Assessment Brief Pro Forma
|
1. Module code and title
|
MR402 MUC1 Methods and Methodologies
|
|
2. Module tutor
|
Ros Jennings
|
|
3. Tutor with responsibility for this Assessment
|
Ros Jennings
|
|
4. (Element number), Weighting, Type and Size of Assessment
|
001: 100% Coursework: Standard (5000 words or equivalent)
You will be penalised according to the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision if you exceed the size limit.
|
|
5. Submission deadline
|
22 November 2016
Your attention is drawn to the penalties for late submission; see
Academic Regulations for Taught Provision
|
|
6. Arrangements for submission
|
Electronic submission via Student Records Online
- You are advised to submit work electronically by midday (British local time) to ensure that technical support is available should you encounter any issues with the electronic submission process.
- The maximum size for an individual file to be uploaded is 5MB.
- You should use the following convention for naming your file: `Bloggs_J_ s0123456_XX101_A1` (for example, Joe Bloggs –student number s0123456 – submitting a file for XX101 assessment task 1). You are also advised to add this information to the header section of your submitted document.
- All files must be submitted either as a Microsoft Word document (with a ‘.doc’ or ‘.docx’ file extension), or in a Rich Text Format (with a .rtf file extension).
|
|
7. Date and location for return of work
|
20 December 2016
|
|
8. Disabled students
|
Alternative assessment arrangements may be made, where appropriate, for disabled students. However, these will only be implemented upon the advice of the Disability Advisor. Disabled students wishing to be considered for alternative assessment arrangements must give notification of the disability (with evidence) to the Disability Advisor by the published deadlines.
|
10. The requirements for the assessment
Assessment for this module is a 5,000-word essay, which counts as 100% of your overall module mark.
Objectives
This 5000-word essay addresses one or more of the following learning outcomes. Researchers who have successfully completed this module will:
- be able to contextualise the choice, design and implementation of methods relative to research philosophies and methodologies
- have a critical appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of a range of research methods in specific research projects
- be able to select and use appropriate research methods to meet specified research objectives
- be able to reflect critically on the role and power of the researcher in managing research projects in a range of multi-disciplinary contexts.
- be able to examine critically their own and other researchers` use of research methods. Background
You MUST consult with your supervisory team in choosing which essay question to tackle as the purpose of the task is to assist you in thinking about broader issues of method and methodology in relation to your own research. It is essential that these discussions will also produce a suitable title for the essay and define the scope and content of your assessment.
Requirement
Choose ONE of the following options
1) Write an essay of 5000 words that contextualises the choice, possible design and implementation of one or more research method/s (featured in MR402) in relation to your research. In all cases you should draw on relevant reading and reflect critically on your own role as a researcher.
OR:
2) In consultation with your supervisors, choose up to two published journal articles that engage with methods and methodology in your area of study. Carry out a critical appraisal of 5000 words that identifies both positive and negative aspects of the approach used in the paper/s and discusses issues of objectivity in relation to the broader aims of the paper.
OR:
3) In an essay of 5000 words, select a method which you envisage you are going to use to construct an artistic or engineering artefact and portray its possible advantages and pitfalls for your research process.
11. Assessment criteria
Your work will be first marked by your first supervisor and moderated across the module by the course team.
Work is marked and presented to exam boards in relation to the following grades:
Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory (UR) Unsatisfactory (UF)
Feedback to students from markers, however, may indicate attainment on a Distinction, Merit, Pass, Refer, Fail basis as shown below.
In arriving at a grade for a piece of assessed work markers will take into account the degree of achievement related to the specified assessment criteria as shown in the table of Grade Descriptors below:
|
MARK
|
GRADE DESCRIPTOR
|
NOTES
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pass with Distinction
|
Excellent or outstanding
|
Pass with distinction; credit awarded
|
|
Merit
|
Very good
|
Pass with merit; credit awarded
|
|
Pass
|
Satisfactory or good
|
Pass; credit awarded
|
|
Refer
|
Unsatisfactory
|
Fail: reassessment; no credit awarded, new assessment(s) may be awarded for credit
|
|
Fail
|
Poor
|
Fail; no credit awarded, module must be retaken for credit
|
Marking will take place in relation to the comprehensive marking criteria supplied with this document. The marking criteria are a guide and not a prescriptive nor a mechanical aid to grading. The grid provided is conceived of as a potentially useful starting point for discussion about assignment requirements between supervisors and students.
Endnote
Careful referencing of sources is vital when making use of the work of others. You are expected to employ the referencing conventions recommended in the Course. These conventions apply to information taken from internet sources, as well as books, journals and lectures. If you are unsure of the way to reference properly, seek advice from a member of staff before you submit the assessment. These are some of the points you should check before submitting your work:
- are all direct quotations, from both primary and secondary sources, suitably acknowledged (placed in quotation marks or indented)?
- have you provided full details of the source of the quotation, according to the referencing convention used in the Course?
- have you acknowledged the source of ideas not your own, even if you are not quoting directly from the source?
- have you avoided close paraphrase from sources? (Check that you are not presenting other people’s words or phrasing as if they are your own.)
- if you have worked closely with others in preparing for this assessment, is the material you are presenting sufficiently your own?
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
Tailored to your instructions