Discussion

Discussion: Frameworks

A theoretical framework (quantitative) or conceptual framework (qualitative) is the lens through which you view and interpret your study. In a Walden capstone study, the framework serves to ground the study in a worldview and body of previous research. This includes naming the theorist, identifying the basic tenets of the theory, and explaining the theory’s relevance and alignment with the capstone’s problem, purpose, and research questions.

For this Discussion, review the following capstone:

Ayres, K. D. (2011). A summative program evaluation of a systemic intervention on student achievement and AP participation (Doctoral dissertation, pp. 18–21). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=dilley

To prepare:

· Review the Capstone Conceptual framework resources.

· Consider whether your study is theoretical or conceptual.

· Apply the Doctoral Capstone Rubrics and checklists to analyze and evaluate the quality of the study.

By Day 3

To complete:

For this Discussion:

· Explain whether this draft meets checklist and Rubric standards.

· Justify your evaluation.

· Use APA style with citations.

By Day 6

Return to the Discussion, and review your colleagues’ posts. Respond to at least two classmates with a substantive, positive comment that is supported from literature or the class readings. Provide at least 2 substantive paragraphs for each response.

RESOURCES :

Single, P. B. (2010). Demystifying dissertation writing: A streamlined process from choice of topic to final text. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

· Chapter 7, “Long Outline With References”

· Section 7.2, “Transforming a One-Page Outline Into a Long Outline (pp. 116–121)

Thomas, G. (2017). How to do your research project: A guide for students (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

· Chapter 4, “Decide on Your Question—Again (pp. 97-102)

Butin, D. W. (2010). The education dissertation: A guide for practitioner scholars. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

· Chapter 4, “Structuring Your Research” (pp. 63–69)