REFLECTIVE JOURNAL AND ETHICS APPLICATION

REFLECTIVE JOURNAL AND ETHICS APPLICATION

The primary theme of the paper is REFLECTIVE JOURNAL AND ETHICS APPLICATION in which you are required to emphasize its aspects in detail. The cost of the paper starts from $105 and it has been purchased and rated 4.9 points on the scale of 5 points by the students. To gain deeper insights into the paper and achieve fresh information, kindly contact our support.

C – Ethics Application(10%) (Group)

Include a fully completed ethics application in your submission. Refer to the lecture slides from week 7 for details of how to complete each section and to tutorial 7 for the links to the appropriate documentation

Submission

Submit an electronic copy of the Research Report along with your Reflective Journal and Ethics Application via the Turnitin submission link on the course Moodle page. Please refer to the Course Description for information regarding late assignments, extensions, special consideration, and plagiarism. A reminder all academic regulations can be accessed via the university’s website, see:

 

Research Proposal via the Turnitin link

You will be able to view the originality report immediately after submission. You are advised to submit earlier so that you can check the originality report and make necessary changes (by paraphrasing, adding appropriate in-text citation/referencing etc.) to eliminate matching and avoid PLAGIARISM. You may re-submit the assignment until the due date/time.

 

Marking Criteria/Rubric

ITECH5500 Research Report- Marking Rubric

 

 

Student Id.

Student Name

 

 

Category

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Poor/Unacceptable

Marks

Abstract

4-5

Strong introduction of topic’s key question(s) and terms. Clearly delineates subtopics to be reviewed. Specific thesis statement.

3-4

Conveys topic and key question(s).Clearly delineates subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis statement.

2-3

Conveys topic, but not key question(s).Describes subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis statement.

0-2

Does not adequately convey topic. Does not describe subtopics to be reviewed. Lacks adequate thesis statement.

/5

Introduction

8-10

Strong introduction of topic’s key question(s) and terms. Clearly delineates subtopics to be reviewed. Specific thesis statement.

6-8

Conveys topic and key question(s).Clearly delineates subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis statement.

4-6

Conveys topic, but not key question(s).Describes subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis statement.

0-4

Does not adequately convey topic. Does not describe subtopics to be reviewed. Lacks adequate thesis statement.

/10

Literature Review

16-20

Sources are exceptionally well-integrated and they support claims argued in the paper very effectively.

12-16

Sources are well integrated and support the paper’s claims.

8-12

Sources support some claims made in the paper, but might not be integrated well within the paper’s argument.

0-8

The paper does not use adequate research or if it does, the sources are not integrated well.

/20

Methods (and Methodology)

16-20

Appropriate procedures and processes included and clear design of the research addressed.

12-16

Procedures and processes are included, and research design is somewhat clear.

8-12

Some procedures and processes included, and research design is not clear.

0-8

Procedures and processes are absent or vague, and research design is not addressed or very poorly addressed.

/20

Discussion

8-10

Exceptionally well-presented and argued. Ideas are detailed, well-developed, supported with specific evidence and facts, as well as in-depth analysis.

6-8

Well-presented and argued. Ideas are detailed, developed and supported with evidence and details, mostly specific, displays evidence of basic analysis.

4-6

Content is sound. Ideas are present but not particularly developed or supported; some evidence of analysis, but usually of a generalized nature.

0-4

Content is presented but not sound, and analysis is vague or not evident.

/10

Conclusion

4-5

The conclusion is engaging and strong integration with the thesis statement.

3-4

The conclusion restates the thesis.

2-3

The conclusion does not adequately restate the thesis.

0-2

Incomplete and/or unfocused. Does not summarizeevidence withrespect to thesis.

/5

Overall Organization

4-5

Well-planned, logically-flowing and well-thought out. Includes informative title, an abstract that summarizes key aspects and an appropriate TOC.

6-8

Good overall organization and somewhat logically-flowing. Includes title, abstract with some key aspects and a TOC.

3-5

There is a sense of organization. Includes title, abstract with few key aspects and a TOC.

0-2

No/lack of sense of organization. Missing title and/or a TOC. Also missing abstract or includes abstract that is vague.

/5

Grammar & Mechanics

4-5

Excellent grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation.

3

A few errors in grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation, but not many.

2

Shows a pattern of errors in spelling, grammar, syntax and/or punctuation- a sign of lack of proof-reading.

0-1

Continuous errors

/5

References and Formatting

9-10

Includes range of legitimate references (internet, articles, quotations, books and journals etc.). Correct use of referencing and citation using APA style. Used University Guide for layout and appearance.

6-8

Few errors in references or citations and also in layout and appearance.

 

3-5

Some errors in references or

citations and also in layout and appearance.

0-2

Many errors in references or

citations and also in layout and appearance.

/10

Total (out of 90)

 

Scaled (out of 20)

 

Comments

(if any):

 

 

 

Marked by:

 

               

 

 

 

ITECH5500 Reflective Journal- Marking Rubric

 

Student Id.

Student Name

 

 

Category

Excellent

4-5

Good

2-3

Poor/Unacceptable

0- 1

Marks

Reflection of learning

 

Shows great depth of knowledge and learning, reveals understanding and thoughts. Abstract ideas reflected through use of specific details.

Relates learning with research and project, personal and general reflections included. Does not go deeply into the reflection of learning. Generalizations and limited insight and uses some detail.

Little or no explanation or reflection on learning. No details to support reflection or few details that do not reflect thoughtful consideration or important aspects of own experiences of the research.

/5

Structural

development of

the Ideas

 

Demonstrates logical and subtle sequencing of ideas and insights by connecting the student’s experiences to the research work. Transitions are used to enhance organization.

Ideas and insights present but not perfected. Demonstrates some understanding of course material, but does not clearly connect the student’s research experiences.

Lack of or no development of ideas and insights. No evidence of structure or organization.

/5

Mechanics and Usage

No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling as well as sentence structure and word usage.

Some errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling as well as in sentence structure and word usage.

Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling as well as in sentence structure and word usage.

/5

Content

All entries are provided containing complete answers to all questions prompts.

Entry provides answers to most question prompts for all entries, missing some.

Entry significantly misses key question prompts or does not answer important questions and also missing some entries.

/5

Conclusion

The conclusion is engaging and restates personal learning.

The conclusion does not adequately restate the learning.

Missing, incomplete and/or unfocused.

/5

Total (out of 25)

 

Scaled (out of 10)

 

Comments

(if any):

 

 

 

Marked by:

 

             


ITECH 5500 Ethics Application

 

Student Id.

Student Name

 

 

Category

Excellent

4-5

Good

2-3

Poor/Unacceptable

0- 1

Marks

Each section filled out correctly

 

Fully comprehensive coverage of each section.

Some misconceptions. Some sections left out.

Large sections omitted. Major misconception

/10

Plain Language Information Statement

 

Clear description of what is required from participants written in jargon free language that can be understood by non-experts.

Statement not clear. Some sections omitted.

Statement difficult to understand. Major sections left out. Participants left unprepared .

/10

Risk Assessment

Careful thought about risks to all participants

Most areas covered but some minor omissions or errors

Risks not adequately detailed. Participants potentially exposed to problems/risks without their knowledge

/5

Total (out of 25)

 

Scaled (out of 10)

 

Comments

(if any):

 

 

 

Marked by:

 

 

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions