Objectives
This assessment item relates to the course learning outcomes numbers 5 and 6 as stated in the online course profile.
Details
You are to write a scholarly essay that critically evaluates findings from at least two journal publications in one of the following research areas;
- The impact of the cloud on mobile applications
- Mobile application security
- Social implications of mobile applications
You are not to write an essay on one of these topics. You are to critically reflect on the papers and then explain whether the papers did an adequate job of explaining what the purpose of the work was, collected sufficient evidence, and reached the right conclusions based on the evidence. You may use the following questions as a guide for critically evaluating the research papers.
Is the research question or problem clearly stated and of significance?
Does the research adequately cover the relevant existing research literature for the research question?
What methodology is used in the research and is this adequately explained?
Is there good agreement between the research question, the philosophical framework used, and the research methods?
Are there any biases you can detect in the methods used in the study, or flaws in the logic or methods that undermine the results?
Is the study ethical?
Is the data collection and analysis appropriate?
Is the research finding supported by the evidence?
You should submit your critique online using the Moodle learning system. All sources must be properly referenced using Harvard style references. Use the following marking scheme to guide your critique.
Written Assessment criteria – 20 marks
|
Marking Sheet
|
To be attached to your assignment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall Performance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARK / 20
|
|
Poor
|
|
|
Good
|
|
Excellent
|
|
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presentation - 2
|
|
Poor structure,
|
|
Some problem
|
No problems
|
|
|
|
Structure, grammar, spelling,
|
grammar, use of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
referencing
|
|
referencing and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spelling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
1.0
|
|
1.0
|
1.5
|
1.5
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introductory arguments - 3
|
|
Poorly introduced
|
|
At least two
|
|
Excellent
|
|
|
|
|
Well defined introduction to what
|
and defined
|
|
|
papers adequately
|
introduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
covered
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
critique is about
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
0.75
|
|
0.75
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critique body - 10
|
|
Poor summary,
|
|
Some sections
|
|
All sections
|
|
|
|
|
For 2 journal papers:
|
|
analysis,
|
|
|
done poorly
|
|
done well
|
|
|
|
|
|
arguments and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Research questions identified
|
identification of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Methodology described
|
|
issues, evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Analysis of conclusion discussed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Reflections on paper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Synthesis of works into a critique of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
research area
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
5
|
|
5
|
7.5
|
7.5
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion - 5
|
|
Poor summary,
|
|
Adequate
|
|
Excellent
|
|
|
|
|
Summary well presented
|
|
directions,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evaluations,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logical conclusions derived
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interpretations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interpretation of scholarly works correct
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Argument presented within length
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
guideline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
2.5
|
|
2.5
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deductions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
