HS796 Dissertation

Module title -HS796 Dissertation

Module leader - Emma Menzies-Gow

Academic Year - 2022-23

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2

2. The Dissertation Process 2

3. Supervision 4

4. Obtaining Ethical approval 5

5. Research Governance 6

6. Registration of clinical trials 6

7. Carrying out your research project 6

8. Writing up your research project 8

9. Publishing your work 11

10. Additional guidelines for students doing Empirical research 12

11. Additional guidelines for students doing Literature based research 13

12. Additional guidelines for students doing Research by design 13

Appendix 1 Module Specification 15

Appendix 2 Proposal form 22

Appendix 3 Record of supervision form 23

Appendix 4 Front sheet 24

Appendix 5 HS796 Marking Criteria 25

Appendix 6 University of Brighton Marking Descriptors 26

1. Introduction

Welcome to the Dissertation Module for the Postgraduate Health courses. This handbook sets out the processes associated with carrying out a dissertation for your masters degree. You will find details of the expectations for approval of your idea, conduct of the study and written submission of your final dissertation. Please read this handbook carefully and make sure you are familiar with all the information in it before starting your project. If you are unsure about any aspects of the process, please contact your course leader or dissertation supervisor.

1.1 Aims of the module

The module is designed to allow students the opportunity to engage in an extended and rigorous piece of personal and independent research arising out of their prior programme of study and allied to their professional field, where relevant.

1.2 Outcomes of the module

By the end of the module you will be able to:
1. Identify clear aims appropriate to a master's level dissertation and to their award title
2. Demonstrate a high level of autonomy and responsibility in planning and executing the dissertation process
3. Identify and formulate an appropriate research question, carry out an investigation of the problem, and present findings in a clear and considered manner
4. Show a critical awareness of the selection and application of methodology, methods, data collection and analysis appropriate to the research focus
5. Identify limitations of the study
6. Demonstrate a critical awareness of ethical and governance issues in planning and execution of the study
7. Critically evaluate judgements and conclusions and articulate an increased independence of view appropriate to the dissertation focus
8. Demonstrate an in-depth knowledge in the appropriate field of study and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights at the forefront of their research focus.

1.3 Module Content

This module has no formal content as you will be carrying out an independent research project with the help and support of your supervisor. Your supervisor will be able to help you with any issues that you may have and guide you towards resources to help any areas in which you feel you need further information such as the research process; using electronic databases; scientific writing; critical analysis; qualitative and/or quantitative research; quantitative data analysis statistics/associated computing and/or qualitative analysis techniques; reliability, validity, experimental design, survey and/or questionnaire design; ethics, governance and research. You are expected to complete a notional 600 hours of independent study to complete the dissertation for this module.

1.4 Pre-requisites for the module

You need to have taken and passed two level 7 modules before starting your dissertation. As preparation for this module you will normally be expected to undertake one of the postgraduate research methods modules available within the School of Sport and Health Sciences (or BSMS) and it is important to discuss this with your tutor to ensure that you choose the most appropriate module. (Some courses require you to take a general research module, rather than for example a qualitative research module).

The module specification can be found in Appendix 1

2. The Dissertation Process

2.1 Starting out

The first place to start for most students will be to have an informal discussion with your course leader or personal tutor about your ideas, we also recommend that you attend a Dissertation Introduction Day. The School of Sport and Health Sciences holds dissertation days several times a year, this year these sessions will be held online. This day provides guidance to help you get started with your research project and you will get the opportunity to share your ideas with other post-graduate students and tutors from the School. If you are a full-time student, you should attend a dissertation introduction day in Semester 1. If you are studying part time, you will be invited to a dissertation day when you have reached the point in your studies where you should be starting your dissertation. After the dissertation day you should seek help and guidance from your course leader and arrange a meeting to discuss your ideas. Your course leader will help you consider your topic and your methodological ideas.

Your methodology is one of the first things you will need to consider i.e. what type of dissertation you would like to do. The options are:
1. Empirical research where you conduct a study collecting primary data which may be qualitative, quantitative or both.
2. Literature based research This is not a simple literature review but is the identification and analysis of the relevant information from published sources using an established and documented methodology e.g. systematic literature review, narrative literature review, or a concept analysis.
3. Research by design where you write up a research ready design of a project for future research.

2.4 Project proposal form

Once you have decided on a research focus, and have an idea of the study you wish to carry out, you need to fill in a short two page form which will help you think through the design of your study (see Appendix 2). You need to submit this to your course leader as a record of your proposed study. This information will be used to identify possible supervisors for you.

2.3 Allocation of a supervisor

Your supervisor is normally a member of the course team who is familiar with the broad area of your study and who has the appropriate academic and professional expertise. If necessary, supervisory teams can be used or an appropriate a mentor can be appointed in the work-based setting in order to provide additional support for you. (See section 3 for more details on supervision). Once you start working with your supervisors your project may evolve and change.

2.5 Preparing an ethics submission

Unless you are undertaking a literature based research project or doing research by design, you will need to develop a full proposal for approval by the relevant ethics committee (see section 4 for more information about ethical submissions). You must consult with your supervisor at this stage, both because they will help you develop your application and because you cant submit an ethics proposal without their signature.

2.6 Carrying out your research

After you have received all the necessary ethics approvals (in writing) you may start recruiting participants and taking data. It is important that you keep in touch with your supervisor throughout this period.

2.7 Writing up your research

The final stage of your dissertation is to write up your project in the format that you have agreed with your supervisor, either a project report paper (consisting of 3 parts: an extended literature review, paper for publication and a critical reflection) or a traditional dissertation. See section 8 for further information about writing up your project.

2.8 Submitting your project

Your project should be submitted, by the agreed hand-in date, to the appropriate Turnitin submission point in the HS796 module area of the current year. It is not necessary to submit hard copies.

2.9 Marking your dissertation

Your dissertation will be marked online, using the assessment criteria for this module (see Appendix 5) in conjunction with the University of Brighton level 7 Marking Descriptors (see Appendix 6). Your work will be marked in time for the consideration at the next examination board and you will normally be notified of the result within 20 working days of submission. This may be after an examination board.

3. Supervision

The working relationship with your supervisor is an important factor in the success of your project process. Your supervisor and you both have responsibilities which are set out below. It is important that you and your supervisor discuss your expectations of supervision at the beginning of your work together and decide how supervision will work best for you. You are entitled to 8 hours of individual supervision or the equivalent. Supervision may include one to one meetings, group supervision and email supervision. In most cases supervision will focus on a discussion of issues that you have brought to the meeting, remember that there are usually no right or wrong answer in research; it is more that you justify what you are doing with valid arguments.

3.1 Your Responsibilities

To arrange times for supervision with your supervisor
To keep your supervisor informed of your progress on a regular basis including any changes in your anticipated submission day. It is useful to provide this in the form of a Gantt chart.
To consult with your supervisor prior to submitting the proposal for ethical approval
To inform your supervisor of any difficulties or potential difficulties
To contact your supervisor before and after data collection
To raise issues that you are unclear about and pursue them with your supervisor.
To try to solve problems yourself by using the literature in a constructive way.
To prepare for supervision by coming with questions and an idea of areas that you want to address.
To send drafts of written work to your supervisor in time for the supervisor to read them (generally a minimum of 10 working days. Please negotiate with your supervisor to allow for holidays and periods of high workload).
To make use of the support offered through tutorial or groups as appropriate
To seek additional support where necessary
To discuss the following with your supervisor:
? Your plan for reviewing the literature
? Ethical considerations and ethical approval
? Your methodology including methods of data analysis
? Your results and how you plan to interpret them
? Your plan for writing your dissertation, including the format
To keep a written record of supervision sessions and get it signed by your supervisor. (See Appendix 3 for record of supervision form).
To work constructively with the suggestions made in supervision.

3.2 Responsibilities of your supervisor

To provide supervision sessions as appropriate.
To respond promptly to your request for supervision (you should receive a reply within 5 working days).
To work with you to prepare your submission for the relevant ethics and governance committees.
To ensure that you are carrying out your project in accordance with the proposal and any advice given by ethical committees and research governance committees.
To discuss with you
? Your research plan
? The data analyses
? Writing up your project
To provide feedback on your written work

3.3 Commenting on drafts

Supervisors are expecting to comment and advise on drafts of your work prior to submission. Supervisors are normally only able to comment on one draft of your complete dissertation so you will need to negotiate the timing of the drafts with your supervisor. Your drafts can be sent as a complete thesis or sent in parts for comments. Again, please negotiate this with your supervisor. You need to leave time for your supervisor to read and comment, which make take longer in busy times, and then for you to act on any feedback given to you. Please make sure you send all drafts to your supervisor at least 4-6 weeks before submission. Please note that supervisors will not normally read anything within 2 weeks of the submission date.

4. Obtaining ethical approval

All projects that involve collecting data from human participants, including accessing records and/or notes, must obtain ethical approval prior to starting the research. The University of Brighton does not distinguish between projects that may be considered as audit and projects that are research all projects with human participants must go through ethical scrutiny and be approved. Failure to gain adequate ethical approval, or not carrying out the research in accordance with the proposal that has been approved, may be considered academic misconduct. Once you have had approval you must not change your project without getting additional approval for any amendments. Further details about the research ethics process can be found here Research Ethics Policy

Obtaining ethical approval can take some time (most people have to submit their proposals more than once) so it is important that you start this process as soon as possible. You must work closely with your supervisor at this stage. In order to try to minimise delays it is advisable to ensure the proposal that you submit is as good as it can be (no typing errors, poor grammar, ambiguous sentences or use of jargon).

4.1 The role of the ethics committee

The role of the ethics committee is to safeguard the ethical standards and scientific merit of research involving human subjects and ensure that the rights and best interest of research participants, society and the researcher are protected. The ethics committees will scrutinise all submissions to ensure that: -

No unnecessary harm or distress is being imposed on the participants
The participants will be fully informed of all the implications of taking part in the study before they give consent to participate
There is no coercion of potential participants
The dignity of the participants will be respected, and their confidentiality / anonymity ensured
The study is sufficiently well designed and supported by current theory, so that there is a reasonable chance of an outcome that merits the participation of the participants.

4.2 What committee do I need to go to?

You should discuss this with your supervisor to make sure that you approach the correct committee. There are two ethics approval systems which might be relevant to you.

Firstly, there is the University research ethics system which is responsible for approving all research projects carried out by students which do not need to be approved by any external body. Proposals can be scrutinised by the School Research Ethics Panel or by the Cross-School Research Ethics Committee depending on the level of risk associated with the study. Information about the School Research Ethics Panel can be found at can be found on My Studies in the L7 Ethics area (in My Support Areas). Applications are submitted via BREAM https://bream.brighton.ac.uk/ which is accessed with your usual university user name and password. The system will help you to decide which is the appropriate committee for your work.

Secondly there is the NHS system research approval system, which approves all studies taking data in the NHS. This system is accessed through the IRAS application website. The IRAS application form will be used for review by the Health Research Authority and by the NHS research ethics committee. Finally, the application is passed to the local R and D office within the relevant health authority. If you need to go to a NHS ethics committee you can find out how to apply from https://www.myresearchproject.org.uk/ You can find full details of the form you need to fill in; the procedures that you need to follow and contact details for your local ethics committee. You may be asked to attend these committees when your proposal is being discussed, together with your supervisor. A student guide to submitting through IRAS can be found here https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/research-planning/student-research/student-research-toolkit/

If you are applying to carry out research in the NHS, the university is required to act as sponsor for your project and so you need to submit your IRAS form for scrutiny before the university will sign your application. The university is one of several institutions who have come together to run a process to quality assure IRAS submissions. Detail of this process can be found here:
Pre-Sponsorship Review Panel (PSRP) - BSMS
You will need to submit your work to PSRP and once this panel has recommended that the university sponsors your research then you will also need to upload the final paperwork to BREAM, which forms the official record of your submission.

If you are thinking about carrying out research in the NHS, you should approach the local R and D office first. This is for two reasons, firstly they will need to approve your work so better that they are involved in setting up your study. Secondly because from the perspective of the NHS, research is defined as any one or more of the following:
participants and treatments are randomised as part of the study
the study includes changing treatment from normal protocols of care
the study will produce generalisable or transferable results
If these conditions arent met then the study may be considered audit, or a service development, and may not require approval through IRAS. N.B. if this is the case then the university will require you to get approval through the university ethical committees.

5. Research Governance

Researchers (including student researchers), supervisors of research and sponsors of research all have responsibilities under the research integrity policy.

In particular you and your supervisor have a responsibility to ensure that the proposal that you have developed is ethical and that you have sought the appropriate approval from an ethics committee; that you carry out the research as you said you would in your proposal and in accordance with any guidance or advice that you have received; that you protect the welfare of any participants in your study. Finally, it is your responsibility to ensure that your research writeup and any publications accurately reflect the work that you have carried out and your findings.

There are also specific guidelines for the storage and management of research data.

6. Registration of clinical trials

Many journals require clinical trials to be registered. This must be done prior to the recruitment of participants, so it is advisable to register your study if it is a clinical trial. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html

Please find a link to one of the places where you can register your study. http://www.researchregistry.com/

7. Carrying out your research project

When thinking about carrying out any research project, there are standard stages in the process need to be considered:
? Define question/problem (based on literature/practice)
? Consider paradigm (qualitative/quantitative/literature-based research)
? Within paradigm, select the appropriate approach: e.g.: ethnography, grounded theory, experimental, quasi-experimental, systematic review, narrative review.
? Design the study
? Collect data
? Analyse data using appropriate methods
? Consider outcomes of research in relation to literature review and question.
? Critique the study
? Draw appropriate conclusions

7.1 Defining your research question and considering the appropriate paradigm.

The first and most difficult stage of the research project is to decide on a focus for your study. It is very important that the topic is of interest to you and that you feel that it is worthwhile, your study must also be realistic and achievable in the time available. Students working at masters level are also expected to contribute to the knowledge base of their profession and support the research activity of the School so it is important that in the first instance you discuss your ideas with your Course Leader or Personal tutor.

Your inspiration may come from your clinical practice, reading clinical and research literature, talking to work colleagues or fellow students or academic staff. You may find that something mentioned in your taught modules may trigger your interest, or it may be that you start the course with an idea from your work that inspires you. Once you have some initial ideas the most important thing is to do some initial reading around the topic to investigate the theory base for the area of concern, what has been done on the topic before and what are the gaps in knowledge. From this you can then develop your research question.

Another way of looking for research ideas is to look at the university research support structures. The school has three Research and Enterprise Groups (REGs):
Long Term Conditions and Rehabilitation
Practice Based Learning and Pedagogy
Public Health and Wellbeing
If you feel that your interests fall into any of these areas then talk to your course leader.
Staff research profiles can give you an idea of the expertise amoung the staff. More information can be found here: https://research.brighton.ac.uk/en/persons

Good research should have a clear and focussed research question. It should normally indicate the study population, what is being studied and the outcomes or focus of the investigation. The following examples may help you:
Qualitative Empirical study: Question: How do middle aged men experience the relationship between their habitual leisure activities and their well-being?
Quantitative Empirical study: Question: What is the effect of a three-month physiotherapy therapy programme on the subjective well-being, resting heart rate and mobility of healthy people over 75 years old?
Literature based research project: Question: What is the most effective approach to self-management of asthma?

It is helpful to think about the following
? In your opinion, does your question address a significant problem? (Is it a worthwhile study?)
? Does the literature indicate that this is a gap / problem in the field?
? What sort of resources might you need to study this question? (Time, money, equipment, computer, statistician, fellow therapists, other).
? What type of participants will you need to study this question and are they available to you?
? Are there likely to be any serious ethical issues associated with this proposed study?

Importantly, the nature of the research question will usually guide the choice of methodology.

7.2 Designing your study

Within each of the research paradigms there are a number of approaches and designs of study that can be used and, in many cases, you can justify several approaches and designs for a given research question. This is where your supervisor can help you work through the options and decide which is the most appropriate way forward for your study.

7.3 Collecting the data

It is important to plan how you are going to collect data and to manage this in a standardised way whether this is empirical data or data from published sources. Data collection always takes more time that you think and needs to be carefully planned. Even with planning things rarely go totally smoothly and it is important to be honest about this in your write up and clarify how any changes were managed. When collecting data, it is important to keep in close contact with your supervisor who will want to know exactly what happened, will want to see the raw data before you start any analysis.

7.4 Analysing the data

All studies will need to include some formal analysis of the data. It is important that you use an established form of analysis and that you can justify your choice of approach to analysis in light of the research question and the nature of the data.

7.5 Drawing conclusions

When discussing your findings and drawing your conclusions, this is your chance to consider the implications of your findings in light of the literature review and the methodological constraints. Consider the following:
? The findings should be discussed in the light of current research and your field of study.
? Be aware of possible limitations of your study.
? It is important that the outcomes of your study are evaluated and analysed and you can see how they contribute to the existing literature and knowledge.
? Explore the relevance to practice, if appropriate.
? Further areas of research should be identified
? Conclusions should be tentative and proportionate to the strength of your findings
? To what extent did your study answer your original research question?

8. Writing up your Project Report or Dissertation

There are two options for structuring your final write up, a three part project report or a traditional dissertation. Details of each of these can be found in the following sections. We recommend that you use the project report structure in most cases, however if you feel that this will not be appropriate for your study, you can submit a traditional dissertation. You should decide with your supervisor which write up is the most appropriate for your study.

Whichever format you use, in your final thesis there should be a clear account of what you did, how you did it and why you did it that way. Your study should be justified using information from the literature. The research methods chosen should match the research question and their choice should also be justified with reference to the literature. There needs to be a clear account of what you did and what you found and finally you should consider your findings in the context of the literature and clinical practice.

8.1 Structure of the Project Report

The document will contain three distinct sections. The middle section is a research paper, in the style of a journal article for publication. The first and last sections are supporting information for this paper and allow you to explore the literature, and the interpretation of your findings in greater depth than a journal article would allow.

8.1.1 The Extended Literature Review:

The extended literature review gives you a chance to demonstrate a deeper understanding of your research area by critically evaluating the theoretical knowledge and existing evidence in a deeper way than you are able to in the paper. For example, within the limitation of the papers word limits you may only be able to focus on literature that directly relates to your research question. The extended literature review gives you the opportunity to examine literature that is still relevant to your question, but perhaps provides broader perspective e.g. historical or broader scientific perspectives on the topic. The opportunity to critique the work of others can also be extended in this section. For example, in the research paper you may only be able to briefly critique an article by clarifying its importance in relation to your study. In the extended review you may have the opportunity to critique the paper in more depth e.g. by commenting on the methodology or study design.

8.1.2 The Research Paper:

You need to identify a research journal which publishes studies such as the one that you have carried out. You will find the guidelines for authors for this journal online and the structure and format of your paper should follow the guidelines of the chosen journal. It is very important that you get a copy of these guidelines before commencing your paper. These should be included in your project write up as an appendix. Please note that some journals will accept papers on short reports, opinion pieces and literature reviews. It is important that your paper is in the format of a full research paper. If you are uncertain as to the exact format you should look at similar papers from that journal and follow that format.

8.1.3 The Critical Reflection/ Extended Discussion:

The critical reflection or extended discussion gives you the opportunity to explore the meaning of your findings in depth. It should also include a detailed critique of the strengths and limitations of your study, including the research methodology and methods that you have chosen. You may choose to evaluate aspects that did not go to plan or detail what you would do differently if you were to do it again. It should also contain a more personal component evaluating your personal thoughts and reflections on the entire research process, including what you have learnt. These sections are often very brief in the actual paper, but the critical reflection enables you to demonstrate that you are able to evaluate your research process. Some students choose to use a model of reflection (e.g. Gibbs) to guide their reflections but this is not a requirement. You may choose to write this section in formal scientific language or in the form of a first-person reflection. Please discuss this with your supervisor and decide which style would be more suitable for you and your study.

8.1.4 Word limit and format

The word limit for the research paper should follow the guidelines of the selected journal. If this is not stated, then the guidelines for academic papers in general are 5000-6000 words. This normally excludes references. The word limit for the extended literature review and critical reflection is 5000-6000 words for each excluding the appendices and references. You can divide this as you wish but as a guide an extended literature review of 5000-6000 words and critical review and reflection of up to 5000 words is usual. You may choose to organise your report like a sandwich with the extended literature review first, the paper in the middle and the critical reflection at the end.

8.1.5 References

References for the paper should be incorporated at the end of the paper and be presented in the format required by the journal. Additional references for the extended review and reflection can be provided at the end of the document using the Schools recommended format.

8.2 Structure of Traditional Dissertation

This write up takes the form of a single document, with the following chapters:

8.2.1 The Introduction and Literature Review Chapter

This should include the reason for undertaking the research and the background theory which underpins your question. Subheadings may be useful to break up the text. You need to give an account of the relevant literature in your area, including previous studies which have addressed similar research questions and present a critical evaluation of this evidence. This should lead into a consideration of your study, putting your own work into the context of others and the state of knowledge about the problem and finally stating your aim and/or your research question.

8.2.2 The Methodology/Methods Chapter

This chapter should include details of the philosophical underpinning of the work and of the study design. This is likely to be more substantial in qualitative studies than in quantitative and literature based studies. Moving onto the methods, you should give enough detail of methods used to enable someone to replicate your study. You need to give details of any equipment used and all processes of data collection. This is the case for all studies in all paradigms.

8.2.3 The Results Chapter

In this section you should describe your results clearly. Do not rely on graphs, tables, or sample quotes alone. These illustrate the point, but do not describe the meaning of the results/ findings. Tables and figures should be clearly and neatly labelled. Check that all your figures and tables are numbered and are mentioned in the text. Some individual participant data and raw data may be more suitable in an Appendix, but do not put pages of raw, unanalysed data into the appendices. It may be helpful to summarise your findings at the end of the Results Section.

8.2.4 The Discussion Chapter

Sub-headings may again be useful here. Your findings, described in the previous section, should now be fully discussed, explained and considered in the light of published work. You should not normally present results in this section (however in some qualitative studies it may be acceptable to combine the results/ findings and discussion in one section). If you refer back to figures and tables in the results, it is helpful for the reader to be given the page numbers. You should also include a critique of methods that you used. The implications of your research findings should be thoroughly explored.

8.2.5 The Conclusion Chapter

This could be included at the end of the Discussion chapter, it is not necessary to have a separate section. However, in this section you should summarise your conclusions arising directly from you results and those arising from further discussion in relation to other work. Try to link this to the aims of the study, as set out in your introduction. It may also be useful to add some suggestions for further work, or changes you would make in the research design if more time were available or the research conducted again.

8.2.6 Word limit and format of the document

A 60 M level dissertation should be in the region of 16,000 words. A report less than the word count is unlikely to demonstrate the depth of enquiry that is required, conversely, an excess of words does not demonstrate succinct writing or clarity of thought. Where appropriate, the dissertation may be divided so that there is more than one method, result/ findings and discussion section. For example, where preliminary studies have been carried out and are pre-requisites for the main study, it may be more straightforward to section into chapters for each experiment, with each chapter containing a brief introduction, method, results and discussion.

8.2.7 References

References for the whole document should be incorporated in a single reference list at the end of the document using the Schools recommended format.

8.3 General advice for all project submissions

Please follow this advice for all project writeups, both project reports and traditional dissertations.

8.3.1 Preliminaries

The project write up should contain the following preliminaries, (which is the general term for all the information which is found in the document before the main write up):

• Title page (see appendix 4 for layout)

• Declaration of authorship

• Abstract

• Acknowledgements

• Contents page, giving page numbers

• List of Tables, list of Figures

• List of other illustrative materials

8.3.2 Declaration of authorship

On the first page (just inside the front cover) you must copy the following declaration:

I confirm that the l work reported in this dissertation and the composition of the written dissertation has been carried out by the author named on the title page. I have read the regulations relating to plagiarism and I confirm that no part of this work has been copied from any other source unless it is referenced. I give permission for this work to be made available for reference by future cohorts of students

You must sign under this declaration to show that you agree with it.

8.3.3 Abstract

This is the first part of your work which a reader will read. This should be about 150 - 300 words and it is an important part of the dissertation. It may determine whether others read your dissertation and it gives the reader a framework from which to read the details of the dissertation. The abstract should give a summary of your work, including the rationale for the study, the overall procedure, the findings and the conclusions.

8.3.4 Appendices

The Appendices (which is the general term for all the information which is found in the document after the main write up) should contain:

• A copy of the relevant ethical approvals for your study (if relevant)

• Participant information sheet and consent form (if relevant)

• Copies of any questionnaires, interview schedules, and standardised assessments or other tools used.

• Guidelines for papers from the selected journal (project report writeups only)

• Additional results and analyses where appropriate

• Record of supervision for all submissions

8.3.3. Format of the document

A formal writing style should be used throughout your write up. Your writing style should be clear, concise and without ambiguity. Research and other academic papers are usually written in the third person and this is always the case in quantitative research. Qualitative studies may sometimes require a slightly different writing style, particularly when reporting transcripts of interviews and in some qualitative studies, it may be appropriate to write in the first person. Conventional abbreviations and acronyms can be used after clearly stating the full form of the word but please keep the use of abbreviations to a minimum. The text should be free of spelling and typographical errors and professional terminology should always be correctly used.

Please use a standard font such as Arial or Times New Roman. The font size should be either 10 or 12 point and the line spacing should be 1.5. Section headings and section numbers will help to give your work structure and help your reader to navigate your work, the heirachy of section headings and numbers in this document show how this system can work.

Pages must be numbered consecutively in Roman and Arabic numerals throughout the dissertation. The preliminary pages in Roman numerals e.g. title page (i), abstract (ii) etc., with the first page of the introduction starting at page 1.

8.3.4 Confidentiality

Your report must maintain confidentiality throughout. The names of the participants, the names and locations of participating organisations and the name of the researcher should not be contained within the document. This also includes appendices and other accompanying material. This is very important. If you breech confidentiality you will be required to resubmit a corrected copy of the work. Serious breaches of confidentiality may be considered as a breach of the professional code of conduct.

8.3.5 Referencing

References cited in the text should all appear in the reference list, all references listed should appear in the text. References should be listed according to the School of Sport and Health Sciences guidelines, following the Harvard Style, available in course area on My Studies. If you are submitting a research paper the reference list for this component could follow the guidance for authors for the specific journal.

9. Publishing your work

We hope that you will consider going on to publish your research in an appropriate journal or disseminate your work at a conference as a platform presentation or poster. This should always be done in conjunction with your supervisor and after the work has been marked. You should not submit anything to a conference or journal by yourself. Even good projects will need some further work or amendments to get a paper ready for publication.

We would encourage you to work with your supervisor to prepare the paper for publication or presentation and in that case, you will be the first author and your supervisor will be the second author. If you do not begin work on publication within 3 months of the exam board at which your project mark was ratified, your supervisor may take the initiative to write up the project for publication or presentation themselves. In that case your supervisor will be the first author and you would become the second author. This is to prevent the loss of valuable research work to the professions.

We have had many successful publications together with our students. Some examples are shown below: -

Cole, MJ, Morris, J and Scamell, A (2008) Challenges of CPD for physiotherapists working as lone practitioners in amputee rehabilitation Prosthetics & Orthotics International, 32 (3). pp. 264-275.

Moore, J, Fiddler, H, Russell, A, Johnson, L, Jolley, C, Seymour, J and Moxham, J (2009) The Effects of a Home Exercise Video Programme for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 41,195-200

Palmer, K., Hebron, C., and Williams, J (2015). A randomised trial into the effect of an isolated hip abductor strengthening programme and a functional motor control programme on knee kinematics and hip muscle strength. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 16:105 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0563-9; URL: http//www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/16/105

Pentelka, L., Hebron, C., Shapleski, R., Goldshtein, I. (2012) The effect of increasing sets (within one treatment session) and different set durations (between treatment sessions) of lumbar spine posteroanterior mobilisations on pressure pain thresholds. Manual therapy, 17, 6, 526-530.

Ryan, S-J & Wright, J (2010) The experience of postgraduate interprofessional learning within specialist rheumatology practice Ann Rheum Dis 2010: 69 (Suppl3):745

Ryan, S-J & Wright, J The experiences of physiotherapists learning inter-professionally on a specialist rheumatology programme. Poster presentation accepted for World Physical Therapy Congress 2011 20-23 June, Amsterdam, Holland

Thompson, C., Kuisma, R., Krouwel, O, Hebron, C. (2016). The outcome of hip exercise in patellofemoral pain: a systematic review. Manual Therapy. DOI 10.1016/j.math.2016.06.003 http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1356689X16306348

Ward, J., Petty, N., Hebron, C. (2016). The intra-rater reliability of a revised 3 point grading system for accessory joint mobilizations. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10669817.2016.1235246

Westad, K., F, Tjoestolvsen., C, Hebron (2019). The Effectiveness of Mulligans Mobilisation with Movement (MWM) on Peripheral Joints in Musculoskeletal (MSK) Conditions: A Systematic Review. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 39: 157-163.

Williams, K and Hebron, C. (2018) The Immediate Effects of Serving on Shoulder Rotational Range of Motion in Tennis Players. Physical Therapy in Sport. 34, 14-20

10 Additional guidelines for students doing an empirical study

When designing and reporting empirical studies the important consideration is to be able to justify all descisions that you make. Consider the following:

• Are you using a qualitative or quantitative paradigm or exploring your question using a mixed methodology? In all cases you must justify this and show how it fits with your research question.

• For qualitative studies what overall approach or theoretical framework did you use and why? E.g. ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, action research.

• For quantitative studies is your study experimental, quasi-experimental, non-experimental? Are you considering a randomised control trial, case control study, single case-study design, survey, correlational design?

• Why did you decide to collect your data in the manner that you did? E.g. ethnographic interviews, participant observation, questionnaires, focus groups, standardised measures, observations, measurements?

• If you used assessments or other measures were they standardised? If non-standardised measures were used how were reliability and validity established?

• For qualitative studies how did you ensure rigour and trustworthiness?

• Type of sampling, if appropriate (random, stratified, area, convenience). This may be important even for qualitative studies, for example, a sample nominated by someone other than the researcher to reduce bias; theoretical sampling for grounded theory development; or if a constant comparative method of analysis is to be used.

• Why did you use the study population which you used and can you justify the inclusion and exclusion criteria which you used.

• Justification of sample size requirements including power calculations for quantitative studies.

• When considering analysis:

• For quantitative data - What statistical analyses were undertaken and why (e.g. descriptive, correlation, regression, factor analysis)? What computer software was used if any?

• For qualitative data - what framework has been used. The method of analysis should be consistent with the approach used. E.g. a constant comparative analysis is more consistent with a grounded theory type of approach.

• Qualitative results are often presented using direct quotes in the text to illustrate key themes or findings. It is important to ensure that these do not breach confidentiality and to make sure that they are clearly representative of the category or theme. Sometimes the results and discussion can be written up as one combined section in qualitative studies.

11 Additional guidelines for students doing literature based research

Whilst it is generally acknowledged that a full-scale systematic review of evidence or meta-analysis may be more suited to doctoral and post-doctoral study, at masters level it is still necessary to approach the review using a systematic and scientifically justified approach, based on an accepted method. There are many methods documented (see reference list and useful websites for examples). The choice of approach should be discussed and agreed with your research supervisor.

In a literature based research study

• the literature is identified according to an explicit search strategy

• selected according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria

• evaluated against consistent methodological standards

Briefly, developing a literature based research project requires the following steps:

Defining an appropriate question. These studies require a clear research question which may include a statement of the intervention of interest, relevant patient groups (and sometimes the settings where the intervention is administered), as well as appropriate outcomes. These details are used to select studies for inclusion in the review.

Searching the literature. The literature is carefully and systematically searched for reports of published studies that fit the inclusion criteria. For an unbiased assessment of the evidence, this search must cover all the literature which fits the criteria. Bear in mind that there are concerns over publication bias, the notion that studies which report a positive outcomes or effects are more likely to be reported in published studies than those that report no effect.

Assessing the studies. Once all possible study reports have been identified, each study needs to be assessed for eligibility for inclusion, study quality and reported findings with reference to a recognized quality appraisal tool such as CASP. More recently GRADE has become a method of choice for some journals. https://training.cochrane.org/grade-approach

Combining the results. The findings from the individual studies must then be aggregated to produce a bottom line on the effectiveness of the intervention or an answer to the topic of enquiry or question. This aggregation can be qualitative, or a quantitative assessment using a technique known as meta-analysis.

Placing the findings in context. The findings from this aggregation of an unbiased selection of studies then need to be discussed to put them in context. This will address such issues as the quality and heterogeneity of the included studies, the likely impact of bias and chance and the applicability of the findings.

References and learning resources

Available on the Aspire Reading List on My Studies HS796 Dissertation module page.

Useful websites for systematic reviews

GRADE Cochrane Collaboration - https://training.cochrane.org/grade-approach

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination - http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/welcome.htm

Evidence based healthcare - https://joannabriggs.org/

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford - https://www.cebm.net/

12 Additional guidelines for students doing a Research by Design dissertation

The appropriateness of this route must be discussed with your course leader. Normally, research by design studies would be impossible to do within the limits of a masters research project. For example, the work may require the involvement of large numbers of participants perhaps within a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), or a longitudinal study might be required that would need to be conducted over a longer period of time than is possible within the framework of a masters course. A research by design study may be a prelude to Doctoral work or used to design a large study in situations where there may be problems obtaining ethics approval for a small scale masters degree study or where carrying out a protracted ethics process e.g. for research overseas which would prevent the student completing within the time frame related to their Masters degree.

The aim of the Research by Design dissertation is for you to demonstrate an understanding of and familiarity with the research process at masters level. This should be reflected in the degree of critical analysis at all stages, including the background literature, the justification of the methodology, project management, research governance and data analysis. The project management of the research will require students to identify possible problems within the research process, such as difficulty in the recruitment of participants and provide contingency plans or strategies to overcome these difficulties.

The literature review must be comprehensive and pertinent to the research question. It must be an analysis and critique of the literature rather than a description. It should conclude with a link to the proposed study and a clear statement of the research aims and/or hypothesis and research question. The choice of research paradigm (qualitative/quantitative) method and design must be justified and described. Methods must be described in detail. Methods of data analysis must be described and justified. Reliability and validity (quantitative studies) or trustworthiness (qualitative studies) of data should also be discussed.

There must be evidence of wide and appropriate reading and all aspects of the project must be supported by evidence from the literature. For most projects it will be necessary to include literature from several disciplines.

If you are undertaking a research by design project then you will need to fill out a BREAM on line ethics application, however, you do not need to submit this for scrutiny but instead download the application as a PDF which you will need to include in the appendices of your submission. This will allow you to demonstrate that you are aware of any ethical issues associated with your project proposal.

The write up for a Research by Design dissertation should normally include the following chapters:

• Introduction to the research and Literature review

• Methodology

• Project management (including method section)

• Research Governance (including ethics section)

• Data Analysis

• Discussion this should include discussion of all possible outcomes of your project, as well as limitations, clinical implications and further research.

• Conclusion

• The appendices should include
  
  
  • Ethics Protocol (a completed School of Health Professions Postgraduate Ethics Proforma)
  
  
  • Supervision record form (Appendix 3)
  
  
  

Appendix 1 Module outline

The module specification is also available on My Studies module page

Appendix 2

HS796 Dissertation Module - Outline Proposal Form

Student Name:

Dissertation Start Date:

Period of Registration End Date:

Planned submission Date:

Last date for 1^st attempt submission:

Proposed Title
Introduction (a brief introduction, which justifies the study: no reference list needed)
Research Question (written with? at the end)
Methodology- (e.g. phenomenological approach, experimental study design, systematic review)
Method of data collection (i.e. a brief outline of the operational plan for the study including recruitment, Inclusion/Exclusion criteria (of participants or information sources), steps proposed to collect data)
Data Analysis
Timetable of work to Submission of Dissertation

Please e mail this completed form to your course leader

The completed form should be no more than two sides in total

Appendix 3

Record of Supervision

Student Name:

Supervisor Name:

Dissertation Start Date:

Planned submission Date:

Period of Registration End Date:

Date	Type of supervision (individual, group, email, phone)	Duration	Topics discussed	Agreed action

Appendix 4 Sample Front Sheet

University of Brighton

School of Health Sciences

MSc Health

The right to decide: an exploration of learning preferences

60 credits

Jane Smith

Candidates Number

Submitted in part-fulfillment of the University of Brighton degree, MSc Health

04 June 2023

Word count: 16000 word

Appendix 5 HS796 Marking Criteria

HS796 Dissertation

(MSc in Advanced Clinical Practice, Advanced Occupational Therapy, Advanced Physiotherapy, Advanced Podiatry, Health, Health Promotion, Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy).

Traditional Dissertation Thesis: 16000 words

Project Report consisting of three parts: a paper for publication, an extended literature review and a critical appraisal

On successful completion of the module the student will be able to:

1. identify clear aims appropriate to a master's level dissertation and to their award title

1. demonstrate a high level of autonomy and responsibility in planning and executing the dissertation process

1. identify and formulate an appropriate research question, carry out an investigation of the problem, and present findings in a clear and considered manner

1. show a critical awareness of the selection and application of methodology, methods, data collection and analysis appropriate to the research focus

1. identify limitations of the study

1. demonstrate a critical awareness of ethical and governance issues in planning and execution of the study

1. critically evaluate judgements and conclusions and articulate an increased independence of view appropriate to the dissertation focus

1. demonstrate an in-depth knowledge in the appropriate field of study and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights at the forefront of their research focus.

	HE796 DISSERTATION Marking Descriptors
MARKING CRITERIA	80-100 (A+) First class/Distinction: An outstanding response to the task. All criteria have been achieved to an exceptionally high level?	70-79 (A A-) First class/Distinction: An excellent response to the task.? All criteria have been achieved to a high standard and many at an exceptionally high level?	60-69 (B+ B B-) Upper Second class/ Merit: A good to very good response to the task. All criteria have been met fully at a good or a very good standard?	50-59 (C+ C C-) Lower Second class/Pass: A sound, competent response to the task. All criteria have been met and some may have been achieved at a good standard?	40-49 Fail? An unsatisfactory response to the task? One or more of the criteria have not been met?	0-39 (E+ E E-) Fail:?? An unsatisfactory response to the task? Most of the criteria have not been met? ?
Knowledge and understanding?- Communication of frame of reference / literature review to show the relevance of the project?	Authoritative knowledge and critical understanding of theories, principles and concepts within the topic of study relevant to the chosen award. The topic selected represents a new approach or an original idea, emerging from an authoritative understanding of contemporary evidence and generating new insights at or informed by the forefront of the discipline.?	Excellent knowledge and critical understanding of theories, principles and concepts within the topic of study which is relevant to the chosen award. The topic selected represents a new approach or an original idea, emerging from a comprehensive understanding of contemporary evidence and demonstrating the potential to generate new insights at or informed by the forefront of the discipline.	Good to very good knowledge and critical understanding of theories, principles and concepts within the topic of study relevant to the chosen award. The topic selected emerges from a good understanding of contemporary evidence, shows independent thought and generates new insights. ?	Sound knowledge and critical understanding of theories, principles and concepts within the topic of study relevant to the chosen award. The topic selected emerges from contemporary evidence. Critical and independent thought is evident but limited.	Limited knowledge and critical understanding of theories, principles and concepts within the topic of study relevant to the chosen award. Evidence the topic selected is based on contemporary evidence is adequate but there is limited independent thought and generation of new insights.	Very limited knowledge and critical understanding of theories, principles and concepts within the topic of study relevant to the chosen award. The topic of study is not based on contemporary evidence and no new insights are generated. ?
Critical enquiry and appraisal ???- Critical evaluation and synthesis of the underpinning literature	Comprehensive background research supports a sophisticated, informed, clearly articulated argument as the basis of the dissertation or project. Originality in the approach to using established techniques of research and enquiry, to critically appraise arguments and methodologies and to propose new hypotheses/approaches? ?	Thorough background research supports an informed, clearly articulated argument as the basis of the dissertation of project. Originality in the approach to using established techniques of research and enquiry, to critically appraise arguments and methodologies and the ability to propose new hypotheses/approaches? ?	In-depth background research supports an informed, articulate argument as the basis of the dissertation of project. High level of ability to use established techniques of research and enquiry, to critically appraise arguments and methodologies and evaluate hypotheses/approaches? ?	Detailed background research supports an informed argument as the basis of the dissertation or project. Appropriate level of ability to use established techniques of research and enquiry, to critically appraise arguments and methodologies and some ability to evaluate hypotheses/approaches? ?	Limited or poorly informed background research undertaken to inform the dissertation or project. Insufficient ability to use established techniques of research and enquiry, to critically appraise arguments and methodologies or to evaluate hypotheses/approaches? ?	Inadequate or poorly informed background research to inform the dissertation or project. Failure to use established techniques of research and enquiry, to critically appraise arguments and methodologies or to evaluate hypotheses/approaches? ?
Identifying, analysing and solving problems??- Appropriateness of the research design or analytical framework for linking research questions to methods / justification of methodological approach	An original, imaginative and evidence based approach to the identification and design of an appropriate research approach for this study	An original and well justified approach to the identification and design of an appropriate research approach for this study ?	A valid and justified approach to the identification and design of an appropriate research approach for this study	A reasonable ability to identify and design an appropriate research approach for this study	Limited ability to identify and design an appropriate approach to designing this study ?	Very limited and/or flawed ability to identify and design an appropriate research design for this study
Analysing and interpreting - Appropriateness of methods of analysis and quality of their execution. Intellectual rigor brought to the interpretation of the results/ findings including reliability/ validity or trustworthiness and credibility	Outstanding levels of intellectual rigour- demonstrated in interpreting results in a comprehensive, coherent, polished and fluent way. Excellent and insightful consideration of reliability/ validity or trustworthiness and credibility ?	Excellent levels of intellectual rigour demonstrated in interpreting results in a comprehensive, coherent and fluent way. Clear and insightful consideration of reliability/ validity or trustworthiness and credibility	High levels of intellectual rigour demonstrated in interpreting results in a coherent way. Good consideration of reliability/ validity or trustworthiness and credibility	Sound evidence of intellectual rigour in interpreting results. Some consideration of reliability/ validity or trustworthiness and credibility	Limited evidence of rigour in interpreting results. Limited or no consideration of reliability/ validity or trustworthiness and credibility	Limited or no evidence of rigour?in interpreting results. Flawed or no consideration of reliability/ validity or trustworthiness and credibility ?
Discussion and contextualising - Evidence of originality of thought, critique and scholarship, when discussing and evaluating the outputs of the study and the implications and relation to the wider literature on the topic.	A sophisticated, well-informed, clearly articulated consideration of the outcomes of the study, integrating an understanding of the wider research and clinical context of the findings	Thorough, informed, clearly articulated consideration of the outcomes of the study, integrating an understanding of the wider research and clinical context of the findings	Articulate and well-considered discussion of the outcomes of the study, integrating relevant points relating to the research and clinical context of the findings	Reasonable and relevant discussion of the outcomes of the study, integrating some relevant points relating to the research and clinical context of the findings	Limited or poorly informed discussion of the outcomes of the study, with little or no consideration of the research and clinical context of the findings	Limited or flawed discussion of the outcomes of the study, with no consideration of the research and clinical context of the findings
Reflection and analysis of learning needs??- demonstrating insight into the development of thinking and understanding of the research process	Exceptional analysis of own learning needs in relation to continuing professional development and exceptional awareness of clinical research in the chosen field and evolving healthcare landscape.? ?	Excellent analysis of own learning needs in relation to continuing professional development and excellent awareness of clinical research in the chosen field and evolving healthcare landscape.?? ?	Good analysis of own learning needs in relation to continuing professional development and a very good awareness of clinical research in the chosen field and evolving healthcare landscape.?? ? ? ?	Sound analysis of own learning needs in relation to continuing professional development and a sound awareness of evolving clinical research in the chosen field and evolving healthcare landscape.?? ?	Limited analysis of own learning needs in relation to continuing professional development and an adequate but limited awareness of clinical research in the chosen field and current healthcare landscape.?? ? ?	Very little analysis of own learning needs in relation to continuing professional development. Limited, inadequate or no awareness of clinical research in the chosen field and current healthcare landscape.?? ?
Communication and presentation?- Quality of organization and structure of dissertation including presentation, written English and use of referencing system.	The communication of work, including structure, coherence, accuracy and presentation (written) is exemplary throughout and work is of a publishable standard. A system of referencing has been precisely and correctly applied. ?	The communication of work, including structure, coherence, accuracy and presentation (written) is excellent throughout and there is potential for the work to be published. A system of referencing has been precisely and correctly applied.	The communication of work, including structure, coherence, accuracy and presentation (written) is very good?throughout. A system of referencing has been precisely and correctly applied. ?	The communication of work, including structure, coherence, accuracy and presentation (written) is sound?throughout. A system of referencing has been correctly applied, there may be some minor errors. ?	The communication of work, including structure, coherence, accuracy and presentation (written) is adequate but may contain inaccuracies. A system of referencing has been applied but there may be inaccuracies.	The communication of work, including structure, coherence, accuracy and presentation (written) is inadequate and contains inaccuracies. Referencing has been poorly or inconsistently applied.
Decision-making and demonstrating initiative and personal responsibility??	Exceptional decision-making within complex professional contexts. Very high levels of initiative and personal responsibility as well as demonstrating self-direction and autonomy	Excellent decision-making within complex professional contexts. High levels of initiative and personal responsibility as well as demonstrating self-direction and autonomy	Good decision-making within complex professional contexts. Effective levels of initiative and personal responsibility as well as demonstrating some autonomy	Sound decision-making within complex professional contexts. Initiative and personal responsibility demonstrated adequately as well as some ability to show autonomy	Limited evidence of decision-making within complex professional contexts. Limited evidence of initiative and personal responsibility or autonomy	No evidence of decision-making within complex professional contexts, nor evidence of initiative and personal responsibility or autonomy

Appendix 6 University of Brighton Postgraduate (Level 7) Marking Descriptors

89-100% High Distinction

All learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been achieved to an exceptionally high level

An outstanding response to the task. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics beyond that expected for work at the given level of study within the discipline:

• Exceptional display of understanding, exploration, insight and/or research

• Potential for publication/exhibition and/or ability to undertake further research

• All specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been adhered to.

• The organization, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, are exemplary throughout.

• Evidence of effective communication of work to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• Stimulating and rigorous arguments that are likely to be at the limits of what may be expected at the level.

• The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in an original way.

• Inspirational, innovative and authoritative evidence of intellectual rigor, independence of judgement and insightful contextualization, including relevant theory/artefacts/performance.

• Clear evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence.

• Evidence of very high-quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal.

• Outstanding problem-solving skills suggests alternative approaches.

• Ability to address complex issues both systematically and creatively challenges established knowledge.

70-79% Distinction

All learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been achieved to a high standard and many to an exceptionally high level

An excellent response to the task. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

• In depth understanding, exploration, insight and/or research

• Potential for publication/exhibition and/or ability to undertake further research

• All specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been adhered to.

• The organization, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, are excellent throughout.

• Evidence of effective communication of work to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• Convincing arguments that are likely to be at the limits of what may be expected at the level.

• The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in an original way.

• Insightful contextualization, including relevant theory/artefacts/performance.

• Clear evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence.

• Evidence of high to very high-quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal.

• Excellent problem-solving skills suggests alternative approaches.

• Ability to address complex issues effectively challenges established knowledge.

60-69% Merit

All learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been met fully at a good or very good standard

A good to very good response to the task. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

• Good to very good understanding and exploration, some insight and/or thorough research

• Some capacity to undertake further research

• No significant inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors.

• The specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been adhered to.

• The work is well organised, coherent and the standard of presentation, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, is at least good.

• Evidence of effective communication of work.

• Ability to present structured, clear and concise arguments.

• The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a comprehensive way with some level of originality.

• Appropriate contextualization, including relevant theory/literature/artefacts/performance.

• Evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence.

• Evidence of high-quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal.

• Good or at least competent problem-solving skills suggests alternative approaches.

• Ability to address complex issues competently explores established knowledge

50-59% Pass

All learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been met

An adequate to sound response to the task. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

• Sound understanding and exploration, some insight and/or appropriate research

• Some minor inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings small but not significant errors.

• Some minor aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task.

• The work is suitably organised, coherent and the standard of presentation, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, is at least sound.

• Ability to develop and argument but can lack fluency.

• The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a standard way with limited evidence of originality.

• Some contextualization but with a heavy reliance on a limited number of sources and, in general, the breadth and depth of sources and research are lacking.

• Evidence of study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence.

• Some but limited evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal.

• Some evidence of problem-solving skills

• Some evidence of ability to address complex issues adequately.

40-49?il

One or more of the learning outcomes/assessment criteria has not been met

An unsatisfactory response to the task. The work may display some strengths but these are outweighed by several weak features in relation to the expectations for the given level of study within the discipline, such as:

• Limited understanding and/or exploration of major ideas, with very little insight and/or minimal research

• Some significant inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings gaps in understanding and/or knowledge.

• Insufficient attention paid to some of the assessment criteria and some significant aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task.

• The work is too descriptive, somewhat disorganized and unclear and the standard of presentation, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, is inadequate.

• Development of an argument is limited and often flawed.

• The work has been approached and/or executed/performed inadequately.

• The content provided takes the form of description lacking any breadth, depth and accuracy.

• Limited or inappropriate research and demonstrated ability to reach decisions

• Insufficient evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal.

• Little evidence of problem-solving skills

• Barely addresses complex issues

0-39?il

Most of the learning outcomes/assessment criteria have not been met

An unsatisfactory response to the task. The work fails to meet the requirements in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline, exemplified by most of all the following:

• Very limited understanding and/or exploration of major ideas with very little or no insight and/or minimal research

• Several significant inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings minimal or no evidence of knowledge and understanding of the subject.

• Insufficient attention paid to several of the assessment criteria and some serious deviations from the specifications for the assessment task.

• The work is descriptive, poorly structured and the standard of presentation, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, is inadequate.

• The work lacks supporting evidence or argument

• The work has been approached and/or executed/performed inadequately.

• Failure to contextualize from sources

• Little or no evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

• Little of no evidence of problem-solving skills

• Failure to address complex issues