Assessmentbrief21.pdf

Assessment Brief

This section sets out how your learning will be accessed, how your work will be
marked and how the process of marking will be managed to ensure it is fair and
equitable.

The assessment brief for this module can also be found on the module’s
Blackboard site in the ‘Assessment’ section. We will discuss this all with you during
Session 1 and throughout the module.

Assessment on the Module

MA Education
Research Project
77-706016-Ns2-A

(Level 7 60 credits)

Assessment Task

% weighting
of overall
module
mark

Submission Point

Dissertation
12000 words

100%

End of Module

Learning Outcomes

1. Recognise the importance of positionality in undertaking social research and critically
reflect on positionality and how it underpins research.

2. Critically appraise a wide range of literature sources to situate research in relation to
dominant and marginalised discourses.

3. Define a worthwhile and manageable project, identifying and justifying the research
methods and research strategy employed.

4. Critically evaluate the ethical issues associated with the study and demonstrate
application and adherence to ethical principles.

5. Analyse, synthesise and communicate research findings with reference to the
literature.

6. Critically reflect on the process and personal and professional impact of undertaking
research.

Mark sheet:

Criteria Refer 0-49% Pass 50-59% Credit 60-69% Distinction 70%+
Recognise the
importance of
positionality in
undertaking social
research and critically
reflect on positionality
and how it underpins
research.

The relationship between
positionality and enquiry is not
examined. Personal insights and
learning are not articulated

A personal position in relation to
enquiry is articulated and explored
and consideration given to how this
might influence future enquires into
practice

A personal view of the strengths
and limitations of responses to
practice arising from the enquiry is
explored

Awareness of own positioning and
values and how these have had an
impact on the enquiry and on its
outcomes is demonstrated

Important ways in which the enquiry
can relate to and impact on own
positionality are considered

The experience of the relationship
between positionality and research
is reflected on and any dilemmas
and dissonances identified and
critically explored

The way in which the research has
revealed the complexity and
ambiguity of positionality and
contributed to new insights into
both enquiry and practice is
demonstrated

The way in which personal and
professional assumptions and
values have had an impact on the
stance taken on the enquiry is
explored in an insightful, incisive
way, recognising crucial benefits,
limitations and new realisation

Critically appraise a wide
range of literature
sources to situate
research in relation to
dominant and
marginalised
discourses.

Limited analysis of relevant
literature sources with respect to

your area of special interest and
lack of discussion of contradictory
and ambiguous aspects.

Critically analysed a range of
relevant literature sources with

respect to your area of special
interest including some at the
forefront of current thinking,
recognising some contradictory and
ambiguous aspects.

Identified and explored some wider
themes that relate to the case study

topic and/or located your discussion
in relation to other contexts.

Made a reasoned attempt to
develop your own conceptualisation
of the area of special interest,
reconciling some significant
contradictory and/or ambiguous
aspects of the literature and
practice.

Made critical use of a wide range of
literature to synthesise new or

deeper interpretations or
understandings.

Engaged in depth with the literature
and practice debates and used

them to develop your own
conceptualisation(s) of the project
topic.

Constructed clear lines of argument
between own conceptualisation of
the case study focus/ special area
of interest and interpretation of

findings.

Define a worthwhile and
manageable project,
identifying and justifying
the research methods
and research strategy
employed.

Design and Planning are superficial
and/or fails to address the focus of

the enquiry and questions
identified.

The research methods and strategy
are not justified.

An informed and competent design
and definition of an enquiry that

recognises its strengths and
limitations is explained and justified,
showing how it will contribute to the
development of practice.

The approaches to the enquiry are
justified providing cogent
arguments for their validity in
addressing the question/issue.

A comprehensive and insightful
justification of enquiry and its

contribution to practice is
demonstrated. This is well
substantiated with reference to
relevant methodological/ methods
literature.

The implications for application of
the chosen methods are examined
acknowledging the complexities,
limitations and other issues that
arise from the differing perspectives
and interests associated with
practitioner research.

A robust critique of the enquiry
approaches is presented showing

how they will offer significant
insights into the question/issue. The
critique recognises the influences of
positionality and any other
constraints on data gathering,
analysis and interpretation.

Insight into the values and power
relationships underpinning differing
interests and perspectives,
including those of the researcher, is
demonstrated and explored with
sensitivity.

Critically evaluate the
ethical issues
associated with the
study and demonstrate
application and
adherence to ethical
principles.

Ethical issues are not explored.

Ethics form is not included in the
submission.

Ethical issues are identified and
explored and attention is paid to the
implications and principles of ethics
in the research design and
implementation
Principles are adhered to.

Ethical issues are considered in
depth. Issues are considered and
evaluated and detail is provided on
how these impact on the research
design and implementation.
Principles are clearly adhered to.

Ethical theory and practice is used
throughout the project. Ethical
practice in the research is critiqued
and reflected on. New learning
about ethics is made explicit and

there is strict adherence to the
principles identified.

Analyse, synthesise and
communicate research
findings with reference
to the literature.

Presentation is inaccurate or does
not convey meaning effectively.
Academic conventions are not
applied consistently.

Work is not effectively structured.

Arguments and accounts of enquiry
are incomplete or poorly evidenced.

Ideas are presented clearly,
accurately and concisely selecting
sources and themes to pursue
judiciously.

Complex professional knowledge is
communicated effectively in a
format appropriate to the intended
audience in ways consistent with
relevant academic conventions.
Arguments and accounts of enquiry
are well-founded and complete and
engage with the complexities of the
enquiry focus.

Important ideas, realisations and
implications emerging from enquiry
approaches and literatures are
synthesised communicating in a
way that enhances the audience’s
understanding.

Different perspectives and sources
of evidence and ideas are
synthesised into well-structured and
consistent lines of argument,
communicating accurately and
concisely in a way that engages
and inspires audiences.

Critically reflect on the
process and personal
and professional impact
of undertaking research.

Limited or no reflection on the
process and personal and

professional impact of undertaking
research

Reflections on
personal/professional learning are
explored critically.

Implications for own personal/
professional learning and/ or
development of practice are
explained and proposals for further
development are provided.

Reflections on
personal/professional learning are
explored critically.

Implications for own personal/
professional learning and/ or
development of practice are
explained and proposals for further
development are well justified.

Reflections on
personal/professional learning are
explored critically and are insightful.

Implications for own personal/
professional learning and/ or
development of practice are
explained and proposals for further
development are well justified and
well substantiated.

Comments:

Tutor:

Feedback

There are two types of feedback – formative and summative – and they can be
distinguished by a difference in what the feedback is trying to achieve and the ways
in which it tries to do this. Formative feedback is often on-going throughout a
module and takes a variety of forms such as within class discussion or comments on
written work. It is often given by the tutors but can also come from peers and visiting
speakers. It is intended to enhance learning and support student development.
Summative feedback is designed to be part of the allocation grades and usually
given at the end of a semester when final assignments are returned.

Feedback during this module will be given in a variety of ways:

• Formative feedback will be given as the module progresses through group

discussion and collaboration with other group members and tutors;

• Opportunities will be built into preparatory work for you to receive formal and in-

session formative feedback on written and oral tasks;

• Email and/or Blackboard feedback from the module tutor in response to questions
about assessment tasks during the module;

• Peer feedback on drafts;

• Individual verbal and/or written feedback from the module tutors on the draft of
the task;

• You have been provided with module specific assessment descriptors for each criterion
and against each grade category – above – These grids will be used to provide
summative feedback on the assessed tasks;

• Summative feedback will include an indication of how well each learning outcome

has been addressed;

• Summative feedback will also identify areas for further development (points for

improvement) and you will be encouraged to reflect on these with your academic

tutor.

Feedback works best when it is part of an on-going dialogue

Re-assessment on the Module

IN-MODULE RETRIEVAL will be offered on this
module.

In-module retrieval means that the assessment has been designed so that
students achieving below the minimum pass mark in the assessment task at
the first attempt are given an opportunity of reworking that assessment task.
This rework would normally be within a short time after the initial attempt
following feedback from tutors and will therefore only be appropriate in
particular circumstances. Your Module Leader will contact you should this
apply to you and discuss the implications

MODULE
TITLE/CODE :

Research Project
77-706016-Ns2-A

LEVEL : 7

TASK : Task 1:

A valid attempt in this task will be:

A Research Project

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE
UNDERTAKEN :

The same assessment criteria will apply.

CONTACT IN CASE OF
QUERY:

Dr. Lisa McGrath [email protected]

If you would like a ‘reassessment tutorial’ please contact
your Module tutor.

SUBMISSION DATE FOR
COURSEWORK:

Please consult your Assessment Diary online.

SUBMISSION DETAILS: Just like your first submission, you should submit the
dissertation via help desk and online.

mailto:[email protected]

https://dsam.shu.ac.uk/assignment/diary/