General Requirements: Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:
1. Instructors will be using a grading rubric to grade the assignments. It is recommended that learners review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment in order to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment.
2. Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. (APA 7th edition).
3. This assignment requires that at least 6 scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least two in-text citation from each source be included.
4. No quotations, paraphrases, or summaries, only synthesis of literature.
5. I will be required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. (it a plagiarism detector, it cannot be greater than 10%. I will have to submit through that program in order to let you know if there has to be any adjustments to the paper. Directions: Write a paper of 1,500–1,750 words that addresses shifts in educational paradigm (the pendulum effect).
In your paper, include the following:
1. A research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, specifically identifying the current educational paradigm.
2. A research-supported discussion of how the educational pendulum (shift in paradigms) influences education, including the role of the educational leader, teacher, and student.
3. A research-supported discussion of the importance of educational paradigms, including shifting paradigms.
*** Please review the rubric before writing a paper, of course we should be aiming for the highest score on that rubric. ***Paper should include an introduction (last two sentences in the introductions are the thesis of the paper, and the purpose of the paper) 2-3 sections (for example, educational paradigms, shift in paradigms, how the educational pendulum (shift in paradigms) influences education) and a conclusion if you want to use any other additional resources, that ok as long as those are peer-reviewed articles within the last 5 year only. the once that are listed are not, I know, but that is what the professor gave me.
Disciplinary Foundations of the Conceptual Model
DRAWING ON THE RESEARCH REVIEWED for this monograph,this chapter describes the disciplinary foundations for each of the four layers of the conceptual model. Given the parameters of the review (such as attention only to articles published in top journals in four disciplines), the substantive consideration of each layer is designed to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. In other words, the purpose of this discussion is not to provide an exhaustive assessment of the forces at all layers of context that contribute to all indicators of student success. Instead, this presentation illustrates the per- spectives and emphases that each of the four disciplines contributes to each layer of the model. For each of the four layers of the model, we discuss research from the top journals in the following order: economics, sociology, psychology, and education.
Layer One: Internal Context At its core, student success is determined by the attitudes, motivations, and behaviors of individual students. Our review suggests that, of the four discipli- nary perspectives, psychology focuses greater attention than the other disciplines on understanding the cognitive and noncognitive processes that determine stu- dent success. Even the relatively small number of relevant articles in other dis- ciplines and fields are centrally informed by psychological theories and frames. In short, psychology differs from the other disciplines included in this review in its decided focus on the individual’s mental processes and behaviors—processes and behaviors defining Layer One of the model.
35Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success
Economics Aside from work only loosely coupled to cognitive dimensions of student success, the economics journals we reviewed yielded little insight into the contribution of Layer One to student success. An example of work loosely bearing on interests at this layer of the model is that of Jacob (2002), who models the influence of noncognitive skills on the gender gap in college participation. Jacob concludes that noncognitive skills influence college enrollment patterns even after controlling for high school performance and aptitude.
Sociology Relatively little work published in top sociology journals examines cognitive or affective processes defining the internal context of success indicators. One notable exception, related to the work in psychology by Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, and Pelletier (2001), identifies the components of an academic work ethic among college students and shows how an academic work ethic is related to student performance and to characteristics of institutions attended (Rau and Durand, 2000). Rau and Durand conclude that a strong relationship exists between disciplined study, as defined by their academic ethic measure, and academic performance.
Psychology Attention to the contribution of cognitive and noncognitive processes to stu- dent success is relatively common in psychology articles. More specifically, most of the articles published in top psychology journals inform understanding of the ways that such constructs as achievement motivation, self-efficacy, and stereotype threat contribute to student success.
A few articles published in top psychology journals focus on aspects of self- regulated learning, particularly perceived academic control and other strategies that regulate motivation. Research suggests that perceived academic control is positively related to final course grades and that students with high academic control and high preoccupation with failure receive the highest grades (Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, and Pelletier, 2001). Students with high academic control not only receive higher grades but also exert more effort, experience less anxiety, have greater motivation, tend to monitor progress in achieving goals, and
perceive greater control over course assignments (Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, and Pelletier, 2001). Other research shows that students’ strategies for regulating their motivation are related to their goal orientation (Wolters, 1998). The use of intrinsic regulation strategies is more common among those with mastery goal orientations, while use of extrinsic regulation strategies is more common among those with performance goal orientations (Wolters, 1998). High school students with autonomy orientations (that is, those who tend to participate in academic activities that they believe to be important to themselves) have more positive academic experiences, while students with control orientations (those who tend to participate in academic activities that they believe to be important to others) have lower academic performance and commitment (Wong, 2000).
A substantial number of articles published in top psychology journals examine the contribution of students’ goals to their academic performance. This research consistently supports a “multiple goals” perspective, whereby mastery goals promote interest (Harackiewicz and others, 2000; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, and Elliot, 2002), performance goals promote grades (Elliot and Church, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, and Lehto, 1997; Harackiewicz and others, 2000; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, and Elliot, 2002), and per- formance avoidance goals reduce academic performance (Elliot and Church, 1997). The positive relationship between performance goals and academic achievement appears to be mediated by such variables as persistence on task (Elliot, McGregor, and Gable, 1999); effort, self-efficacy, goal level (VandeWalle, Cron, and Slocum, 2001); and achievement motivation (Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001), while the negative relationship between performance avoidance goals and academic achievement appears to be mediated by test anxiety (Elliot and McGregor, 1999) and disorganization (Elliot, McGregor, and Gable, 1999).
Research published in top psychology journals consistently shows that academic self-efficacy, optimism, and hope are positively related to students’ academic performance (Brackney and Karabenick, 1995; Chemers, Hu, and Garcia, 2001; Gibbons and others, 2000; Snyder and others, 2002). The effects of such “trait-like” characteristics as general self-efficacy, goal orientation, and cognitive ability on academic achievement may be mediated by such “state- like” characteristics as task-specific self-efficacy (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, and
37Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success
Kilcullen, 2000). Psychopathology (psychological disorders, including anxiety and substance abuse disorders) is negatively related to students’ academic per- formance directly (Svanum and Zody, 2001) and indirectly through self-efficacy and resource management (Brackney and Karabenick, 1995).
With only a few exceptions (for example, Cullen, Hardison, and Sackett, 2004), research in top psychology journals consistently shows that stereotype threat contributes to gaps in academic performance between blacks and whites (Brown and others, 2000; Gonzales, Blanton, and Williams, 2002; Steele and Aronson, 1995), women and men (Brown and others, 2000; Brown and Josephs, 1999; Gonzales, Blanton, and Williams, 2002; O’Brien and Crandall, 2003), and students with and without mental illness (Quinn, Kahng, and Crocker, 2004). A self-evaluative stereotype threat is assumed to negatively influence performance when an individual’s focus is diverted from performing a particular task to worrying that low performance will confirm a negative stereotype about a group to which the individual belongs (Steele and Aronson, 1995). The negative effects of stereotype threat on performance may be reduced by other psychological characteristics, particularly a coping sense of humor (Ford, Ferguson, Brooks, and Hagadone, 2004).
Other research in top psychology journals shows the negative effects of par- ticular experiences for African Americans. A longitudinal study of African Americans at one predominantly white institution showed that grades declined over the period of the study for students who had high levels of race-related rejection sensitivity (those who “anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection in situations where rejection is possible” (Mendoza-Denton and others, 2002, p. 896). Other research suggests that, compared with other African American high school students, those who had positive feelings about their racial group and viewed race as important to their identity had higher rates of college enrollment, while those who felt few connections to their racial group and had negative beliefs about their racial group had lower rates of college enrollment (Chavous and others, 2003).
Articles in psychology journals also include attention to differences in academic performance between women and men, describing gender differences in rates of Advanced Placement test taking and performance (Stumpf and Stanley, 1996) and explaining that gender differences in SAT math scores are attributable in part
to gender differences in mental rotation ability and math self-confidence (Casey, Nuttall, Pezaris, and Benbow, 1995; Casey, Nuttall, and Pezaris, 1997). Other research shows gender differences in the relationship between psychopathol- ogy and semester grades (Svanum and Zody, 2001), between control orientation and academic experiences (Wong, 2000), and between text anxiety and grade point average (Chapell and others, 2005).
A small number of articles published in top psychology journals suggest links between the internal layer of context and the school context (that is, Layer Two of the model) via students’ perceptions of this context. For example, one study suggests that increased perceptions of “situational constraints” (quantity and quality of resources available to support learning) indirectly reduce academic performance by reducing students’ performance goals (Villanova, 1996). A second study shows that undergraduates’ academic achievement is positively related to students’ beliefs about school, particularly their predisposition toward the learning context (Larose and Roy, 1995).
Education Only a small number of articles in top education journals examine the ways that students’ cognitive and noncognitive skills shape their success. Moreover, the education articles that include this focus tend to draw on psychological constructs. For example, one article shows that students’ academic perfor- mance in college is shaped by cognitive skills (as measured by test scores) as well as by noncognitive variables, including motivation and use of self- regulated learning strategies (Ruban and McCoach, 2005). Other work stresses the contribution of self-efficacy to students’ academic achievement. In a review and synthesis of prior research, Pajares (1996) concludes that self-efficacy beliefs shape student effort and perseverance, which in turn influence subse- quent academic performance. In other educational research, performance is viewed as a function of self-worth beliefs related to mathematics and gender (Stage and Kloosterman, 1995).
Summary The proposed conceptual model assumes that, at the “core” (Layer One of the model), student success is determined by an individual’s motivations and
39Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success
attitudes. Our examination of research published in the top journals in each of four disciplines shows the dominance of psychological perspectives for understanding these core attributes.
Layer Two: Family Context The second layer of the model, the family context, recognizes that both inside and outside the home, families may “manage” their children’s experiences to promote various indicators of student success (Furstenberg and others, 1999; McDonough, 1997; Perna and Titus, 2005). Although the aspect of families that is emphasized varies across disciplines, research using each of the four disciplinary perspectives includes attention to the influence of families on student success.
Economics Our research review identified several examples of the ways that economists view the contribution of families to student success. Some research in top econom- ics journals examines the role of parents’ occupation. One study shows that, compared with peers with traditionally employed parents, young people from families with family-owned businesses generally have lower academic perfor- mance during high school and are less likely to enroll in college (Davila and Mora, 2004). Ease of intergenerational transfer of these family-owned businesses is presumed to discourage academic engagement in high school and diminish college-going aspirations of children in these entrepreneurial families (Davila and Mora, 2004). In other work addressing the occupational background of families, Siegfried and Getz (2006) develop a novel analysis of college choice patterns of students from families with at least one parent who works on a uni- versity faculty. Siegfried and Getz were particularly interested in the degree to which these students may be advantaged by additional information about college quality that would be transmitted by their more knowledgeable parent(s). Although failing to provide a causal explanation, Siegfried and Getz note that students in their sample are more likely to attend research universities and selective liberal arts colleges than are their peers from nonacademic families.
Economists have also examined the contribution of family structure to student success. For example, Ver Ploeg (2002) isolated the effects of displaced
children on the likelihood of college enrollment and degree attainment. Although previous researchers have explained this disadvantage as a function of the typically diminished income of broken homes, Ver Ploeg controls for income and reveals a net negative effect of such circumstance.
Beyond the structural characteristics of families, economists have also devoted attention to dimensions such as the economic behavior of families with children in college. One example of this perspective is Bodvarsson and Walker (2004), who find that students whose parents pay for a substantial proportion of the costs associated with tuition and living expenses have lower grade point averages, are more likely to fail courses, and are less likely to persist to the baccalaureate than students who bear the lion’s share of these costs themselves through work or personal savings.
Sociology Sociologists have made a number of important contributions to our under- standing of the influence of family characteristics on student success. Cheng and Starks (2002) employ a symbolic interaction frame to examine the differ- ential role of significant others on the educational expectations of students from different racial groups. Symbolic interaction focuses on the ways that personal identity is developed through the interaction with others. The Cheng and Starks work points to processes through which the influences of significant others are conditioned by race. Central to their findings is the idea that the power of specific significant others (such as parents, teachers, or friends) to influence expectations about education varies across racial groups.
Some research shows the role that families play in determining the future paths of their children and ultimately the degree to which those future paths may reduce or magnify stratification in broader society. Conley’s account (2001) of the role of family wealth in college attendance and completion shows that tra- ditional models of attainment have ignored the role of family wealth, focusing instead on less useful measures of family income. This type of analysis taps a long-standing sociological interest in the long-term advantages conveyed through the intergenerational transfer of wealth. Other sociological research focuses on families and high schools and the ways that family background can determine students’ preparation for college and range of choices available. For example,
41Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success
Attewell (2001) argues that families seek to maximize the quality of schooling available to their children, often with the hope of improving their chances for college success. He shows that this pursuit on the part of the family may actually be counterproductive in terms of chances for admission to high-quality colleges. Other research shows that family background has an important influence on high school performance and college enrollment (see, for example, Muller and Schiller, 2000; Conley, 2001; Crosnoe, 2001; Cheng and Starks, 2002; Karen, 2002; Hofferth, Boisjoly, and Duncan, 1998). This influence is channeled through increased parental involvement (Crosnoe, 2001), noneconomic (cultural) by-products of family wealth (Conley, 2001), the influence of signif- icant others (Cheng and Starks, 2002), and the social networks and cultural connections of parents (Hofferth, Boisjoly, and Duncan, 1998).
Most of the sociological literature is dominated by either an exclusive cultural reproduction framing or some type of contrast between the repro- duction models and mobility models. Although reproduction models place primacy on the binding role of social origins, mobility models focus on the degree to which social status can change over the course of a lifetime. Educa- tion is a central feature in both models, serving as a reproductive mechanism in the former and a democratizing mechanism in the latter. A notable example of such a contrast is Aschaffenburg and Maas’s examination (1997) of the role of cultural capital in school success. In that work they test competing mobility (DiMaggio, 1982) and reproduction theories (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977) and conclude that the mobility model is dominant but that the repro- duction model is the more important in terms of college enrollment.
Psychology A number of articles in top psychology journals examine the influence of the family context on student success. Among the relevant aspects of the family context, from the perspective of this discipline, are strength of ties to parents, parenting style, and parents’ job security. The sole qualitative psychological article in this review suggests that students’ plans are shaped, at least in part, by the tension between increasing autonomy and sustaining ties to parents and other loved ones (Shilkret and Nigrosh, 1997). Other research shows that students’ academic achievement is influenced by parenting style, although the
relationship appears to be weaker for college seniors than for other students (Glasgow and others, 1997; Strage and Brandt, 1999). An exploratory study suggests that, when students perceive job insecurity among their parents, the students experience cognitive problems, which reduce students’ academic per- formance (Barling, Zacharatos, and Hepburn, 1999).
Other research published in top psychology journals shows that the rela- tionship between aspects of the family context and student success varies based on parents’ educational attainment, ethnicity, and immigrant status. Research shows variations based on parents’ educational attainment and ethnicity in the effects of parental involvement on eleventh grade students’ educational and occupational aspirations (Hill and others, 2004) and students’ academic achievement (Hong and Ho, 2005). Other research shows that, compared with students from United States-born families, students from immigrant families have higher academic motivation (which promotes academic achievement) but greater family demands (which reduce academic achievement [Tseng, 2004]).
Education A substantial share of articles in education show that student success is related to students’ sociodemographic characteristics, particularly socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. Educational research consistently shows that, even after tak- ing into account other variables, socioeconomic status is positively associated with such measures of student success as choice of institution attended (Astin and Oseguera, 2004; Perna and Titus, 2004; Teranishi and others, 2004) and graduate school enrollment (Walpole, 2003; Zhang, 2005a). Educational research also shows that the predictors of such indicators as predisposition to college (Hamrick and Stage, 1998), college enrollment (Heller, 1999), college grade point average (Hoffman and Lowitzki, 2005), and plans for graduate school (Pascarella, Wolniak, Flowers, and Pierson, 2004) vary by racial/ethnic group. Although fewer studies examine variations in broad racial or ethnic cat- egories, the small amount of available research shows that such indicators as choice of institution attended vary by ethnicity in a particular group (for exam- ple, Asian Pacific American [Teranishi and others, 2004]).
Research in education also includes attention to the role of family or parental involvement in promoting student success. In particular, articles in
43Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success
top educational journals have examined the contribution of parental involvement to such indicators as college enrollment (Perna, 2000; Perna and Titus, 2005) and the role of family background in shaping impressions and realities of attendance and choice constraints (Paulsen and St. John, 2002).
Summary All four disciplinary perspectives inform our understanding of the ways that the family context (Layer Two of the model) influences student success. Econ- omists have examined the influence on student success of such characteristics as parents’ occupation and family structure as well as parents’ role in paying college prices. For sociologists, families are central to “status attainment” frame- works and perspectives examining the sources of continued stratification of educational opportunity and outcomes. Psychologists include attention to the strength of ties to parents, parenting style, and parents’ job security as well as variations in outcomes based on family characteristics. Educational researchers often examine the contribution to student success of such characteristics as socioeconomic status and parents’ involvement in their children’s education.
Layer Three: School Context Layer Three of the model, the school context, reflects the attention that various disciplines, particularly economics, sociology, and education, devote to under- standing the contribution of K-12 schools and higher education institutions to student success. Attention to the school context, from primary school through college, enables the identification and understanding of compounding effects that determine the educational resources, academic preparation, and educational orientations that subsequently determine success at the college level.
Economics School effects are an important domain of study in economics. Much of the eco- nomics literature in this layer addresses the role of years, type, and quality of education on subsequent indicators of student success. A review of literature published in top economics journals suggests three themes pertaining to the rela- tionship between institutional characteristics and practices and student success
indicators: (1) interplay between two-year and four-year institutions; (2) eco- nomic returns to institutional characteristics; and (3) the effects of institutional packaging of financial aid on retention and degree attainment.
Economists have devoted significant attention to understanding differences between and relationships among influences of two- and four-year institutions. The subbaccalaureate labor market is the focus of Grubb (2002a, 2002b), who, through reviews and his own empirical analysis, concludes that, although there is little effect of course taking by itself, there exists a significant return to completion of subbaccalaureate credentials in certain areas. Alfonso, Bailey, and Scott (2005), however, show that “occupationally” oriented students are less likely to complete their degree programs and call attention to mission ambi- guity in today’s community colleges. Other researchers focus on the difference in returns among two- and four-year graduates (see, for example, Kane and Rouse, 1995), concluding that, relative to high school graduates, an earnings premium exists at each level of attainment and to a lesser degree for those leaving college without a degree (Grubb, 2002a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).
The role of the two-year school in determining aspirations, transfer behavior, and completion has been the focus of a number of researchers in the economics literature. Ehrenberg and Smith (2004) develop a useful evaluation scheme for states to use in determining the degree to which four-year institutions graduate two-year transfer students. Their framework calls attention to the role the two- year schools play in terms of academic preparation and the responsiveness of four-year institutions to the needs of these transfers. Leigh and Gill (2003, 2004) show how two-year schools enhance educational aspirations of their graduates and improve their probabilities of baccalaureate attainment. Taken together, Sandy, Gonzalez, and Hilmer (2006) and Gonzalez and Hilmer (2006) show that two-year colleges democratize opportunity and improve the likelihood of bac- calaureate attainment for Hispanic students in particular. They explain the lower rates of baccalaureate attainment by two-year transfers as a function of their propensity to transfer to lower-quality four-year institutions rather than inade- quate preparation at the two-year level (Gonzales and Hilmer, 2006). Surette (2001) focuses on gender differences in two- to four-year transfer, failing to arrive at a plausible explanation for the persistently lower rate of transfer and comple- tion among women than men.
45Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success
While Kane and Rouse (1995) focus on two- and four-year rates of return, Arias and McMahon (2001) focus on an improved model for estimating private rates of return (which they claim have been seriously underestimated in most of the economics literature). Looking beyond direct wage benefits, Eide (Eide and Waehrer, 1998; Eide, Brewer, and Ehrenberg, 1998) offers considerations of the option value that more selective colleges confer on their graduates and argues that a sole focus on wage premiums obscures the larger picture of bene- fits accruing to graduates from more prestigious schools.
Pricing and the influence of financial constraints in attendance decisions and college choices have also received a great deal of attention in the economics literature. For example, financial constraint has been shown to play a lesser role in college choice at the application stage than students’ sense of institutional fit (Toutkoushian, 2001). Analyzing college application behavior, Toutkoushian concludes that a student’s sense of ability relative to that of the student body at colleges in a potential choice pool plays a larger role in deciding where to apply than does their sense of affordability.
Although substantial work has been devoted to understanding the effects of financial aid and subsidies on student attendance patterns more broadly, the literature at Layer Three reveals economists’ interest in institutional behav- iors relating to aid and subsidies that can influence student attendance. Good examples of research along this line include Singell (2004) and Kerkvliet and Nowell (2005). Both studies examine the role of aid in persistence and arrive at different but not conflicting conclusions: aid matters but it depends on the context of the institution and degree to which students are influenced by their perceptions of opportunity costs.
Sociology Sociologists also devote substantial attention to the role of the school context, with particular focus on structural antecedents to postsecondary student success indicators. Much of the research that is relevant to this layer focuses on theoret- ical tensions between cultural reproduction and social mobility. Karen (2002) paints a powerful picture of stratified opportunity, showing that although disadvantaged students begin with a lower chance of college continuation, those that do go on most often enroll in less selective institutions that provide fewer
academic support resources—institutions that have also been shown to confer lesser returns in the postgraduation labor market (Thomas 2000; Thomas and Zhang, 2005).
The process through which students are advantaged as a result of their K-12 experiences is an important interest of sociologists. Attewell (2001) and Espenshade, Hale, and Chung (2005) have scrutinized the effects of the ultra- competitive high school environments that many parents seek for their chil- dren. Attewell’s analysis (also cited in our consideration at Layer Two of the model) suggests that these schools penalize students because of the probability of an otherwise top-performing student’s being ranked lower in the class simply because of the intense academic competition. Espenshade, Hale, and Chung (2005) revised this “frog-pond” effect and reaffirmed Attewell’s findings with the important qualification that the overall performance of students in the schools generally outweighs …
|Course Code||Class Code||Assignment Title||Total Points|
|EDL-822||EDL-822-O500||The Education Pendulum||270.0|
|Criteria||Percentage||Unsatisfactory (0.00%)||Less Than Satisfactory (73.00%)||Satisfactory (82.00%)||Good (91.00%)||Excellent (100.00%)||Comments||Points Earned|
|Research-supported Discussion of Educational Paradigms, Including the Current Paradigm||25.0%||Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is either missing or not evident to the reader.||Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.||Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is present, but is cursory and lacking in depth.||Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is adequately presented and includes all necessary elements.||Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is thoroughly presented with rich detail and includes all necessary elements.|
|Research-supported Discussion of How the Education Pendulum Influences Education||25.0%||Research-supported discussion of how the education pendulum influences education is either missing or not evident to t
Who We Are
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Do you handle any type of coursework?
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
Is it hard to Place an Order?
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Why Hire Safehomework.com writers to do your paper?