Order this Assignment Now: £249 VALID THRU: 06-May-2024
Select and critically analyse appropriate sources of information and data
Research Methods and Professional Skills 7ET022 ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Semester 2
2021- 2022
The price quoted is for the complete assessment of 6000 words ready for the final submission
Assessment Brief
Module
7ET022 Research Methods and Professional Skills:
Module Leader
Semester
2
Year
2022-21
Assessment Number
1 of 1
% of module mark
100%
Due Date
Word Count
6000 words
Pass mark
50%
Method of retrieval
Resubmission of the entire portfolio
Feedback
Feedback will be available on CANVAS in four working weeks of hand -in
Learning Outcomes:
1) Learning Outcome 1: Students will be able to: Select and critically analyse appropriate sources of information and data
2) Learning Outcome 2: Students will be able to: Advance their personal and professional knowledge and understanding of research and professional skills
3) Learning Outcome 3: Students will be able to: Develop advanced analytical competence at PG level of study
4) Learning Outcome 4: Students will be able to: Evidence their knowledge through the development and presentation of a coherent research and experimentation proposal that will address open-ended questions associated with new and advancing theory/practice.
Marking Criteria:
To achieve the highest percentage students must produce a word-processed report (in the correct format) expressing highly competent understanding and synthesis of a body of knowledge relevant to the topic. The portfolio must be accompanied by a relevant, correctly referenced source of materials to indicate additional research. See subsequent pages of Assessment Brief for task-specific marking criteria.
The minimum pass mark for this component is 50%.
Assignment handed out:
On Canvas
Latest date for submission:
Assignments submitted after the deadline and without an authorised extension of time will be attract penalty
You should clarify what sources of information have been used; where material/information from these sources is quoted, it must be clearly referenced using the Harvard Referencing System (Details can be obtained from Learning Centres).
Introduction to the assessment
A critical review of academic publication in the form of a literature review paper
Research Methods and Professional Skills 7ET022
Brief Using as wide a variety of information sources as possible (i.e. refereed journals, books, conference proceedings, construction press, governmental reports, web search engines, CD ROM etc.) present a 6000- word maximum (excluding references and bibliography) research paper based on a critical literaturereview of a subject relevant to your award (MSc Civil Engineering, MSC Civil Engineering Management, MScBuilding Information Modelling for Integrated Construction, MSc Construction Project Management, MSc Demolition Management, MSc Offsite Housing Construction & PPP, MSc Oil and Gas, MSc Digital Quantity Surveying and MSc Programme and Project Management).
Your paper must be presented in the format of an academic paper. The format/template for the paper is attached. Your list of references cited should be provided at the end of the paper. All references should bepresented using the Harvard format of referencing (see canvas/modules for relevant resources).
Your paper must contain at least 20-25 different literature sources (e.g. books, reports, conference, journals, peer-reviewed websites etc.) including at least 10 most recently (2015 to 2022) published journal papers
Your paper should be appropriately entitled, e.g.:
“A holistic review of xxxxxxxxx literature published between xxxx and xxxx (For example 2015 – 2022) ” “A systematic review of current and emerging digital technologies in the construction sector.”
“A Scientomtric analysis of the relationship between lean construction and productivity” “An evaluation of problem confronting housing shortage in the UK and the way forward”
“A state of the art review of offsite construction adoption in developed and developing countries” “A critical review of xxxxxxxxxxx about xxxxxx” Select and critically analyse appropriate sources of information and data
In your critical review, you should demonstrate conflicts or consistencies in the literature and identify possible knowledge gaps and opportunities for further research systematically.
Mandatory Sections/Structure
Your article must have the following sections with appropriate content and word count. Each section is mandatory and carries marks. Please see this article for help while writing the sections below: https://depts.washington.edu/owrc/Handouts/How%20to%20Structure%20and%20Organize%20Your%20Paper.pdf
1
Abstract (250 words) 5%
State the general research aim, measurable objective[s] and hypotheses [if appropriate], and explain why they are essential in the research context.
2
Introduction (1000 words) 10%
Most academic introductions follow an ‘inverted pyramid’ structure: they start broad and narrow down to a specific thesis or research question. The introduction should reveal some broad knowledge of the overall topic and quickly focus on the paper’s central point. It should also show the relationship to previous study and the initial gap.
3
Literature Review (2000 words) 20%
A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context. This section should provide a critical assessment of the sources (literature) you have gathered and read surrounding your subject area, and then identify a “gap” in that literature that your research will attempt to address.
4
Research Design /Methodology (1000 words) 15%
Considering the “gap” identified through literature review. Develop the research aim and objectives. Explain, and justify, the proposed research method(s) [linked to your research objectives]: nature of data required, collection methods, method of analysis etc. Due to ethical issues all data must be secondary data.
5
Data analysis and Discussion (1000 words) 25%
Discuss the main findings from your literature review and research methodology. It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and research questions, and making an argument in support of youroverall conclusion.
6
Practical Implications / Recommendation s (250 words) 5%
Explain the expected beneficiaries of your research from industry and academia, applications of your work and the restraints and limitations e.g. COVID, access to data, data analysis, ethical / safety considerations. The writer might also present recommendations for future study.
7
Conclusion (250 words) 5%
Your conclusion should: Give a general overview of the important contributions of your work – Make it absolutely clear for your readers the original contributions of your work and where they are situated with respect to the rest of your research field.
8
Research Program(Image only) 5%
Insert here a bar chart which indicates: principal activities to be conducted and milestone dates, e.g. start dates, milestones, and submission deadlines.
9
Reflective summary(250 words) 5%
Based upon the literature review, data collection/analysis and discussion sections above, you need to think of the processes, stages, challenges and hurdles you went through to achieve the learning outcomes and how you achieved them. This can be presented in the form of text (Use either Gibbs, Moon or Kolb’s Model) and you can attach a picture/graphic (for step-wise structure) as well if needed. This can be written using 1st person pronouns like I and me etc.
11
References 5% (Noword limit)
(Provide a list of references of material, cited in this proposal, using the ‘Harvard’ referencing system –References to other publications must be in Harvard style and carefully checked for completeness, accuracy and consistency.
Formatting details for academic publication Research Methods and Professional Skills 7ET022 Please prepare your submission using the following guidelines:
Format
It should be provided in Microsoft Word format.
Article Title
A title of not more than 10 words should be provided.
Headings
Headings must be concise, with a clear indication of the distinction between the hierarchies of headings.
The preferred format is for first level headings to be presented in bold format and subsequent sub-headings to be presented in medium italics.
Figures
All Figures (charts, diagrams, line drawings, web pages/screenshots, and photographic images) should be submitted in electronic form.
All Figures should be of high quality, legible and numbered consecutively with Arabic numerals. Graphics may be supplied in colour to facilitate their appearance on the online database.
Tables
Tables should be typed and included in the main body of the paper. The position of each table should be clearly labelled in the body text of the paper.
Ensure that any superscripts or asterisks are shown next to the relevant items and have corresponding explanations displayed as footnotes to the table.
References
References to other publications must be in Harvard style and carefully checked for
completeness, accuracy and consistency. https://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills-for- learning/referencing/
Procedure for requesting extensions / mitigating circumstances
This is done via eVision. Further information can be found at http://www.wolvesunion.org/advice/academic/
Retrieval of Failure
Where a student fails a module (less than 40% for undergraduate modules, less than 50% for postgraduate modules) they have the right to attempt the failed assessment(s) once, at the next resit opportunity (usually July resit period). If a student fails assessment for a second time, they have a right torepeat the module.
NOTE: Students who do not take their resit at the next available RESIT opportunity will be required to repeat the module.
Cheating is an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by dishonest means and includes plagiarism and collusion. Cheating is a serious offence. You are advised to check the nature of each assessment. Youmust work individually unless it is a group assessment. Select and critically analyse appropriate sources of information and data
Cheating is defined as any attempt by a candidate to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment by dishonest means. It includes, e.g. all breaches of examination room rules, impersonating another candidate, falsifying data, and obtaining an examination paper in advance of its authorised release.
Plagiarism is defined as incorporating a significant amount of un-attributed direct quotation from, or un-attributed substantial paraphrasing of, the work of another.
Collusion occurs when two or more students collaborate to produce a piece of work to be submitted (in whole or part) for assessment and the work is presented as the work of one student alone. For further details see: http://www.wolvesunion.org/advice/academic/
Marking scheme
Level 7 (Masters Level)
90-100% Outstanding
This work is outstanding and is of a standard which could be submitted for publication in a professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic debate which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and a totally justified position. The work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current theory and/or practice and specific, focused examples of contestability. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
80-89% Excellent
The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for publication in a professional context. The work demonstrates engagement in an academic debate which presents clear evidence of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the approach adopted and the position taken. The work enhances current theory and/or practice and displays a range of examples of contestability. There is evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of theoretical models and/or practical applications has resulted in a distinct level of originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
70-79 Very good
There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the complexity of the context in which it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which current views are based and to challenge received opinion.Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
60-69%
Good
The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a comparative review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within a given professional context. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
50-59%
Competent
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive but has achieved all the learning outcomes.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
40-49%
Retrievable fail
Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address each of the outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles of the module to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered. There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to suggest that the participant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
30-39%
The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. There are fundamental misconceptions of the basis of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the author will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.
20-29%
This work shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is little reference to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought or criticality. Overall, the work is unduly descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the essential issues.
10-19%
This work is not coherent and shows severe faults in referencing, grammar or syntax. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It is unstructured and extremely badly presented. It is totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis.
0-9%
No real attempt to address assignment brief or learning outcomes.
Marking Criteria
80% to 100%
70% to 79%
60% to 69%
50% to 59%
40% to 50%
0% to 39%
Total Points
1. Abstract
An excellent abstract which introduces the research and provides a great summary of the whole research carried out.
Very good abstract which introduces the research and provides a great summary of the whole research carried out.
An appropriate abstract which introduces the research and provides a summary of the research carried to some extent
An appropriate abstract which attempts to introduce the research and provides a summary of the research carried to some extent
A poor abstract which attempts to introduce the research and provides a summary of the research carried to some extent with few components missing
A poor or no abstract which attempts to introduce the research and provides a summary of the research carried to some extent with many or all components missing
5
2. Introduction
An excellent discussion which introduces key players in the research area and enhances the reader’s understanding of the subject.
A very good discussion, which introduces key players in the research area and aids the reader’s understanding of the subject.
A good discussion, which introduces some of the key players in the research area, but does not always help the reader’s understanding of the subject.
A reasonable discussion, which introduces some of the key players in the research area, but does not help the reader’s understanding of the subject.
A poor discussion, which introduces very few of key players in the research area and does not help the reader’s understanding of the subject.
A poor discussion, which introduces very few of key players in the research area and does not help the reader’s understanding of the subject.
10
3. Literature Review
Literature Review and research evidence is excellent and enhances the reader’s understanding. Evidence of wide reading, correctly cited and referenced including recent research findings. Select and critically analyse appropriate sources of information and data
Literature Review and research evidence is mainly appropriate and specific and enhances the reader’s understanding.
Evidence of wide reading appropriately cited and referenced including some recent research findings.
Literature Review and research evidence is not always appropriate and specific and somewhat enhances the reader’s understanding. Evidence of sufficient background reading appropriately cited and referenced.
Literature Review and research evidence is barely appropriate and attempts to enhance the reader’s understanding. Some evidence of reading appropriately cited and referenced.
Literature Review and research evidence is not always appropriate and does not enhance the reader’s understanding. Some evidence of reading that is inaccurately cited and referenced.
Very little supporting evidence and not all appropriate. Very few (if any), references; inappropriately cited and referenced.
20
4. Research Design Methodology
Research methodology is highly appropriate for the research, justified and implemented appropriately
Research methodology is appropriate for the research, justified and implemented appropriately.
Research methodology is mainly appropriate for the research, partially justified and implemented appropriately.
Research methodology is appropriate for the research and implemented and/or justified appropriately.
Research methodology is explained, but not justified or implemented appropriately.
Research methodology not addressed correctly or absent.
15
5. Data Analysis
Excellent data selection, analysis and presentation. Appropriate methods and software used along with a relevant discussion around the theme.
Very good data selection, analysis and presentation.
Appropriate methods and software are used along with a good discussion
Appropriate data selection, analysis and presentation. Attempted to use proper methods and software used along with a relevant discussion
Some attempt for appropriate data selection, analysis and presentation. Methods and software used are satisfactory
Poor data selection, analysis and presentation. Methods and software used shows some understanding of the work
Some or NO attempt for appropriate data selection, analysis and presentation. Methods and software used are either missing or very poor
15
6. Discussion
A very thorough discussion which covers all sections around the topic in a detailed manner
A good discussion which covers almost all sections around the
Good discussion section which covers many sections around the topic to some
Work is presented in an appropriate manner. Main deliverables of the
Work is presented in a poorly organised manner. Some of the main deliverables are either
Poor report layout and style. The major deliverables are
10
and with the appropriate flow.
topic in a detailed manner. The flow is appropriate
extent. The flow is missing
project are clearly identified.
missing or incomplete.
poorly attempted or missing.
7. Practical Implications
An excellent, inclusive and realistic practical implications section. The recommendations are appropriate and thoughtful.
A very good and inclusive practical implications section. The recommendations are appropriate and thoughtful.
A good attempt to write an inclusive and practical implications section. The recommendations are appropriate and thoughtful to some extent
A satisfactory attempt to write inclusive and practical implications. The recommendations are somewhat appropriate and thoughtful to some extent
A poor attempt to write inclusive and practical implications related to the case study. The recommendations are somewhat appropriate and thoughtful to some extent
A poor or no attempt to write inclusive and practical implications related to the case study. The recommendations are either inappropriate or missing.
5
8. Conclusion
The conclusion is thorough and shows a full understanding of the research carried out.
Explains the relevance and significance of the work accurately. Summaries the main points and re-instates the main idea.
The conclusion is thorough and shows a full understanding of the research carried out. Explains the relevance and significance of the work appropriately. Attempts to summarise the main points and re-instates the main idea.
The conclusion is very good and shows an understanding of the research carried out.
Explains or attempts to explain the relevance and significance of the work as well
A reasonable conclusion, which shows an understanding of the research carried out, the relevance and significance of the research is missing
A poor conclusion, which barely shows an understanding of the research area and fails to explain the significance and relevance of the research
A poor conclusion or no conclusion at all, which shows an attempt to the understanding of the research area but fails to explain the significance and relevance of the research completely
5
9. Research Program
Evidence of very well thought out project plan, including quality standards and major milestones and deadlines
Evidence of well thought out and mostly complete project plan that needs minor adjustments to quality standards and timeline and milestones
Good project planning that needs some adjustments to quality standards and milestones and timeline
Adequate project planning that needs some significant adjustments to quality standards and milestones and timeline
Weak project planning that needs some major adjustments to quality standards and milestones and timeline
Weak or missing project planning that needs complete readjustments to quality standards and milestones and timeline
5
10. Reflective Commentary
An excellent reflective commentary which follows one of the recommended commentary styles and covers all required points.
A very good reflective commentary which follows one of the recommended commentary styles and covers major points.
Good reflective commentary. Follows some commentary style and mentions some required points.
Fair reflective commentary. Doesn’t follow any mentioned style and/or lacks appropriate evidence
Poor reflective commentary. Doesn’t follow any mentioned style and/or lacks appropriate evidence
No reflective commentary.
5
11.References
Evidence of broad reading correctly cited and referenced using Harvard Style
Good evidence of reading and appropriate referencing using Harvard Style
Evidence of good background reading appropriately cited and referenced. Many issues with Harvard Referencing
Some evidence of reading appropriately cited and referenced. Significant issues with Harvard Referencing or completely missing
Some evidence of reading that is inaccurately cited and referenced. Significant issues with Harvard Referencing or completely missing
Very few (if any), references; inappropriately cited and referenced. Major issues with Harvard Referencing or completely missing
5
Research Methods and Professional Skills 7ET022
Order this Assignment Now:£249
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions
