Research in the Built Environment B MGT609 Managing Information Systems Evolution of The Weird in Literature, Film, & Culture 38…

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

School of Architecture and Built Environment
ARBE4121B: Research in the Built Environment BBCA Singapore, Callaghan and OnlineSemester 2 – 2021
CRICOS Provider 00109J
OVERVIEW
Course Description This course is Part B of a multi-term sequence. Part A,ARBE4121A Research in the Built Environment A must becompleted prior to commencement of this course to meet therequirements of the sequence.This course provides students with the opportunity to consider thephilosophical, theoretical, ethical, methodological and analyticalconcepts and processes associated with academic researchactivities within the built environment disciplines, related to thepractice of construction management. Students are given theopportunity to define, articulate, develop, evaluate, investigate,conduct, and document a self-identified research questionthrough the critical and creative analysis of built environmentpractice, theory and methodologies, and justify a theoretical andmethodological approach to investigating the question.Assumed Knowledge ARBE4121AContact HoursIndividual SupervisionFace to Face On Campus2 hour(s) per Week for 12 WeeksDistance learning students will receive equivalent instructionthrough online or other distance education strategies.LectureFace to Face On Campus2 hour(s) per Week for 1 WeeksTutorial – small groups of 6-8 with either online discussion or faceto face options.Distance learning students will receive equivalent instructionthrough online or other distance education strategies.Unit Weighting 20Workload Students are required to spend on average 120-140 hours ofeffort (contact and non-contact) including assessments per 10unit course.Multi-Term SequenceAdviceThis course is part of a multi-term sequence. Both Part A and PartB must be completed to meet the requirements of the sequence.Part A and Part B must be completed in consecutive terms.Students must complete Part A before completing Part B.Students must complete the sequence within a twelve monthperiod. If students complete Part A but are unable to completePart B within the timeframe, they must re-enrol in Part A. Part Acannot be completed as a standalone course, it will only counttowards your program once you have successfully completedPart B.
ARBE4121B: Research in the Built Environment BBCA Singapore, Callaghan and Online Semester 2 – 2021Page 2 of 7
CONTACTS
Course Coordinator
BCA Singapore, Callaghan and OnlineA/Pr Graham Brewer[email protected](02) 4921 5794Consultation: By appointment
Teaching Staff
Other teaching staff will be advised on the course Blackboard site.
School Office
School of Architecture and Built EnvironmentArchitecture BuildingCallaghan[email protected]+61 2 4921 5771
SYLLABUS
Course Content
Student – supervisor relationships• Research project management• Ethical Research• Data collection• Data analysis• Data management• Argument & Evidence• Critical Thinking, Reasoning and Writing• Research Writing• Report Production and Presentation• Research in practice
Course LearningOutcomes
On successful completion of this course, students will be able to:1. Plan and conduct an independent research investigation according to the academicconventions of the built environment discipline through interaction with a supervisor2. Develop a logical and coherent structure for a dissertation to achieve a consistent argumentthread throughout the document based upon the academic conventions of the builtenvironment discipline3. Apply a selected research methodology, and analyse and interpret the results of data usingappropriate and ethical methods and/or tools to answer a research question4. Develop and write a fully integrated graphic and textual dissertation of a selected builtenvironment topic, and logically and creatively defend the analysis and discussion of eachstage of the research process
Course Materials
ARBE4121B: Research in the Built Environment BBCA Singapore, Callaghan and Online Semester 2 – 2021Page 3 of 7
SCHEDULEWeek Week Begins Topic Learning Activity Assessment Due1 19 Jul Lecture: Course overview,working with supervisors,structuring up a dissertation,mind mappingGroup or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor2 26 Jul Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor3 2 Aug Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor4 9 Aug Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor5 16 Aug Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor6 23 Aug Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisorFriday, by 11.59 PM7 30 Aug Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor8 6 Sep Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor9 13 Sep Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisorMid Term BreakMid Term Break10 4 Oct Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor11 11 Oct Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor12 18 Oct Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisor13 25 Oct Group or individual sessionsas organised with supervisorFriday, by 11.59 PMExamination PeriodExamination Period
ASSESSMENTSThis course has 2 assessments. Each assessment is described in more detail in the sections below.Assessment Name Due Date Involvement Weighting LearningOutcomes1 Research DissertationDraft27 August 2021 Individual 10% 1, 22 Research Dissertation 29 October 2021 Individual 60% 1, 2, 3, 4
Late Submissions
The mark for an assessment item submitted after the designated time on the due date,without an approved extension of time, will be reduced by 10% of the possible maximum markfor that assessment item for each day or part day that the assessment item is late. Note: thisapplies equally to week and weekend days.
Assessment 1 – Research Dissertation Draft
Assessment Type
Report
Purpose
On completion of this assignment students should be able to:– plan and conduct an independent research investigation according to the academicconventions of the built environment discipline through interaction with a supervisor– develop a logical and coherent structure for a dissertation to achieve a consistent argument
ARBE4121B: Research in the Built Environment BBCA Singapore, Callaghan and Online Semester 2 – 2021Page 4 of 7
thread throughout the document based upon the academic conventions of the builtenvironment discipline
Description
The Research Dissertation Draft can be up to a maximum of 10,000 words. This figureexcludes: abstract, references, table contents, and relevant appendices. It should include aclear description of the research aims, objectives and gap(s). It should also include an outlineof the dissertation and a summary of each chapter. A proposed research strategy design willneed to be justified and to demonstrate feasibility and applicability. This should includeidentifying an appropriate data source and data analysis mechanism in a methodologysection. It should NOT include primary data collection from human sources.
Weighting
10%
Length
Maximum 10,000 words +/- 10%
Due Date
27 August 2021
Submission Method
OnlineVia Turnitin link in Blackboard
Assessment Criteria
As per attached Marking Rubric
Return Method
Online
Feedback Provided
Online – Max 21 days after submission. Online, via Turnitin rubric, includes written feedback
Assessment 2 – Research Dissertation
Assessment Type
Thesis
Purpose
On completion of this assignment students should be able to:– plan and conduct an independent research investigation according to the academicconventions of the built environment discipline through interaction with a supervisor– develop a logical and coherent structure for a dissertation to achieve a consistent argumentthread throughout the document based upon the academic conventions of the builtenvironment discipline– apply a selected research methodology, and analyse and interpret the results of data usingappropriate and ethical methods and/or tools to answer a research question– develop and write a fully integrated graphic and textual dissertation of a selected builtenvironment topic, and logically and creatively defend the analysis and discussion of eachstage of the research process
Description
This is a written assignment documenting rationale, research problem definition/researchquestion, literature analysis, conceptual model and/or interpretive framework, assumptions(as appropriate), proposition/hypothesis, methodology, methods and techniques, limitations,results, discussion and conclusion. The assignment is to be written in an academic andscholarly style, fully-referenced according to appropriate discipline standards and integratedfully with graphics to explain creatively and logically the thesis argument. The 10,000 wordlimit excludes: abstract, references, table contents, and relevant appendices.
Weighting
60%
Length
Maximum 10,000 words +/- 10%
Due Date
29 October 2021
Submission Method
OnlineVia Turnitin link in Blackboard
Assessment Criteria
As per attached Marking Rubric. Dissertation will be independently assessed by two markers.If their grades are within 10% of each other the final grade awarded for this assessment willbe the arithmetic mean value of both grades. If their grades differ by more than 10% a thirdmaker will be appointed to arbitrate the final grade for this assessment. This will be theCourse Coordinator, except where the Course Coordinator is already a nominated marker; inthis case, an independent third marker will be appointed.
Return Method
Online
Feedback Provided
No Feedback – Provisional grade available for ARBE4121 A and B combined max 21 daysafter submission. Available via Grade Centre
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Grading Scheme
This course is graded as follows:Range ofMarksGrade Description85-100 HighDistinctionOutstanding standard indicating comprehensive knowledgeand understanding of the relevant materials; demonstration of
ARBE4121B: Research in the Built Environment BBCA Singapore, Callaghan and Online Semester 2 – 2021Page 5 of 7
(HD) an outstanding level of academic achievement; mastery ofskills*; and achievement of all assessment objectives.75-84 Distinction(D)Excellent standard indicating a very high level of knowledgeand understanding of the relevant materials; demonstration ofa very high level of academic ability; sound development ofskills*; and achievement of all assessment objectives.65-74 Credit(C)Good standard indicating a high level of knowledge andunderstanding of the relevant materials; demonstration of ahigh level of academic achievement; reasonable developmentof skills*; and achievement of all learning outcomes.50-64 Pass(P)Satisfactory standard indicating an adequate knowledge andunderstanding of the relevant materials; demonstration of anadequate level of academic achievement; satisfactorydevelopment of skills*; and achievement of all learningoutcomes.0-49 Fail(FF)Failure to satisfactorily achieve learning outcomes. If allcompulsory course components are not completed the markwill be zero. A fail grade may also be awarded followingdisciplinary action.*Skills are those identified for the purposes of assessment task(s).
CommunicationMethods
Communication methods used in this course include:– Blackboard Course Site: Students will receive communications via ing ofcontent or announcements on the Blackboard course site.– Email: Students will receive communications via their student email account.– Face to Face: Communication will be provided via face to face meetings or supervision.Your success in this course is, to a greater extent than in any other, contingent upon yourconsistent and ongoing engagement with your supervisor. Consequently, in addition to yourcourse coordinators and guest lecturers you have been provided with a supervisor for themajority of the year. This is because a) research is not a discipline that you can easily absorbwithout assistance, and b) by definition, your research topic will be uniquely yours and yoursalone; a course coordinator cannot be expected to understand each student’s topic andprovide quality guidance for the entire cohort.You will have been advised that consistent levels of work by students of this coursethroughout the year are to be preferred to periodic and frantic responses to imminentassessments. A consequence of this is that you will likely require engagement with, andadvice from your supervisor throughout that period. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggestthat this will become more likely in the run-up to assessment events. Unsurprisingly, yoursupervisors will experience peak demand for their attention during these same times. Thereare strategies that you can employ so that neither you nor your supervisor will feel unduestress; at the same time, you will gain maximum benefit from their attention.• Provide bite-size chunks of your work on a periodic basis for feedback, rather thansending large swathes of your dissertation for feedback. This has two benefits: firstly, it ismore manageable for your supervisor, and; secondly, it allows them to address anymisunderstanding you might have regarding your research, before you devote to much workto a dead end.• Provide your work for feedback in a timely manner. Your supervisor has many otherresponsibilities within the University, requiring them to balance their workload and find time toreview your work. Discuss this with them, before you submit work, so that you develop ashared understanding of expectations.• Understand your supervisor’s mechanisms for engaging with students. This may differbetween supervisors, campuses, and because of your mode of study: put another way, yoursupervisory experience may be distinctly different from that of your classmates. Nevertheless,there is a minimum level of engagement that you can expect to experience, and this is basedupon the contact hours available to you.
ARBE4121B: Research in the Built Environment BBCA Singapore, Callaghan and Online Semester 2 – 2021Page 6 of 7
Two hours per week is allocated to the supervision of each supervisor’s student group, whichis notionally set at 10 students. This is distributed across a 13-week semester, allowing a totalof 26 hours supervision. However, as previously noted, there are likely to be peaks andtroughs indemand for your supervisor’s attention, and your supervisor may use this time in other waysthan weekly individual sessions (e.g. group supervision meetings)In terms of expecting written feedback please note that during the semester there are twoassessment events (draft submission in week 6, and final submission in week 13).Supervisors have an expectation that students will require a review of, and feedback on, theirwork to date prior to submitting these assessments. Accordingly, your supervisor will review adraft of your work that is received at least seven days prior to your assessment submissiondate; they will provide written feedback on that activity.The remaining supervision time should be used wisely, in consultation with your supervisor,and in accordance with their stated supervision arrangements.All the foregoing represents the minimum contact and feedback you can expect from yoursupervisor; of course, they are free to be more accommodating of your needs.
Course Evaluation
Each year feedback is sought from students and other stakeholders about the coursesoffered in the University for the purposes of identifying areas of excellence and potentialimprovement.As a result of student feedback, the following changes have been made to this offering of thecourse:– Incorporation of information relating to Inadmissible Research Activities in this Coursewithin the body of the Course Outline, to augment Rubric information.Information regarding minimum communication and written feedback expectationsbetween student and supervisor.
Oral Interviews
As part of the evaluation process of any assessment item in this course an oral examinationmay be conducted. The purpose of the oral examination is to verify the authorship of thematerial submitted in response to the assessment task. The oral examination will beconducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Oral Examination Guidelines. Incases where the oral examination reveals the assessment item may not be the student’s ownwork the case will be dealt with under the Student Conduct Rule.
Academic Misconduct
All students are required to meet the academic integrity standards of the University. Thesestandards reinforce the importance of integrity and honesty in an academic environment.Academic Integrity policies apply to all students of the University in all modes of study and inall locations. For the Student Academic Integrity Policy, refer tohttps://policies.newcastle.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=35.
AdverseCircumstances
The University acknowledges the right of students to seek consideration for the impact ofallowable adverse circumstances that may affect their performance in assessment item(s).Applications for special consideration due to adverse circumstances will be made using theonline Adverse Circumstances system where:1. the assessment item is a major assessment item; or2. the assessment item is a minor assessment item and the Course Co-ordinator hasspecified in the Course Outline that students may apply the online Adverse Circumstancessystem;3. you are requesting a change of placement; or4. the course has a compulsory attendance requirement.Before applying you must refer to the Adverse Circumstance Affecting Assessment ItemsProcedure available at:https://policies.newcastle.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=236
Important PolicyInformation
The ‘HELP for Students’ tab in UoNline contains important information that all students shouldbe familiar with, including various systems, policies and procedures.
ARBE4121B: Research in the Built Environment BBCA Singapore, Callaghan and Online Semester 2 – 2021Page 7 of 7
Other Information
Inadmissible Research Activities in this CourseHigh derivation of data sources, and subsequent analysis and reporting.It is assumed that the undergraduate researcher has identified a genuine area of research interest,reviewed enough literature to justify further investigation of the chosen topic, and then discoveredone or more studies in the literature that address it. Thus far, the research activity is both ethical anddefensible. However, reporting the outcomes from these previous studies as the outcomes from thecurrent study do not qualify as “research”. This is because no subsequent analysis has beenperformed on this “data” to substantiate any further outcomes.It is important to understand that no amount of paraphrasing will make someone else’s findings theresearcher’s own. Searching for relevant literature is the first step in any research, because it enablesthe researcher to identify the current “state of art” in relation to their own topic; simply finding thisearlier research is not the creation of new data, and presenting it as such is “flawed research”.Placing multiple earlier studies side-by-side and then indiscriminately reporting upon them issimilarly “flawed research”. Please note that the correct attribution of these studies to their authorsdoes not change this fact.This point is reflected in the marking rubric, where “zero grade line items” can be found, withdescriptions that speak of work being “highly derivative”. This derivation relates to the source of thefindings, and although adjacent to academic misconduct, may technically escape suchcharacterisation: it does not mean that it is acceptable research practice, and will therefore attractzero grades.Primary data collection, and subsequent analysis and reportingResearch in any Australian University requires all research protocols that involve humans as datasubjects (direct or indirect sources of research data) to receive prior approval from a higher authority– typically a Human Research Ethics Committee – prior to commencement. This is to protect allhuman participants from actual or potential harm as a consequence of their involvement in theresearch, by ensuring that participants are fully aware of the nature of the project, and give theirinformed consent to participate, prior to data being collected.Undergraduate honours research is not exempt from these requirements, and any research thatstates that it involves primary data collection (including, but not limited to interviews, surveys, focusgroups, photographic, audio or video recordings) would require prior HREC approval before it couldbe conducted.Your supervisor would be the person applying for such an approval, and they would not make suchan application because primary data collection is specifically excluded in this course. Consequently,no such research activity must be conducted or reported.This point is reflected in the marking rubric, where “zero grade line items” can be found, withdescriptions that speak of work involving “primary data collection”. This data collection relates to thesource of the data used in the research, and its subsequent analysis/reporting. Whilst such researchactivities could conceivably be conducted in an appropriate manner it would nevertheless have beenconducted without HREC review and approval. It is therefore not acceptable research practice in thecontext of this course and will attract zero grades.
This course outline was approved by the Head of School. No alteration of this course outline is permitted without Head of Schoolapproval. If a change is approved, students will be notified and an amended course outline will be provided in the same manner as theoriginal.
© 2021 The University of Newcastle, Australia
Explanation
Fail characteristics
Grade outcome
ARBE4121BResearch in the Built Environment BAssignment 1: Draft SubmissionMarking Rubric
Zero Fail explanations
Non-Compliant Attributes displayed by student’s work
Student research reports data collected fromhuman subjects (e.g. using interviews, focusgroups, questionnaires or other methods) withoutthe supervisor’s knowledge or approval.
a) student has personally collected/reportedprimary data;b) student has done so in the absence of HRECapproval.
Zero grade for Attribute line item
Primary Data Collection
Student presents the research of others as theirown work e.g. substantial elements ofdissertation are paraphrased passages from otherpublished/unpublished research, withoutadequate justification.
a) Student has included significant amounts ofparaphrased work from a single source, andb) Has done so with the intention of passing it offas their own research
Zero grade for Attribute line item
High derivation
Weight
Attributes assessed in student’s work
Components of Attribute
Generic characteristics sought in student’s work
Fail Characteristics(0-49%)
Pass Characteristics(50-64%)
Credit Characteristics(65-74%)
Distinction Characteristics(75-84%)
High Distinction Characteristics(85-100%)
Graded Assessment Criteria
Trigger
Initial interest, relationship to workrole/experience, etc
A research topic of plausable relevance, where a research gap has been proposed, substantiation provided and value proposed, together with;sufficient articulation of project scope and/or limitations, to facilitate plausible achievement of the research aim. Grade indicative of level of successAND suitability for an academic audience in this regard.
1
20%
Introduction
Complete failure to support research topicbeyond the need to articulate an area of interest..
A research topic supported by an unsubstantiatedresearch gap, unlikely to be of interest to industryor academic audiences.
Established research gap
Corroboration of existence of research gap
Scale of research gap
New to the researcher, firm, industry; or, body ofknowledge
Research Question
Accurate and meaningful
Absence of an articulated research question,aim/hypothesis/proposition and/or doableresearch objectives.
A poorly articulated research question, looselylinked to vague researchaim/hypothesis/proposition, and researchobjectives.
Research Aim/Hypothesis/Propositions
Accurate and doable
Research Objectives
Realistic and holistic
Research outline/overview
Credible and informative
Absence of an articulated project scope andlimitations.
A poorly articulated project scope and/orlimitations, which is unlikely to facilitateachievement of the research aim.
Limitations
Plausible and Informative
Philosophical positioning
Ontological considerations
Articulation of a workable methodology, consistent with delivering plausible and credible findings. Function of literature review as part of researchmethod has been determined and articulated. Grade indicative of level of success AND suitability for an academic audience in this regard.
Complete failure to acknowledge the need toarticulate a research method in order to deliverfindings, or; Describes a research methodologyand/or the execution of research methods thatinclude primary data collection involving humanparticipants, or; presents a highly derivativemethodology.
Acknowledgement of the need to articulate aresearch method in order to deliver findings,without describing a workable methodology.
2
20%
Methodology
Selection of methods
Epistemological considerations
Justification of methods
Research context-specific
Explanation of methods
Purpose and instructions for use
Explanation of relationship to body of knowledgeand its impact
Alignment with Discipline norms/Acceptance offindings
Replicability
Clarity and neutrality of method
Sourcing of relevant literature
Appropriate body of knowledge for ResearchQuestion
Focal motivation is evident in the selection of literature, and presented in a manner likely to inform. Function of literature review as part of researchmethod has been determined and articulated. Grade indicative of level of success AND suitability for an academic audience in this regard.
3
35%
Literature Review
Absence of focal motivation beyond arudimentary title and meaningless justification.Background literature is collected in a haphazardmanner, in the absence of any purpose beyondsatisfying the requirements of this course.Utilisation of literature is similarly unfocused, or;is highly derivative, to the extent that it is difficultto distinguish intellectual input beyond theparaphrasing of the work of others, or; presents aposition that justifies the subsequent use ofprimary data collected from human subjects.
Motivation for selection of literature is driven by abroad area of interest, lacking focus or purpose.Literature is selected from a similarly broad field,suitable for providing a basic grounding in a broaddomain, and presented according to arudimentary structure.
Analysis of literature
Rigour and process
Synthesis of student’s command of domain
Transparency and credibility
Sourcing of relevant literature/statistical data
Delineation — where appropriate — between bodyof knowledge reviewed and data presented
4
5%
Data
Complete failure to acknowledge the need fordata in order to complete a research project, or:Describes or reports data collected from humanparticipants, or; the presentation of highlyderivative data.
Intermingling of background and contextualmaterial with data, such that it cannot bedifferentiated where each is located.
Data has been identified and sourced. Function of literature as data within research method has been determined and articulated. Grade indicativeof level of success AND suitability for an academic audience in this regard.
Relevance
Fitness for intended purpose
Completeness
Extent and completeness of dataset
Data analysis
Techniques and presentation
5
15%
Wrapping Up
Complete absence of acknowledgement of theneed to discuss report contents and provideconclusions/implcations, or; the discussion ofresults obtained from unauthorised primary datacollection, or; the discussion of results obtainedfrom highly derivative sources.
Acknowledgement of the need to discuss reportcontents and provide conclusions/implcations
Planning and draft discussion of report contents, linking analysis of presented information to the problem context, together with planning forconclusions/implications. Grade indicative of level of success AND suitability for an academic audience in this regard.
Results
Presentation
Discussion
Positioning of results relative to body ofknowledge
Restatement
Project summary and variations to intent
Implications
Relevance to industry and future research
Ethical statement
Summation of ethical considerations relating tothis specific research
Failure to reflect expected ethical and/oracademic standards during the reporting ofresearch outcomes.
6
5%
Application of professional and ethical standards
Reflects expected ethical and/or academic standards during the reporting of research outcomes. Grade indicative of level of success AND suitability for an academic audience in this regard.
Citations and Referencing
Meets academic integrity expectations
Explanation
Fail characteristics
Grade outcome
ARBE4121BResearch in the Built Environment BAssignment 2: DissertationMarking Rubric
Non-Compliant Attributes displayed by student’s work
Zero Fail explanations
Student research reports data collected fromhuman subjects (e.g. using interviews, focusgroups, questionnaires or other methods)without the supervisor’s knowledge or approval.
a) student has personally collected/reportedprimary data;b) student has done so in the absence of HRECapproval.
Zero grade for Attribute line item
Primary Data Collection
Student presents the research of others as theirown work e.g. substantial elements ofdissertation are paraphrased passages from otherpublished/unpublished research, withoutadequate justification.
a) Student has included significant amounts ofparaphrased work from a single source, andb) Has done so with the intention of passing it offas their own research
Zero grade for Attribute line item
High derivation
Weight
Attributes assessed in student’s work
Components of Attribute
Generic characteristics sought in student’s work
Fail Characteristics(0-49%)
Pass Characteristics(50-64%)
Credit Characteristics(65-74%)
Distinction Characteristics(75-84%)
High Distinction Characteristics(85-100%)
Graded Assessment Criteria
Trigger
Initial interest, relationship to workrole/experience, etc
1
Complete failure to support research topicbeyond the need to articulate an area of interest.
A research topic supported by anunsubstantiated research gap, unlikely to be ofinterest to industry or academic audiences.
A research topic of plausable relevance, where aresearch gap has been proposed, though notadequately substantiated, the value of which isconsequently unclear for either industry oracademic audiences.
A research topic of demonstrable relevance,where a research gap has been identified throughindustry practice, which is of clear value to anindustry audience; or, of possible interest to anacademic audience.
A research topic of demonstrable relevance,where a research gap has been identified in theappropriate body of knowledge, which is of clearvalue to address and of likely interest to anacademic audience through publication.
Articulation of motivation for research
5%
Established research gap
Corroboration of existence of research gap
Scale of research gap
New to the researcher, firm, industry; or, body ofknowledge
Research Question
Accurate and meaningful
2
A sufficiently articulated research question that issupported by achievable objectives as to delivercoherent information to industry participants; or,to allow development of a plausible academicresearch aim/hypophesis/proposition, andresearch objectives.
A comprehensively articulated research questionthat is supported by clear objectives that willdeliver excellent information to industryparticipants; or, allow the achievement of anacademic research aim through the execution ofSpecific, Mesarurable, Achievable, Relevant andTime-bound research objectives
A comprehensively articulated research questionthat is developed into an academic researchaim/hypothesis/proposition, clearly linked to apreviously established research gap, which will beaddressed through the execution of Specific,Mesarurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timebound research objectives, in a mannerconsistent with accepted academic standards.
Absence of an articulated research question,aim/hypothesis/proposition and/or doableresearch objectives.
A poorly articulated research question, looselylinked to vague researchaim/hypothesis/proposition, and researchobjectives.
Articulation of research intent
10%
Research Aim/Hypothesis/Propositions
Accurate and doable
Research Objectives
Realistic and holistic
Research outline/overview
Credible and informative
3
Absence of an articulated project scope andlimitations.
A poorly articulated project scope and/orlimitations, which is unlikely to facilitateachievement of the research aim.
Sufficient articulation of project scope and/orlimitations, to facilitate plausible achievement ofthe research aim.
A well articulated project scope, furtherenhanced by meaningful limitations on thecredibility research results.
A comprehensively articulated project scope andlimitations, consistent with accepted academicstandards in relation to generalisability of results.
Articulation of research scope
5%
Limitations
Plausible and Informative
Philosophical positioning
Ontological considerations
Articulation of a workable methodology,consistent with delivering industry advice basedupon the researcher’s personal understanding ofdata.
Articulation and execution of a practicablemethodology that delivers credible findingsconsistent with industry best practice; or,;facilitating the generation of credible findingsconsistent with accepted research practice.
Fully articulated methodology and executedresearch method, delivering research findings in amanner consistent with publishable academicresearch.
Complete failure to acknowledge the need toarticulate a research method in order to deliverfindings, or; Describes a research methodologyand/or the execution of research methods thatinclude primary data collection involving humanparticipants, or; presents a highly derivativemethodology.
Acknowledgement of the need to articulate aresearch method in order to deliver findings,without describing a workable methodology.
4
Articulation of research methodology andexecution of research methods
15%
Selection of methods
Epistemological considerations
Justification of methods
Research context-specific
Explanation of methods
Purpose and instructions for use
Explanation of relationship to body of knowledgeand its impact
Alignment with Discipline norms/Acceptance offindings
Replicability
Clarity and neutrality of method
Sourcing of relevant literature
Appropriate body of knowledge for ResearchQuestion
5
Absence of focal motivation beyond arudimentary title and meaningless justification.Background literature is collected in a haphazardmanner, in the absence of any purpose beyondsatisfying the requirements of this course.Utilisation of literature is similarly unfocused, or;is highly derivative, to the extent that it is difficultto distinguish intellectual input beyond theparaphrasing of the work of others, or; presents aposition that justifies the subsequent use ofprimary data collected from human subjects.
Articulation and justification of theoretical basisfor study
35%
Can be assessed in conjunction with each other, where appropriate,according to research approach being undertaken (e.g. systematicliterature review)
Motivation for selection of literature is driven bya broad area of interest, lacking focus or purpose.Literature is selected from a similarly broad field,suitable for providing a basic grounding in abroad domain, and presented according to arudimentary structure.
Focal motivation is evident in the selection ofliterature, and presented in a manner likely toinform industry stakeholders about specificissues; or,; selected and presented in a mannerconsistent with academic research practice, butwithout sufficient detail to inform a meaningfulinvestigation.
A highly relevant range of material is sourced,understood and presented in a form consistentwith industry best practice report writing; or,; isanalysed, understood and synthesised in amanner consistent with academic researchpractice, with sufficient detail to inform ameaningful investigation.
A comprehensive, and highly relevant range ofmaterial is sourced, analysed, understood andsynthesised, to be thereafter presented in amanner congruent with academic researchpractice, and appropriate for underpinning aresearch project consistent with the expectationsof publishable academic research.
Analysis of literature
Rigour and process
Synthesis of student’s command of domain
Transparency and credibility
Sourcing of relevant literature/statistical data
Delineation — where appropriate — between bodyof knowledge reviewed and data presented
Intermingling of background and contextualmaterial with data, in a manner consistent withlow-grade industry advice; or,; in a mannerunlikely to allow the generation of credibleacademic research results.
Highly structured presentation of backgroundand contextual material, with clearly segregateddata, consistent with best practice industryreport writing; or,; in a manner likely to facilitatethe generation of credible academic researchoutcomes through either a) the clear segregationof literature used for conceptual and theoreticalpurposes from those used as data, or; b) the clearsegregation of literature used for conceptualdefinition and location purposes from those usedidentified and subsequently analysed in asystematic literature review.
Clear and transparent use and presentation ofliterature used to facilitate the generation ofcredible academic research outcomes througheither a) the clear segregation of literature usedfor conceptual and theoretical purposes fromthose used as data, or; b) the clear segregation ofliterature used for conceptual definition andlocation purposes from those used identified andsubsequently analysed in a systematic literaturereview, leading to the generation of researchoutcomes consistent with the expectations ofpublishable academic research.
Complete failure to acknowledge the need fordata in order to complete a research project, or:Describes or reports data collected from humanparticipants, or; the presentation of highlyderivative data.
Intermingling of background and contextualmaterial with data, such that it cannot bedifferentiated where each is located.
6
5%
Sourcing and justification of data for study
Relevance
Fitness for intended purpose
Completeness
Extent and completeness of dataset
Data analysis
Techniques and presentation
Complete absence of discussion of reportcontents, or; the discussion of results obtainedfrom unauthorised primary data collection, or;the discussion of results obtained from highlyderivative sources.
Discussion of report contents, limited torestatement of literature already presented.
Discussion of report contents, linking analysis ofpresented information to the problem context,consistent with delivering low-grade findings toindustry stakeholders; or,; discussion of dataanalysis without adequate reference back toreviewed literature.
Presentation of results analysis to the problemcontext in a manner consistent with best practiceindustry research reporting; or,; discussion ofdata analysis with appropriate reference back toreviewed literature, in a manner likely tofacilitate the generation of credible academicresearch outcomes.
Clear and transparent discursive presentation ofresearch outcomes, in a manner consistent withpublishable academic research.
7
15%
Articulation and justification of findings
Results
Presentation
Discussion
Positioning of results relative to body ofknowledge
Restatement
Project summary and variations to intent
Complete absense of statement of conclusionsand/or implications
Statement of conclusions, limited to restatementof discussion.
8
5%
Recognition and articulation of importance
Statement of conclusions, supported by plausibleidentification of implications for practice; or,future research directions.
Concise and accurate conclusions, supported bycoherent statement of implications for practice;or, plausible future research directions.
Concise and accurate conclusions, supported bycoherent statement of implications for practiceand/or future research, consistent with academicexpectations.
Implications
Relevance to industry and future research
Ethical statement
Summation of ethical considerations relating tothis specific research
Failure to reflect expected ethical and/oracademic standards during the reporting ofresearch outcomes.
9
Reflects expected ethical and/or academic standards during the reporting of research outcomes
Assignment 2
5%
Application of professional and ethical standards
Citations and Referencing
Meets academic integrity expectations

READ ALSO...   Assessment and Management of Clinical Problems
Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER