Assignment 1 (Assessment 2)
Due No Due Date Points 50 Submitting a file upload
Assessment 2: Critical analysis of research papers, 3000 words (50%), due at week 12, 4th July
This assessment task provides the opportunity to demonstrate students’ understanding of the different research philosophies and methodologies covered throughout the unit.
(https://secure.flickr.com/photos/24414065@N02/2608101005)
Students will critically review and analyse 3-4 research articles on the specific topic on their choice, with in-depth discussion, justification and analysis of methodology and methods. Students are required to provide a summary of the review at the end to demonstrate a well-developed understanding of the validity and reliability/trustworthiness of the research studies.
For this assessment:
Identify a research problem related to the topic of your interest
Analyse and critically Review 3-4 research papers that are most relevant to the research problem.
Argue and Justify whether the methodology and methods are appropriate to address the research problem.
Students are required to articulate, discuss and justify the strengths and weaknesses using supports from other relevant literature.
Assessment criteria:
Select three-four research articles that provide the relevant evidence for your topic. Your articles must be = 7 years old.
Your assignment must have an introduction, a body (which is the content of your analysis) and a conclusion.
USE at least 10 additional peer reviewed journal articles with APA FORMAT APA guidelines (http://www.apastyle.org/) to support your analysis. Information cited from an unreliable websites, pamphlets or magazines is not acceptable for this paper.
Assessment Tool
This critical appraisal tool is provided as an aid which you might like to use when analysing the article. You might find it useful to use these sub-headings to analyse or appraise and review the article for this assignment. Consider the strengths and limitations (critically appraise) your selected research paper using the following items.
Authorship
Consider the strengths and limitations of the authors’ expertise, based on their cited qualifications and affiliations and whether there might be possible conflicts of interest or possible grounds for bias in the paper.
Research Questions, aim or hypothesis
Identify the research question/s, aim or hypothesis underpinning the research and discuss the author’s justification/s as to why their study was needed. In considering the authors' justifications consider whether -
1. the significance of the research topic or problem is identified
2. the current state of research on the topic is discussed
3. gaps in the current research/ literature on the topic have been identified Research Design
Identify and analyse the research design and consider whether the choice of design is appropriate for answering the stated research question, aims or hypothesis.
Research Methods
Identify, analyse and synthesise the methods the researchers used for selecting study participants, collecting the data and data analysis.
Results and limitation of the study
Identify the results, conclusions and limitations of the research.
Evaluation and Implication into practice Assessment 2 Rubric Other resources:
https://guides.library.vcu.edu/ld.php?content_id=41272848 (https://guides.library.vcu.edu/ld.php?content_id=41272848)
Research Assessment 2
Criteria Ratings Pts
Focus and
Introductory Statement 5.0 to 4.0 pts
HD
There is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and contextualises and profiles the scope, content and the sequence of the essay topic. the introduction does not outline the topic. 4.0 to 3.0 pts Distinction
There is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and profiles the scope, content and the sequence of the essay topic. 3.0 to 2.5 pts Credit
There is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and profiles the content and the sequence of the essay topic. 2.5 to 1.0 pts Pass
There is a clear introduction that outlines the topic and the content to be covered. 1.0 pts
Fail=N1
There is unclear introduction and/or the introduction does not completely outline the topic. 1.0 to 0 pts Fail=NN
There is no introduction and/or the introduction does not outline the topic. 5.0 pts
Critical
Thinking,
Reasoning and Evaluation of the Evidence in articles 15.0 to 14.0 pts
HD
There is evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. A clear, well-constructed and balanced argument is presented which demonstrates substantial originality,
comprehensive organisation and synthesis of the evidence and a well-developed understanding of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
Argument is consistently and appropriately supported by valid, varied and current evidence. 14.0 to 11.0 pts Distinction
There is evidence of breadth of reading. A clear, well-constructed argument is presented which demonstrates comprehensive organisation and synthesis of the evidence and a well-developed understanding of the current state of knowledge on the topic. Argument is well supported by appropriate valid, varied and current evidence. 11.0 to 9.0 pts
Credit
There is inconsistent evidence of breadth of reading. A clear argument is presented which demonstrates organisation and synthesis of the evidence and sound understanding of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
Argument is supported by appropriate and varied evidence. 9.0 to 7.0 pts Pass
There is limited evidence of breadth of reading. A clear argument is presented which demonstrates organisation of the evidence and understanding of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
Argument is supported by appropriate and adequate evidence 7.0 to 2.0 pts Fail=N1
There is very limited evidence of breadth of reading. A summary of the evidence is presented. Unclear argument is presented and/or understanding is not clearly demonstrated. Argument presented is not appropriately supported by evidence and/or appears biased. 2.0 to 0 pts Fail=NN
There is no evidence of breadth of reading. A summary of the evidence is presented. No clear argument is presented and/or understanding is not clearly demonstrated. Argument presented is not supported by evidence and/or appears biased. 15.0 pts
Language awareness and appropriateness to target audience 5.0 to 4.0 pts
HD
The language is appropriate for the target audience and suits the purpose for which the essay is intended. Suitable professional language/ terminology is integrated. 4.0 to 3.0 pts
Distinction
The language is appropriate for the target audience and suits the purpose for which the essay is intended. 3.0 to 2.5 pt
Credit
The language is appropriate for the target audience and mostly suits t purpose for which the essay is intended. s
he 2.5 to 1.0 pts
Pass
The language is appropriate for the target audience. However, it does not suit the purpose for which the essay is intended. 1.0 pts
Fail=N1
The student hardly addressed the relevant items and the explanations, descriptions and discussions were irrelevant. 1.0 to 0 pts
Fail=NN
The student fails to
address the relevant items and the explanations, descriptions and discussions were irrelevant. 5.0 pts
Student use of the content, evidence and examples for the appraisal of the article,
Relevance of the content, Evidence and
Examples 15.0 to 14.0 pts
HD
The content is relevant to the topic. Perceptive and comprehensive
identification and discussion of main ideas, themes, strengths and limitations of the articles. Very high-level understanding of the topic area is demonstrated. High quality evidence and examples are presented. 14.0 to 11.0 pts Distinction
The content is relevant to the topic.
Comprehensive
identification and discussion of main ideas, themes, strengths and limitations of the articles. High level understanding of the topic area is demonstrated. Appropriate evidence and examples are presented. 11.0 to 9.0 pts Credit
The content is relevant to the topic. The main ideas, strengths and limitations of the articles are identified with some discussion presented. Understanding of the topic area is demonstrated Evidence and examples of varying quality are presented. . 9.0 to 7.0 pts Pass
Most content is relevant to the topic. Some of the main ideas, strengths and limitations of the articles are presented. Discussion is evident but superficial.
Understanding of the topic area is demonstrated in a limited way. Evidence and examples of varying quality are presented. 7.0 to 2.0 pts Fail=N1
The content is partly relevant to the topic. Some of the main ideas or themes or strengths or limitations of the articles are identified. No discussion is evident or is not relevant. Understanding of the topic area is demonstrated in a very limited way. Evidence and examples are minimal 2.0 to 0 pts Fail=NN
The content is not relevant to the topic. The main ideas or themes or strengths or limitations of the articles are not identified. No discussion is evident or is not relevant. Understanding of the topic area is demonstrated in a very limited way. Evidence and examples are minimal 15.0 pts
Structure Logical ordering of ideas; transitions between major points 5.0 to 4.0 pts
HD
Headings are clearly labelled and the information under each heading is very clearly presented and referenced as required. Logical and sequential arrangement of arguments and discussions within the body 4.0 to 3.0 pts Distinction
Headings are
clearly labelled, and the information under each heading is clearly presented and referenced as required. Very good flow of ideas within the body of the paper. Mostly logical and sequential arrangement of 3.0 to 2.5 pts Credit
Not all headings are clearly provided and the information under each heading is clear and referenced as required. Good flow of ideas within the body of the paper. Mostly logical and sequential arrangement of arguments and 2.5 to 1.0 pts Pass
Headings are relatively provided but are inconsistent with the topic heading. Inconsistent referencing. Lack of clarity with ideas and inconsistent structure with the arrangement of arguments and discussions within the body 1.0 pts
Fail=N1
Headings are not labelled consistently and/or are unclear. The information provided is inconsistent with the topic heading. Inconsistent referencing or missing referencing. Incoherent structure. Ideas 1.0 to 0 pts Fail=NN
Headings are not labelled.
The
information provided is inconsistent with the topic heading. Inconsistent referencing or missing referencing. Incoherent structure. Ideas do not flow in a 5.0 pts
of the paper. Conclusion provides a very clear summary of the presentation. No new
information is provided. arguments and discussions. Conclusion provides a clear summary of the presentation. No new information is provided. discussions. Conclusion provides an adequate summary of the presentation. No new information is provided. of the paper. Conclusion provides a poor summary of the presentation. No new information is provided. do not flow in a logical or sequential manner. Poor planning of the paper.
Transitions are required between ideas. Conclusion is not provided. logical or sequential manner. No planning of the paper. Conclusion is not provided.
Source and
Referencing 5.0 to 4.0 pts
HD
Credible and relevant references are used. Accurate use of APA referencing style in all instances. A range of in-text citations has been used.
4.0 to 3.0 pts
Distinction
Credible and relevant references are used. Accurate use of APA referencing style on most occasions. A range of in-text citations has been used. 3.0 to 2.5 pts
Credit
Credible and relevant references are used. Accurate use of APA referencing style on most occasions. There is limited use of a range of in-text citation. 2.5 to 1.0 pts
Pass
Credible and relevant references are used. Accurate use of APA referencing style on most occasions. There is no variation of in-text citation format. 1.0 pts
Fail=N1
Not all references are credible and/or relevant.
Many
inaccuracies with the APA referencing style 1.0 to 0 pts
Fail=NN
No
references provided 5.0 pts
Total Points: 50.0
GET ANSWERS / LIVE CHAT