22 Ifo M Watch • How V Nettle EP (1) Wh. stf. R1 No 1 thedog I Q y8cto6 I ,11. Univef N1 myUniF ,11 HUMS ,15 Cot X co HUMS (;) New 1 ‘ Fwd: r Docto C my.unisa.edu.auipublic/CourseOutline/ViewOutline.aspx,c1=42974 (:)
Assessment Descriptions
Single
40% of Course Total Objectives being assessed: C01, CO2, CO3, C04
Title Group work Length Duration Due date (Adelaide Time) Submit via Re-Submission Re-Marking Critical analysis X 1800 words NA 14 Apr 2023, 5:00 PM learnontine
Further information on re-marking and re-submission is available in the academic policy, AB-68 P4 Re-marking and Re-submission Procedure
ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE
This assessment develops critical thinking skills and builds understanding of research approach design through an evaluation of a research article from a peer-review perspective. You will identify and analyse aspects of a research that were well designed and implemented and aspects that were weak or flawed, based on research theory. This assessment covers your understanding of research problems, aims and questions, review of the literature, research perspectives and approaches, and research design and measurement. The article to be critiqued is:
Egan, K, Harcourt, D, Rumsey, N & Appearance Research Collaboration, 2011, A qualitative study of the experiences of people who identify themselves as having adjusted positively to a visible difference, Journal of Health Psychology,16(5): 739-749.
FORMAT
At the top of the paper write ‘Critique of Egan et al. (2011)’ as the title and place your full name and student ID number below that. No introduction or conclusion is required. Divide your assignment into the four sections below:
Topic and the research question (Word Count: Up to 400 words, at least half of which address Point 2 below) 1. Citing appropriate references staging with the assigned readings, briefly explain key ideas regarding the selection of topics and the formulation of research questions. How should topics be selected? How should questions be articulated? 2. Critique how well Egan, et al. chose their topic and articulated their research question. Did the authors outline a compelling justification for the study? Were their questions/hypotheses clearly articulated? If appropriate, argue how they could have improved their choice and justification of the topic and their articulation of questions.
Review of the literature (Word Count: Up to 400 words, at least half of which address Point 2 below) 1. Citing appropriate references starting with the assigned readings, briefly explain key ideas regarding the review of related literature. What is a review of the literature meant to do? What should it contain? 2. Critique how well Egan, et al. reviewed relevant literature. Did authors present relevant literature? If yes, was the presentation in line with what a review of literature chnuld he, If annronriate araile how they could have imnroverl their review of the literature
The post ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE appeared first on My blog.
