MED7366 Research in Practice Asesmnt No:2 Literature review and methodology
| Question # 49050 | Writing | 8 months ago |
|---|
| $50 |
|---|
Assessment Brief Details
Module Title: Research in Practice
Module Leader: Ellie Tomsett Credit Value: 20
Module Code: MED7366 Occurrence: A
Academic Year: 2023/4 Semester: S1
Assessment No.: 2
This Assessment accounts for 70% of the overall assessment for the module.
Assessment Title
Literature review and methodology
Core Task
For this written submission you are asked to complete a literature review of academic and industry literature relevant to the question you proposed in assignment 1 for this module. The literature review should demonstrate your awareness of your field of study and the current debates in your discipline, and a critical understanding of the key theoretical frameworks you are dealing with. Following the review of the existing academic and industry literature you will propose a methodology for a research project that would enable you to answer your question. You will need to consider research ethics/ risk assessments as relevant to your specific study.
Your written submission will include:
1)
A
literature review (approx. 2,000 words).
2) A proposed methodology which includes a justification of the approach (including strengths and weaknesses), explanation of how it builds on or is linked to existing studies in your area, and a discussion of all relevant ethical/risk assessment considerations (approx. 500 words).
The completed work should be attached to the coversheet and presented in word format (.doc or .docx). Submission is via the Moodle.
2500 words (+/- 10%)
Where to find additional guidance for this task
We will launch this assessment live in the class, where you can ask questions about the task, and extra guidance will be found on Moodle. Please also see the module leader for a tutorial to discuss your ideas before submission – they have weekly office hours you can book into.
Submission date
09/01/2024
Submission details
· Upload your assignment to the designated assignment submission point on Moodle by 3pm on the submission date, using the coversheet provided.
· Submit work in Word (.docx) format.
· Work submitted late is subject to penalties, which are set out in the academic regulations. If you think you might struggle to meet your assessment deadline you should read the University’s procedure for extenuating circumstances or speak to your Module Leader or Student Success Adviser.
· About cheating and plagiarism: You are reminded of the University regulations on cheating. Except where the assessment is group-based, the final piece of work which is submitted must be your own work. Close similarity between submissions is likely to lead to an investigation for cheating.
Feedback date
06/02/2024
Marking Criteria
Learning Outcomes: Critically evaluate current debates and problems in your chosen area of investigation (LO1). Demonstrate understanding of research and production practice methodologies, ethics and risk assessment issues in your chosen field (LO2). Choose and apply research and production practice methodologies to a chosen area of study. (LO3).
Criterion 1 (50%) Demonstrate critical engagement with current debates and problems in your area of research and practice.
0%-29%
30%-39%
40%-49%
50%-59%
60%-69%
70%-79%
80%-89%
90%-100%
No evidence of engagement with current debates within the student’s area of expertise within media.
Little evidence of engagement with current debates within the student’s area of expertise within media.
Cursory evidence of engagement with current debates within the student’s area of expertise within media.
Evidence of a developing critical understanding of current debates within the student’s area of expertise within media.
Evidence of a consistent critical understanding of current debates within the student’s area of expertise within media.
Evidence of a well-developed critical understanding of current debates within the student’s area of expertise within media.
Evidence of a sophisticated critical understanding of current debates within the student’s area of expertise within media.
Evidence of the highest level of critical understanding across research and professional practice agendas.
Word does not engage with any academic and industry literature - or has used inappropriate sources.
Work engages with insufficient any academic and industry literature - or has used inappropriate sources.
Work engages with some academic and industry literature but has used some inappropriate sources.
Work engages with a sufficient but limited amount of academic and industry literature. Sources are appropriate.
Work engages with a good amount of academic and industry literature. Sources are appropriate.
Work engages with a very good amount of academic and industry literature. Sources are appropriate and evidence high level research skills.
Work engages with an excellent amount of academic and industry literature. Sources are appropriate and evidence excellent research skills.
Work engages with an excellent amount of academic and industry literature. Sources are appropriate and evidence rigorous research skills.
No analysis of literature attempted.
Work is descriptive and there is no analysis of literature.
Work is too descriptive and does not evidence sufficient analysis of the literature.
Work evidences sufficient but limited analysis of the literature.
Work evidences a good level of analysis of the literature.
Work evidences a very good level of analysis of the literature.
Work evidences an excellent level of analysis of the literature.
Work evidences a sophisticated and rigorous level of analysis of the literature.
Criterion 2 (50%): Demonstrate
understanding of methodological and ethical aspects of media research and
practice
0%-29%
30%-39%
40%-49%
50%-59%
60%-69%
70%-79%
80%-89%
90%-100%
No evidence of appropriate understanding of research/ production methods.
Little evidence of appropriate understanding of research/ production methods.
Cursory evidence of appropriate understanding of research/ production methods. At times this is unfocused and inconsistent.
Adequate and appropriate evidence of understanding research/production methods.
Clear and consistent understanding of research/production methods.
A mature and rigorous understanding of research/ production methods.
A sophisticated and systematic understanding of research/production methods.
A sophisticated and systematic understanding of research/production methods and offers valid, original perspectives.
No engagement with methods literature.
Inappropriate or insufficient engagement with methods literature.
A very basic level of engagement with methods literature.
An appropriate level of engagement with methods literature is present but with room for more depth and clarity.
A good level of engagement with methods literature is present and sources are highly relevant.
A significant and rigorous level of engagement with highly relevant methods literature.
A significant and rigorous level of engagement with highly relevant methods literature handled in a sophisticated manner.
A significant and rigorous level of engagement with highly relevant methods literature which evidences extensive exploration of existing studies in the field.
No evidence of awareness of relevant research ethics and/or risks/current health and safety laws as it relates to the work.
Little evidence of awareness of relevant research ethics and/or risks/current health and safety laws as it relates to the work.
Very basic evidence of awareness of relevant research ethics and/or risks/current health and safety laws as it relates to the work.
Evidence of a developing critical understanding of relevant research ethics and/or risks/current health and safety laws as it relates to the work.
Evidence of a convincing critical understanding of relevant research ethics and/or risks/current health and safety laws as it relates to the work.
Evidence of a rigorous approach to research ethics and/or risks/current health and safety laws which has informed the methodology.
Evidence of a detailed and sustained understanding of research ethics and/or risks/current health and safety laws.
Evidence of a detailed understanding of research ethics and/or risks/current health and safety legislation commensurate with high level academic/professional practice attributes.
Re-submission Assessment Brief
(ONLY required if you fail the
Assessment Brief above)
You should contact your Module Tutor before attempting this re-submission Assessment Brief
Assessment Title
Literature review and methodology
Core Task
For this written submission you are asked to complete a literature review of academic and industry literature relevant to the question you proposed in assignment 1 for this module. The literature review should demonstrate your awareness of your field of study and the current debates in your discipline, and a critical understanding of the key theoretical frameworks you are dealing with. Following the review of the existing academic and industry literature you will propose a methodology for a research project that would enable you to answer your question. You will need to consider research ethics/ risk assessments as relevant to your specific study.
Your written submission will include:
1)
A
literature review (approx. 2,000 words).
2) A proposed methodology which includes a justification of the approach, explanation of how it builds on or is linked to existing studies in your area, and a discussion of all relevant ethical/risk assessment considerations (approx. 500 words).
The completed work should be attached to the coversheet and presented in word format (.doc or .docx). Submission is via the Moodle.
2500 words (+/- 10%)
Where to find additional guidance for this task
Please refer to the resources on Moodle as well as the feedback you received on any failed attempts.
Re-Submission date: 18/07/2024
Re-Submission details
· Upload your assignment to the designated assignment submission point on Moodle by 3pm on the submission date, using the coversheet provided.
· Submit work in Word (.docx) format.
· About cheating and plagiarism: You are reminded of the University regulations on cheating. Except where the assessment is group-based, the final piece of work which is submitted must be your own work. Close similarity between submissions is likely to lead to an investigation for cheating.
Feedback date: 15/08/2024
Attachments:
