|
70%+
|
60-69%
|
50-59%
|
40-49%
|
0-39%
|
Introduction
10%
|
Feasible and clear research objectives.
Nature of context is outlined with exceptional clarity
|
Feasible and clear research objectives.
Nature of context is clearly defined.
|
Feasible and clear objectives and research question.
Nature of context needs improvement
|
Poorly phrased objectives or research question.
Under developed research context.
|
Unfeasible objectives; poorly phrased or omitted research question. Little
explanation of the nature of the research or its context.
|
Literature Review & Conceptual Framework 20%
|
All work incorporated is recent and/or relevant and is correctly interpreted. Critique is exceptional and clearly informs the synthesis of materials to form the C/F. Very strong supporting references.
|
Almost all work incorporated is recent and/or relevant, relevant and the majority is correctly interpreted. Very clear synthesis to produce valid C/F. Strong supporting references.
|
Includes relevant and recent critically evaluated material clearly synthesised into the C/F. Good supporting references.
|
Includes some relevant and recent theory, but without critical interpretation. C/F is unfeasible or under developed.
Weak referencing.
|
Insufficient theoretical content. C/F omitted.
Poor referencing.
|
Research Methods/ Approach
20%
|
Exceptionally clear justification of philosophy and strategy.
Robust application of methods to generate abundant relevant data that are rigorously evaluated.
|
Very clear justification of research philosophy and strategy. Triangulation is clearly incorporated. Robust/ critical evaluation of methods.
|
Philosophy is understood and the choice is clearly justified. Strategy is appropriate. Triangulation is clearly incorporated into the research design with sample details. Methods are critiqued.
|
Research philosophy, strategy, methods, validity and triangulation is understood but weakly developed.
Sample details (where appropriate) are missing. Weak evaluation of methods
|
Weak understanding of research philosophy, strategy, methods, validity and triangulation. Sample details (where appropriate) are missing. Weak evaluation of methods.
|
Findings & Analysis
25%
|
Exceptionally complete data are clearly rigorously/critically interrogated by the conceptual frame. Very well presented. Results are clearly triangulated and exceptionally well presented.
|
Data address the objectives and have a strong connection to the conceptual frame. Data are critically evaluated, triangulated and very well presented.
|
Data address the objectives but lack a strong connection to the conceptual frame. Some critical interpretation of data. Presentation of data weak in places.
|
Data only partially address the objectives. Weak incorporation of concepts and theory. Partial or lack of triangulation. No critical evaluation of data. Unclear presentation.
|
Data presented do not address the objectives with rigour.
Weak incorporation of concepts and theory. Partial or lack of triangulation. No critical evaluation of data. Presentation is poor.
|
Conclusions and/or Recommendations/
Implementation Plan
15%
|
Exceptional in their clarity and support from the evidence.
Rigorous consideration of areas for further research. Recommendations very clearly relate to the conclusions
|
Very clearly stated and emergent from the evidence presented. Areas for further research are also clearly indicated. Recommendations clearly relate to the conclusions
|
Clearly stated and emergent from the evidence presented. Some consideration of areas for further research.
Recommendations relate to the conclusions
|
Weak and superficial conclusion and/or recommendations or implementation plan
|
Poor/underdeveloped conclusion and/or recommendations or implementation plan
|
Personal Reflection
10%
|
Exceptional in critically reflecting one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process
|
Very clear critical reflection of one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process
|
Clear in critically reflecting one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process
|
Includes some weak and superficial critical reflection of one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process
|
Poor/underdeveloped reflection of one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process
|