LBM716 – Research Methods

2023-12-23 14:47:09

 Assignment Brief-BM716 – Research Methods

Module Code and Title

LBM716 – Research Methods

Assignment Number & Title

CW2 – Research Proposal

Assessment Type(e.g. Presentation, Essay, Report etc.)

Individual, written proposal.

Weighting of assessment (%TMM)

60% of TMM

Assessment Learning Outcomes

A3, B2, and B3

Module Leader

 

Internal Reviewer

 

External Examiner

 

 Submission Details

Submission Deadline

15/12/2023

Release of Feedback

12/01/2024

Completing Your Assignment 

What am I required to do in this assignment?

Working individually, you will write a research proposal based on a topic you choose, which must necessarily be related to your course (MA Luxury Brand Management). You will have the chance to discuss your ideas for topic with module leader and tutor prior to submission. Your proposal must necessarily contain all sections outlined below:

  • Coversheet **Mandatory
  • Abstract (assessed as a part of presentation) 300 words
  • Introduction (20%) 500 words
  • Literature review (35%) 1000 words
  • Research Methodology (35%) 1000 words
  • Reference list.

You will also be marked on the quality and clarity of your written work.

  • Presentation (10%)

Is there a size limit?

 The indicative word-count is 2500 words (+/- 10%). Title page, table of contents, abstract, appendices and reference list are excluded from the word count. 

What do I need to do to pass?

Threshold criteria i.e. achievement of the learning outcome at the pass/fail boundary

Abstract *not included in the word count, marked as part of presentation criteria.

Introduction

This section outlines a clearly articulated research question with the room to be narrowed/broadened, linked aims and objectives, some explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers. Also, it covers the scope of the research, summarizing the nature of the luxury brand management related topic. Some insights into academic rationale and personal motivation are provided for pursuing this investigation. This section ticks the main requirements but could be improved in terms of presentation, wider reading, consistent referencing and clarity & cohesion.

Literature review

Little/some capture of what scholars have written on the nature of the luxury brand management related research topic and the research question. This includes at least one key relevant debates, concepts and theories. It also provides evidence of practice-based insights of at least one comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management issue/challenge. It captures if these companies/industries have remedial actions and if so, this section further could have critically evaluated the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company/industry of this research proposal. Missed out on a summary at the end that highlights the research gap. This section is patchy with some description and some analysis. Numbered subheadings would have helped to organize information thematically, also use graphs and charts where appropriate. There was a requirement to consistently referenced using academic resources.

 Research Methodology

This section presents decisions related to research methods, data collection techniques, sampling size and sampling techniques, data analysis approach, ethical considerations, reliability and validity. It provides only some clear description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. It also provides only some justification as to why the selected research methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. The research approach is supported/not supported with a clear research schedule/timeline. This section is partially aligned with the previously presented research objectives. There was a requirement to consistently reference using academic resources.

Presentation

The contents of the proposal are summarized and mostly accurate. Attempt to cover some coverage of the essential elements of the research proposal i.e. research context, research question, key debates and practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach with only some omissions. Professional presentation of the proposal with some areas of improvement including organisation, logical structure, very good spelling and grammar and careful proofreading. Almost meets the 2500-word limit. Only limited balance of quality and quantity of effective and relevant sources correctly formatted using the Harvard Referencing system, at least 10 references and most of them are from reputable or academic sources. Appendices (if any) This area is not marked but student provided ONLY as additional information which might help readers to understand the work. And appendices are presented in a numerical order that follows their reference in your written work (e.g. see appendix A) 

How do I produce high quality work that merits a 70% or above grade?

Executive Summary *not included in the word count.

Introduction 

This section outlines a very convincing and clearly articulated research question, aims and objectives, an engaging explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarizing the nature of the marketing issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Convincing academic rationale and personal motivation is provided for pursuing this investigation. This section is coherent, used numbered subheadings, graphs and charts and referenced consistently.

Literature Review 

Very good capture of what scholars have written on the nature of the digital luxury brand management related topic and the research question. This includes at least three key relevant debates, concepts and theories. It also provides evidence of practice-based insights of at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management issue/challenge. It captures if these companies/industries have remedial actions and if so, this section further critically evaluates the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company/industry of this research proposal. A summary is provided at the end that highlights the research gap. This section is coherent, used numbered subheadings to organize information thematically, also used graphs and charts where appropriate and it also consistently referenced using academic resources.

Research Methodology

This section presents decisions related to research methods, data collection techniques, sampling size and sampling techniques, data analysis approach, ethical considerations, reliability and validity. It provides very clear description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. It also provides convincing justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. The research approach is supported with a clear research schedule/timeline. It is followed by a discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the research project at this stage and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them. This section is aligned with the previously presented research objectives, it used numbered subheadings to organize information and it also is consistently referenced using academic resources.

Presentation

The contents of the proposal are excellently summarized and accurate. Very good coverage of all the essential elements of the research proposal i.e. research context, research question, key debates and practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach. Very professional presentation of the proposal. Clearly meets the 2500-word limit. Very effective organisation, logical structure, very good spelling and grammar and careful proofreading; Very effective use of tables, graphs and appendices. Very good use of appropriate proposal format. Very balanced quality and quantity of effective and relevant sources correctly formatted using the Harvard Referencing system, at least 20 references and most of them are from reputable or academic sources. Graphs, charts and figures are used, captioned, and the sources provided. Appendices (if any) This area is not marked but student provided ONLY as additional information which might help readers to understand the work. And appendices are presented in a numerical order that follows their reference in your written work (e.g. see appendix A) 

How does assignment relate to what we are doing in the scheduled sessions?

The research project is a culmination of all knowledge and skills taught throughout the module in the weekly sessions. Every single one of the aspects in the marking criteria for this assessment will have been reviewed and discussed previously, including the hallmarks of a good research proposal.

How will I receive formative feedback for this assignment?

Organised sessions will be scheduled throughout the term. Proposed research topic ideas will be discussed in Week 6. Formative drafts can be submitted and discussed in Week 10. In addition, students can schedule one-to-one appointments with module tutor during weekly sessions.

Marks and Feedback 

How wilmy assignment be marked?

 Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations above and the marking criteria below. You can use them to evaluate your own work and estimate your grade before you submit. 

Marking Criteria Table

Undergraduate Programmes 

Grade

 

  

20% Introduction

35% Literature Review

35% Research Methodology

10% Presentation

 

  

90-100

Common Assessment Scale 8

This section outlines a very good and clearly articulated  research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Convincing rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Very good identification of relevant debates, concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights of at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

planation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/objectives outlined in Section 1. Very good presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/hypotheses.  Very clear description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Very good justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Very good description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Very good explanation of the methods/ models/concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Very good outlining of any anticipated difficulties Very good ex associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a very good description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Very good research plan/timeline.  Very clear brief discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are excellently summarised and accurate. Very good overview of all of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these.

Very professional presentation of the proposal. Clearly meets the 2500-word limit. Very effective organisation, logical structure, very good spelling and grammar and careful proofreading; Very effective use of tables, graphs and appendices. Very good use of appropriate proposal format. Very good quality and quantity of effective and relevant sources correctly formatted using the Harvard Referencing system.

 

  

80-89

Common Assessment Scale 7

This section outlines a very good and clearly articulated  research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Convincing rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Very good identification of relevant debates, concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights of at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

Very good explanation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/objectives outlined in Section 1. Very good presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/hypotheses.  Very clear description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Very good justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Very good description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Very good explanation of the methods/ models/concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Very good outlining of any anticipated difficulties associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a very good description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Very good research plan/timeline.  Very clear brief discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are excellently summarised and accurate. Very good overview of all of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these. Very professional presentation of the proposal. Clearly meets the 2500-word limit. Very effective organisation, logical structure, very good spelling and grammar and careful proofreading; Very effective use of tables, graphs and appendices. Very good use of appropriate proposal format. Very good quality and quantity of effective and relevant sources correctly formatted using the Harvard Referencing system.

 

  

70-79

Common Assessment Scale 6

This section outlines a very good and clearly articulated  research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Convincing rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Very good identification of relevant debates, concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights of at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

Very good explanation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/objectives outlined in Section 1. Very good presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/hypotheses.  Very clear description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Very good justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Very good description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Very good explanation of the methods/ models/concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Very good outlining of any anticipated difficulties associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a very good description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Very good research plan/timeline.  Very clear brief discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are excellently summarised and accurate. Very good overview of all of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these. Very professional presentation of the proposal. Clearly meets the 2500-word limit. Very effective organisation, logical structure, very good spelling and grammar and careful proofreading; Very effective use of tables, graphs and appendices. Very good use of appropriate proposal format. Very good quality and quantity of effective and relevant sources correctly formatted using the Harvard Referencing system.

 

  

60-69

Common Assessment Scale 5

This section outlines a well- formulated research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Well-developed rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Good identification of relevant debates, concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights of at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

Good explanation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/objectives outlined in Section 1. Good presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/hypotheses.  Clear description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Good justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Good description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Good explanation of the methods/ models/concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Good outlining of any anticipated difficulties associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a good description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Good research plan/timeline.  Clear brief discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are well summarised and accurate. Good overview of most/all of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these. Good professional presentation of the proposal. Clearly meets the 2500-word limit. Good effective organisation, logical structure, good spelling and grammar and careful proofreading; effective use of tables, graphs and appendices. Good use of appropriate proposal format. Good quality and quantity of effective and relevant sources correctly formatted using the Harvard Referencing system.

 

  

50-59

Common Assessment Scale 4

This section outlines a reasonably formulated research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Reasonable rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Reasonable identification of relevant debates, concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights of at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

Reasonable explanation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/objectives outlined in Section I. Reasonable presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/hypotheses.  Reasonably clear description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Reasonable justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Reasonable description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Reasonable explanation of the methods/ models/concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Reasonable outlining of any anticipated difficulties associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a Reasonable description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Reasonable research plan/timeline.  Reasonably clear brief discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are reasonably well summarised and accurate. Reasonable overview of most of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these. Reasonably professional presentation of the proposal. Clearly meets the 2500-word limit. Reasonably effective organisation, logical structure, Reasonable spelling and grammar and careful proofreading; effective use of tables, graphs and appendices. Reasonable use of appropriate proposal format. Reasonable quality and quantity of effective and relevant sources correctly formatted using the Harvard Referencing system.

 

  

40-49

Common Assessment Scale 3

This section outlines a satisfactory formulated research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Satisfactory rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Satisfactory identification of relevant debates, concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights of at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

Satisfactory explanation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/objectives outlined in Section 1. Satisfactory presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/hypotheses.  Satisfactory clarity on description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Satisfactory justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Satisfactory description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Satisfactory explanation of the methods/ models/concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Satisfactory outlining of any anticipated difficulties associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a Satisfactory description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Satisfactory research plan/timeline.  Satisfactory clarity on brief discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are satisfactorily summarised and accurate. Satisfactory overview of some of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these.

Satisfactory professional presentation of the proposal. Meets the 2500-word limit. Satisfactory effective organisation, logical structure, Satisfactory spelling and grammar and careful proofreading; effective use of tables, graphs and appendices. Satisfactory use of appropriate proposal format. Satisfactory quality and quantity of sources correctly formatted using the Harvard Referencing system.

 

  

30-39

Common Assessment Scale 2

This section outlines a poorly formulated research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Poor rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Poor identification of relevant debates, concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights of at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

Poor explanation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/ objectives outlined in Section 1. Poor presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/ hypotheses.  Poor clarity on description of the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Poor justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Poor description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Poor explanation of the methods/ models/concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Poor outlining of any anticipated difficulties associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a Poor description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Poor research plan/timeline.  Poor clarity on brief discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are poorly summarised and variably accurate. Poor overview of some of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these. Poor presentation of the proposal. Unlikely to meet the 2500-word limit. Poor organisation, poor structure. Poor spelling and grammar and proofreading; poor use of tables, graphs and appendices. Poor use of appropriate proposal format. Poor quality and quantity of sources with poor formatting.

 

 

11-29

Common Assessment Scale 1

This section does not include one or outlines a poorly formulated research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Little or no rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Little or no identification of relevant debates. Concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

Little or no explanation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/ objectives outlined in Section 1. Little or no presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/ hypotheses.  Little or no clarity on the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Little or no justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Little or no description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Little or no explanation of the methods/models/ concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Little or no outlining of any anticipated difficulties associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a Little or no description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Little or no research plan/timeline.  Little or no clarity on discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are very poorly summarised. Little or no overview of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these. Very poor presentation of the proposal. Does not meet the 2500-word limit. Very poor organisation, and illogical structure, Very poor spelling and grammar little or no evidence of proofreading; very poor use of tables, graphs and appendices. Very poor use of appropriate proposal format. Very poor quality and quantity of sources not correctly formatted.

 

  

0-10

Common Assessment Scale 0

This section does not include one or outlines a poorly formulated research question, aims and objectives, a brief explanation how this question has been derived from the context of the main topic and what are the key concepts that the question covers, the scope of the research, summarising the nature of the luxury brand management issue(s)/challenge/s, coherence and logic for the linked research aims/objectives. Little or no rationale for pursuing this investigation and the personal motivation for so doing.

Little or no identification of relevant debates. Concepts and theories as well as inclusion of practice-based insights at least three comparable companies/industries facing a similar luxury brand management challenge followed by a discussion of the effectiveness of remedial considerations and how might/not these be effectively applied to the chosen company.

Little or no explanation and justification for the research approaches proposed to answer the research question/aims/ objectives outlined in Section 1. Little or no presentation of the chosen research approach and research strategy along with choice justification relating to the research question(s)/ hypotheses.  Little or no clarity on the methods to be used to conduct the investigation. Little or no justification as to why the selected methods are the most appropriate for responding to the research question. Little or no description of secondary sources and primary sources and discussion of the sample, instruments, and data collection process intended to be undertaken. Little or no explanation of the methods/models/ concepts to be used to analyse the collected data. Little or no outlining of any anticipated difficulties associated with gathering and analysis of data and how they might be overcome, as well as a Little or no description of ethical issues, validity and reliability and how these are proposed to be dealt with. Little or no research plan/timeline.  Little or no clarity on discussion as to what you consider the key elements of the project and what you can do to mitigate risks associated with them.

The contents of the proposal are very poorly summarised. Little or no overview of the essential elements of the proposal i.e. research question, offer practice-based insights from real world comparison and planned research approach how you intend to research all of these. Very poor presentation of the proposal. Does not meet the 2500-word limit. Very poor organisation, and illogical structure, Very poor spelling and grammar little or no evidence of proofreading; very poor use of tables, graphs and appendices. Very poor use of appropriate proposal format. Very poor quality and quantity of sources not correctly formatted.

 

  

 

Regent’s University Generic Descriptors

Band

Conversion scale for UG Programmes

Conversion scale for PG Programmes

Generic descriptors

8

90 - 100

90 - 100

All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to an exceptionally high standard (according to the level of study).

 

The outcome of the assessment task is presentable in a professional context and may extend practical or theoretical knowledge in the field. It displays an exceptionally high level of understanding, evaluation, insight, analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according

to the level of study), and connections are developed both within and beyond the task set.

 

The work’s organisation, structure and presentation are developed to an exceptionally high standard.

7

80 - 89

80 - 89

All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to an outstanding standard (according to the level of study).

 

The outcome of the assessment demonstrates an outstanding display of understanding, exploration, evaluation, insight, analysis, reflection, criticality and/or research (according to the level of study). Connections are developed both within and beyond the task set.

 

The work’s organisation, structure and presentation are developed to an outstanding standard.

6

70 - 79

70 - 79

All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to high standard (according to the level of study).

 

The outcome of the assessment demonstrates an excellent display of understanding, exploration, evaluation, insight analysis, reflection, criticality and/or research (according to the level of study), and connections are developed both within and beyond the task set.

 

The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be developed to an excellent standard.

5

60 - 69

60 - 69

All learning outcomes have been achieved at a good and some to a very good standard (according to the level of study).

 

The outcome of the assessment demonstrates a very good level of understanding, exploration, evaluation, analysis, reflection, criticality, some insight and/or very good research (according to the level of study), and connections are established within the task set, and in some cases reaching beyond.

 

The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be developed to a very good standard.

4

50 - 59

55 - 59

Most learning outcomes have been met at a good standard (according to the level of study).

 

The outcome of the assessment demonstrates a good understanding, exploration, evaluation, analysis, and some reflection, criticality and/or appropriate research. (According to the level of study)

 

The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be appropriately developed.

3

40 - 49

50 - 54

All learning outcomes have been met to a minimum satisfactory standard (according to the level of study).

 

The outcome of the assessment shows an adequate understanding, of major ideas, with little insight and basic research. Limited level of analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study).

 

The outcome of the task shows ability to paraphrase concepts and theories, with limited ability to make connections.

 

The work may be disorganised, and the structure and presentation may be barely adequate.

2

30 - 39

36 - 49

Most learning outcomes have almost been met, whilst the rest have not (according to the level of study).

 

The outcome of the assessment shows a limited understanding of major ideas, with little insight, very basic research, and very limited ability to make connections. No analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study)

 

The work may be disorganised, and the structure and presentation may be barely adequate.

1

11 – 29

21 – 35

The majority of the learning outcomes have not been met (according to the Level). The outcome of the assessment task is incomplete, flawed, very limited and/or presents significant inaccuracies.

 

The outcome of the assessment shows very limited understanding with no insight, and very limited ability to make connections within basic ideas in the field, very fragmented. Lacks research. No analysis, reflection or criticality (according to the level of study)

 

The work is disorganised, and unstructured. Presentation is barely adequate.

0

0 - 10

0 - 20

None of the learning outcomes have been met. The task has not been addressed by the student, or there is no assessable task.

 

The outcome of the assessment shows no understanding of basic ideas, with no insight and shows no ability to make connections within basic ideas in the field, or the connections are completely irrelevant. Lacks research. No understanding, analysis, reflection nor criticality.

 

The work completely lacks organisation and structure. Presentation is completely inadequate.

 

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions