Work 1: Educational Theory Scholarly Essay

Write a scholarly essay that aligns with one of the theories or theoretical concepts introduced in this course.

Choosing a Topic: Look ahead into the course learning module to get a sense of upcoming ideas—don’t feel constrained to explore concepts introduced early in the course. Or explore a related theory or concept of your own choosing that is relevant to the course themes.

Image: Middlescapes

Scholarly Essay vs. Literature Review

Both a Scholarly Essay and a Literature Review rely on scholarly sources.

We do not require students in our LDL Courses to follow the literature review genre for the Work 1 Scholarly Essay, however, we encourage our LDL doctoral students to familiarize themselves with the Literature Review Guidelines during the regular LDL coursework. During your regular coursework, strive to apply at least one principle each time and improve with each work so that you are better-prepared once you enter the Exam-Dissertation Sequence when the literature review genre is enforced.

Scholarly Essay Details

Course and Experiential Alignment

Create two sections prior to your Introduction

  • Course Alignment: How is your topic and selected scholarly sources aligned with the course themes and materials?
  • Experiential Alignment: How is your topic aligned with your personal experience, background, and interests?
Scholarly Sources: Theoretical and Empirical

Your work must be in the form of a narrative scholarly essay that references at least 10 scholarly sources (peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books). Cite at least 2 sources from the list below that you have not used before. For convenience and accuracy, we have provided the APA reference for each of these sources.

Additionally, search and read at least 5 new scholarly sources that you have not previously read or used in this or other courses.  In the references section, you should add an asterisk in front of each new scholarly source. But you still need at least a total of 10.

Outline the theory or define the concept referring to the theoretical and research literature and illustrate the significance of the theory using examples of this concept at work in pedagogical practice, supported by scholarly sources.

Work 1 Requirements

Connection with course ideas: A work must explicitly connect with an idea or reference introduced in the course. You should have a clear mention of the course ideas in your work in the Course Alignment section of your work. Your work should also cite at least two of the works referenced above that you have not used in a previous course (do not repeat things from your individual updates):

Rubric: Use the ‘Knowledge Process Rubric’ against which others will review your work, and against which you will do your self-review at the completion of your final draft. You will find this rubric at the Rubrics for Peer-Reviewed Works page, and also in CGScholar: Creator => Feedback => Reviews => Rubric.

Scholarly Sources:

  • At least 10 scholarly sources overall
  • 2 of the 10 must be from the list above that you have not used in a previous course (indicate these with an asterisk)
  • 5 of the remaining 7 must be new/not used in a previous course (indicate these with an asterisk)

Word length: at least 2,000 words for the main body of the work, not including the experiential and course alignment, introduction, conclusion, and references sections.

Work Elements: Use the CGScholar Structure tool to organize your work

  1. Alignment to Course Themes
  2. Experiential Alignment
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Concepts (with relevant subsections)
  5. Critiques and Limitations
  6. Gaps in the Literature – optional
  7. Conclusion
  8. References

Writing Style: This is considered an academic paper primarily focused on evidence from scholarly sources rather than personal experience or narrative. For LDL Doctoral Students, consider the Literature Review Guidelines

Media: Include at least 7 media elements, such as images, diagrams, infographics, tables, embedded videos, (either uploaded into CGScholar, or embedded from other sites), web links, PDFs, datasets, or other digital media. Be sure these are well integrated into your work. Explain or discuss each media item in the text of your work. You should refer to specific points of the video with time codes or the particular aspects of the media object that you want your readers to focus on. Caption each item sourced from the web with a link and be sure to cite all media sources in the references list.

References: Include a References “element” or section with at least 10 sources (at least 5 must be new scholarly sources) that you have used and referred to in the text, plus any other necessary or relevant references, including websites and media.  You should specifically add an asterisk in front of each new scholarly source that you use, with at least 5 being new sources and at least 2 coming from the list mentioned above. Be sure to follow APA guidelines, including lowercase article titles, uppercase journal titles first letter of each word), and italicized journal titles and volumes (note that copying and pasting into CGScholar does not retain formatting)

Work 1 Examples
  • See a few examples of past submissions in our Scholarly Work 1 Examples community.
  • Note that selected examples may not be perfect, but they should give you a general sense of what we are looking for.
Scholarly Essay Checklist

Is your Work organized?

  1. Experiential Alignment
  2. Course Themes Alignment
  3. Introduction
  4. Theories and/or Key Concepts grouped into themes (one main section per theme and then sub sections as necessary to help organize your work and make it easier to read)
  5. Critiques
  6. Gaps in the Literature (optional)
  7. Conclusion
  8. References

Is your Work long enough?
The main body of your work should be at least 2,000 words. This does not include your experiential, course alignment, introduction, conclusion, or references sections. The main body of the work is where you are relying on the scholarly sources.

?Have you grouped your sources by topic or theories
Do not describe each source individually. In a scholarly essay or literature review it is best to build a case with selected sources by grouping them thematically so that you can analyze, compare and contrast the theories, and that policies and practices in the field you are studying.

Are your ‘claims’ backed up by reference to the literature?
Given that you are presenting what the literature says about a field of study, not what you think or believe, you must cite those authors that actually make and provide the research evidence, theories, frameworks for practice etc. Are all the key ideas, findings and trends presented backed up by multiple sources? Your presentation of a field of scholarship/study in a literature review must be supported by multiple sources to demonstrate the trends, findings or key issues that you have discovered in the literature. You need to make sure that you are aware of the debates and counter arguments associated with your topic as well. In-text citations are key to a good lit review.

Are the voice or voices of the literature coming through?
Check and see that your voice does not dominate. Your voice/opinion is represented by your journey of discovery –the sources you have selected and your analysis of them, including gaps in the literature that you have discovered –not by claims you make; All claims must be cited. The “experiential” part of the rubric does not mean that you must bring in your experience and voice throughout the work, but rather provide context to the topic, mainly in the introduction.

Are you demonstrating what you have learned?
A scholarly essay or literature review does not demonstrate what you know but what you have learned from your analysis of the topic or field.

Have you referenced and synthesized the findings of the scholarly sources?
Be sure to include at least ten (10) scholarly sources. However, you can mention other sources in addition—for instance, popularizations and implementations of ideas on the web, in curricula etc.

Have you identified the gaps in the literature? What work needs to be done?
While optional, the gaps in the literature refers to what additional research should be conducted and not the critiques of the topic itself.

What media has been included?
Do include tables, infographics, videos (target = 7)—but be sure to source them and demonstrate their relevance by connecting to them in the nearby text. Be sure to number them and cite them in captions.

Have you used correct APA styling?
Common things to check:

  • Do not repeat the year of a source when doing an in-text narrative citation (when saying it within a sentence rather than at the end) more than once in the same paragraph – you only need the author (and page number if a direct quote)
  • Article titles should only have the first word (letter) capitalized or a word after a colon
  • Italicize journal titles and volumes and each word is capitalized (note that CGScholar does not retain formatting when you copy and paste, so you will need to manually italicize by using CTRL I)
  • Media is cited properly. If you created the media, cite yourself so that we know it has been acknowledged and not excluded.

General Work Guidelines

How to Start a Work
  • You can start each of your works as soon as you receive a notification via email and/or in the CGScholar notifications.
  • IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A NOTIFICATION BY THE TIMELINE INDICATED ON THE WEEKLY SCHEDULE, PLEASE CONTACT A TA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Those who register late, join the community late, and/or sign up for a Work 2 late risk not having their work automatically assigned. We rely on students to notify us if they have not received a work request.
  • Take the link provided in these notifications to a new, “Untitled” work—this work is connected to other works for peer review.  (Do not create a new work!)
  • Rename your Work to something relevant to your topic (About this work — Info)
  • Add a Work Icon relevant to to your topic (About this work — Info)
Basic Work Elements

The following elements apply to all work types. Refer to a particular Work Type for any additional requirements.

  • Connection with course ideas: Each work must explicitly connect with an idea/concept introduced in the course in some meaningful way. Create two sections prior to your Introduction
    • Course Alignment: How is your topic and selected scholarly sources aligned with the course themes and materials?
    • Experiential Alignment: How is your topic aligned with your personal experience, background, and interests?
  • Title: Change the title of your work from “Untitled” as soon as you can, going to Creator => About this Work => Info => Title (click on the word “Title” to access the Edit icon). Choose a title that would be relevant for publication.
  • Work Icon, Abstract, and Keywords: Insert a work Icon that aligns with your work topic, write an abstract, and add some keywords. (About this work => Info)
  • Headings: Be sure to use the structure tool (Creator => About this Work => Structure) to create at least 5 main sections with subsections and headings. Refer to the Scholar Help page for instructions.
  • Jointly Authored Works: Peer-reviewed projects are by default individually authored works. However, if you want to work with another person on a collaboratively written work, please notify us before the project starts.
  • Sourcing: When you add media in the text (infographics, videos, etc.), be sure to reference their source immediately below (as a caption if an image or as text if a video) and explain or discuss them in the text of your work. Use APA style for the references in the References element. Check the Extended APA Multimedia Citation Guide for more tips.
    • Both Work 1 and Work 2A must cite at least two of the sources mentioned in Admin Update 1B (listed above as well)
  • Media: Number and label your figures and videos. Cite your media according to the guidelines below.
  • Drafts: Draft works need to be as complete and thorough as possible, so your peers can give you meaningful feedback. Do not submit incomplete work for review.
  • Deadlines: Refer to the Weekly Course Schedule for project timelines.
    • If your work is not submitted for Instructor Review or is not revised in response to being sent back by the instructor for major revisions by the end of the term, you will receive an incomplete. Be sure to monitor the dialogue of your work to be informed of required revisions. Your grade can be changed once all minimum requirements are met.
  • Self-Review: Complete an informal self-review prior to submitting your draft version. Then write your official self-review work before you submit your revised work, using the same rubric as you did when reviewing your peers. In the text entry areas, reflect on how you feel your work aligns with the rubric AND how you applied your peers’ feedback. Which peer feedback did you apply and why? How did your thinking evolve from version to version? Write this self-review for the final version of your work that you are about to submit at Creator => Feedback => Reviews => Review Work.
  • Reviewer Feedback: Evaluate your peer reviewers. How helpful was their feedback? What feedback did you apply? What would have been more helpful? What can they do to improve future reviews? Do not copy and paste your feedback; provide something meaningful and specific. DON’T FORGET TO CHOOSE A RATING, as this is commonly overlooked.
  • Red Flags: Do not self-plagiarize, or copy work from updates or other courses. This must be new work. If you notice any problems with a work or the reviews you receive(e.g. plagiarism, offensive reviews), please inform the teaching assistant or instructor in the Confidential Feedback to Admin area in Feedback => Reviews.
Formatting Checklist

As you create and revise your work or complete peer reviews of others’ work, be sure that these items are addressed in order to streamline the instructor review and publication process. Use the print icon in the dark blue bar at the top of your work to check how your work is looking.

About this Work Section and Structure Tool

  1. Title and Icon: Add a brief, yet descriptive title that conveys the topic of your work (and remove reference to Work 1 or Work 2) and add a work icon (About this Work >Info).
  2. Structure: Use the CGScholar Structure tool for sectioning(About this Work >Structure >Add sections). If you have not done this from the start of your drafting (the Structure tool is designed to offer a flexible way to help you think about the overall design of your work), copy and paste into the new sections.
    1. Note that you can create more than one level of subheading by dragging the + icon to the right.
    2. For guidance on this feature, refer to the Scholar job aid found at this link or check the 3.3 Section in the Getting Started in CGScholar Learning Module or the CGScholar Tutorials.
  3. CGScholar does not allow you to paste formatting, such as bold, italics, or lists. Be sure to adjust those if you are copying and pasting from one section to another and/or pasting from another Word processing platform – especially your APA references!

Use of APA Referencing Style

  1. Take a moment to review this web site to guide you with revising your APA citations.
  2. To italicize in CGScholar, use the “emphasis” icon in the toolbar or highlight the text, then use your keyboard to enter CTRL+ i or Command + i) Also, be sure to include journal title/volume/issue/page range even if retrieving from an electronic source.
  3. Media Inclusion and Citation: Be sure to cite all media immediately below each medium and in the references section of your work. Use the caption under each media item to mention (Creator, Year) as per APA requirements for in-text reference to cited works. For videos, just add the in-text reference right below the embed. Be sure that each item is then included in the references list. For extra style tips on citing and referencing multimedia in multimodal works, check the Extended APA Multimedia Citation Guide.
    Then, for the references list, see below for a basic citation format (not all of this information may be available—just include as much as you can, minimally the title or name of the item and the URL):
    • Author, A. A. [Screen name]. (year, month day). Title of video[Video file]. Retrieved from http://xxxxxxxxx
    • Photographer, A. (Photographer). (Year, Month Date of Publication). Title of photograph [digital image]. Retrieved from http://xxxxxxxxx

Formatting Checklist

Peer Review Process and Instructions

Review Assignments

  • You may receive 2-4 review requests per Work project once you have submitted your own draft.
  • The total requirement is 6 review requests distributed during the whole duration of the course.
  • If by the end of the course you have received fewer than 6 review requests, please contact the teaching assistant.
  • If you have received none or one review for your work, please ask the teaching assistant to find additional reviewers for you.

Annotations

  • 5 non-coded annotations: Include at least 5 non-coded annotations. Read your peers’ entire work and annotate it prior to completing the review comments and rating process. In other words, do your detailed analysis before your summary.
  • 15 coded annotations: In addition to non-coded annotations (for typos etc.), make at least 15 coded annotations per work that you review using annotation codes. The rubric has three-letter annotation codes for a number of evaluative criteria. Add to the three letters a “+” (if this is a strong point, a good example, etc.) or a “-“ (if this is a weaker point, a missed opportunity, or a point that could be improved). Be sure there is a good balance of annotations, positive “+” and critical“-“. Always include an explanation for the annotation. For example, “NAM-I don’t think you have defined this term as clearly as you could have. My suggested definition is…”, e.g. see image: 
  • Viewing Annotations from your peers: Once you receive feedback from your peers, you must view the original version (the version you submitted for peer review) In order to see the annotations from your peers. (About this work => Versions).

Review Length and Ratings

  • Reviews should be 200 words or more in total for all the review criteria in each work and should include specific opportunities for improvement and areas of strength that don’t repeat, but support what you wrote in the annotations.
  • Vary the scores across different works in order to highlight their differences.
  • Unlike ride and house sharing, please do not give “five stars” scores on first version unless a work is absolutely superb.
  • Providing constructive feedback is going to be the most helpful to the authors.

Review content

Each work type has a rubric; see each work type for its respective rubric.

Kindness, Helpfulness, and Respect: Be kind to peers in your reviews! Be as helpful as you can, offering them constructive suggestions. Feedback should be unique (not copy/pasted) and be directly relevant to the work under the review section. Comments must be tailored to a specific work. A peer review will typically involve 2-3 hours work.

Review Submission: Wait until you have completed all pending reviews before submitting them. More ideas might come to you while you review another work.

Review the Reviewer: Go to your Work in Creator => Feedback=> Reviews => Results =>Select a Reviewer =>Overall Feedback on Feedback. 200 words or more in total for all the review criteria for each review. Please maintain a constructive tone in your feedback-on-feedback. Don’t forget to provide a rating. This is often overlooked.

Self-Review: Write your self-review work before you submit your revised work, using the same rubric as you did when reviewing your peers. In the text entry areas, reflect on how you feel your work aligns with the rubric AND how you applied your peers’ feedback. Which peer feedback did you apply and why? How did your thinking evolve from version to version? Write this self-review for the final version of your work that you are about to submit at Creator => Feedback => Reviews => Review Work.

Red Flags: Do not self-plagiarize, or copy work from updates or other courses. This must be new work. If you notice any problems with a work or the reviews you receive(e.g. plagiarism, offensive reviews), please inform the teaching assistant or instructor in the Confidential Feedback to Admin area in Feedback => Reviews.

Work Review Process

Each work goes through multiple rounds of review, encouraging improvement with each step. Ideally by the time it reaches the TA or Instructor review, only minimal adjustments will be needed.