Assessment Task
IFN521 Foundations of Decision
Science
Semester 1 2023
Assessment 1 – Critique of
Information Theories
| Name | Assessment 1 – Critique of Information Theories |
| Due | End of Mid-Semester Break (See Canvas for exact due date) |
| Weight | 40% |
| Deliver | Written document (Portable Document Format) |
| Submit | PDF via Canvas |
Rationale and Description
Critical analysis is an important skill both for academic study and the workplace. More specifically, the
ability to critically analyse how the cognitive aspects of human information processing impacts
information-based decisions provides a foundation for understanding real-world human decision
making. This assessment item focuses on critically analysing the cognitive and informational aspects.
Learning Outcomes
When successfully completed, this assessment task should evidence:
1. your understanding of selected information theories in order to critique them.
2. your ability to think critically about the information theories, and apply them to a given
information scenario.
3. your ability to compare the information theories by identifying their relative strengths and
weaknesses.
4. your understanding of relevant components of human cognition in the context of the given
information scenario.
5. your ability to apply your understanding of human cognition to an analysis of theories of
information.
Essential Elements
You must submit a critique with the following sections:
1. Introduction
2. Cognitive Perspective
3. Event-Propositions
4. Shannon Information Theory Perspective
5. Dretske Information Theory Perspective
6. Critical Comparison
7. References
In writing the critique, you must provide arguments that are:
• Clear — Your writing must be easily understandable by a lay reader, avoiding uncommon
terminology and abbreviations.
• Concise — You must express your ideas efficiently, so that key points are not obscured by
irrelevant material.
• Coherent — Your arguments and the conclusions you draw must be structured logically.
• Convincing — The overall “story” you tell must be compelling and believable.
Links to resources to help you with writing critiques are provided below.
Marking Criteria
This assessment is criteria referenced, meaning that your grade for the assessment will be given
based on your ability to satisfy key criteria. Refer to the attached Criteria Sheet and ensure that you
understand the detailed criteria.
It is important to realise that you are required to not only know what is needed for the task, but that
you also demonstrate and provide evidence of your understanding and ability to complete the task.
This means that you need to make your knowledge and understanding clear to the person marking
your assignment. It is not the marker’s responsibility to interpret work that is ambiguous or unclear,
nor will you have the opportunity to further clarify your work after submission.
You will not receive marks or percentages for this assessment. You will receive an overall grade (e.g.,
pass – 4, high distinction – 7) based on the extent to which you meet the criteria. Weights provided
with each criteria give an indication of the relative importance of each of the sections in the
assignment.
Detailed Instructions
You must provide concise, coherent arguments justifying your critical analysis of the two theories of
information, as well as how these theories address a cognitive perspective of information in human
decision problems. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, Rather, it is the quality of your
arguments that are the central issue. Concise, coherent arguments are the means to achieve a good
assignment outcome.
During workshops, and as part of preparatory materials, we will provide you with some background
about each of the two information theories you will be addressing: Shannon’s and Dretske’s
information theories, as well as four important aspects of cognition: perception, memory, dual
process thinking, and cognitive biases.
You will be required to write about these theories in the context of a specific human decision
scenario, with respect to two hypothetical Persons. You will be given a set of information scenarios to
choose from in week 2.
Written Critique – Essential Requirements:
Note: tutorials in module 1 will include activities that will provide examples, advice
and practice for each of the below essential elements of your critique. It is highly
recommended that you attend the tutorial each week to ensure success in this
assignment.
The following sections must be addressed in critique.
1. Introduction [max 250 words]. Briefly introduce your critique by stating the scenario
you have chosen and summarising the main points of your critique.
2. Cognitive perspective [max 500 words].
Concisely evaluate the following cognitive aspects with respect to the similarities and
differences between Person A and Person B in the context of the information scenario by
carefully considering the similarities and differences between each person’s unique
experience, with respect to:
i. Perception
ii. Memory
iii. Dual Process thinking
iv. Cognitive Biases (we suggest discussing 2-3 cognitive biases here)
3. Event-Propositions [max 200 words]
Based on your understanding of the important parts of the scenario and particularly what is
different in Person A and Person B’s experiences, provide 3 relevant event-propositions.
Relevant event-propositions are ones which allow a meaningful analysis of the scenario from
both the cognitive and informational aspects. After each event-proposition, briefly (1-2
sentences) justify its relevance to the scenario.
4. Shannon Information Theory Perspective [max 250 words].
a. Apply Shannon’s theory to the scenario with respect to Person A in terms of the
event-propositions identified above, and briefly justify your assumptions.
b. Apply Shannon’s theory to the scenario with respect to Person B in terms of the
event-propositions identified above, and briefly justify your assumptions.
5. Dretske Information Theory Perspective [max 250 words].
a. Apply Dretske’s theory to the scenario with respect to Person A in terms of the
event-propositions identified above, and briefly justify your assumptions.
b. Apply Dretske’s theory to the scenario with respect to Person B in terms of the
event-propositions identified above, and briefly justify your assumptions.
6. Critical Comparison [max 1000 words]
Connect the theories to your own and other’s views on information, considering cognitive
aspects and human decision making in this scenario:
Briefly describe your own views of information and at least one other view of
information identified from peer reviewed literature (including APA format).
Critique Shannon’s and Dretske’s theories of information with reference to your
own and the other view(/s) of information you described. Your critique of
Shannon and Dretske’s theories of information must discuss how they do/do
not account for each of the aspects of cognition from Section 2, and detail how
well each theory addresses/relates to cognitive aspects of the information
scenario.
Compare and contrast the relative strengths and weaknesses of each of the
theories in relation to how information is used in human decision making.
*note: you are required to identify key points of each theory (specifically, parts of the theories discussed in
this unit) and connect these to topics covered in cognition. You will need to be specific about these
connections, rather than provide generic statements about the theory and what it covers. You are also
required to choose a theory that fits best with the cognitive aspects, specifically in the context of the
information scenario, providing justifications for your arguments based on what you discussed above.
7. References. This is the list of any literature referenced in the body of your report. Whilst
it is only expected that you draw from an additional literature source in section 6., this
source needs to be cited in-text in that section as well as listed in a reference list at the
end, as per APA referencing format. To find out more about APA referencing
requirements, see the link in the “Resources” section below.
Submission
The assignment must be saved as a PDF and uploaded to Canvas using the link provided prior to the
assignment due date. You should ensure that your file is named in the format studentNumberfullName-assignment1.pdf before uploading to Canvas. Ensure that your name and student
number are at the top of the page. You are encouraged to upload early to avoid unexpected issues
close to submission time. You may upload multiple versions, but only the latest version prior to
submission time will be marked. Take care that the last version you upload is the correct version.
Clarification
If you require any clarification on the requirements of the assessment, as outlined in this document,
please ensure you speak to teaching staff during workshop hours, or by email to the unit coordinator,
as soon as possible to ensure you do not fall behind.
We will endeavour to provide individual feedback on your critique but cannot provide you feedback
that would give you an unfair advantage. In addition, if you need any help with writing, please see HiQ
for assistance.
Resources
The following resources may assist with the completion of this task:
• https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/critique.html
• https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/academichonesty/atQUT.jsp
• https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/cite/qutcite.html#apa-general-what
Questions
Questions relating to the assessment should be directed initially to the teaching staff during the
workshop times. The teaching staff may address these for the benefit of the whole class.
If you need to clarify something outside of these times, please direct your queries via Slack. A fellow
student may have the same question and may benefit from the answer. Additionally, another student
may know the answer to your question and be able to answer it at times when the teaching staff are
unavailable (i.e., outside business hours). Teaching staff will monitor and respond to queries on the
Slack channel, however, will generally only be able to do this during normal business hours.
Criteria Sheet – Assessment 1 Critique of Selected Information Theories
| 7 – High Distinction | 6 – Distinction | 5 – Credit | 4 – Pass | 3 – Marginal Fail | 2 – Fail | 1 – Low Fail |
Criteria 1 (24% of total grade) – Cognitive Perspective. The ability to demonstrate an understanding of the cognitive elements involved by:
• appropriate and justified use of cognitive aspects of perception, memory, dual process thinking and cognitive biases to clearly describe what is happening cognitively for
Persons A & B in the scenario
• clearly and appropriately differentiating between Person A and Person B with regards to the cognitive elements
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| • Extremely clear description of relevant aspects of cognition with a clear connection to the scenario and Persons A & B. • Extremely relevant contrasts are drawn between Persons A & B with respect to the cognitive aspects present in the scenario. • Justification for the contrasts between Persons A & B in terms of cognition are made extremely clear |
• Very clear description of relevant aspects of cognition with a clear connection to the scenario and Persons A & B. • Very relevant contrasts are drawn between Persons A & B with respect to the cognitive aspects present in the scenario. • Justification for the contrasts between Persons A & B in terms of cognition are made very clear |
• Good description of relevant aspects of cognition with a connection to the scenario and Persons A & B is provided with a good degree of clarity • Differences identified between Persons A & B in relation to the relevant cognitive aspects are mostly appropriate and explained with a good degree of clarity • Justification for the contrasts between Persons A & B in terms of cognition are provided with a reasonable degree of clarity |
• Satisfactory description of relevant aspects of cognition with a connection to the scenario and Persons A & B is provided with a satisfactory degree of clarity • Differences identified between Persons A & B in relation to the relevant cognitive aspects are somewhat appropriate and explained with a satisfactory degree of clarity • Justification are provided with a passable degree of clarity |
• Barely adequate description of relevant aspects of cognition with a connection to the scenario and Persons A & B is provided with barely adequate clarity • Differences identified between Persons A & B in relation to the relevant cognitive aspects are mostly inappropriate and/or explained with a barely adequate degree of clarity • Some justification for the contrasts between Persons A & B in terms of cognition are provided with some clarity |
• Unsatisfactory description of relevant aspects of cognition with a connection to the scenario and Persons A & B is provided, however, with very little clarity • Differences identified between Persons A & B in relation to the relevant cognitive aspects are mostly inappropriate and/or explained with an unsatisfactory degree of clarity • Some justification for the contrasts between Persons A & B in terms of cognition are provided, however, with very little clarity |
• No relevant aspects of cognition are provided for the scenario and Persons A & B, and/or no connection is drawn between the aspects of cognition and the scenario and Persons A & B • Differences between Persons A & B in relation to the relevant cognitive aspects are either not provided, or are completely unclear. • No discernible justification for the contrasts between Persons A & B in terms of cognition is provided |
Criteria 2 (10% of total grade) – Event-Propositions. The ability to demonstrate evidence of critical and analytical thought by:
• identifying and clearly describing key event-propositions relevant to the scenario
• justifying the relevance of the key event-propositions identified
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| • All event-propositions are stated extremely clearly • The relevance of all event-propositions is made extremely clear |
• All event-propositions are stated very clearly • The relevance of all event-propositions is made very clear |
• Most event propositions are stated very clearly • The relevance of most event-propositions is made very clear |
• Most event propositions are stated clearly • The relevance of most event-propositions is made clear |
• Some event propositions are stated clearly, however, most with inadequate clarity and/or with errors in their expression • The relevance of most event-propositions is only made somewhat clear |
• There are significant errors in the expression and clarity of event propositions • Event-propositions are largely irrelevant and/or little justification is given for their relevance |
• No clear identification of event-propositions from the scenario is made • No clear justification of the relevance of event propositions is made |
Criteria 3 (9% of total grade) – Shannon. The ability to demonstrate evidence of critical and analytical thought by:
• clearly explaining the scenario for Person A through the perspective of Shannon’s theory of information
• clearly explaining the scenario for Person B through the perspective of Shannon’s theory of information
• clearly describing how relevant aspects of cognition relate to Shannon’s theory of information
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| • Extremely clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Shannon’s perspective • Extremely clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Shannon’s perspective |
• Very clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Shannon’s perspective • Very clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Shannon’s perspective |
• Mostly clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Shannon’s perspective • Mostly clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Shannon’s perspective |
• Adequately clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Shannon’s perspective • Adequately clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Shannon’s perspective |
• Somewhat accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Shannon’s perspective, although barely adequate in clarity • Somewhat accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Shannon’s perspective, although barely adequate in clarity |
• Mostly inaccurate and/or unclear explanation of the scenario for Person A via Shannon’s perspective • Mostly inaccurate and/or unclear explanation of the scenario for Person B via Shannon’s perspective |
• No accurate and/or clear explanation of the scenario for Person A via Shannon’s perspective • No accurate and/or clear explanation of the scenario for Person B via Shannon’s perspective |
Criteria 4 (9% of total grade) – Dretske. The ability to demonstrate evidence of critical and analytical thought by:
• clearly explaining the scenario for Person A through the perspective of Dretske’s theory of information
• clearly explaining the scenario for Person B through the perspective of Dretske’s theory of information
• clearly describing how relevant aspects of cognition relate to Dretske’s theory of information
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| • Extremely clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Dretske’s perspective • Extremely clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Dretske’s perspective |
• Very clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Dretske’s perspective • Very clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Dretske’s perspective |
• Mostly clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Dretske’s perspective • Mostly clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Dretske’s perspective |
• Adequately clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Dretske’s perspective • Adequately clear and accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Dretske’s perspective |
• Somewhat accurate explanation of the scenario for Person A via Dretske’s perspective, although barely adequate in clarity • Somewhat accurate explanation of the scenario for Person B via Dretske’s perspective, although barely adequate in clarity |
• Mostly inaccurate and/or unclear explanation of the scenario for Person A via Dretske’s perspective • Mostly inaccurate and/or unclear explanation of the scenario for Person B via Dretske’s perspective |
• No accurate and/or clear explanation of the scenario for Person A via Dretske’s perspective • No accurate and/or clear explanation of the scenario for Person B via Dretske’s perspective |
Criteria 5 (14% of total grade) – Compare and Contrast – yours and other’s theories. Compare and contrast Shannon and Dretske’s theories of information by:
• describing your view of information
• summarising an additional theory of information present in academic (peer reviewed) literature
• discussing which theory (Shannon or Dretske’s) best aligns with yours and another theory’s views of information, providing justification
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| • Description of student’s view of information is provided with excellent depth and clarity • Excellent and highly accurate summary of an additional theory of information from peer reviewed literature provided • Excellent argument provided for which theory (Shannon or Dretske’s) best aligns with yours |
• Description of student’s view of information is provided with very good depth and clarity • Very good and accurate summary of an additional theory of information from peer reviewed literature provided • Very good argument provided for which theory (Shannon or Dretske’s) best aligns with yours |
• Description of student’s view of information is provided with good depth and clarity • Good summary of an additional theory of information from peer reviewed literature provided, although some inconsistencies • Good argument provided for which theory (Shannon or Dretske’s) best aligns with yours |
• Description of student’s view of information is provided with satisfactory depth and clarity • Satisfactory summary of an additional theory of information from peer reviewed literature provided, although some inconsistencies and/or errors • Satisfactory but somewhat generic argument provided for |
• Description of student’s view of information is provided with barely adequate depth and/or clarity • Barely adequate summary of an additional theory of information from peer reviewed literature provided, although significant errors and/or theory summarised is not from peer reviewed literature |
• Description of student’s view of information is superficial and/or largely unclear • Largely inadequate summary of an additional theory of information with significant errors and/or not from peer reviewed literature • Largely inadequate argument provided for which theory (Shannon or Dretske’s) best aligns |
• No discernible description of your view of information is provided • No discernible summary of an additional theory of information is provided • No discernible strength and weakness analysis • No discernible argument provided for which theory (Shannon or Dretske’s) best aligns with yours and another |
| and another theory’s views on information |
and another theory’s views on information |
and another theory’s views on information |
which theory (Shannon or Dretske’s) best aligns with yours and another theory’s views on information |
• Barely adequate argument provided for which theory (Shannon or Dretske’s) best aligns with yours and another theory’s views on information |
with yours and another theory’s views on information |
theory’s views on information |
Criteria 6 (14% of total grade) – Compare and Contrast – cognitive perspective. Compare and contrast Shannon and Dretske’s theories of information by:
• clearly describing how relevant aspects of cognition relate to Shannon’s theory of information
• clearly describing how relevant aspects of cognition relate to Dretske’s theory of information
• discussing which theory best accounts for the cognitive aspects, providing justification
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| • Extremely relevant connections are drawn between Shannon’s theory and aspects of cognition. • Extremely relevant connections are drawn between Dretske’s theory and aspects of cognition. • Excellent argument provided for which theory you have determined best accounts of the cognitive aspects |
• Very relevant connections are drawn between Shannon’s theory and aspects of cognition. • Very relevant connections are drawn between Dretske’s theory and aspects of cognition. • Very good argument provided for which theory you have determined best accounts of the cognitive aspects |
• Relevant connections are drawn between Shannon’s theory and aspects of cognition. • Relevant connections are drawn between Dretske’s theory and aspects of cognition. • Good argument provided for which theory you have determined best accounts of the cognitive aspects |
• Some relevant connections are drawn between Shannon’s theory and aspects of cognition. • Some relevant connections are drawn between Dretske’s theory and aspects of cognition. • Satisfactory argument provided for which theory you have determined best accounts of the cognitive aspects |
• Some connections are drawn between Shannon’s theory and aspects of cognition, however, most are lacking in relevance and/or clarity • Some connections are drawn between Dretske’s theory and aspects of cognition, however, most are lacking in relevance and/or clarity • Barely adequate argument provided for which theory you have determined best accounts of the cognitive aspects |
• Connections drawn between Shannon’s theory and aspects of cognition are all irrelevant and/or lack clarity • Connections drawn between Dretske’s theory and aspects of cognition are all irrelevant and/or lack clarity • Largely inadequate argument provided for which theory you have determined best accounts of the cognitive aspects |
• No evidence of any connections drawn between Shannon’s theory and aspects of cognition • No evidence of any connections drawn between Dretske’s theory and aspects of cognition. • No discernible argument provided for which theory you have determined best accounts of the cognitive aspects |
Criteria 7 (14% of total grade) – Compare and Contrast – strengths and weaknesses. Compare and contrast Shannon and Dretske’s theories of information by:
• comprehensively analysing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each theory in terms of understanding the role of information in decision making
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| • Very comprehensive identification of very relevant strengths and weaknesses in Shannon and Dretske’s theories • Excellent justifications provided for identified strengths and weaknesses for each theory |
• Comprehensive identification of very relevant strengths and weaknesses in Shannon and Dretske’s theories • Very good justifications provided for identified strengths and weaknesses for each theory |
• Mostly comprehensive identification of relevant strengths and weaknesses in Shannon and Dretske’s theories • Good justifications provided for identified strengths and weaknesses for each theory |
• Some relevant strengths and weaknesses in Shannon and Dretske’s theories identified • Satisfactory justifications provided for identified strengths and weaknesses for each theory |
• Some strengths and weaknesses in Shannon and Dretske’s theories identified, however, many lack relevance • Mostly unsatisfactory justifications provided for identified strengths and weaknesses for each theory |
• Mostly irrelevant and/or unclear strengths and weaknesses in Shannon and Dretske’s theories identified • Justifications provided for identified strengths and weaknesses for each theory are largely unsatisfactory |
• No discernible strengths or weaknesses in Shannon and Dretske’s theories identified • No discernible justifications provided for identified strengths and weaknesses for each theory |
Criteria 8 – Expression & Argumentation (6% of total grade) – The ability to:
• be concise and clear in writing
• consistently argue points made throughout the document with clarity and logic
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| • Clear and concise writing throughout. • All arguments are made logically and with extremely clear justifications and supporting statements for claims made |
• Mostly clear yet concise writing throughout. • All arguments are made logically and with very clear justifications and supporting statements for claims made |
• Good level of clear and concise writing • Most arguments are made logically and with clear justifications and supporting statements for claims made |
.• Satisfactory level of clear yet concise writing but with some unclear passages and/or some irrelevant material • Most arguments are made mostly logically, with justifications and supporting statements for claims made with passable clarity |
• Several parts of the document are either too brief and unclear or contain significant amounts of irrelevant material. • Numerous logical errors made in arguments, with mostly unclear justifications and supporting statements for claims made |
.• Most parts of the document are either too brief and unclear or contain significant amounts of irrelevant material. • Arguments are largely illogical with mostly little to no clear justifications and supporting statements provided for claims made |
• Document is entirely unclear either because it is too brief and missing important points or consists of large amounts of irrelevant material. • Arguments completely lacking in clarity and/or logic |