question:ترجم الى اللغة العربية

question:prohibitions

question:established

question:Following this marking criteria: 1. Knowledge and understanding full and detailed Can apply such knowledge Awareness of limitations of knowledge Confident discussion of basic topics Independent thinking Original insights 2. Presentation, evaluation and interpretation of data Arguments/judgements are substantiated, well-defined and clearly articulated Presentation standard high Logically organised 3. Evaluation of problem-solving approaches Highly successful in presenting and commenting on outcomes Insight on the relationship between theory and practice 4. Awareness of current research/advanced scholarship The use of scholarly reviews/primary sources is confident Referencing accurate and reading/investigation beyond sources provided Basic knowledge and understanding of research processes/techniques/methods and ability to apply them 5. Results communicated accurately and reliably Arguments structured, coherent, well developed, sustained and substantiated Assumptions challenged Recognition of the complexities of academic debate Appropriate solutions to problems are offered and reviewed Strong evidence of effective reflection on the student’s practice and consideration for future development As well as following the title of this dissertation project: The Interplay of Video Games and Human Psychology: An Insight into Motivations, Effects, and Therapeutic Potentials Can you write 150 words for evaluation of literature? Also follow this example and implement something similar: After an initial literature search was conducted, a target number of fifty articles were located and skim read (Creswell, 2003), with potentially useful journal articles being identified and loaded into Mendeley. When reviewing literature, it was important to first assess the relevance of a journal article by first reading the abstract and by briefly scanning the paper. Key search terms could be used within the document search facility to further establish its relevance. In order to facilitate a critical review of the literature, I created a review sheet based on an example in Wallace and Wray, 2006, which included a space to write a summary of the piece, the purpose behind the writing, the advantages and disadvantages of the authors’ methodology, their findings and how this piece would be relevant and applied to the project. Although time consuming, I found this approach particularly useful in critically evaluating the literature when this is an area I had difficulty with in the earlier TMAs. Throughout the literature search process, a mind map was constructed using Mind Node Pro software in order to identify branches and links between the key themes within the project. This process also helped refine keyword searches so that further literature could be identified.