Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?
Talk to an Expert| Category | Assignment | Subject | Science |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | London Metropolitan University (LMU) | Module Title | SH4011 Research and Academic Practice |
By submitting this assignment I have completed, I declare that this work is my own and the work of others (including internet sources) is acknowledged by quotations and appropriate Harvard referencing. I declare that this work has not made use of the work of any other student(s) past or present at this or any other educational institution or from any other source. I confirm that this work has only made appropriate use of Generative AI tools such as Grammarly to help with proofreading or for brainstorming the topic at the start of the writing process and the work is my own and has not been generated or written with the assistance of AI. Please type your name, student ID and date to confirm the above statement:
NAME:
STUDENT ID:
DATE:
Name of assessment: Article summary and critical commentary
Using academic databases, find a peer-reviewed study article on a topic of your choice. Summarise its contents: crucially, this means reporting on its research question, its methodology, and the results it finds. Then, provide a critical commentary on the article: does it answer the question effectively? Draw on other literature, and especially on methodological literature.
Then, upload the article you found to an LLM and ask for a summary. Use the ‘comment’ function on Microsoft Word to add comments to the AI summary discussing how it compares to your summary.
The word count is 1000 words for your summary: this excludes references, comments and the AI summary.
Weighting: 40
Formative submission deadline due date: Wednesday 28 January 2026 (Wk8)
Final Submission due date: Friday March 20, 2026
Feedback release date: 3 weeks after submission
Get Answer of SH4011 Research and Academic Practice Assignment Before Deadline
Order Assignment on WhatsAppMarking Criteria Grid Undergraduate (see at the end of this document)
Source handling – This criterion refers to how well you identify and search an appropriate database and how well you reference and cite your chosen article and any other sources used.
Description – This criterion refers to how effectively you summarise and describe your chosen article. Considerations include accuracy, and how well you select which information to include and exclude.
Critical analysis – This criterion refers to how effective your critical analysis of your chosen paper is.
Structure and communication – This criterion refers to how well you structure your work, and how clearly you write and communicate your ideas.
This method assesses student progress on the following learning outcomes:
You will receive written constructive feedback via Turnitin.
Reassessment will involve the submission of an edited or new piece of work following the same brief at the next assessment opportunity.
| A – First | B – Upper Second | C – Lower Second | D – Third | E – Third | F – Fail | |||
| 80 – 100
Excellent Pass [1] |
70 – 79
Very Good Pass |
60 – 69
Good Pass |
50 – 59
Satisfactory Pass |
43 – 49
Adequate Pass |
40 – 42
Basic Pass |
25 – 39
Fail |
0 – 24
Inadequate |
|
| Content | ||||||||
| Addresses learning outcomes & assignment brief | Addresses criteria & assessment brief comprehensively
Addresses all Learning Outcomes fully |
Addresses criteria & assessment brief in-depth
Addresses all Learning Outcomes in-depth |
Addresses criteria & assessment brief effectively
Addresses all Learning Outcomes in detail |
Broadly addresses criteria & assessment brief
Learning Outcomes satisfactorily addressed |
Addresses criteria & assessment brief superficially
Some irrelevant material |
Addresses criteria & assessment brief very superficially
Some irrelevant material |
Does not effectively address criteria & assessment brief
A great deal of irrelevant material |
Does not address criteria & assessment brief
Predominately irrelevant material |
| Knowledge & understanding | Comprehensive and in-depth knowledge & understanding
No omissions or inaccuracies |
Detailed and accurate knowledge & understanding
Very minor omissions or inaccuracies |
Clear and accurate knowledge & understanding
A few omissions and/or inaccuracies |
Good descriptive knowledge/understanding of basic principles
Minor omissions and/or inaccuracies |
Key concepts generally understood
Omissions and/or misunderstandings evident |
Key concepts identified but limited understanding
Some major omissions and/or inaccuracies evident |
Some limited knowledge
Major omissions and/or misunderstandings Very little or no understanding evident |
Limited or no knowledge
Extensive omissions and/or misunderstandings No understanding evident |
| Use of literature | Demonstrates in-depth integration of very broad range of appropriate sources | Demonstrates effective integration of wide range of appropriate sources | Evidence of effective application of wide range of appropriate sources | Some evidence of sound application of a number of appropriate sources | Limited use of basic, generally appropriate sources | Limited use of basic sources with some inappropriate sources | Very superficial use of basic sources with several inappropriate sources | No evidence of reading or use of appropriate sources |
| Critical thinking | ||||||||
| Evaluation | Consistent & effective critical use of material
Consistent awareness of limits & contradictions of theory |
Very good critical use of material
Some awareness of wider limits & contradictions of theory |
Good critical use of some material
Identifies specific limits of & contradictions in theory |
Some evidence of critical use of material
Some awareness of alternatives to basic perspectives |
Superficial evidence of critical use of material
Superficial awareness of alternatives to basic perspectives |
Very limited evidence of critical use of material
Very limited awareness of alternatives to basic perspectives |
No effective evaluation of evidence & sources cited in support of discussion | No evaluation of evidence & sources cited OR
Very few of no sources cited |
| Discussion
Logical & progressive development supported & informed by evidence |
Convincingly & effectively developed
Effectively discusses key issues supported & informed by evidence. |
Convincingly & effectively developed
Effectively discusses key issues supported & informed by evidence. |
Effectively developed
Consistently discusses key issues supported & informed by evidence. |
Well developed
Discusses main key issues Well supported & informed by evidence. |
Inconsistently and/or poorly developed
Inconsistent use of evidence to support argument |
Inadequately and/or inappropriately developed
Inconsistent use of evidence to support argument |
Arguments frequently confused/ not fully developed.
Limited & superficial use of evidence |
Very little or no evidence of structured argument.
No/very limited use of evidence |
| Argument
Assumptions & points made are consistent with discussion & evidence presented |
Effective argument(s) developed from & integrated with discussion & evidence. | Very good argument(s) developed from & consistent with discussion & evidence. | Good argument(s) clearly based on discussion & evidence | Sound argument(s) clearly based on discussion & evidence | Adequate argument(s) generally based on discussion & evidence | Superficial argument(s) based on limited discussion & evidence | Very superficial argument(s) based on very limited discussion & evidence | No arguments or invalid or unsupported assumptions made. |
| Structure & presentation | ||||||||
| Structure
Introduction & conclusion, signposting & paragraphs
|
Logical & coherent structure with integrated organisation & signposting
Excellent introduction & conclusion |
Logical & coherent structure with effective organisation & signposting
Very good introduction & conclusion |
Clear structure with consistent organisation & signposting
Good introduction & conclusion |
Clear structure with some organisation & signposting
Clear introduction & conclusion |
Barely adequate structure with inconsistent organisation & signposting
Adequate introduction & conclusion |
Limited structure with erratic organisation & signposting
Ineffective introduction & conclusion |
Very limited structure
Very brief & limited introduction & conclusion |
No structure
No introduction and/or conclusion |
| Clarity of expression
punctuation, grammar, spelling, word choice and sentence construction |
Consistently fluently & clearly expressed.
|
Generally fluently & clearly expressed.
Some very minor errors. |
Clearly expressed.
Some minor errors. |
Meaning generally clear but not consistently fluent.
Minor errors which do not affect understanding. |
Meaning generally clear
Occasional errors which make work difficult to understand at times. |
Meaning not always clear
Errors which frequently make work difficult to understand. |
Meaning often not clear
Errors which frequently make work difficult to understand. |
Meaning not clear.
Errors which make work very difficult and/or impossible to follow. |
| Referencing | All sources cited are presented fully in accordance with the required system.
Fluent integration of sources into text. No inaccuracies in citations of all sources. |
All sources cited are presented fully in accordance with the required system.
Very good integration of sources into text. Very minor inaccuracies in citations of unusual sources |
Majority of sources presented in accordance with the required system.
Good integration of sources into text. Some incomplete and/or inaccurate citations of unusual sources |
Majority of sources presented in accordance with the required system
Good` integration of sources into text. Some incomplete and/or missing citations of basic sources |
Inconsistent links between text & reference list
Minority of sources presented in accordance with required system. Several incomplete and/or missing sources |
Limited links between text and reference list
Required format used inconsistently/inaccurately Several incomplete and/or missing sources |
Very limited links between text and reference list
Required format not used Numerous incomplete and/or missing sources |
Very little or no use of sources in text and/or reference list |
[1] In order to be graded 90% and above, the work must be of a publishable standard. Work graded between 80% and 89% is publishable but would require some editing
Please adhere to this assessment instruction (this assessment guidance MUST be used alongside Assignment brief)
The word count is 1000 words for your summary: this excludes references, AI summary and comments and the cover page
Formative submission deadline due date: Wednesday 28 January 2026 (Wk8)
Final Summative Submission due date: Friday March 20, 2026
Note: A critical commentary goes beyond description—it judges the quality, relevance, and impact of the paper.
AI summary
Include the summary of AI (arrange the summary logically with the research question, methodology and key results, ensure you use relevant prompts for the AI to give you good outputs.
Order Custom Answer for SH4011 Research and Academic Practice Assignment
Pay & Get Assignment NowStruggling with your SH4011 Research and Academic Practice Assessment at London Metropolitan University (LMU)? Our professional writers provide AI-free and plagiarism-free science assignment help to ensure you get top-notch, original content. With our expert writing services, you’ll receive quality assignments that meet all academic standards. We also offer a free list of assignment samples, written by skilled writers, to guide your work. Each assignment comes with an AI and plagiarism report for complete assurance. Contact us now for the best Assignment Help UK and see your grades soar!
Hire Assignment Helper Today!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content