July 2023 v3

Faculty of Science and Technology - Department of Design and Engineering

Unit Title: Research Methods
Assessment Title: Research Proposal for Masters Project (Jan. 24 Intake)
Unit Level: 7 Assessment Number: 1 of 1
Credit Value of Unit: 20 Date Issued: 22/10/2024
Marker(s): Kyungjoo (KJ) Cha Submission Due Date: 06/12/2024 Time: 12.30pm
Quality Assessor: Bryce Dyer Submission Location: Turnitin

Feedback method: Brightspace

This is an individual/group assignment which carries 100% of the final unit mark

ASSESSMENT TASK
Produce a Research Proposal which details the exact nature of your Individual Masters Project. The
proposal should:
 Justify the selection of study area and initial questions/hypothesis by the inclusion of a
literature review of your selected topic area from which you should demonstrate you have
derived your initial research question(s) or hypothesis.
 Identify, and justify the selection of, the methodology and methods
 Include a time schedule showing tasks and their outcomes.
 Consider the range and significance of research ethics

SUBMISSION FORMAT
Research Proposal 3,000 words (maximum, not including references). Electronic format only.

MARKING CRITERIA
Generic assessment criteria adapted for specific subjects / assessment types will be used to assess
the assignment as follows:

Criteria 1 Range of appropriate sources used and correctly referenced 15%

Criteria 2 Critical evaluation of the literature 30%
Criteria 3 Selection and critical evaluation of methodology and methods 35%
Criteria 4 Formulation of appropriate research question/hypothesis derived from literature 10%
Criteria 5 Clear structure and presentation 10%

LEARNING OUTCOMES
This assignment tests your ability to:
1. Identify appropriate sources of information and evaluate them critically in terms of reliability and
relevance to a particular topic;
2. Distil, summarise and critically analyse research findings from a variety of sources, identifying
areas of concord and conflict, resolving different perspectives to form a rounded view of a topic;
3. Formulate and present proposals for projects underpinned by relevant research literature;
4. Demonstrate critical understanding of methodology, research planning, and experiment design
and analysis techniques;
5. Demonstrate effective dissemination of research findings to professional and academic
standards.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BRIEF

Please contact me ([email protected]) from unit discussion board located on Brightspace:
https://brightspace.bournemouth.ac.uk/d2l/le/342674/discussions/List
Signature Marker
Kyungjoo (KJ) Cha

Page 1 of 4
 July 2023 v3

HELP AND SUPPORT

 If a piece of coursework is not submitted by the required deadline, the following will apply:
1. If coursework is submitted within 72 hours after the deadline, the maximum mark that can be
awarded is 50%. If the assessment achieves a pass mark and is subject to the overall
performance of the unit and the student’s profile for the level, it will be accepted by the
Assessment Board as the reassessment piece. This ruling will apply to written coursework
and artefacts only; This ruling will apply to the first attempt only (including any subsequent
attempt taken as a first attempt due to exceptional circumstances).
2. If a first attempt coursework is submitted more than 72 hours after the deadline, a mark of
zero (0%) will be awarded.
3. Failure to submit/complete any other types of coursework (which includes resubmission of
coursework without exceptional circumstances) by the required deadline will result in a mark
of zero (0%) being awarded.
The Standard Assessment Regulations can be found on Brightspace.
 If you have any valid exceptional circumstances which mean that you cannot meet an
assignment submission deadline and wish to request an extension, you will need to complete
and submit the Extension Request Form and submit with appropriate supporting evidence (e.g.,
GP note) before the coursework deadline.
 You can find further details on the procedure and the exceptional circumstances form on the
BU website at Exceptional Circumstances | Bournemouth University. You must log in to myHub
to complete and submit your extension request.
 Please ensure that you read these documents carefully before submitting anything for
consideration. For further guidance on exceptional circumstances, please contact your
Programme Leader or your Programme Support Officer (based in C114).
 You must acknowledge your source every time you refer to others’ work using the BU Harvard
Referencing system (Author-Date Method). Failure to do so amounts to plagiarism which is
against University regulations. Please refer to http://libguides.bournemouth.ac.uk/bu-referencing-
harvard-style for the University’s guide to citation in the Harvard style. Also, be aware of Self-
plagiarism; this primarily occurs when a student submits a piece of work to fulfil the assessment
requirement for a particular unit and all or part of the content has been previously submitted by
that student for formal assessment on the same/a different unit. You can find further information
on academic offences on Brightspace and from
https://www1.bournemouth.ac.uk/discover/library/using-library/how-guides/how-avoid-academic-
offences
 Students with Additional Learning Needs may contact Learning Support on
www.bournemouth.ac.uk/als
 You should not be conducting any primary research (i.e. carrying out an investigation to acquire
data first-hand, for example, where it involves approaching participants to ask questions or to
participate in surveys, questionnaires, interviews, observations, focus groups, etc.) unless
otherwise specified in the brief. However, if there is a genuine requirement to collect primary
research data, you will require ethical approval. In the first instance, please discuss this with the
Unit Leader. The collection of primary data without appropriate ethical approval is a serious
breach of Bournemouth University’s Research Ethics Code of Practice and will be treated as
Research Misconduct.
 If you have any problems submitting your assignments, please contact the IT Service Desk -
+44(0)1202 965515 - immediately and before the deadline.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this assignment brief is correct at the time of publication. In
the unlikely event that any changes are deemed necessary, they will be communicated clearly via e-
mail and Brightspace, and a new version of this assignment brief will be circulated.

Page 2 of 4
 July 2023 v3

Appendix – Assessment marking rubric

Marking Weighting Fail – Pass - Merit- Distinction -

Criteria (%) Unsatisfactory (0-49) Good (50-59) Very Good (60-69) Excellent (70-100)
a. Sources are appropriate to a. Sources are appropriate to
Range of a. Sources used are not the Proposal, but only covers the Proposal and covers most a. A comprehensive range of
appropriate appropriate. the principal aspects of the of the proposal context relevant sources have been
sources used and 15 b. Sources do not relate to the problem. b. A wide range of relevant used to justify the proposal
correctly principal aspects of the b. A good range of relevant sources have been used to throughout.
referenced proposal. sources have been used to justify the problem. b. Correctly referenced
justify the project. c. Correctly referenced

Learner shows limited

Learner shows capability to Reasonably thorough critical
capability to critically review Thorough critical review with
Critical Evaluation critically review, but has gaps review with some emphasis
30 and has limited or no major emphasis on relevance
of the literature in coverage and/or lacks on relevance to the research
evidence to support the to the research question.
focus in discussion. question.
discussion.

a. Sound description of the a. Description of research a. Methods followed is

a. Reader left unclear as to the research methodology but methodology is very good. excellently described. Choice
Selection and research methodology with little justification. b. Choice of methodology of methodology justified with
critical evaluation adopted. b. Detail offered is adequate to justified. some consideration of
35
of methodology b. Detail is inadequate and few allow reader to follow the c. Easy to follow with alternatives.
and methods methods justified. research methods appropriate levels of method b. Easy to follow with a good
c. A good selection of decisions detail. Most decisions are level of detail.
justified justified. c. Main decisions fully justified
a. Research question or
a. Research question or a. Research question or hypothesis justification is a. Research question or
hypothesis justification is hypothesis justification is clear and covers most of the hypothesis justification is clear
Formulation of limited, not covering the clear, but only covers the research need sub- and focussed.
appropriate principal aspects of the principal aspects of the components. b. A comprehensive range of
research research need. research need. b. A wide range of relevant relevant sources have been
question/ b. A limited range of sources b. A good range of relevant sources and arguments have used to justify the research
10
hypothesis have been used which do not sources and arguments have been used to justify the question or hypothesis
derived from fully justify the research been used to justify the research question or justification.
literature question or hypothesis research question or hypothesis justification. c. Fully aligned with the
project. hypothesis. c. Fully aligned with the Programme area
c. Not aligned with the c. Aligned with the Programme Programme area d. Completely achievable within
Programme area area d. Achievable within the project the project timeframe
timeframe

Page 3 of 4
 July 2023 v3

a. Writing style is acceptable, a. Writing style is excellent,

providing understandable a. Writing style is good, providing very easy to read
a. Writing style is not helpful in content. Use of English is providing easy to read and and understandable content.
understanding the content largely appropriate. understandable content. Use Use of English is excellent
b. Formatting is erroneous or b. Contains a good number of of English is largely good. b. Formatting is consistent, error
inconsistent. errors and inconsistencies in b. There are some errors and free and impressive.
Clear structure c. Inappropriate appendices formatting. inconsistencies in formatting. c. Appendices are relevant,
and presentation 10 have been included. c. Appendices are included but c. Appendices are included but appropriate and clearly
d. There are major errors in their purpose is often not their purpose is not always presented.
referencing both in the text clear or relevant. clear or relevant. d. The Harvard citation practices
and within the reference list. d. Harvard citation practices a. Harvard citation practices have been adhered to without
e. A non-approved referencing have been adhered to but have been adhered to but any errors.
system was used. there are a good number of there are some errors, either e. All references cited in the text
errors, either in the text or in the text or reference list. are included in the reference
reference list. list.

Page 4 of 4