Research Proposal

3

Marking Criteria

1 2 3 4 5 6 Missing Poor Fail Fail Pass Merit Distinction Introductory (Literature Review) (30 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1- 11 Marks (1–39%)

12-14 Marks (40-49%)

15-17 Marks (50%-59%)

18-20 Marks (60-69%)

21-30 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Project Title  Introductory Literature

Review

Absent or doesn’t match the allocated topic.

Poor / extremely brief or superficial exploration of the topic area. Statements are based on assertions rather than citing referenced evidence.

Content shows some basic understanding of literature relating to the project, but lacks clarity or depth. May be based on assertions rather than citing referenced evidence. Sources chosen may not be robust/ reliable.

Content adds some value, demonstrating understanding of some of the literature relevant to the project. May be partly based on assertions rather than citing referenced evidence. May lack justification for choosing the project topic.

All content is relevant and is clearly explained, showing critical thinking and comparing sources to justify the specific project choice. May only partially explore the relevant literature, but most evidence is referenced, citing robust academic sources.

Content is clearly explained and concisely maps and analyses the literature relevant to the chosen project, justifying the specific planned research topic. Shows critical thinking and all evidence is fully referenced.

Aim, Objectives and Relevance (30 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1- 11 Marks (1–39%)

12-14 Marks (40-49%)

15-17 Marks (50%-59%)

18-20 Marks (60-69%)

21-30 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Project Aim  List of Objectives  Project Relevance/

Impact  Potential benefits

(and beneficiaries)

Absent or doesn’t match the allocated topic.

Aim is not appropriate or objectives are not presented as a coherent list. Relevance and potential benefits are not explained. Key elements are missing or content is very superficial.

A few key elements may be missing. Description of project aim and objectives are vague or lack clarity. Minimal consideration of the relevance of the project and potential benefits.

Adequate project aim and an attempt at a coherent objectives list. Explanation of relevance and impact/ benefits may be fairly vague. All required content is included OR if some elements are missing, others are good quality.

Viable project aim and a coherent objectives list. All required elements are included. Includes some justification and a valid description of impact or relevance. Potential benefits and beneficiaries are identified.

Well written and realistic project aim and objectives list. All required elements are good quality. Convincing justification of significance and relevance of the planned research and potential benefits.

Methodology, Gantt Chart and Reflections (30 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1- 11 Marks (1–39%)

12-14 Marks (40-49%)

15-17 Marks (50%-59%)

18-20 Marks (60-69%)

21-30 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Outline Research

Methodology/Plan  Gantt Chart  Reflections on

Coursework A and other preparatory reading

Absent or doesn’t match the allocated topic.

Description of project methodology/approach is extremely vague, is unclear or is far too brief and superficial. Minimal evidence of any planning. Gantt Chart missing. Reflections missing.

Superficial description of research methodology. Gantt chart may be missing. Poor or little reflection on how the project evolved.

All required content is included OR if some elements are missing, others are good quality. Description of research method is given but would benefit from more detail/clarity. Gantt chart shows key milestones. Some generic reflections on the impact of wider reading.

Description of research methodology is complete and coherent, but may be limited or unrealistic (e.g. too ambitious or broad). Gantt chart shows key milestones Some meaningful discussion of the influence of background reading on project planning.

Full and clear explanation and justification of a viable project plan. Excellent summary of the plan in a Gantt chart, with thought given to varied activities and milestones. Insightful explanation of how the background reading influenced project planning.

Quality of Writing and Referencing (10 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1 – 3 Marks (1–39%)

4 Marks (40-49%)

5 Marks (50%-59%)

6 Marks (60-69%)

7-10 Marks (70- 100%)

 Harvard Style Referencing

 Academic English

Incomprehensible. No citations or referencing.

Content is incoherent or very unclear. Poor quality writing – difficult to comprehend. Poor or absent referencing.

Partly coherent but lacks clarity. Frequent errors in spelling, grammar, structure, formatting or referencing. Includes some poor paraphrasing or pasted in sentences.

Mostly coherent. May lack clarity occasionally. Minor errors in spelling, grammar, structure, formatting or referencing, but adequate. May be missing a few citations. Very few instances of poor paraphrasing.

Good use of academic language. Generally good spelling, grammar, structure, formatting and referencing is correct and consistent. No instances of poor paraphrasing.

Excellent standard of academic writing. Spelling, grammar, structure and formatting are all accurate. No pasted in content or poor paraphrasing. Referencing is accurate, consistent and complete.