ResearchMethods/Assessments

Assessment 1: Online contributions and quizzes (40%)

Marking: Marked out of 40- Percentage of total subject mark 40%

Description

Participating in this blended learning and teaching subject, which utilises a 6-week intensive self-driven online MOOC site, includes: reading/listening, posting comments that reflect critically upon the online contents in each Module/Learning Pathway, posting follow-up comments that reflect upon your classmates’ postings, and summarising relevant scholarly journal articles where indicated.

Students are expected to make weekly contributions to all relevant posting areas (in Moodle) – according the weekly outline and the reflection activities and stimulus questions in each MOOC Module/Learning Pathway.

This range of activities will help you to articulate critical ideas and to reflect on the issues addressed in the MOOC, while also achieving the subject’s learning outcomes.

Your participation in the MOOC specifically requires you to complete:

• a weekly series of mandatory but unmarked formative quiz questions in the MOOC;

• a series of postings and follow-up comments in the Moodle discussion forums that address the various reflection activities/stimulus questions in the topics under each Module. Initial postings should range between 150 and 250 words. Follow-up comments, which require you to reflect on your classmates’ postings, should aim for around 150-words each.
• There is no magic number of postings.

Students are encouraged to post additional voluntary comments and share pertinent website links, intriguing articles, helpful hints, and other engaging stuff across the Moodle posting forums.

Due dates

Ongoing in the MOOC as per each Module requirement (i.e. submitted in the MOOC)

Graduate Quality developed

Informed; Effective communicators

Format

Online postings and completion of formative quiz questions at the end of each Module

Assessment Criteria

Accumulative posting marks are calculated by the quality and quantity of contributions. (Moodle allows the instructor to compile a student’s total discussion postings.)

34-40 marks, Excellent

Consistent main postings and follow-up comments demonstrate a solid understanding of the subject material, while also referring to additional related sources and ideas. Participation shows comprehensive and well-focused critical thinking and analysis.

28 to 34 marks, Good

Frequent main postings and follow-up comments demonstrate an accurate understanding of subject material, while presenting a reasonable degree of critical thinking and analysis. Comments tend to remain at a general level of understanding & within a predictable domain of subject materials.

20 to 28 marks, Adequate/Fair

Main postings and follow-up comments show limited and/or inaccurate understanding of the subject material with little argument and critical thinking. Comments are incomplete and/or vague, and few if any specific source materials are cited.

0 to 20 marks, Unsatisfactory

Main postings and follow-up comments are often too short, late, or non-existent. Comments demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of the basic subject material, and they also neglect to engage with the ideas raised by others.

Assessment 2: Research proposal (40%)

Marking: Marked out of 100 - Percentage of total subject mark 40%

Description

This task requires you to develop a research protocol for answering a substantive research question of your choosing. You will not actually conduct this research, but you will be evaluated on the appropriateness, feasibility, and thoroughness of the methodological framework that you use to answer your research question.

• Part 1 (1000-words) requires three specific elements: Literature Review; Research Design; and Bibliography (not counted in the word length).
• Part 2 (total of 2000-words) requires the remaining sections: Introduction; Ethical Considerations; Conclusions/ Implications of the Study; PLUS the resubmission of Part 1 with revisions (equalling a final grand total of 2000 words).

Guidelines for the Research Proposal Sections:

Introduction

What is your general research topic, and why is it important? Catch the reader’s interest and convince them of the significant value in your research topic.

Literature Review (approx. 600 words)

Inform the reader of previous research on your topic. Where does your research fit in the broader knowledge of the area? How is your research similar to or different from other research in the field? What is original in your research? Or if you propose to replicate previous research, then why is such replication necessary and to what end? Use the literature review to offer a narrowly focused critique on the previous research that has direct relevance to your proposed study. Make sure the literature review is current – with at least 50% of all sources published after 1 July 2015.

Research Design (approx. 400 words)

The research design section is the heart of your research proposal, covering: Research Question(s), Hypotheses, Sample, Methods, and Analytical Technique. Use this key section to explain and justify the design of the proposed investigation.

Ethical Considerations (approx. 250 words)

What are the core ethical issues to address in your study?

Conclusions/Implications of the Study(approx. 750 words)

Provide a brief summary that draws out the implications of your expected results for the research questions/hypotheses that you intend to explore/test. What knowledge will your research contribute to the discipline? What policy implications might your research have?In other words, how will your research make a difference?

Bibliography (not included in the total word-length)

All sources cited in the text must be included in the bibliography at the end of the paper –following Harvard referencing style.

Appendices

You can include relevant appendices, such as a consent form if you are proposing to conduct a survey, etc.

Due Dates

• Part 1 DUE on Friday 18 March by 5 pm (at the end of week 3)
• Part 2 DUE on Friday 15 April by 5 pm (at the end of week 7)

Graduate Quality developed

Informed; Problem Solvers; Responsible

Submission Format

UOW students: Written work (i.e. hard copy) submitted to LHA Central 19 (19.1050) by the due dates.

Assessment Criteria

8.5-10 marks, Excellent

Detailed understanding of research methods; sound organisation; few or no mechanical mistakes; clear, unambiguous sentences, with a lively touch and intelligent style that clearly explains and justifies an interesting plan.

7 to 8.5 marks, Good

Clear research plan, organisation, and continuity; probably some minor mechanical errors; proposed research is reasonable and supported –thought has obviously gone into the proposal; it is solid but not striking; the researcher has a definite plan and presents it in an organised and competent way.

5 to 7 marks, Adequate/Fair

A weak, fuzzy research plan and perhaps illogical arguments to support it; some confusion about appropriate research methods; many minor grammatical errors and possibly some major ones (i.e. incomplete sentences); organisation rambles or disappears; words are misused; proofreading is weak–there are research ideas here, but the writer needs help and more work to make them clear to another reader.

0 to 5, Unsatisfactory

Missing consistent and logical arguments; major mechanical problems; poor organisation; serious misuse of research methods. Clearly does not fulfil the assignment; reflects a lack of understanding of subject content.

Assessment 3: Video interview (20%)

Marking: Marked out of 100 - Percentage of total subject mark 20%

Description

This task requires students to create an original 60-second ‘video essay’which is loosely presented in the form of an interview critiquing a topic of your choice. The 60-second video essay – self-made with basic technical skills –has a wider scope for creativity and experimentation than most written types of essays and assignments. Use this task to express your critical thinking and reflection on a current event facing your discipline and specific research interests. Your video can take the form of a public service announcement (PSA), micro mashup, rhetorical remix montage sequence, micro-narrative/drama, or satirical news story, etc. Whatever the form and style, your video essay must develop a clear message about a specific topic/issue explored in this subject. Each video essay requires a 500-word explanation of what you did and why. Copyright and user-generated content (UGC) are integral elements of this task, and UOW Copyright Officer, Noel Broadhead, will provide some notes in Moodle about the do’s and don’ts of video mashing/remixing.

Due Date

Due online by 5pm on Friday 20 May (at the end of week 11)

Graduate Quality developed

Informed; Independent learners; Problem solvers; Effective communicators

Assessment Criteria

Your video essay mark will be determined by:

1) Message/meaning

What are you arguing? Have you developed and illustrated a clear message that is linked to a key

relevant issue? Have you used a variety of images/video/audio/text to display your point(s)?

2) Technical

Is the video length exactly 60 seconds, not including opening/closing credits? Does the video appear to have a coherent beginning, middle, & end? Have you posted/uploaded the video properly and on time? Have you cited all of your source materials where/when necessary? If needed, did you make a brief argument for fair use in your 500-word description? Did you demonstrate basic technical competencies?

A mandatory contextual statement (500-words) about the significant aspects of your visual/auditory elements, style, and overall intention of the piece must accompany your video essay. Add this to the description section of the video in the MOOC forum where you post your representative icon or screen capture of the video.

Submission Method

The preferred method is to upload your video to your own YouTube channel and then post a link in the Moodle discussion space –along with your 500-word explanation. Further instructions re: how to do this will be provided in Moodle.