Assessment 1- Research Topic Report Weight : 20% Type of Collaboration :

Assessment 1- Research Topic Report

Weight : 20%

Type of Collaboration : Individual

Due : Friday, 5 April 2024, 11:59 p.m.

Submission : Online via relevant Turnitin link

Format : Reports must be submitted in Microsoft Word (.docx) or PDF format, well-structured with professional formatting.

Length : 1000 words – excluding title page, tables and figures, Timeline, references, and appendices.

Curriculum Mode : Report

Students should develop a research topic in construction under the guidance of a supervisor. Students are required to submit a Research Topic report by Friday, 5 April 2024. This report is required to show your research project proposal to carry out the literature review. It may include a background study explaining the topic area and why you are selecting it to do a literature review, together with references and a timeline.

Outline

Title page – Include the research topic, student’s name, student number and supervisor’s

name – not word counted.

Background and Rationale – Provides a background to the topic and establishes its significance. Identification of the research gap; that is why you conduct such research and what your research values. The literature known by this stage would be expanded and detailed later at the literature review stage (assessment 2).

Research Problem and Question(s) – Describe the ‘broader’ research problem and

question(s).

Aim and Objectives – Be realistic about what you can accomplish during the project. The aim is what you want to achieve, and the objectives describe how you are going to achieve that aim. It is possible that your aim and objectives will change as the research develops.

Scope and limitations – Explain your boundary/ limits of the study briefly. Based on this, your supervisor can ascertain whether the area of study is appropriate in scope and feasible.

Work Plan/Timeline (to complete the literature review and Research Design Proposal) – not word counted.

References – not word counted.

Appendices (if any) – not word counted.

Note

Use references and data to support your claim. No less than 6 sources are cited and must have 4 or more journal papers.

Penalty for late submission: 10% of the awarded mark per day.

Marking Criteria:

Criteria

High Distinction

Distinction

Credit

Pass

Unsatisfactory

Background (50%)

Excellent background information and rationale for the research problem/questions, aim and objectives; Locates all key authors in the field with a wide range of references specific to the topic; Identifies all the gaps and highlights the significance of the research; The work is both very highly significant and original.

Very good background information and rationale for the research problem/questions, aim and objectives; Locates most key authors with a range of references relevant to the topic; Identifies most gaps and argues for the importance of the research; The work is significant and original.

Good background information and some rationale for the research problem, aim and objectives; Locates some key authors with relevant papers to the topic; Identifies some gaps and argues for the need for the research; Shows some insight or originality.

Satisfactory background information without adequate rationale and with some missing sections to inform the research problem/questions, aim and objectives; Locates some key authors with some relevant papers to the topic; Identifies some gaps but the gaps can be unclear and/or remotely relevant, the significance of the research is unclear; Shows little insight or

originality.

Background that misses most of the required information; Authors and papers are remotely relevant to the topic; Hardly covers current knowledge of the topic or identifies gaps, the need for the research is limitedly argued for; No evidence of originality.

Research Problem and Questions (10%)

Exceptionally clear, concise and insightful research problem and questions.

Very clear and original research problem and questions.

Clear and original research problem and questions.

Reasonably clear and original research problem and questions.

Irrelevant/invalid/no research problem and questions.

Aim and Objectives (15%)

The aim and objectives are exceptionally clear, concise, and insightful.

The aim and objectives are very clear and original.

The aim and objectives are clear and original.

The aim and objectives are reasonably clear and original.

Irrelevant/invalid/no aim and objectives.

Scope and limitations (5%)

The scope and limitations are exceptionally clear, concise, and insightful.

The scope and limitations are very clear and original.

The scope and limitations are clear and original.

The scope and limitations are reasonably clear and original.

Irrelevant/invalid/no scope and limitations.

Structure, Presentation and Referencing (15%)

The report is presented exceptionally as a professionally written document as per the template/outline provided;

The Report contains very negligible spelling and grammatical mistakes;

The Report reads very well with continuity;

References are listed very accurately as per

Harvard referencing style.

The report is presented very well as a professionally written document as per the template/outline provided;

The report contains very minimal spelling and grammatical mistakes;

The Report reads well with continuity;

The References are listed accurately as per Harvard referencing style.

The report is presented well as a professionally written document as per the template/outline provided;

The report contains minimum spelling and grammatical mistakes;

The report is read with sufficient continuity;

References are listed mostly with accuracy as per Harvard

referencing style.

The report is presented satisfactorily as per the template/outline provided;

The report contains some spelling and grammatical mistakes;

The report reads with sufficient continuity; References are listed as per Harvard referencing style with some mistakes.

The report is poorly presented.

The Report contains an unacceptable level of spelling and grammatical mistakes;

The Report lacks continuity;

The references lack Harvard referencing style with many mistakes.

Timeline (5%)

A detailed schedule with all research activities clearly laid out;

The timeline is highly realistic, which allows for some

degree of flexibility.

A clear schedule listing all research activities with a realistic timeline.

Provides a schedule of all research activities, with realistic time allocation for most of them.

Provides a schedule of most research activities, with some realistic time allocation.

The schedule misses most key research activities;

The timeline is unrealistic and/or not relevant to the activities.

Page 2 of 2