Faculty of Science and Engineering
|
|
Assessment tasks
Broadacre Crop and Pasture Science AGRI2003 and AGRI5000
Assessment 1
Individual report: Comparison of crop and pasture papers
Assessment topic
This assignment is a comparison of a journal paper from Western Australia(WA) that examines related aspects of broad-acre cropping systems to that of another part of Australia. There is a list of potential papers at the end of this assignment sheet. Please choose one paper. You will need to find another paper from a scientific journal (not a conference paper) that covers the same topic but in a different location. There must be no authors in common between the two papers.
Students must submit the citation of the proposed second paper to the lecturer for approvalby week 3.
You are expected to produce a report which concisely summarises each of the two papers in your ownwords, critiques them, compares and contrasts the approach taken and/or the information from them anddiscusses the relevance and/or importance to agriculture in WA.
Use the headings in the marking rubric to ensure you complete the required components
Do not produce a re-hashing ofthe papers. You do not need to present the results of the paper again. Simply summarise the purpose of the study, the main findings and conclusions in your own words (in a few paragraphs).The main parts of the assignment are the 'discussion of the scientific content and any deficiencies or ambiguities in the papers'.Please ensure that you are familiar with what is meant by a synthesis &critique. This involves writing aboutwhat was good and bad about the work and the paper, how it relates to current knowledge, how thetwo papers compare and contrast, how useful the papers are and perhaps where they could go fromhere with future work.
The use of additional references is an important part of this report. You
must
reference any statementsthat relates to why a part of a paper or the experiment is good or bad, or does or does not relate to WAagriculture. Additional references will also be important when relating the papers that you arereviewing to previous work done in the area. You should give your own thoughts and opinions (and can even write inthe first person if you wish), but you MUST have support or justification for the points that you makeor opinions that you have.
"I think the paper is well written" is not sufficient. Why it is well written? What is good/bad?How itrelates to other papers or to the generally accepted structure of a paper, is far more informative.
"The information in the paper is useful" is not sufficient; relate it to other work and/orparticular cropping systems (with references and/or supporting information) so your reader can seewhy it is useful.
Remember to list the two papers that you have selected.
.This assignment addresses the following unit learning outcomes (entirely or in part):
1.
Explain the scientific principles (including reproduction, nutrition, genetics, resource use efficiency) relating to crop and pasture production
Length
Written report: 2000words.
Marks
The written report will be marked out of 50 marks and is worth 20% of the final mark for this unit.
Due time and date
Wed, Week 4 at 9pm
Assessment
Please refer to the marking rubric. Reports will be assessed on;
Analysis:
accurate summary of information from the papers, discussion of content and any deficiencies—15 marks
Synthesis & critique: compare and contrast papers; relate to knowledge of cropping systems; analysis of the usefulness of the information from the papers—15 marks
References: additional published sources used (see below), correct citation and listing—7 marks
Style: fluency of writing and ease of reading, presentation of scientific information in a clear and understandable form—7 marks
Mechanics and Presentation: correct grammar and spelling, set out in the correct format; use or appropriate headings and sub-headings; reasonable length: i.e. within the word limit—6 marks
Please refer to your unit outline for information regarding referencing and plagiarism
Papers to select from
|
Seymour, M., Sprigg, S.,French B., Bucat,J., Malik R and Harries, M. 2016. Nitrogen responses of canola in low to medium rainfall environments of Western Australia.
Crop and Pasture Science
67(4) 450-466
https://doi.org/10.1071/CP15224
|
Clarke, H.J., Siddique, K.H.M. 2004. Response of chickpea genotypes to low temperature stress during reproductive development.Field Crops Research
90,323–334.
|
O’Rourke, T. A., Ryan, M. H., Scanlon, T. T., Sivasithamparam, K., and Barbetti, M. J., 2012. Amelioration of root disease of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) by mineral nutrients.
Crop and Pasture Science
63, 672-682
|
Borger, C.P.D., Hashem, A. and Powles, S.B., 2016. Manipulatingcrop row orientation and crop density to suppress
Lolium rigidum.Weed Research,
56(1), pp.22–30.
|
French, R.J., Malik, R.S. and Seymour, M., 2015. Crop-sequenceeffects on productivity in a wheat-based cropping system atWongan Hills, Western Australia. Crop and Pasture Science,66(6), pp.580–593.
|
Zhang, H., Berger, J.D., Seymour, M., Brill, R., Herrmann,C., Quinlan, R. and Knell, G., 2016. Relative yield and profitof Australian hybrid compared with open-pollinated canola islargely determined by growing-season rainfall. Crop and PastureScience,
67(4), pp.323–331.
|
|
Rubric for Assessment 1: paper critique
|
Unacceptable
|
Poor
|
Fair
|
Good
|
Excellent
|
Part A
Analysis: 15 marks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary of information from articles
|
Does not summarise article accurately or without understanding its content (1)
|
Attempts to summarise articles with little understanding of content (2)
|
Summarises articles adequately, with some understanding of content, research and conclusions (3)
|
Summarises most of main points of articles, demonstrating an understanding of content, research and conclusions (4)
|
Summarises main points of articles concisely and thoroughly, demonstrating an understanding of the content, research and conclusions (5)
|
Discussion of content
|
Discussion of content only 1 article presented with little to no understanding demonstrated (1)
|
Discussion of content of both articles is presented with little understanding demonstrated, or discussion of only 1 article included (2)
|
Discussion of content of both articles is presented with some understanding demonstrated (3)
|
Discussion of content of both articles is presented with good understanding demonstrated (4)
|
Discussion of content of both articles is clearly presented with excellent understanding demonstrated (5)
|
Deficiencies in the articles
|
Deficiencies in only one article defined (1)
|
Deficiencies in the articles poorly defined (2)
|
Deficiencies in the articles defined to some degree (3)
|
Deficiencies in the articles defined and described (4)
|
Deficiencies in the articles clearly defined and described (5)
|
Part B: Synthesis & critique:15 marks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compare and contrast
articles
|
Very limited critique with no examples. Differences between articles not defined (1)
|
Critique is poor and lacks supporting evidence of strengths and weaknesses of the two articles. Differences between articles not specified (2)
|
Critique is acceptable with little supporting evidence of strengths and weaknesses of the two articles. Some details of the differences between them (3)
|
Good critique with a few specific examples giving supporting evidence of strengths and weaknesses of the two articles, along with relatively clear details of the differences between them (4)
|
Thoughtful critique with specific examples giving supporting evidence of strengths and weaknesses of the two articles, along with clear details of the differences between them (5)
|
|
Unacceptable
|
Poor
|
Fair
|
Good
|
Excellent
|
Relate to knowledge of cropping systems
|
Information from only one article related to knowledge of cropping systems in WA (1)
|
Information presented in both articles is poorly related to knowledge of cropping systems in WA (2)
|
Information presented in both articles is somewhat related to knowledge of cropping systems in WA (3)
|
Information presented in both articles is related to knowledge of cropping systems in WA (4)
|
Information presented in both articles is clearly related to knowledge of cropping systems in WA (5)
|
Analysis of the usefulness of the information from the
articles
|
Information from both articles is not analysed in relation to usefulness to WA farming systems (5)
|
Information from both articles poorly analysed in relation to usefulness to WA farming systems (2)
|
Information from both articles adequately analysed in relation to usefulness to WA farming systems (3)
|
Information from both articles analysed and described in relation to usefulness to WA farming systems (4)
|
Information from both articles clearly analysed and described in relation to usefulness to WA farming systems (5)
|
Part C - Research and Presentation: 20 marks
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
|
References incorrectly cited in-text and in reference list. No additional sources (1)
|
References cited in-text or in reference list only. No additional sources used (2)
|
References cited in-text and in reference list with few errors. No additional sources used (3)
|
References correctly cited in-text and in reference list. Some additional sources used and listed (5)
|
References correctly cited in-text and in reference list. Additional sources used and listed (7)
|
Style
|
Report shows little fluency, scientific information is poorly presented. Report does not follows logical format (1)
|
Report shows some lack of clarity with little fluency, scientific information is poorly presented. Report does not follows logical format (2)
|
Report is written some fluency, scientific information is presented with some confusion Report generally follows a logical format (3)
|
Report is written clearly and with some fluency, scientific information is presented relatively clearly Report follows a logical format (5)
|
Report is written clearly and with fluency, scientific information is presented clearly. Report follows a logical format (7)
|
Mechanics and presentation
|
Report contains numerous grammatical or spelling errors, incorrectly formatted and/ or over the word limit (1)
|
Report contains many grammatical or spelling errors, somewhat incorrectly formatted, or may be over the word limit (2)
|
Report contains some grammatical or spelling errors, contains few sub-headings (4)
|
Set out in correct format with some sub-headings. Report contains few grammatical or spelling errors (5)
|
Set out in correct format; use of appropriate headings; within the word limit. Report contains no grammatical or spelling errors (6)
|