Research paper with 2000 words

MD4058 Assessment Two Research Proposal Marking Scheme (2020-21, September 2020 Cohort)

Section & Weighing

Distinction

Merit

Pass

Fail

Introduction: Research

background, topic, aim & objectives

15%

Excellent, well focused and convincing purpose of proposed research. Very well defined and feasible research aim & objectives. Convincing justification of topic and research background.

Very well outlined and convincing purpose, which addresses the original research aim & objectives. Clear and critically evaluated justification of topic and research background.

Sufficient awareness of research purpose, which relates to the research aim & objectives with some weaknesses in the integration. Some, yet rather weak justification of topic and research background.

Little or no awareness of research purpose. No outline of research aim & objectives. Insufficient justification of topic and research background.

Literature review

25%

Excellent links between topic and literature. Extensive and focused awareness of academic literature with advanced, in-depth critical review. Coherent and logically structured.

Convincing links between topic and literature. Extensive and critical awareness of academic literature. Thoughtfully structured.

Links topic and literature. Theory is discussed descriptively and to a limited extent. Some weaknesses in the internal consistency Some academic sources used, but limited and basic.

Lacks logical links. Limited awareness of theory, lacking in clarity. Significant weaknesses in the internal consistency. Little evidence of reading.

Methodology 25%

Excellent logical connections between the research aim & objectives and methodology. Critical discussion of relevant philosophical and methodological issues. Persuasive presentation of rationale for the research methods, data collection and analysis strategy. Advanced, critical explanation for rejection of other methods.

Convincing logical connections between the research aim & objectives and methodology. Critical appreciation of relevant philosophical and methodological issues. Clear presentation research methods, data collection and analysis strategy.

Logical connections between the research aim & objectives and methodology. Familiarity with philosophical and methodological issues. A competent rationale presented for research methods, data collection and analysis with some weaknesses.

Lacks logical connections. Little or no awareness of philosophical and methodological issues. Little or no justification of research methods, data collection and analysis.

Ethical consideration,

possible limitation,

and research timescales

15%

Critical discussion about research ethics. Critical awareness of research limitations. Persuasive description of proposed timescales.

Thoughtful discussion about research ethics. Clear awareness of research limitations. Consistent description of proposed timescales.

Some thought about research ethics. Awareness research limitations. Adequate description of proposed timescales.

Limited consideration about research ethics. Little or no awareness of research limitations. Little or no consideration about research timescales.

Presentation, structure, and

format 15%

Sophisticated research proposal with excellent organisation, grammar and spelling. Logically structured and clearly written. Word count clearly stated and within the word limit. Format meets all requirements outlined in the ‘Submission Details’ in the ‘Assignment Brief’.

Thoughtful research proposal with accurate organisation, grammar and spelling. Clearly structured. Word count clearly stated and within the word limit. Format meets most requirements outlined in the ‘Submission Details’ in the ‘Assignment Brief’.

Adequate research proposal with sufficient organisation, grammar and spelling. Adequately structured. Word count stated and within the word limit. Format meets some requirements outlined in the ‘Submission Details’ in the ‘Assignment Brief’.

Inadequate research proposal with inconsistent organisation, grammar and spelling. Inadequately structured. Format meets few requirements outlined in the ‘Submission Details’ in the ‘Assignment Brief’.

Harvard Referencing

5%

Excellent and accurate Harvard Referencing style adopted throughout.

Consistent Harvard Referencing style adopted throughout.

Sufficient use of Harvard Referencing style.

Inadequate and/or incomplete use of Harvard Referencing style.