ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

1. Specification and Definition of the Project Title: is the title focused, summative, and does it reflect the proposal/dissertation content? Abstract: is it short (300-500 words), self contained, summative, objective, precise and easy to read. Introduction: is background information included? Is an introduction to current research included and developed? An introduction to the organisation where relevant? Have you demonstrated the relevance of your dissertation to the field and is it theoretically grounded? Links to relevant literature and academic debates, the evidence of extensive reading will be valued. Is there a clear rationale for the project? Does the introduction provide a clear rationale for the project aim and objectives?

2. Literature Review Provide a critical review of relevant academic literature; Critique existing research and link it to aims/objectives; Review key academic theories; Demonstrate relevance to contemporary/current debates

Be current (not outdated sources); Be related to previous published and “recognised” work; Be critical (sources that both support and oppose aims and objectives) ; Be able to differentiate fact and opinion Assess strengths and weaknesses of previous work; Be objective, unbiased, coherent and cohesive; Adhere to the Harvard referencing system.

3 Methodology Is there a clear and concise account and justification for each of the following: The research approach; The research design/strategy; Data collection methods, participants ; Ethical issues; Reliability and validity of the study ; Limitations; Appropriateness of the research design.

4 Analysis and Discussion Are the findings presented by objective? Is the data properly described, transformed, and analysed? Are the analyses appropriately presented (graphically or verbatim)?; Have the correct analyses been conducted? Do the analyses answer the research objectives?; Does the analysis relate or is linked to previous knowledge in the field?; Is the analysis built from the findings?; Is the analysis linked back to the literature review?; Is the analysis analytical or merely descriptive? HAVE THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
BEEN MET?

5. Conclusions & Recommendations Are the conclusions drawn from the findings? Are the conclusions linked to the literature?
Are the conclusions linked to aims and objectives? Are the recommendations based on the findings and conclusions? Are the recommendations feasible?

6. Presentation – In general: Organisation and layout of material. Style including spelling and grammar. Use of material. Bibliography and citations. Appropriate use of appendices. Evidence of the understanding of process in terms of linkage between chapters, the flow of the work. Reflection on the process and possible improvements – Is cohesive, well-structured and inter-linked. Sections complement each other. Complies with traditional research format. Follows Harvard Referencing style. Follows Academic writing

7. Process and Reflection Pro-active approach to dissertation. Evidence of Learning and Development. Achievement of agreed milestones. From the above, it should be clear that examiners not only consider the technical merit of a dissertation, but also the logical development of argument. Students need to demonstrate interpretative skills and show the ability to study a problem in depth adopting a critical and analytical manner. Work that is descriptive, superficial and lacking direction will not be graded highly. Have the students reflected on the process, demonstrated learning in their pathway and applied this in their consideration of future development?