Guide for marking feedback

MClinDent Research Protocol (Level 7)

Student No. / Name:
First Assessor:
Please delete the criteria that do not apply for this protocol leaving only the relevant bullet points
Section Unsatisfactory (<50%) THRESHOLD LEVEL Good (56-59%) Very good (60-69%) Excellent (70%+)
Satisfactory (50-55%)
Introduction  No clear introduction  Some evidence of introducing the  Sound introduction to project.  Focused introduction to the  Clear identification of the focus of
(10%)  Unclear research question. project  Research question stated with project project and a logical original RQ
 Poor communication of ideas.  Research question justified by some justification.  Good understanding of the posed
 No use of referencing. some limited analysis  Demonstrates a sound topic area.  Excellent evidence informed
understanding of topic area.  Evidence informed rationale & rational & justification of the RQ.
justification to RQ.
Background  Very limited.  Basic in range or depth  Moderate range and depth  Good range and depth  Extensive range and depth of
(30%)  Little evidence of reading.  Limited range of reference appropriate to topic. appropriate to topic. sources judiciously selected.
 Unsubstantiated generalisation sources Evidence of critical  Evidence of wider reading.  Evidence of logical & analytical  Thorough critical review of
of research evidence. appraisal, but in a limited or  Evidence of linking literature into thinking. literature, well integrated into study.
 Poor range of reference descriptive manner. study with some criticism  Literature integrated well with  Clear knowledge of limitations of
sources.  Some use of evidence to support apparent. sound degree of critical review. literature base.
 Poor degree of critical comments, but not consistent in  Emergent appreciation of  Accurate communication of  Exploration of other ideas and
appraisal. interpretation. alternatives. ideas and concepts. contradictions.
 Lack of attempt to analyse or
evaluate literature.

Methodology  Inappropriate and unclear  Clearly outlined method of data  Clearly outlined method with a  Focussed method of data  Demonstrates originality in the
(30%) methodology and / or not collection but not wholly correctly degree of reflection. collection with critical reflection choice or development of methods.
correctly applied in practice. applied in practice.  Methods generally correctly on design.  Provides evidence of
 Lack of appreciation of  Lack of detail. applied.  Demonstrates competency in understanding of complex methods.
research methodology.  Basic appreciation of research  Shows a good appreciation of research methodology.  Evidence of high quality analysis
methods. research methodology.  Evidence of considered including reliability & validity.
reliability and validity.
Possible  Inadequate / incomplete  Adequate predictions of possible  Good predictions of possible  Very good predictions of  Excellent predictions of possible
Outcomes discussion of possible outcomes both positive and outcomes both positive and possible outcomes both outcomes both positive and
(15%) outcomes. negative. negative. positive and negative. negative
 Only covered positive  Simple feasibility  Some feasibility assessment.  Sound feasibility analysis with  Clearly shown impact of the
predictions.  Limited evidence of the  Generally shows the potential mitigation. research in the context of current
 No evidence of impact of the prospective value of the research impact of the research in the  Clearly shown impact of the knowledge.
research in the context of in the context of current context of current knowledge. research in the context of  Evidence of extensive personal
current knowledge. knowledge. current knowledge. research & evaluation.

Presentation  Poor structure & meaning.  Borderline quality of presentation  Satisfactory quality of  Sound presentation quality.  Excellent presentation quality.
&  Poor referencing with many  Clear meaning but unclear presentation.  Clear meaning and fluent  Articulate & fluent.
Research errors. language.  Clarity of meaning & language. language.  Precise, full & appropriate
 Inconsistencies or omissions in  Competent referencing but with  Sound referencing with minor  Full, appropriate & correct use referencing.
skills.
referencing. errors and inconsistencies. errors or inconsistencies. of the Harvard system.  Consistent & correct use of Harvard
(15%)  Academic conventions used  Academic conventions largely  Appropriate academic skills.  Sound use of academic system.
weakly or ignored. evident.  Correct use of Harvard system. convention.  Consistent & accurate use of
 Incorrect use of Harvard  Limited use of Harvard system.  Evidence of research ability  Successful demonstration of academic convention.
referencing.  Some evidence of research under limited guidance & research skills with minimal  Successful demonstration of
 No evidence of required ability but with substantial supervision.. guidance & supervision. research skills with a significant
research skills. guidance & supervision.  Able to identify problems and  Takes initiative in identifying degree of autonomy.
plan mitigation. problems and planning  Identification of problems and
mitigation. effective planning of mitigation
using a range of resources.
 Please provide constructive feedback, other than the above criteria, to guide student how to enhance their work for the next stage of the research
year

Introduction (10%) Mark (%)

Comments:

Background (30%) Mark (%)

Comments:

Methodology (30%) Mark (%)

Comments:

Possible Outcomes (15%) Mark (%)

Comments:

Presentation and research skills (15%) Mark (%)

Comments:

Overall (100%) Mark (%)

Overall recommendations and comments:

April 2017.