2.5.2 Final report
Weight:
80%
Type of Collaboration:
Individual
Due:
Monday, May 31
Submission:
Turnitin via vUWS
Format:
The report is organised following a standard research reporting format (Cover page,
Abstract, Table of Content (List of Figures, Tables, and Abbreviations if appropriate)
Introduction and motivation, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Analysis,
Conclusions, References, Appendix (when necessary)).
The recommended referencing style is Harvard Western
Sydu Referencing Style. The
students may use a different referencing style in consultation with the project supervisors.
Length:
10000 words
Curriculum Mode:
Report
The final report is to present in your own words the research undertaken during Master Project 1 and Master Project
results and analysis obtained from the current study. It is to assess your ability to express the findings in a professional
way at a high standard. Students need to demonstrate skills in writing technical documents and presenting research
results
Please refer to the Report Template for 300598 Master Project 2 on VUWS for the format and requirements of
the final report. The final report should contain the following Sections: Cover Page, Abstract, Table of Contents
,
nd/or Recommendations, References, Appendix (if necessary).
12
Marking Criteria:
Criteria
High Distinction
Distinction
Credit
Pass
Unsatisfactory
Structure and
clarity of writing
(10 marks)
Clear and logical
presentation,
articulate prose
interesting to read.
In general, well
structured and well
written
Satisfactory
structure to report,
prose conveys
information
successfully
occasionally
confusing
Poorly structured
confusing prose
information can be
extracted with
Little or no logical
structure, poor
sentence
construction
difficult to extract
information
perseverance.
Literature review
(10 marks)
Little or no
evidence of a
Satisfactory review,
concise review of
relevant papers,
limited critical
appraisal
A good, concise
review of relevant
papers, some
critical appraisal
set into the context
of the project
Patchy review, an
overview of a few
relevant papers
with no critical
appraisal
literature review
Excellent review,
concise critical
review, set into the
context of the
project, identifying
gaps in knowledge
A creative and
highly appropriate
methodology is
clearly articulated
and justified
Methodology (10
marks)
The methodology is
well-argued and
justified
The methodology is
explained and
appropriate for the
project.
An appropriate
methodology is
broadly outlined
but the details are
not always clear
The methodology is
either not
appropriate for the
project or is poorly
articulated
suggesting deficits
in understanding
Little or no results,
Results and analysis
(40 marks)
Excellent results,
achieved more
demanding project
aims and advanced
beyond these
Excellent analysis.
evidence of original
contribution to or
development in the
field
did not meet basic
project aims. Little
or no analysis of
data
Commendable
results, achieved
basic and most of
more demanding
project aims.
Commendable
analysis, able to set
conclusions in the
context of current
understanding in
the field
Satisfactory results, Patchy results, .
achieved most of
achieved some of
the basic project the basic project
aims. Satisfactory aims. Patchy
analysis, reliable analysis,
conclusions
questionable
reliability
Conclusions and/or
recommendations
(10 marks)
Clear presentation
of fully justified
findings. Logical
conclusions based
on research
evidence. Critical
etence
Conclusion not
included and/or no
recommendations
Logical conclusions Clear presentation
predominantly of conclusions
based on evidence related to evidence
Evidence of critical Results mostly
evaluation Results linked to the
linked consistently objectives of the
to objectives.
study
Relatively deficient
and unsupported
conclusions
evidential or logical
or both
