.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not include a justification for the use of the methodology and subtype in the study.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the methods used (or that will be used) to collect and analyze the data.? The assumptions section in Chapter 1 does not discuss clearly and thoroughly any/all assumptions the researcher has made about the problem, phenomenon, population, or participants.? The delimitations and limitations section in Chapter 1 does not include a discussion of all of the delimitations and limitations in the study.? The delimitations and limitations section in Chapter 1 does not discuss thoroughly why the delimitations were chosen and how the limitations might affect the data.? The significance statement in Chapter 1 does not align with the problem and purpose of the study.? The significance statement in Chapter 1 does not discuss clearly and concisely how the study might add to the body of knowledge, develop theory, or affect policy or practice in a meaningful way.? The definition of terms section in Chapter 1 does not include all of the terms that should be defined or operationalized.?The definitions of terms in Chapter 1 are not stated briefly, clearly, concisely, and concretely.?The definitions of terms in Chapter 1 do not include references to scholarly literature.?The organization of the study in Chapter 1 does not summarize clearly and concisely the contents of the entire manuscript (all 5 chapters, even if a proposal).?The chapter summary for Chapter 1 does not summarize clearly and accurately the contents of the chapter and/or does not show how the study elements align.?The introduction to Chapter 2 does not summarize clearly and concisely the chapter contents, state the purpose of the study, and/or justify the use of the theory in relation to the research question(s).?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not identify and discuss all of the central issues and subissues related to the topic/problem?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not analyze and synthesize appropriately the empirical literature related to the theory and the topic under study.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not use a minimum of 40-60 primary, empirical sources that are no more than five years old to support the discussions.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not explain thoroughly the genesis of the theory/model/concept, its disciplinary context, its constructs, its refinement, its application and testing by other scholars, and any criticisms and rebuttal in the field.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not analyze and synthesize appropriately the empirical literature related to the theory/model/concept.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not rely mainly for support on primary sources, the majority of which are empirical research studies.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not reference contemporary sources regarding the current state of knowledge about the theory.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not demonstrate the researcher’s ability to analyze, synthesize, and discuss the relevant literature in the field with depth and breadth.?Chapter 3 does not contain all of the necessary components listed in the “Structural Guidelines” for the type of methodology chosen.?The introduction to Chapter 3 does not summarize clearly and concisely the chapter contents and reiterate the purpose statement and research questions exactly as framed in Chapter 1.?The research design section of Chapter 3 does not identify clearly the overall methodology and the subtype being used and/or does not explain clearly their strengths and weaknesses and/or does not justify their use to achieve the purpose of the study.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not identify clearly the site for the study or how the researcher gained (or will gain) access to the site and the participants.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately the choice of site in relation to the study population and the problem identified.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the characteristics of the site, such as demographics, size, student-teacher ratio, poverty, etc. (as applicable).?The participants section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the participants’ age, gender, educational attainment, length of service, and other critical, applicable information that gives a general idea about the participants.?The participant selection section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the participant selection process, including a justification of how the process relates to the study.?The ethical issues/permissions section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the ethical issues that might arise from the study and how the issues were (or will be) addressed.?The ethical issues/permissions section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the permissions used in the study, including a justification of how they relate to the study (e.g., informed consent, UWF IRB approval, site IRB approval, co-investigator qualifications and approval).?The section on data sources in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately all of the sources from which the data (data sources) was or will be obtained (i.e., interviews, observation, archival data, etc.); and/or does not explain adequately the advantages and disadvantages of such sources, including how the disadvantages were or will be addressed; and/or does not explain adequately why these sources of data are critical for this study.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately any/all research protocols/instrumentation used (or intended to be used) in the study, the length of time for their completion, and major topics or theory constructs the questions or items cover.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately how the instrument/protocol relates to the study.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately whether and to what extent a preexisting instrument/protocol or items was/were modified or adapted for use in the study.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not indicate that written permission to use and reprint a preexisting instrument/protocol (or items therefrom) was obtained from the original developer and/or does not include the written authorization in the appendix.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately previous efforts by scholars to establish the validity of a preexisting instrument/protocol or items (e.g., face validity, content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity).?The field testing section (if applicable) in Chapter 3 does not report adequately the methods used to pilot test an instrument, including design, sampling, data collection procedures, data analysis, results/findings, and lessons learned and changes adopted for use in the main study.?The field testing section (if applicable) in Chapter 3 does not report adequately the methods used to establish face and construct validity (e.g., expert review or pilot sampling) of a new or adapted protocol.?The section on data collection procedures in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately all of the data collection procedures prior to, during, and after the study, using a step-by-step description of how the data collection originated and concluded (i.e., indicated by time frame(s), places, etc.).?The section on data collection procedures in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately how and why the data collection procedures relate to the study.?The researcher positionality section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the lens through which the researcher interpreted the social world and the manner in which the researcher’s background influenced data collection and analyses (e.g., gender, race, class, other socially significant dimensions).?The section on ensuring trustworthiness in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the techniques that were (or will be) used to ensure trustworthiness and rigor in the study design, specifically credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.?The data analysis section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the coding process that was or will be used for developing the themes and patterns.?The data analysis section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the specific steps that were or will be taken if analyzing data using qualitative analysis software (e.g., NVivo, CAQDAS, MAXQD).?The introduction to Chapter 4 does not restate the purpose of the study and the research questions/hypotheses and/or does not describe adequately the rationale for the manner in which data were analyzed and/or does not explain adequately whether the chapter is organized according to thematic categories, hypotheses, research questions, or conceptual framework.?The sample description section in Chapter 4 does not identify and describe adequately the demographics of the participants (e.g., gender, age, experience, etc.).?The presentation of the results section in Chapter 4 does not present and analyze adequately in a narrative form the findings that flow logically from the problem, research questions, and design, organized by themes, categories, or patterns.?The presentation of the results section in Chapter 4 does not describe the results adequately using verbatim quotes and thick description as an index of quality.?The presentation of the results section in Chapter 4 inappropriately strings together a series of quotes without adequate commentary and substantive explanations.?Tables and/or figures in Chapter 4 do not simplify clearly the large amounts of information presented from the findings in a manner that facilitates comprehension of the data.?The presentation of the results section in Chapter 4 does not identify and describe adequately unexpected data, inconsistencies, or discrepant data.?The analysis and synthesis section in Chapter 4 does not distinguish adequately between factual information and interpretation/evaluation.?The analysis and synthesis section in Chapter 4 does not apply adequately in an integrative manner the techniques identified in Chapter 3 that were used to ensure credibility and rigor.?The analysis and synthesis section in Chapter 4 does not compare emergent patterns in the data against the literature, theoretical framework, and/or conceptual framework for contradictions, confirmations, new scholarship, and extensions of existing scholarship.?The introduction to Chapter 5 does not summarize adequately the chapter’s organization and content (e.g., the summary of the study; important conclusions drawn from the data presented in Chapter 4; implications for theory, practice and/or policy; suggestions for future research; and reflections from the field).?The summary and major research findings section in Chapter 5 does not summarize adequately the entire study from background to findings so that the reader grasps the entire study without referring to previous chapters.?The conclusions section in Chapter 5 does not provide strong, clear, and concise conclusions (as opposed to subjective opinions) that emerge from a thoughtful and critical reflection of the integration of the study findings, analysis, interpretation, and synthesis.?The interpretation of results section in Chapter 5 does not explain adequately the results and conclusions that emerged from the study, does not relate those interpretations to both the purpose of the study and to published results from other studies examined in the literature review, and/or does not explores ideas and possibilities from a subjective perspective.?The implications section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately implications related to theory development, research, practice, education and training, and/or educational policy.?The implications section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately unexpected study outcomes.?The suggestions for future research section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately suggestions for future research framed as topics, issues, problems, or questions for future studies.?The limitations and reflexivity section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately issues with the research design (e.g., sampling, measurement, application of an intervention, data analysis, etc.) that may have affected the reliability of the results and how they may have done so.?The limitations and reflexivity section in Chapter 5 does not discuss adequately what was learned as a person, a professional, and a scholar; what can be done differently in the research process after going through the study; knowledge, inspiration, and insights gained; what has been learned conceptually as a writer and a thinker; lessons learned from undertaking the study; and approaches that worked or did not work and reasons for same.?The chapter summary in Chapter 5 does not adequately tie all of the preceding sections together and offer final comments about significance and implications or possible transferability of the results/findings.?The appendix does not contain all of the documents that should be provided.Appendix G3UWF Doctoral Support and Quality Assurance Center (DSQAC) Manuscript Review Long Form—Mixed Methods StudyStudent Name: Click here to enter text.Date: Click here to enter a date.Chairperson: Click here to enter text.Members: Click here to enter text.? Chapter(s)? Proposal? Dissertation? Predefense? Postdefense? First Review? Second Review? Third Review? Fourth or moreGeneral Comments: The items checked (?) are issues with formatting, referencing, writing style, and/or research design that trend throughout the manuscript. Critical errors are checked and highlighted in yellow (?). These errors must be addressed for you to obtain clearance for graduation. Please confer with your committee to address all of the issues noted in this review form (not just the critical errors) before resubmitting the manuscript to the DSQAC. Ultimately, you are responsible for making all revisions and for producing a dissertation of publishable quality.Note: Only checked boxes indicate areas of concern.If additional notes are provided at the bottom of the form, address all of the notes and the checked boxes.Issues with formatting:? The title page is not formatted properly.? The title is not stated in 12 words or less.? The signature page is not formatted properly.? The dedication page is not formatted properly.? The acknowledgments page is not formatted properly.? The table of contents page is not formatted properly.? The list of tables and/or list of figures pages are not formatted properly.? The abstract is not formatted properly.? Sections within each chapter do not include all of the headings outlined in the Structural Guidelines for the particular research design.? Times New Roman, 12 point font, is not used consistently throughout.? Margins are not 1” on all sides throughout.? Page numbering is not correct throughout.? Line spacing is not double spaced throughout.? Spacing following punctuation at the end of a sentence is not consistent.? Block quote formatting is not used consistently for direct quotes with 40 or more words.? Textural stylistic choices, such as treatment of numbers, abbreviations, acronyms, ellipses, hyphenations, etc., do not conform to the APA style manual.? The Oxford comma is not used consistently throughout.? The terms being defined in the definitions of terms section in Chapter 1 are not formatted as level three headings.? Headings and subheadings are not formatted properly throughout.? Sections contain single subheadings (two or more are required for each level).? The findings in Chapter 4 are not organized under headings according to hypotheses, research questions, themes, or other appropriate organizational schemes, using tables and figures where appropriate.? Tables (including headings) in the text are not formatted properly.? Tables are not placed correctly in the text.? Figures (including headings) in the text are not formatted properly.? Figures are not placed correctly in the text.? Large gaps (white space) occur in the text following tables and figures.? In-text references are not formatted properly.? References in the reference list are not formatted properly.? References in the reference list to journal articles do not contain a doi or journal homepage URL.? References in the reference list are not alphabetized.? Each appendix is not referenced clearly in the text.? Each appendix does not contain a header page.? The appendices are not placed in the order referenced in the text.? Click here to enter text.Issues with referencing:? Numerous statements of fact are not referenced.? Discussions related to application of theory, methodology, or methods do not include appropriate references.? Figures (or tables) created by others or adapted from others’ work are not referenced properly (including copyright information).? Written permission to use and/or reprint preexisting survey instruments or survey items was not referenced and included in the appendix.? References used to support contemporary claims are outdated.? Resources used as references are not credible, scholarly sources.? References are being overused.? References do not support the claim for which they are cited.? Too many secondary or tertiary sources are used.? All references in the text do not appear in the reference list.? All references in the reference list do not appear in the text.? Click here to enter text.Issues with writing style:? The manuscript does not provide adequate contextual information about the topic for a global, cross-disciplinary audience of scholars.? Discussions do not occur in an order that promotes the logical flow of ideas.? The manuscript contains significant typographical and/or grammatical and/or punctuation errors.? Paragraphs need to be revised for proper paragraph format.? Discussions are not organized, clear, and concise.? Transitional devises are not used for smoothness of expression or are not used appropriately.? Too many overgeneralizations are made without any empirical evidence to support them.? The writing style is too conversational.? Some word choices are inaccurate or inappropriate.? Numerous sentences use passive voice, often without a clear subject, which severely weakens the readability of the manuscript.? Many sentences or passages are repeated verbatim (or nearly so) throughout the manuscript.? Terminology specific to the topic, theories, and methodology is not operationalized within the text as they are introduced.? Inappropriate verbs tenses are used throughout.? Direct quotations are overused.? Direct quotations do not include a lead-in phrase or clause.? Personal pronouns without an immediate referent are used inappropriately throughout.? Relative pronouns are used inappropriately.? Subordinate conjunctions are used inappropriately.? Many sentences lack parallel construction.? Anthropomorphism occurs throughout.? Statements reflecting personal opinion, personal perspectives, and/or bias or judgment occur frequently in the manuscript.? Tone is not objective and neutral, but rather suggests that the researcher is advocating a personal perspective or agenda.? Click here to enter text.Issues with research design:? The title does not summarize accurately the main idea of the study.? The abstract does not summarize comprehensively in 250 words or less the elements of the study using key words for indexing.? The introduction to Chapter 1 does not present the specific problem under study clearly and concisely, describe the research strategy, state the thesis, and provide a roadmap of the chapter contents for the reader.? The background statement in Chapter 1 does not provide an accurate and thorough context for the problem under study.? The problem statement in Chapter 1 does not identify clearly and thoroughly a contemporary problem in education that the researcher seeks to address.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 does not align with the problem under study.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 is not stated clearly and concisely in one or two sentences.? The purpose statement in Chapter 1 does not include the central phenomenon explored in the study and its parameters, the participants in the study, the research site, and the specific methodological design.? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the whole theory, its history, its refinement, its disciplinary context (within and outside educational research), and each of its constructs (individually and interrelationally).? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not include a justification for its use in the study.? The overview of the theoretical (or conceptual) framework section in Chapter 1 does not indicate clearly how the theory is being used to frame the study.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 do(es) not align with the problem, purpose, and theory.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 is/are not stated clearly and concisely.? The research question(s) in Chapter 1 do(es) not include the study population.? Null and alternative hypothes(e)s are not included with quantitative research question(s).? An overview of the methodology and methods was not included in Chapter 1.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the overall methodology and the particular subtype chosen.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not include a justification for the use of the methodology and subtype in the study.? The overview of the methodology and methods section in Chapter 1 does not summarize accurately and thoroughly the methods used (or that will be used) to collect and analyze the data.? The assumptions section in Chapter 1 does not discuss clearly and thoroughly any/all assumptions the researcher has made about the problem, phenomenon, population, or participants.? The delimitations and limitations section in Chapter 1 does not include a discussion of all of the delimitations and limitations in the study.? The delimitations and limitations section in Chapter 1 does not discuss thoroughly why the delimitations were chosen and how the limitations might affect the data.? The significance statement in Chapter 1 does not align with the problem and purpose of the study.? The significance statement in Chapter 1 does not discuss clearly and concisely how the study might add to the body of knowledge, develop theory, or affect policy or practice in a meaningful way.? The definitions of terms section in Chapter 1 does not include all of the terms that should be defined or operationalized.?The definitions of terms in Chapter 1 are not stated briefly, clearly, concisely, and concretely.?The definitions of terms in Chapter 1 do not include references to scholarly literature.? The definitions of measures and variables section in Chapter 1 does not include all of the terms that should be defined or operationalized.? The definitions of measures and variables in Chapter 1 are not stated briefly, clearly, concisely, and concretely.? The definitions of measures and variables in Chapter 1 do not include references to scholarly literature.?The organization of the study in Chapter 1 does not summarize clearly and concisely the contents of the entire manuscript (all 5 chapters, even if a proposal).?The chapter summary for Chapter 1 does not summarize clearly and accurately the contents of the chapter and/or does not show how the study elements align.?The introduction to Chapter 2 does not summarize clearly and concisely the chapter contents, state the purpose of the study, and/or justify the use of the theory in relation to the research question(s).?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not identify and discuss all of the central issues and subissues related to the topic/problem?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not analyze and synthesize appropriately the empirical literature related to the theory and the topic under study.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the topic/problem does not use a minimum of 40-60 primary, empirical sources that are no more than five years old to support the discussions.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not explain thoroughly the genesis of the theory/model/concept, its disciplinary context, its constructs, its refinement, its application and testing by other scholars, and any criticisms and rebuttal in the field.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not analyze and synthesize appropriately the empirical literature related to the theory/model/concept.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not rely mainly for support on primary sources, the majority of which are empirical research studies.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not reference contemporary sources regarding the current state of knowledge about the theory.?The literature review in Chapter 2 related to the theoretical or conceptual framework does not demonstrate the researcher’s ability to analyze, synthesize, and discuss the relevant literature in the field with depth and breadth.?Chapter 3 does not contain all of the necessary components listed in the “Structural Guidelines” for the type of methodology chosen.?The introduction to Chapter 3 does not summarize clearly and concisely the chapter contents and reiterate the purpose statement and research questions/hypotheses exactly as framed in Chapter 1.?The research design section of Chapter 3 does not identify clearly the overall methodology and the subtype being used and/or does not explain clearly their strengths and weaknesses and/or does not justify their use to achieve the purpose of the study.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not identify clearly the site for the study or how the researcher gained (or will gain) access to the site and the participants.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately the choice of site in relation to the study population and the problem identified.?The site selection section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the characteristics of the site, such as demographics, size, student-teacher ratio, poverty, etc. (as applicable).?The description of the population section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the characteristics of the overall population in which the problem manifests, providing the reader a frame of reference upon which to compare the adequacy and representativeness of the sample population, even if the research design does not promote generalization to a larger population.?The description of the sample and participants section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the characteristics of both the quantitative sample and the qualitative participants (i.e., participant age, gender, educational attainment, length of service, and critical applicable information).?The description of the sample and participants section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the sample size needed, a power analysis, the sampling frame, the target sample, etc.?The description of the sample and participants section in Chapter 3 does not explain adequately what makes the quantitative sample representative of the population. ?The participant sampling and selection section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the participant selection process for both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the study (e.g., the specific type of sampling used, the number of individuals included and their location, why the particular number and the unit of analysis were selected, the criteria used for inclusion in the sample, and a step-by-step account of how the sample was selected or will be selected).?The participant sampling and selection section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately how the two components will be (or were) integrated through sampling.?The ethical issues/permissions section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the ethical issues that might arise from the study and how the issues were (or will be) addressed.?The ethical issues/permissions section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the permissions used in the study, including a justification of how they relate to the study (e.g., informed consent, UWF IRB approval, site IRB approval, co-investigator qualifications and approval).?The section on data sources in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately all of the sources from which the data (data sources) was or will be obtained (i.e., interviews, observation, surveys, existing data sets, etc.); and/or does not explain adequately the advantages and disadvantages of such sources, including how the disadvantages were or will be addressed; and/or does not explain adequately why these sources of data are critical for this study.?The section on data sources in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the integration of data through building.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately any/all research protocols/instrumentation used (or intended to be used) in the study, the length of time for their completion, and major topics or theory constructs the questions or items cover.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately how the instrument/protocol relates to the study.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately whether and to what extent a preexisting instrument/protocol or items was/were modified or adapted for use in the study.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not indicate that written permission to use and reprint a preexisting instrument/protocol (or items therefrom) was obtained from the original developer and/or does not include the written authorization in the appendix.?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately previous efforts by scholars to establish the reliability of a preexisting instrument/protocol or items (e.g., rationale equivalent reliability, equivalent-forms reliability, scorer/rater reliability, test-retest reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, etc.) and/or does not provide the applicable reliability coefficient(s).?The research protocols/instrumentation section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately previous efforts by scholars to establish the validity of a preexisting instrument/protocol or items (e.g., face validity, content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity) and/or does not provide the applicable validity index.?The field/pilot testing section (if applicable) in Chapter 3 does not report adequately the methods used to pilot test an instrument, including design, sampling, data collection procedures, data analysis, results/findings, and lessons learned and changes adopted for use in the main study.?The field/pilot testing section (if applicable) in Chapter 3 does not report adequately the methods used to establish the reliability (e.g., interrater reliability procedures, criteria for judging competence, how agreements were assessed, percentage of data checked for agreement, and statistics used to calculate agreements) and/or the validity (e.g., expert review, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, etc.) of a new or adapted instrument/protocol.?The section on data collection procedures in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately all of the data collection procedures prior to, during, and after the study, using a step-by-step description of how the data collection originated and concluded (i.e., indicated by time frame(s), places, etc.).?The section on data collection procedures in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the plan for merging data for analysis.?The section on data collection procedures in Chapter 3 does not justify adequately how and why the data collection procedures relate to the study.?The researcher positionality section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the lens through which the researcher interpreted the social world and the manner in which the researcher’s background influenced data collection and analyses (e.g., gender, race, class, other socially significant dimensions).?The research validity section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the potential threats to internal and design validity in the quantitative portion of the study, the potential issues each threat poses, and the researcher’s plan to address each of the threats in the study design.?The section on ensuring trustworthiness in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the techniques that were (or will be) used to ensure trustworthiness and rigor in the quantitative portion of the study design, specifically credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.?The data analysis techniques section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the statistical model(s) that were (or will be) used to analyze the quantitative data and/or does not explain why this/these model(s) is/are the most appropriate based on the research questions and purpose of the study. ?The data analysis techniques section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately all steps that will be (or were) taken to detect anomalies in the quantitative data (e.g., outliers, missing data, data outside categorical parameters, etc.) and that will be (or were) used to treat or clean the quantitative data in an ethically appropriate manner (e.g., to remove outliers, treat missing values, etc.) before analysis.?The data analysis techniques section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the critical assumptions that must be met to use the statistical model(s), the techniques that will be (or were) used to determine whether the assumptions will be (or were) met, the step-by-step process for employing those techniques, any ethically appropriate techniques that will be (or were) used to transform the data to eliminate any violation of critical assumptions, and any alternative statistical model(s) that may be used if the quantitative data violate critical assumptions.?The data analysis techniques section in Chapter 3 does not explain adequately the specific steps that were (or will be) taken to analyze the quantitative data, including the steps taken if analyzing data using quantitative analysis software (e.g., SPSS).?The data analysis techniques section in Chapter 3 does not identify and describe adequately the coding process that was (or will be) used for developing the themes and patterns in the qualitative portion of the study, including the steps taken if analyzing data using qualitative analysis software (e.g., NVivo, CAQDAS, MAXQD).?The data analysis techniques section in Chapter 3 does not describe adequately the methods for integrating data from each component of the design.?The introduction to Chapter 4 does not restate the purpose of the study and the research questions/hypotheses and/or does not describe adequately the rationale for the manner in which data were analyzed and/or does not explain adequately whether the chapter is organized according to thematic categories, hypotheses, research questions, or conceptual framework.?The sample and participant description section in Chapter 4 does not identify and describe adequately the demographics of the participants in both portions of the study (e.g., gender, age, experience, etc.).?The data preparation section in Chapter 4 does not summarize adequately how the data were prepared and analyzed.?The presentation of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not present the quantitative results such that they flow logically from the problem, research questions, and design.?The presentation of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not present and analyze adequately the qualitative findings that flow logically from the problem, research questions, and design, organized by themes, categories, or patterns.?The presentation of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not describe the qualitative findings adequately using verbatim quotes and thick description as an index of quality.?The presentation of results and findings section in Chapter 4 inappropriately strings together a series of quotes from the qualitative data without adequate commentary and substantive explanations.?The presentation of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not integrate the results and findings adequately using narrative, transformation, or joint displays.?The presentation of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not identify and describe adequately unexpected data, inconsistencies, or discrepant data in either or both portions of the study.?Tables and/or figures in Chapter 4 do not simplify clearly the large amounts of information presented from the findings in a manner that facilitates comprehension of the data.?The analysis of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not analyze and synthesize adequately the quantitative results and qualitative findings in light of the hypotheses, research questions, literature review, theoretical framework and/or conceptual framework and/or does not demonstrate a deep understanding of what the results/findings really mean and what lies beneath them.?The analysis of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does discuss adequately whether the integrated data resulted in confirmation, expansion, or discordant data.?The analysis of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not distinguish adequately between factual information and interpretation/evaluation regarding the qualitative findings.?The analysis of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not apply adequately in an integrative manner the techniques identified in Chapter 3 that were used to ensure credibility and trustworthiness in both aspects of the study.?The analysis of results and findings section in Chapter 4 does not compare emergent patterns in the data against the literature, theoretical framework, and/or conceptual framework for contradictions, confirmations, new scholarship, and extensions of existing scholarship.?The introduction to Chapter 5 does not summarize adequately the chapter’s organization and content (e.g., the summary of the study; important conclusions drawn from the data presented in Chapter 4; implications for theory, practice and/or policy; suggestions for future research; and reflections from the field).?The summary and major results and findings section in Chapter 5 does not summarize adequately the entire study from background to findings so that the reader grasps the entire study without referring to previous chapters.?The conclusions section in Chapter 5 does not provide strong, clear, and concise conclusions (as opposed to subjective opinions) that emerge from a thoughtful and critical reflection of the integration of the study findings, analysis, interpretation, and synthesis.?The interpretation of results and findings section in Chapter 5 does not explain adequately the results/findings and conclusions that emerged from the study, does not relate those interpretations to both the purpose of the study and to published results/findings from other studies examined in the literature review, and/or does not explores ideas and possibilities from a subjective perspective.?The implications section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately implications related to theory development, research, practice, education and training, and/or educational policy.?The implications section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately unexpected study outcomes.?The suggestions for future research section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately suggestions for future research framed as topics, issues, problems, or questions for future studies.?The limitations and reflexivity section in Chapter 5 does not identify and describe adequately issues with the research design (e.g., sampling, measurement, application of an intervention, data analysis, etc.) that may have affected the reliability of the results/findings and how they may have done so.?The limitations and reflexivity section in Chapter 5 does not discuss adequately what was learned as a person, a professional, and a scholar; what can be done differently in the research process after going through the study; knowledge, inspiration, and insights gained; what has been learned conceptually as a writer and a thinker; lessons learned from undertaking the study; and approaches that worked or did not work and reasons for same.?The chapter summary in Chapter 5 does not adequately tie all of the preceding sections together and offer final comments about significance and implications or possible transferability of the results/findings.?The appendix does not contain all of the documents that should be provided.Appendix HAnnouncement of Final Dissertation DefenseStudent’s Name: Dissertation Title: Specialization: Date of Defense: Time of Defense: Venue: Bldg. Room Committee MembersRole1. 2. 3. 4. Copies to:CEPS Communication DirectorEd.D. Program OfficeAppendix IFinal Format Review Checklist for DissertationsBefore submitting your dissertation to your Graduate School UWF Thesis/Dissertation Reader, use this checklist to verify that your dissertation meets all requirements and contains no errors. Dissertations with excessive errors will be returned to the student without review, and graduation could be delayed if a corrected version is resubmitted after the deadline has passed.UWF Dissertation Template RequirementsTitle Page:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Title is ALL CAPS, double-spaced, inverted pyramid style? Full legal name is used? The University of West Florida? Proper department, college, and year are listedSignature Page:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Full Title in ALL CAPS? Title is identical with title on title page? Full legal name is used? Terminal degree (Ed.D., Ph.D.) of all signers listed? Proper names and titles are used for dept., college, university? Date is properly aligned? All signatures in blue or black inkAcknowledgments Page:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Page # is placed in the upper right margin? Acknowledgments is title case, centered, boldface, and spelled correctly? Double space after Acknowledgments? Indent paragraphsTable of Contents Page:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Page # is placed in the upper right margin? Table of Contents is title case, boldface, and centered? Double space after Table of Contents? Proper format for dot leaders is used? All headings and levels in text are listed in Table of Contents and match word for word ? Page #s are correctly matched to textList of Tables Page:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? LIST OF TABLES in ALL CAPS and centered? Double space after LIST OF TABLES? Table numbers aligned on decimal? Page #s are correctly matched to text? Page #s are aligned at right margin? Headings are identical to headings in text? Main words in titles uppercaseList of Figures Page:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? List of Figures is title case, boldface, and centered? Double space after List of Figures? Page #s are correctly matched to text? Page #s are aligned at right margin? Page # is placed in the upper right margin? First sentence of captions are used and are identical to captions in text? Only the first word, proper nouns, acronyms, and first word after colon are uppercaseAbstract:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Page # is placed in the upper right margin? Abstract is title case, boldface, and centered? Double space after Abstract? Dissertation abstract does not exceed 250 wordsReference Pages:? 1.0” top margin on every page? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Page # is placed in the upper right margin? References is in title case, boldface, and centered on first page? Alphabetical order? References in text match those on reference pages (carefully check spelling and year to makesure they are identical)? All references in reference pages are found in the text and cited according to APA (6th ed.)? Every in-text citation has been to checked to verify there are no typos in the authors’ namesand years? All references in references pages are properly formatted according to APA (6th ed.)Appendices:? Each Appendix has separate appendix title page with 1.0” top margin, titles are title case ?The Appendices header page is title case, boldface, and centered? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Page # placed on the upper right margin? Individual appendixes are listed in TOC? Appendixes are referenced in text in order, starting with Appendix ANew Chapter Pages:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Page # is placed in the upper right margin? Chapter title is title case, boldface, and centered ? Double space between heading and textContinuation Pages:? 1.0” top margin? 1.0” left margin? 1.0” right and bottom margins? Page # is placed in the upper right margin .5” from topText:? Double space before headings/subheadings? Double space between heading/subheadings and text? Double space above and below all tables within the text? Double space above and below all figures within the textAppendix JFinal Verification of Dissertation FormatI certify that the dissertation titled submitted by _____________________________ meets the required format specifications(Student’s Name) of UWF Graduate School. The dissertation has been accepted and approved to be uploaded to ProQuest._______________________________________________________UWF Thesis/Dissertation CoordinatorDateCopies to:Director of Doctoral StudiesDSQACDDC Chair ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download