The University of Queensland **We aren't endorsed by this school
Aug 25, 2023
Uploaded by HighnessAtom2984 on coursehero.com
© 2021 Travis M. IA3 Research Report - Criterion Breakdown Criterion: Considered rationale identifying clear development of the research question from the claim How to address it: This criterion assesses the process you used in developing your research question. Recall that the rationale section is meant to show your reasoning behind selecting that research question. It can be addressed by: Stating the original claim Identifying elements of the claim that could be elaborated on Elaborating on those elements of the claim Stating the research question Criterion: A specific and relevant research question How to address it: The research question is the basis for the entire report. It is what you are attempting to answer. It must be broad enough that it actually requires research to answer, and you can write approximately 1200 words on it, but it must also be specific enough that it can be answered using the available evidence. It must also be relevant to the original claim i.e. it must be related to some element of the original claim. Consider the following: Does the research include elements that could be considered independent and/or dependent variables? Can the research question be answered using the resources that you have available to you? Can you collect sufficient evidence about this topic? Can any elements of the research question be addressed using statistics and/or quantitative data? Criterion: Selection of sufficient and relevant sources How to address it: The sources are the scientific websites, journals, magazines and books where you get your evidence from. Sufficient refers to the use of enough sources (at least 5) as well as the use of a variety of types of sources (at least 2 different types). Relevant refers to the use of sources that would be considered as authorities on the chosen topic - the information within them should be easily verified and have data supporting it. Using your library's database tools will help you to identify and select relevant sources. Consider the following: Have you attempted to access sources NOT on Google? Does the source provide author, date and review details? Does the source reference other texts in support of its argument? Have you read from multiple types of sources? Criterion: Identification of sufficient and relevant evidence How to address it: The evidence is the statements of fact that can be taken from the sources in order to answer the research question. The best approach is to break the evidence section into three parts - 1 section as an introduction of the main element that is being investigated (this provides background information, definitions and statistics), and then the next 2 sections about particular elements of the research question that you want to provide more detail on that will help answer the question. It can be addressed by: Using evidence from multiple sources Using quality sources that provide sufficient detail in their material Using enough evidence to allow for a detailed and thorough analysis of its meaning Criterion: Thorough identification of relevant trends, patterns and relationships How to address it: Thorough means the task has been completed carefully and with attention to every detail. Obvious trends/patterns/relationships should be identified and there should be no superficial statements. How this criterion is addressed will depend on the nature of the evidence that has been collected. If the evidence is mostly quantitative, the trends/patterns/relationships
© 2021 Travis M. can be interpreted straight from the graphs or tables, much like in a lab report. If the evidence is mostly qualitative, consider what similarities exist between the evidence from different sources. This is a holistic view of the entirety of the evidence and the different piece fit together. Consider the following: How do the different sources/evidence support each other and what aspects of the topic do they agree on? Is there any quantitative data that you can refer to that will support your identification of trends/patterns/relationships? Criterion: Thorough and appropriate identification of limitations of evidence How to address it: This criterion is only focus on identifying the limitations. Assessing how they impacted the investigation is in another criterion. The limitations are the weak points or disadvantages that make the evidence less effective. Each source or statement (depending on the context) needs to be analysed to determine how appropriate it is to use as evidence in the argument. Consider the following: Are there any apparent biases in the evidence or the source of the evidence? What assumptions have been made by the evidence (or by you)? What factors prevented the collection of more appropriate data? Criterion: Insightful interpretation of research evidence demonstrated by justified scientific argument How to address it: The argument relates to how the evidence has been framed and interpreted while answering the research question. Insightful means that the argument shows understanding of the situation and justified means the argument is supported by the evidence. There should be a clear line of reasoning that has been used to make the argument, and it should draw upon evidence that is valid and reliable. Consider the following: Do you genuinely understand the information contained in the evidence? Have you read multiple sources on the same topic and considered different viewpoints? Is there sufficient evidence to support your interpretation? Have you interpreted the evidence in the context of answering the research question? Criterion: Insightful interpretation of research evidence demonstrated by justified conclusion/s linked to the research question How to address it: The conclusion is the answer to the research question and a summary of the argument that has been made in the report. It must be supported by the evidence that has been presented in the body of the report. Consider the following: Has the research question been answered? Can all conclusions be logically derived from the evidence that has been provided? Would a reader of the report come to the same conclusion? Criterion: Insightful discussion of the quality of the evidence How to address it: The quality of the evidence refers to how the previously identified limitations impacted the research investigation. Each limitation should be considered in the context of the research question and how that limited evidence was used in the argument. The reliability (currency, equivalency, credibility, type of source) and validity (relevance, supporting data) of the evidence should also be discussed here. It can be addressed by: Relating the limitations of the evidence to how that evidence was used in the argument Analysing each piece of evidence for reliability and validity Determining if the evidence can be considered as suitable to answer the research question Criterion: Extrapolation of credible findings of the research to the claim How to address it: Extrapolation refers to extending the current conclusion to a new situation, while working under the assumption that existing trends will continue. This criterion assesses how the answer to your research question helps to address the original claim. The conclusions made in
© 2021 Travis M. the report need to be put into the context of the original claim and a determination should be made on how well the claim has been addressed. Consider the following: Does the gathered evidence support or refute the claim? Can the claim be completely addressed by the gather evidence? Do the limitations of the evidence have any impact on the ability to address the claim? Criterion: Suggested improvements and extensions to the investigation that are considered and relevant to the claim How to address it: Improvements are modifications to the investigation that mitigate the limitations of evidence that were previously identified. Extensions are modifications that could be used to further examine the claim. Considered means there has been careful and deliberate thought when identifying the improvements and extensions. All the improvements should be supported by the findings from the analysis and evaluation of your evidence. All extensions should be logical and relevant to the original claim. Consider the following: How could the limitations of the evidence be removed? What alternate research/procedures could be performed to make the investigation more effective? What other research is necessary in order to completely address the claim? Has the investigation raised any additional questions that could be researched? Criterion: Fluent and concise use of scientific language and representations How to address it: Fluent means that the report flows and is easily read. Concise means the information has been conveyed clearly and in few words, without repetition. It can be addressed by: Writing the report using a planned paragraph structure Ensuring consecutive points are related/relevant to each other Limiting the use of adjectives and descriptors Criterion: Appropriate use of genre conventions How to address it: Genre conventions are the standards that are expected from a specific type of report. This will depend on the report type you choose, but consider how the information is being presented to the reader. It can be addressed by: Planning the report using a set structure Formatting headings and paragraphs Using consistent fonts, sizes and spacings Criterion: Acknowledgement of sources of information through appropriate use of referencing conventions How to address it: References should be appropriately formatted and cited in the text. When using information from a source, it can be presented as a either a quote, a paraphrase or just as supporting information. Regardless of how the information is used, it should always be cited. It can be addressed by: Using a reference formatter (such as the library tool) Ensuring all listed references are included as citations within the text
Page1of 3
Uploaded by HighnessAtom2984 on coursehero.com