浏览： 日期：2020-01-13
Assessment Details
N.B. Please note word counts should include quotes and tables but not appendices.
Assessment Details
N.B. Please note word counts should include quotes and tables but not appendices.
Part 1 of the Final Assignment - dissertation
Dissertation – 8-10,000 words (80% of total mark)
The dissertation should be 1.5 spaced, Font 12, Arial, with a ‘normal’ margin.
The work should be uploaded onto moodle into the drop box on MMB021 by Friday 30th August 2pm.
Part One Details:
The following provides a view of the sort of evidence we are looking for within the dissertation element.
Format of the dissertation.
The dissertation is a very specific type of document. Its purpose is to be examined by at least two academics that will, based on the quality of the work, decide if it merits being passed at Masters level. The guidelines followed by the examiners are relatively simple. They look for the following:
1) How well the research problem has been formulated, hypothesis generated or objectives set.
2) Familiarity with relevant literature, critical evaluation of the contribution of the literature to the study, and the use of it to support the objectives of the study.
3) How a methodology has been developed and used. This includes an understanding of theory generation, selection of data collection and analytical techniques, how the study has been managed, and limitations of the method.
4) Within the findings the examiners are looking for clarity in interpretation of the basic findings, and a wider discussion of the meaning of those findings in relation to the issues identified from the literature and the original parameters imposed at the outset of the study.
5) Whether the dissertation has conclusions that relate to the objectives of the study, the literature and the primary data.
6) How well the dissertation is written up, quality of presentation, the use of English, the ease of reading etc.
7) Finally, you have demonstrated maturity by being able to identify the weaknesses or limitations in your study.
From an examiner’s perspective, most of the above points are considered at two levels. The first is whether they exist and how well they have been dealt with. Second, how they combine to make up the dissertation. It is one thing to be able to name all the different elements of a dissertation, but another to understand how they combine to create a quality end product. This means that you have a role to play in assessing the quality of your own work.
Some of the criteria that the examiners will be looking for in your dissertation
|
Criteria |
Indicative Weight |
Mark |
Comments |
|
|
Abstract / Introduction
Problem definition and objectives, questions, or hypothesis
|
|
|
What is the project about?
What was its aim(s)
What methodologies were used?
What were the key findings?
What were the key conclusions?
Background to the research problem.
Clarity and definition of the problem and objectives, questions, or hypothesis
How focused is the problem/ comprehensiveness of the research objectives, questions or hypothesis and their appropriateness. |
|
|
Literature review
Methodology – research design, justification of methods sampling etc.
|
|
|
Ability demonstrated in selectivity of material reviewed.
Evidence of breadth and depth of the material reviewed.
Critical review/analysis as opposed to paraphrasing
Professionalism shown in quoting, and using other people’s work.
Demonstration of a logical conceptual development.
Logical nature of presentation of the primary and / or secondary data.
Ability shown in organising the primary and / or secondary findings under logical, thematic headings.
Secondary research methodology:
Statement of the information sought and the breadth and depth of sources identified.
Assessment of availability, adequacy, accuracy and recency of secondary data.
An indication as to how the secondary data has been used within the study.
Primary research methodology:
Identification of information needs from primary sources.
Specification, choice criteria, justification for research philosophy, approach and strategy.
Sampling design (sample size and sampling method)
Data collection instrument (e.g. questionnaire, interview guide etc), design and pre testing
Field work
Statement of the analytical considerations
Limitations
|
|
|
Primary and / or secondary research
Analysis, synthesis and development of primary and secondary data
Conclusions and recommendations |
|
|
Methods used in presenting the primary and / or secondary findings. A variety of methods preferred.
Ability to use both secondary and primary data findings in conjunction in the analysis.
Being able to reason the similarities and differences between secondary and primary data.
Skills demonstrated in interpreting the results.
Being able to relate the analysis to the research aim and objectives.
Depth and synthesis of the results as opposed to mere reporting.
Clarity in terms of stating the conclusions/recommendations. Discussion on each. Justification of each. With management implications.
Being able to critically reason the conclusions and recommendations in relation to the research aim and objectives.
Extent to which the recommendations are realistic in the organisational context. |
Part Two Details :
Poster Presentation Presentation
Part 2 of the Final Assignment – Poster Presentation
Poster Presentation with narrative lasting no more than 10 minutes (20% of total mark)
The date for these presentations is in the module summary.
The poster should be A3 size. Content should reflect the following four areas:
1. Explan paticuarly significant piece or pieces of work undertaken during the research process
2. Indentify personal skills and evidence how those skills were used in relation to the dissertation
3. Identify area of personal development still required
4. Critically consider and demonstrate an understanding of reflective practice in self-development.
Appropriate academic reference should be used through this poster presentation. The poster itself can be as creative as you wish to make it.
Dissertation Presentation Details for the MBA and MA Students
Poster Presentations – 20th September.
This is an opportunity for the MBA and MA Students to reflect upon the process of doing an independent piece of research. The mark is 20% of your final dissertation mark.
The posters to be uploaded onto moodle for the externals to view.
The presentations, lasting 10 minutes each will be held on the 20th September in the afternoon.
The presentations will be held as global cafes and will follow this format. The timings are approximate
|
DG123
From 1pm |
DG123
From 2.15pm |
DG124
From 1pm |
DG124
From
2.15pm |
DG125
From 1pm |
DG125
From 2.15pm |
|
Joshua Adedamola |
Temidayo Akinsete |
Jain Mu |
Worapn Panabuddhraksa |
Shylaja Sathasivam |
Muhammad Hafiz |
|
Xuejiao Dong |
Xiaowei Pu |
Yiming Ma |
Paul Oso |
Jun Wang |
Bairu Zhang |
|
Georgina Cutts |
Nan Qin |
Sanjana Kapoor |
Jianzhe Zhang |
Liang Shi |
Xiadan Jiang |
|
Xinyu Jiang |
Jinyuan Mo |
Joanna Outram |
Tareg Gader |
Wen Xie |
Lingyu Zang |
|
Lingyu Li |
Valeriya Molodkova |
Zhujun Wang |
Myo Thiha |
Jia Lu |
Di Wang |
|
Shiyuan Li |
Michael Nwaobi |
Xiaojie Xu |
Mengsu Xu |
Yotsapon Chatharatsang |
Thi Vu |
|
Watcharin Sereesathiensup |
|
Peerachai Asadachatreekul |
|
Haibo Wang |
|
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING SCHEME for the presentation
|
|
80-100
|
70-79
|
60-69
|
50-59 |
Narrow Fail 40-49 |
(20-39) |
(0-19) |
|
Class of Masters Award |
Distinction |
Merit |
Pass |
Fail |
Non-Serious Attempt |
||
|
Knowledge and understanding
|
Command of the topic illustrated by coherent application of theory, unusual creativity, perception and insight, all suggesting that work should be published in an academic forum |
Demonstrates command of the topic through accurate application of theory, creativity, perception and insight. |
Demonstrates a well informed understanding of the topic by showing creativity and insight – a contribution to the academic debate |
Understanding of contemporary academic debate applied to practical skills, with some creative input and insight |
Descriptive while demonstrating reasonable understanding |
Limited/poor understanding demonstrated
Any creative input is some what off the point |
Non submission (0)
Non serious attempt e.g. answer irrelevant to set question or completely insufficient |
|
Content and Exploration of theories and ideas
|
Outstanding selection that makes a substantial contribution to academic debate within the field of applied skills
|
Outstanding selection from a wide relevant and innovative range of perspectives and sources, drawing on leading edge debates. |
Selection from a wide and relevant range of perspectives and sources that draws upon contemporary academic debate |
Relevant selection from a good and relevant range of perspectives and sources
Sources mostly well-integrated into the overall argument |
Relevant but not wide selection from a reasonable range of sources |
Some/minimal relevant sources and limited topic coverage |
Non submission (0)
Non serious attempt e.g. answer irrelevant to set question or completely insufficient |
|
Analysis and
Synthesis
|
Outstanding use of source material
Excellent use of reflective insight that is of the highest academic quality |
Sources very well integrated into the overall skills analysis.
Clear, well structured reflection that is well crafted and cogent |
Sources integrated into the overall skills analysis
Clear, cogent and well-structured reflection |
Mostly clear, cogent and well-structured reflection. |
Sources sometimes properly integrated into reflective practice
Some tendencies towards a clear and cogent analysis |
Sources only occasionally/not at all integrated into the reflection
Some/minimal structure and analysis present |
Non submission (0)
Non serious attempt e.g. answer irrelevant to set question or completely insufficient |
|
Critical engagement and analysis
|
Critical distance and outstanding analysis of the skills observed, to a high degree of excellence |
Critical distance and outstanding analysis of the skills observed |
Critical distance and sound analysis of the skills observed. |
Demonstrates criticality and generally good analysis |
Some successful analysis with a tendency to accept the source material at face value |
Limited/poor analysis and criticality with reliance on limited sources |
Non submission (0)
Non serious attempt e.g. answer irrelevant to set question or completely insufficient
|
|
Technical skills and referencing
|
Referencing impeccable using appropriate conventions
No errors in grammar or spelling |
Referencing clear and accurate using appropriate conventions
Virtually no errors in grammar or spelling |
Referencing clear and accurate using appropriate conventions
Near perfect
Grammar and spelling, with only a few errors |
Referencing clear and mostly accurate using appropriate conventions
Good grammar and spelling with some errors |
References adequate but clearer and/or more references needed.
Reasonable grammar and spelling but with several notable errors |
References limited/inappropriate
Many errors in grammar and spelling, making it difficult or impossible to read |
Non submission (0)
Non serious attempt e.g. answer irrelevant to set question or completely insufficient |
