ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
MOD009372 Postgraduate Study Skills, Research Methods and Ethics
|
Assessment |
Practical |
|
Assessment code: |
010 |
|
Academic Year: |
2025 / 2026 |
|
Trimester: |
1 |
|
Module Title: |
Postgraduate Study Skills, Research Methods and Ethics |
|
Module Code: |
MOD009372 |
|
Level: |
7 |
|
Module Leader: |
|
|
Weighting: |
40% |
|
Time Limit: |
9 mins |
|
Assessed Learning Outcomes |
LO2: Knowledge and Understanding: 1. Develop a critical understanding of the content and provenance of business and management data in terms of its value and utility to a research Project Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills: 2. Develop advanced argumentation skills and utilise appropriate evidence in support of arguments |
|
Assessment date: |
Please refer to the VLE. |
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- This is an individual assignment.
- No extensions are available for this assessment.
- Exceptional Circumstances: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team – DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. See rules 6.112 6.141:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf Add any other relevant instructions, e.g:
- You must provide an electronic copy of your PowerPoint before your presentation and upload this to the dedicated area on the VLE.
- Ensure that slide 1 includes your name and SID number.
- Use Harvard referencing to acknowledge sources used in your presentation.
- Your final slide should provide the Reference List
PRESENTATION TASK
In order to complete this task, you should identify a key area of research interest relevant to one of the following disciplinary areas:
- Business Administration/Management
- Health and Social Care (Administration/Management)
- International Marketing
- International Project Management
- Hospitality and Tourism Management
- Accounting and Financial Management
The presentation should:
- consist of a maximum of 7 slides
- Up to 6 minutes presenting and up to 3 minutes answering question on the presentation.
These slides would contain the following:
- Front page stating the title of the presentation, the module code and module name, the module lecturer, and your name and your university identification number.
- An outline which details your discipline and subject area.
- Research area of interest and a rationale which details why this research area would be important for your subject area.
- Identification of one source of data published in the last three months and details of why this source of data would be important for your research area of interest.
- Critical analysis of the source of the data, through a description of the data, its purpose is and how the data contributes to your research area of interest.
- Critical assessment of the source’s utility and value by evaluating the validity and reliability of the source.
- Reference list of all sources consulted in the development of your presentation. (40 marks)
In your discussion, you should apply your academic skills (critical reading and thinking, debating skills and argumentation). You should link your discussions to appropriate evidence from research methods literature and the disciplinary area, (50 marks)
Credit will be awarded for academic skills, including visual support, style and accuracy in referencing. (10 marks)
Total marks 100
ASSESSMENT MARKING AND GRADING CRITERIA
Your work will be assessed using the criteria outlined in Table 1 and Table 2 READING REQUIREMENT
Thornhill, A., Saunders, M. and Lewis, P. (2015). Research Methods for Business Students (7th Edition). Pearson
Students will also draw on academic literature relevant to their discipline from the academic databases and data sources.
Please note that the sources listed are expected for your written assessment. These sources will be part of the module and their content is deemed necessary to produce a relevant assessment. Module markers will expect to see them integrated into your work and appropriately referenced. Failure to include these sources may result in a “Viva Voce” meeting during which you would be required to explain your work and your reasons for not including these key sources.
Table2:ARUGenericAssessmentCriteriaandMarkingStandards:Level7 –Postgraduate Taught (24/24)
|
Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous,demonstratingindependenceinthenegotiationofassessmenttasks(includingthe major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Studentsareexpectedtodemonstrateanabilitytoisolateandfocusonthesignificantfeaturesof problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovativeworkintheirspecialismthatisworthyofpublicationorpublicperformanceordisplay. |
|||
|
Mark Bands |
Outcome |
CharacteristicsofStudentAchievementbyMarkingBandforARU’sGeneric LearningOutcomes(AcademicRegulations,Section2) |
|
|
Knowledge&Understanding |
Intellectual(thinking),Practical,Affective andTransferable Skills |
||
|
90- 100% |
Achieves module outcome(s ) |
Exceptional analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy.Exceptional development of conceptual structuresandargumentmaking an exceptional use of scholarly conventions.Demonstrates exceptional independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundariesofthedisciplineand may be considered for external publication. |
Exceptionalanalysisofkeyissues/concepts/ ethics.Exceptional development of conceptualstructuresandargument,making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptionalresearchskills,independenceof thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/ intellectual skills. Workpushestheboundariesofthediscipline and may be considered for external publication. |
|
80- 89% |
Outstanding analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with clearoriginalityandautonomy. Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argumentmakinganexemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates outstanding independenceofthoughtanda very high level of intellectual rigourandconsistency |
Outstanding analysis of keyissues/concepts/ ethics.Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument,makingconsistentuseofscholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Outstandingacademic/intellectualskills |
|
|
70- 79% |
|
Excellentanalysisofkeyissues/ concepts/ethics.Excellent development of conceptual structuresandargumentmaking excellentuseofscholarly |
Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument,makingconsistentuseofscholarly conventions.Excellentresearchskills, |
|
|
|
conventions.Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. |
independence of thought, excellent level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellentexpressive/professionalskills,and considerable creativity and originality. Excellentacademic/intellectualskills,and considerablecreativityandoriginality. |
|
60- 69% |
Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Development of conceptual structuresandargumentmaking consistent use of scholarly conventions |
Goodanalysisofkeyissues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument,makingconsistentuseofscholarly conventions |
|
|
50- 59% |
Amarginal pass in module outcome(s ) |
Soundknowledgeofkeyissues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Occasionally descriptive but some ability to synthesise scholarshipandargument.Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions. |
Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethicsindiscipline.Occasionallydescriptive but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions. |
|
40- 49% |
Amarginal fail in module outcome(s ).Satisfies default qualifying mark |
Limited knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Fairly descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existingscholarshipandlimited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions. |
Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significantproblemswithstructure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions. |
|
30- 39% |
Fails to achieve module outcome(s ). Qualifying mark not satisfied |
Inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline.Largelydescriptive, withlittlesynthesisofexisting scholarship and inadequate evidence of argument. Inadequateevidenceofuseof scholarlyconventions. |
Inadequateevidence ofresearchskills,use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skillsvirtuallyabsent.Inadequateevidence of academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate evidence of use of scholarly conventions. |
|
20- 29% |
Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline.Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence ofargument.Littleevidenceof useofscholarlyconventions. |
Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Little evidence of academic/intellectualskills.Littleevidence ofuseofscholarly conventions |
|
|
|
Deficientknowledgeofkey |
Deficientuseofresearchskills,learning |
|
|
issues/concepts/ethicsin |
resourcesandproblemsolving.Major |
|
|
10- 19% |
discipline.Whollydescriptive, withdeficientsynthesisof existing scholarship and |
problemswithstructure/accuracyin expression.Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Deficient |
|
|
|
deficientargument.Deficient |
academic/intellectualskills.Deficientuse |
|
|
|
useofscholarlyconventions. |
ofscholarlyconventions |
|
|
|
Noevidenceofknowledgeof |
|
|
|
|
keyissues/concepts/ethicsin |
Noevidenceofuseofresearchskills, |
|
|
|
discipline.Incoherent and |
learningresourcesandproblemsolving. |
|
|
|
completelybutpoorly |
Incoherentstructure/accuracyinexpression. |
|
|
1-9% |
descriptive,withnoevidenceof |
Team/Practical/Professionalskillsnon- |
|
|
|
synthesisofexisting scholarship |
existent.Noevidenceof |
|
|
|
andnoargumentwhatsoever. |
academic/intellectualskills.Noevidenceof |
|
|
|
Noevidenceofuseofscholarly |
useofscholarlyconventions |
|
|
|
conventions. |
|
|
|
|
Awardedfor:(i)non-submission;(ii)dangerouspracticeand(iii)insituations |
||
|
0% |
wherethestudentfailstoaddresstheassignmentbrief(e.g.,answersthe |
||
|
|
wrongquestion)and/orrelatedlearningoutcomes |
||
|
AssessmentMarkingRubricPSR010 Theworkwillbeassessedinanintegrativemannerasindicatedinthemarkingrubric,thatisconsistentwithAngliaRuskinUniversitygenericassessmentcriteriaandmarkingstandards |
||||||||||
|
Criteria/ Grade |
1-9%: Noevidence of knowledge, Absent of evidenceof academic/ expressive/ professional skills. |
10-19% Deficient evidence of knowledge. Deficient academic expression/ professional skills. |
20-29% Little evidenceof knowledge. Little evidenceor use of scholarly conventions |
30-39%: Inadequate evidence of knowledge. Inadequate evidence or use of scholarly conventions. |
40-49%: Limited knowledge, use of scholarly conventions inconsistent. Adequate academic/ expressive/ professional skills. |
50-59%: Sound knowledge, use of scholarly conventions inconsistent.Sound academic/ expressive/ professional skills. |
60-69%: Good analysis- consistentuse of scholarly conventions. Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. |
70-79%: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Excellent academic/ expressive/ professional skills |
80-89%: Outstanding analysis-Work pushes the boundariesof thediscipline. Outstanding Academic/ Expressive/ professional skillsand creativit |
|