代写BISM2201 Principles of Business Analytics Article Review – Assessment Criteria帮做R程序

BISM2201 Principles of Business Analytics

Article Review - Assessment Criteria

The briefing notes are suggestive of the criteria we will use in assessing the article review. More formally, we will use the following eight criteria to assess and evaluate the article reviews. The first five criteria focus on the content of your article review.  The other three criteria focus on your writing ability – ability to construct the article review document. The criteria are listed below. Each criterion has approximately equal weight to the other criteria.  If one criterion is more important

than the others, it is the fifth criterion – specify a question(s) of further interest (making the link to the case study).

1.    Motivate the topic

2.    Summarise the literature

3.    Critically analyse the literature

4.    Develop guidelines for practice/policy

5.    Specify a question(s) of further interest

6.    Structure/sequence

7.    Language/mechanics/professionalism

8.    Research/referencing

A brief description of the criteria follows. Your ability to motivate the topic is just that – your ability to convince the reader that the topic is important and worth exploring. Use your own logic to help motivate the topic (perhaps drawn on past research and/or past papers where appropriate). I expect you to summarise the literature in an interesting way – not simply present one summary (of an article) after another.  That is acceptable and I encourage you to write summarise of each article  you read. But Iam challenging you to think of an interesting way to present the summarises. Can you develop and present an integrative view, can you synthesis the literature, identifying key discussion points and themes? Try to extend yourself.

Further, I expect you to critically analyse the literature. I want to hear your voice and your opinions. A critical review can have positive and negative points of review. What do you like about the articles you have read? What do they contribute that is new, exciting, challenging for business, etc. What do you not like about the articles you have read?  Are there points of weakness you can identify?  If yes, what are they and how easily could they be overcome?

After reading and critically analysing the literature, I expect you to develop guidelines for practice and/or policy. Based on what you have read, what are the most important lessons that business should learn? Are there any lessons that business should “unlearn?” Further, you might start to see the benefits and/or costs associated with adopting the guidelines you are developing for practice and/or policy. What are the costs/benefits? (Develop implications for practice if your target audience is businesses, develop implications for policy if your target audience is public policymakers.)

You have probably noticed that the first five criteria map to the sections of the article review (e.g., in the background section you should motivate the topic, the review/synthesis section you should summarise the literature, etc.).  In the conclusion section of the article review you should specify a question(s) of further interest. This may be a question you wish to further explore in your case study.  Maybe you are notable to specify a question that would motivate the case study – but try.  In any case, I want you to – in the conclusion section – make the link between the article review and the case study that follows.  Specifying a question that warrants further thinking and research (a case study) can make the link for you.

As noted above, the final three criteria relate to your writing ability. Details of these criteria are offered below (per the briefing notes).

Sequence and structure – is your writing a logical sequence of ideas, organised into paragraphs that works to establish a clear line of argument for the reader?

Language/mechanics/professionalism – have you used the vocabulary and expression appropriate

for formal academic/professional writing, have you edited your work for errors in spelling, grammar, or sentence construction?

Research/referencing – have you conducted a targeted review of the relevant business literature, in  order to achieve a synthesis of your own ideas and those of the literature, have you referenced your sources correctly both within your document and reference list?

Finally, the University uses criterion-referenced assessment. That implies that we will score the article reviews with reference to the criteria outlined in this document.  Further, we will attach meaningful descriptors to each of the criteria.  The following draft criteria sheet illustrate the use of these descriptors. Take this draft criteria sheet to be indictive of the criteria sheet to be used for assessing the article reviews.

Criteria Sheet

Grade/Criterion	Fail “0” - No Submission or Not Addressed	Low Fail “2” - Needs Improvement	Pass “4” - Functional Achievement	Credit “5” - Proficient Achievement	Distinction “6” - Advanced Achievement	High Distinction “7” - Exceptional Achievement
Motivate the topic	No introduction or motivation of the topic provided.	The topic is introduced but lacks clear motivation or relevance.	Topic is introduced clearly, some attempt to motivate.	Clear introduction of    topic, good motivation for topic.	Clear introduction of topic, recognizes broader context, excellent motivation for topic.	Clear and original introduction of topic, recognizes broader context - makes non-    obvious links, excellent motivation for topic.
Summarise the literature	No summary of literature provided.	Attempts to summarise literature but lacks coherence or integration.	Presents one   summary after another.	Presents summaries of the articles, some evidence of synthesis.	Presents a review that synthesizes and integrates the literature in an interesting way.	Presents a review that synthesizes and integrates the literature in an interesting way,    brings a new perspective to the literature and/or topic.
Critically analyse the literature	No evidence of critical analysis.	Limited evidence of critical analysis, mostly descriptive.	Some evidence of critical analysis.	Presents a critical analysis of the literature - identifying points of strength and weakness.	Presents a critical analysis of the literature - identifying points of strength and weakness, suggestive of how the literature should develop.	Presents a critical analysis of the literature - identifying points of strength and weakness with thoughtful and original perspective on possible future directions for the literature.
Develop guidelines for practice/policy	No consideration of implications for practice/policy.	Minimal consideration of implications for   practice/policy,   lacks clarity.	Some consideration  given to implications for practice/policy.	Clear statement of implications for practice/policy.	Clear and thoughtful statement of implications for practice/policy, concise summary of most important insights for   business/government.	Clear, original, and thoughtful statement of implications for practice/policy, concise summary of most important insights for   business/government.
Specify a question(s) of further interest	No question of further interest addressed.	Vaguely addresses a question of further interest without clear    specification.	Only addressed indirectly - suggestive only of a   question(s) of further interest.	Clear specification of a question(s) of further interest.	Clear specification of a question(s) of further interest, offers a rationale for the need to address that question(s).	Clear specification of a question(s) of further interest, offers a compelling rationale for the need to address that question(s), recognizing the broader implications of  addressing the question.