Successful completion of a doctoral dissertation requires significant amounts of independent, critical reading on the research topic. This allows the doctoral researcher to become familiar with the scope of the topic and to identify problem spaces within the existing literature that become the source of the dissertation research. In this assignment, you will engage with a strategy to critically read scholarly literature.

General Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

• Locate the resource "Reading Research" for use with this assignment.
• Locate the six articles to be used for this assignment (Barnett, 2017; Flanigan et al., 2017;
  Marcikic et al., 2016; Paone et al., 2015; Strunk et al., 2017; Sroufe & Gopalakrishna-Remani, 2019) within the Topic 2 resources.
• This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
• While APA style is not required for this assignment, solid academic writing is expected.
• You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Directions:

Complete this assignment using the directions in "Reading Research." Submit a single document that collects your work on all of the requirements presented in the resource.

Rubric info

Reading Research – Rubric Part 1: Relevance of Artifacts 28.5 points Criteria Description Part 1: Relevance of Artifacts 5. 5: Excellent 28.5 points The artifact most relevant to the learner's program and emphasis was correctly identified. All key questions are thoroughly addressed. There is overwhelming evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions. 4. 4: Good 25.94 points The artifact most relevant to the learner's program and emphasis was correctly identified. All key questions are reasonably addressed. There is appropriate evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions. 3. 3: Satisfactory 23.37 points The artifact most relevant to the learner's program and emphasis was correctly identified. All key questions are addressed. There is minimal evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 20.81 points An artifact relevant to the learner's program and emphasis was identified. Key questions from the template are not addressed or are incorrectly addressed. Evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is lacking Part 2: Reading Strategy 57 points Criteria Description Part 2: Reading Strategy 5. 5: Excellent 57 points Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are complete. All key questions are thoroughly addressed. There is overwhelming evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions. 4. 4: Good 51.87 points Collapse All Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are present. All key questions are reasonably
addressed. There is appropriate evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions. 3. 3: Satisfactory 46.74 points Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are present. All key questions are addressed if only in a cursory manner. There is minimal evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection in the treatment of the key questions. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 41.61 points Notes and evidence of engaging with the outlined reading strategy are present but incomplete or illogical. Key questions from the template are not addressed. Evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is lacking. Part 3: Gathering Additional Resources 38 points Criteria Description Part 3: Gathering Additional Resources 5. 5: Excellent 38 points Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is clear. All key questions are fully addressed and display strong evidence of understanding the purpose of the technique. 4. 4: Good 34.58 points Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is present. All key questions are reasonably addressed and display evidence of emerging understanding of the purpose of the technique. 3. 3: Satisfactory 31.16 points Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is present. All key questions are addressed if only in a cursory manner. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 27.74 points Evidence of engaging with the outlined process of gathering additional resources is present but incomplete or inaccurate. Key questions from the template are not addressed. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Part 4: Reflection 47.5 points Criteria Description Part 4: Reflection 5. 5: Excellent 47.5 points A reflection is clear, thorough, and scholarly. Clear evidence
of critical thought is present. The reflection connects directly to the articles read and the reading strategy employed. 4. 4: Good 43.23 points A reflection is present. Clear evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is present. The reflection connects to the articles read and the reading strategy employed. 3. 3: Satisfactory 38.95 points A reflection is cursory. Some evidence of critical thought and scholarly reflection is present. All key questions are addressed if only in a cursory manner. There is a vague connection to the articles read and the reading strategy
employed. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 34.68 points A reflection is present but illogical or unreasoned. Critical thought and scholarly reflection are not evident. Key questions from the template are not addressed. Connection to the articles read and the reading strategy is not evident. Mechanics of Writing 19 points Criteria Description Mechanics of Writing 5. 5: Excellent 19 points Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 4. 4: Good 17.29 points Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of  sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. 3. 3: Satisfactory 15.58 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 13.87 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are