California National Do Fitness Trackers Improve Health Research paper As you develop the project, keep in mind that our focus in research is inquiry, not a

California National Do Fitness Trackers Improve Health Research paper As you develop the project, keep in mind that our focus in research is inquiry, not argumentation. Argumentation is a worthy area of study and is a focus of other courses you may take at the university. In your research project, however, your primary goal is to explore your research question with depth and sophistication rather than to persuade an audience of a particular viewpoint. While you will need to propose some sort of answer to your question in the final version of your project, that answer may be tentative. It may, for example, point in the direction of further questions and further research. It may identify contradictions in your research that are at this time irresolvable. Again, in writing this paper, focus on exploring, interpreting, and synthesizing ideas rather than on “defending” a thesis. RESEARCH PROJECT ASSIGNMENT
Explore an ethical or social issue surrounding some aspect of information
technology
FINAL DRAFT SPECIFICATIONS
Do Fitness Trackers Improve Health?
LENGTH
900-1200 words (not including citation page)
FORMAT
Please use APA citation style. (If you are majoring in English, you may use MLA
instead.).
AUDIENCE
Address your paper to a general audience. Your classmates have a wide range of
backgrounds and academic interests; assume this kind of broad readership when you
write your paper. Assume that your readers are not specialists in your topic area. Ideas
must be fully explained and made accessible to a general readership.
SOURCES
Your research should emphasize peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles from the
National University library’s databases. (Be assured that the database search skills you
develop will have applications beyond NU.) Reference as many sources as needed in
order to substantively explore your research question, but no fewer than 4. For
additional guidance, see the source-selection criteria included in the Week 2 Library
Research Report assignment.
The GRADING RUBRIC appears in the final section of this document.
Grading
*Note: Points will be deducted for deviations from assignment
requirements/specifications. Greater deviations will result in greater deductions. Per
course policy, scores of 50% and higher are reserved for submissions that attempt to
meet assignment requirements/specifications.
A
B
C
D
F
Focus is clear,
specific, and
sustained.
Clear and
sustained focus.
Focus is basically clear;
some content may
Focus is unclear and/or
deviate from stated
unsustained.
focus
Lacks focus; lacks
coherence.
Approach is
sophisticated.
Approach is
appropriate to
college-level
research writing
and to the ILR260
project
specifically.
Approach is somewhat
simplistic and/or
somewhat too broad.
Approach is overly
simplistic and/or overly
broad.
Approach
inappropriate to
college-level writing
and/or the assignment
Source selection
meets assignment
requirements;
sources are strong
and skillfully
chosen for direct
relevance and for
the substance and
complexity they
bring to the
inquiry.
Source selection
meets assignment
requirements;
sources are strong
and relevant to the
inquiry.
Sources meet
assignment
requirements. A small
percentage of the
sources may exhibit
problems such as
insufficient currency,
relevancy, or depth.
Source selection suggests
attempt to meet assignment
requirements, but a
significant percentage of
sources exhibit problems
such as insufficient
currency, relevancy, or
depth.
Sources mostly do not
meet assignment
requirements. Many
source-selection
problems.
Source
identification
(Who?) is precise
and smoothly
handled
Source
identification
(Who?) is
competently
handled
Source identification
(Who?) may be
imprecise or awkward
in places
Source identification
(Who?) is imprecise or
awkward, and occasionally
missing
Source identification
(Who?) is mostly
missing, or is mostly
incorrect
Explanation of
source content is
complete (What?
How? So What?),
accurate, and
concise.
Explanation of
source content is
complete (What?
How? So What?)
and accurate.
Explanation of source
content is sufficiently
well-developed and
sufficiently accurate.
Some source content is
misrepresented or is not
sufficiently well-explained.
Most source content is
misrepresented or is
not sufficiently wellexplained.
Good source
Strong source
integration. Paper
integration. Paper demonstrates a
demonstrates
good
sophisticated sense understanding
of when to use a
overall of when to
direct quote versus use a direct quote
a paraphrase
versus a
versus a summary, paraphrase versus
and of how to
a summary, and of
incorporate source how to
material into
incorporate source
sentences and
material into
paragraphs.
sentences and
paragraphs.
Uneven source
integration. For
example, occasional
excess use of direct
quoting, or
incorporation of sources
in ways that are
occasionally unclear or
that make the material
difficult to understand.
Strong synthesis;
paper makes a
contribution to
knowledge
Good synthesis of
ideas
Synthesis is present, but
underdeveloped, or may
take form of an overlyMinimal synthesis
simplistic structure
(such as a pros-andcons summary)
Compiles rather than
synthesizes
Strong
organization
Good organization
Some organizational
problems
Poor organization
Little organization
Clear and wellcrafted transitions
Clear transitions
Some transitions are
unclear, or ill-fitting
Most transitions are
unclear, or ill-fitting
Weak transitions
throughout
Strong conclusion
Good conclusion
Some problems with
the conclusion (for
Significant problems with
example, overly abrupt,
the conclusion.
or not well-aligned with
the body of the project)
Inadequate conclusion
Confidence in use
of Standard
English, language
reflects a practiced
and/or refined
Conveys a good
understanding of
Standard English;
the writer is clear
in his/her attempt
to articulate main
Presence of sentencelevel errors and
awkwardness of
expression, but not of
such frequency and
severity as to
Awkward expression
and sentence-level
errors occur
throughout the paper
Poor source integration.
Overall, paper demonstrates
an inadequate
understanding of when to
use a direct quote versus a
paraphrase versus a
summary, and of how to
incorporate source material
into sentences and
paragraphs.
Awkward expression and
sentence-level errors occur
frequently, often impeding
understanding.
Sources are not
incorporated
effectively in most or
all of the paper.
understanding of
syntax and usage.
Adheres to APA
citation format
(MLA for
arts/humanities
majors)
points, but may
demonstrate
moments of “flat”
or unrefined
language.
Adheres to APA
citation format
(MLA for
arts/humanities
majors);
occasional citation
errors are minor
and at level of
presentation. The
errors would not
prevent a reader
from being able to
connect in-text
and end citations,
or from being able
to independently
track down the
references; and
they would be
unlikely to detract
from the author’s
credibility.
significantly impede
understanding.
Evidence of attempt to
adhere to APA citation
format (MLA for
arts/humanities majors),
but with some errors in
presentation and
content that might
detract from the
author’s credibility or
prevent readers from
being able to
understand or locate
sources.
and significantly
impede understanding.
Insufficient adherence to
APA citation format (MLA
for arts/humanities majors);
significant/communicationimpeding errors in
presentation and content
Major deviations from
APA or MLA citation
format

Purchase answer to see full
attachment