Overview:

This assignment requires you to analyse a specified article and then answer a series of questions to demonstrate you can apply the key concepts taught in the CORE Module. The focus of this assignment is to assess your understanding and ability to apply ideas presented in the core module of this unit. To be successful, you will need to complete all the required readings from both the text book and from the additional readings on argument and critical thinking that can be found on the Reading List (available via a link on the Blackboard site) for this unit. You need to show that you have applied your learning from the course material to the task.

Instructions

Step 1: Choose ONE of the following peer reviewed journal articles, access the article from the library. The articles selected for analysis are taken from peer-reviewed journals which present academic research to the research community. To complete this assignment, you are not expected to be an expert on the topic or research the subject matter discussed in the article. To ensure fairness to all students, no marks will be awarded for additional research on the subject matter of the article. You MUST draw upon the readings from this unit, including the textbook and electronically available readings.

• Croft, B. L. (2018). The Instability of Truth: Aspects of Developing a Specific Indigenous Methodology on Experimental Practice-Led Research. Visual Anthropology Review, 34(1), 15–26. doi:10.1111/var.12149

• Démeh, W., & Rosengren, K. (2015). The visualisation of clinical leadership in the content of nursing education—A qualitative study of nursing students' experiences. Nurse Education Today, 35 (7), 2015, 888-893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.020

• Kazemi, R., Motamedzade, M., Golmohammadi, R., Mokarami, H., Hemmatjo, R., & Heidarimoghadam, R. (2018). Field study of effects of night shifts on cognitive performance, salivary melatonin, and sleep. Safety and health at work, 9(2), 203-209.

• Price, O. F., Penman, T. D., Bradstock, R. A., Boer, M. M. & Clarke, H. (2015). Biogeographical variation in the potential effectiveness of prescribed fire in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Biogeography, 42 (11), 2234-2245

. • Van Damme, K., Courtois, C., Verbrugge, K., & De Marez, L. (2015). What’s APPening to news? A mixed-method audience-centred study on mobile news consumption. Mobile Media & Communication, 3(2), 196-213.

Step 2: Read the article you have chosen from the list above and answer ALL four questions below.

In answering these questions you must demonstrate your learning about literature, research, publication and research design by applying the concepts presented in the CORE teaching material. The text for these four questions should not exceed 2000 words and you must demonstrate your use of logical reasoning in responding to these questions.

1. State the research questions being addressed in the study? Pay attention to whether a main ‘umbrella’ question is supported by sub-questions. How is literature used (in terms of canon, context etc…) to express the importance of these research questions?

2. What attributes make the study suitable for publication in the chosen journal?

3. Identify, with examples, the main argument techniques used in the article to reach the author’s conclusion. Have any fallacious techniques or forms of rhetoric been used?

4. Evaluate the type of research design used by the author, outlining its strength, limitations and suitability for the purpose of the study. Suggest changes to study design or reasoning to improve the study.

Marking Rubric

State the research questions being addressed in the study? Pay attention to whether a main ‘umbrella’ question is supported by sub-questions. How is literature used (in terms of canon, context etc…) to express the importance of these research questions?

15% Fail: Research questions not identified, relevant or understandable. Use of literature not identified or discussed in terms of importance. Pass: Mostly correct. Correctly identifies some of the uses of literature but not all. Credit: Identifies all questions correctly. Correctly identifies and adequately explains the use of literature. Distinction: Identifies main thesis correctly and relevant sub-questions. Identifies and very clearly discusses the use of literature. HD: Identifies main thesis correctly and relevant sub-questions. Correctly represents structure of argument. Discussion and use of literature is well-crafted, clear and concise. What attributes make the study suitable for publication in the chosen journal?

20% Fail: Does not link the study with the scope of the journal. Pass: Highlights few aspects of the study that make it a fit with the journal scope. Credit: Highlights most aspects of the study that make it a fit with the journal scope. Distinction: Highlights all aspects of the study that make it a fit with the journal scope. HD: Highlights all aspects of the study that make it a fit with the journal scope in a well-considered and concise response. Identify with examples the main argument techniques used in the article to reach the author’s conclusion. Have any fallacious techniques or rhetoric been used?

10% Fail: No techniques correctly identified. Pass: Few techniques identified but with omissions. Credit: Most techniques identified and correctly referred to. Distinction: All techniques identified and correctly referred to. HD: All techniques identified and correctly referred to in a well-crafted, clear and concise manner. Evaluate the type of research design used by the author, outlining its strength, limitations and suitability for the purpose of the study. Suggest changes to study design or reasoning to improve the study.

25% Fail: Understanding of research design and suggestions not demonstrated or understandable. Pass: Some discussion of research design has been correctly identified. Poor suggestions for improvement not relevant or achievable. Credit: Discussion of research design is more complete. Suggestions for improved argument are sufficient. Distinction: Research design is correctly discussed in terms of strength, limitations and purpose. Suggestions to improve their argument are achievable and relevant. HD: Research design is correctly discussed in terms of strength, limitations and purpose in a well-crafted, clear and concise manner. Suggestions to improve their argument are achievable and relevant and response is well-crafted, clear and concise. Structure and presentation.

20% Fail: The assignment does notconform to the structure of the assessment item. Nointroduction to the assessment. Poor or nonexistent paragraphing. No logical/cohesive developmentof ideas. No summation of key points in conclusion. Pass: Some aspects conform to thestructure of the assessment item. Weak introduction to the assessment. Limited paragraphing. Omits or poor summation of key points in conclusion. Credit: Adequate introduction of topic and summation of key points in conclusion. Good paragraphing, and logical/cohesive development of ideas. Distinction: Introduction adequately introduces topic and summarises key points in conclusion. Paragraphing is of high standard, and there is a logical/cohesive development of ideas in some of the assessment item. HD: Very good introduction of topic and summation of key points in the conclusion that reflects the student’s position and provides clear insights into the issue. Very good paragraphing, andlogical/cohesive development ofideas in most of assessment item. Referencing.

5% Fail: Referencing does not follow an ECU recognised referencing convention. In text and/or end-text referencing has multiple errors. Includes references in conclusion. Pass: Referencing poorly follows a recognised referencing convention. In text and/or end-text referencing has many errors. Includes references in conclusion. Credit: Mainly adheres to an ECU recognised referencing convention. In text and/or end-text referencing has some errors. Distinction: Complies with a recognised referencing convention. Follows specific assignment instructions as per Unit Semester Plan. Adheres to an ECU recognised referencing convention. In text and/or end-text referencing has few errors. HD: Complies with a recognised referencing convention to a very high standard. Follows specific assignment instructions as per Unit Semester Plan completely. Adheres to an ECU recognised referencing convention. In text and/or end-text referencing very few errors. English Language Proficiency

5% Fail: Multiple grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors were present throughout. Sentence structure poor making it difficult to determine meaning. Pass: Many grammatical spelling and punctuation errors present and needs improvement. Sentence structure needsimprovement. Credit: Mostly correct grammar, spelling and punctuation evidentthroughout. Sentence structure acceptable but needsimprovement. Distinction: Mainly correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. Very few errors. Sentence structure was of a good standard. HD: Grammar, spelling and punctuation were error free. Sentence structure of a high standard. Effective use of all sentence and paragraph writing conventions were clearly demonstrated. Logical application of arguments throughout paper