Investigative Technology Project Assignment

COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT BRIEF ACADEMIC YEAR 2016 - 2017

MODULE

INVESTIGATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

ASSESSMENT TITLE

THE PROJECT REPORT

ASSESSMENT IDENTIFIER

GLOSBCU1004

WEIGHTING: 100% OF MODULE GRADE REPORT: 80% VIVA: 20%

SCHOOLS

BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY: DIGITAL MEDIA TECHNOLOGY GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE: DEPARTMENT OF ARTS & MEDIA

ASSESSMENT HAND OUT DATE

FRIDAY 7TH OCTOBER 2016

MODULE CO-ORDINATORS

HAMEED OKYERE NOSA OBAYIUWANA

ASSESSMENT HAND IN DATE

FRIDAY 12TH MAY 2017 (4.30PM IN D121)

RE-ASSESSMENT HAND IN

TO BE CONFIRMED

SUPPORT AVAILABLE FOR STUDENTS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A RE-ASSESSMENT

Timetabled revision sessions will be arranged for the period immediately preceding the hand in date.

NOTE:

At the first assessment attempt, the full range of marks are available. At the reassessment the mark is capped and the maximum mark that can be achieved is 40%

ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Production of a 6000-word processed project report with audio visual artifacts and bibliography (80% of grade) and attendance at viva voce (20% of grade).

CONTACT: hameed.okyere@gloscol.ac.uk nosa.obayiuwana@gloscol.ac.uk

AVOIDING ALLEGATIONS OF CHEATING The University takes allegations of cheating, in any form of assessment, very seriously. We class it as a disciplinary offence if a student attempts to gain or helps someone else to gain an unfair advantage over other students. Students who are suspected of cheating will have to attend a formal hearing to explain their case, and if found guilty of cheating the penalties can be severe, including the removal of academic credit or even your permanent expulsion from the University.

Here are a few simple principles to follow to avoid allegations of cheating: It is YOUR responsibility to be aware of these principles and act accordingly.

The basic principles are:         

Don’t pass off anyone else’s work as your own, including work from “essay banks”. This is plagiarism and is viewed extremely seriously by the University.

Don’t submit a piece of work in whole or in part that has already been submitted for assessment elsewhere. This is called duplication and, like plagiarism, is viewed extremely seriously by the University.

Always acknowledge all of the sources that you have used in your coursework assignment or project.

If you are using the exact words of another person, always put them in quotation marks.

Check that you know whether the coursework is to be produced individually or whether you can work with others.

If you are doing group work, be sure about what you are supposed to do on your own.

Never make up or falsify data to prove your point.

Never allow others to copy your work.

Never lend disks, memory sticks or copies of your coursework to any other student in the University; this may lead you being accused of collusion.

By submitting coursework, either physically or electronically, you are confirming that it is your own work (or, in the case of a group submission, that it is the result of joint work undertaken by members of the group that you represent) and that you have read and understand the University’s guidance on plagiarism and cheating.

Students should be aware that, at the discretion of the module coordinator, coursework may be submitted to an electronic detection system in order to help ascertain if any plagiarised material is present.

Students should also be aware that it is their responsibility to ensure that work submitted in electronic format can be opened on a faculty computer and to check that any electronic submissions have been successfully uploaded. If it cannot be opened it will not be marked. Any required file formats will be specified in the assignment brief and failure to comply with these submission requirements will result in work not being marked.

Standard Birmingham City University Undergraduate Assessment Regulations: Your studies will be governed by the Undergraduate Assessment Regulations (UAR 20).

Under these regulations you are permitted two attempts at assessment for each module: a first sit and reassessment attempt.

This means that you will be required to withdraw from the course if, following the reassessment attempt, you have not passed.

Fuller Gloscol / Birmingham City University regulations are contained in the last 7 pages of this document.

ASSIGNMENT MODULE

INVESTIGATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

QUALIFICATION

BSc FILM PRODUCTION WITH APPLIED TECHNOLOGY

HAND OUT DATE

FRIDAY 7TH OCTOBER 2016

ASSIGNMENT HAND IN

FRIDAY 12TH MAY 2017

CREDITS

40 (AT LEVEL 6)

LEARNING OUTCOMES TO BE ASSESSED: 1. Appraise an appropriate body of published research/ professional output and research methodologies in order to develop a research problem expressed as a research question.

2. Devise a project plan that applies key methods and techniques, underpinned by debates/theories to create an appropriate response to the research question.

3. Synthesise the knowledge gained from the research activities to create an artefact that expresses ideas in answer to the research question recognising the limitations of the project and areas for potential development or further research.

4. Successfully communicate the results of the project giving consideration to appropriate and relevant academic, ethical and professional requirements.

ASSIGNMENT DETAILS:

Technology, from image capture and storage through to sound recording, material manipulation and post production, underpins our work as filmmakers. As you prepare to make the transition into the industry, a grasp of technology, and the knowledge acquisition process, will allow you develop into a well-rounded professional in whatever department within moving image production you decide to work in.

For this assignment, you will write a 6000-word processed report in response to a research question you have generated on a specific topic in film technology. This project requires you to develop in-depth knowledge and skills around a particular issue. Your work here should illustrate an ability to consider the wider issues that relate to the research question, your management of resources and research activities, and your competence in generating and reporting on solutions that meet task objectives. This assignment therefore provides opportunity to demonstrate research and technical skills that make you useful to an employer within film and TV. For this assignment: 1. Project topics should be student proposed but lecturer approved.

2. Your topic should give sufficient scope for the exploration of technology or the subject matter to be investigated in a suitable scientific manner appropriate to a BSc. 3. Assistance with selecting the project topic will be through guidance notes, tutorials, meetings and on-line resources.

4. The module leader in consultation with degree lecturers will establish the suitability of proposed topics.

5. Completing the project involves A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Generating the research question Specifying an aim Formulating objectives Planning and managing resources and activities Considering alternative approaches and techniques Researching literature and information for topic specific and wider issues Devising solutions Creating the artefact that show primary research done Analysing, evaluating, and verifying results.

Maintaining records; recording progress and documenting outcomes

There are a number of key milestones within the project, each with a separate deliverable MILESTONES I. A project registration form outlining the nature of the project. This is used to allocate a supervisor who can assist in developing the projects aims and objectives

DEADLINES 29.11.16

II.

A proposal document which outlines the project aim and how it is to be achieved, expressed as a number of objectives, rationale, tasks/activities, resources, expenditure, schedule and safety assessment. The project proposal document is the foundation for the project activity through the academic year and benefits from formative feedback. The proposal document is used to allocate a supervisor and is considered as part of the final assessment as one aspect of the project’s management

29.11.16

III.

First progress report and mini-viva in January. Evidence considered at the progress review includes a short written progress/evaluation document covering knowledge gained, initial research findings and possible methodologies with a question/answer session.

30.1.17 31.1.17

IV.

Second progress review in March in the form of a report which includes a discussion of the progress made, chosen methodology and plans for the main report.The main report is the culmination of the project module and is submitted towards the end of the scheduled duration. The guidance notes require the content and format of reports to follow accepted conventions appropriate to the study area.

6.3.17 7.3.17

V.

The main submission will allow for the exploration of existing research in the chosen area, going on to detail the student’s chosen methodology and findings. The analysis and verification of results may be achieved through comparison to established theory, techniques, experimentation or via the creation of an artefact. The knowledge gained will be discussed, conclusions drawn and recommendations for further study highlighted. A poster summarising the projects key points is also produced

12.5.17

VI.

A final project viva is undertaken after submission of the main report and poster. The presentation, supported by appropriate visual media, offers the opportunity to reflect on the project and for students to demonstrate depth of knowledge and defend the approach and conclusions through response to questions

15.5.17 16.5.17 17.5.17

THINGS TO NOTE Study mode / delivery method(s): 

The normal timescale for completing a project is from October to May.



Regular contact between the student and project supervisor is expected. Students have responsibility for maintaining contact with their supervisors and should meet/communicate with them on a regular basis.



Tutorials are scheduled during the year covering all aspects of undertaking and writing up the project.

Tutorials are supported by on-line material on our ISSUU pages, the university’s VLE. The Centre for Academic Success provides resources to support students in following good practice and creating deliverables.

Formative Assessment 

Opportunities for formative assessment will be provided in supervisor meetings and through online directed study activities.

Summative Assessment 

Assessment comprises an interim progress review, main report and viva.

Feedback 

Written feedback is provided for each deliverable of summative assessment. Feedback for formative assessment is both written, as for the proposal document, and informal at for example at meetings with supervisor, on-line and email. There is also opportunity for informal feedback at tutorial sessions.

Each element and the overall grade will be marked according to the following grade boundaries:

Fail

3rd Class

2:2

2:1

1st Class

< 40 %

40 – 49%

50 – 59%

60 – 69%

> 70%

MODULE GUIDE Section One Module Title: INVESTIGATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

Code: GLOSBCU1004

Credit Value: 40

Level: 6

Module Overview As technology becomes more important in the creation of moving images, an understanding through a practiceled knowledge applied approach is essential for graduates who wish to work in, or around, technical roles. This module will provide students with the opportunity to apply knowledge and skills gained during the course to a relevant technical query related to technology used within the industry.

Module work will improve students understanding of a specific technical issue in a recognisable technology area.

Learning will evolve round (but not be limited to) literature reviews of existing scholarship, lab tests, written reports, and lecture sessions culminating in a word processed document of between six and seven thousand words. This will provide evidence of students’ ability to conduct research to an acceptable standard. This theoretical, practical and critical approach will underpin much of the project work; students will do primary and secondary action research. The project topic, reflective process, proffered solutions, and consideration of wider issues should be explicit and remain in focus throughout.

There must be suitable evidence that the student is able to manage their own time, independently organise research activities and efficiently utilise available resources. The project therefore provides opportunity to demonstrate technical and general employability preparation for career progression. It is designed to amalgamate enquiry, experimentation, exploration, testing and critique so the student can advance into post graduate study or work in some technical capacity within the moving image industry.

INDICATIVE CONTENT: 1. A proposal document which outlines the project aims and how it is to be achieved, expressed as a number of objectives, rationale, tasks/activities, resources, expenditure, schedule and safety assessment. The project proposal document is the foundation for the project activity through the academic year and benefits from formative feedback. The proposal document will be considered as part of the final assessment and an aspect of the project’s management.

2. First progress report and mini viva to be held in the last week of November 2016. Evidence to be considered at the progress review will include a short written progress/evaluation document covering knowledge gained, initial research findings and possible methodologies with a question/answer session. There should be discussion on how the module will influence practical work in Film Production & Direction.

3. The main submission will allow for the exploration of existing research in the chosen area, going on to detail the student’s chosen methodology and findings. The analysis and verification of results may be achieved through comparison to established theory, techniques, experimentation, and via the creation of an artefact.

The knowledge gained will be discussed, conclusions drawn and recommendations for further study highlighted. A poster summarising the projects key points is also produced.

4. A final project viva is undertaken after submission of the main report and poster. The presentation, supported by appropriate audio/visual media, offers the opportunity to reflect on the project and for students to demonstrate depth of knowledge and defend the approach and conclusions through response to questions.

Module Learning outcomes:

1. Appraise an appropriate body of published research/ professional output and research methodologies in order to develop a research problem expressed as a research question.

2. Devise a project plan that applies key methods and techniques, underpinned by debates/theories to create an appropriate response to the research question.

3. Synthesise the knowledge gained from the research activities to create an artefact that expresses ideas in answer to the research question recognising the limitations of the project and areas for potential development or further research.

4. Successfully communicate the results of the project giving consideration to appropriate and relevant academic, ethical and professional requirements.

Library & Learning Resources â&#x20AC;&#x201C; available through REBUS (Reviewed Annually) Purchase

Kumar, R (2014). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 4th ed. London / California / New Delhi / Singapore: Sage. 2014.

Essential (Books/Journals/Specific chapters/Journal Articles)

Bell, J (2014). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers. 6th ed. Berkshire / New York: Open University Press.

Creswell, J. W (2014). Research Design (International Student Edition): Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. London / California / New Delhi / Singapore: Sage.

Deane, M (2010). Inside Track to Academic Research, Writing & Referencing. Harlow, England: Longman.

McNiff, M (2013). Action Research. 3rd ed. Abington Oxon: Routledge.

Polonsky, M. J (2015). Designing and Managing a Research Project: A Business Student's Guide .

3rd ed. London / California / New Delhi / Singapore: Sage.

Wilson, E. B (2003). An Introduction to Scientific Research. 3rd ed. New York: Dover Publications Inc.

Recommended

Myers, G. F (2015). Project Management: Efficient & Effective: The Beginners Pocket Guide to Successful Project Completion. Place of publication not known: Create-Space Independent Publishing Platform.

SHARP, J. 2002. The Management of a Student Research Project, 3rd ed. Aldershot: Gower.

Background Box, H. C (ed) (2010). Set Lighting Technician's Handbook: Film Lighting Equipment, Practice and Electrical distribution. 4th ed. Massachusetts / Oxford: Focal Press.

Brown, B (2014). The Filmmaker's Guide to Digital Imaging: for Cinematographers, Digital Imaging Technicians, and Camera Assistants. Massachusetts / Oxford: Focal Press.

Goldberg, N (1992). Camera Technology: The Dark Side of the Lens. New York / London / Toronto: Academy Press. 1.

Holman, T (2010). Sound for Film and Television. 3rd ed. Massachusetts / Oxford: Focal Press.

Hurkman, A (2014). Colour Correction Handbook: Professional Techniques for Video and Cinema.

U.S.A: Peachpit Press.

Hurkman, A (2014). Colour Correction Lookbook: Creative Grading Techniques for Video and Cinema. U.S.A: Peachpit Press.

Millerson, G (1991). The Technique of Lighting for Television and Film. 3rd ed. London / New York / Tokyo / Toronto / Amsterdam / Sydney: Focal Press.

Rumsey, F & McCormick, T (2013). Sound and Recording. 7th ed. New York & London: Focal Press.

Scoppettuolo (2016). Learning Davinci Resolve 12: A Step-by-Step Guide to editing and Colour Grading. Place of publication not known: Learning Paths.

Stump, D (2014). Digital Cinematography: Fundamental, Tools, Techniques, and Workflows.

Massachusetts / Oxford: Focal Press.

ONLINE ď&#x201A;ˇ

The Cinematography Mailing List

LEARNING SCHEDULE (REVIEWED ANNUALLY) PLEASE NOTE (1) SCHEDULE IS INDICATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. (2) STUDENTS WILL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CHANGES (3) SESSION LENGTH AT G.C IS 3.5 HRS PER (4) STUDENTS HAVE 15 HRS CONTACT TIME (5) TOPICS BELOW ARE NOT PRESCRIPTIVE AND ARE NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR THE STUDENTS OWN TESTS TO BE FASHIONED FOR THE PROJECT.

PRE-SESSION ACTIVITIES/LEARNING

SESSION 1 / WEEK 1 TUE 1ST NOV 2016 

STUDENT DETERMINED

SESSION TOPIC/S (INCL. DELIVERY STYLE AND INDICATIVE FORMATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES) ELECTRICITY 1           

CURRENT (AMPS) VOLTAGE (VOLTS) POWER (WATTS) CIRCUITS GROUNDING POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CHARGES LOAD THE POWER TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL VERSUS HOUSE POWER HEALTH AND SAFETY TIPS USING GENERATORS TO POWER HEAVY LIGHTS

SESSION 2 / WEEK 2

ELECTRICITY 2

TUE 8TH NOV 2016

  

PRACTICALS CURRENT CARRYING CAPACITIES OF CABLES TYPES OF PLUGS





TYPES OF DISTRIBUTION CIRCUITS (DIRECT, ALTERNATING & SINGLE WIRE THREE PHASE SYSTEMS)

   

SYSTEM GROUNDING USING GENERATORS TO POWER HEAVY LIGHTS RESISTANCE OHMS LAW

STUDENT DETERMINED

SESSION 3 / WEEK 3 TUE 22ND NOV 2016 

STUDENT DETERMINED

SESSION 4 / WEEK 4

CAMERA TECHNOLOGY 

HOW SENSORS WORK



COMPLEMENTARY METAL OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR (CMOS) SENSORS VERSUS CHARGED COUPLED DEVICE (CCD) SENSORS

       

PHOTOSITES TRANSDUCTION ELECTRONIC SHUTTERS ROLLING SHUTTER RESOLUTION THE BAYER FILTER ARRAY POWER UTILISATION COOLING

CONDUCTING TESTS        

TUE 29TH NOV 2016 

STUDENT DETERMINED

SESSION 5 / WEEK 5 TUE 6TH DEC 2016  STUDENT DETERMINED

SESSION 6 / WEEK 6 TUE 10TH JAN 2017 

STUDENT DETERMINED

SESSION 7 / WEEK 7 TUE 17TH JAN 2017 

STUDENT DETERMINED

SESSION 8 / WEEK 8

PICK YOUR TOPIC VARIABLES HYPOTHESIS DATA COLLECTION CONDUCTING THE EXPERIMENT METHODICALLY ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS Q&A

LIGHT      

THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW TYPES: LED, HMI, INCANDESCENT, FLUORESCENT THE SCIENCE OF HOW LIGHT WORKS MEASURING LIGHT FOOTCANDLES KELVINS

HOW LENSES WORK (BASIC OPTICS) THE IMAGING PLANE FOCAL LENGTH AND FIELD OF VIEW THE OPTICAL CENTRE POINT ELEMENTS IN THE LENS COLLIMATED LIGHT DEFRACTION LENS COATING PRIME VERSUS ZOOM LENSES FOCUS BREATHING OPTICAL IMAGE STABILISATION ANAMORPHIC LENSES MACRO LENSES TILT SHIFT LENSES EXTENSION TUBES

SOUND HOW MICROPHONES WORK ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSDUCERS POLAR PATTERNS HOW RECORDINGS WORK

REVISION ANY TOPIC CAN BE COVERED IN THIS SESSION THAT REQUIRES FURTHER EXPANSION

TUE 24TH JAN 2017 

STUDENT DETERMINED

POST-SESSION ACTIVITY TO BE DETERMINED BY STUDENT AND DISCUSSED WITH LECTURER

TO BE DETERMINED BY STUDENT AND DISCUSSED WITH LECTURER

TO BE DETERMINED BY STUDENT AND DISCUSSED WITH LECTURER

TO BE DETERMINED BY STUDENT AND DISCUSSED WITH LECTURER

TO BE DETERMINED BY STUDENT AND DISCUSSED WITH LECTURER

TO BE DETERMINED BY STUDENT AND DISCUSSED WITH LECTURER

TO BE DETERMINED BY STUDENT AND DISCUSSED WITH LECTURER

TO BE DETERMINED BY STUDENT AND DISCUSSED WITH LECTURER

SECTION TWO – ASSESSMENT (REVIEWED ANNUALLY)

Assessment method

1.

6000 WORD PROCESSED PROJECT REPORT (AS A PDF FILE) INDICATIVE CONTENT TO BE CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT REPORT: POSTER (OUTLINING THE PROJECT) PROJECT PROPOSAL ARTEFACTS (AUDIO, VIDEO AND IMAGE FILES SUBMITTED AS. MOV’S AND MPEG 3 OR 4) RESEARCH LOGS BIBLIOGRAPHY / REFERENCE LISTS

2.

Rationale for method Explanation of why this assessment method has been chosen and how it supports achievement of the learning outcomes and alignment with the programme LT&A strategy

RECORDED VIVA VOCE

Emphasis is placed upon student centred learning and independence. Regular contact between student and lecturer / project supervisor is encouraged.

Assessment is centred around a theory-practice-critique approach in line with the learning outcomes in Birmingham City University’s teaching, learning and assessment strategy.

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT: Key rationale for a mixed method assessment strategy (report, viva, practical tests etc.) are anchored in Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering (literature reviews, reports, poster, viva), understanding (lab and studio tests, evaluation, critique), applying (tests, research logs), analysing (report, viva), evaluating (report, viva) and creating (research questions, lab tests, and production which takes place in complementary modules). Work is designed to amalgamate key skills learnt during the programme in preparation for entry into post graduate study or employment.

There is a module guide in the form of comprehensive guidance notes, including a schedule of dates, important information and directions for each deliverable.

Tutorials are run through the year and cover all aspects of undertaking the research and writing up the project.

The university/college VLE, ISSUU, Facebook will be used to provide additional guidance on all aspects of undertaking the project.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT: Students will work on various mini practical tests over the course of the module.

They will receive constant verbal feedback from lecturing staff. Group work will allow interaction and support from peers. The group as a whole will discuss the development and ideas behind their own individual tests. Constructive criticism will be offered throughout the process encouraging reflexive practice.

Assessment outline Guidance on what the assessment should include, level of criticality, articulation, expectations of referencing, the impact of formative activity, etc.

BREAKDOWN OF SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT METHODS WRITTEN EXAMS: 0% PRACTICAL EXAMS: 0% COURSEWORK: 100% ASSESSMENT WEIGHTINGS WORD PROCESSED PROJECT PROPOSAL: 0% 6000 WORD PROCESSED PROJECT REPORT (AS A PDF FILE): 80% POSTER (OUTLINING THE PROJECT): 0% ARTEFACTS (AUDIO, VIDEO AND IMAGE FILES): ASSESSED AS PART PROJECT REPORT RESEARCH LOGS: ASSESSED AS PART PROJECT REPORT RECORDED VIVA VOCE: 20%

Assessment Scope Explanation of the scope and range of the assessment.

Feedback Scope Expectations of feedback in terms of timing, format, feedforward, etc.

1.

6000 WORD PROCESSED PROJECT REPORT (AS A PDF FILE) Should contain

        

Explanation of topic relevance to production Literature review Explanation of relevance of research to work in Film Production & Direction module Methodology Findings Proposals for further research Artefacts Research logs / record of activities Bibliography and reference list

2.

RECORDED VIVA VOCE (additional context and defence of work)

Feedback on formative mini tests / exercises will be provided in class during sessions.

Summative assessment will be given twenty working days after final submission.

Summative assessment feedback may be in either recorded video or written form with a digital (or printed) version handed to each individual student.

Summative assessment will be combined with a lecturer student 1:1 session.

Plagiarism

You are reminded of the University’s Disciplinary Procedures that refer to plagiarism. Except where the assessment of an assignment is group based, the final piece of work that is submitted must be your own work. Close similarity between assignments is likely to lead to an investigation for cheating.

You must also ensure that you acknowledge all sources you have used. Submissions that are considered to be the result of collusion or plagiarism will be dealt with under the University’s Disciplinary Procedures, and the penalty may involve the loss of academic credits. If you have any doubts about the extent to which you are allowed to collaborate with your colleagues, or the conventions for acknowledging the sources you have used, you should first of all consult module documentation and, if still unclear, your tutor.

Assessment submission deadline(s)

Submission method

Return of work

(e.g. electronic/Moodle/other)

(Date not 20 days)

12TH MAY 2017

ELECTRONIC TO LECTURER (VERIFICATION THROUGH SIGNATURE BY BOTH PARTIES)

JUNE 2017

VIVA: 15TH 16TH & 17TH MAY 2017

Exceptional Circumstances explanation Assessment resubmission Submission method (e.g. electronic/Moodle/other) deadline(s)

Return of work

*Resubmission deadline(s) are only relevant if you are unsuccessful in your first attempt – please see University Regulations on resubmission policy and procedure.

Marking Criteria

Undergraduate bands 0 – 39% Fail Criterion 1 Mark:

50 – 59% 2:2

60 – 69% 2:1

70 – 79% First

80 – 100% First

Appraise an appropriate body of published research/ professional output and research methodologies in order to develop a research problem expressed as a research question Little or no relevant research, appraisal of research or consideration of professional output has gone into the proposal.

Little or no appraisal / consideration of research methodologies.

Inability to identify or clearly articulate a potential research question or legitimate problem

Criterion 2

40 – 49% Third

Potential research question is identified but not articulated clearly.

Methodologies are not clearly articulated but there is evidence of student awareness of research approaches in the field.

There is evidence that research / consideration of professional output has influenced the definition of the question/problem.

However, the research lacks detail and may have been provided by questionable authorities in the field.

Potential research question is identified and articulated clearly.

There is sufficient evidence that research and consideration of professional output has influenced the definition of the question / problem.

Methodologies are articulated and there is sufficient evidence of student awareness of research approaches in the field.

Research has some detail and sources are cited following established Harvard reference conventions.

Potential research question is identified and articulated clearly.

There is evidence of understanding of the significance of the problem within the field.

Structured and justified research / and consideration of professional output has influenced the definition of the question / problem.

Methodologies are articulated and there is good evidence of student awareness of research approaches in the field.

Harvard reference conventions followed with little or no errors.

Potential research question is identified and articulated clearly.

There is evidence of understanding of the significance of the problem within the field.

Structured and justified research / consideration of professional output has influenced the definition of the question / problem.

Methodologies are articulated and there is very good evidence of student awareness of research approaches in the field.

Harvard reference conventions followed with little or no errors.

There is reasoning regarding the application of the possible solutions / findings to practice.

Potential research question is identified and articulated clearly.

There is evidence of understanding of the significance of the problem within the field.

The question / problem identified shows innovative and creative thinking and eventual research may have value within practice and industry Structured and justified research / consideration of professional output has influenced the definition of the question / problem.

Methodologies are articulated and there is excellent evidence of student awareness of research approaches in the field.

Harvard reference conventions followed with little or no errors.

There is reasoning regarding the application of the possible solutions / findings to practice.

Devise a project plan that applies key methods and techniques, underpinned by debates/theories to create an appropriate response to the research question.

Mark: Substantial deficiencies through one or a combination of incompleteness, superficiality or incoherence.

Major additional work and redrafting of the report required.

There is evidence that the student can apply methods and techniques underpinned by relevant debates / theories to create an appropriate response to the research question.

Serious shortfall in demonstration of key methods and techniques within the project plan that connect to the research question.

Background research/debate has enabled only cursory issues that connect to the research question.

The response to the research question is poor.

However, there is evidence to suggest that some further work and re-drafting could bring performance to a pass standard

There is evidence of ability to project plan using methods and techniques that posit a limited consideration of the research questions.

Evidence of generally competent work showing that the student can apply methods and techniques underpinned by relevant debates / theories to create an appropriate response to the research question.

There is evidence of ability to project plan using methods and techniques that posit a consideration of the research questions.

Evidence of good quality work, involving in-depth analysis of theories/concepts/ debates leading to the achievement of a demanding research question and pertinent project plan.

Some areas could have been covered more thoroughly and/or with greater depth and insight.

The content demonstrates depth of knowledge in the subject area relevant to the project plan aims and has benefited from good research.

Evidence of much high quality work involving in-depth analysis of theories/concepts/ debates leading to the achievement of a demanding response to a relevant research question and the articulation of an effective and pertinent project plan.

Evidence of high quality work involving in-depth analysis of theories/concepts/de bates leading to the achievement of a demanding response to a relevant research question and the articulation of a valid, pertinent and well-structured project plan.

There is evidence of creativity in the devised project plan.

There is ingenuous application of knowledge acquired in the research phase of the project.

Criterion 3 Mark:

Synthesise the knowledge gained from the research activities to create an artefact that expresses ideas in answer to the research question recognising the limitations of the project and areas for potential development or further research.

No or little synthesis of knowledge gained from the research process.

Work lacks connection / comparison to relevant theory; techniques / experimentation used are inappropriate.

Written work and artefact created do not permit understanding of limitations or present solution(s) pertaining to research questions or problems

There is adequate synthesis of knowledge gained from the research process.

There is some connection /comparison to relevant theory although this may not be clear or explicit.

Written work and artefact created permits understanding of solution(s) and limitations pertaining to research questions or problems.

Work addresses areas for potential development and further research

Criterion 4 Mark:

There is good synthesis of knowledge gained from the research process.

There is very good synthesis of knowledge gained from the research process.

Excellent synthesis of knowledge gained from the research process.

Clear connection / comparison to relevant theory.

Very clear connection / comparison to relevant theory with detailed point by point illustrations.

Excellent connection / comparison to relevant theory with detailed point by point illustrations.

Written work and artefact created permits very clear understanding of solution(s) and limitations pertaining to research questions or problems.

Written work and artefact created permits critical understanding of solution(s) and limitations pertaining to research questions or problems.

Written work and artefact created permits critical understanding of solution(s) and limitations pertaining to research questions or problems.

Work clearly, and in a structured manner addresses areas for potential development and further research

Work clearly, and in a structured manner addresses areas for potential development and further research

Work clearly, and in a structured manner addresses areas for potential development and further research

Written work and artefact created permits clear understanding of solution(s) and limitations pertaining to research questions or problems.

Work clearly and in a structured manner addresses areas for potential development and further research

Excellent synthesis of knowledge gained from the research process.

Excellent choice of research articles / journals Excellent connection / comparison to relevant theory with detailed point by point illustrations.

Successfully communicate the results of the project giving consideration to appropriate and relevant academic, ethical and professional requirements.

Report requires major drafting/redrafting in most or all sections.

Serious shortcomings in structure and/or presentation, but enough indication of ability to suggest some additional work should lead to a pass standard.

There may be some error or lack of evidence in citing references in the report.

Little or no defense of approach

Includes major elements but there may be omissions or shortcomings in logical order, such as inappropriate use of chapters, sections, figures and appendices.

The text may have significant shortcomings in style, language and/or lack of conciseness. It may not be straightforward to follow. However, there should be adequate demonstration of ability to present a readable account, supported by some relevant tables/diagrams/vi sual forms presenting data.

Relevant academic, ethical and professional requirements are considered.

Report generally follows guidelines including all main elements. There may be some shortcomings in clarity of both text and visual presentation and some minor omissions of content.

Relevant academic, ethical and professional requirements are clearly discussed.

No significant shortcoming in structure with all the main elements included.

Tabulated /diagrammatic / visual presentation of data is clear and the report is well referenced throughout. Style and language generally in accordance with the guidelines although there may be some minor deficiencies.

Relevant academic, ethical and professional requirements are clearly discussed in detail.

Report includes all necessary elements and is appropriately referenced throughout.

Presentation of result/findings is clear and is supported using suitable visual/diagrammati c / tabular techniques.

Succinct text with style and language in accordance with guidelines and with no significant shortcomings.

Relevant academic, ethical and professional requirements are clearly discussed in detail with illustrative examples.

Clear academic style and language in accordance with guidelines and with no shortcomings.

Report includes all necessary elements and there is demonstration of ability to produce professional documentation.

Defence of approach is critical, exhibits original thinking and key points are articulated with evidence.

A creatively structured / logical argument is presented.

Relevant academic, ethical and professional requirements are clearly discussed in detail with illustrative examples.

Some evidence of justification regarding the relevance of academic, ethical and professional requirements discussed.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: Mark 80% and above: evidence of much work beyond what that is normally expected leading to achievement of demanding objectives. The report demonstrates inventiveness and ability to analyse complex theory/concepts and relate them to practice. Content builds on knowledge/skills from higher level course modules, with depth in areas relevant to the degree title. There is extensive use of a range of relevant sources, which are correctly referenced through the text. Interpretation and analysis of findings is com plete, and alternative approaches and application to other domains are considered. Report closely follows conventions with no shortcomings in structure, style or language.

Mark 70 - 79%: evidence of much work of the highest quality leading to achievement of demanding objectives. The report demonstrates inventiveness and ability to analyse complex theory/concepts and relate them to practice. Content builds on knowledge/skills from higher level course modules, with depth in areas relevant to the degree title. There is extensive use of relevant sources, which are referenced through the text.

Interpretation and analysis of findings is full, and alternative approaches and wider issues are considered.

Report closely follows conventions with no major shortcomings in structure, style or language.

Mark 60 - 69%: evidence of much good quality work, competently undertaken, and leading to achievement of demanding objectives, but not demonstrating the highest intellectual calibre associated with first class honours. The report demonstrates methodical care and competence in solving problems and in the treatment of information and results. Content involves knowledge/skills from course modules, with depth in areas relevant to the degree title. There is evidence of extensive research, but the benefit to the work, and in general the analysis and consideration of wider issues, is not fully explored. The report closely follows conventions with no major shortcomings in structure, style or language.

Mark 50 - 59%: evidence of generally competent work leading to achievement of appropriate, but not fully challenging, objectives. The report demonstrates ability to solve relevant problems and handle data competently. Content relates to course modules but does not demonstrate the depth associated with higher classification. There is evidence of research, but with only limited consideration. Analysis may be narrow and with only limited consideration of wider issues. The report generally follows conventions but may suffer from some shortcomings.

Mark 40 - 49%: there is evidence of adequate ability and sufficient effort towards achievement of undemanding, but appropriate, objectives. There is demonstration of a reasonable quantity of relevant work, but without the investigative background, depth, or analysis associated with higher classifications There is evidence of some research, but the analysis is limited, and wider issues are not explored. However, there is evidence of ability to manipulate relevant data in a manner, and with comments, demonstrating an adequate level of understanding for the award. The report contains necessary major sections, but may suffer from significant shortcomings.

NOTES ON GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE COURSE HOURS 

NO OF ACADEMIC WEEKS IN THE GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE YEAR: 32



NUMBER OF TAUGHT HOURS PER WEEK: 15



AVERAGE LENGTH OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE SESSION: 3.5 HRS



TOTAL NUMBER OF AVAILABLE HOURS IN THE YEAR: 480



NUMBER OF SESSIONS PER WEEK: 5



START OF ACADEMIC YEAR: 19TH SEPTEMBER 2016



END OF ACADEMIC YEAR: 30TH JUNE 2017

ASSIGNMENT CHECKPOINT DATES 1. REGISTRATION OF PROJECTS: 28TH NOVEMBER 2016 2. SUBMISSION OF 2 PAGE PROJECT PROPOSAL: 28TH NOVEMBER 2016 This should A. Your B. Your C. Brief D. Brief

contain research question aims and objectives literature review plan of project (dates)

3. SUBMISSION OF BRIEF READING LIST: 28TH NOVEMBER 2016 4. PROJECT WORK REVIEW WEEK: 24TH JANUARY 2017 At this stage student should I. II. III. IV.

Present a structured draft Show evidence of lab tests done Have a detailed bibliography / reading list in the Harvard referencing format Present research logs

5. 1:1 WEEKS: 9-13 JANUARY 2017 20-24 FERBRUARY 2017

NOTE:

NOT ALL REGULATIONS APPLY TO GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE TOP UP DEGREE STUDENTS

NOTE:

NOT ALL REGULATIONS APPLY TO GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE TOP UP DEGREE STUDENTS

NOTE:

NOT ALL REGULATIONS APPLY TO GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE TOP UP DEGREE STUDENTS

NOTE:

NOT ALL REGULATIONS APPLY TO GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE TOP UP DEGREE STUDENTS

NOTE:

NOT ALL REGULATIONS APPLY TO GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE TOP UP DEGREE STUDENTS

NOTE:

NOT ALL REGULATIONS APPLY TO GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE TOP UP DEGREE STUDENTS

NOTE:

NOT ALL REGULATIONS APPLY TO GLOUCESTERSHIRE COLLEGE TOP UP DEGREE STUDENTS