You will only receive feedback for assignment 3 in about 2 weeks time.

I suggest you evaluate your own assignment by testing it against Friday's sermon
and Ch3 notes and suggested readings for your refined version.
For example,
Data collection:
What is my unit/level of analysis: users, management, teams, organizations,
users and teams etc.
If top management, is it feasible/realistic?
How many interviews will I schedule?
How will I record the interviews (video, tape)
How will I transcribe the interview data?
What are some of the key questions that will I ask in the interviews?
Data analysis: How will I code the data? Thematic analysis, guided by theory or
grounded inductive?
and so on.
If you use Design Science:
How will I evaluate the build of the process/product - i.e. the artifact.
Will a focus group work?
I think I have given you enough to think about.
Enjoy.

All
1 hour ago
Course Announcement INF Seminar 2016Assignment 3 feedback: Open Dismiss

You will only receive feedback for assignment 3 in about 2 weeks time.
I suggest you evaluate your own assignment by testing it against Friday's sermon and
Ch3 notes and suggested readings for your refined version.

For example,
Data collection:
What is my unit/level of analysis: users, management, teams, organizations,
users and teams etc.
If top management, is it feasible/realistic?
How many interviews will I schedule?
How will I record the interviews (video, tape)
How will I transcribe the interview data?
What are some of the key questions that will I ask in the interviews?
Data analysis: How will I code the data? Thematic analysis, guided by theory
or grounded inductive?
and so on.
If you use Design Science:
How will I evaluate the build of the process/product - i.e. the artifact.
Will a focus group work?

I think I have given you enough to think about.

Enjoy.
13 hours ago
Course Announcement INF Seminar 2016general comments assignment
2: Open Dismiss

I think half the battle of obtaining an M or PhD is based on a person's ability

to write.
Here is some general feedback from assignment 2 to help those who are
struggling.

RQ=research question; PS=problem statement;DV=dependent variable

Avoid alarmist writing: "scourge of", "bringing our country to its knees"
Avoid sweeping claims - No study; There is no consensus, Better to say, There is
little consensus? or There appears to be little consensus. phenomenal growth better to state 20% growth or greater than GDP or market growth.
Jargon/opaque/convoluted/padded/pretentious writing style: "stochastic
dynamic model", "fundamental understanding", "persistence dynamics of
trends", "articles contribute academically".
Many academics have a poor writing style = do not imitate them.
"The studies replicated, explained and advanced theories that predict and
explain "
Too many ideas in one sentence.
Long, disconnected sentences
Long and poorly structured sentences: 70 words before full stop.
A said x, B said y. Shopping list argument. Conceptual gap argument. Little
synthesis.
Avoid using a bag of concepts (e.g. change, resistance, conflict , adoption OR
politically, socially, economical and morally)
Poor conceptualization of study (using personal knowledge to construct problem
statement with a lay persons not a scientific view of key concepts)
RQ=research question; PS=problem statement;DV=dependent variable
Avoid alarmist writing: "scourge of", "bringing our country to its knees"
Avoid sweeping claims - No study; There is no consensus, Better to say, There is
little consensus? or There appears to be little consensus. phenomenal growth better to state 20% growth or greater than GDP or market growth.
Jargon/opaque/convoluted/padded/pretentious writing style: "stochastic dynamic
model", "fundamental understanding", "persistence dynamics of trends", "articles
contribute academically".
Many academics have a poor writing style = do not imitate them.
"The studies replicated, explained and advanced theories that predict and explain
"
Too many ideas in one sentence.

Long, disconnected sentences

Long and poorly structured sentences: 70 words before full stop.
A said x, B said y. Shopping list argument. Conceptual gap argument. Little
synthesis.
Avoid using a bag of concepts (e.g. change, resistance, conflict , adoption OR
politically, socially, economical and morally)
Poor conceptualization of study (using personal knowledge to construct problem
statement with a lay persons not a scientific view of key concepts)
Tackle specific problem e.g. user experience --> reuse or
purchasing behaviour (precise DV) versus competitive success (vague DV).
unit/level of analysis problem (person-psychology; group - social/social psychology;
culture - nations)
What is the link between your RQs and the problem statement? - I don't see any.
Did not appear to master skills in PS development that the Levy article develops
Did not provide a problem statement but a background or overview of topic
Not familiar with the leading journal outlet in your field
Using magazines, web sources, and practitioner documents to frame your problem
statement.
Using too many conference articles and not enough journals
Draw from one main source (Only Business Horizons, Only HR journals, Only
Government Information Quarterly)
Missing research problem. Missing research questions.

Problem statement had no references.

Your do not need to cite a reference next to your RQ. It is your research question.
Referencing style inconsistent/does not comply with APA /Harvard standard
Need to in-text cite authors in your precis..
in-text citation [cannot start sentence with a bracket ref (Author, CCYY) states
that ]
Reference in text not in reference list
Sloppy writing (spelling, punctuation, between word spacing, use of semi-colon ,
apostrophe (study's not study results) etc.
No evidence of proofreading ("Athough the is no.." ; Although there is no.." )
Please refrain from plagiarism. It is easy to spot.
As discussed, please find specific feedback on your assignments.
Score
Student
Number

2
A1

22143603 2.0

3
A2 Feedback
A2: Overloaded with complex concepts. Be
2.0 selective. Precis synthesis must have in-text
citations.

11337525 2.0

2.7

10463489 2.0

1.5

11030748 2.0

1.8

11247909 2.0

2.0

10638785 2.0
85272885 2.0

0.0
0.0

10101145 2.0

2.3

16264917 2.0

2.1

16308906 2.0

2.0

12026612 2.0

2.1

23284171 2.0

1.5

14299896 2.0

1.8

25367898 0.0

1.7

10046501 2.0

1.5

4625422 2.0

2.4

A2: Excellent work. Nice RQ formulation. Did

not need separate precis for each for this
assignment but good practice for research.
Try to simplify your language and avoid
unnecessary adjectives. In terms of RQ1 what
characteristics?
Did not meet the objectives of the
assignment. Little offered in terms of
synthesis. Number of articles?
A2: Use leading IS journals not computing
periodicals. Could not see the RQ and PS link.
I think RQ1 is circular?
A2: Please figure out the leading journal
outlets for your topic. You need to work on
argumentation. Your research sub/questions
should be distinctive.

A2:Good work. Precis should have integrated

the readings. Reference list at end of study.
Be careful of the concept 'employee
accountability'.
A2: You misread the question. Your writing is
clear and coherent. Keep it up. Sloppy
reference list. Pay attention to finer details.
A2: Lucid writing but you did not use leading
IS or EA journals. In-text citation is sometimes
incorrect. Inconsistent or missing information
in your reference list. You did not provide
explicit RQs.
A2: Good selection of journals. You need to
write more clearly.
A2: Please stick to 15 lines. Language use
appears emotional. Ref style does not
conform to standard. Your problem statement
and question are unclear. For this assignment
you were supposed to use credible journals
and not public sector documents.
A2: You are making some sweeping
statements boutICTs. "Huge savings" etc. Your
questions are very broad. Multiple national
contexts. RQ did not link to problem
statement.
A2: Use journals only for the exercise. Your
questions are too broad. Do not itemize your
paragraphs with numbers. Find your proposed
study confusing.
A2: Precis was too short. Argument was
incoherent. Please follow the guidelines
provide by Levi forprecis. Did not formulate
questions. References were sourced from
credible journals. Consistent referencing
style.
A2: Good work. Work on building concept
centric instead of author centric arguments.
Sloppy, your in-text citations should have
dates. Your RQ is practical but at least one of
them should point towards deficits in theory.

11358336 2.0
16081928 0.0
13386329 0.0
16185201 2.0

You should you better quality journals. Some

of the papers seemed to be picked without
1.8 much thought. You need to in-text cite all five
articles. Needed to demonstrate synthesis
skills not summary skills.
0.0
0.0
A2: Use credible sources. Problem statement
read like a topic overview. Read and master
1.5
Levy article. Watch out for space, semi-colon
use, ref style etc.

###
0.0
#
16269307 0.0 0.0
29317054

16394039 2.0

14210968 2.0
10562746 0.0
12162932 2.0

10288989 2.0

90375191 2.0

89544880 2.0

12209024 2.0

4305779 2.0

13341147 2.0

A2: Please provide a complete answer.

Your preciswas only six lines long. There are
1.4 credible journals of use in healthcare in
mainstream IS. Your second question on what
theory is inappropriate.
A2: Good work. Nice selection of journals.
2.3 Need to work on argument building and
speaking the 'concepts' in ISSP.
0.0
A2: You did not consult leading ICT4D
journals. You did not cite your work in
1.4
the precis problem statement. Q1: Impact of
what ?
A2: Your first question was good for a start
but the second was too closely related.
2.0 Culture suggests that you will look at different
nations (Hofstede). Your need to develop your
argument more clearly. What is the problem?
A2: Lucid writing style. However articles seem
to pose different questions. Needed to
demonstrate a synthesis that led to 2
2.4 compelling questions. Be careful of
conceptual overload. May need to data mine
my dictionary to establish the meaning of
your work :)
A2: Do not use numbers when writing a
paragraph. Your RQ was vague. You needed to
2.0
reference top journals not any old conference
proceeding.
inappropriate choice of journals. Did not
support the context of study. Your questions
are vague and perhaps overly ambitious. You
1.8
have a whole lot of truisms in your review.
E.g. you need good quality data to do data
mining - that is obvious is it not?
You need to study something more complex
than just critical success factors to get a PhD
1.8 but this is just my opinion. Nice summary but
need to work on argument construction and
how this leads to research questions.
A2: Your writing is loaded with jargon.
Your RQs do not make sense to me. You were
1.7
required to use journal articles and not
textbooks.

12005569 2.0

20013745 2.0

28430362 0.0
10039882 0.0
29454418 2.0

24338380 2.0
16184612
16385463
22044303
16255403

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

4847352 2.0
16251360 0.0
91205052 2.0
28172605 0.0

A2= assignment 2.

A2: Good work. Your writing needs polishing

but I like the way you worked from your PS to
2.3 your RQ. I suggest you use a specific DV such
as reuse or revisit instead of competitive
success.
A2: You needed to cite top journals not just
list them. I could not recognise a close link
between your problem statement and your
1.7 research questions. Your question 2 is both
vague (what do you mean by correlation) and
unfeasible. You need to further develop your
argumentation skills.
0.0
0.0
A2: Use variety/different sources. Assignment
replete with jargon/convoluted writing style.
1.5 Proofread before submission. Missing
research problem. Missing research
questions.
Proofreading required. Lacked attention to
1.4 detail. Did not answer the question. 10 RQs a
bit too much even for a PhD.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
A2: Lucid writing style. Good quality articles
and journals. Needed a synthesis of articles. I
2.4 think since your RQ focus is on students you
needed to find a seminal article about
students and design.
0.0
A2: Good start but need to work on
argumentation skills. Needed to draw from IS
1.8
journals and not just the discipline in your
interest areas.
0.0