PICX2013 Crisis Management and Disaster Relief-Assessment 3 Essay

Assessment 2 – Project Report by Rifat Mahmud

Submission date: 03-May-2020 09:11PM (UTC+1000) Submission ID: 1314533095 File name: 307303_Rifat_Mahmud_Assessment_2_-_Project_Report_5556378_1163746702.docx (23.97K) Word count: 1396 Character count: 7960

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Need to support this statement/s

11

12

The use of "I" or "we" in academic papers

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

FINAL GRADE

15/30 Assessment 2 – Project Report GRADEMARK REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

Rifat. Hope you are well. So, you had some good stuff in here, an improvement on your first paper so well done. Have a read of my comments on this paper. You will see a number of things.

You MUST support your statements. You can not make massive generalisations like you do. Referencing was good. I dont think you did an essay plan as the content is 'all over the shop'. If you did then you need to try and develop a better one. Break topics up into sections or subheadings which is fine. I found it overall confusing tbh.

Read my comments and like your first paper, they are there to help you improve, and you have. Take care & nregards, Vince

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

Comment 1

, total agree but which ones? Give me 1 example and you must support this massive sweeping statement R.

Comment 2

Umm, not sure I know this organisation?

Comment 3

Really R. Who said so? Where is your evidence for this??

Comment 4

QM

QM

What reports are they R? You havent given me any

Comment 5

ok, and who is CESIN?

Comment 6

how do you know they have 600 computers R? Again, you are stating a fact so it must be referenced

Comment 7

ok, what illnesses are they??? I have no idea

Comment 8

???

Comment 9

ok so you are talking about c19 and the health care institution them?

PAGE 3

Comment 10

good

Need to support this statement/s OK. I see what you are saying but, how do you know this? Where is your academic support for this claim? You should support your view.

Try to avoid making sweeping generalisations for without academic support it does not add a great deal of creditibility to your paper. You need to support you claim

Comment 11

Ok, R. I agree but, this is a massive generalisation. Who said so?

Comment 12

R, In my very first ECHO lecture I talked about the use of the word "I" in assignments. Its a big no, no!!

The use of "I" or "we" in academic papers

OK. When writing academic papers or assignments, you and I can not say, "I" or "me" or "we" in a

paper. The only people that can say "I" are world experts in their particular field. So instead you write, “This paper believes…….” Never use 'I' or 'me' or it is 'my experience' or "we". You can only rely on academic/peer reviewed papers to support any argument or point you are putting forward. Such is the pedantic world of academic!

Comment 13

ok good

Comment 14

grammar

Comment 15

again R. I totally agree but, who said this is so??? Again, its a massive generalisation

Comment 16

R. Again you MUST support all these claims with academic material. Who said all this was so?

Comment 17

YES

YES

YES!!!!!!

MORE OF THIS!!

PAGE 4

Comment 18

R, you have no support for any of this unfortunately

Comment 19

et.al.

Check how to reference 3 or more authors R

Strikethrough.

Comment 21

R, your talking about cyber attack. What has c19 got to do with this?

Strikethrough.

Comment 23

You have told me this already R

Strikethrough.

Comment 25

ok, what reports R? You have ACTUALLY told me what they are, their title??

PAGE 5

Comment 26

your reference for this is????

Comment 27

Ok, you must reference this. You know it because you read it so, reference it R

Comment 28

yes! Excellent!!

Comment 29

what reports ?

Comment 30

you have no support for anything in this paragaraph

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

Comment 31

good

RUBRIC: 2020 S 2 PROJECT REPORT_COPY

RISK IDENTIFI (40%)

HIGH DISTINCTION (30)

DISTINCTION (24)

CREDIT (18)

PASS (15)

FAIL (0)

RECOMMENDATIO (40%)

HIGH DISTINCTION (30)

DISTINCTION (24)

CREDIT (18)

PASS (15)

FAIL (0)

INTRODUCTION (10%)

HIGH DISTINCTION (30)

DISTINCTION (24)

CREDIT (18)

15 / 30

15 / 30

To what degree was the 2 risk identified explained? Clarity, complexity, support by academic/scholarly material.

The reviewed work is from a well-reputed and appropriate scholarly source and is highly relevant to the topic area.

The reviewed work is relevant to the topic area and is from an appropriate scholarly source.

The reviewed work is of mixed quality. Generally of relevance to the topic area and from an appropriate scholarly source.

The reviewed work is either not from an appropriate scholarly source OR is not relevant to the topic area.

The reviewed work is not relevant to the topic area. Inappropriate, unscholarly sources used.

15 / 30

Were 2 recommendations made? To what degree were the recommendations made support by academic literature. Clarity around how to better deal with the risks.

The recommendations are informative and comprehensive and have an outstanding integration/support of scholarly material. 2 recommendations were made.

The recommendations are informative.2 recommendations were made and work is supported very well the scholarly material

The recommendations are generally good and is well supported with scholarly material. Some significant information lacking. 2 recommendations were made

The recommendations are adequate but important detail lacking. Limited scholarly material used. 2 recommendations were made

There are no recommendations or there is only 1 or no recommendations made. There is no scholarly source content

15 / 30

Was the justification for the example sufficient & clear?

The introduction was clear, detailed and demonstrates valuable critical insight, justification

The introduction was great, clear and demonstrates critical insight, justification.

The introduction was good and showed adequate justification

PASS (15)

FAIL (0)

SYNTAX REF WO (10%)

HIGH DISTINCTION (30)

DISTINCTION (24)

CREDIT (18)

PASS (15)

FAIL (0)

The review section is limited. No evidence of critical insight, justification.

The introduction was not of tertiary standard or is absent. It lacked clarity or relevance.

15 / 30

Referencing was correct and the degree to which, grammar, spelling and sentence construction was applied/suitable

The work is cited appropriately in Harvard format. No mistakes. Syntax was excellent. No mistakes. Word limit was adhered to

The work has appropriate citation but contains a minor mistake. Syntax was very good and word limit adhered to.

Several mistakes or wrong citation method used. Good syntax and word limit adhered to

Some attempt at citation but common errors throughout Syntax okay but needs improvement. Word limit adhered to.

No referencing or very poor or inconsistent referencing. Word limit grossly over or grossly under. Poor syntax.