LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY MA/MSc DISSERTATION PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARK SHEET Name of student: ID number: Name

of Assessor: Date:

NB: The final grade is not an average mark for each section/chapter. The matrix below is only a guide to the strength of each area of the dissertation.

Please tick the relevant box to indicate your assessment of the dissertation on each criterion (an example descriptor has been provided for guidance only i.e. not meant to be fully prescriptive). NB: This is to give an approximation along the grading continuum of how well you think each chapter has been presented

CRITERIA GENERAL COMMENTS: Project Rationale (20%) Thorough, but concise overview of the problem/ issue under investigation, including why it is a significant study and why/ how it may impact on theory and/ or practice. Aims, hypotheses/research questions, key variables, and brief explanation of method included.

< 40% Not identified (0%) OR Major omissions to the requirements as laid out in the dissertations guidelines.

40 - 49% An attempt has been made, but some areas may be missing or lacking in substance.

50 - 59% All areas covered, but some areas may be weaker than others.

60 - 69% All areas covered, well articulated. It is clear what the dissertation is about, and why it is being undertaken.

> 70% Distinction Level All areas covered to an extremely high standard.

Not addressed (0%) Literature review (30%) Critical review, analysis and integration of the relevant literature(s). Review of past research. Definition and explanation of concepts and constructs. OR Descriptive in nature, with many elements which are not relevant to the research questions.

Partially addressed, although insufficient literature considered and this is not critically analysed or integrated into a coherent whole.

Sufficient literature considered, some attempt at analysis, but lacking in critical focus and only partially integrated into a coherent whole.

Extensive literature considered and analysed, good integration of literature and some critical content.

Overall critical review of relevant and up-to-date literature. Breadth and depth of literature reviewed is appropriate, and integrated into a coherent whole.

SUPERVISORS NAME:
Research Design: (25%) GENERAL COMMENTS: Appropriate choice, justification of method(s) and methodology. Not addressed (0%) OR Totally inappropriate, inconsistent, confused approach. Choice of method would work, but not necessarily the most appropriate. No/poor rationale given for method(s). Competent choice of appropriate method(s). A rationale is given for the method(s), but this is of an average standard, requiring greater explanation. Good choice of appropriate method(s) under the identified constraints of the study, with clear, unambiguous rationale given. Excellent choice of appropriate (even innovative) method(s). Robust justification, with consideration of implications.

CRITERIA Project Plan: (15%) Project management provision, Consideration of ethical access, resource issues; Ethics form included.

< 40% Not addressed (0%) OR No, or very little discussion of project plan. No consideration of access, ethical and resource management issues.

40 - 49% Descriptive discussion and/or limited project plan. Inconsistent consideration of access, ethical and resource management issues.

50 - 59% Some critical discussion of a complete project plan. Come thoughtful consideration of access, ethical and resource management issues..

60 - 69% Good critical discussion of a detailed project plan. Methodical approach to access, ethical and resource management issues.

SECOND MARKERS NAME: AGREED MARK:

> 70% Distinction Level Insightful critical discussion of a thorough project plan. Insightful and systematic consideration of access, ethical and resource management issues.

Referencing, Presentation & Communication: (10%) Academic referencing, both throughout the script and in the reference section using the Harvard style.

No referencing (0%). OR Poor or inconsistent referencing throughout.

Some referencing, but patchy e.g. many instances where references are required. Reference section may be attempted, but

Satisfactory referencing throughout, with some errors or missing references; generally sound. Inconsistent style i.e.

Good referencing, with the occasional error or missing references. Good academic style, presentation and clear and sensible structure.

Excellent, precise referencing throughout. Excellent academic style and pristine presentation and structure (as laid out in the requirements).