Week 8: Summative Task Guidelines

Module title: Research Design

Assessment Point: Summative assessment

Assessment task: Critique of Educational Research Methodologies and Methods

Word count limit: 4500 words

Submission deadline: Please consult the VLE.

Submission procedure: Please submit via the submission link on the VLE.

Extenuating circumstances
If you are experiencing unforeseen personal circumstances that are affecting your ability to submit
within the stipulated deadlines, you are required to communicate these issues to the Unicaf
Extenuating Circumstances team in the first instance, via [email protected],
for further information on how to make a personal circumstances application for consideration.

Personal circumstances requests may usually only be made within 5 working days of the original
deadline unless valid justification, along with appropriate evidence, exists to show that you could
not have reasonably communicated the issues any earlier. It is important to keep in mind that if the
claim is not upheld and you have not submitted by the deadline, the module shall be failed as a
result of no submission of the summative assessment.
Academic misconduct including plagiarism

………

……….

……….
By submitting your work you acknowledge that you have read and agree
with the above statements.

General Guidance

Your assignment should be word processed (handwritten assignments are not accepted), using
time new roman size 12 font, double spaced, with numbered pages and your student number
printed as a footer on every page.

The word limits stated for this assignment excludes the reference list at the end of the
assignment but includes all text in the main body of the assignment (including direct quotations,
in-text citations, footnotes, tables, diagrams and graphs).

Please be aware that exceeding the word count limit will affect the academic judgement of the
piece of work and may result in the award of a lower mark.

Appendices are not considered a supplement, and thus, will not be assessed as part of the
content of the assignment. As such, they will not contribute to the grade awarded, however it
may be appropriate to use an Appendices section for any material which is a useful reference
for the reader. Please note that appendices are not included in the word count.

References should come from secondary sources (e.g., journal articles, conference papers,
reports, etc.) and you can also utilise area specific textbooks. You must ensure that you use the
Harvard style of referencing.
Please indicate the word count length at the end of your assignment.

Marking and assessment

Your summative assessment is a Critique of Educational Research Methodologies and Methods

(4,500-word element) which will be graded out of 100.
 Learning outcomes assessed in this assessment

1.Critically analyse research methodologies and methods suited to educational research

2 Examine the ethical dimensions of research practice

3 Critically reflect upon the intellectual and physical resource implications of effective research
design

4 Critically explore the relevance of existing theory and evidence base to research design

Structure of the Research Design

Your work should include and cover the following sections/aspects and content (as shown and
stated in the table below). The specific percentage marks allocated to each section/aspect of
your work is stated below. Please also note that the Level 7 marking criteria (located towards
the end of this assessment brief) will also be used to reflect this overall grade. Please remember
that achievement and demonstration of learning outcomes is being assessed in this assessment.

Summative Assessment Rubric Available Marks

Criteria Explanation of Criteria 100/100
Focus of assignment, context and
Introduction and rationale rationale clearly defined 10

Depth of Thought & Show evidence of depth of thought

Presentation of Different in preparation, organization and 25
Research Methodologies clarity

Assignment shows engagement

with course readings and other
Description of Different
relevant literature and integrates
Research Methodologies & 25
this in an appropriate manner
Connection to Course Materials

Conclusions and Substantiated conclusions,

Implications implications and recommendations 20
 Cover Page, Table of
Contents, Page numbering,
Margins, Line spacing, Appendices
Presentation criteria
(if it is necessary), 10
Font consistency,
Separation of paragraphs.

Citations and reference list

Harvard reference guide according to
10
Harvard referencing guide.
 LJMU LEVEL 7 GRADING CRITERIA

Mark Performance
range characteristic Grading criteria

90-100 Exceptional • Exemplary attainment of all learning outcomes

Pass
• Demonstrates an outstanding synthesis of varied theoretical positions in
the analysis of key issues in the subject area

• Wide-ranging emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront

of the discipline
• Offers an exhaustive exploration of the literature and evidence-base
• The material covered is accurate and relevant
• The argument is highly sophisticated
• The standard of writing is refined
• No errors in the use of the specified referencing system

• Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.

80-89 Outstanding • Excellent attainment of all learning outcomes, with some met to an
Pass exemplary standard

• Demonstrates a comprehensive synthesis of varied theoretical positions

in the analysis of key issues in the subject area. Wide-ranging emphasis
on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• Extends far beyond expected levels of engagement with the literature
and evidence- base
• The material covered is accurate and relevant
• The argument is generally very astute
• The standard of writing is refined
 • No errors in the use of the specified referencing system

• Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.

70-79 Excellent • Excellent attainment of all learning outcomes

pass
• Demonstrates a thorough synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the
analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Strong emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the
discipline
• Thorough use the literature and evidence-base
• The material covered is accurate and relevant
• The argument is persuasive and there are very perceptive elements
• The standard of writing is refined
• No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
60-69 Good Pass • Good attainment of all learning outcomes
• Demonstrates detailed synthesis of varied theoretical positions in
the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Good emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront
of the discipline
• Good consideration of the literature and evidence-base that
develops from recommended readings
• The material covered is accurate and relevant
• The argument is persuasive
• The standard of writing is refined
• No errors in the use of the specified referencing system

50-59 Pass • Adequate attainment of all learning outcomes

• Demonstrates a limited, but sufficient, synthesis of varied
theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject
area
• Some emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront
of the discipline

• Sufficient consideration of the literature and evidence-base, but

little consideration beyond recommended readings
• The material covered is mostly accurate and relevant
• The argument is straightforward and relatively clear
• The standard of writing is well clear and readable, with some
sophisticated phrasing
• No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
40-49 Needs some • Meets most, but not all learning outcomes
improvement
• Demonstrates limited synthesis of varied theoretical positions in
the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Less than expected emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at
the forefront of the discipline
• Basic consideration of the literature and evidence-base, but
restricted to recommended readings
• Some inaccuracies or irrelevant materials that suggest confusion
and misunderstanding
• The argument is relatively clear, although some elements are
difficult to understand

• The standard of writing is well clear and readable, but overly

simplistic
• Minor errors in the use of the specified referencing system, but
meets key principles

30-39 Needs major • Approximately half the learning outcomes are met
improvement
• Demonstrates very little synthesis of varied theoretical positions
in the analysis of key issues in the subject area

• Little emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront

of the discipline
• Minor consideration of the literature and evidence-base, with
inadequate use of recommended reading and no exploration
outside that
• Some materials is accurate, but the amount of inaccurate or
irrelevant materials indicates insufficient understanding of key
concepts
• The argument is poorly defined and defended
20-29 Needs • Most learning outcomes are not met
significant
• Demonstrates no synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the
revision analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Little or no emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the
forefront of the discipline
• Superficial consideration of the literature and evidence-base
• There are major inaccuracies or significant amounts of irrelevant
material
• The argument is very weak
• The standard of writing is reasonable and there are very few
areas of confusion and/or errors in spelling/grammar

• Attempts to use of the specified referencing system. Meets key

principles, but there are systematic errors
• Good presentation that may include some organisational errors
and/or tendency not to conform to conventions of academic
presentation.
0-19 Needs • Does not meet any learning outcomes
substantial
• Demonstrates misunderstanding of varied theoretical positions
work in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• No emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of
the discipline
• No engagement with the literature and evidence-base
• The material covered is inaccurate or irrelevant
• The argument is incoherent
• Standard of writing is acceptable. The structure is reasonable,
but there are some areas of confusion and/or some errors in
spelling/grammar
• Attempts to use the specified referencing system, but there are
significant errors
• Acceptable presentation that may include some organisational
errors and a tendency not to conform to conventions of
academic presentation.