Ritical Review of the Paper (paper is attached)

Its a post Graduate Critical Review so plz concentrate on analysis . i need critical review not description. The details are given below as well as i am attaching them and the paper i would like you to critically review..

The Critical Review Paper

TITLE OF ASSESSMENT: The Critical Review Paper



PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION CAREFULLY.
All research paper based assessments are now required to be submitted into the JISC system (via Turnitin) to check for plagiarism.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION
You are required to submit your work within the bounds of the University Infringement of Assessment Regulations (see your Programme Guide). Plagiarism, paraphrasing and downloading large amounts of information from external sources, will not be tolerated and will be dealt with severely. Although you should make full use of any source material, which would normally be an occasional sentence and/or paragraph (referenced) followed by your own critical analysis/evaluation. You will receive no marks for work that is not your own. Your work may be subject to checks for originality which can include use of an electronic plagiarism detection service.
Where you are asked to submit an individual piece of work, the work must be entirely your own. The safety of your assessments is your responsibility. You must not permit another student access to your work. Where referencing is required, unless otherwise stated, the Harvard referencing system must be used (see your Programme Guide).

Introduction


The assessment for the module comprises evidence centred on an individual Review paper that addresses a professional, ethical or legal issue that relates to the student s programme of study. There are 2 elements to the Review Paper Critique: the critical analysis of your chosen paper and your annotated bibliography as an appendix.

The overall objective is to demonstrate that you have attained a level of competence in a range of skills and abilities which are associated with research. In particular, since research results are normally disseminated through the use of written papers, students studying within Masters level courses need to demonstrate the ability to produce such papers. In particular you need to demonstrate that you can critically appraise other peoples published work.


The Task
You will write a detailed critical review of just this one paper. There is guidance on this process and samples of reviews at tlu.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/criticalreviewwriting.pdf. Your critique may be positive as well as negative overall not all reviews are negative, but it should be a balanced, objective review. The important point is that this assignment will assess how well you understand the process of critiquing a paper and how well you can communicate your review. You must clearly identify the paper you have chosen to review from the ones in Sunspace. If you choose your own paper to critique it must be from a peer-reviewed academic journal. Your review report must be structured in the following manner

Description Marks
Introduction Introduce what the paper is about, what are the main points argued and give an overview of what you will be arguing  a general overview of your main criticism of the article. Also include a brief outline of your conclusion of the paper. 10%
Main body of the review This should form about 80% of your review and consist of 2 main components
” the summary of the article (convey the gist of the article to someone who has not read it) and
” the criticism of the article.
You can approach this in one of 2 ways: either

” a description of point 1 and then the criticism, description of point 2 and then the criticism etc or
” a summary of all the main points of the whole article and then criticism of the main points of the whole article.


Devote at least one paragraph to each point. Evaluate the theory and methodology of the paper. Set the paper in context  you might have to look at 2-3 other papers (perhaps from the reference list). All citations and the reference list (of these selected context papers) should be in Harvard format. 70%
Conclusion A summary of the main points of the reviewa brief recap of the main points and where you agree or disagree with author(s). You may mention identified gaps in the literature and recommendations for further research. 10%
Use of appropriate academic language and clarity of expression. Write in a clear, objective manner with evidence given to support your points. Avoid flowery language, just giving your opinion and do not use subjective language. Do not use quotations. 10%





Student feedback

Section >79% 65-79 50-64 40-49% 35-39% < 35% Not done or Infringement Mark Introduction 10% A very wellstructured summary of the article and your approach taken in the review A wellstructured summary of the article and your approach taken in the review A structured summary of the article and your approach taken in the review An adequate summary of the article and your approach taken in the review Summary of some points but not all or missing key points. May or may not describe your approach. Some points identified but mostly missing key points. No description of your approach. Not done Evidence of plagiarism Main body: Summary 35% Evidence that the whole article has been read and understood and very well-summarised including the methodology and analysis. Evidence that the whole article has been read and understood and well-summarised including the methodology and analysis. Evidence that the whole article has been read and understood and adequately summarised including the methodology and analysis. Most of the article has been read and understood and summarised including the methodology and analysis. Parts summarised but little or nothing on the methodology and analysis Poor understanding demonstrated of the main points and/ or methodology and analysis. Not done Evidence of plagiarism Main body: criticism 35% Detailed and objective criticism of the main points of the paper and its methodology and analysis if relevant. Very good, objective criticism of the main points of the paper and its methodology and analysis if relevant Good, objective criticism of the main points of the paper and its methodology and analysis if relevant Criticism of the main points of the paper and its methodology and analysis if relevant Criticism of the main points of the paper and its methodology and analysis if relevant Little criticism of the main points  a very selected criticism or very little attempted Not done Evidence of plagiarism Continued...... Conclusion 10% Excellent, relevant recap of the main points and opinion of areas of agreement/ disagreement and suggestions for further research. Very good, relevant recap of the main points and opinion of areas of agreement/ disagreement and suggestions for further research. Good recap of the main points and opinion of areas of agreement/ disagreement and suggestions for further research. Adequate recap of the main points and opinion of areas of agreement/ disagreement and suggestions for further research. Some points summarised and opinion of areas of agreement/ disagreement voiced but may be biased or expressed subjectively. Not done or some key points missed. Evidence of plagiarism Language 10% Very clearly expressed points in appropriate academic language. Clearly expressed points in appropriate academic language. Good expression mostly and in appropriate academic language. Mostly clearly expressed points in appropriate language. Meaning not always clear, may be some subjective language used. Poor language used, difficult to follow. Evidence of plagiarism Total Harvard References (References Should be from a peer-reviewed(authentic) academic journal not from Internet sources.)