Assessment Details THIS IS A TWO PART ASSESSMENT CONSISTING OF THE DISSERTATION AND A FINAL PRESENTATION. 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: Date for Submission: 29 May 2017 (Monday) 12.00 noon (M’sia Time) 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. 1) 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. 1) 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. 1) 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. 1) Whether the dissertation has conclusions that relate to the objectives of the study, the literature and the primary data. 1) How well the dissertation is written up, quality of presentation, the use of English, the ease of reading etc. 1) 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 Criterion Comments Project Definition eg clarity of aim and objectives, understanding to be gained, any contribution to knowledge, explanation of context, feasibility, appropriateness Literature Review eg relevance to project, focus, breadth, choice of sources, criticality, logical development of themes, insightful analysis or synthesis, implications for the project (how does the literature review inform what happens in the project?) Methodology eg philosophy and approach, rationale for methods chosen and not chosen, description of methods (design of data collection, piloting, sampling, proposed analysis), links to the literature review (eg did the literature inform the choice of what questions to ask, how?), links to previous research, ethical considerations, limitations to validity and/or reliability Findings/Results eg transparency regarding data used, what was done with it, clarity and helpfulness of presentation of findings or results Analysis/Discussion eg critical interpretation findings/results, discussion with depth, synthesis or insight, especially in relation to relevant literature or previous research considered in the literature review Conclusions/Recommendations eg clarity, logical justification of conclusions/recommendations based upon findings/results, relevance to project aim, insightfulness and/or usefulness Document Structure, Clarity, Style eg informative abstract including methods and conclusions, overall logical structure clearly communicated, appropriate professional/academic style (eg Harvard system) Part Two Details : Poster Presentation do through powerpoint Date for Presentations: 29 May 2017 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 one the separate schedule in moodle. The poster should be on power point and uploaded to moodle before the presentation date. Content should reflect the following four areas: ⦁ Explain an area of the research that you found particular interesting or challenging, and critically explore why. ⦁ for example: this could be in relation to: ⦁ conducting the literature review and something of particular interest that you found, ⦁ it could be based on developing your methodology, ⦁ or it could be some aspect of your findings… these are some ideas of areas that you might want to discuss. ⦁ You could also talk about an area that you found particularly challenging, for example: ⦁ Doing a literature review, ⦁ Analysing data, ⦁ Linking data findings to your literature review, ⦁ Defining the research aim and objective. If you choose this option you will also need to discuss what actions you took to resolve the issue. ⦁ Identify particular personal skills that you have used in your dissertation and evidence how those skills have developed ⦁ As a result of completing your dissertation reflect upon skills that you still need to develop once leaving University, why you feel those skills will be important in your career and how you might go about continuing that personal learning and development. ⦁ Critically consider and demonstrate an understanding of reflective practice in self-development, and how you have applied it in this presentation Appropriate academic reference should be used through this poster presentation. The poster itself can be as creative as you wish to make it. 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