57840 – Assignment 1 (Assessment 2)Due No Due Date Points 50

SOLUTION AT Australian Expert Writers

Assignment 1 (Assessment 2)Due No Due Date 50 Submitting a file uploadAssessment 2: Critical analysis of research papers, 3000 words (50%), due at week 12, 4th JulyThis 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 , 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: a research problem related to the topic of your interestAnalyse 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 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 (http://www.apastyle.org/) to support your analysis. Information cited from an unreliable websites, pamphlets or magazines is not acceptable for this paper.Assessment ToolThis 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. the strengths and limitations (critically appraise) your selected research paper using the following items.AuthorshipConsider the strengths and limitations of the authors’ expertise, 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 hypothesisIdentify 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 whether -1. the significance of the research topic or problem is identified2. the current state of research on the topic is discussed3. gaps in the current research/ literature on the topic have been identified Research DesignIdentify and analyse the research design and whether the choice of design is appropriate for answering the stated research question, aims or hypothesis.Research MethodsIdentify, analyse and synthesise the methods the researchers used for selecting study participants, collecting the data and data analysis.Results and limitation of the studyIdentify the results, conclusions and limitations of the research. 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 2Criteria Ratings PtsFocus andIntroductory Statement 5.0 to 4.0 ptsHDThere is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and contextualises and profiles the scope, content and the sequence of the topic. the introduction does not outline the topic. 4.0 to 3.0 pts DistinctionThere is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and profiles the scope, content and the sequence of the topic. 3.0 to 2.5 pts CreditThere is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and profiles the content and the sequence of the topic. 2.5 to 1.0 pts PassThere is a clear introduction that outlines the topic and the content to be covered. 1.0 ptsFail=N1There is unclear introduction and/or the introduction does not completely outline the topic. 1.0 to 0 pts Fail=NNThere is no introduction and/or the introduction does not outline the topic. 5.0 ptsCriticalThinking,Reasoning and of the Evidence in articles 15.0 to 14.0 ptsHDThere 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 DistinctionThere 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 ptsCreditThere 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 PassThere 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=N1There 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=NNThere 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 ptsLanguage awareness and appropriateness to target audience 5.0 to 4.0 ptsHDThe 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 ptsDistinctionThe language is appropriate for the target audience and suits the purpose for which the essay is intended. 3.0 to 2.5 ptCreditThe language is appropriate for the target audience and mostly suits t purpose for which the essay is intended. she 2.5 to 1.0 ptsPassThe language is appropriate for the target audience. However, it does not suit the purpose for which the essay is intended. 1.0 ptsFail=N1The student hardly addressed the relevant items and the explanations, descriptions and discussions were irrelevant. 1.0 to 0 ptsFail=NNThe student fails toaddress the relevant items and the explanations, descriptions and discussions were irrelevant. 5.0 ptsStudent use of the content, evidence and examples for the appraisal of the article,Relevance of the content, Evidence andExamples 15.0 to 14.0 ptsHDThe content is relevant to the topic. Perceptive and comprehensiveidentification 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 DistinctionThe content is relevant to the topic.Comprehensiveidentification 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 CreditThe 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 PassMost 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=N1The 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=NNThe 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 ptsStructure Logical ordering of ideas; transitions between major points 5.0 to 4.0 ptsHDHeadings 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 DistinctionHeadings areclearly 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 CreditNot 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 PassHeadings 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 ptsFail=N1Headings 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=NNHeadings are not labelled.Theinformation provided is inconsistent with the topic heading. Inconsistent referencing or missing referencing. Incoherent structure. Ideas do not flow in a 5.0 ptsof the paper. Conclusion provides a very clear summary of the presentation. No newinformation 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 andReferencing 5.0 to 4.0 ptsHDCredible 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 ptsDistinctionCredible 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 ptsCreditCredible 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 ptsPassCredible 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 ptsFail=N1Not all references are credible and/or relevant.Manyinaccuracies with the APA referencing style 1.0 to 0 ptsFail=NNNoreferences provided 5.0 ptsTotal Points: 50.0

Order from Australian Expert Writers
Best Australian Academic Writers

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER