IN-COURSE ASSESSMENT (ICA) SPECIFICATION |
| Module Title: Research Methods | |
| Assignment Title: Research Methods | |
| FULL DETAILS OF THE ASSIGNMENT ARE ATTACHED INCLUDING MARKING & GRADING CRITERIA |
Objectives
Learning Outcomes
This assessment is designed to address the following learning outcomes as defined in the module description in the module catalogue:
Personal and Transferable Skills
1. Communicate complex academic issues effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences.
2. Defend the rationale and decisions made for the research proposal.
Research, Knowledge and Cognitive Skills
3. Select appropriate research strategies and data generation methods for a computing
context, and critically evaluate their effectiveness within the development and evaluation of computing-related artefacts.
4. Use a systematic search, analysis, synthesis and critique of the literature within computing to articulate how their work, or planned work, contributes to knowledge within the computing field.
5. Design a research proposal to address significant areas of computing-related theory and/or practice
Professional Skills
6. Critique the professional, legal and ethical implications of their work within a computing context.
Assessment Strategy
Assessment will be by means of a single individual in-course assessment comprising:
Element 1: A literature review on a chosen topic (2,500 words) (40%) LO 4.
Element 2: A poster outlining an individual proposal for a masters project that could be undertaken in the final stage of a masters programme (60%) LOs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Assessment Criteria
Literature Review (40%):
Description of a repeatable search process
Appropriate searching techniques
Review of literature
Limitations of the literature review
Poster of Project Proposal (60%):
Research question & anticipated product(s)
Background context of the proposed research
Research Methodology
Schedule and dissemination plans
Professional, legal and ethical issues
Details
Element 1 – Report (~2500) 40%
You are asked to carry out a systematic search of Teesside University library’s online databases, looking for peer-reviewed academic journal or conference papers (not books). Your aim is to discover relevant, peer-reviewed, academic research articles on a computing topic chosen by you. This topic should be the same topic as that on which you base your project proposal (Part 2 of this ICA). Your list of articles should include some primary research, not just papers that summarise the literature or give a personal opinion. In your Part 1 report you should describe your full literature search and review process:
- Short introduction of your topic.
- Your repeated cycles of define search question, search, assess results, refine question, refine search, assess results, refine question etc.
- Your criteria, with reasons, for deciding the relevance to your topic of articles that you found and therefore their inclusion or exclusion from your final list.
- Your conclusions about the results of your literature search, and your evaluation of the search’s limitations.
- A reference list with full reference details for your final set of papers, Teesside University Harvard style, use Cite-them-right: http://lis.tees.ac.uk/campus/cite.cfm or Bibtex if using the Latex editor.
Part 1, your literature search/review report, should be a maximum of 2500 words excluding references. As a guide, you should aim to have a final list of 10-30 papers that are the most relevant to your chosen research topic.
Element 2 – Research Proposal Poster 60%
Create a research proposal poster which will form the basis of your masters project. Your proposal should mostly draw upon the papers that you found in Part 1 (but you can include additional references). It should contain the following bulleted lists covering the aspects below:
Research purpose. Introduce and explain the research’s purpose, including a single overall research question that will be addressed by the research. You must also define the anticipated product(s) i.e. the anticipated contribution to knowledge.
Background context. Previous academic research in your topic area, and how your project will relate to that previous work. The majority of your cited references in this section should be to the papers that you found in Part 1 of this ICA.
Research methodology. Intended research methodology by which you will address and answer your research question. The research methodology should consist of one or more research strategies, one or more data generation methods and, if appropriate, your intended data analysis techniques.
Evaluation methodology. Justify how you plan to evaluate your end product(s) or contribution to knowledge. Note that masters projects are expected to include third party evaluation of the end product if at all possible.
Schedule and publishing. Explain the set of tasks, the timescale for each task and hence the timescale for the overall research which captures your schedule visually. Allow 13 weeks from ‘project start’ to ‘hand-in of all project work’ (you need not include the presentation & viva, which normally come after the hand-in). Also identify the academic journal or conference for which you will prepare your project’s final research paper.
Professional, legal and ethical issues. professional, legal and ethical issues that your proposal raises, and how they will be addressed. This includes identifying which level of ethical clearance will be required from the School’s Research Ethics Committee.
Deliverables
- Element 1 Report (.docx or .pdf) uploaded to TurnItIn via Blackboard submission area.
- Element 2 Poster (.pdf) uploaded to TurnItIn via Blackboard submission area
Criteria
Assessment marking criteria and grades
| Part 1 | Literature Review (40%) |
| Search | Is there a clear description of a systematic and iterative process? Is the whole process traceable? Is the literature search adequate? E.g. use of appropriate keywords, filters, Booleans and suitable databases/sources. Have 3 (or more) databases been searched? |
| Inclusion /exclusion process | Are appropriate criteria for including/excluding particular papers identified and applied? Does the final list include empirical research? |
| Conclusions & limitations | Are valid conclusions drawn about the results of the literature search? Are the limitations of the search well identified? |
| Part 2 | Project Proposal Poster(60%) |
| Research purpose | Does the purpose of the project, the overall research question and the anticipated product(s) all clearly defined and appropriate to masters level? |
| Background context | Is the background context and related academic research identified? Is there good use of references, cited correctly? |
| Research methodology | Is the research methodology clearly described and justified? Is there an appropriate choice of strategy(ies), data generation method(s) and data analysis technique(s) that will address the research question? |
| Evaluation methodology | Is an appropriate evaluation methodology clearly described and justified, with 3rd party evaluation if possible? |
| Schedule and dissemination plans | Are all the main tasks identified? Is there an appropriate schedule for them? Has an appropriate publication outlet been identified? |
| Professional, legal and ethical issues | Are all relevant professional, legal and ethical aspects clearly identified and well addressed? Has an appropriate level of ethical release/clearance been identified? |
| References & overall poster quality | Does the poster clearly communicate the main focus of the project? Is it engaging? Is there a good standard of report writing? E.g. are all elements written in good English, spell-checked & proof-read. |
The pass mark is 50%. The following table indicates what quality of submission is required to achieve a given grade. Grade boundaries are identified in accordance with the School’s standards.
| A (70%+) | Excellent piece of work of a professional standard across all parts. Demonstrates learning and other input beyond the taught programme. |
| B (60-69%) | Good piece of work. Satisfies all requirements to a high standard. A carefully designed literature review and project proposal. |
| C (50-59%) | Satisfactory. Meets majority of assignment’s objectives. Demonstrates broad understanding and basic ability to use key ideas introduced through the taught programme. A few gaps or omissions but satisfactory literature review and project proposal. |
| D (40-49%) | Relatively weak. Some assignment objectives met but generally unconvincing literature review and project proposal. |
| E (30-39%) | Poor. Few objectives met. Little evidence of understanding or use of taught material. No attempt to extend learning, poor literature review and project proposal. |
| F (<30%) | Inadequate. Unsatisfactory. Objectives not met. |
The post Research Methods appeared first on My Assignment Online.