IFN600-Assignment2-MarkingCriteria_v3 IFN600, Understanding Research Assessment Criteria for Assignment 2 Student Name: ________________________________ Student Number:...

IFN600-Assignment2-MarkingCriteria_v3
IFN600, Understanding Research
Assessment Criteria for Assignment 2

Student Name: ________________________________ Student Number: ________________________________

7 - High
Distinction
6 - Distinction 5 - Credit 4 - Pass 3 - Marginal Fail 2 - Fail 1 - Low Fail



Understanding of the research problem and its context – The ability to:
• cater for the reading audience
• identify the significance of the research problem and discuss its central issues
• apply and integrate critical analysis to support the case for investigating the research problem

• Problem statement
clearly expresses the
purpose, objective and
scope of the research.
• Research topic is
clearly defined and
key issues are
identified.
• Ideas are developed
in clear, concise and
ordered stages.
• Well focused with
the appropriate
eading audience in
mind. Clearly identifies
elevant contexts.
• Effectively
establishes a
elationship between
theory and practice, as
needed.
• Problem statement
outlines purpose,
objective and scope of
the research.
• Discussion is well
focused on the topic
and majority of key
issues are identified.
• Central ideas are
clearly apparent.
• Generally
acknowledges and
meets the needs of
the reading audience.
• Takes into account
the potential contexts
with clear relationship
etween theory and
practice.
• Problem statement
provides general
indication of the scope
of the research.
• Discussion is focused
on the topic however
some key issues may
e missing or under-
epresented.
• Central ideas are
apparent but may be
generalized or too
trivial.
• Acknowledges the
eading audience, but
may only partially
meet their needs.
• Recognises the
significance of relating
theory to practice, but
attempts to do so may
not be successful.
• Problem statement
gives some indication
of the scope of the
esearch but requires
further development.
• Discussion generally
aimed at the topic,
however grasp of the
topic may be
inadequate.
• Central ideas are
general and/or lack
clear focus and may
e confused and/or
are supported weakly.
• Barely adequate
allowance for the
eading audience.
• Acknowledges the
need to consider the
practical context, but
weak examples
• Limited problem
statement provided.
• Limited evidence of
knowledge or
understanding
elevant to the topic.
• Limited explanation
of central ideas.
• Weak consideration
of the reading
audience.
• Context not clearly
ecognized as
elevant.
• Unclear or
inappropriate practical
examples or
significance provided.
• Unclear problem
statement provided.
• Poor evidence of
knowledge or
understanding
elevant to the topic.
• Poor explanation of
central ideas.
• Poor consideration
of the reading
audience.
• Context barely
ecognized as
elevant.
• Poor practical
examples or
significance provided.
• No clear problem
statement provided.
• No evidence of
knowledge or
understanding
elevant to the topic.
• No adequate
explanation of central
ideas.
• No consideration of
the reading audience.
• Context not
ecognized as
elevant.
• No practical
examples or
significance provided.

Assignment 2: Criteria for Assessment
IFN600, Understanding Research Page 2

provided.


Critical thinking and planning (for three research questions) – The ability to:
• clearly explain a “researchable” question inspired by a general problem
• clearly link the anticipated results to the question
• convincingly argue the value of the question in the context of the research problem
• convincingly argue that the question is feasibly answerable

• All three research
questions are clearly
distinct and are
described extremely
clearly in layperson’s
terms.
• The nature of the
new knowledge
produced by
answering each of the
three questions is
extremely clear.
• Excellent arguments
are provided for the
ways in which the
questions’ answers
will contribute to the
solution of the overall
esearch problem.
• The method(s)
proposed for
answering each
question are explained
exceptionally clearly
and their feasibility
with contemporary
principles and
esources is entirely
convincing.
• All three research
questions are clearly
distinct and are
described clearly in
layperson’s terms.
• The nature of the
new knowledge
produced by
answering each of the
three questions is
clear.
• Very good
arguments are
provided for the ways
in which the
questions’ answers
contribute to the
solution of the overall
esearch problem.
• The method(s)
proposed for
answering each
question are explained
clearly and their
feasibility with
contemporary
principles and
esources is largely
convincing.
• Three research
questions are
described, but with a
slight lack of clarity or
some slight degree of
overlap.
• The nature of the
new knowledge
anticipated is
described well but
with some slight lack
of clarity or detail.
• Good arguments are
provided for the ways
in which the
questions’ answers
will contribute to
solving the overall
esearch problem, but
the linkage is not
entirely clear.
• The method(s)
proposed for
answering each
question generally
seem appropriate and
feasible but with a
slight lack of clarity or
convincingness.
• Three research
questions are
described adequately,
ut with some
noticeable lack of
clarity or distinctness.
• The nature of the
new knowledge
anticipated is
described in general
terms but lacks some
clarity or detail.
• Adequate but not
wholly convincing
arguments are given
for the ways in which
the questions’
answers contribute to
solving the overall
esearch problem.
• The method(s)
proposed for
answering each
question mostly seem
appropriate and
feasible but the
argumentation lacks
some compelling
elements.
• The three research
questions lack
distinctness or are
described with a
significant lack of
clarity; or
• The new knowledge
anticipated is
described in vague
terms and/or lacks
compelling detail in
parts; or
• Arguments for the
ways in which the
questions’ answers
link to the overall
esearch problem are
sometimes inadequate
or unconvincing; or
• The methods
proposed for
answering the
questions are
sometimes
inappropriate or
appear infeasible.
• The research
questions overlap
significantly and/or
are described poorly
and unclearly; and/or
• The new knowledge
anticipated is
described poorly and
unclearly or does not
seem to relate to the
question; and/or
• Largely inadequate
arguments are
provided for the ways
in which the
questions’ answers
elate to the overall
esearch problem;
and/or
• Largely
inappropriate or
infeasible methods are
proposed for
answering the
esearch questions.
• None of the three
questions is described
clearly; and/or
• None of the
anticipated new
knowledge is
described clearly;
and/or
• No satisfactory link
is provided between
the research questions
and the research
problem; and/or
• No appropriate or
feasible methods are
described for
answering the
questions.

Assignment 2: Criteria for Assessment
IFN600, Understanding Research Page 3



Question Comparison – The ability to:
• compare and contrast one’s own research ideas
• identify the importance of the ideas
• identify the feasibility of the ideas

• A compelling and
entirely clear
explanation is given
for which research
question should be
prioritised based on
effective comparison
of multiple questions.
• The argument for
the value of the
esearch question
links in a convincing
way to the overall
problem.
• A largely compelling
and clear explanation
is given for which
esearch question
should be prioritised
ased on effective
comparison of
multiple questions.
• The argument for
the value of the
esearch question
links in a generally
convincing way to the
overall problem.
• A good explanation
is given for which
esearch question
should be prioritised,
ut is not entirely
clear and convincing,
and/or is lacking in the
comparison with other
questions.
• The value of the
esearch question
with respect to
solving the overall
problem is not fully
clear and
convincing.
• An attempt is
made to explain why
the chosen question
should be
prioritised, but
needs significant
improvement
and/or is lacking in
the comparison with
other questions.
• An adequate
attempt is made to
argue for the value
of the research
question in solving
the original
problem, but could
e considerably
improved.
• Weak,
unconvincing
attempt to explain
which question
should be
prioritised. The
comparison with
other questions is
inadequate.
• Weak,
unconvincing
attempt to relate
the question’s value
to the original
problem.
• Poor, inadequate
attempt to explain
which question
should be
prioritised. The
comparison with
other questions is
incomplete or non-
existent.
• Poor, inadequate
attempt to relate
the question’s value
to the original
problem.
• No clear
explanation for
which question
should be prioritised
and/or no clear
comparison with
other questions.
• No clear argument
for the value of the
esearch question in
the context of the
original problem.