2014
ASSESSMENT DETAILS
1. The aim is for students will develop a prototype literature review (Task 1) and preliminary research proposal (Task 2) about an imagined project.
2. The alternative for the assessment tasks is to work through an existing project (for example, if you are enrolled in a research degree or minor thesis you can use that project).
3. The two assessment tasks will normally be inter-linked so the literature review in the first task becomes an element of the second task. This will save time and help meet the word count restrictions.
4. The preferred format isto submit your assignments in Microsoft Word unless otherwise agreed with the Course Coordinator.
5. The assessment criteria require students to use an accepted and consistent academic referencing style. The default style for this course is APA6th Edition but you can use any of the accepted styles to suit your discipline provided you consistently apply the chosen standards.
6. Please note that there is a good guide to the use of APA6th Edition and several other referencing styles on the Library website (see for example http://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/apa-6th). The full publication manuals and many useful resources to support use are available through the Library catalogue.
7. Referencing is to include materials cited in the text of the task only.
8. All assignments are to be in 12 point font. Please apply an appropriate space between paragraphs.
9. All tables and figures must have headings and be numbered.
10. All assignments for EDUC 6048 are to be submitted through the Assignments link available on the Action Bar in Blackboard for EDUC6048.
ASSIGNMENT 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
Approximately 2000 words
50%
Due 16th May 2014
Assignment 1 must be submitted through the Assignments link available on the Action Bar in Blackboard by 5:00 pm on the nominated day.
Task details
1. The main aim of Task 1 is to produce a succinct review in an area of research interest of the student’s choice.
2. Given the limited time-frame for the task, the emphasis is less on scope than it is on the skills of organisation, coherence and evaluation of the literature, and even more importantly the articulation of a research question(s) based on the literature that the student has collected.
3. The expectation is that students will review and make evaluative comment on a minimum of 10 journal articles in their field of interest. Your compliance with this expectation should be obvious through the structure of your assignment.
4. Lecture 2 spells out in detail how to develop and present a literature review.
5. Criteria*
• Identification, selection and coverage of the literature (10)
• Demonstrated understanding of the literature (15)
• Coherence of argument (support for the research questions) (15)
• Research question clarity (5)
• Mechanics of writing including citation and referencing (5)
*A full marking rubric follows
DETAILED ASSESSMENT RUBRIC: EDUC6048 Research Methods, Semester 12014
Littleevidence:
Limited/disjointedselectionof literature in the chosen field
No or limited use of journals and scholarly books
Reliance on non-journal and gray literature as sources
Someevidence:
Identifying 6-10 journal and research articles & scholarly books relevant to the chosen field
Basic coverage of the field
Rudimentary description of search strategies used Moderate evidence of coverage:
Sufficientcoverage and wider selection including major sources of literature in the chosen field
Stronger reliance on journal & scholarly books(10 or more)
Basic description of the search strategies, identifying any issues Substantialevidence of coverage:
Identifying seminal, groundbreaking and contemporary literature sources
Substantial cross-section of journal publications& scholarly books
Clear articulation the strengths and constraints of the search strategies
How well have you been able to identify, select and cover the literature in your chosen field?
0-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 / 10
Poor evidence of understanding:
Poorly elaborated, incoherent account of the literature with no evidence of critique or higher level understandings
Too few sources included & basic summary of these only Some evidence of understanding:
Clear capacity to understand and summarise relevant literature
Rudimentary level of critique identifying strengths& limitations Adequate evidence of understanding:
Relative merits of different sources – strengths &limitations
Capacity to identify trends and meta understandings in the literature
Demonstrated appreciation of higher level implications of the literature Full evidence of understanding:
Detailed critique of contributions in terms of relevance, veracity of the evidence base and coverage
Clear appreciation of research needs based on the strengths and limitations of the literature found How well have you demonstrated your understanding of the literature in your chosen field?
0-6 7-10 11-13 14-15 / 15
Poor evidence of coherence:
A major portion of your work comprises a poorly elaborated, incoherent account and shows disorganisation, and lacking of focus.
No or inadequate rationale provided for the research questions posed
Moderate evidence of coherence:
A moderate portion of your work comprises an elaborated, coherent account
A moderate portion of the work shows disorganisation, lacking focus.
Limited rationale provided for the research questions
Significant evidence of coherence:
A significant portion of your work comprises an elaborated, coherent and well-structured account
There are some parts of the work that may show some
disorganisation, lacking of focus
More detailed rationale provided for the selection of research questions Substantial evidence of coherence:
Your work shows substantial evidence of elaboration throughout your analysis and is presented in a well-organised, coherent framework.
A clear focus is developed and sustained throughout the analysis
Clear and defensible logic for the development of research questions How intelligible, clear and coherent is your line of argument in building towards the identification and need for your research questions?
0-6 7-10 11-13 14-15 / 15
Poor evidence:
Research questions are poorly worded, unclear or confusing
Research questions are any partially or impossible to research Some evidence:
Research questions are clear and intelligible
Understandable capacity for research to support the questions asked Adequate evidence:
Strong connection with a problem or issue of significance
Scope of the information sought is reasonable, defensible and answerable Full evidence:
Clear, concise and searching in terms of scope and importance
Provides direction in terms of the style and scope of the research
Clearly and fully researchable How clearly have you been able to articulate your research questions?
0-2 3 4 5 / 5
Poor evidence of:
No or limited compliance with standards of academic writing and formal English expression
No or limited compliance with editorial and bibliographic styles Moderate evidence of:
A moderate portion of your work is well written in the academic and formal English style
Some inconsistencies with editorial and bibliographic styles Significant evidence of:
A significant portion portion of your work is well written in the academic and formal English style
Broad compliance with editorial and bibliographic styles Substantial evidence of:
Your work shows substantial evidence of compliancewith the academic and formal English styles
Full compliance with editorial and bibliographic styles How well have you written in the academic style including the use of an accepted style for citation and referencing?
0-2 3 4 5 / 5
