Submission details
For this assignment, you are required to submit:
• a research proposal as a Word (or similar) or PDF file.
Please refer to the assignment guidance in the assignment area of the module for further guidance on the file types accepted by Turnitin.
© University College of Estate Management 2019 Page 2 of 9
Learning outcomes
Code
Description
LO1
Identify a specific industry problem and to select appropriate research methodology in order to report upon the research topic.
LO3
Conduct an applied research project effectively, deploying techniques of analysis and enquiry; project, time and problem management; theory, specialist knowledge, skills and experience.
Task
You are required to submit a research proposal for your project.
Your research proposal will constitute:
a. an introduction outlining reasons for selecting the topic, the research question, hypothesis or data used to generate a theory, together with your research objectives.
b. a preliminary literature review chapter that focusses on key writers and critically evaluates theories and academic and/or professional texts identified for an initial literature review. A bibliography should also be provided that reflects not only material consulted but also indicates the sources identified for further reading.
c. an initial draft of the research methodology chapter discussing the proposed methodology, any data sources to be utilised, supported by reference to research methods texts, possible ethical considerations and an outline Project Plan.
Your proposal should include the following elements:
Introduction: Justification, Hypothesis and Objectives (approximate word count: 500 words)
• the background/introduction to your topic (including case study brief where appropriate);
• the reasons why you selected the topic (including stating the research problem);
• your research objectives/questions.
Literature Review (approximate word count: 1,200 words excluding References and Bibliography)
• your preliminary literature review, including theoretical framework, bibliography and references.
Research Methodology (approximate word count 800 words excluding the Project Plan and Research Ethics Checklist)
• your proposed research methodology, including a brief discussion of the ethical issues involved in your proposed research;
• a Project Plan;
• Research Ethics Checklist.
© University College of Estate Management 2019 Page 3 of 9
Weighting
This assessment is worth 25% of the marks for this module.
Your research proposal must:
• be written in an appropriate academic style using references to support statements of fact;
• be appropriately and thoroughly referenced;
• include your proposed Project title;
• state total number of words used (see ‘Word count and overwriting’ below).
© University College of Estate Management 2019 Page 4 of 9
Marking criteria
Marking guidance for students
This guidance is designed to help you to do as well as possible in your assessments by explaining how the person marking your work will be judging it. This should ensure you are aware of what they are looking for when you prepare your assessment. When you receive feedback on your assessment, the guide should also help you to see where you gained marks and how you could have improved your mark.
Every assessment will have a brief. In the brief you will be told what you have to produce. The assessment criteria marking criteria guide should be read alongside the assessment brief.
The assessment criteria marking guide will enable you to make judgments about how you should approach this assessment at this academic level.
It is recommended that you read the assessment criteria marking guide before attempting each assessment and keep in mind what will help you to achieve the highest marks as you work on the assessment. Once you have finished you should review the assessment before submitting it, to check you have done what is required to achieve the highest marks to the best of your ability.
When you receive your feedback from your tutor you should clearly be able to see which categories you lost/gained marks in. The feedback should provide you with more detail on the extent to which you have achieved each of the criteria, as well as with recommendations about how to improve your performance going forward (where relevant).
Further information to support you with this assignment is available within the study materials for this module on the UCEM VLE. If you have any questions about this assignment, please contact your Module Tutor or Module Leader via the VLE.
© University College of Estate Management 2019 Page 5 of 9
PROJECT
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
MARKING GUIDE
Weight-ing %
Marking
1. COMMUNICATION
STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENT, PRESEN-TATION, GRAMMAR, BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCING
20
0–3
4–7
8–9
10–11
12–13
14–15
16–20
No structure beyond loosely connected list of points.
Illogical flow of ideas.
No evidence of argument or substantive conclusion.
Argument is largely unstructured, without a clear logical flow of ideas, presents little argument and cursory conclusion.
A rather weak argument that has some structure and logical flow of ideas and development towards conclusion with limitations in summary of issues.
Structured mainly with logical flow of ideas, fairly convincing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues.
Well-structured with logical flow, sound argument, Insightful conclusion that draws together key issues that may suggest possibilities for future work.
Argument has excellent structure, persuasive, a logical flow of ideas leading to significant insights that suggest possibilities for future work.
Outstanding structure, with a logical flow of ideas, compelling and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field provides direction for future work.
No attempt to present work in acceptable format.
Little or no use of appropriate visual aids.
Presentation hinders communication of key themes, information or ideas.
Weak Use of visual aids.
Adequate presentation though perhaps lacks clarity and precision of communication.
Poorly organized and presented and perhaps difficult to understand. Some use of appropriate visual aids.
Presentation satisfactory, including the use of some appropriate visual aids.
Impressive presentation, fully conveys information and extent of analysis harnessing appropriate visual aids.
Impressive presentation, fully conveys information and analysis harnessing appropriate visual aids.
Very impressive professional presentation, fully conveys information and analysis harnessing exceptionally well chosen high quality visual aids.
Almost complete lack of comprehension with minimal argument / information understandable due to very poor use of language. Assignment incomprehensible due to level of spelling, grammar and syntax.
Significant errors in punctuation, words selecting spelling, sentence construction, making arguments difficult to understand. Coherence and structure of argument is obscured due to poor use of language.
A number of errors in punctuation, selection of words, spelling and sentence construction, many significant, obscuring meaning of text.
Generally sound punctuation, selection of words, spelling and sentence construction, with some minor errors and oversights.
Sound punctuation, selection of words, spelling and sentence construction.
Expert selection of words and impeccable sentence construction, sound spelling and punctuation.
Expert selection of words and impeccable sentence construction, faultless spelling and punctuation.
No, or virtually no bibliography.
Inadequate bibliography for an extended piece of research evidencing engagement with too few appropriate texts.
Slightly weak bibliography evidencing inconsistent engagement with appropriate texts.
Sound bibliography evidencing engagement with a number of appropriate texts.
Very strong bibliography, including key up to date texts from the literature, and research methods texts. May also show engagement with theory.
Extensive bibliography drawing on up to date research and a wide range of research methods texts.
Extensive bibliography drawing on the most up to date research, theory, and a wide range of research methods texts. May also show engagement with interdisciplinary texts.
No or virtually no referencing.
Characterised by constant referencing inconsistencies.
Some referencing inconsistencies, but most sources correctly cited using the specified referencing system.
Many key sources cited evidencing a consistent and accurate use of the specified referencing system.
All sources cited evidencing a consistent and accurate use of the specified referencing system.
Faultless referencing throughout.
Faultless referencing throughout.
© University College of Estate Management 2019 Page 6 of 9
2. UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT MATTER: THEORETICAL, PRACTICE-BASED AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT
20
0–3
4–7
8–9
10–11
12–13
14–15
16–20
Total or significant misunderstanding of subject which prevents coherent discussion.
Evidence of significant errors and omissions in knowledge.
Inadequate or very shallow understanding with little awareness of relevance of issues and many relevant elements omitted
Limited and intermittently satisfactory expression of ideas. Basic limited awareness of relevance of issues.
Sound expression of ideas, perhaps with some limitations. Some clear awareness of relevance of issues.
Very good expression of ideas, some originality, with critical awareness of relevance of issues.
Excellent expression of ideas, with excellent critical awareness of relevance of issues.
Outstanding expression of ideas, including some originality, with dexterous critical awareness of relevance of issues.
Absolutely no engagement or evidence of knowledge of relevant theory.
No discernible engagement or evidence of knowledge of relevant theory.
Limited, or negligible engagement with theory usually applied to the subject.
Evidence of some engagement with relevant theory.
Clear knowledge of and engagement with theory usually applied to the subject.
Engagement with theory usually applied to the topic and/or the use of theoretical ideas drawn from other disciplines so as to make a contribution to the field.
Sophisticated engagement with subject theory and the use of theoretical ideas drawn from other disciplines so as to make an original and sustainable contribution to the field.
No evidence of understanding of or attention to the professional and historical context of the research topic.
Little or no understanding of or attention to the professional or historical context of the research topic.
Limited awareness of the professional and historical context relevant to the research topic.
Satisfactory awareness and discussion of any relevant professional and historical context.
Sound awareness and understanding of the professional and historical context relevant to the research topic competently harnessed to the topic of discussion.
Exceptional awareness and understanding of the professional and historical context relevant to the research topic.
Exceptional awareness and understanding of the professional and historical context relevant to the research topic. Uses historical research to produce an original contribution to the field.
3. KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING and APPLICATION OF PRIMARY AND SECOND-ARY SOURCE READING
20
0–3
4–7
8–9
10–11
12–13
14–15
16–20
No meaningful use of any secondary source material.
Poor choice and synthesis of materials.
Very limited use of secondary materials, with inclusion of irrelevant / inappropriate sources.
Sources are not consistently questioned.
Limited secondary research materials.
Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies in choice and synthesis.
Sound secondary research to extend taught materials.
Evidence of evaluation of key literature sources, some deficiencies in choice and synthesis.
Good independent secondary research. A range of literature sources are evaluated and synthesized.
Excellent independent secondary research. The vast majority of the literature evaluated and synthesized.
Comprehensive review of literature sources.
Outstanding evaluation and synthesis of source material with no significant omissions.
Taught research methods material inadequately engaged with.
Limited use of research methods taught materials provided on the module.
Limited secondary research to extend taught research methods materials.
Evidence of engagement with the research methods texts provided on the module.
Sound engagement with research methods texts that extends taught materials.
Very good engagement with and application of a variety of Research Methods texts.
Significant engagement with and application of Research Methods texts.
Evidences an extremely poor under-standing of knowledge of the subject area.
Evidences a rather poor understanding of knowledge of the subject area.
Evidences a slightly weak understanding of knowledge of the subject area.
Evidences a good understanding of knowledge of the subject area.
Evidences a very good understanding of knowledge of the subject area.
Evidences a strong and systematic under-standing of knowledge of the subject area.
Evidences a full and systematic under-standing of knowledge of the subject area.
© University College of Estate Management 2019 Page 7 of 9
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: COLLECTION, GENERATION AND APPLICATION OF PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL
15
0–2
3–5
6–7
8
9–10
11
12–15
Unusable primary data, through inadequate collection or methodological flaws.
Insufficient and/or poor collection of primary data with little awareness of methodological considerations and/or with methodological flaws or confusion.
Not always adequate use of primary data for purposes of assignment.
Methodologically rather weak.
Adequate engagement with data collection to provide basis for primary analysis, awareness of methodological issues.
Data sourcing or collection of a good standard, allowing testing of analytical questions specific to the assignment.
Data sourcing or collection of a high standard, extremely relevant to assignment and robust method.
Outstanding identification of existing primary source data or collection of new pertinent data, using robust method of collection.
Demonstrates no significant understanding of techniques applicable to research or reflection on the methods used.
Demonstrates little understanding of techniques applicable to research. Research shows very little reflection on the research methods employed.
Demonstrates some understanding of techniques applicable to research. Shows occasional reflection on the research methods employed though in need of development.
Demonstrates a sound understanding of techniques applicable to research. Research shows some reflection on the research methods employed though in need of development.
Demonstrates a good understanding of techniques applicable to research.
Demonstrates a strong understanding of techniques applicable to research. Research shows a reflective account of the research methods employed.
Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to research. Research shows a reflective account of the research methods employed.
Or did not identify that primary data collection was necessary for their particular research project and therefore made no attempt to justify reasons for choosing not to use existing primary sources or generate data themselves.
Or, made little attempt to justify reasons for choosing not to use existing primary sources or generate data themselves.
Largely justified reasons for choosing not to use existing primary sources or generate data themselves.
Or, justified an approach which did not require primary source material whether pre-existing or generated.
Or, demonstrated that an approach which did not require primary source material whether pre-existing or generated, such as a review of literature approach, would lead to stronger research outcomes. Research shows some reflection on the research methods employed.
Or, demonstrated that an approach which did not require primary source material whether pre-existing or generated, such as a review of literature approach, would lead to stronger research outcomes. Research shows full reflection on the research methods employed.
Or, demonstrated that an approach which did not require primary source material whether pre-existing or generated, such as a review of literature approach, would lead to stronger research outcomes. Research shows complete reflection on the research methods employed.
Little or no apparent understanding of research ethics considerations and a manifest failure to use relevant research ethics procedures.
Inadequate understanding of research ethics considerations and failure to use of relevant research ethics procedures or if engaged with containing errors, inconsistencies and oversights.
Largely adequate understanding of research ethics considerations and use of relevant research ethics procedures but with a few minor errors, inconsistencies and oversights.
Adequate understanding of research ethics considerations and use of relevant research ethics procedures.
Sound understanding of research ethics considerations and good use of relevant research ethics procedures.
Evidences sound understanding of research ethics considerations and exceptional use of relevant research ethics procedures.
Evidences a very good understanding of research ethics considerations and exemplary use of relevant research ethics procedures.
© University College of Estate Management 2019 Page 8 of 9
5. EVIDENCE-BASED CRITICAL ANALYSIS
10
0–1
2–3
4
5
6
7
8–10
Little or no valid analysis of either or both the work of established authorities and primary source data generated by their own research and the research methodology employed.
Extremely limited and largely unsuccessful attempt at analysis of either or both the work of established authorities and primary source data generated by their own research and the research methodology employed.
Rather weak analysis of both the work of established authorities and any primary source data generated by their own research and the research methodology employed.
Generally acceptable critical analysis of both the work of established authorities and primary source data generated by their own research and the research methodology employed.
Sound critical analysis of both the work of established authorities and primary source data generated by their own research and the research methodology employed.
Excellent analysis – including questioning of both the work of established authorities and primary source data generated by their own research and the research methodology employed.
Outstanding analysis, including questioning of both the work of established authorities and primary source data generated by their own research and the research methodology employed.
Displaying a complete lack of clarity, focus and at the same time containing both serious errors and contradictions throughout.
Frequently displaying lack of clarity, focus and at the same time containing both serious errors and contradictions.
Overall fails to meet the expected standard of critical analysis required to pass this module.
Displaying some lack of clarity, focus and at the same time containing both errors and contradictions.
Some relevant elements discernible.
Intermittent questioning of sources and limited but acceptable understanding of bias.
Sources questioned appropriately, and a very good understanding of bias and methodological weaknesses are evidenced.
Evidences an understanding of methodological weaknesses and bias.
Demonstrates a nuanced recognition of previously unidentified methodological weaknesses and bias within the field – leading to an original contribution to the filed.
Devoid of appropriate independence of thought.
Largely devoid of appropriate independence of thought.
Little relevant independence of thought.
Limited but acceptable independence of thought is evidenced.
Showing clear independence of thought.
Strong independence of thought and ability to marshal a cogent critique effectively.
Evidences exceptionally strong independence of thought and ability to marshal a cogent critique effectively.
6. INSIGHT, INTERPRETATION, EVALUATION AND CONTRIBUTION TO FIELD
15
0–2
3–5
6–7
8
9–10
11
12–15
No insight shown.
No evaluation and no contribution to field.
Repetition of approaches used in course with minimal attempt at interpretation.
An attempt to take an insightful approach, but may be some lack of clarity on the evidence on which interpretation is based.
Evidences investigation which goes beyond interpretations made in course materials or recommended texts.
Insightful approach which draws justified conclusions which extend thinking displayed in course materials.
Insightful approach which draws justified conclusions which are close to the forefront of the disciplinary knowledge.
Extremely insightful and original approach which draws new and justified conclusions which extend the disciplinary knowledge making a significant sustainable contribution to the field.
No evidence of synthesis of arguments.
Very little evidence of synthesis of arguments.
Some attempt to synthesise arguments drawn from different sources.
May synthesise arguments drawn from several sources.
Evidence of synthesis of arguments from a range of sources.
Evidence of synthesis of arguments from a wide range of sources.
Evidence of synthesis of arguments from an extensive range of sources.
© University College of Estate Management 2019 Page 9 of 9
Submission of assignments
All assignments must be submitted online in the module area of the VLE. The assignment submission link opens 21 days before the due date. Please refer to the information provided in the ‘Coursework preparation’ week for submission guidance.
NOTE: Postal submissions will not be accepted.
Word count and overwriting
Exceeding 10% of the stated word count may limit the marks allocated for communication (see assessment criteria marking guide above). You must state the total number of words used at the end of your assignment.
The following table outlines the inclusions and exclusions in the word count of the most common features of assessed pieces of work.
Included
Excluded
Introduction
Executive summary/abstract
Main body
Title page/front cover
Footnotes/endnotes
Contents List
In text citations
Calculations
Words in tables
Drawings/Images
Conclusion
List of references
Recommendations
Bibliography
Headings and titles, except for those explicitly excluded
Appendices
Warning
Plagiarising someone else’s work, whether copying from the internet, UCEM study materials, a textbook, a fellow student or elsewhere, is a serious offence. Before you submit your work for assessment, you must check it to ensure that you have fully cited within the text all the sources of information you have used and that all your sources are listed in a reference section at the end of your submission. Quoted text must not be excessive in length. You will find guidance on correct citing and referencing in The Harvard System – The UCEM Guide to Referencing and Citation in the ‘Study skills’ section on the VLE.
Be aware that your work will be checked using anti-plagiarism software. If plagiarism is identified, this will result in a severe penalty ranging from loss of all or part of the mark to exclusion from your programme.
Note: Please use the assignment referencing link to check the originality of your work before submitting it.