1
Contents
1 Welcome ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2 The sessions ................................................................................................................................. 4 3 The teaching team ....................................................................................................................... 4 4 The programme ........................................................................................................................... 5 Advanced Research Methods 1: Nature of Enquiry .................................................................. 5 Advanced Research Methods 2: Qualitative Methods
............................................................. 6 Advanced Research Methods 3: Quantitative Methods ............................................................ 7 5 Reading ......................................................................................................................................... 8 ARM 1 Nature of educational research ...................................................................................... 10 ARM 2 Qualitative methods ........................................................................................................ 10 ARM 3 Quantitative methods...................................................................................................... 11 6 Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 13 MPhil / PhD route ........................................................................................................................ 13 EdD or standalone modules ........................................................................................................ 13 Appendix 1: Presentation .................................................................................................................. 16 Appendix 2: Plagiarism ...................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix 3: Assessment Rubric ...................................................................................................... 20 Disclaimer: This handbook is intended as a guide for the use of students. It does not replace
the regulations published in the University Calendar. The University reserves the right to
modify or cancel any statement in the handbook and accepts no responsibility for any
consequences of such modification or cancellation. Copyright The University of Warwick.
2
1
WELCOME
Welcome to the Advanced Research Methods programme. ARM builds on your earlier
Foundation Research Methods module, or other introduction to research methods
programme, in order to help you develop a deeper analysis of the epistemological and
practical issues involved when carrying out your own research. ARM will provide you with
grounding in:
•
the key epistemological orientations to research, such as constructionism, interpretivism,
positivism, pragmatism and post modernism; the importance of research questions; the
idea of theory and generation of knowledge; positionality and reflexivity; the ethical and
other issues associated with educational research
•
methodological concerns such as abductive, inductive and deductive analysis; top down
versus bottom up approaches; claims to reliability, trustworthiness and validity;
generalisability and relatability
•
research design and particular methods of collecting and analysing data, for example
questionnaire surveys, interviewing, observation and related activities such as coding and
content analysis.
We are aware that you might want to dispute our ‘take’ on the research process and we
welcome that. You might also notice different emphases within colleagues' presentations
again this shows that there is not a simple formula that explains how research should be
done. In negotiating these different perspectives we would encourage you to take a flexible
attitude to research methodology rather than establish an entrenched position on, say, the
value of positivist against interpretivist research or division between quantitative and
qualitative methods. The ARM will help you do this but it is not a complete guide; it is a
springboard for an extended discussion to enable you to understand your place in a research
tradition. We have tried to cover the major difficulties and areas of tension but this is just the
start.
3
2
THE SESSIONS
17 October 2015
Introduction and the literature review; asking of questions in
your research
16 January 2016
The nature of, and construction, of knowledge
30 January 2016
Research ethics plus evaluation and combined methods
research
20 February
Survey research descriptive statistics and analysis of data
12 March
Case study design plus action research as case study
9 April
Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data
16 April
Further quantitative data analysis
21 May
Research Conference
28 May
Ethnography and participant observation
4 June
Review and presentations
We will try to stick to these dates but this is not always possible so do check the ARM web
site for changes
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ces/postgrads/pgr/arm/
3
THE TEACHING TEAM
The Research Degree Programme is led by Michael Hammond who will teach most of the
sessions with additional contributions from Leslie Francis and Clara Jorgensen. The
administration of the programme is carried out by Donna Jay in the Research Office. Please
feel free to contact us at any time:
Michael Hammond is best contacted via email at m.hammond@warwick.ac.uk
Donna Jay via email at Educationresearch@warwick.ac.uk or by phone on (02476 5) 24238
4
4
THE PROGRAMME
The ARM programme integrates the three modules which have traditionally been offered to
research students, if you are taking only one or two of these modules or you are following
the EdD programme you will want to know more about the modules and how they are
integrated into the ARM programme.
Advanced Research Methods 1: Nature of Enquiry
This part of the programme is about the philosophy and practice of educational research and
by the end of the module you will be able to:
•
develop understanding of the epistemological issues involved in constructing
educational research
•
develop understanding of the nature of theory and explanation in education
•
support formulation of research problems and questions
•
appreciate the need to match research questions to appropriate research
methods
•
develop understanding of the strengths of using ICT in educational research
•
understand the implications of relevant research methodologies and the ways
they are shaped in computer mediated research
•
explore the ethical principles on which research ethics are based
•
provide detailed examination of the ethical and legal dimensions of the
research process, including the skill of writing ethics approval submissions.
The sessions are:
17 October 2015
Introduction and the literature review; asking of questions in
your research
16 January 2016
The nature of, and construction, of knowledge
30 January 2016
Research ethics plus evaluation and combined methods
research
The following sessions are common to all three modules
21 May
Research Conference
4 June
Review and presentations
5
Advanced Research Methods 2: Qualitative Methods
This section of the programme is about so called qualitative methods and by the end of the
module you will be able to:
•
frame research questions and design research
•
appreciate and demonstrate a clear connection between research questions or
hypotheses and the tools required to address them
•
demonstrate the ability to apply methods of data collection including
interviews, observation and documentary analysis
•
understand and apply the concepts of generalisability, reliability, validity and
replicability from a variety of perspectives
•
undertake detailed examination of the ethical and legal dimensions of the
research process.
The sessions are:
12 March
Case study design / action research as case study
20 February
Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data
28 May
Ethnography and participant observation
These sessions are common to all three modules:
21 May
Research conference
4 June
Review and presentations
6
Advanced Research Methods 3: Quantitative Methods
This part of the programme is about so called quantitative methods and by the end of the
module you will:
•
be aware of the theoretical and methodological paradigms that underlie
quantitative educational research
•
have engaged in research design, including the design of appropriate
instruments and measures, with reference to key concepts such as reliability,
validity and generalisability
•
understand some key concepts in statistical testing, including different forms
of sampling, sampling error and potential biases in the interpretation of
research findings
•
be aware of the range of analytic techniques that can be applied to
quantitative data
•
have developed practical skills and competence in using the statistical
package SPSS for data description, analysis and interpretation
•
be aware of the potential of the internet as a research tool
•
use research methods in a critical fashion and apply knowledge to the
assessment of similar methods used by others.
The sessions are:
9 April
Survey research descriptive statistics and analysis of data
16 April
Further data analysis
These sessions are common to all three modules
21 May
Research Conference
4 June
Review and presentations
7
5
READING
In addition to taught sessions you may be expected to contribute to a research methods blog
and to access ARM online support material – these are available at:
The blog: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/voices/
ARM online:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ces/postgrads/pgr/arm/onlineguide/
Each session is supported by extensive reading list. If you are looking for an overview there
are a huge number of guides to educational and to social research. For example many of the
ideas covered in the ARM programme are discussed at further length in Hartas (2010).
Cohen et al. (2007) have produced a very well cited guide to educational research - this is
available in library as an electronic resource. [If you are unsure how to access this go to the
library catalogue and look for Research Methods in Education [electronic resource].
If you are looking at a more general guide to social research then both Punch (2005) and
Robson (2011) are popular guides. Punch has also written a guide to educational research
(Punch, 2009). This poses the wider questions as to whether educational research should be
considered as part of a wider family of social research or stands alone as a separate field of
inquiry. If you are interested in this wider view and need an aide memoire, and critical
commentary, on key concepts used within social research try Hammond and Wellington
(2013).
There are several specialist journals raising research questions and methodologies including:
International Journal of Social Research Methodology and Journal of Mixed Methods Research.
References
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education. London:
Routledge.
Hammond, M. and Wellington, J. (2013) Research Methods in Education: The key concepts.
London: Routledge.
Hartas, D. E. (2010) Educational Research and Inquiry Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
London: Continuum.
Punch, K. (2005) Introduction to Social Research. London: Sage.
Punch, K. (2009) Introduction to Research Methods in Education. London: Sage.
Robson, C. (2011) Real World Research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied
settings. London: Wiley.
8
Further online material
Finally the Open University has many very good open access resources for educational and
social research - albeit many are becoming tired and dated. Useful examples include:
Framing a PhD project:
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/postgraduate-study-skills-science-technologyor-mathematics/content-section-1.7.1
For approaches to observing children
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/professional-developmenteducation/introducing-observational-approaches-research-children-and-youngpeople/content-section-1
For questions of ontology; epistemology, positivism and interpretivism:
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/educational-technology-andpractice/educational-practice/engaging-educational-research/content-section-4
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/educational-technology-andpractice/educational-practice/engaging-educational-research/content-section-5.1
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/educational-technology-andpractice/educational-practice/engaging-educational-research/content-section-5.3
And for a unit on studying childhood:
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/childhood-youth/childhood-and-youthstudies/childhood/methods-studying-children-the-background
If you are looking for some background reading for individual modules then you might try:
9
ARM 1 Nature of educational research
Delanty, G. (2005) Social Science: Philosophical and Methodological Foundations (Second Edition),
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Delanty, G. and Strydom, P. (Eds.) (2003) Philosophies of Social Science, Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Fay, B. (1996) Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science, Oxford: Blackwell.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed
again, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, P. (2003) The Student’s Guide to Research Ethics, Maidenhead: OU Press.
Pring, R. (2004) Philosophy of Educational Research, London: Continuum.
Ruddock, J. and McIntyre, D. (Eds.) (1998) Challenges for Educational Research, London: Paul
Chapman.
Somekh, B. and Lewin, C. (2005) Research Methods in the Social Sciences, London: Sage.
Turner, S. and Roth, P. (2003) Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences Oxford:
Blackwell.
Whitty, G. (2006) Education(al) research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable?
British Educational Research Journal. 32 (2) 159-176.
ARM 2 Qualitative methods
Christensen, P. and James A. (Eds). (2008). Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Christensen P., Mikkelsen MR., Sick Johansen T., Harder H. (2011) Children, mobility, and
space: using gps and mobile phone technologies in ethnographic research, Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 5, 3, 227 - 246.
Cresswell, J. (2003) Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods, London:
Sage.
Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2004) Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hammersley, M and Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice, London:
Routledge.
10
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L.H. (2005) Analyzing Social settings: A guide to qualitative observation
and analysis, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
nd
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching (2 Edition). London: Sage.
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (Eds) (2003) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage Ch. 3-4.
Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Silverman, D. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: Sage.
Spradley, J.P. (1989) Participant Observation, New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Straus, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research – grounded theory procedures and
techniques, London: Sage.
ARM 3 Quantitative methods
Good introductory texts for those with limited experience with quantitative data are:
Connolly, P. (2007) Quantitative Data Analysis in Education: A critical introduction using SPSS.
London: Routledge.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS, London: Sage
publications.
There are several other texts that reinforce the core content of the module by providing
coverage of particular quantitative analyses and examples using SPSS. The single best
reference is by Andy Field (2009), but all the texts below have something to offer.
Argyrous, G. (2005) Statistics for Research: with a guide to SPSS, London: Sage publications.
Brace, N., Kemp, R. and Snelgar, R. (2006) SPSS for Psychologists, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics using SPSS (Third Edition). London: Sage publications.
(NB the second edition (2005) is still good and may be a cheaper option if you are looking to
buy a book).
Huizingh, E. (2007) Applied Statistics with SPSS, London: Sage.
Kinnear, P. and Gray, C. (2008) SPSS 16 Made Simple. Hove: Psychology Press.
Mitler, R., Acton, C., Fullerton, D. and Maltby, J. (2002) SPSS for Social Scientists,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
11
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
Windows, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Web Resources
Statistics for the Terrified: This is an interactive ‘book’, arranged in 13 ‘chapters’, which
covers many of the statistical techniques included in this module (see below). It is accessible
via all Warwick networked PCs.
Statistical Regression Methods in Educational Research (SRME): this is an online guide, go
to www.warwick.ac.uk/go/srme
12
6
ASSESSMENT
There are two types of assessment - one for those taking the MPhil/PhD route, the other
for those taking particular modules as part of an MA or the EdD.
MPhil / PhD route
Tackle the assignments below but in view of your other work and your ongoing work for
your upgrade paper keep the word length to 3,500 words. Take care over your assignment,
you must pass this assignment in order to progress to a further year of study. You will be given one
opportunity to re submit.
Assignment 1
Identify two or more papers associated with your research topic. Compare and
contrast the methodology and methods used by the researchers in these papers. Are
the conclusions reached in the papers supported by the data provided?
The date for submission of this assignment is 10 April 2016.
Assignment 2
Carry out a trial run or ‘pilot’ of one of the research ‘instruments’ you will use during
your research project (eg survey, interview schedule, observation schedule). Explain
the principles on which you designed this ‘instrument’ and the opportunities and
problems you foresaw. How did your instrument work in practice and how would you
amend it in the light of this experience. (Note we are expecting you to report on a trial
run not an extensive pilot).
The date for submission of this assignment is 28 August 2016.
EdD or standalone modules
If you are following a standalone module you will be expected to complete an assignment of
5,000 words for each module you are taking. A title is provided but you may wish to
negotiate a title for yourself with your tutor.
Assignment 1 (ARM 1): The nature and scope of educational research
Identify two or more papers associated with your research topic. Compare and
contrast the methodology and methods used by the researchers in these papers. Are
the conclusions reached in the papers supported by the data provided?
The date for submission of this assignment is 10 April 2016.
13
Assignment 2 (ARM 2): Advanced Research Methods: qualitative
methodology
Choose between
1. What are qualitative methods? Is the label qualitative meaningful or important?
What is a mixed methods approach?
2. Carry out a trial run or ‘pilot’ of one of the qualitative research ‘instruments’
you will use during your research project (eg interview, observation, focus group
schedule). Explain the principles on which you designed this ‘instrument’ and the
opportunities and problems you foresaw. How did your instrument work in
practice and how would you amend it in the light of this experience. (Note we are
not expecting you to report on a trial run not an extensive pilot).
The date for submission of this assignment is 28 August 2016.
Assignment 3 (ARM 3): Advanced Research Methods: quantitative
methodology
1. What are quantitative methods? Is the label quantitative meaningful or
important? What is a mixed methods approach?
2. Carry out a trial run or ‘pilot’ of one of the quantitative research ‘instruments’
you will use during your research project (eg survey, secondary data analysis).
Explain the principles on which you designed this ‘instrument’ and the
opportunities and problems you foresaw. How did your instrument work in
practice and how would you amend it in the light of this experience. (Note we are
not expecting you to report on a trial run not an extensive pilot).
The date for submission of this assignment is 28 August 2016.
Please:
•
Use Tabula to submit your essay.
•
All assignments must be submitted on or before the due date. In an emergency, you
may request an extensions but do so in advance; extensions will only be granted in
case of illness or serious personal problems. In the first instance contact your
programme leader.
14
•
Work submitted late without an extension will be accepted and marked, but a mark
of zero will be recorded. It will be at the discretion of the Examination Board
whether any other mark is awarded.
•
Assignments should be no more than 10% shorter or 10% longer than the word
limit.
•
If you are taking the EdD route then you need to achieve at least a grade B in these
assignments.
•
Follow presentation and other guidelines in the following three appendices.
15
APPENDIX 1:
PRESENTATION
Use language carefully and make sure your work is second read before submission. Use
headers consistently - you could use Styles to ensure you do this. Use Normal lay out (2.54
cm margins each side of the page) and 12 point 1.5 spaced font, select a font such as
Garamond or Times Roman ie a Serif font.
Make sure that any figures or tables are labelled. Use Styles and Labels so you can
automatically produce a table of contents (ToC) which can be automatically updated.
References and citations
Citations should be included in the text, and not as footnotes, for example in their study of
school leadership Harris et al (2010) argue ..... Or school leadership is a contested concept
(eg Day 2007, Harris 2010).
Use quotes sparingly and present them within the paragraph unless very long, for example:
As Bush says ‘leadership may be understood as ‘influence’ but this notion is neutral in that it
does not explain or recommend what goals or actions should be sought through this
process.’ (Bush, 2003:4). This suggests that.....
Try to avoid secondary references of the type Harris (cited in Bush, 2003) argues ...To get
round this find the original or if all else fails construct something like Bush drawing on a
wider literature argues that ...
For books:
Surname, Initial. (year) Title Upper Case and Italicised, Place: Publisher
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London, UK: Routledge.
Chapter in book
Reigeluth, C. M. and Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating
and improving design theories. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and
models – A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 633–652). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
For articles in journals
Author, Initial (year) Title lower case. Journal Italics, volume (number), page – page.
Rushby, N. and Seabrook, J. (2008) Understanding the past—Illuminating the future, British
Journal of Educational Technology, 39(2), 198–233.
16
Web references
If a web reference does not have a named author then name the organisation, however do
search for the author first. Some web references are undated if that is the case (n.d.) no date.
Give web references in full, for example.
JISC. (2003) Effective Use Of Virtual Learning Environments. Retrieved 1 November 1, 2010,
from http://www .jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/effective-use-of-VLEs
Note you do not need web addresses for paper based journals even if you have accessed the
journal online. Generally if they are paper based they have page numbers; online journals
tend not to organise articles by page numbers.
For more on referencing go to
www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/main/help/guidespublications/bib_cit/
17
APPENDIX 2:
PLAGIARISM
This covers the abuse of reading in written work presented for assessment. A widely
followed definition at Warwick describes plagiarism as:
the direct transcription, without acknowledgement, of passages, sentences or even
phrases from someone else's writing, whether published or not the presentation, as
your own, of material from a printed or other source with only a few changes in
wording the use of arguments (or parts of arguments) derived from other authors,
and the presentation of evidence taken from other authors without references.
There is, of course, a grey area where making use of secondary material comes close to
copying from it, but the problem can usually be avoided by acknowledging that a certain
writer holds similar views, and by writing your assignment without the book or direct
transcription from it open before you.
Heavy reliance on acknowledged sources does not constitute plagiarism but may be
considered bad scholarship and be marked accordingly, especially if the range of sources is
limited. All assignments are subject to electronic checking for plagiarism.
In practice, few students are deliberately dishonest and many cases of plagiarism arise from
bad scholarly practice. There is nothing wrong with using other people's ideas. Indeed, citing
other people's work shows that you have researched your topic and have used their thinking
to help formulate your own argument. Such an intelligent survey and synthesis of existing
views might, indeed, form the basis of your work. The important thing is to know what is
yours and what is not and to communicate this clearly to the reader. All quotations from
sources must therefore be acknowledged every time they occur by placing the words quoted
in inverted commas and providing the following details in brackets immediately after the
quotation: name of author(s), date and page number.
If you are unsure, check with the tutor who will be marking your work. If you are accused of
cheating or plagiarism it is strongly recommended that you seek the advice of your personal
tutor, the University’s Senior Tutor or the Education Officer of the Students’ Union.
A tutor who finds or suspects plagiarism in assessed work will report the matter to the
Director of the Institute. The Director will exercise discretion to pursue the matter with or
without reference to the Academic Registrar, in accordance with the University Procedure
referred to above.
Please ensure that you have not plagiarised in your assignment. It is not sufficient just to
attribute your source. In particular, you should check that you have used quotation marks
appropriately when you are quoting material directly from a source, and added a page
18
number after each piece of quoted text. Quotations taken from internet sites need also to be
properly referenced..
You should refer to the information provided for students in the Postgraduate Student
Guide, and also to the University Regulation on the Procedure to be followed in the event of
suspected Cheating (in Section 2 of the University Calendar which is available on Insite), for
further information.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/calendar/section2/regulations/cheating/
19
APPENDIX 3:
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
The rubric for the assessment of assignment covers:
•
comprehension of the subject matters (for example an understanding of
concepts such as interpretivism, literature review or methodologies such as
survey or case study
•
critique and analysis - in particular the ability to stand back and consider
strengths and weaknesses in both the literature and in the research methods
you are using or going to use. Analysis may also cover how you draw reading
together to reach overall conclusions
•
presentation.
Grade Boundaries
80+
An outstanding piece of work, showing total mastery of the subject-matter, with a highly
developed ability to analyse, synthesise and apply knowledge and concepts. All objectives of
the set work are covered, and there is evidence of critical reflection, originality of thought
and creativity. The work is free of errors with a very high level of technical competence.
Ideas are expressed with fluency.
70-79
An excellent piece of work, showing a high degree of mastery of the subject-matter, with a
very well-developed ability to analyse, synthesise and apply knowledge and concepts. All
major objectives of the set work are covered, and there is evidence of critical reflection. The
work is free of all but very minor errors, with a high level of technical competence. Ideas are
expressed with fluency.
60-69
A good piece of work, showing a sound and thorough grasp of the subject-matter, though
lacking in the breadth and depth required for a first-class mark. A good attempt at analysis,
synthesis and application of knowledge and concepts, but more limited in scope than that
required for a mark of 70+. Most objectives of the work set are covered and there is some
evidence of critical reflection. Work is generally technically competent. Ideas are expressed
with clarity, with minor exceptions.
20
50-59
A fair piece of work, showing a grasp of major elements of the subject-matter but possibly
with some gaps or areas of confusion. Only the basic requirements of the work set are
covered. The attempt at analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge and concepts is
superficial, with a heavy reliance on course materials. Work may contain some errors, and
technical competence is at a routine level only. Little critical reflection. Some confusion in
expression of ideas.
40-49
Not of a passable level for a postgraduate programme. A poor piece of work, showing some
familiarity with the subject-matter, but with major gaps and serious misconceptions. Only
some of the basic requirements of the work set are achieved. There is little or no attempt at
analysis, synthesis or application of knowledge, and a low level of technical competence,
with many errors. Inability to reflect critically on an argument or viewpoint. Ideas are poorly
expressed and structured.
Below 40
Work not of passable standard, with serious gaps in knowledge of the subject- matter, and
many areas of confusion. Few or none of the basic requirements of the work set are
achieved, and there is an inability to apply knowledge. Technical competence is poor, with
many serious errors. The level of expression and structure is very inadequate. The student
has failed to engage seriously with any of the subject-matter involved.
These are exemplified in more detail overleaf.
21
Grade Subject Knowledge Analysis and Critique Presentation A*/A (Mark of 80 or above = A*; 70 -­‐79 = A) Demonstrates a highly developed understanding of relevant concepts, theories and/or research methodologies. A wide range of relevant sources, which are well understood, are deployed to support arguments. Recognises the demands of the question providing a well-­‐ focused, relevant answer. Sets sources and viewpoints in a wide context and makes a comprehensive assessment of issues involved. Displays awareness of methodological and theoretical considerations. High levels of ability to analyse, synthesise and apply knowledge and concepts. Detailed examination of issues with reasons for conclusions clearly indicated. Persuasively argued with main issues convincingly evaluated. Some originality of thought and creativity. Material is very well-­‐
organised and the structure complements the content. A high level of written communication with very few errors of spelling, grammar and syntax. Mastery of referencing conventions with very few errors or omissions. Appropriate length. B (Mark of 60 -­‐ 69) Sound and thorough grasp of relevant concepts, theories and/or research methodologies although lacking in depth at some points. The work is supported by references to a good range of relevant sources which are used in a relevant way. Recognises the demands of the question providing a focused, relevant answer which brings out useful points and substantiates them. A good attempt at analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge and concepts. Appreciates main issues and able to make appropriate critical points. Perceptive commentary on evidence and materials used. Well-­‐structured work displaying attention to the logic and development of the piece. A clear written style. Spelling, grammar and syntax are generally good. Most features of the referencing system are used correctly. Appropriate length. C Mark of 50 -­‐ 59) Understanding of main concepts, theories and/or research methodologies is fair but lacks depth and/or breadth. There may be some gaps or areas of confusion. An adequate range of relevant source materials is used. Pass Mark 50 A generally satisfactory overall structure although it Although the demands of the question have may lack balance in parts or been recognised, only the basic fail to integrate some requirements are covered and ahere may be material. An adequate written some irrelevant material. style which is not impaired by The attempt at analysis, synthesis and the occasional errors of application of knowledge and concepts is spelling, grammar and/or competent but lacks depth and breadth. syntax. The recommended Sensible commentary on evidence and referencing system is used materials used though some points may be but with some errors and unsubstantiated. omissions. Control of length may be less secure. 22
Some evidence of reading but understanding of the D subject matter is limited. (Mark of 40 – The work displays major 49) gaps in knowledge, serious misconceptions and/or factual inaccuracies. E (Mark below 40) Few relevant sources used. Serious gaps and/or errors in knowledge and understanding indicate that the student has failed to engage seriously with the subject matter. Introduction of basic concepts and effort made to relate them to the demands of the question which have been only partially understood. Mainly descriptive with much irrelevance and unsubstantiated conclusions. No sustained analysis and an inability to apply knowledge and synthesise material. Uncritical exegesis. The question may have been ignored or badly misunderstood. Few or none of the basic requirements of the study have been achieved. Superficial treatment of the topic much of which is descriptive, irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Lacks appropriate critical or theoretical framework. Weak structure. Expression of ideas is sometimes confused or unclear. Communication may also be impaired by errors of spelling, grammar and/or syntax. Referencing marred by frequent errors and omissions. May exceed or fail to meet length requirements. Unstructured presentation, lacking coherence. Expression of ideas is poor. Communication may also be impaired by frequent errors of spelling, grammar and/or syntax. The recommended referencing system has not been mastered. Length requirements not met. 23