Assessment Overview | |
Assessment | AT2 JournalArticle Review – Individual Assignment |
Mark | Total 30 |
Due Date | 11.55pm Friday, Week 9 |
Word limit | 3000 words |
Submission method | PDF file (.pdf) or Word (.doc),Via the Turnitin dropbox on eLearning |
Other requirements |
|
Assessment Details | |
▫ Briefly introduce the purposeof the assignment ▫ Introduce the article you will be analysing in your assessment. ▫ Provide a summaryof the sections covered in the review.
|
▫ Explain how relevant/important/significant the research study is, the research aim/research questions/research objectives, findings and recommendations to the literature. ▫ Indicate how the journalarticle contributes to the Management literature and limitations of the study.
▫ Summarise the keyfindings of youranalysis. |
Marking Criteria
|
What if I Miss the Assessment? |
o Special Consideration Application Form Link
|
Can I Use Generative Artificial Intelligence for this Assessment? |
You may use generative AI tools such as ChatGPT or Microsoft Co Pilot ONLYto research and brainstorm ideas and approaches for completing your essay. Please make sure to properly acknowledge any use of generative AI using CIM APA Referencing Guide. |
Rubric for AT2 Individual Assessment – Journal Review
Fail (0 – 49) |
Pass (50 – 64) |
Credit (65 – 74) |
Distinction (75 – 84) |
High Distinction (85 – 100) | |
Summarizes the context |
You have provided an unclear |
You have provided a somewhat |
You have provided |
You have provideda |
You have provideda very |
and content of the selected | and unintelligible summaryof | muddled, unclear and rambling | a clear but shallow | clear and concise | thorough and clearand |
article | the article or provided no | summary of the article. | summary of the | summary of the | concise summary of the |
summary at all | article; may be | article context and | article context and content. | ||
excessively brief or | content | ||||
may include some | |||||
extraneous | |||||
information. | |||||
Depth and credibility of |
You have not demonstrated |
You have demonstrated that |
The depth and |
The depth and |
The depth and credibility of |
research | that you haveconducted | you have conducted enough | credibility of your | credibility of your | your research is |
enough research (eg | research (eg basedon the | research is above | research is very | exceptional (based on the | |
insufficient references to | number of references to | average (based on | good (based on the | number and quality of your | |
credible research or peer- | credible research and/or | the number and | number and quality | sources) | |
reviewed academic literature), | peer-reviewed academic | quality of your | of your sources) | ||
and/or you haverelied on | literature), and you have | sources) | |||
doubtful sources | relied on credible sources | ||||
Identifies and describes |
You have provided an unclear, |
You have attempted to |
You have described |
You have described |
You have thoroughly |
focus and purposeof the | unintelligible and illogical | describe focus and purpose | focus and purposeof | focus and purposeof | described focus and |
article with relevant issues | description of focus and | of the article, but lacks a | the article; included | the article; included | purpose of thearticle; |
within the article | purpose of the article or | logical flow andreaction is | no discussion of the | a simplistic | included discussion of the |
provided no description of | muddled; no discussion of | relevant issues within | discussion of the | relevant issues within the | |
description of focusand | any relevant issues in the | the article. | relevant issues within | article | |
purpose at all | article | the article. | |||
Coherence of analysis |
Your analysis is unreasoned |
Your analysis is mostly logical |
Your analysis is |
Your analysis is |
Your analysis is logical |
and/or poorly reasoned (eg | and well-reasoned | logical and well- | logical and well- | and well-reasoned to | |
because it relieson | reasoned to an | reasoned to a very | an exceptional | ||
unsupported assumptions or | above average | good standard | standard | ||
misunderstands the theories | standard | ||||
and concepts applied) |
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.