Assessment Two
Module code and title
|
5SL007 Doing Quantitative Research
|
Module leader
|
Dr Sam Pryke
|
Diet
|
First attempt
|
Assessment type
|
Coursework
|
Submission date
|
1st
May, 2020
|
Submission method
|
Canvas
|
Assessment limits
|
3400 words
|
Assessment brief
(if appropriate, please refer to module assessment briefing document)
|
Most quantitative research methods modules at other universities provide students with an existing statistical data set that students have to analyse for their assignment. The approach on this module is different: you will generate the statistical data by designing and disseminating (sending out) a survey. You will begin your route to completing your assignment by formulating, with others in a group, a hypothesis. Then you will work together to formulate questions that will test the hypothesis. You will write these questions into an online survey programme. The combined questions from the various groups will form a single questionnaire. The online questionnaire will be sent to and completed by all students on the module. When the data is in, you will analyse it individually by using the Statistical Programme for Social Science (SPSS). When you have done this you will be able to answer (confirm or reject) your hypothesis with some degree of certainty.
The subject of the survey – the subject that we will examine on this module - is the relationship gender and the fear of crime. The guiding research question is ‘Is there a relationship between gender and the fear of crime?’.
To be clear, the first part of the assessment for this module worth 20% (the hypothesis and survey questions) you will do within a group and you will be assessed as a group. The membership of the groups and the particular aspect of fear of crime (i.e. the type of crime allocated to your group) to be investigated will be detailed in the workshop session. The second part, the writing of a research report worth 80% of the assessment, will be your individual responsibility.
This is how your research report of 3400 words should be broken down:
1. Title of the research report (for all students): An evaluation of the quantitative method used and data analysis involved in researching the topic: ‘Is there a relationship between gender and the fear of crime?’. In addition you should state the particular hypothesis you tested, i.e. your group hypothesis.
2. Quantitative research in the social sciences. In this section you should discuss the background postulates of the use of quantitative method in the social sciences, issues of reliability, validity, the role of ethics and the strengths and limitations of this methodological approach. You need to apply this to your research that you are doing for this module/assignment.
3. Literature review on fear of crime and gender. In this section you should discuss:
i. The articles and books (academic literature) you looked at on fear of crime and the relationship between fear of crime and gender (including how fear of crime has been measured).
There are four articles that you MUST include in this literature review on fear of crime / gender (which can be found in the reading list): (1) Box, Hale, and Andrews (1988); (2) Gilchrist et al. (1998); (3) Lorenc et al. (2014) (chapter 3); (4) Williams-Reid and Konrad (2004)
ii. The articles and books on fear of crime and gender in relation to your group topic specific literature. This should include findings from a recent survey on your group topic/crime, including gender differences where possible.
iii. You should also discuss and indicate evidence of your use of the
National Data Archive
to find literature from previous studies on fear of crime.
4. Formulation of the research hypothesis and survey questions. In this section you should outline the thinking behind and the practical process of how your group arrived at your hypothesis and survey questions. You can discuss how you recoded your original question(s) here in preparation for the Chi Square analysis conducted in the results section where applicable.
5. The sample in this survey (number and percentage of sample demographics) and its implications given its size and nature. Further, you should comment on the survey sample used: what are the implications of it for the survey results etc.
6. Results of your research. In this section you should display the findings from the SPSS tables you produced for your two questions (you can make your own tables in word to do this), discuss the findings. You should also report the Chi-square test for each question. In the light of this (i.e. the above results), indicate whether and to what degree your hypothesis is confirmed or denied.
7. Conclusion and final reflection. In this final section you should first return to the general theoretical issues underlying your research: fear of crime and gender. Second, you should discuss the experience of doing the research project: what you might do differently if you were to do it again, your perception of the value of quantitative research in the social sciences, whether any ethical issues arose and so on?
8. Complete bibliography. An alphabetical listing of all sources used on methodology, fear of crime using the
University bibliographical system.
|
Assessment Criteria
(The actual assessment components for this assignment)
|
Criteria
|
Coverage of the quantitative method in the social sciences.
|
Coverage of general and specific sources relevant to your subject.
|
Coverage of the formulation of your research hypothesis and survey question.
|
Coverage of the results of your research.
|
Quality of the conclusion, final reflection and critical awareness displayed throughout your report.
|
Quality of the structure, English and referencing in the report.
|
Pass mark
|
Postgraduate
50%
Undergraduate
40%
Other
(PSRB or subject specific)
|
Performance descriptors in use;
·
University of Wolverhampton
Yes √ No
·
Professional or Statutory Body
Yes No
·
Module specific
Yes No
·
Other
(specify below)
Yes No
|
Return of assessments
(Instructions for return / collection of assessments
)
|
Through Canvas
|
|
This assessment is testing Module Learning outcomes
|
Tick if tested here
|
LO1
|
A critical understanding of the philosophical basis and ethical issues in quantitative research methods in the social sciences.
|
ü
|
LO2
|
The practical ability to plan a piece of research and to construct the appropriate survey.
|
|
LO3
|
The ability to carry out basic statistical tests to quantitative data.
|
ü
|
LO4
|
The ability to analyse existing secondary research.
|
ü
|
Additional information for students
The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies, and develop your academic skills including a guide to academic referencing
http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
Your module guide and course handbook contain additional and important information regarding;
· The required referencing style for your assignment.*
Whilst many modules require referencing in accordance with the Harvard Referencing convention, some modules – for example those within the School of Law – require Oxford Referencing. Please familiarise yourself with the requirements of your module.
· Submission of your work
· Marking, feedback and moderation in accordance with the University of Wolverhampton Assessment Handbook
· Extensions on submission dates *
· Additional support *
· Academic conduct with regards to cheating, collusion or plagiarism *
· Links to appropriate sources of relevant information *
* Further information regarding these and other policies can be accessed through your student portal on wlv.ac.uk.
Always
keep a copy of your work and a file of working papers
The requirement to keep a file of working papers is important. There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is the case, you may be asked to submit your file and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.
When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration confirming that:
· The submission is your own work
· Any material you have used has been acknowledged and appropriately referenced
· You have not allowed another student to have access to your work
· The work has not been submitted previously.
The following information is important when:
· Preparing for your assignment
· Checking your work before you submit it
· Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.
Module Learning Outcomes
Module Learning Outcomes are specific to this module, and are set when the module was validated.
Assessment Criteria
The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assignment, and precise criteria against which your work will be marked are outlined in your assessment brief.
Performance Descriptors
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the assessment criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
To help you further:
- Re-sit opportunities are available for students who are unable to take the first sit opportunity, or who need to re take any component.
· Refer to the VLE topic for contact details of your module leader / tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on the VLE module topic.
· The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills
http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
FoSS Generic Assessment Performance Descriptors
Based on – University Performance Descriptors (updated September 2015)
Note that these are generic descriptors that apply mainly, though not exclusively, to written academic work. The relevant performance descriptors for the appropriate level (as below) should appear in the module guide.
Any further module-specific assessment criteria, such as number of words, should be clearly stated in the assignment brief.
The pass rate at levels 3 -6 = 40%
|
Level 3
|
Level 4
|
Level 5
|
Level 6
(Graduate level)
|
90-100%
|
Very detailed answers to all parts of the question / task. Extremely clearly structured and focused, demonstrating overall coherence and in- depth understanding. Clear evidence of a range of independently sourced material well applied in all contexts.
No obvious errors in grammar as appropriate.
|
Focused and comprehensive engagement with the question, showing evidence of in-depth understanding of the issues. Extremely clearly structured and demonstrating a coherent argument throughout.
Evidence of wide, independent reading.
No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
Exceptionally detailed and original response to the assignment, with critical use of independently sourced contextual material.
Outstanding demonstration of linked understanding of relevant theory, concepts and models. Extremely well structured with high level of analysis.
No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
Exceptional level of analysis, showing deep critical engagement with a comprehensive range of contextual material. Demonstration of independent thought resulting in highly original or creative responses to the assignment. Provision of clear evidence of understanding of current scholarship and research based on an extensive range of relevant sources. Extreme clarity of structure demonstrating complete focus of argument.
No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
80-89%
|
Detailed answers to all parts of the question / task. Very clear, logical structure and focus, demonstrating overall coherence. Clear evidence of independently sourced material appropriately applied.
Very few errors in grammar as appropriate.
|
Detailed response to all relevant parts of the question with evidence of clear understanding of the issues. Well structured with evidence of independent reading supporting the argument.
Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
Very full, independent response to the assignment with totally relevant material which is well beyond any module input, demonstrating independent study. Excellent understanding and application of relevant theory, concepts and models. Very clear logical structure.
Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
Excellent links between relevant ideas, theories and practice. Evidence of clearly independent scholarship and the ability to engage critically and analytically with a wide range of contextually relevant resource material.
Demonstration of original insights, supported by extremely well structured overall argument.
Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
70-79%
|
Full answers to all the parts of the question / task. Clear structure and focus. Evidence of material not covered in taught context and appropriately applied to given context.
Few errors in grammar as appropriate.
|
Identification and very good understanding of issues in the assessment. Full answers to all questions/task. Very clear argument with relevant examples used to illustrate response. Clear evidence of reading outside the module list.
Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
Full response to the assignment with all content relevant and focused. Very good understanding of relevant theory, concepts and models. Application of appropriate theory to examples/practice, demonstrating a rigorous approach to a variety of ideas, contexts and frameworks.
Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
Very good links between a range of different ideas and theories. Places issues in a wider context. Evidence of clear understanding of a range of relevant theories and application of these appropriately. Independent ideas, well argued and supported.
Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
60-69%
|
All significant content accurate. All main points of question / task covered. Identifiable structure. Some evidence of material not directly covered in taught input.
Some small repeated errors in grammar as appropriate
|
Good
understanding of the issues. Engages directly with the question. Clear argument with good examples used to support it. All main points and important issues of the question/task covered. Some evidence of reading outside the module list
Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
|
Answers most if not all detailed aspects of the question. Content mainly relevant and accurate. Good knowledge and understanding of relevant theory and concepts and application of theoretical models. Evidence of a developing appreciation of contextual issues.
Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
|
Clear links between theory and practice. Good coverage of assignment issues. Full understanding of core issues.
Evidenced level of understanding of appropriate theory and concepts.
Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
|
50-59%
|
Content generally accurate and relevant to the question / task. Reasonable breadth of taught material used. Evidence of structure.
|
Generally sound understanding of basic concepts. Content relevant to the question/task. Competently deals with main issues. Reading based on main texts or materials, but not always fully utilised in supporting arguments.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
Main issues addressed and solid attempt to answer question. Some relevant content applied. Sound knowledge and understanding of relevant theory and concepts and identification of main issues
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
Identifies main issues and relevant theory. Coverage of most of assignment issues. Competent application of relevant theory and states obvious links to practice.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
40-49%
40% Pass mark
|
Satisfactory evidence of understanding of basic concepts/issues and demonstration that the learning outcomes have been met. Limited use of the breadth of taught content. Some attempt at structure.
|
Satisfactory evidence of understanding of basic concepts/issues and demonstration that the learning outcomes have been met. Content broadly relevant but with limited or little application of theory. Almost totally descriptive.
|
Satisfactory attempt to address question/issues with some content relevant to assignment topic. Demonstration that the learning outcomes have been met. Material engages with relevant module materials, but largely repeats taught input and lacks development or personal interpretation. Some general understanding of topic
|
Demonstration that the learning outcomes have been met. Makes few links between theory and practice. Answers question in a very basic way.
Describes relevant theory accurately, and some relevant ideas offered.
Limited coherence of structure.
|
30-39%
Compensatable Fail
|
Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met.
Repetition of taught content with minimal attempt to focus on the given question or issue. Little evidence of structure.
Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
|
Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met.
Superficial treatment of issues. Some is relevant to topic set. Material merely repeats taught input. Lacks understanding of basic theory or concepts. Possible use of extensive quoted passages.
Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
|
Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met.
Questions not answered fully. Content not wholly relevant. Little or no evidence of understanding of relevant theory. Very repetitive of taught input – no development or application. The use of extensive quoted passages evident.
Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
|
Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met.
Inadequate content with issues not addressed; insufficient evidence of understanding of relevant theory and concepts and only partial understanding shown. Very limited application of theory. Use of extensive quoted passages is evident.
Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
|
20-29% Fail
|
No learning outcomes fully met. Little evidence of attempts to engage with module materials.
|
No learning outcomes fully met. Little evidence of attempts to engage with module materials.
|
No learning outcomes fully met. Little attempt to engage with the module materials or ideas.
|
No learning outcomes fully met.
No demonstration of adequate knowledge or understanding of key concepts or theories. There is no recognition of the complexity of the subject.
|
10-19% Fail
|
Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. Inadequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key concepts, theories or practice.
|
Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. Inadequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key concepts, theories or practice.
|
Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. Inadequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key concepts, theories or practice.
|
Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. Inadequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key concepts, theories or practice.
|
0-9% Fail
|
No real attempt to address the assignment brief or learning outcomes
|
No real attempt to address the assignment brief or learning outcomes
|
No real attempt to address the assignment brief or learning outcomes
|
No real attempt to address the assignment brief or learning outcomes.
|
FoSS Generic Assessment Performance Descriptors
Based on – University Performance Descriptors (updated September 2015)
Note that these are generic descriptors that apply mainly, though not exclusively, to written academic work. The relevant performance descriptors for the appropriate level (as below) should appear in the module guide.
Any further module-specific assessment criteria, such as number of words, should be clearly stated in the assignment brief.
The pass rate at Masters Level = 50%
|
L7 (Masters Level)
|
90-100%
|
This work is outstanding and is of a standard which could be considered for future publication in a professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic debate which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and a totally justified position. The work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current theory and/or practice and specific, focused examples of contestability. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation.
No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
80-89%
|
The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for future publication in a professional context. The work demonstrates engagement in an academic debate which presents clear evidence of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the approach adopted and the position taken. The work enhances current theory and/or practice and displays a range of examples of contestability. There is evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of theoretical models and/or practical applications has resulted in a distinct level of originality.
Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
70-79%
|
There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the complexity of the context in which it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which current views are based and to challenge received opinion.
Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
60-69%
|
The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a comparative review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within a given professional context.
Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
|
50-59%
50% Pass mark
|
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning outcomes.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
|
40-49% Fail
|
Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address each of the outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles of the module to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered.
There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to suggest that the participant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
|
30-39% Fail
|
The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. There are fundamental misconceptions of the basis of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the author will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.
|
20-29% Fail
|
This work shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is little reference to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought or criticality. Overall the work is unduly descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the essential issues.
|
10-19% Fail
|
This work is not coherent and shows severe faults in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It is unstructured and extremely badly presented. It is totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis.
|
0-9% Fail
|
No real attempt to address assignment brief or learning outcomes.
|