Master's Project Guidelines

This document provides comprehensive guidelines for students undertaking a Master's Project at Birmingham City University's School of Engineering and the Built Environment. It details the project process, from initial project selection and proposal (a 5-6 page document outlining aims, objectives, literature review, methodology, and timeline) to the final 15,000-word dissertation. The guidelines cover research ethics, supervision, project registration, logbook maintenance (a chronological record of all significant project events), and the Viva Voce examination. The dissertation's structure and formatting requirements are meticulously outlined, including sections on the abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, data analysis, discussion, conclusions, recommendations, references, bibliography, and appendices. Assessment criteria and marking schemes for the proposal, Viva Voce, and dissertation are provided, along with information on resubmission procedures. The document emphasizes the importance of adhering to guidelines to avoid project failure.

School of Engineering and the Built
Environment
Faculty of
Computing, Engineering and
the Built Environment
Birmingham City University
Postgraduate Programme
Master’s Project Guidelines
Version Number Version Date
2.0 September 2016

Contents
1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................3
1.1 Research Ethics....................................................................................................5
2.0 Philosophy & Scope...............................................................................................5
3.0 Supervision..............................................................................................................5
4.0 Project Selection.....................................................................................................5
5.0 Project Registration...................................................................................................5
6.0 Project Proposal.........................................................................................................5
7.0 Project Log Book.....................................................................................................11
8.0 Viva Voce..................................................................................................................12
9.0 The Dissertation.......................................................................................................16
9.1 Dissertation format................................................................................................16
10. Project Marking Outcomes.................................................................................24
Note:
These guidelines are for students in the School of EDMS commencing their master’s project
from September 2016.
If these guidelines are not adhered to, you are at risk of failing this element of the course. If
this is the case, you may be required to re-submit the dissertation after corrective action has
been taken. Please read these guidelines carefully, if you are in doubt about any aspect of
the requirements for the preparation of the Master’s dissertation please consults with your
tutor. For details of all specific deliverable deadlines and supporting information please see
appropriate moodle site.
2

1.0 Introduction
Students who progress to the award of M.Sc. will undertake a Master's Project. The
project will carry 60 credits at Level 7. This is a major piece of work of 600 notional
study hours. The Master’s Project is assessed as below:
Project Proposal 10%
Presentation and Viva Voce Examination 20%
Dissertation 70%
3

The MSc Project Process Map
Student will be expected to
register their project via the
‘Project Registration’ link on
the appropriate moodle site
and then complete an
ethical review questionnaire.
This may be your own or one
Select a topic/theory area
and pose a relevant
question. A list of possible
topics is contained on the
appropriate moodle site but
the student can select their
own.
A 5-6 page document
covering aim and objectives,
initial literature review,
methodology and
appropriate timing chart
15,000-word report that is the
culmination of the project.
Students will give a
presentation and formal Viva
Voce of their work.
The Project Log book
must contain a dated
chronological record of
the work of the Project.
The Log book must be
a record of every
significant event in the
project.
4

1.1 Research Ethics
As part of the Project Registration process an initial assessment of research ethics will
be conducted.
2.0 Philosophy & Scope
The project is intended to both integrate as many aspects of the programme of study
as feasible and to act as a vehicle for students to demonstrate their wider abilities. It
will be an individual project but may be linked to group work where scale and
complexity demand. An appropriate project will be identified during the course of the
academic support sessions run in the semester prior to the project commencing. It is
the responsibility of the student to select an appropriate topic area in conjunction with
consultation with academic staff and reviewing previous project work conducted.
Projects topic areas will be posted on the Master’s Project moodle site. Students
undertaking a project based in industry will liaise with their Project Coordinator to
develop the project details
It is important that consideration of the problem area or research topic suitably reflects
the course rationale.
3.0 Supervision
Students undertaking a Master’s project will have an academic supervisor from the
University. For traditional part-time and flexible delivery part-time students there will
also be an industrial mentor from their company. There will be regular contact with the
supervisor; for formal meetings progress will be discussed and details of the meeting
recorded.
4.0 Project Selection.
Students will be directed to the Master’s Project moodle site where a number of topic
areas and suitable supervisors will be posted. Students’ will be encouraged to discuss
the project details with the member of staff proposing the project, a member of staff
nominated or a member of staff who teaches in a particular subject area.
5.0 Project Registration
As students focus on their project topic and a potential supervisor has been identified
they will meet during the second semester to discuss project details and formulate the
project aims and scope. Student will be expected to register their project via the
‘Project Registration’ link on the appropriate moodle site. This is normally during the
first week of the project.
5

6.0 Project Proposal
The proposal will be submitted via the appropriate moodle. The following will be
considered as the base requirements for the 5 to 6 page project proposal:
 Title:
 Aim:
 Objectives:
 Project Philosophy:
 Methodology including any resources required and how the Research will adhere to
the university Research Ethics requirements
 Supervision:
 Academic Supervisor and University Moderator (if known)
o Industrial Supervisor (part time or company based projects only)
 Time plan with key deliverables identified:
 Support Required
Once the proposal is submitted the supervisor will mark and return feedback via the
moodle site, allowing the student to refocus where necessary. The feedback will be
such that the student will be able to successfully undertake the master’s project. If
necessary the academic supervisor and student will meet to discuss the proposal and
any modifications necessary.
The project proposal MUST be included in the final dissertation as an appendix.
6

Proposal Assessment Plan
Student: Student Number:
Course: Project Title:
The project proposal will detail the scope of the project, the research methodologies to be
adopted and give a timescale for the completion of key deliverables. The proposal will be
formally submitted to the appropriate moodle site.
Background and Rationale – (40 Marks)
To outline the background to the project and the scope of the investigation identifying the
aims and objectives. Detail of initial review of extant literature.
Comments
Mark_________
Methodology - (40 Marks)
Methodology including any resources required and how the Research will adhere to the
university Research Ethics requirements. Any potential sources of health and safety risk
should be identified and ways of eliminating the hazard discussed with your supervisor. This
heading must be included. If you assess there to be no risks, there should be a statement to
this effect.
Comments
Mark__________
Schedule – (10 Marks)
A work plan such as a Gantt chart. You should plan your time carefully, taking into account
revision time and exams. A realistic time should be planned for each task.
Comments
Mark__________
Structure - (10 Marks)
Quality of presentation and layout of report including relevant references.
Comments:
Mark__________
Proposal Mark: _______________ %
Name: _______________________ Signature: _________________________
7

Date: _______________________ 1st Marker
8

Dissertation Proposal marking criteria
Criterion
(Weighting)
Fail 0-25% Qualified Fail 25-
49%
Pass 50-59% Merit 60-69% Distinction 70-
85%
Exemplary 86-
100%
Background
and Rationale
(0.4)
Complete lack of
coherence/logic in
aim and objectives
suggesting no
possibility of the
achievement
intellectually
unacceptable
dissertation outcomes
Initial review of extant
literature not present.
Inadequately
expressed aim and
objectives suggesting
the achievement of
intellectually limited
dissertation outcomes
Initial review of extant
literature of
insubstantial depth
Adequately
expressed aim and
objectives suggesting
the achievement of
intellectually
acceptable
dissertation outcomes
Initial review of extant
literature of adequate
depth
Well expressed aim
and objectives
suggesting the
achievement of
intellectually good
dissertation outcomes
Initial review of extant
literature of good
depth.
Very well expressed
aim and objectives
suggesting the
achievement of
intellectually
challenging
dissertation outcomes
Initial review of extant
literature of
substantial depth.
Outstandingly
expressed aim and
objectives suggesting
the achievement of
intellectually
outstanding
dissertation outcomes
Initial review of extant
literature of robust
depth
Methodology
(0.4)
Complete lack of
coherence/logic in the
methodology in
relation to the project
rationale.
No consideration of
research
philosophies.
Little or no
identification of data
gathering strategies.
Inadequate lack of
coherence/logic in the
methodology in
relation to the project
rationale
Poor consideration of
research
philosophies.
Inadequate
identification of data
gathering strategies.
Adequate
coherence/logic in the
methodology in
relation to the project
rationale.
Limited consideration
of research
philosophies.
Adequate
identification of data
gathering strategies.
Good coherence/logic
in the methodology in
relation to the project
rationale.
Good consideration of
research
philosophies.
Logical identification
of data gathering
strategies.
Good coherence/logic
in the methodology in
relation to the project
rationale.
Robust consideration
of research
philosophies.
Strongly linked to the
logical identification of
data gathering
strategies.
Outstanding
coherence/logic in the
methodology in
relation to the project
rationale.
Robust consideration
of a comprehensive
range of research
philosophies.
Strongly linked to the
identification of logical
and innovative data
gathering strategies.
Schedule
(0.1)
A schedule has not
been developed
providing no definition
of tasks
A schedule has been
developed providing
an inadequate
definition of tasks
A schedule has been
developed providing
an acceptable
definition of tasks
A schedule has been
developed providing a
good definition of
tasks
A schedule has been
developed providing a
detailed definition of
tasks
A schedule has been
developed providing a
comprehensive
definition of tasks
Structure and
Presentation
(0.1)
Inadequate
presentation,
numerous
grammatical and
typographical errors
Poor presentation,
many grammatical
and typographical
errors with poor
referencing practice
Adequate
presentation with
some grammatical
and typographical
errors with good
Good presentation
with few grammatical
and typographical
errors with good
referencing practice
Excellent presentation
with very few
grammatical and
typographical errors
with robust
Outstanding
presentation with
almost no
grammatical and
typographical errors

with inadequate
referencing practice
and inappropriate
structure.
and inappropriate
structure.
referencing and
appropriate structure.
from a range of
sources and
appropriate structure.
referencing practice
from a range of
sources and very
clear structure
with robust
referencing practice
from a range of
sources and
outstanding structure
10

7.0 Project Log Book
The log book is intended to:
 emphasise the importance of maintaining a contemporary record of work and to develop this
skill, and
 ensure that all elements of the dissertation marking can be verified by evidence.
Students should note that it must be apparent that the log book submitted represents a
continuous and contemporaneous account of the work done on the project. It is important that
students develop the skill of maintaining traceable records as they work. Students should show
their logbooks to their supervisors regularly as a basis for discussing their progress; at these
meetings the log book should be inspected and signed by their supervisor.
The Project Logbook must contain a dated chronological record of the work of the Project. The
Logbook must be a record of every significant event in the project. Material recorded should
include:
 The development of (and any subsequent alterations to) the project objectives with relevant
information on background and context.
 Evidence of project planning and of any revisions or adaptations to the intended schedule (with
reasons for these).
 Evidence of risk assessment, health and safety issues, etc, which are important to project
conception and execution but will not normally be formally reported elsewhere.
 Adequate and traceable records of all sources of information and data (eg papers, textbooks,
standards, manuals, personal communications, etc).
 Notes towards a literature review if required by the project supervisor.
 Outlines of all material taken from papers, textbooks, etc, such as derivations of expressions or
calculation procedures, etc, with due emphasis paid to assumptions, limitations, etc.
 Descriptions of all procedures followed to obtain results (experimental, design, computational,
statistical, etc), along with the corresponding descriptions of apparatus, etc.
 All experimental or computational results, including raw results as recorded on the apparatus
which would enable independent checking of any test point.
 Details of all calculation, review or evaluation procedures.
 Evidence of how the principal deliverables or conclusions were arrived at.
It should also include dated records of meetings with supervisors, advisors, colleagues, etc..The
project log book must be used by the student as the basis for the final report and oral
presentation. Material appearing in any of these which does not appear in the log book will not
count towards the assessment and may be penalised as suggesting plagiarism.

8.0 Viva Voce
Students will give a presentation and a formal Viva Voce of their work. The student will present
their findings and conclusions to the project supervisor(s) and where appropriate invited external
supervisors. External Examiners may also be invited.
The Viva Voce will be assessed on evidence of thorough planning and design of work carried out:
co-ordination of resources, enthusiasm and motivation for the work: extent of investigation and
pursuit tenacity. Ability to argue issues relating to the methodology adopted and the analysis of the
results as well as justification of the conclusions and recommendations made to the company or
organisation as appropriate.
When preparing for the viva voce students must include the following as a focus for the
presentation:
i) Introduction to the project, aim, setting the scene and the methodologies being adopted.
ii) Formulation of results obtained or the implementation of the chosen
solution.
iii) Analysis and verification of data and design process.
iv) Outcome of the project and benefit(s).
v) Student recommendation regarding implementation and possible further works.
vi) Conformance of the project outcome with original aim(s) and objectives
12

Viva Voce Assessment Plan
Student: Student Number:
Course: Project Title:
Project Scope and Overview - (25 Marks)
To provide a comprehensive, but concise overview / summary with the task specific achievements and evidence
of the Research Question and the recommendations for a solution.
Comments
Mark_________
Presentation Skills - (25 Marks)
Evidence of excellent oral communication skills, a confident and interesting presentation: excellent use of visual
aids – clear, concise reinforcement of key issues in a concise manner. Coherent presentation, well-structured and
managed to time constraint of 15 minutes maximum.
Comments
Mark_________
Academic References and Critical analysis - (25 Marks)
Ability to demonstrate integration of the learning gained during the course which succinctly summarises findings
in a well-structured, coherent manner, with supporting academic underpinning and grounded with theoretical
concepts displayed in context. should be evident throughout.
Comments
Mark_________
Defence - (25 Marks)
Your defence of the questions to be asked following the Presentation with confident, (authoritative) succinct and
informative responses to questions, demonstrating familiarity with relevant issues relating specifically to the MSc
dissertation and its conclusions.
Comments
Mark_________
Viva Mark: _______________ %
Name: _______________________ Signature: ____________________
Date: ________________________ 1st / 2nd Marker (Please circle as appropriate)
13

Viva Voce Marking criteria
Criterion
(Weighting)
Fail 0-25% Qualified Fail 26-
49%
Pass 50-59% Merit 60-69% Distinction 70-
85%
Exemplary 86-
100%
Project scope
and overview
0.25
Complete lack of
coherence/logic in aim
and objectives.
A lack of definition of
the project’s rationale.
Inadequately
expressed aim and
objectives.
An inadequate
definition of the
project’s rationale
Adequately expressed
aim and objectives.
An adequate
definition of the
project’s rationale
Well expressed aim
and objectives.
A good definition of
the project’s rationale
Very well expressed
aim and objectives.
An excellent definition
of the project’s
rationale.
Outstandingly
expressed aim and
objectives.
An outstanding
definition of the
project’s rationale.
Presentation
Skills
0.25
Unacceptable
 verbal
delivery.
 use of visual
aids
 use of time
Monotonous and
boring
Inadequate
 verbal
delivery.
 use of visual
aids
 use of time
Uninteresting and
unengaging.
Adequate
 verbal
delivery.
 use of visual
aids
 use of time
Interesting and
moderately engaging.
Good
 verbal
delivery.
 use of visual
aids
 use of time
Interesting and
engaging
Excellent
 verbal
delivery.
 use of visual
aids
 use of time
Interesting and very
engaging
Outstanding
 verbal
delivery.
 use of visual
aids
 use of time
Interesting and highly
engaging
Academic
References &
Critical
Analysis
0.25
Inadequate
referencing practice
inadequate range of
sources.
None or little
comparison of relevant
theory in relation to
irrelevant research
findings
Poor referencing
practice from a limited
range of sources.
Inadequate
comparison of relevant
theory in relation to
inadequate research
findings
Adequate referencing
practice an adequate
range of sources.
Adequate comparison
of relevant theory in
relation to limited
research findings
Good referencing
practice from a good
range of sources.
Good comparison of
relevant theory in
relation to credible
research findings
Robust referencing
practice from a wide
range of sources.
Rigorous comparison
of relevant
challenging. theory in
relation to extensive
research findings
Outstanding
referencing practice
from an extensive
range of sources.
Rigorous comparison
of relevant
challenging. theory in
relation to
comprehensive
research findings
Discussion /
Defence
Inadequate
justification of
research
Poor justification of
research
Adequate justification
of research
Good justification of
research
Robust justification of
research
Outstanding
justification of
research

0.25
 question
 methodology
 analysis
 conclusions
in relation to
questions,
demonstrating in
adequate knowledge
and understanding
 question
 methodology
 analysis
 conclusions
in relation to
questions,
demonstrating limited
knowledge and
understanding
 question
 methodology
 analysis
 conclusions
in relation to
questions,
demonstrating
adequate knowledge
and understanding.
 question
 methodology
 analysis
 conclusions
in relation to
questions,
demonstrating good
knowledge and
understanding
 question
 methodology
 analysis
 conclusions
in relation to
questions,
demonstrating
extensive knowledge
and understanding
.
 question
 methodology
 analysis
 conclusions
in relation to
questions,
demonstrating a
comprehensive
knowledge and
understanding
15

9.0 The Dissertation
At the conclusion of the project, the student will prepare for the submission of a 15,000-word
dissertation.
An electronic version of the dissertation must be loaded to the appropriate moodle site. The
requirements for the dissertation MUST be adhered to.
Failure to comply with these requirements may lead to failure of the project or a delay in
the publication of the results.
The following will be considered as the base requirements for the dissertation structure:
 Abstract
 Introduction - The definition of the problem including the project aim and objectives
 Literature review.
 Research methodology
 Presentation and Analysis of primary and/or secondary data
 Discussion and interpretation of Results
 Conclusions,
 Recommendations and proposals for further work
 References – The Harvard Style MUST be used (this refers to work cited in the report)
 Bibliography (this is different to references and refers to background reading)
 Appendices
9.1 Dissertation format
The following requirements must be adhered to in the format of the final dissertation.
i) The main body of text of the dissertation should not exceed 15,000 words.
ii) A full electronic version (including all diagrams figures and appendices) of the final report
must be submitted to moodle along with the written dissertation.
iii) The dissertation should be written in l2pt Arial type.
iv) One-and-a-half spacing must be used in typescript except for indented quotations or
footnotes where single spacing may be used. Top, bottom and right margins should
be set at 25mm and the left margins at 40mm.
v) The outer title page shall bear the title of the work in at least 24pt type. The name and
initials of the candidate, the qualification and the year of submission.
vi) The dissertation will be marked by the academic supervisor and 2nd marker.

vii) Pages shall be numbered consecutively through the main text including photographs
and/or diagrams that are included as whole pages.
viii) The inner title page shall give the following information:
1. The full title of the dissertation:
2. The full name of the author;
3. The award for which the degree is submitted in partial fulfilment of its
requirements.
4. The faculty and University title plus the Collaborating Establishment, if any;
5. The month and year of submission.
ix) The dissertation must include a statement of the student’s aims and objectives and must
acknowledge published or other sources of material consulted (including an appropriate
bibliography) and any assistance received.
x) There shall be an abstract (of approximately 300 words) in the dissertation, which
provides a synopsis of the dissertation stating the nature and scope of the work
undertaken and of the contribution made to the knowledge of the subject treated.
The Learning centre will be able to advise on the appropriate use of references.
17

Dissertation Assessment Plan
Student: Student Number:
Course: Project Title:
Presentation of the dissertation. (5 marks)
Quality of presentation and layout of report including relevant references.
Comments:
Mark__________
Introduction. (5 marks)
Clarity of dissertation scope, aims, objectives and research question(s)
Comments:
Mark__________
Literature review. (20 marks)
Use and critical understanding of relevant literature/theory Project Aims
Comment:
Mark__________
18

Research methodology. (20 marks)
Relevance and justification of research methodology used.
Comments:
Mark__________
Data Analysis and results. (35 marks)
Presentation of research findings and associated discussion and analysis.
Comments:
Mark__________
Conclusions (10 marks)
Stating in detail the conclusion(s) reached from the execution of the project
Mark__________
19

Recommendations (5 marks)
Making recommendations for further work or how a proposed solution may be implemented.
Comments:
Mark__________
Dissertation Mark (total of sections 1 TO 8): _______________ %
Name: _______________________ 1st / 2nd Marker (Please circle as appropriate)
Signature: ____________________
Date: ________________________
20

Dissertation Marking criteria
Criterion
(Weighting)
Fail 0-25% Qualified Fail
26-49%
Pass 50-59% Merit 60-69% Distinction 70-
85%
Exemplary
86-100%
Presentation of
dissertation
(0.05)
Inadequate
presentation,
numerous
grammatical and
typographical
errors with
inadequate
referencing
practice and
inappropriate
structure.
Poor presentation,
many grammatical
and typographical
errors with poor
referencing practice
and inappropriate
structure.
Adequate
presentation with
some grammatical
and typographical
errors with good
referencing and
appropriate structure.
Good presentation
with few grammatical
and typographical
errors with good
referencing practice
from a range of
sources and
appropriate
structure.
Excellent
presentation with
very few
grammatical and
typographical
errors with robust
referencing
practice from a
range of sources
and very clear
structure
Outstanding
presentation with
almost no
grammatical and
typographical
errors with robust
referencing
practice from a
range of sources
and outstanding
structure
Introduction;
clarity of research
question, scope,
aim(s), objectives
(0.05)
Complete lack of
coherence/logic in
aim and objectives
leading to the
achievement
intellectually
unacceptable
dissertation
outcomes
Inadequately
expressed aim and
objectives leading
to the achievement
of intellectually
limited dissertation
outcomes
Adequately expressed
aim and objectives
suggesting the
achievement of
intellectually
acceptable
dissertation outcomes
Well expressed aim
and objectives
suggesting the
achievement of
intellectually good
dissertation
outcomes
Very well
expressed aim
and objectives
suggesting the
achievement of
intellectually
challenging
dissertation
outcomes
Outstandingly
expressed aim
and objectives
suggesting the
achievement of
intellectually
outstanding
dissertation
outcomes
Literature review:
critical
understanding of
relevant
literature/theory
(0.2)
Little or no
consideration of
extant theory.
Not leading to any
theoretical
framework.
Inadequate
referencing
practice
inadequate range
of sources.
Inadequate
consideration of
extant theory.
Leading to a
theoretical
framework lacking
logical consistency
and intellectual
depth.
Poor referencing
practice from a
limited range of
sources.
Adequate
consideration of a
limited range of extant
theory.
Leading to a logical
theoretical framework
of limited intellectual
depth.
Good referencing
practice an adequate
range of sources.
Good consideration
of a wide range
extant theory.
Leading to a
theoretical
framework of logical
consistency and
intellectual depth.
Good referencing
practice from a good
range of sources.
Comprehensive
and critical review
of relevant
literature.
Leading to an
imaginative
theoretical
framework of
logical consistency
and considerable
intellectual depth.
Robust referencing
practice from a
wide range of
sources.
An outstanding
critical review of
relevant
literature.
Leading to an
innovative
theoretical
framework of
logical
consistency and
outstanding
intellectual depth.
Outstanding
referencing
practice from an
extensive range
of sources.

Research
methodology:
(0.20)
Complete lack of
coherence/logic in
the methodology in
relation to the
project rationale.
No consideration
of research
philosophies.
Little or no
identification of
data gathering
strategies.
Inadequate lack of
coherence/logic in
the methodology in
relation to the
project rationale
Poor consideration
of research
philosophies.
Inadequate
identification of
data gathering
strategies.
Adequate
coherence/logic in the
methodology in
relation to the project
rationale.
Limited consideration
of research
philosophies.
Adequate
identification of data
gathering strategies.
Good
coherence/logic in
the methodology in
relation to the project
rationale.
Good consideration
of research
philosophies.
Logical identification
of data gathering
strategies.
Excellent
coherence/logic in
the methodology in
relation to the
project rationale.
Robust
consideration of a
range of research
philosophies.
Strongly linked to
the logical
identification of
data gathering
strategies.
Outstanding
coherence/logic
in the
methodology in
relation to the
project rationale.
Robust
consideration of a
comprehensive
range of research
philosophies.
Strongly linked to
the identification
of logical and
innovative data
gathering
strategies.
Presentation of
research findings
and associated
discussion and
analysis:
(0.35)
Presentation of
research findings
lacking any logical
links to the chosen
theoretical
framework.
Lacking any
relevant
observations of
findings with little
or no discussion
and analysis.
Inadequate
presentation of
research findings
with unsatisfactory
logical links to the
chosen theoretical
framework.
Limited
observations of
findings leading to
inadequate
discussion and
analysis.
Adequate
presentation of
research findings
showing some logical
links to the chosen
theoretical framework.
Logically adequate
observations of
findings leading to
adequate discussion
and analysis.
Good presentation of
research findings
showing some depth
of logical links to the
chosen theoretical
framework
Logically good
observations of
findings leading to
good discussion and
analysis
Excellent
presentation of
research findings
showing real depth
of logical links to
the chosen
theoretical
framework
Logically excellent
observations of
findings leading to
excellent
discussion and
analysis
Outstanding
presentation of
research findings
showing a
rigorous depth of
logical links to the
chosen
theoretical
framework
Logically
outstanding
observations of
findings leading
to robust
discussion and
analysis
Conclusions
(0.10)
Lacking any real
conclusions shown
by little or no
logical links to
research findings
to the chosen
theoretical
Inadequate
conclusions with
inadequate logical
links to research
findings and to the
chosen theoretical
framework.
Adequate conclusions
logically linking
research findings and
to the chosen
theoretical framework.
Good conclusions
logically linking
research findings
and to the chosen
theoretical
framework.
Excellent
conclusions with
deep logical links
to the research
findings and to the
chosen theoretical
framework.
Outstanding
conclusions with
profound logical
links to the
research findings
and to the chosen
theoretical
22

framework.
Little or no
academic
reflection of the
chosen research
methodology.
Inadequate
academic reflection
of the chosen
research
methodology.
Adequate academic
reflection of the
chosen research
methodology.
Good academic
reflection of the
chosen research
methodology
Robust academic
reflection of the
chosen research
methodology
framework.
Robust and
comprehensive
academic
reflection of the
chosen research
methodology
Recommendations
(0.05)
Little or no
recommendations
made; not logically
linked to
conclusions
Inadequate
recommendations
made; Inadequate
logic in links to
conclusions
Adequate
recommendations
made; adequate logic
in links to conclusions
Good
recommendations
made with some
depth of logical links
to conclusions
Excellent
recommendations
made of real depth
with logical links to
conclusions
Outstanding
recommendations
made of profound
depth with logical
links to
conclusions
23

10. Project Marking Outcomes
Assessment Strategy
The marking scheme will be as follows:
Project Proposal 10%
Presentation and Viva Voce Examination 20%
Dissertation 70%
The overall mark is considered when referring to the pass marks. The project ratings
are as follows:
Outcome Description
1 Acceptable and
subject to final
grading
The Supervisor and second marker grade the project and
submit to the Examination Board for approval.
2 Unacceptable with a
project mark of less
than 50% and where
attendance is not
required
The specified major corrections should be undertaken
and the project report resubmitted within a time advised
by the Examination Board. If the project report has been
passed but the student has failed other elements, it is
these which will need to be retaken by the date advised.
Attendance at the University is not required to recover
failing elements.
3 Unacceptable with a
project mark of less
than 50% and where
attendance is
required
As above but due to the nature of the work to be
undertaken attendance at the University is required.
Students will be advised of the requirements for resubmission in their results
letter sent by the Faculty Registry. If a student fails a project the resubmission
will be capped at 50%
The University will retain one copy of each project. The other copy will be returned to
the student.
The student should ensure that all work and the dissertation is completed and
submitted within the allocated time. Any unapproved submission of work beyond the
deadlines will not be accepted. Standard university procedures for late or non
submission of work will be in force regarding extensions and Exceptional Extenuating
Circumstances (EEC).