how to change

H U M A N R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P R O J E C T M A R K I N G C R I T E R I A

Mark: 42

Criteria Fail Pass Merit Distinction

0 - 49% 50 -59% 60 – 69% 70 - 79% 80 - 100% 1. Purpose & objectives • Research question or • Problem definition or • Theoretical focus or • Case study focus • The project /case study

development

Poorly defined and presented, some confusion in rationale

Clearly stated, some relevance, straightforward

Well stated purpose, appropriate and realistic explanation of the context /problem/case

Very clearly stated, feasible, innovative

Exceptionally well stated, interesting, sophisticated, original, full and convincing justification

2. Literature Review • Is there evidence of

appropriate selection and discussion of relevant literature?

• Is there evidence of understanding of, and critical engagement with what has been read?

• Does the literature add to the understanding of the problem/ planned development/ case study through effective evaluation and synthesis of a range of literature?

Lacks structure with clear gaps, no discussion of selection criteria, unsystematic referencing. Limited evidence of understanding and evaluation of the selected literature.

A basic coverage of relevant literature. Inconsistent referencing, The literature offers some additional understanding the problem/ project / development of project /case study

[top end] Good coverage, awareness of relevant prior research, clear structure, stated selection criteria, consistent referencing, clarity of understanding, the literature, informs and adds to the development of the project /case study

Comprehensive and inclusive use of highly relevant literature, good structure, clearly articulated discussion that relates to the topic of research

Exceptional section that fully demonstrates a discerning, creative and critical engagement with what has been read

3. Research Methodology • Is the approach adequately

explained, appropriate to the problem and data?

• Do the collected data avoid bias and are they carefully collected?

Irrelevant theoretical basis, poorly explained approach

Some evidence of a theoretical basis, reasonably explained.

Clear and relevant theoretical basis, appropriate approach, useful and appropriate information. An awareness of strengths and weaknesses of approach.

Very clear and relevant theoretical basis, persuasive rational for research approach, or methods used for the development of a project/ case study, evidence of critical evaluation

Provides excellent theoretical understanding rigorously argued approach, exceptional understanding evident

4. Analysis of Primary and/ or Secondary Data • Collection and analysis

Casual acquisition of data, lacks structure, limited evaluation against unclear or inappropriate criteria, mostly descriptive

Standard approach to collection, limited validity, limited and basic, but acceptable evaluation or techniques

[top end] Standard approach to collection, clear validity and reliability, critical analysis

Advanced approaches of collection, clear validity, critical analysis using appropriate techniques and

Outstanding analytical techniques and approaches, evidence of creation of new approaches (if appropriate), thorough and

H U M A N R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P R O J E C T M A R K I N G C R I T E R I A

using appropriate techniques and appropriate criteria

appropriate criteria, fully justified

rigorous analysis, exceptionally well justified

5. Discussion & Findings • Do the discussion of findings

reflect (personal) learning from analysis, and an understanding of the implications and limitations, the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development?

Discussion shows a very limited awareness of theory and attempt to link this to the findings. There is a very limited discussion of the implications, and limitations of the research or development

Adequate level of critical analysis and reflection on personal learning. Adequate discussion of implications of the findings and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development

Some links with theory, discussion justified with appropriate evidence, good critical analysis of the implications of the findings, and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development

Comprehensive links with theory, complete justification with appropriate evidence, very good critical analysis of the implications of the findings, and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development

Sophisticated and critical discussion of the issues involved, outstanding reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research, offers fresh/new insights on the problem or development

6. Presentation, Structure & Language

• Is it written in good English?

• Is it presented using appropriate graphics, illustrations and accurate referencing?

• Is it well structured, logical and coherent, using appropriate chapter headings?

Basic layout, inconsistent flow, few spelling and grammatical errors, poor citation and reference list, poor structure, confused.

Adequate use of graphics and charts, good command of spelling and grammar, some typos, some omissions or inconsistencies in reference list, most sections have a logical flow and structure

Clear and effective use of graphics and charts, no spelling or grammatical errors, appropriate and consistent referencing, logical, clear and coherent structure

Very good logical flow and cohesion, Discerning use of graphics, charts and tables, no spelling of grammatical errors, appropriate and consistent referencing, well developed and appropriate structure

Outstanding logical flow, excellent use of language, appealing and effective use of graphics, charts and tables, appropriate and consistent referencing, very skilfully developed structure, outstanding logical flow, most effective use of conventions appropriate for purpose

7. Conclusion • Do the conclusions do more

than re-state the findings? Do they relate to the existing academic debates and /or current evidence? Are they effectively linked to the central theoretical themes/ story/ development?

Conclusions have limited justification in the evidence, there is limited relationship to existing theory and the topic of the dissertation, very limited recommendations / opportunities for further development

Adequate attempt to use evidence to reach appropriate conclusions that relate to the topic of the dissertation, conclusions may be general and uncritical, adequate recommendations / opportunities for further development

Clear conclusions relating to the topic of the dissertation and justified by the evidence. Identifies clear recommendation / opportunities for further development

Clear conclusions with a very good relationship to the topic of the dissertation and justified well by the evidence. Identifies clear and practical recommendation / opportunities for further development

Exceptional conclusions that relate strongly to the topic of the dissertation with excellent justification in the evidence. Conclusions add new insight to the topic of the dissertation and identify clear and practical recommendations / opportunities for further development

H U M A N R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P R O J E C T M A R K I N G C R I T E R I A

Second Marker comments

Additional First Marker Comments Purpose: This is an interesting area and a solid choice for an undertaking of this nature. However, the rationale lacks depth and what is presented is too descriptive. We also don’t seem to have any RQ’s in this section. This needs to be adjusted and the RQ’s presented fully in line with the rationale. If we don’t have the RQ’s the rest of the work lacks direction and that’s a big problem in terms of presenting the narrative. There are too many gaps here and the opening section isn’t cohesive enough Review. There are some good elements here, but too many sections are too descriptive. Its quite a narrow field of literature, but the work does lack depth. We don’t have much in the way of a critical evaluation and leaving the RQ;s until the end of the chapter doesn’t help you develop a logical and cohesive structure. Method. There are too many gaps in this section and not having a section where you address the issues surrounding secondary research is an issue. I’m not sure why you’ve opted to omit that, but it was most certainly needed. We also don’t seem to have any theoretical underpinning to justify choices. This too is an issue , I’m afraid. You have nothing on ethics, and that o is an issue. Findings/Discussion - This whole section including the chapters 5 and 6 seem very messy and it’s hard to really understand what you’re doing here. Elements from Chapter 5 would be far better simply being integrated into the findings to highlight the work. What’s happened is that you’ve tried to do far too much here and overreached and lost a bit of direction. Go back to the feedback you were provided with. You don’t seem to have made any adjustments at all. I’m not sure why you ‘ve for a case study in the middle of the chapter. Again, you were advised against this. There’s very little clarity and the sections are very hard to follow and nothing seems to tie up. The discussion gets lost in the length of the chapter sand you don’t point out to the reader that you’re discussing what you’ve found our/ Overall this is a confusing chapter (s) Presentation. The work needs proofing and the paragraphs and sentences throughout are very long. Time spent on structure would have been well spent Conclusion-It isn’t clear if you’ve answered your RQ’s

H U M A N R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P R O J E C T M A R K I N G C R I T E R I A

I agree with the first marker that this topic is very interesting – to me it offers a chance to provide insights into the relationship between technology development and user experience, marketing and consumer choice. However, the abstract reveals a rather broad approach to the topic exploring and describing developments in live streaming and e-commerce. There lacks a coherent set of issues to be considered, which as the first marker notes should be revealed in a clear set of RQs. This is missing. This is rectified at the end of the literature review section but the RQs are not really challenging in so far as they do not present a problem or issue – they allow the student to report on trends and this requires the simple reporting of existing studies. They do not steer a critical review of literature, which is a disappointment. The problem I think, and this is highlighted in the methods section is that the student has adopted a reasonable template to present an argument and the methods section works through relevant issues. However, we don’t have a sense that this is targeted in a focused way, as the first marker indicates. This starts to feel increasingly disconnected, which is not helped by the late arrival of RQs that feel like an add-on. This is carried through to the analysis chapter, which offers interesting observations and insights about the case study but again, as the first marker suggests this does not really hang together very well. This reads more like an essay rather than a piece of research that is interested in exploring a theme or issue/problem. I have to agree with the first marker and confirm the grade of 42%.