ENV315 Paper critique summary 2024-2025 Semester I
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit
ENV315 Paper critique summary (50% of final mark)
2024-2025 Semester I
Learning outcomes:
A evaluate different research approaches
B critically reading & evaluating research papers
C write a paper critique of a research paper
D identify common pitfalls in research
Assignment description
This assignment includes a series of 11 paper critiques, which will run from week 2 to week 12. Each of the critique summaries will be graded on a scale of 0-100. Should the total number of assignments change from the initial aim of 11, your grade will be prorated accordingly.
Every week, you'll receive a research paper in advance. Your task is to submit a critique of this paper by 18:00 each Wednesday. These critiques will set the stage for our in-depth discussions during the Friday seminars. Each summary should be at least half a page long (around 350 words) but no longer than 1 page, all single-spaced. There is no format requirement.
Submission Guidelines:
· Identify and list: 1) the topic, 2) the question(s), and 3) hypotheses
· Address the merit of the topic, question(s) and hypotheses
· If needed, identify any research background in the introduction that is missing in this paper, that you need to understand the topic, question(s) or hypotheses(s)
· Identify strength of the research
· Identify any flaws or weaknesses of the research
· Identity strength and/or weakness in the writing
· Identify any ethical issues
· Give an overall assessment
No extensions will be granted for late submissions. All critique summaries must be turned in prior to their respective deadlines, which will be set before we discuss each paper in class. In the event that you fail to submit a critique but have a valid and documented reason, such as a medical emergency certified by a doctor or an accident verified by a police record, your grade will be adjusted based on the number of critiques you have submitted.
Please upload your completed critiques to the Learning Mall platform. Ensure that the file name consists solely of your student ID number for easy identification. The marking criteria are provided.
The marking criteria are detailed in the following table:
|
|
Knowledge and Understanding (40%) |
Intellectual Skills (40%) |
Transferable Skills (20%) |
|
100% |
The best answer that could reasonably be expected from a student at that level of study under the prevailing conditions (i.e., exam or coursework) |
||
|
90-99% ‘Outstanding’ |
Total coverage of the task set. Exceptional demonstration of knowledge and understanding appropriately grounded in theory and relevant literature. |
Extremely creative and imaginative approach. Comprehensive and accurate analysis. Well-argued conclusions. Perceptive self-assessment. |
Extremely clear exposition. Excellently structured and logical answer. Excellent presentation, only the most insignificant errors
|
|
80-89% ‘Excellent’
|
As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses or gaps in knowledge and understanding. |
As ‘Outstanding’ but slightly less imaginative and with some minor gaps in analysis and/or conclusions |
As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses in structure, logic and/or presentation.
|
|
70-79% ‘Very Good’
|
Full coverage of the task set. Generally very good demonstration good, you got most of it. But write more of a reflection, on what you knew about this before class and what your of knowledge and understanding but with some modest gaps. Good grounding in theory. |
Some creative and imaginative features. Very good and generally accurate analysis. Sound conclusions. Some self-assessment.
|
Generally clear exposition. Satisfactory structure. Very good presentation, largely free of grammatical and other errors.
|
|
60-69% ‘Comprehensive’
|
As ‘Very Good’ but with more and/or more significant gaps in knowledge & understanding and some significant gaps in grounding |
As ‘Very Good’ but analysis and conclusions contain some minor weaknesses.
|
As ‘Very Good’ but with some weaknesses in exposition and/or structure and a few more grammatical and other errors.
|
|
50-59% ‘Competent’
|
Covers most of the task set. Patchy knowledge and understanding with limited grounding in literature.
|
Rather limited creative and imaginative features. Patchy analysis containing significant flaws. Rather limited conclusions. No self-assessment. |
Competent exposition and structure. Competent presentation but some significant grammatical and other errors.
|
|
40-49% ‘Adequate’
|
As ‘Competent’ but patchy coverage of the task set and more weaknesses and/or omissions in knowledge and understanding. Just meets the threshold level.
|
As ‘Competent’ but probably without much imagination. Shows barely adequate ability to analyse and draw conclusions. Just meets the threshold level.
|
As ‘Competent’ but with more weaknesses in exposition, structure, presentation and/or errors. Just meets the threshold level.
|
|
35-39% ‘Compensable fail’
|
Some parts of the set task likely to have been omitted. Major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Some significant confusion. Very limited grounding. Falls just short of the threshold level. |
No creative or imaginative features. Analysis and conclusions rather limited. Falls just short of the threshold level.
|
Somewhat confused and limited exposition. Confused structure. Some weaknesses in presentation and some serious grammatical and other errors. Falls just short of the threshold level.
|
|
20-34% ‘Deficient’
|
As ‘Compensable Fail’ but with major omissions and/or major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Falls substantially below the threshold level. |
As ‘Compensable Fail’ but analysis and/or conclusions may have been omitted. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
|
As ‘Compensable Fail’ but with more serious weaknesses in presentation and/or grammar. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
|
|
0-20% ‘Extremely weak’
|
Substantial sections of the task not covered. Knowledge & understanding very limited and/or largely incorrect. No grounding in theory. |
No creative or imaginative features. Analysis extremely weak or omitted. No conclusions.
|
Largely confused exposition and structure. Many serious grammatical and other errors.
|
|
Awarded Marks |
|
|
|
|
Final Mark: |
Total mark: Deduction for Word-count = Deduction for Lateness =
Final mark = / 100 |
||
2025-07-24
Critical Reading, Reviewing & Writing Scientific Environmental & Ecology Papers