ASSESSMENT ONE – Information taken from the Unit Outline, Format and Declaration:
INDIVIDUAL: Critical and Reflective reading and writing
For this assessment, you are required to write a critical and reflective review on TWO readings provided by your unit coordinator using the template and further information available on the blackboard. This assessment will be based on the criteria that are derived from the reviewer’s guide to Peer-reviewed Journal articles by Emerald:
- Relationship to Literature
- Implications and significance of this work
- Quality of Communication
- Overall observation of the two articles
- What did I learn from this exercise – your reflective piece
Of course you need an INTRODUCTION as you commence your essay – NO NEED for executive summary.
The assessment will conclude with your overall observation on the two articles, together with your reflection on your experience of reading and critically analysing these two articles.
As an academic assessment you will need to adhere to the Chicago 16 style referencing (in-text citation and some 12 peer-reviewed journal articles in the reference list).
Submission (of 1,500 – 2,000 words +/-10%) will need to be submitted ONLINE through turnitin that is embedded in the blackboard.
Please ensure that the DECLARATION mentioned underneath is included in every assessment including this one.
The two articles that you need to locate on the Curtin databases, read, and critically analyse:
- Hershcovis, M.S., & Reich, T.C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational, contextual, and method consideration. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 34 (S1), 26-42.
- Porath, C.L., & Pearson, C.M. (2010). The cost of bad behaviour. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 64-71.
In addition, there will be some articles provided for critical thinking – however, these might be a good start:
- Mahin, L. 1998. ‘Critical Thinking and Business Ethics.’ Business Communication Quarterly, 61:3, 74-78.
- Pedler, M. & Abbott, C. 2013. Facilitating Action Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide. England: McGraw Hill: Open University Press
- Walters, K. S. 1991. ‘Critical Thinking, Rationality, and the Vulcanization of students.’ Journal of Accounting Education, 9, 15-31.
Furthermore, there are some articles and seminal books in relation to the understanding of methodology
- Cho, J. & Trent, A. 2006. ‘Validity in qualitative research revisited.’ Qualitative Research, 6:3, 319-40.
- Greene, J. C. 2008. ‘Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?’ Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2:1, 7-22.
- Johnson, B. R. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2004. ‘Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.’ Educational Researcher, 33:7, 14-26.
- Kervin, J. 2000. ‘Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.’ Relations Industrielles, 55:3, 539-40.
- Krenz, C. & Sax, G. 1986. ‘What Quantitative Research Is and Why It Doesn’t Work.’ American Behavioral Scientist, 30:1, 58-69.
- Tashakkori, A. & Creswell, J. W. 2007. ‘The new era of mixed methods.’ Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1:1, 3-7.
- Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. 2003. ‘Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research.’ Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
- Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. 2009. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
To follow is the Emerald Criteria that you would be working through for this assessment, and suggestions for sub-headings for the assessment, and other tips.
|Template based on EMERALD Reviewer’s template for Assessment 1 of MOB560 – Critical and Reflective reading and writing|
Critical and Reflective reading and writing
For this assignment, you are required to write a critical and reflective review on readings provided by your Unit Coordinator (above) using the template provided. This assessment will be based on the following points that are derived from the reviewer’s guide to Peer-reviewed Journal articles by Emerald Publishers:
Originality: For YOU – does the paper contain new and significant information – briefly provide the argument of this article? If not, would you suggest another article that might have such new and significant information and arguments?
Relationship to Literature: From YOUR perspective, does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored – if so, provide three major works that you feel might have added value to this paper?
Methodology or Methods: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate? Or did YOU ever encountered any other article that this author might have learned from
Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?
Implications of this work: How can the research be used in practice (economic, societal and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?
Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.
Your overall analytical ideas about the arguments and conclusions of the above two articles, supported by literature: – this section is very important for your mark – with high weighting attached to it.
Your reflective account on the experience of reading and critically analysing these two articles supported by literature: – this section is very important for your mark – with high weighting attached to it.
References (Chicago Style Referencing) – to reflect the in-text citations provided above (some 12 peer-reviewed articles).
Therefore, SUGGESTED sub-headings of your first assessment would be:
- Cover sheet
- Declaration (it would be better to include this as an image after you include your signature)
- Originality (in relation to the two reports)
- Relationship to Literature
- Methodology or Methods
- Implications of this work
- Quality of Communication
- Overall analytical ideas about the arguments and conclusions of both articles
- Your reflective piece (account)
- Any further reading (if any)
- Appendices (if needed)
Submission of this assessment: The assessment needs to be between 1,500 – 2,000 words +/-10%, where your covering sheet, declaration, reflective piece, and your reference list will be considered outside the word count. The items in blue are outside the word count.
You will need to submit this assessment ONLINE through turnitin that is embedded in the blackboard. Submissions through e-mail, or hard copies placed in the pigeon hole ARE UNACCEPTABLE, and penalty of late submission will apply immediately. Please ensure that the DECLARATION is included.
All the best.
Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.[order_calculator]