Research Methods
Brucele
COMP40321-Coursework2-2021.pdf
School of Science and Technology
COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT ELEMENT
Module Code : COMP40321 Module Title : Research Methods
Module Leader : Dr Shuang Cang
Tutor(s) : Dr Jun He, Dr David Funchall,
Dr Woodall, Philip
Title : Updated Literature Survey & Project Planning
Document
Learning outcomes
assessed
:
K1, K2, K3, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
Contribution to element
:
90% of the total coursework mark
Date set : w/c 22th March 2021 (Teaching week 35) Date of Submission : Friday 4th June 2021 (Teaching week 45)
Submission method : Dropbox folder in NOW Feedback date : Friday 25th June 2021 (Teaching week 48)
Feedback method : Electronic (on NOW)
Note : The usual University penalties apply for late submission and plagiarism. Also, note the
university’s policy on proof-reading found at Part C Section 15 of the NTU Quality Handbook (13.17
– 13.20). Please consult your student handbook for further details.
NEC : https://ntu.ac.uk/current_students/ resources/student_handbook/appeals/index.html
Writing and maths
support
:
http://librarybookings.ntu.ac.uk
© NTU Copyright 2020
I. Assessment Requirements
You are required to provide an updated Literature Review, and Project Planning Document (PPD) as a word-processed document.
II. Assessment Scenario/Problem
The PPD outlines the plan for the MSc Major Project and should be developed in consultation with your project supervisor. Project planning is the key to
completing a project successfully. Creating a project plan is the first thing you need to do when undertaking any kind of project. The Project Planning Document
describes the objectives, working assumption, project phases, dependencies, deliverables, professional issues and the risk assessment for the project. It also includes an updated Literature Survey which will be further developed from that
submitted for Assignment 1 following feedback from your project supervisors.
The submission is in two parts that are submitted as one document. Part one describes the project plan itself, whilst part two is the updated Literature Survey.
Part One – Project Plan
It is expected that this section will clearly identify the aims of the project and plan
the activities that will be undertaken. You are required to write this up in the following format:
1. Introduction: You should explain the background and rationale for the project.
2. Aims and objectives: The aim(s) is one or two sentences summing up the
overall vision for what the project will achieve. This should be followed by a
paragraph or bullet points that elaborate on the aim by identifying specific
objectives that you hope to achieve in the project. At the end of your project
you will write a conclusion that discusses whether you have achieved these aims
and objectives.
3. Tasks: These are the specific things that you will do while you undertake your
project. Each task needs to be specific and lead to a deliverable of some sort.
These deliverables need to be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Appropriate,
Realistic and Time constrained).
4. Sources of information and resources required: You must explain what
resources you will need to complete the project.
5. Project risks: Anticipate with justification any cause which may “derail” your
project plan and what you propose to recover the situation should it occur.
6. Professional issues: Evaluation of professional, social, ethical and legal issues
of relevance to the project. Areas that can be covered are quite broad, such as
any area of computing related legislations (Computer Misuse Act, Data
Protection Act, Freedom of Information); areas that impact on society (home,
education, workplace); the misuse of the project results for criminal activities,
welfare and surveillance; or any possible intellectual property issues that may
arise from your work.
7. Time plan: You need to estimate of how long each of your tasks will take and a
plan of how the project will be achieved in the time available. You will also
need to identify project milestones. This plan must be presented in the form of
a Gantt chart.
Part Two – Literature Survey
Following meetings and feedback from your supervisor, the Literature Survey from
Assignment 1 is to be updated. The purpose of a Literature Survey is to demonstrate that you are able to understand and critically analyse the background research in your topic area. It also shows that you are able select and
source the information that is necessary to develop a context for your research. This is a key part of your final MSc project and it will develop over time as you
develop your project.
Page Limit
You should submit your report as one document.
Part One - Project Plan: It is expected that this should comprise around 5 and a maximum of 8 A4 side pages, prepared adhering to the submission guidelines below. Marks will be deducted where students exceed 8 sides or do not follow the
guidelines for font size and line spacing given below. Part Two - Literature Survey: This should be around 8 sides long and must not exceed 12 sides. Marks will be deducted where students exceed 12 sides or do not
follow the guidelines for font size and line spacing given below. A list of references will not be included in the page limit.
Submission requirements
Your work should be submitted to the relevant Dropbox folder in the Research Methods Room on NOW in PDF or MS Word formats. You should use your name
and student ID as the file name, e.g. Joe_Bloggs_N123456.pdf. Your work should be appropriately word processed. Text must be 12 point Arial, flush left, and single spaced. Include your name and student registration number in a header.
You must include references in a standard style (e.g. Harvard) as described in the library web site. Do not include a title page, abstract or table of contents.
You must include a signed statement, “In submitting this work I confirm that I am
aware of, and am abiding by, the University’s expectations for proof-reading”.
Assessment criteria:
III. Assessment Criteria
Part One – Project Plan
• Introduction (10%) • Aims and objectives (10%)
• Tasks (5%) • Sources of information and resources required (5%)
• Project risks (5%) • Professional issues (5%)
• Time plan (10%)
Part Two – Literature Survey
• Sources (15%)
• Critical evaluation (15%)
• English and writing style (15%) • Referencing (5%)
IV. Feedback Opportunities
Formative (Whilst you’re working on the coursework)
You are expected to arrange meetings with your supervisor to discuss your progress in the planning your project amounting to a total time of around 1 or 2 hours. These meeting will enable the supervisor to give you advice and feedback on what you have achieved. NOTE the supervisor will only be able to give you
feedback on what you have achieved if you provide him/her with information about what you have done.
Summative (After you’ve submitted the coursework)
You will receive specific feedback regarding your coursework submission together with your awarded grade when it is returned to you. The verbal feedback on this coursework is for developmental purposes so that you can improve your project.
Research Methods Assignment 2 marking sheet
Student: Course: Marker: Grade: ZERO Grade points: 0.0
Report title:
General Feedback:
Criteria Distinction Commendation Pass Fail Zero Grade
points Excp. High Mid High Mid High Mid Low Marginal Mid Low
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 0
Introduction
(10%)
Excellent introduction to the topic area
demonstrating with clarity the rationale for the
project
Very good introduction to the topic
area demonstrating the rationale of
the project.
A good introduction to the topic area
demonstrating fair rationale of the
project but with some issues, such as
may lack some focus or may be too
ambitious given the timescale.
Insufficient introduction to or
understanding of the topic resulting in a
lack of rationale of the project.
Comments
Aims and
Objectives (10%) Aims and objectives are clearly and concisely
expressed and demonstrate excellent clarity in
what it is hoped the project will achieve.
Aims and objectives are clearly
expressed and demonstrate clarity in
what it is hoped the project will
achieve with some minor notable
omissions or lack of focus.
Aims and objectives are
understandable in the context of the
project area but require further clarity
in what it is hoped the project will
achieve with some omissions of what
would be expected for a good project
Aims and objectives are unfocused,
irrelevant or unrelated to the context of
the project area and fail to describe what
it is hoped the project will achieve.
Comments
Tasks (5%) The student demonstrates an excellent
understanding of the tasks to be undertaken
during the project with very minor, if any,
omissions of what could be considered key or
focused tasks.
The student demonstrates a good
understanding of the tasks to be
undertaken during the project with
some minor omissions of what could
be considered key tasks that would be
expected for a very good project to be
achieved.
The student demonstrates an
understanding of the tasks to be
undertaken during the project with
some omissions of key tasks that
would be expected for a good project
to be achieved, and/or providing some
irrelevant tasks.
The student shows little or no an
understanding of the tasks to be
undertaken during the project with
omissions of key tasks/milestones or
providing irrelevant tasks unrelated to
the project.
Comments
Sources/Resources
Required (5%)
The sources of information show excellent
focus in research and choice and the resources
are focused extremely well towards the
project.
The sources of information show
focus in research and choice and the
resources are focused towards the
project.
The sources of information show
some focus in research and choice
and the resources mentioned are
relevant to the project, but there may
be reliance on limited/set sources to
advance work.
The sources of information show little
research or understanding, and the
resources mentioned are typically not
relevant to the project, or there may be
reliance on very limited sources to
advance work.
Comments
Project risks (5%) The student understands with clarity the risks
of the project and these are described with
focus.
The student provides relevant risks to
the project and these are described
well.
The student provides some relevant
risks to the project and demonstrates
an understanding of how these relate
to the project.
The student provides very few or no
relevant risks to the project and does not
demonstrate an understanding of how
these or risks in general relate to the
project.
Comments
PSEL issues (5%) Evidence of extensive and critical analysis of
the professional, social, ethical, and legal
issues related to the project.
Evidence of critical analysis of the
professional issues related to the
project and those supplied are highly
or relevant to the project.
Some evidence of critical analysis of
the professional, social, ethical, and
legal issues related to the project, and
those supplied are relevant to the
project.
Very little evidence of critical analysis of
the professional, social, ethical, and legal
issues related to the project, and/or those
supplied are typically not very relevant.
Comments
Time plan (10%) The time plan is highly detailed and
excellently presented with a deep level of
focus on the project tasks and milestones,
demonstrating an understanding of how the
project’s aims and objectives are to be
achieved and with very few, if any, omissions
in expected tasks.
The time plan is detailed and
presented very well with a good
description of the project tasks and
milestones, demonstrating an
understanding of how the project’s
aims and objectives are to be
achieved but contains some omissions
in expected tasks.
The time plan is detailed and
presented well with a description of
the project tasks and milestones but
contains some omissions in expected
tasks.
The time plan lacks detail, has major
omissions, and/or is not presented in a
manner that is easily understood.
Comments
Sources (15%) A broad range of high quality sources are
included in the survey that are highly relevant
to the topic under investigation with a few, if
any, irrelevant sources selected.
A quite wide range of sources are
included in the survey that are highly
relevant to the topic under
investigation with some irrelevant
sources selected and cited from
outside academic or non-peer
reviewed sources, such as Web sites.
Some sources are included in the
survey that are relevant to the topic
under investigation but with an over-
reliance on sources selected and cited
from outside academic or non-peer
reviewed works, such as Web sites.
(Very) few sources are included in the
survey that are relevant to the topic
under investigation and (almost) entirely
reliant on sources selected and cited
from outside academic or non-peer
reviewed works, such as Web sites.
Comments
Critical
Evaluation (15%)
Excellent breadth and depth of knowledge and
understanding of the topic area achieved;
evidence of excellent and appropriate analysis
and critical evaluation and the student is
typically able to go beyond what has been
taught in both breadth and depth, to advance
work/direct arguments.
Very good breadth and depth of
knowledge and understanding of the
topic area achieved; evidence of
appropriate analysis and critical
evaluation with some beyond what
has been taught, but may rely on
limited sources to advance
work/direct arguments.
A good demonstration of knowledge
and understanding of the topic area
with some omissions noted; evidence
of appropriate analysis and critical
evaluation, but generally reliant on
limited/set sources to advance
work/direct arguments; some use of
paraphrasing or reliance on quotations
that lacks analysis of the work(s)
being discussed.
(Highly) insufficient knowledge or
understanding of the topic under review
or how it relates to the research field in
general; little ability to analyse and
evaluate reading/research and work is
descriptive; paraphrases cited works
with a lack of analysis of the work itself.
Comments
English and
writing style
(15%)
Ideas are expressed with excellent clarity and
structured well; use of English is excellent
with only minor, if any, errors and written in a
style that is easy to follow for a non-expert
reader.
On the whole, ideas are expressed and
structured well; use of English is very
good with some errors and written in
a style that is easy to follow but may
include some reference to
issues/concepts that can only be
understood by a technical expert.
On the whole, improvement could be
made on the way in which ideas are
expressed and structured for clarity;
use of English is acceptable with
errors and written in a style that is
easy to follow but may include some
parts that are difficult to read or are
inappropriate for the report.
Ideas are expressed and structured
incomprehensibly; use of English is
unacceptable with many errors and a
poor written style that is not easy to
follow; incoherent structure.
Comments
Referencing (5%) Excellent use of references and referencing
style contains only minor typos or flaws.
Very good use of references with
many relevant works included but the
referencing style contains some typos
or flaws.
A fair use of references with some
relevant works included but the
referencing style contains a number of
typos or flaws
Very few references and the referencing
style contains many typos or incoherent
presentation.
Comments
