for all work solver

This is an intriguing research proposal!  Please take a look at the comments in the  rubric for suggestions pertaining to how you can strengthen your research proposal  All of the suggestions are fix-able

Literature review: key aspect of cognition. Summarizes the evidence presented in the existing research in the field regarding the; key aspects of cognition, but summary is cursory or contains inaccuracies. POINT SCORED 5.064/6.33

Criterion Feedback

Research papers tend to be more focused on the particular problem examined by your proposed research (that is, the thesis). This paper starts a bit too vague and general. Hone in on the research question or thesis sooner. And then let it frame your research literature review. When you describe particular studies, summarize what they did and found in relation to your research question. The description of Kafadar (2012) is unclear. You indicate that Kafadar "has given articulation of various assessment which currently align with cognition and research gap where in his article, there is the involvement of participants who have given an opinion...." What assessment and research gap are you referring to? It is almost as though you assume the reader knows of things you have not discussed yet. When you summarize previous research, cut right to the chase. What was the problem addressed by the study summarized? What methodology did the researchers use to address it. What did they find? If you can answer those questions concisely, I think you could make the literature review easier for readers to follow.

Literature review: Cognitive process influence-Summarizes the evidence presented in the existing research in the field regarding the; key aspects of cognition, but summary is cursory or contains inaccuracies. POINT SCORED 5.064/6.33

Criterion Feedback

Try to include at least some research that is primary. That is, include summary of research where the authors collected their own data. What did the researchers do in regards to methodology? What did they find and conclude in light of your research question?

Literature Review History- Explains how the view of cognition has evolved over the history of the field, using examples from the research POINTS SCORED 6.33/6.33

Literature review cognitive psychology- Explains the conclusions that can be reached about cognitive psychology, based on analysis of the existing research in the field using examples from the research POINT SCORED 19/19

Literature review research design-Describes the research designs used in the existing research in the field to address research questions, but description is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or response does not reference specific research designs from the research POINT SCORED 5.064/6.33

Criterion Feedback

Your understanding of this is difficult to gauge from what is shown so far since methodologies are not linked to specific articles. When we write-up literature reviews we typically describe the most relevant articles one at a time (I would suggest that here). In each summary we highlight the methodology and then the findings rather than review all methodologies at once

Literature review conduct research-Explains how research designs were used by authors in the existing research in the field to conduct research, but explanation is cursory or contains inaccuracies POINT SCORED 5.064/6.33

Literature review: issues of ethics-Discusses how issues of ethics have been addressed in the existing research in the field, but discussion is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or lacks examples from research POINT SCORED 3.8/4.7 5

Criterion Feedback

What ethical safeguards were taken in the empirical studies (that is, the ones in which data were collected) you summarize in the literature review? For example, was participation voluntary, was informed consent used, and were participants debriefed (if deception was used)?

Literature review viewed- Discusses how issues of ethics in cognitive psychology have been viewed historically, but discussion is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or lacks examples from research POINT SCORED 3.8/4.75

Research design gap-Does not identify a gap in the existing cognitive psychology research in the field that is unexplored or underdeveloped POINT SCORED 0/0.9

Criterion Feedback

I don't see an analysis of what questions have not been answered by the existing research literature. Where you mention a gap, it appears you are describing what existing research has focused on rather than what is lacking.

Research design: research question-Develops a basic research question addressing the identified gap, but developed research question is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or lacks examples from the research POINT SCORED 7.6/9.5

The question is more of an open-ended and philosophical question. Try to ask a question that is specific and testable.

Research design: Research design-Does not determine a research design that addresses the research question and explain why it was chosen POINT SCORED 0/6.33

Criterion Feedback

What type of research would you conduct to answer your research question and how would you set up the methodology (generally)?

Research design: Issues of ethics-Explains how issues of ethics would be accounted for with the proposed research, but explanation is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or lacks examples from the research POINT SCORED 3.8/4.75

Criterion Feedback

What ethical precautions would you take regarding your proposed research? For example would you use informed consent and would participation be voluntary?

Research design informed-Explains how approach to accounting for issues of ethics was informed by review of the existing research in the field, but explanation is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or response is not supported by personal thoughts and examples from research POINT SCORED 3.8/4.75

Articulation of response-Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas POINT SCORED 4.016/.5.02

Criterion Feedback

When citing outside of parentheses, use the word and instead of an ampersand. E.g., Nurdansyah and Vachtiar (2017) discuss... Some of the wording is a bit unconventional (but this is typical when new to writing in a certain area or field). For example, we tend to refer to cognitive processes rather than "cognition processes."

Some sentences don’t make sense (e.g., “The article has considered the link and research gap that exists and depicted in various cognition.”)

OVERALL SCORE 72.402/100