Assessment | Learning Outcome | Weighting | Submission Mode | Due Date (Midnight) |
Progress Reporting | LO 1, 2, 3 | 5% | email to lecturer | Last day of the Month (Aug to Dec) |
Data Analysis | LO 4 | 10% | email to lecturer | 17th of August |
Draft Report | LO 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 | 10% | email to lecturer | 14th of September |
Research Report | LO 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 | 50% | email to lecturer | 12th of October |
Journal Article | LO1, 2, 4, 5, 6 | 25% | email to lecturer | 11th of November |
Proposal Chapters | Sub-Sections |
Research Proposal |
Data Analysis |
Draft Report |
ResearchReport | Word Count |
Journal Article |
Word Count |
Structured Abstract |
Purpose Design/methodology/approach Findings Research limitations/implications Practical implications Originality/value |
X X X X X X |
200 to 300 |
|||||
1.Introduction |
1.1 Research topic 1.2 Research questions/ objective 1.3 Scope and boundaries of the research 1.4 The importance of the research 1.5 Research method overview 1.6 Potential contribution to knowledge 1.7 Limitations of the study 1.8 Flow and contents of remaining chapters |
X X X X X X X X |
X X X X X X X |
X X X X X X X |
700 to 1200 |
X X X X X X |
400 to 700 |
|
2. Literature review |
2.1 Introduction highlighting why each section is included 2.2 -2.6 Major contributions in the research field 2.7 Conceptual model (Synthesized from literature) 2.8 Research gap 2.9 Summary of the most important aspects of the literature |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
2500 to 3500 |
X X X |
1000 to 1500 |
|
3.Research Methodology |
3.1 Detailed descriptions of research questions/ hypotheses 3.2 Ontological and epistemological perspectives 3.3 Appraisal of alternative research methodologies 3.4 Selection of research methodology 3.5 Detailed description of research approach 3.6 Planned measurement technique and associated analysis 3.7 Ethical considerations 3.8 Critical review of the chosen research methodology |
X X X X X X X X |
X X X X X X X X |
X X X X X X X X |
1500 to 2500 |
X X X |
400 to 600 |
|
4.Data Analysis |
4.1 Overview of data collected, sample coverage 4.2 Visual displays summarising empirical data 4.3 Analysis of quantitative or syntheses of qualitative data 4.5 Explanation of the major findings/ insights |
X X X X |
X X X X |
X X X X |
2500 to 4500 |
X X X X |
1000 to 2000 |
|
5. Discussion |
5.1 Review of conceptual model in light of data 5.2 Correlation of findings with previous literature 5.3 Managerial/ policy implications 5.4 Critique of the research 5.5 Further research |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
1000 to 1500 |
X X X X X |
500 to 800 |
||
6. Conclusion |
6.1 Succinct answers to the research questions 6.2 Original contribution |
X X |
X X |
400 to 700 |
X X |
200 to 400 | ||
References | 30 to 80 Citations | X | X | X | X | ≈10000 | X | ≈5000 |
Appendices | Essential information that reinforces the research quality | X | X |
Criteria | 0 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 100 |
Data Presentation | Students inconsistently and inappropriately make use of labels, highlights, font weight and underline. Students select inappropriate visual methods of presenting data. | Students use labels, highlights, font weight and underline. Students select visual methods of presenting data. Some presentation methods are suitable for the type of data and purpose ofpresentation and audience. |
Students appropriately use labels, highlights, font weight and underline. Students select visual methods of presenting data. The presentation methods are mostly suitable for the type of data and purpose of presentation and audience. |
Students appropriatelyand consistently uselabels, highlights, fontweight and underline.Students selectsuitable visual methodsof presenting data. Thepresentation methodsaresuitable for the type ofdata and purpose ofpresentation andaudience. | ||||
Data Processing | Students attempt to arrange data into fields. Most Fields are named. Data entered has some inaccuracies. Little understanding of data types. | Students arrange data into fields. Fields are named. Data entered has some inaccuracies Students have some understanding data types. | Students arrange data into fields. Fields are appropriately named. Data entered is mostly accurately. Students recognize data types. | Students arrange data into suitable fields. Fields are appropriately named. Data is entered accurately. Students recognize data types. | ||||
Data Manipulation | Students make noattempt to manipulatedata or manipulation isfundamentally flawed. | Students canmanipulate data withuse of formula orequations. Some errors arepresent in datamanipulation | Students canmanipulate data usingformula or equations.The data manipulationmakes analysis possible.. | Students canappropriately manipulatedata using suitableformula or equations.The data manipulationmakes analysis possible. | ||||
Data Analysis | Students make noattempt to analyse dataor draw conclusions orthe analysis isfundamentally flawed.Students make noattempt to link to priorknowledge. | Students attempts toidentify trends to drawconclusions from thedata. There areinaccuracies inanalysisStudents attempt tomake some links toprior knowledge. | Students identify trendsand are able to drawconclusions from thedata. There are fewinaccuracies inanalysis.Students can recognisesome errors andinaccuracies in theprocessed,manipulated andpresented data.Students are able tomake some links toprior knowledge. | Students correctlyidentify trends and are able to draw suitableaccurate conclusionsfrom the data.Students can recogniseerrors and inaccuraciesin the processed,manipulated andpresented data andtheir analysis.Students are able torelate presented datato other knowledge. |
Criteria | 0 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 100 | |
Presentation | Concisely and clearly written | Rambling, some irrelevancies and errors, incomplete statements | Reasonably succinct, simple and understandable | Succinct and poignant, clear and grammatically correct | |||
Format and diagrams | Difficult to interpret diagrams, poorly formatted report, sloppy presentation | Organised report with clear diagrams and a tidy presentation | Well-presented report with self-explanatory diagrams and professional appearance | ||||
Clarity of Purpose | Introduction | Vague rambling, limited clarity on direction or purpose, uncertain potential contribution | Direction and objectives clearly stated, some acknowledgement of potential outcomes | Clear mandate for the research, precise direction & scope together with potential contribution | |||
Alignment | Disjointed and dysfunctional, separate sections not linked, no signposting | Single report reasonably well put together, focus on topic maintained throughout | Fully integrated report, single thesis under investigation, well signposted throughout | ||||
Research gap | Unjustified research gap plucked out of the air, disjointed and only partially related research questions/ propositions | Research gap is identified by previous research that logically link to the associated questions/ propositions | Clearly defined research questions/ propositions that fully align to the research gap that is well justified and linked to previous studies | ||||
Context for Research | Review of major contributions | List of points or sweeping statements, large blocks of referenced material, missing some significant contributions | Somewhat complete, mainly from own perspective, literature is used reasonably well to justify perspective | Comprehensive critical review of the current state of knowledge in own words, paraphrasing used to convey key concepts | |||
Synthesis of literature | Not integrated, points and statements are not brought together, no storyline | Partially integrated, two viewpoints built from several materials inter-linked | Fully integrated, points and statements linked together comprehensively, a clear narrative | ||||
Conceptual model of the literature | List of concepts partially related in a complex model with questionable causal links | Two significant authors work integrated into a combined model that highlights the key factors for further investigation | Considered yet simple model that draws out the main points from previous research and highlights their interaction | ||||
Appropriate Methods | Ontology, epistemology and methodology | Vague review of ontology and epistemology, the authors beliefs and not explored, followed by a bland list of alternative methods | Clearly articulated views of ontology and epistemology followed by a partially linked research method | Comprehensive review of research philosophy, both conceptually and personal beliefs, well integrated into the research methodology | |||
Research process | Process not in line with the research questions or ontology, disjointed measurement and analysis processes, actual method differs from planned | Sensible approach to conducting the research, logically linked to the research questions, reasonable analytical and measurement approach applied | Well aligned and fully justified research process, fully considered and conducted data collection and analysis process | ||||
Analysis & Reflection | Data analysis | Analysis contains errors in process and/or calculations, poorly displayed information that is difficult to interpret/misleading | Accurate data analysis that extracts the key findings, well displayed information | Rigorous analysis of the empirical data, clearly displayed to highlight the most significant insights | |||
Reflective critique | Limited appreciation of the value of the findings, superficially linked to previous research | Value of the findings recognised and reasonably well linked to previous research, some conceptual model refinement | The most significant insights are liked to previous research, the conceptual model is refined in the light of these new insights | ||||
Successful Outcomes | Overall design and execution | Clear shortcomings in either the method, the data quality or accuracy of the analysis | Some high quality research elements mixed in with some undermining areas of weakness | A rigorous investigation of a focussed research topic that is conducted precisely throughout | |||
Original contribution | Limited new theoretical or practical insights, a partial extension/ verification of a known concept in a new context | A valuable contribution to knowledge, of interest to either practitioners or academics, worthy of publication in a journal | A distinct and unique contribution to the research field, worthy of publication in an international journal |
Criteria | 0 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 100 | |
Presentation | Concisely and clearly written | Rambling, some irrelevancies and errors, incomplete statements | Reasonably succinct, simple and understandable | Succinct and poignant, clear and grammatically correct | |||
Format and diagrams | Difficult to interpret diagrams, poorly formatted article, sloppy presentation | Organised article, formatted in line with the target journal with clear diagrams and a tidy presentation | Well-presented article, self-explanatory diagrams and journal article appearance | ||||
Clarity of Purpose | Abstract | Difficult to understand, disjointed abstract that is poorly linked to the article contents | Accurate abstract that succinctly summaries the journal article and the objectives of the research | Interesting and engaging abstract that draws the reader into the journal article | |||
Introduction | Vague rambling, limited clarity on direction or purpose, uncertain potential contribution | Direction and objectives clearly stated, some acknowledgement of potential outcomes | Clear mandate for the research, precise direction & scope together with potential contribution | ||||
Research gap | Unjustified research gap plucked out of the air, disjointed and only partially related research questions/ propositions | Research gap is identified by previous research that logically link to the associated questions/ propositions | Clearly defined research questions/ propositions that fully align to the research gap that is well justified and linked to previous studies | ||||
Literature Review | Synthesis of literature | Not integrated, points and statements are not brought together, no storyline | Partially integrated, two viewpoints built from several materials inter-linked | Fully integrated, points and statements linked together comprehensively, a clear narrative | |||
Conceptual model of the literature | List of concepts partially related in a complex model with questionable causal links | Two significant authors work integrated into a combined model that highlights the key factors for further investigation | Considered yet simple model that draws out the main points from previous research and highlights there interaction | ||||
Method | Research process | Process not in line with the research questions or ontology, disjointed measurement and analysis processes, actual method differs from planned | Sensible approach to conducting the research, logically linked to the research questions, reasonable analytical and measurement approach applied | Well aligned and fully justified research process, fully considered and conducted data collection and analysis process | |||
Analysis & Reflection | Data analysis | Analysis contains errors in process and/or calculations, poorly displayed information that is difficult to interpret/misleading | Accurate data analysis that extracts the key findings, well displayed information | Rigorous analysis of the empirical data, clearly displayed to highlight the most significant insights | |||
Reflective critique | Limited appreciation of the value of the findings, superficially linked to previous research | Value of the findings recognised and reasonably well linked to previous research, some conceptual model refinement | The most significant insights are liked to previous research, the conceptual model is refined in the light of these new insights | ||||
Value | Original contribution | Limited new theoretical or practical insights, a partial extension/ verification of a known concept in a new context | A valuable contribution to knowledge, of interest to either practitioners or academics, worthy of publication in a journal | A distinct and unique contribution to the research field, worthy of publication in an international journal |