Production of a PhD Proposal

 

Faculty of Computing, Engineering & Media

Coursework Specification Cover Sheet

Module Details

Module Code

IMAT5120

Module Title

Research Methods

Component Tutor/s

None

Assessment Description

Assessment 1: Production of a PhD Proposal. The detailed description of

Assessment 1 is as attached.

Submission Details

Date Issued to Students

Monday 18th November, 2019

Submission Date

Friday 10th January 2020 at 23:59 UK time

Submission Information

Submit soft copy to Turnitin on the module Blackboard shell

Faculty of Computing, Engineering & Media – Course work Specification

Module name: Research Methods

Module code: IMAT5120

Title of the Assignment: Assessment 1: Production of a PhD Proposal

This coursework item is: Summative

This summative coursework will be marked anonymously No

The learning outcomes that are assessed by this coursework are:

LO1: Critically appraise a research method and justify its application to appropriate research problems

LO2: Write a research proposal which demonstrates an understanding of the research process and its

application to a given research problem.

LO3: Identify and critically discuss professional, legal, managerial and ethical problems associated with

the development and execution of a research project

This coursework is: Individual

If other or a mixed ... explain here:

This coursework constitutes 90% to the overall module mark.

Date Set: Monday 18th November, 2019

Date & Time Due: Friday 10th January 2020 at 23:59 UK time

Your marked coursework and feedback will be available to you on:

If for any reason this is not forthcoming by the due date your module leader will let you know

why and when it can be expected. The Head of Studies (headofstudies-tec@dmu.ac.uk )

should be informed of any issues relating to the return of marked coursework and feedback.

Note that you should normally receive feedback on your coursework by no later than four

working weeks after the formal hand-in date, provided that you met the submission deadline.

Friday

7th

February

2020

When completed you are required to submit your coursework to:

Submit soft copy to Turnitin on the module Blackboard shell in the assessments section for this

module. Be aware that this mechanism checks the submitted work for similarities between the works

of other students (including previous work submitted for different modules in this or other

Universities) and published material.

Late submission of coursework policy: Late submissions will be processed in accordance with

current University regulations which state:

“the time period during which a student may submit a piece of work late without authorisation and have the

work capped at 40% [50% at PG level] if passed is 14 calendar days. Work submitted unauthorised more

than 14 calendar days after the original submission date will receive a mark of 0%. These regulations apply

to a student’s first attempt at coursework. Work submitted late without authorisation which constitutes

reassessment of a previously failed piece of coursework will always receive a mark of 0%.”

Academic Offences and Bad Academic Practices:

These include plagiarism, cheating, collusion, copying work and reuse of your own work, poor

referencing or the passing off of somebody else's ideas as your own. If you are in any doubt about

what constitutes an academic offence or bad academic practice you must check with your tutor.

Further information and details of how DSU can support you, if needed, is available at:

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/dmu-students/the-student-gateway/academic-support-office/academic-offences.aspx

and http://www.dmu.ac.uk/dmu-students/the-student-gateway/academic-support-office/bad-academicpractice.

aspx

Tasks to be undertaken:

To develop a research proposal in a subject of your choosing that would take a PhD student three years. The

content of the proposal should follow the following format (indicative):

 Title plus author information

 Summary - Statement of the problem and succinct outline of proposed research

 Background - Review of the literature

 Proposed work

◦ Aims and Objectives

◦ Rationale

◦ Methodology

◦ Programme of Work - Work Packages

 Professional, legal and ethical issues associated with the proposed research

 Relevance to Beneficiaries – Identify and evaluate potential economic and social impact, as well as

possible (commercial or scientific) risks problems of the proposed research

 Research Management Plan

 Justification of Resources

 Gantt chart showing the project management, timing and deliverables of each work package

Deliverables to be submitted for assessment: YOU MUST USE LATEX FOR YOUR

PROPOSAL - maximum length is 6 A4 pages (including references) with a minimum margin of

2cm in all sides, with the Gantt chart provided an additional 7th A4 page.

How the work will be marked: Marked by the Module Leader

Module leader/tutor name: Shengxiang Yang

Contact details: syang@dmu.ac.uk

De Montfort University, Faculty of Computing, Engineering & Media

IMAT5120 Research Methods, Assignment 2 - Production of a PhD Proposal

Criterion Reference Grid

Learning Outcome Criterion & Weight 0-44 45-49 50-59 60-69 70-100

LO2: Write a research

proposal which

demonstrates an

understanding of the

research process and

its application to a

given research

problem.

C1. Structure and

Presentation

10%

Poor structure and

presentation;

unacceptable

grammar/spelling.

Exceeds 4+1

pages.

Evidence of attempt to

structure the review but it is

inadequate; Presentation

poor, descriptive rather

than critical; poor

grammar/spelling. Exceeds

4+1 pages.

Structure and

presentation are

acceptable but there is

room for improvement; a

number of

grammatical/spelling

errors.

Good structure and

presentation with only

a few minor errors.

Faultless structure and

presentation.

C2. Research

Question

understanding and

contextualisation

20%

Little or no attempt

to understand &

contextualise the

research question.

Literature review

extremely thin or

non-existent.

Very restricted idea of what

the research question was

about. An attempt to

provide the context for the

research question, but the

attempt was too weak to be

worthy of a pass. Literature

reviewing attempted, but

very weak overall in breadth

and depth of coverage.

Basic understanding of

what the research

question was about. A

sufficient attempt to

contextualise the

research, with a

literature review that

covers the main topic,

but with significant

areas for improvement.

Good understanding of

what the research

question was about.

A reasonable attempt to

contextualise the

research, with literature

review that has no

major

weakness/omissions

Excellent overall

understanding of what

the research question

was about.

Contextualisation is

successfully achieved,

with literature review

complete and critical in

nature.

C3. Clear Aim and

Objectives

10%

Aim and objectives

are not stated

clearly and are not

specific in nature,

leaving room for

ambiguity. No link

with tasks and

deliverables.

An attempt to provide the

aim of the proposed study,

with specific objectives that

fail to identify in a

reasonable way the specific

issues proposed to

examine to get the aim; the

link with tasks and

deliverable is not explicitly

provided.

Aim clearly indicated the

central thrust of the

study, and objectives

identify in a reasonable

way the specific issues

proposed to examine to

get the aim; the link with

tasks and deliverable is

not well explained.

Aim clearly indicated

the central thrust of the

study, and objectives

identify in a reasonable

way the specific issues

proposed to examine to

get the aim; the link

with tasks and

deliverable is well

explained.

Aim clearly indicated

the central thrust of the

study, and measurable

objectives identify in a

reasonable way the

specific issues

proposed to examine to

get the aim; the link with

tasks and deliverable is

well explained, and

these last can be easily

assessed against the

set of objectives.

C4. Rationale &

Methodology

10%

Weak or no attempt

to explain why the

proposed project is

of sufficient

timeliness and

An attempt to provide an

explanation of timeliness

and novelty of the proposed

project. Choice of

methodology was

A reasonable

explanation of the

timeliness and novelty

of the project is

provided. A reasonably

A good explanation of

the timeliness and

novelty of the project is

provided. A very

appropriate

An excellent rationale

for the proposed project

is provided, and

rigorous & complete

methodology evident,

novelty. No

justification to

support

methodology

selection of any

substance.

attempted but was not

wholly suitable and poorly

justified.

methodology in place for

most of the research

process, with a fair

justification for its

selection.

methodology in place,

with minor weaknesses

within the methodology

/justification.

completely justified.

C5. Plan of Work:

work packages,

timing,

deliverables,

dissemination,

Gantt chart.

20%

Methodology either

was not planned or

was incomplete

and/or

inappropriate.

Methodology plan omits

one or more significant

activities.

Attention to detail is almost

non-existence.

Attention to detail is

evident in some aspects

of the plan. No serious

weakness but still some

room for improvement.

Attention to detail is

evident in most aspects

of the plan – only one

or two minor

weaknesses.

Excellent attention to

detail.

LO3: Identify and

critically discuss

professional, legal,

managerial and ethical

problems associated

with the development

and execution of a

research project.

C6. Identification &

consideration of

professional, legal

and ethical issues.

10%

No or weak

identification &

consideration of

professional, legal

and ethical issues.

An attempt to identify &

consider professional, legal

and ethical issues, but not

wholly suitable.

A reasonable attempt to

identify & consider

professional, legal and

ethical issues, but with

significant areas for

improvement in more

than one area.

A good attempt to

identify & consider

professional, legal and

ethical issues, but with

room for improvement

in one area.

An excellent

identification &

consideration of

professional, legal and

ethical issues.

C7. Identify and

evaluate potential

economic and

social impact, as

well as possible

(commercial or

scientific) risks

problems

10%

No or weak

identification &

evaluation

provided.

An attempt to identify &

evaluate potential economic

and social impact, as well

as possible (commercial or

scientific) risks problems,

but not wholly motivated.

A reasonable attempt to

identify & evaluate

potential economic and

social impact, as well as

possible (commercial or

scientific) risks

problems, but with

significant areas for

improvement in more

than one area.

A good attempt to

identify & evaluate

potential economic and

social impact, as well

as possible

(commercial or

scientific) risks

problems, but with

room for improvement

in one area.

An excellent

identification &

evaluation of potential

economic and social

impact, as well as

possible (commercial or

scientific) risks

problems

C8. Research

Management Plan

5%

No plan provided

or badly thought

and not justified.

An attempt to provide a

reasonable explanation of

how the project will be

managed.

A reasonable

explanation of how the

project will be managed.

A good explanation of

how the project will be

managed.

An excellent

explanation of how the

project will be managed.

C9. Justification of Resources 5% No or very little details provided, with no proper justification given.

Some details of the resources requested to undertake the project are provided, but fail to justify them properly.

The resources requested to undertake the project were reasonably justified.

The resources requested to undertake the project were justified well but not entirely.

The resources requested to undertake the project were properly justified.