BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF COMPUTING ENGINEERING AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
COURSEWORK ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
[ENG7142 – Research Methods]
Coursework Re-Assignment Brief
Postgraduate
Academic Year 2020-21
Module Title:
Research Methods
Module Code:
ENG7142
Assessment Title:
Literature Review
Assessment Identifier:
Coursework
Weighting: 75%
School:
School of Engineering and the Built Environment
Module Co-ordinator:
Hand in deadline date:
12pm Mid-day on Monday 26th July 2021
Support available for students required to submit a re-assessment:
Timetabled revisions sessions will be arranged for the period immediately preceding the hand in date
NOTE:
At the first assessment attempt, the full range of marks is available. At the re-assessment attempt the mark is capped and the maximum mark that can be achieved is 50%.
Assessment Summary
To research and critically investigate an academic research problem.
Individual Literature Review (maximum word count of 2500 words)
Note: For this assessment you may improve work submitted for the initial assessment.
The module is assessed as follows:
Literature Review 75% Course work Academic Poster Presentation 25% In person
IMPORTANT STATEMENTS
Standard Postgraduate Regulations
Your studies will be governed by the BCU Academic Regulations on Assessment, Progression and Awards. Copies of regulations can be found at https://www.bcu.ac.uk/student-info/student-contract
For courses accredited by professional bodies such as the IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology) there are some derogations from the standard regulations and these are detailed in your Programme Handbook
Cheating and Plagiarism
Both cheating and plagiarism are totally unacceptable and the University maintains a strict policy against them. It is YOUR responsibility to be aware of this policy and to act accordingly. Please refer to the Academic Registry Guidance at https://icity.bcu.ac.uk/Academic-Registry/Information-for-Students/Assessment/Avoiding-Allegations-of-Cheating
The basic principles are:
Don’t pass off anyone else’s work as your own, including work from “essay banks”. This is plagiarism and is viewed extremely seriously by the University.
Don’t submit a piece of work in whole or in part that has already been submitted for assessment elsewhere. This is called duplication and, like plagiarism, is viewed extremely seriously by the University.
Always acknowledge all of the sources that you have used in your coursework assignment or project.
If you are using the exact words of another person, always put them in quotation marks.
Check that you know whether the coursework is to be produced individually or whether you can work with others.
If you are doing group work, be sure about what you are supposed to do on your own.
Never make up or falsify data to prove your point.
Never allow others to copy your work.
Never lend disks, memory sticks or copies of your coursework to any other student in the University; this may lead you being accused of collusion.
By submitting coursework, either physically or electronically, you are confirming that it is your own work (or, in the case of a group submission, that it is the result of joint work undertaken by members of the group that you represent) and that you have read and understand the University’s guidance on plagiarism and cheating.
You should be aware that coursework may be submitted to an electronic detection system in order to help ascertain if any plagiarised material is present. You may check your own work prior to submission using Turnitin at the Formative Moodle Site. If you have queries about what constitutes plagiarism, please speak to your module tutor or the Centre for Academic Success.
Electronic Submission of Work
It is your responsibility to ensure that work submitted in electronic format can be opened on a faculty computer and to check that any electronic submissions have been successfully uploaded. If it cannot be opened it will not be marked. Any required file formats will be specified in the assignment brief and failure to comply with these submission requirements will result in work not being marked. You must retain a copy of all electronic work you have submitted and re-submit if requested.
Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
1. Evaluate the conceptual nature of research philosophies & methods.
2. Appraise existing literature to develop a literature review using appropriate research methods & techniques.
4. Make critical judgements on the applicability of appropriate professional skills and research ethics, within a given research context.
Assessment Details:
Title: Literature Review – Individual
Type: Coursework
Style: Individual report
Rationale:
The delivery and re-assessment of this module will involve researching and culminating findings in a literature review, demonstrating critique, author analysis and evidence of academic underpinning.
You are to consider a topic within a subject area or choose from a suggested list (see original assessment brief), and critically evaluate, applying appropriate research methods in the development of a literature review..
Description:
You will need to present the development and findings of the literature review by means of a report.
The final piece of work written as a literature review, must demonstrate an understanding of research philosophies and methods used by the most important references detailing the contributions of major authors, noting arguments and contestations. This should also be written to the standard requirements of international journals appropriate to the chosen research topic.
Additional information:
Re-Assessment Individual Literature Review (L.O. 1, 2 & 4)
You are to consider a topic within your subject area, and critically evaluate, applying appropriate research methods in the development of a literature review. You must demonstrate an understanding of research philosophies and methods used by your most important references and a demonstration of how these contributed to your final piece of work.
This must include:
at least eight pieces of peer-reviewed literature – such as journals
three industry publications and
three articles/pieces from either books, newspapers, magazines or credible web based sources
For advice on writing style, referencing and academic skills, please make use of the Centre for Academic Success: https://icity.bcu.ac.uk/celt/centre-for-academic-success
Workload:
This is a resit – you should manage your time to ensure you meet the learning outcomes addressed within this reassessment, in-line with the requirements to achieve a PASS.
Transferable skills:
This module enables students to:
develop and enhance presentation and communication skills
problem solve using academic language and academic underpinning
develop critical analysis skills
become a subject matter expert in the chosen field
Marking Criteria:
Table of Assessment Criteria and Associated Grading Criteria
Learning Outcomes
1
Evaluate the conceptual nature of research philosophies & methods
2
Appraise existing literature to develop a literature review using appropriate research methods & techniques
4
Make critical judgements on the applicability of appropriate professional skills and research ethics, within a given research context
Assessment
Criteria
Research philosophies and methods.
Literature Review
Critical Analysis and suitability
Weighting:
0.34
0.33
0.33
Grading
Criteria
0 – 29%
F
No evidence of relevant information and research. Scant evidence and consideration of more than one concept.
A poor piece of work. No real attempt at noting methods or philosophies. Poor arguments and lack of relevance.
No evidence of research, report reiterates information gathered from one source.
A poor piece of work. No real attempt at a review of literature. Poor arguments and lack of relevance.
Unrealistic proposals, no relationship between solutions and concepts.
Lacking evidence of original thought.
Nothing to evidence progress towards compiling a suitable report.
30 – 39%
E
Little or no evidence of relevant information and research. Scant evidence and consideration of more than one concept.
This report shows some understanding of key issues but some content is partly or substantially irrelevant. Poorly structured. Displays little knowledge or understanding of methods and philosophies.
Little evidence of research, report reiterates information gathered from one source.
This review shows some understanding of key issues but some content is partly or substantially irrelevant. Poorly structured. Displays little knowledge or understanding of subject matter.
Superficial review, lacking critical evaluation and intellectual complexity.
However, some coherent arguments. Conclusions drawn based on realistic application.
Very little evidence of progress towards compiling a report. Including significant errors or misconceptions in the report.
40 – 49%
D
Demonstrates reasonable familiarity with the key subject areas. Some relevant research but lacking in extent and level required.
Material is mostly relevant, but muddled, lacking focus and structure. Important elements are missing or there are significant errors of understanding.
Lacking in both breadth and depth.
No critical evaluation.
Major/significant shortcomings in style, language and referencing. Attempts at attribution of sources.
Material is mostly relevant, but muddled, lacking focus and structure. Important elements are missing or there are significant errors of understanding.
Inadequate review, lacking critical evaluation and intellectual complexity.
Minimal evidence of progress towards compiling a report.
There may well be signs of confusion about understanding and presentation of complex material.
50 – 59%
C
Generally competent research but not all relevant to the research question. Application limited to one/two areas. Overreliance on lecture notes.
Generally, a sound attempt at considering philosophies and methods, whilst appraising issues to demonstrate adequate knowledge of the subject. However, still incomplete and some elements missing. Limited evidence of independent thought or research.
Generally competent research, but not all relevant to research question.
Limited critical evaluation and application.
Style and language generally clear. Some minor errors. All sources referenced
Generally, a sound attempt at appraising issues and demonstrated adequate knowledge of the subject. However, still incomplete and some elements missing. Limited evidence of independent thought or research.
Competent analysis of the research question in relation to professional and ethical issues.
Conclusion appropriate to single scenario.
The report demonstrates some familiarity as there is an awareness and demonstration of fundamental concepts. Presentation and organisation of the report is reasonably clear.
60 – 69%
B
Some evaluation of concepts and evidence of a methodological approach.
Comprehensive and coherent attempt of consideration of methods and philosophies. Evidence of significant reading & research beyond the basic texts. Displays good knowledge of the subject matter and an ability to discuss impact intelligently and analytically.
Broad research & analysis evaluating numerous options.
No major shortcomings in style and language.
Appropriate referencing. Well structured.
Comprehensive and coherent attempt of review. Evidence of significant reading & research beyond the basic texts.
Displays good knowledge of the subject matter and an ability to discuss impact intelligently and analytically.
Demonstration of understanding of the importance/impact of professional skills and research ethics within own piece of research.
Conclusions and recommendations have application to an alternative scenario.
The report demonstrates good familiarity as there is an awareness and good demonstration of fundamental concepts and critical awareness. The report is well organised and written to a good standard.
70 – 79%
A
Full evaluation of concepts and principles. Wide ranging proposals relevant to research.
Well-focussed analysis and comprehensive. Strong evidence of reading beyond the basic texts and lecture materials, displays mastery of the subject matter and ability to discuss in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. No major errors though some minor errors or improvements noted
Evidence of wide-ranging research including books, journals and industry relevant sources.
Clear structure and style, logical and error-free.
Comprehensive referencing (in-text and as reference list).
All sources appropriately referenced.
Well-focussed analysis and comprehensive. Strong evidence of reading beyond the basic texts and lecture materials, displays mastery of the subject matter and ability to discuss in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. No major errors though some minor errors or improvements noted.
Evidence of critique and evaluation in relation to professional and ethical issues within own piece of research.
Evidence of original thought and some recommendations.
The report demonstrates excellent critical awareness of all concepts. The report is well written and displays very good organisational and presentational skills.
80 – 89%
A+
Excellent evaluation of the issues relating to methods and philosophies. Combining lateral thinking and imaginative application of knowledge.
Well-focussed, carefully structured and thoroughly considered analysis. Cogent and clearly argued. There is originality and/or independent critical analytical ability that shows mastery of the subject matter to an exceptional degree. No major errors noted.
Presents contemporary thinking. Quotations and references used intelligently (no padding).
Well-focussed, carefully structured and thoroughly considered analysis. Cogent and clearly argued. There is originality and/or independent critical analytical ability that shows mastery of the subject matter to an exceptional degree. No major errors noted.
Full exploration of issues. Realistic proposals presented and mapped to professional and ethical requirements.
The report demonstrates outstanding analysis and critical awareness. There is evidence of original thought and the report is well written displaying excellent organisational and presentational skills.
90 – 100%
A*
Exceptionally evaluated issues relating to methods and philosophies. Outstanding consideration and evaluation demonstrated.
Outstanding and insightful work. Containing evidence of significant independent research, application and well-structured. Aptly focussed and well-written. Free of errors.
Exceptionally evaluated literature which has culminated in a well-written, intelligent and error-free review.
Innovative solutions and evidence of intellectual complexity and thoroughness.
Outstanding and insightful work. Containing evidence of significant independent research, application and well-structured. Aptly focussed and well-written. Free of errors.
Extremely clear, logical and error free report with outstanding exploration of professional and ethical requirements.
A truly outstanding report. The report presented is faultless, well-structured, carefully and rigorously evaluated.
(The work should be of publishable quality in a peer-reviewed national conference).*
*in very exceptional circumstances
Submission Details:
Format:
Work will be submitted on Moodle using Microsoft Office files.
Regulations:
Re-sit marks are capped at 50%
Full academic regulations are available for download using the link provided above in the IMPORTANT STATEMENTS section
For IET accredited courses ONLY (MSc Mechanical Engineering and MSc Automotive Engineering)
For modules with multiple items of assessment, you must achieve a minimum of 40% in each item of assessment in order to pass the module.
e.g. assessment 1 – coursework 50% and assessment 2 – Exam 50%,
You must achieve an aggregate mark of 50% WITH every single assessment having a minimum mark of 40% or greater. For example if you achieved 90% in example assessment 1 and 20% in example assessment 2, the aggregate would be over 50% ((90+20)/2 = 55%), however you will still fail the module due to the 40% qualifying rule.
Late Penalties
If you submit a re-assessment late then it will be deemed as a fail and returned to you unmarked.
Feedback:
Your work will be marked in 20 working days and then an unconfirmed mark, subject to exam board ratification, will be uploaded to Moodle.
Marks and Feedback on your work will normally be provided within 20 working days of its submission deadline.
Where to get help:
Support session hours will be published closer to the time on Moodle.
Students can get additional support from the library support for searching for information and finding academic sources. See their iCity page for more information: http://libanswers.bcu.ac.uk/
The Centre for Academic Success offers 1:1 advice and feedback on academic writing, referencing, study skills and maths/statistics/computing. See their iCity page for more information: https://icity.bcu.ac.uk/celt/centre-for-academic-success
Additional assignment advice can be found here: https://libguides.bcu.ac.uk/MA
Fit to Submit:
Are you ready to submit your assignment – review this assignment brief and consider whether you have met the criteria (see guidance on Moodle).
1
10
The post BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF COMPUTING ENGINEERING AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT COURSEWORK appeared first on PapersSpot.
