Research Proposal Assessment Writing
- Subject Code :
6OT516
- University :
University of Queensland Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
- Country :
United Kingdom
Research Design
6OT516
Research Proposal Assessment Brief
Module Leader
- Julie Bernstein
- J.bernstein@derby.ac.uk, ext 253
- Tues-Fri
Key dates and details
Assessment Detail |
Assessment Information |
Assessment Type: |
Individual Research Proposal |
Assessment Weighting: |
100% |
Word count/Length: |
3000 words +/- 10% |
Learning Outcomes: |
1, 2 and 3 |
Submission Method: |
Turnitin |
Submission Date: |
12:00 Noon UK time, 29/05/2025 |
Provisional Feedback Release Date: |
12:00 Noon UK time, 19/06/2025 |
Description of the assessment
3000 word research proposal incorporating a review of literature pertaining to a selected topic relevant to occupational therapy
This research proposal should be based on the findings and outcomes of a literature review, which will need to be included as part of the proposal. The proposal will outline a proposed research project which would address the gaps identified within the evidence base. It will include a research question, a research aim and objectives which would support the achievement of the research aim. The proposal will also consider and justify the research methodology and methods chosen to complete the research. The ethical implications of conducting the research will be considered.
Learning Outcome
- Demonstrate skills of critical enquiry in order to identify a topic for further investigation of relevance for occupational therapy practice.
- Critically appraise and evaluate the evidence base in a chosen area in order to identify an area for future research.
- Design a research proposal including research methodology and design.
Relationship to Programme Assessment Strategy
This assessment forms part of the variety of assessment styles used across the programme and builds on skills learnt in the level 5 module Understanding the Evidence Base. It also meets requirements of the Health and Care Professions Council and Royal College of Occupational Therapists regarding knowledge and skills in research and evidence-based practice.
Attributes and Skills
In this module and will develop your understanding of research further. You will use this to read and appraise research literature on a chosen topic and produce a research proposal based on a gap in that research.
|
Skills |
Links to useful resources |
x |
Critical thinking |
https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/critical-reading |
x |
Communication |
https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/referencing |
? |
Collaboration |
|
? |
Creative problem solving |
|
x |
Self-direction & planning |
https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/preparing-for-study |
? |
Numeracy, statistics & financial literacy |
|
x |
Digital |
Finding journals & journal articles online: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/c.php?g=689420&p=4934979 Finding print books & ebooks: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/c.php?g=691343&p=4972530 |
? |
Resilience |
https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/academic-wellbeing |
? |
Adaptability |
|
? |
Leadership & future thinking |
Assessment Content
The following information is provided to offer guidance on how to structure your 3000 word research proposal, with suggestions made for areas which you may wish to cover in each section as appropriate to your proposed project.
Your research proposal should be structured using the following format:
- Title/ Research Question approximately 25 words.
- Literature Review 1500 words approx
This should begin with a brief rationale for the topic, followed by an overview of your literature search strategy. The literature review should be presented in terms of themes, synthesizing the literature on your topic, also considering the quality of the evidence (informed by critical appraisal). It should culminate in justifying the gap your research proposal will seek to fill.
- Aim approximately 25 words
This should clearly link to your title / research question.
- Objectives (no more than 3) approximately 100 words.
These should clearly link to your title / research question.
- Methodology/ Methods and justification which addresses your title/ research question approximately 1000 words.
Consider quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, inclusion/ exclusion criteria, sampling, recruitment, data collection, data analysis and justification for decision making as applicable for your research proposal and use references to support your decisions.
- Ethics - approximately 250 words.
Considerconsent, debriefing, withdrawal, confidentiality, protection of participants, data protection as applicable for your research proposal using references where appropriate.
- References (not counted in the word count, no limit on number)
- Appendices (1. literature search strategy and 2. summary of literature table; not counted in word count)
Within this proposal there is an expectation that you justify the choices and decisions you make for the project you propose.
Pleaseuse 12 pt font, double spacing and left align text.
Assessment Rubric
|
Excellent 70-100% |
Very Good 60-69% |
Good 50-59% |
Satisfactory 40-49% |
Unsatisfactory 35-39% |
Poor 21-34% |
Very Poor 0-20% |
LO1 content: Demonstrate skills of critical enquiry in order to identify a topic for further investigation of relevance for occupational therapy practice. |
Exceptional rationale presented for the topic, with consideration of the implications for OT practice. An excellently concise but systematic literature search strategy included, and consideration of how the literature has been appraised. |
Very good rationale presented for the topic, with consideration of the implications for OT practice. A very good literature search strategy included, and consideration of how the literature has been appraised. |
Good rationale presented for the topic, with links to OT practice. A good literature search strategy included, and consideration of how the literature has been appraised. |
Satisfactory rationale presented for the topic, with mention of OT practice. Elements of a literature search strategy included, but possibly without mention of how the literature has been appraised. |
Unsatisfactory rationale presented for the topic, with no mention of OT. Little or no literature search strategy and no mention of how the literature has been appraised. |
Unsatisfactory or no rationale for the topic, with no mention of OT. No literature search strategy included and no mention of how the literature has been appraised. |
Little of merit |
LO2 content: Critically appraise and evaluate the evidence base in a chosen area in order to identify an area for future research. |
Exceptional synthesis of the findings of the literature review, which includes critical appraisal and evaluation of the content and quality of the evidence. Excellent recommendations for future research and identification of a logical, appropriate area for research. |
Very good synthesis of the findings of the literature review, which includes critical appraisal and evaluation of the content and quality of the evidence. Very good recommendations for future research and identification of a logical, appropriate area for research. |
Good synthesis of the findings of the literature review, which includes critical appraisal and evaluation of the content and quality of the evidence. Good recommendations for future research and identification of an appropriate area for research. |
Some synthesis of the findings of the literature review, which includes some critical appraisal and evaluation of the content and quality of the evidence. Satisfactory recommendations for future research and identification of an appropriate area for research. |
Inadequate synthesis of the findings of the literature review, which lacks critical appraisal and evaluation of the content and quality of the evidence. Little consideration of recommendations for future research and/or identification of an inappropriate or illogical area for research. |
Lack of synthesis of the findings of the literature review, with little or no critical appraisal and evaluation of the content and quality of the evidence. Little or no consideration of recommendations for future research and/or identification of an inappropriate, illogical or no area for research. |
Little of merit |
LO3 content: Design a research proposal including research methodology and design. |
Exceptionally well thought through research proposal with clear, realistic and achievable title, aims and objectives. A clearly articulated research proposal with detailed consideration of the research strategy, including data collection and analysis methods to be used. A high level of recognition of the ethical implications of the proposed research. |
A very good research proposal with clear, realistic and achievable title, aims and objectives. A clearly articulated research proposal with detailed consideration of the research strategy, including data collection and analysis methods to be used. A very good level of recognition of the ethical implications of the proposed research. |
A good research proposal with clear, realistic and achievable title, aims and objectives. A clearly articulated research proposal with consideration of the research strategy, including data collection and analysis methods to be used. Good recognition of the ethical implications of the proposed research. |
A basic research proposal with clear, realistic and achievable title, aims and objectives. The research proposal contained some consideration of elements of the research strategy. Some recognition of ethical implications of the proposed research. There may be small inaccuracies, lack of clarity or misunderstanding in some or all of these sections. |
An unsatisfactory demonstration of knowledge or understanding. This submission did not present an achievable research proposal. There was little or no consideration of the research strategy and data collection tools to be used. There was little or no consideration of the ethical implications of the proposed research. There were inaccuracies, lack of clarity or misunderstandings in some or all of these sections. |
An unsatisfactory demonstration of knowledge or understanding. Inaccuracies and/or lack of clarity. This submission did not present an achievable research proposal. No consideration of the research strategy and data collection tools to be used. No consideration of the ethical implications of the proposed research. There were inaccuracies, lack of clarity or misunderstandings in some or all of these sections. |
Little of merit |
Academic Rigour: How well the whole work is researched and supported. |
Exceptionally well researched and supported. |
Very well researched and supported. |
Reasonably researched and supported. |
Satisfactorily researched and supported. |
Limited evidence of research. |
Very limited research. |
Little of merit |
Presentation: Standard of presentation, clarity, coherence, logic and command of writing style. |
Exceptional clarity of ideas, coherence and logic demonstrated. Excellent academic writing style. Within the (+/-10%) word count. |
Very good clarity of ideas, coherence and logic is demonstrated. Very good academic writing style. Minor errors only. Within the (+/-10%) word count |
Good clarity of ideas, coherence and logic is demonstrated. Good academic writing style. Within the (+/- 10%) word count. May be some typographical, grammatical and/or spelling errors. |
Reasonable to satisfactory clarity of ideas, coherence and logic. Structure and flow may be difficult to follow at times. Casual, informal or inaccurate use of terms at some points. Some consistent typographical, grammatical or spelling errors which may change meaning or make meaning unclear. May not be within the word count. |
Presentation of this work does not meet the required standard. Ideas are unclear and /or incoherent. Frequent errors. Unsatisfactory academic writing style - e.g. colloquial, note form. May not meet the word count. |
Presentation of this work does not meet the required standard. Ideas are significantly unclear and /or incoherent. Frequent errors. Unsatisfactory academic writing style - e.g. colloquial, note form. Does not meet the word count. |
Presentation of this work does not meet the required standard. Unacceptable standard of academic writing, such as a list or notes submitted. Complete lack of clarity. Does not meet the word count. |
Referencing: In accordance with University of Derby guidelines. |
Excellent referencing in the Cite Them Right Harvard style and consistently correct. |
Very good referencing in the Cite Them Right Harvard style. Minor referencing errors only. |
Referencing is generally accurate in the Cite Them Right Harvard style. Some inconsistencies and/or omissions evident. |
Referencing at times incorrect/ statements frequently go unreferenced. |
Referencing consistently incorrect/ statements frequently go unreferenced. |
Referencing consistently incorrect/ statements frequently go unreferenced. |
Lack of referencing and/ or incorrect referencing. |
Anonymous Markin
Submissions in Turnitin and Blackboard
You must submit your work using your student number to identify yourself, not your name. You must not use your name in the text of the work at any point. When you submit your work in Turnitin you must submit your student number within the assignment document and in the Submission title field in Turnitin. Guidance is available showing how to do this.
Assessment Regulations
The Universitys regulations, policies and procedures for students define the framework within which teaching and assessment are conducted. Please make sure you are familiar with these regulations, policies and procedures.
