Methodology

BBS301: Group Project Part 1: Methodology Marking Guide

80-100 Excellent (HD) 70-79 Very good (D) 60-69 Good (C) 50-59 Acceptable (P) 49 Fail (N)

Aims and objectives

Aims and objectives are concisely expressed. Original and highly relevant research questions are clearly articulated.

Aims and objectives are well selected. Clearly relevant research questions are determined.

Aims and objectives are identified and mostly relevant to project. Relevant research questions outlined, but could be tighter in their focus.

Aims and objectives are described in broad terms only. Research questions outlined but lacking in clarity or focus.

Aims, objectives or hypotheses/research questions are missing or so poorly written meaning is unclear.

Methodology and ethics

Creative and highly appropriate methodology is clearly articulated and justified. Clear demonstration of deep understanding of ethical concerns.

Methodology is well argued and justified. Very good level of understanding of ethical concerns.

Methodology is explained and appropriate for the project. Good level of understanding of ethical concerns.

An appropriate methodology is broadly outlined, but details are not always clear. Shallow understanding of ethical concerns.

The methodology is either not appropriate for the project or is poorly articulated suggesting deficits in understanding. Very limited understanding of ethical concerns. Elements of methods or methodology ethically problematic.

Methods

Evidence of comprehensive and detailed understanding of the limitations and the strengths of the different methods selected.

Evidence of very good level of understanding of the limitations and the strengths of the different methods selected.

Evidence of a good level of knowledge of different methods selected and use of appropriate terminology.

Evidence of limited knowledge of topic. Some use of appropriate terminology.

Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to the topic and/or significantly misuses terminology.

Research tools

Excellent research tools. Highly appropriate and well- designed supporting documentation. Research tools clearly linked to project aims.

Very well-designed research tools. Appropriate and well- designed supporting documentation. Research tools clearly linked to project aims.

Well-designed research tools but some minor changes needed. Appropriate and well-designed supporting documentation but some minor changes needed. Research tools and project aims could be linked more clearly.

Major amendments to research tool and supporting documentation needed. Links between research tools and the aims of the project not well linked.

Research tools and supporting document badly designed and show a little to no understanding of project aims.

Written expression

Fluent and sophisticated writing style appropriate to document. Writing concise and direct. Grammar and spelling errors rare or absent. Author presents ideas in accessible way with sense of reader’s need for variety, examples, and explanation.

Language fluent. Grammar and spelling errors are minimal. Author often presents ideas in clear, lucid fashion, making difficult ideas accessible and explaining concepts and arguments effectively.

Language mainly fluent. May be occasional grammar or spelling errors. Although some parts of the review are clear and persuasive, some may be hard to follow or convoluted.

Meaning apparent, but language not always fluent. Makes some spelling or grammatical errors, but writing generally readable. Needs better proofreading. Over relies on quotation.

Persistent writing problems. Needs significant proofreading. Frequent ungrammatical sentences, spelling errors, or convoluted writing. Over relies on quotation.

Presentation and structure

Polished and imaginative presentation. Clear, logical & engaging structure throughout the review, with effective introduction & conclusion. Clever or effective use of structure, such as cumulative points, creative development, or other effective writing strategy.

Very good presentation. Minor errors in consistency or formatting. Clear, logical structure throughout the review that is effectively initiated in the introduction and drawn to a conclusion. Effective use of paragraphs, sentence structure and overall outline.

Good presentation. Some errors in consistency and formatting. Shows organisation and coherence. Introduction and conclusion used effectively, including signalling the primary contents of review, but may be overly plodding.

Shows some attempt at presentation, but generally poor presentation. Shows some attempt to organise in a logical manner. Review does have basic sense of logic, but may have problem with cohesion or organization. Introduction and conclusion not used effectively or well organized.

Shows no attempt to present appropriately. Significant errors and inconsistencies in presentation. Disorganised and incoherent. Movement between topics is random. Significant material is off topic or irrelevant. Paragraphs poorly structured.

Integration of cited material

Author embeds quotations well in his or her own prose, effectively integrating concepts. Cited concepts used effectively and creatively.

Author embeds quotations well in his or her own prose, integrating concepts into the review. Cited concepts are well understood and used correctly.

Quoted material advances the discussion and author leads into and out of quoted material effectively. Author uses concepts or ideas correctly from sources.

Quoted material generally appropriate although may be some lack of fit with discussion. Quoted material not well integrated into the surrounding text.

Quoted material not integrated or poorly integrated into review. Quotes do not say what author suggests. Material not embedded or depended upon too heavily.

Referencing

Referencing consistently accurate. In-text citations & Reference List complete & appropriate. Author efficiently integrates acknowledging sources with paraphrased as well as quoted material.

Referencing mostly accurate but some minor errors in consistency or formatting. In-text citations & Reference List complete & appropriate. Author efficiently integrates acknowledging sources with paraphrased as well as quoted material.

Referencing mostly accurate but some minor errors in consistency or formatting. In-text citations & Reference List complete & appropriate. Author efficiently integrates acknowledging the sources of material.

References meet minimal standards, include complete information, and Reference List is complete. Author includes too much information in paraphrase.

Little or no referencing. Errors or oversights in citations and Reference List. Incomplete reference information. Use of inappropriate sources.