issues and controversies in marketing project
mozerden
MG3123courseworkbriefReport2019-203.docx
Brunel Business School
MG3123 Issues and Controversies in Marketing
Guidelines on preparing the Project Report for 2019/20
Main objective of the assessment
To write a report of a piece of research. This involves being able to use the literature in order to identify a suitable research problem/issue or opportunity to explore, to design/implement a study using suitable and appropriately justified research methods, to present the findings and finally to provide conclusions. You will also have demonstrated that the requirements of responsible ethical behaviour in research were taken into account. All of this encourages you towards becoming an ‘independent’ researcher. Being independent means (amongst other things) being capable of: (a) formulating good questions; (b) developing and presenting well-informed and well-supported arguments; and (c) defending your arguments in open discussion. Learning to deal with complex, open-ended problems and limited, often ambiguous, information is an extremely valuable preparation for future challenges.
In this, you will have shown how you have “draw[n] on the literature in the field, analyse[d] and interpret[ed] research evidence of a discipline-specific phenomenon in order to identify a suitable research problem/issue or opportunity to explore”, that you have “identified a suitable research problem/issue or opportunity, design[ed] and implement[ed] a research investigation/study, use[d] suitable research methods, appropriately justified, and report[ed] efficiently and effectively on the findings, conclusions and (where appropriate) proposals for appropriate action thereof”. You will also have demonstrated “that the requirements of responsible ethical behaviour in research [were] suitably taken into account”. You need to provide evidence that you have understood and met “the requirements of responsible ethical behaviour in research”. These quotes come from the learning outcomes published in the module block outline.
The Project Report should consist of a carefully-crafted account of your Project. It is important to remember that this Report is the only evidence that the markers are able to use when assessing your work. These guidelines are designed to help you to prepare the best document/Report possible, so that you do full justice to the research you have undertaken. Please read in conjunction with the marking scheme.
Format
· Project reports must contain no more than 8,000 words, as measured by the standard word count available on Microsoft Word. This includes all the text starting from Chapter 1 (anything before the first word of chapter 1 does not count) but excluding the list of References list and the Appendices (if any).
· Reports should have appropriate spacing (either single-line spaced or 1.5 line spaced), with a 3.5cm left-hand margin (to allow for binding) and 2.5cm top and bottom margins.
· The recommended fonts are: Arial (or any other standard, modern font) or Times New Roman (should you prefer a more ‘traditional’ font). Text should be in 11 or 12 point. Chapter headings should be larger, that is, in either 12, 14 or 16 point.
· Insert a page number at the bottom of the report (in Word, click ‘insert page number’).
· Chapters, sections and sub-sections should be numbered using standard report formats (for example, ‘Chapter 1: Introduction’; ‘1.1 The research problem’).
· The title page should include: Project title, your student ID number. All title page text should be centred and presented in 18 point Arial font.
· The Abstract should be no more than 250 words, summarising the whole Project and highlighting your key findings.
· It is essential to provide references for ALL source material that you use in your Project, using the Harvard format (for example, books, articles, reports, newspapers, webpages). This includes citing sources in the text and providing full references in the list of References. Additional guidance on how to cite/reference can be obtained from the Library.
Structure
The precise structure and presentation of your Project will depend in part on the research and the approach that you have adopted. The following structure is typical (‘typical’ does not mean ‘required’):
· Cover sheet. However, if you forget to do this, you will not lose any marks, so there is no need to ‘take back’ any version and upload a new one if you forget. As long as we have your student ID number on the front, this is sufficient in order for us to identify your work (this is the point of the coversheet).
· Title page
· Abstract (the equivalent term in business reports is ‘Executive Summary’).
· Acknowledgements
· Table of contents page
· List of figures page
· List of tables page
· Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter is likely to include: background to the research area, problem definition/research gap, and Project outline.
· Chapter 2: Literature review (you may insert a more meaningful title, based on the research area). It is unlikely that you will need two chapters for this, but if you do, then you are free to do so. This guidance, in this document, assumes that you will not (because, normally, you do not).
· Chapter 3: Research methods. Here you present and justify your research approach, method used, and the rest, that is, what data was gathered, and when, how).
· Chapter 4: Results/Findings. Here you present your analysis and the results/findings from the data that you gathered).
· Chapter 5: Discussion (or, ‘discussion and conclusion’, or ‘conclusion’ or some other wording which tells the reader ‘this is the final chapter’). Here you summarise the whole piece of research, highlight what you have found/what contribution your study has made, state the limitations, set out the future work and, if there are any, state the practical or other implications to research and/or practice.
· References (Harvard referencing style).
· Appendices (this may include, say, the questionnaire or other instrument used, the letter from the Research Ethics Committee).
There is no fixed allocation of words for particular sections/chapters; it is a matter of judgement (your judgement, not ours), within the overall word limit. When initially allocating a word length to your chapters (and also when editing chapters at a later stage), you should take into account the kind of research you have undertaken (for example, some research questions may justify slightly longer literature reviews; largely quantitative research studies may require fewer words in the Results/Findings chapter, as findings can be summarised using graphs).
Appendices should be used for relevant material that cannot be inserted in the main text without disturbing the logical flow (this is normally related to evidence of the data that you collected) that are cross-referenced in the Report. Transcripts of interviews should be included in the Appendices; however, if they are very extensive, they can be presented in font 10 or 9; single spaced or on double sided pages. If you use Appendices incorrectly (for example, if they contain parts of your main argument that you could not ‘fit’ into the main Report, or large amounts of raw evidence, such as printouts), you risk losing marks.
Other sources of advice
We recommend that you read several research methods textbooks, focusing on relevant chapters, and use these sources to support your arguments in the Report. You can also learn a lot about research – including theory, concepts, evidence, methods, and presentation – by reading examples of published academic research (for example, journal articles, dissertations, theses and reports). Just one warning: remember that other researchers may follow different sets of guidelines (for example, for report structure and referencing), to those specified for this Project.
Any questions?
If you have a question, in the first instance try to resolve it yourself by looking at these guidelines, the marking scheme and the study guide and by discussing them with colleagues in your seminar group. If you are still unsure, speak to your seminar leader.
This Report must be submitted electronically via the University’s WiseFlow system. The required file format is pdf. Your student ID number must be used as the file name (e.g. 0123456.docx). You must ensure that you upload your file in the correct format and use the College’s electronic coursework coversheet.
· An electronic copy of your Project is to be uploaded by the deadline, 12:00 noon UK time on the day/date stated above.
· The file MUST be saved in Word format (and then in pdf) and should not contain any large graphics files (or similar), which could affect the overall file size.
· Two identical paper copies of the Project to be submitted to Taught Programmes Office (TPO) by 17.00 pm UK time on the same day/date. Both copies must be soft bound (that is, not loose sheets), single-sided with a standard cover sheet on top.
Marking scheme
This document provides you with detailed criteria that will be/was used in marking the Project. This marking scheme, like all marking schemes, draws on the University’s grade descriptors to inform its design. Marking is evidence-based. As markers, we make our ‘judgement of the academic standard’, as it is called in Senate Regulations. A ‘judgement of the academic standard’ is more usually shortened to/called our ‘academic judgement’. We use the evidence in front of us to award the mark/grade that the work merits, in our academic judgement. The marking scheme and the University’s grade descriptors are used to assist us in making that academic judgement when marking any work, including this Final Year Project Report.
UG grades and grade point bands [Senate Regulation 2 (2009 starters onwards)] are: A++ (17), A+ (16), A (15), A- (14), B+ (13), B (12), B- (11), C+ (10), C (9), C- (8), D+ (7), D (6), D- (5), E+ (4), E (3), E- (2), F (1).
Below is the marking scheme and it provides an illustration of each assessment criterion achieved at each of the grade descriptors for this level:
|
1. Abstract and Introduction |
Grade Descriptor |
15% |
|
There is a particularly clear and concise abstract covering all key points, that is, purpose, background, rationale, method(s), key finding(s), and contribution(s). Chapter 1 presents a particularly excellent introduction, including an overview and motivation for what follows. There is a particularly excellent overview/summary of the literature which is to be discussed later, that is, in the review of the literature chapter. Chapter 1 suggests that this FYP Report has a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable ‘research problem/issue or an opportunity to explore’. This chapter may or may not include (this is optional) a very clear and concise summary of material to be covered in subsequent chapters. |
A* |
90-100 marks |
|
There is a particularly clear and concise abstract covering all key points, that is, purpose, background, rationale, method(s), key finding(s), and contribution(s). Chapter 1 presents an excellent introduction, including an overview and motivation for what follows. There is an excellent overview/summary of the literature which is to be discussed later, that is, in the review of the literature chapter. Chapter 1 suggests that this FYP Report has a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable ‘research problem/issue or an opportunity to explore’. This chapter may or may not include (this is optional) a very clear and concise summary of material to be covered in subsequent chapters. |
A+, A, A- |
70-89 marks (70-72 = A-) (73-79 = A) (80-89 = A+) |
|
There is a very clear and concise abstract covering all key points, that is, purpose, background, rationale, method(s), key finding(s), and contribution(s). Chapter 1 presents a very good introduction, including an overview and motivation for what follows. There is a very good overview/summary of the literature which is to be discussed later, that is, in the review of the literature chapter. Chapter 1 suggests that this FYP Report has a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable ‘research problem/issue or an opportunity to explore’. This chapter may or may not include (this is optional) a very clear and concise summary of material to be covered in subsequent chapters. |
B+, B, B- |
60-69 marks (60-62 = B-) (63-67 = B) (68-69 = B+) |
|
There is a reasonably clear and concise abstract covering all key points, that is, purpose, background, rationale, method(s), key finding(s), and contribution(s). Chapter 1 presents a good introduction, including an overview and motivation for what follows. There is a good overview/summary of the literature which is to be discussed later, that is, in the review of the literature chapter. Chapter 1 suggests that this FYP Report has a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable ‘research problem/issue or an opportunity to explore’. This chapter may or may not include (this is optional) a clear and concise summary of material to be covered in subsequent chapters. |
C+, C, C- |
50-59 marks (50-52 = C-) (53-57 = C) (58-59 = C+) |
|
There is a somewhat clear and concise abstract covering all key points, that is, purpose, background, rationale, method(s), key finding(s), and contribution(s). Chapter 1 presents a satisfactory introduction, including an overview and motivation for what follows. There is a reasonable overview/summary of the literature which is to be discussed later, that is, in the review of the literature chapter. Chapter 1 suggests that this FYP Report has a ‘story’ but that it may not clearly identify a suitable ‘research problem/issue or an opportunity to explore’. This chapter may or may not include (this is optional) a reasonably clear and concise summary of material to be covered in subsequent chapters. |
D+, D, D- |
40-49 marks (40-42 = D-) (43-47 = D) (48-49 = D+) |
|
There is evidence of deficiencies which mean that the threshold standard (D-) has not been met. This may be due to any number of the following. Abstract is either missing or does not serve relevant purpose. Chapter 1, which likely includes an overview and motivation for what follows, is either inadequate or missing. The overview/summary of the literature which is to be discussed later, in the review of the literature chapter, is either inadequate or missing. It suggests that this is not a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable ‘research problem/issue or opportunity to explore’. If there is a summary of material to be covered in subsequent chapters this is inadequate. |
E+, E, E- |
30-39 marks (30-32 = E-) (33-37 = E) (38-39 = E+) |
|
The work is unacceptable. The work presented does not show achievement of some (or all) of the learning outcomes described for this aspect of the task. This may be due to most of, or all of, the following. Abstract is either missing or is not clear. Chapter 1, which likely includes an overview and motivation for what follows, is either inadequate or missing. The overview/summary of the literature which is to be discussed later, in the review of the literature chapter, is either inadequate or missing. It suggests that this is not a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable ‘research problem/issue or opportunity to explore’. If there is a summary of material to be covered in subsequent chapters, this is inadequate. |
F |
0-29 marks |
|
2. Literature Review |
Grade Descriptor |
20% |
|
There is a particularly excellent description and an equally excellent critical discussion of the literature in the field and its treatment demonstrates a highly sophisticated, critical and thorough understanding of the subject matter. The literature is plentiful and wholly appropriate. The particularly excellent introduction includes an overview and motivation for what follows. The discussion, drawing on a particularly excellent interpretation and understanding of the literature gathered to support the claim(s) made, is highly sophisticated in its critical powers. The analysis demonstrates an exceptional insight into the aspect(s) of business/management that have been chosen to be explored. It is a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable research problem/issue. If there is a framework of any type (there is no requirement for one), this is particularly excellent. The ‘gaps’, expressed as questions or hypotheses (or however “a … research problem/issue or opportunity” is termed) are exceptional in terms of how SMART (Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Relevant, and Time-bound) they are. |
A* |
90-100 marks |
|
There is an excellent description and an equally excellent critical discussion of the literature in the field (the subject matter) and its treatment demonstrates a sophisticated, critical and thorough understanding of the subject matter. The literature is plentiful and wholly appropriate. The excellent introduction includes an overview and motivation for what follows. The discussion, drawing on an excellent interpretation and understanding of the literature gathered to support the claim(s) made, is sophisticated in its critical powers. The analysis demonstrates excellent insight into the aspect(s) of business/management that have been chosen to be explored. It is a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable research problem/issue. If there is a framework of any type (there is no requirement for one), this is excellent. The ‘gaps’, expressed as questions or hypotheses (or however “a … research problem/issue or opportunity” is termed) are excellent in terms of how SMART (Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Relevant, and Time-bound) they are. |
A+, A, A- |
70-89 marks (70-72 = A-) (73-79 = A) (80-89 = A+) |
|
There is a very good description and an equally good critical discussion of the literature in the field (the subject matter) and its treatment demonstrates a well-developed, critical and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. The literature is plentiful and wholly appropriate. The very good introduction includes an overview and motivation for what follows. The discussion, drawing on a very good interpretation and understanding of the literature gathered to support the claim(s) made, is very good in terms of its critical powers. The analysis demonstrates very good insight into the aspect(s) of business/management that have been chosen to be explored. It is a ‘story’ which identifies a suitable research problem/issue. If there is a framework of any type (there is no requirement for one), this is very good. The ‘gaps’, expressed as questions or hypotheses (or however “a … research problem/issue or opportunity” is termed) are suitably SMART (Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Relevant, and Time-bound). |
B+, B, B- |
60-69 marks (60-62 = B-) (63-67 = B) (68-69 = B+) |
|
There is a good description and an equally good critical discussion of the literature in the field (the subject matter) and its treatment demonstrates a systematic and substantial understanding of the subject matter. The literature is sufficient in terms of type/amount and is for the most part appropriate. The good introduction includes an overview and motivation for what follows. The discussion, drawing on a good interpretation and understanding of the literature gathered to support the claim(s) made, is good in terms of its critical powers. The analysis demonstrates good insight into the aspect(s) of business/management that have been chosen to be explored. It is a ‘story’ which, for the most part, identifies a suitable research problem/issue. If there is a framework of any type (there is no requirement for one), this is good. The ‘gaps’, expressed as questions or hypotheses (or however “a … research problem/issue or opportunity” is termed) are for the most part suitably SMART (Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Relevant, and Time-bound). |
C+, C, C- |
50-59 marks (50-52 = C-) (53-57 = C) (58-59 = C+) |
|
There is an adequate description and discussion of the literature in the field (the subject matter) and its treatment demonstrates a systematic understanding of the subject matter. The literature is adequate in terms of type/amount and is for the most part appropriate. The reasonable introduction includes an overview and motivation for what follows. The discussion, drawing on a reasonably adequate interpretation and understanding of the literature gathered to support the claim(s) made, is adequate but is likely limited in terms of its criticality. The analysis demonstrates adequate insight into the aspect(s) of business/management that have been chosen to be explored. It is a ‘story’ which, just about, identifies a suitable research problem/issue. If there is a framework of any type (there is no requirement for one), this is satisfactory. The ‘gaps’, expressed as questions or hypotheses (or however “a … research problem/issue or opportunity” is termed) are adequate in terms of being SMART (Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Relevant, and Time-bound). |
D+, D, D- |
40-49 marks (40-42 = D-) (43-47 = D) (48-49 = D+) |
|
There is evidence of deficiencies which mean that the threshold standard (D-) has not been met. This may be due to any number of the following. There is an inadequate narrative and an equally inadequate critical discussion of the literature and its treatment demonstrates some, but an insufficient, understanding of the subject matter. The literature is inadequate in terms of type/amount and/or is for the most part inappropriate. The introduction, including an overview and motivation for what follows is either inadequate or missing. The discussion, drawing on an insufficiently appropriate interpretation and a too-limited understanding of the literature gathered to support the claim(s) made, is inadequate. The analysis demonstrates an inadequate insight into the aspect(s) of business/management. It is a ‘story’ which does not identify a suitable research problem/issue. If there is a framework of any type (there is no requirement for one), this is not satisfactory. The ‘gaps’, expressed as questions or hypotheses (or however “a … research problem/issue or opportunity” is termed) are either inappropriate or are missing. |
E+, E, E- |
30-39 marks (30-32 = E-) (33-37 = E) (38-39 = E+) |
|
The work is unacceptable. The work presented does not show achievement of some (or all) of the learning outcomes described for this aspect of the task. This may be due to most of, or all of, the following. There is an inadequate narrative and an equally inadequate critical discussion of the literature and its treatment demonstrates an insufficient understanding of the subject matter. The literature is inadequate in terms of type/amount and/or is for the most part inappropriate. The introduction is either inadequate or missing. The discussion, drawing on an insufficiently appropriate interpretation and a too-limited understanding of the literature gathered to support the claim(s) made, is inadequate. The analysis demonstrates an inadequate insight into the aspect(s) of business/management. It is a ‘story’ which does not identify a suitable research problem/issue. If there is a framework of any type, this is not satisfactory. The ‘gaps’, expressed as questions or hypotheses (or however “a … research problem/issue or opportunity” is termed) are either inappropriate or are missing. |
F |
0-29 marks |
|
3. Research Methodology |
Grade Descriptor |
20% |
|
The research methods chapter is particularly excellent in terms of its clarity, and its treatment of the issues involved demonstrates a highly sophisticated, critical and thorough understanding of research methods more generally. A particularly excellent argument is made for the instrument(s)/tool(s) which have been used to gather the data. A particularly excellent justification is provided as to why that/those selected have been chosen, and there is a particularly excellent, comprehensive description of the data collection and analysis process, including consideration of the ethical issues involved. There is exceptional clarity as to how the literature in the field (the subject matter) informed its/their design. How/why data is gathered is crucial in a piece of research and this Project demonstrates an exceptionally good treatment of this issue. |
A* |
90-100 marks |
|
The research methods chapter is excellent in terms of its clarity, and its treatment of the issues involved demonstrates a sophisticated, critical and thorough understanding of research methods more generally. An excellent argument is made for the instrument(s)/tool(s) which have been used to gather the data. An excellent justification is provided as to why that/those selected have been chosen, and there is an excellent, comprehensive description of the data collection and analysis process, including consideration of the ethical issues involved. There is clarity as to how the literature in the field (the subject matter) informed its/their design. How/why data is gathered is crucial in a piece of research and this Project demonstrates an excellent treatment of this issue. |
A+, A, A- |
70-89 marks (70-72 = A-) (73-79 = A) (80-89 = A+) |
|
The research methods chapter is very good in terms of its clarity, and its treatment of the issues involved demonstrates a well-developed, critical and comprehensive understanding of research methods more generally. A very good argument is made for the instrument(s)/tool(s) which have been used to gather the data. A very good justification is provided as to why that/those selected have been chosen, and there is a very good, comprehensive description of the data collection and analysis process, including consideration of the ethical issues involved. There is clarity as to how the literature in the field (the subject matter) informed its/their design. How/why data is gathered is crucial in a piece of research and this Project demonstrates very good treatment of this issue. |
B+, B, B- |
60-69 marks (60-62 = B-) (63-67 = B) (68-69 = B+) |
|
The research methods chapter is good in terms of its clarity, and its treatment of the issues involved demonstrates a systematic and substantial understanding of research methods more generally. A good argument is made for the instrument(s)/tool(s) which have been used to gather the data. A good justification is provided as to why that/those selected have been chosen, and there is a good description of the data collection and analysis process, including consideration of the ethical issues involved. There is reasonable clarity as to how the literature in the field (the subject matter) informed its/their design. How/why data is gathered is crucial in a piece of research and this Project demonstrates good treatment of this issue. |
C+, C, C- |
50-59 marks (50-52 = C-) (53-57 = C) (58-59 = C+) |
|
The research methods chapter is reasonable in terms of its clarity, and its treatment of the issues involved demonstrates a systematic understanding of research methods more generally. A reasonable argument is made for the instrument(s)/tool(s) which have been used to gather the data. A reasonable justification is provided as to why that/those selected have been chosen, and there is a reasonable description of the data collection and analysis process, including consideration of the ethical issues involved. There is adequate clarity as to how the literature in the field (the subject matter) informed its/their design. How/why data is gathered is crucial in a piece of research and this Project demonstrates adequate treatment of this issue. |
D+, D, D- |
40-49 marks (40-42 = D-) (43-47 = D) (48-49 = D+) |
|
There is evidence of deficiencies which mean that the threshold standard (D-) has not been met. This may be due to any number of the following. The research methods chapter is inadequate in terms of its clarity, and/or its treatment of the issues involved. Whilst it demonstrates some understanding of research methods more generally, it is insufficient. The argument made for the instrument(s)/tool(s) which have been used to gather the data is either inadequate or missing. The justification provided as to why that/those selected have been chosen is either inadequate or missing. The description of the data collection and analysis process, including consideration of the ethical issues involved is either inadequate or missing. How the literature in the field (the subject matter) informed its/their design is either inadequate or missing. How/why data is gathered is crucial in a piece of research and this Project demonstrates inadequate treatment of this issue. |
E+, E, E- |
30-39 marks (30-32 = E-) (33-37 = E) (38-39 = E+) |
|
The work is unacceptable. The work presented does not show achievement of some (or all) of the learning outcomes described for this aspect of the task. This may be due to most of, or all of, the following. The research methods chapter is inadequate in terms of its clarity, and/or its treatment of the issues involved. The understanding of research methods more generally is insufficient. The argument made for the instrument(s)/tool(s) which have been used to gather the data is either inadequate or missing. The justification provided as to why that/those selected have been chosen is either inadequate or missing. The description of the data collection and analysis process, including consideration of the ethical issues involved is either inadequate or missing. How the literature in the field informed its/their design is either inadequate or missing. How/why data is gathered is crucial in a piece of research and this Project demonstrates inadequate treatment of this issue. |
F |
0-29 marks |
|
4. Results/Findings |
Grade Descriptor |
20% |
|
The presentation and analysis of the results is particularly excellent. Findings/results are presented with exceptional clarity and in an exceptionally effective manner. There is evidence of originality and independence of thought, and the work clearly demonstrates the exceptional ability to develop a highly systematic and logical or insightful solution or evaluation. |
A* |
90-100 marks |
|
The presentation and analysis of the results is excellent. Findings/results are presented with great clarity and in a highly effective manner. There is evidence of independence of thought, and the work clearly demonstrates the ability to develop a highly systematic and logical or insightful solution or evaluation. |
A+, A, A- |
70-89 marks (70-72 = A-) (73-79 = A) (80-89 = A+) |
|
The presentation and analysis of the results is very good. Findings/results are presented with clarity and in a very effective manner. There is evidence of independence of thought, and the work clearly demonstrates the ability to develop a systematic and logical or insightful solution or evaluation. |
B+, B, B- |
60-69 marks (60-62 = B-) (63-67 = B) (68-69 = B+) |
|
The presentation and analysis of the results is good. Findings/results are presented well and in a sufficiently effective manner. There is evidence of a significant degree of competence in developing a solution or evaluation. |
C+, C, C- |
50-59 marks (50-52 = C-) (53-57 = C) (58-59 = C+) |
|
The presentation and analysis of the results is reasonable. Findings/results are presented reasonably well and in a reasonably effective manner. There is evidence of an acceptable degree of competence in developing a solution or evaluation. |
D+, D, D- |
40-49 marks (40-42 = D-) (43-47 = D) (48-49 = D+) |
|
There is also evidence of deficiencies which mean that the threshold standard (D-) has not been met. This may be due to any number of the following. The presentation and analysis of the results is inadequate. Findings/results are not presented adequately and/or in a reasonably effective manner. |
E+, E, E- |
30-39 marks (30-32 = E-) (33-37 = E) (38-39 = E+) |
|
The work is unacceptable. The work presented does not show achievement of some (or all) of the learning outcomes described for this aspect of the task. This may be due to most of, or all of, the following. The presentation and analysis of the results is inadequate. Findings/results are not presented adequately and/or in a reasonably effective manner. |
F |
0-29 marks |
|
5. Conclusions and Recommendations |
Grade Descriptor |
15% |
|
Conclusions drawn follow from the discussion of the results/findings and demonstrate an exceptional ability to synthesise the data/evidence with the literature in the field (the subject matter). There is a highly sophisticated, critical and thorough understanding of the limitations of the piece of research identified and described, and suitably appropriate future work which follows from this are presented. If there are practical or other recommendations for business/industry (this is not a requirement) these are not only targeted, specific and realistic but follow directly from the preceding analysis of the data/results presented. |
A* |
90-100 marks |
|
Conclusions drawn follow from the discussion of the results/findings and demonstrate an excellent ability to synthesise the data/evidence with the literature in the field (the subject matter). There is a sophisticated, critical and thorough understanding of the limitations of the piece of research identified and described, and suitably appropriate future work which follows from this are presented. If there are practical or other recommendations for business/industry (this is not a requirement) these are not only targeted, specific and realistic but follow directly from the preceding analysis of the data/results presented. |
A+, A, A- |
70-89 marks (70-72 = A-) (73-79 = A) (80-89 = A+) |
|
Conclusions drawn follow from the discussion of the results/findings and demonstrate a very good ability to synthesise the data/evidence with the literature in the field (the subject matter). There is a well-developed, critical and comprehensive understanding of the limitations of the piece of research identified and described, and suitably appropriate future work which follows from this are presented. If there are practical or other recommendations for business/industry (this is not a requirement) these are not only targeted, specific and realistic but follow directly from the preceding analysis of the data/results presented. |
B+, B, B- |
60-69 marks (60-62 = B-) (63-67 = B) (68-69 = B+) |
|
Conclusions drawn follow from the discussion of the results/findings and demonstrate a good ability to synthesise the data/evidence with the literature in the field (the subject matter). There is a systematic and substantial understanding of the limitations of the piece of research identified and described, and suitably appropriate future work which follows from this are presented. If there are practical or other recommendations for business/industry (this is not a requirement) these are not only for the most part targeted, specific and realistic but follow for the most part directly from the preceding analysis of the data/results presented. |
C+, C, C- |
50-59 marks (50-52 = C-) (53-57 = C) (58-59 = C+) |
|
Conclusions drawn for the most part follow from the discussion of the results/findings and demonstrate a reasonable ability to synthesise the data/evidence with the literature in the field (the subject matter). There is a systematic understanding of the limitations of the piece of research identified and described, and some reasonably appropriate future work which follows from this are presented. If there are practical or other recommendations for business/industry (this is not a requirement) represent an attempt, if not well executed, to make these targeted, specific and realistic and to make them follow directly from the preceding analysis of the data/results presented. |
D+, D, D- |
40-49 marks (40-42 = D-) (43-47 = D) (48-49 = D+) |
|
There is also evidence of deficiencies which mean that the threshold standard (D-) has not been met. This may be due to any number of the following. Conclusions drawn do not follow from the discussion of the results/findings, or are missing. Whilst there is some evidence of some understanding of the literature in the field (the subject matter), it is too limited. There is insufficient understanding of the limitations of the piece of research identified and described, and either the future work which follows from this is inadequate or missing. If there are practical or other recommendations for business/industry, there is an attempt at providing them, but it is too poorly executed. |
E+, E, E- |
30-39 marks (30-32 = E-) (33-37 = E) (38-39 = E+) |
|
The work is unacceptable. The work presented does not show achievement of some (or all) of the learning outcomes described for this aspect of the task. This may be due to most of, or all of, the following. Conclusions drawn do not follow from the discussion of the results/findings, or are missing. Whilst there is some evidence of some understanding of the literature in the field (the subject matter), it is too limited. There is insufficient understanding of the limitations of the piece of research identified and described, and either the future work which follows from this is inadequate or missing. If there are practical or other recommendations for business/industry, there is an attempt at providing them, but it is too poorly executed. |
F |
0-29 marks |
|
6. Overall Structure and Professional Presentation of Report |
Grade Descriptor |
10% |
|
The work is presented in an exceptionally highly professional manner in all respects. The work adheres fully to the requirements described in the study guide/other documentation associated with this. The reader does not have to work hard at all in order to ‘follow the plot’ given the exceptional ‘story telling’. The lay person can easily understand it. If there is jargon, it is fully explained. Material taken from other sources is accurately paraphrased; the text/style/content is that of an exceptional report writer. There are no grammatical and/or other errors at sentence level. There are no errors or inconsistencies when it comes to the citations/references. The organisation of the text at the structural level (paragraphs, sections, chapters) is excellent. The ‘story’ is exceptionally well told; there is an exceptionally high level of clarity, focus and cogency in communication at all levels. |
A* |
90-100 marks |
|
The work is presented in a highly professional manner in all respects. The work adheres fully to the requirements described in the study guide/other documentation associated with this. The reader does not have to work hard in order to ‘follow the plot’ given the excellent ‘story telling’. The lay person can easily understand it. If there is jargon, it is fully explained. Material taken from other sources is accurately paraphrased; the text/style/content is that of the report writer. There are no, or hardly any, grammatical and/or other errors at sentence level. There are no, or hardly any, errors or inconsistencies when it comes to the citations/references. The organisation of the text at the structural level (paragraphs, sections, chapters) is excellent. The ‘story’ is excellently told; there is a high level of clarity, focus and cogency in communication at all levels. |
A+, A, A- |
70-89 marks (70-72 = A-) (73-79 = A) (80-89 = A+) |
|
The work is presented in a very professional manner in nearly all respects. The work adheres fully to the requirements described in the study guide/other documentation associated with this. The reader does not have to work hard in order to ‘follow the plot’ given the very good ‘story telling’. The lay person can easily understand it. If there is jargon, it is very well explained. Material taken from other sources is accurately paraphrased; the text/style/content is that of the report writer. There are no, or hardly any, grammatical and/or other errors at sentence level. There are no, or hardly any, errors or inconsistencies when it comes to the citations/references. The organisation of the text at the structural level (paragraphs, sections, chapters) is very good. The ‘story’ is very well told; there is clarity, focus and cogency in communication at all levels. |
B+, B, B- |
60-69 marks (60-62 = B-) (63-67 = B) (68-69 = B+) |
|
The work is presented in a professional manner in most respects. The work mostly adheres to the requirements described in the study guide/other documentation associated with this. The reader does not have to work too hard in order to ‘follow the plot’ given the good ‘story telling’. The lay person can understand it. If there is jargon, it is explained. Material taken from other sources is for the most part accurately paraphrased; the text/style/content is for the most part that of the report writer. There are likely some, but not many, grammatical and/or other errors at sentence level. There are likely some, but not many, errors or inconsistencies when it comes to the citations/references. The organisation of the text at the structural level (paragraphs, sections, chapters) is good. The ‘story’ is well told; there is clarity and focus in communication at all levels. |
C+, C, C- |
50-59 marks (50-52 = C-) (53-57 = C) (58-59 = C+) |
|
The work is presented in a reasonably professional manner. The work mostly adheres to the requirements described in the study guide/other documentation associated with this. The reader does not have to work too hard in order to ‘follow the plot’ given the reasonable ‘story telling’. The lay person can understand it for the most part. If there is jargon, it is explained reasonably well. Material taken from other sources is for the most part reasonably accurately paraphrased; the text/style/content is for the most part that of the report writer. There are likely some or many grammatical and/or other errors at sentence level. There are likely some or many errors or inconsistencies when it comes to the citations/references. The organisation of the text at the structural level (paragraphs, sections, chapters) is adequate. The ‘story’ is adequately told; there is effective communication at all levels. |
D+, D, D- |
40-49 marks (40-42 = D-) (43-47 = D) (48-49 = D+) |
|
There is also evidence of deficiencies which mean that the threshold standard (D-) has not been met. This may be due to any number of the following. The work is presented in an unprofessional manner. The work does not adhere to the requirements described in the study guide/other documentation associated with this. The reader has to work too hard in order to ‘follow the plot’ given the poor ‘story telling’. The lay person has great difficulty understanding it. Jargon is either not adequately explained or is not explained at all. Material taken from other sources is not sufficiently well paraphrased. There are too many grammatical and/or other errors at sentence level. There are too many errors or inconsistencies when it comes to the citations/references. The organisation of the text at the structural level (paragraphs, sections, chapters) is inadequate. The ‘story’ is not adequately told; there is a lack of effective communication at all levels. |
E+, E, E- |
30-39 marks (30-32 = E-) (33-37 = E) (38-39 = E+) |
|
The work is unacceptable. The work presented does not show achievement of some (or all) of the learning outcomes described for this aspect of the task. This may be due to most of, or all of, the following. The work is presented in an unprofessional manner. The work does not adhere to the requirements described in the study guide/other documentation associated with this. The reader has to work too hard in order to ‘follow the plot’ given the poor ‘story telling’. The lay person has great difficulty understanding it. Jargon is either not adequately explained or is not explained at all. Material taken from other sources is not sufficiently well paraphrased. There are too many grammatical and/or other errors at sentence level. There are too many errors/inconsistencies in citations/references. The organisation of the text at the structural level (paragraphs, sections, chapters) is inadequate. The ‘story’ is not adequately told; there is a lack of effective communication at all levels. |
F |
0-29 marks |
Academic misconduct, plagiarism and collusion
Any coursework or examined submission for assessment where plagiarism, collusion or any form of cheating is suspected will be dealt with according to the University processes which are detailed in Senate Regulation 6. You can access information about plagiarism here. The University regulations on plagiarism apply to published as well as unpublished work, collusion and the plagiarism of the work of other students. Please ensure that you fully understand what constitutes plagiarism before you submit your work.
University’s coursework submission policy
Please refer to the College’s Student Handbook for information on submitting late, penalties applied and procedures.
College’s coursework submission policy
Please refer to the College’s Student Handbook for information relating to the College’s Coursework Submission Policy and procedures.
* this can be found at the bottom of the page under the ‘Documents’ section *
Extenuating circumstances policy
Please refer to the College’s Student Handbook for information relating to extenuating circumstances and procedures.
Page 1 of 13
