Postgraduate Research Methods Assignment
Prepare a proposal for your MSc Dissertation based on the guidelines and material available for the
course. It should be between 1700 and 1900 words. Deadline is 26th November 2021, 5pm
If you cannot submit on time, you can ask for a few days extension. Anything more than 2 days,
consider applying for ECS (you can do so on banner, yourselves). This will not affect your marking or
academic record and you get to resubmit in the next term or during resit period.
If you do not submit anything and you have not applied for ECS, you will have to re-attend the
module and pay the module fee
Your proposal should include the following:
Cover with your research title, name and banner number and also:
• Title
• Research Question
• Aims and Objectives
• Literature Review
• Methodology
• How analysis will be done
• Activity planning with tasks
eakdown and time allocated for each one
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• References (Harvard Style)
Your work should answer the following:
What?
Why?
How?
Please note that your similarity score should not exceed 10%.
Use the draft submission section for checking your score prior to the final one.
NOTE: I only mark what it is on the Final Submission point.
All submitted files should be in Microsoft Word
The next page contains the marking
eakdown. Read it carefully and think about your layout and
length of each section.
The marking is as follows
LO. L1. critically explore and identify research areas in their subject discipline that
are fertile, and formulate specific problems in these areas that are research-
worthy
• Research title is clear /Research question is formulated to state the
problem attempted to be addressed by the work to be undertaken (10)
• Clear Aims and Objectives (10)
• Evidence of original thinking (5)
• Literature Review is underpinning the question and aims and objectives
(10)
Total 35
LO.2 critically understand, and know how to apply, various different types of
esearch methodology in their subject discipline
• Methodology is justified and has a clear structure (20)
• Analysis and discussion of the findings have a connection to the research
question and supported by the body of knowledge and critical thinking
(15)
Total 35
LO3 construct, communicate, and defend a research strategy that is appropriate
to the level of an MSc research project
• The structure of the proposal and justification clear
• Limitations and further research are mentioned
• Conclusions have a clear connection to the aims and objectives
• Activity planning
Total 15
Presentation & Layout of the work and appropriate references
Up to date references
Total 15
MSc in Quality/Project Management
MSc presentations
Name:
Banner No.:
Topic:
Date:
Comment
Out of
Mark Awarded
Clarity of presentation
· Introduction
· Context
· Aims and Objectives
20
Confidence in Researching
· Methodology
· Approach
· Limitations
· Knowledge of methods
20
Results and Conclusions
· Findings (primary and secondary)
· Analysis
· Conclusions
· Have objectives been met
· Recommendations
· Future work
40
Discussion
· Questions and Answers
· Knowledge of topic
20
Total mark
100
General feedback
Examiners:
Name
Signature
Date
BEng Hon Aircraft Engineering Report- Marking Scheme
MSc Dissertation Report- Marking Scheme
Candidate ID:
Percentage of Total Marks Assigned to Project Component
Excellent
70-100
Good
60-69
Satisfactory
55-59
Borderline
50-54
Fail
(Less than) <49
Presentation of Information and Physical layout (10%)
Very good use of English language.
Excellent layout and structure to help make report easy to navigate
ead. Logical sequence proceeded with clear succinct summary representing main points of project.
Clear, appropriate, high quality diagrams. Comprehensive references included co
ectly. Very few e
ors.
7-10%
Good use of English language. Layout and structure make report easy to read. Clear summary
abstract. Clear, appropriate diagrams. References included co
ectly. Few e
ors. Relevant conclusions made.
6.-6.9%
Consistent layout. Generally easy to follow. Summary
abstract included. Logical order. Relevant conclusions made. References included co
ectly. Some e
ors.
5.5-5.9%
Inconsistent layout. Difficult to follow. Poor summary and/or conclusion. Poor references. Many e
ors.
5-5.4%
Very poor structure and layout. No summary and/or conclusions. Little logical progression. E
ors have serious effect on reader's understanding. Missing or very poor references.
4.9%
Evidence of Appropriate Literature Review (20%)
Comprehensive analysis and
synthesis of critical points of knowledge, ideas and theories,
esulting in themes that are concise, unbiased, and relevant to the thesis topic. Clear and
logical flow of idea
14 - 20%
Reasonable analysis and synthesis of critical points of
knowledge, ideas and theories.
Themes mostly concise, unbiased, and relevant to the
thesis topic. Mostly clear with a
logical flow of idea
12-13.8%
Some analysis and synthesis of critical points of knowledge, ideas and theories. Themes not always
concise, unbiased, or relevant to
the thesis topic. May lack clarity
and a logical flow of idea
11-11.8-%
Descriptive summaries of published documents with some
importance or relevance indicated but not fully explained.
10-10.8%
Published documents
summarised, but not linked in any effective way to the aims or
objectives of the project under investigation.
9.8%
Evidence of Original Thinking (10%)
Very good content with difficult topics explored to a high standard. High quality product. Specific objectives covered well. Few e
ors.
7-10%
Good technical content with some difficult topics explored. Specific objectives covered well. Few omissions/ i
elevancies. Few e
ors.
6 – 6.9%
Satisfactory level of technical content included. Specific objectives covered. Some omissions/ i
elevancies. Some e
ors.
5-5.9 %
Insufficient activities in numbe
technical content. Some specific objectives ignored. Significant inaccuracies, i
elevancies/ omissions. Many e
ors.
5-5.4%
Tasks generally inappropriate to project. Very low technical content. Specific objectives largely ignored. Insufficient activities. Work largely inco
ect or inaccurate.
4.9%
Development of Methodology (20%)
Choice of data and methods of collection clearly described, including extent of data gathering.
Methods well handled and convincingly justified against the project aims and objectives, including discussion of access issues. Some discussion of
inappropriateness of other data collection approaches. Full
elevant background material supplied as appendices
14 - 20%
Choice of data and methods of collection clearly described, including extent of data gathering. Methods adequately handled and justified against the project aims and objectives, including some discussion of access issues. Full relevant background material supplied in appendices
12 – 13.8%
Choice of data and methods for collecting them described, but with some gaps, there may be some doubt about how well methods have been handled, or how relevant they are to the aims and objectives. Some
ackground material on methods
supplied in appendices
11-11.8%
Choice of data and methods of collection somewhat vague and with some gaps in the material. Methods of collection are mixed
up but are partially related to the aims and objectives.
10 – 10.8%
Poor choice of data and methods,
handled incompletely, with little evidence of link to aims and objectives
9.8%
Critical Interpretation and Appraisal (20%)
Key strengths and weaknesses of
thesis
esearch process identified
and critically discussed, including what happened that was different from the plan and assumptions that needed to be questioned. Clear and convincing summary of learning gained with particular emphasis on implications for future research practice.
14 - 20%
Some strengths and weaknesses identified, with good attempt to reflect on them and learning gained from the research. Implications for future research
practice or learning needs identified. Not as comprehensive
as “excellent” category
12 – 13.8%
Some strengths and weaknesses
of the project identified, but not
completely convincing.
Reasonable attempt to identify
implications for future practice or
learning need
11-11.8%
Little evidence of learning and a
limited attempt to identify
implications for future practice or
learning needs
10 – 10.8%
Little evidence of learning and a
limited attempt to identify
implications for future practice or
learning needs
9.8%
Conclusions and Recommendations (20%)
Conclusions clearly stated, relevant to aims and objectives,
linked to results and to course perspectives. Discussion of what
can be strongly concluded and what is more speculative. Clear and realistic proposals for action
ased on new insights, generally
informed by the forefront of a field
of learning
14 - 20%
Conclusions stated, which are relevant to aims and objectives and linked to results. Realistic proposals for action follow from conclusions based on new insights, generally informed by the forefront of a field of learning.
12 – 13.8%
Attempts to draw conclusions from results are not entirely convincing. Recommendations
are incomplete, but there is still a basic link to the conclusions and results and basic feasibility.
12 – 13.8%
Conclusions are weak and do not really follow from data and results. Recommendations appear neither suitable nor feasible.
10 – 10.8%
No detectable conclusions or
ecommendation
9.8%
Examiner Mark:
Supervisor Mark:
AGREED FINAL MARK:
MARKERS COMMENTS:
Superviso
Examine
1