RES5115 Assignment 1 – Core Unit All questions refer to specified article “A wolf in dogs’ clothing? Why dingoes may not be Australian wildlife’s saviours” from the Conversation It is not possible to do well in this assignment if you do not study the materials for this unit. Instructions: Read the specified article “A wolf in dogs’ clothing? Why dingoes may not be Australian wildlife’s saviours” from the Conversation, and answer ALL the questions. This assignment has three parts. You should attempt to answer ALL parts and ALL questions. You will find the specified article for 2017, semester 1 at: http://theconversation.com/a-wolf-in-dogs-clothing-why-dingoes-may-not-be-australian-wildlifes-saviours-72185 The focus of this assignment is to assess your understanding and ability to apply ideas presented in the core module of this unit. To be successful, you will need to complete all the required readings from both the text book and from the additional readings on argument and critical thinking that can be found in the Reading List for this unit. You should reference these readings in your assignment and show you have applied your learning to the task. It is not possible to do well in the assignment without completing the readings. The article selected for analysis is taken from The Conversation. The Conversation is an online publication that presents academic research to a non-specialist audience. This journal was chosen deliberately to ensure the assessment is fair for students from all disciplines. To complete this assignment you are not expected to be a subject expert on the topic or to research the subject matter discussed in the article. To ensure fairness to all students, no marks will be awarded for additional research on the subject matter of the article. You must draw upon readings from this unit including the textbook and the electronically available articles that form part of the materials for the topics on critical thinking and argument. PART 1: Demonstrate you apply your learning about sound argument when you analyse the specified article “A wolf in dogs’ clothing? Why dingoes may not be Australian wildlife’s saviours” a. Argumentative techniques: Identifying the argumentative techniques are used (you MUST refer to the readings on types of argument (in Library Resources), you MUST reference this) (15%) (200 words) b. Argument map: Draw a map of the MAIN argument made by the author and write one paragraph to explain your map (maximum 100 words) (10%) c. Strength: Discuss the strength of propositions and arguments in terms of adequacy and sufficiency (you MUST provide examples, and refer to the readings on types of argument, you MUST reference this) (10%) (maximum 150 words) d. Clarity: Assess the clarity of presentation of the argument and identify features of the presentation that contribute to clarity (10%) (maximum 100 words) e. Improvement: Suggest how the argument could be strengthened and/or how the presentation could be improved to communicate with a general audience (10%) (maximum 100 words) f. Future research: What type of future research do the authors suggest is needed? (5%) (maximum 50 words) PART 2: For the research described in the specified article “A wolf in dogs’ clothing? Why dingoes may not be Australian wildlife’s saviours” develop: a. a purpose statement, b. a significance statement and c. research questions suitable for an academic research proposal. You MUST apply your readings from the textbook for this unit and you MUST apply these readings to the research described in the specified article “A wolf in dogs’ clothing? Why dingoes may not be Australian wildlife’s saviours” a. Write a Purpose Statement (refer to Creswell for how to write a purpose statement and reference this) 5% (100 words) b. Develop a Significance statement (refer to Creswell and reference this) 10% (150 words) c. Develop a Research Question (and sub-questions, if needed) (refer to Creswell for how to write research questions and reference) (100 words) 5% PART 3: Respond to the specified article “A wolf in dogs’ clothing? Why dingoes may not be Australian wildlife’s saviours” Read the comments made by readers at the end of the article. You may also want to read the original scientific article (Newsome, Greenville, Letnic, Ritchie, & Dickman, (2017)) and an article that responds their scientific paper (Morgan, Hunter, Ballard, Reid, & Fleming, 2016). You are NOT expected to read any other materials apart from these. You are not required to undertake additional research, as this would unfairly advantage some students. 1) Write your own response to this article, demonstrating your use of logical, adequate and sufficient argument (maximum 200 words) 20% Table 1: Marking key Marks Marker’s comments on your assignment PART 1: ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIED ARTICLE 1 a. Argumentative techniques: Identifying the argumentative techniques are used (you MUST refer to the readings on types of argument (in Library Readings), you MUST reference this) (15%) (200 words) /15 Identify the argumentative techniques used by the authors in the specified article Pass: a few techniques correctly identified and referenced, but several omissions or errors; Credit: some techniques identified and referenced, not many omissions or errors; Distinction: most techniques identified and referenced, few omissions or errors; HD: all techniques identified and referenced, no omissions or errors; Fail: - very few or no techniques correctly referenced and/or many errors or omissions) 1 b. Argument map: Draw a map of the MAIN argument made by the author and write one paragraph to explain your map (maximum 100 words) (10%) /10 How well have main arguments been identified and explained? Pass: a main argument has been identified, but not well explained and/or minor errors; Credit: as above, but better explained or fewer errors; Distinction: also identifies and explains sub-arguments that support the main argument mostly correctly; HD: as distinction, without errors; Fail:- arguments not identified or not relevant 1 c. Strength: Discuss the strength of propositions and arguments in terms of adequacy and sufficiency (you MUST provide examples, and refer to the readings on types of argument, you MUST reference this) (10%) (maximum 150 words) /10 Pass: identifies at least some fallacies / possible objections and sometimes references them correctly to the readings recommended in the unit Credit: identifies some fallacies/ objections, and mostly correctly references readings on argument Distinction: also examines some aspects of acceptability, sufficiency and relevance HD: all the above plus comprehensively examines acceptability, sufficiency and relevance plus referencing reading on argument Fail: Does not correctly identify any possible objections or fallacies 1 d. Clarity: Assess the clarity of presentation of the argument and identify features of the presentation that contribute to clarity (10%) (maximum 100 words) /10 Pass: correctly identifies at least one technique that contributes to clarity; Credit: more techniques correctly identified and referenced, but some omissions or errors; Distinction: several techniques identified, explained and referenced, only a few omissions or errors; HD: many all techniques identified, explained, referenced and discussed, no omissions or errors; Fail: - no techniques correctly referenced and/or many errors or omissions) 1 e. Improvement: Suggest how the argument could be strengthened and/or how the presentation could be improved to communicate with a general audience (10%) (maximum 100 words) fallacies and/or possible objections /10 Pass: correctly identifies at least one improvement but many omissions or errors; Credit: more improvement correctly identified, but some omissions or errors; Distinction: almost all improvement identified, only a few omissions or errors; HD: all improvements identified, referenced, no omissions or errors; Fail: - no improvements correctly identified and/or many errors or omissions) 1 f. Future research: What type of future research do the authors suggest is needed? (5%) (maximum 50 words) /5 Pass: mostly correctly identified but description could be improved; Credit: mostly correctly identified and mostly clearly explained; Distinction: correctly identified and mostly fluently described; HD: Correctly identified and described; Fail: - not relevant or not completed PART 2: BASED UPON WHAT YOU HAVE READ, ADAPT THE FORMAT, AND TYPE OF ARGUMENT TO SUIT AN ACADEMIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL (Think about how an academic presentation be different?) 2 a. Write a Purpose Statement for the research described in the article (refer to Creswell for how to write a purpose statement and reference this) 5% (100 words) /5 Pass: purpose statement is understandable but not well written Credit: purpose statement is relevant and mostly well written Distinction: purpose statement is clear, relevant and follows the guidelines HD: Purpose statement is well crafted clear, concise and completely relevant Fail: purpose statement is not relevant or not understandable 2 b. Discuss the Significance of the Proposed Research discussed in this article (why the proposed research is important) (refer to Creswell and reference this) 10% (150 words) /10 Pass: significance statement has some merit but has some omissions and/or is poorly referenced to the guidelines Credit: significance statement is mostly clear and follows the guidelines and is referenced to the guidelines Distinction: significance statement is clear, follows the guidelines and is correctly referenced HD: significant statement is well-crafted clear, concise and completely relevant and referenced Fail: significance statement is not relevant or not understandable 2 c. Develop a Research Question (and sub-questions, if needed) for the research discussed in this article (refer to Creswell for how to write research questions and reference) (100 words) 5% /5 Pass: Research Questions have some merit but has omissions and/or is irrelevancies Credit: Research Questions are mostly clear and appropriate, and follow the guidelines Distinction: Research Questions are clear follow the guidelines and are correctly referenced HD: Research Questions are clear, concise and completely relevant and correctly referenced to the text Fail: Research Questions are either not understandable or are not relevant PART 3: YOUR RESPONSE: Read the comments made by readers in response to this piece (in the comments section of the article). You may also want to read the original scientific article (Newsome, Greenville, Letnic, Ritchie, & Dickman, (2017)) and an article that responds their scientific paper (Morgan, Hunter, Ballard, Reid, & Fleming, 2016) 1 a) Develop your own response to this article, demonstrating your use of logical, adequate and sufficient argument (maximum 200 words) 20% /20 Pass: Response expresses your position and relates it to a few arguments presented Credit: Response expresses your position and relates it to some major disagreements accurately Distinction: Response expresses your position and clearly relates this accurately to the major disagreements HD: Provides an exceptionally well expressed response built upon a very clear analysis and explanation of the most important disagreements Fail: response is not relevant, not understandable or is based upon unsound arguments OTHER Referencing (all parts): appropriate and consistent usage throughout Marks may be deducted for incorrect referencing Up to 5% for very poor referencing formatting or improper use of referencing or complete lack of referencing. For minor problems like incorrect formatting/ incomplete bibliographic information throughout deduct only 1%-2% –refer for support. If no references are used in the assignment deduct 5% You should reference at minimum: The article analysed; at least two articles on argument and critical thinking from library resources; You must also reference: the course textbook (Creswell); other sources on argument from library resources Fluency of expression and grammatical correctness Errors may result in lost marks Up to 5% for poor fluency. Minor problems, consistent grammatical error, poor proof-reading (perhaps only 1%-2% –refer for support). If fluency is so poor that it is not possible to follow what you are saying, you will have lost marks anyway in the main marking system. Total marks (as a percentage) /100