Research paper with 2000 words

MD4058 Assessment Two Research Proposal Marking Scheme (2020-21, September 2020 Cohort)

Section &
Weighing

Distinction

Merit

Pass

Fail

Introduction:
Research

background,
topic, aim &
objectives

15%

Excellent, well focused
and convincing purpose of
proposed research. Very
well defined and feasible
research aim & objectives.
Convincing justification of
topic and research
background.

Very well outlined and
convincing purpose,
which addresses the
original research aim
& objectives.
Clear and critically
evaluated justification
of topic and research
background.

Sufficient awareness of
research purpose, which
relates to the research
aim & objectives with
some weaknesses in the
integration. Some, yet
rather weak justification
of topic and research
background.

Little or no awareness of
research purpose. No
outline of research aim
& objectives. Insufficient
justification of topic and
research background.

review

25%

Excellent links between
topic and literature.
Extensive and focused
awareness of academic
literature with advanced,
in-depth critical review.
Coherent and logically
structured.

Convincing links
between topic and
literature. Extensive
and critical awareness
of academic
literature.
Thoughtfully
structured.

Links topic and
literature. Theory is
discussed descriptively
and to a limited extent.
Some weaknesses in the
internal consistency
Some academic sources
used, but limited and
basic.

Lacks logical links.
Limited awareness of
theory, lacking in clarity.
Significant weaknesses
in the internal
consistency. Little
evidence of reading.

Methodology
25%

Excellent logical
connections between the
research aim & objectives
and methodology. Critical
discussion of relevant
philosophical and
methodological issues.
Persuasive presentation of
rationale for the research
methods, data collection
and analysis strategy.
Advanced, critical
explanation for rejection
of other methods.

Convincing logical
connections between
the research aim &
objectives and
methodology. Critical
appreciation of
relevant philosophical
and methodological
issues.
Clear presentation
research methods,
data collection and
analysis strategy.

Logical connections
between the research
aim & objectives and
methodology.
Familiarity with
philosophical and
methodological issues.
A competent rationale
presented for research
methods, data collection
and analysis with some
weaknesses.

Lacks logical
connections. Little or no
awareness of
philosophical and
methodological issues.
Little or no justification
of research methods,
data collection and
analysis.

Ethical
consideration,

possible
limitation,

and research
timescales

15%

Critical discussion about
research ethics. Critical
awareness of research
limitations. Persuasive
description of proposed
timescales.

Thoughtful discussion
about research ethics.
Clear awareness of
research limitations.
Consistent description
of proposed
timescales.

Some thought about
research ethics.
Awareness research
limitations.
Adequate description of
proposed timescales.

Limited consideration
about research ethics.
Little or no awareness of
research limitations.
Little or no
consideration about
research timescales.

Presentation,
structure, and

format
15%

Sophisticated research
proposal with excellent
organisation, grammar
and spelling. Logically
structured and clearly
written. Word count
clearly stated and within
the word limit. Format
meets all requirements
outlined in the
‘Submission Details’ in the
‘Assignment Brief’.

Thoughtful research
proposal with
accurate organisation,
grammar and spelling.
Clearly structured.
Word count clearly
stated and within the
word limit. Format
meets most
requirements outlined
in the ‘Submission
Details’ in the
‘Assignment Brief’.

Adequate research
proposal with sufficient
organisation, grammar
and spelling. Adequately
structured. Word count
stated and within the
word limit. Format
meets some
requirements outlined
in the ‘Submission
Details’ in the
‘Assignment Brief’.

Inadequate research
proposal with
inconsistent
organisation, grammar
and spelling.
Inadequately structured.
Format meets few
requirements outlined
in the ‘Submission
Details’ in the
‘Assignment Brief’.

Harvard
Referencing

5%

Excellent and accurate
Harvard Referencing style
adopted throughout.

Consistent Harvard
Referencing style
adopted throughout.

Sufficient use of Harvard
Referencing style.

Inadequate and/or
incomplete use of
Harvard Referencing
style.