DDHA 8011 Module 2 Discussion: Critical Reading and Scholarly Writing

In her research, Katherine Kirkpatrick (2019) delves into the numerous reasons that doctoral students may struggle with writing for scholarly publication. Several behavioral barriers to writing were clear, including student self-perceptions of being a novice or doubting their contribution to the field will be significant.

A notable emotional barrier for students in the study was “being new to critique.” Doctoral students in the study expressed feeling conflicted, fear of upsetting others, and avoidance. “These emotional responses were not isolated to one aspect of critical feedback. Instead, they were related to receiving feedback, as well as to providing feedback—on both peer and professional levels—and to self-evaluation” (Kirkpatrick, 2019).

While writing for publication in scholarly journals may be in the distant future, writing to interact with your peers is an essential part of your doctoral program and posting in Discussions. Discussions are a primary avenue for this interaction to take place. You may be asked to provide constructive criticism or feedback, which may be challenging at times. In addition, you may have to ask for the same or may receive it without requesting it. You will receive constructive feedback from your Instructor throughout your courses, and receiving and responding to feedback will be an integral part of developing your doctoral capstone.

In this Discussion, you will reflect on your role in providing feedback, constructive criticism, and more information for your peers to consider. Additionally, you will explore the differences between professional writing compared to casual writing and using evidence-based information rather than personal opinion.

To prepare for this Discussion:

• Review the following Learning Resources:
  • Walden University. (2017). Welcome to the writing center, doctoral students!Links to an external site.[Video]. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/start/graduate#s-lg-box-6264236
  • Walden University, LLC. (2020). Introduction to scholarly writing: Finding a scholarly voice [Video]. Walden University Blackboard. https://waldenu.instructure.com

• • Walden University, LLC. (n.d.). Module three: Reading textbooksLinks to an external site. [Interactive media]. Walden University Canvas. https://waldenu.instructure.com
  • Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). APA style: OverviewLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa
  • Walden University Writing Center. (2018). Scholarly voices: Avoiding biasLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarlyvoice/avoidingbias
  • Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Scholarly writing: Overview.Links to an external site. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarly#s-lg-box-2804295
  • Wentworth, H. (2020, February 20). Critical reading for analysis and comparisonLinks to an external site.. Walden Academic Skills. https://waldenacademicskills.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/reading-for-analysis-and-comparison/
  • WUWriting Center. (2017, April 10). Crash course in scholarly writingLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/qDcgyt0WjRg 

By Thursday of Week 4

Write a post in which you reflect on and share your thoughts on each of the following prompts. Be sure to support your opinions with information from the Learning Resources.

• How does integrating evidence-based information into your writing differ from writing using personal opinion?
• What is the difference between constructive feedback and criticism?
• How does the structure and tone of professional writing differ from that of causal writing?

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your peers’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “To Participate in this Discussion” link below which will navigate you to the Discussion Board, then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, so you may wish to draft out in an editor first (e.g. Word). Blank posts will result in a grade reduction. Please check your post carefully before clicking Submit! 

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Sunday of Week 4

Respond to at least two peers. Provide a substantive reply to your peers in one or more of the following ways:

• Share your insight from having read your peers’ posts.
• Expand upon your peers’ comparison of using evidence and opinion.
• Expand upon your peers’ comparison of professional and casual writing.

Be sure to review the responses to your initial post and follow up on your responses to your peers’ posts.

SOLUTION DDHA 8011 Module 2 Discussion: Critical Reading and Scholarly Writing

Hello Class,

Integrating Evidence-Based Information vs. Personal Opinion

Integrating evidence-based information into academic writing represents a fundamental shift from relying on personal opinion. Evidence-based writing demands rigorous adherence to research and factual data, emphasizing credibility and validity (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2023). This approach involves systematic investigation, critical analysis, and synthesis of relevant studies to support arguments. For instance, when discussing the efficacy of a new clinical intervention, one must reference peer-reviewed studies, clinical guidelines, and meta-analyses that demonstrate the intervention’s outcomes. This reliance on empirical data ensures that the conclusions drawn are not only persuasive but also replicable and verifiable by others in the field (Polit & Beck, 2021)…

Kindly click the purchase icon below to buy the full solution at $5

(FINAL ANSWER) DDHA 8011 Module 2 Assignment: Academic Integrity