IFN600-Assignment2-MarkingCriteria_v3 IFN600, Understanding Research Assessment Criteria for Assignment 2 Student Name: ________________________________ Student Number:...

research assignment on Indian Caste system and it's effects on modern india


IFN600-Assignment2-MarkingCriteria_v3 IFN600, Understanding Research Assessment Criteria for Assignment 2 Student Name: ________________________________ Student Number: ________________________________ 7 - High Distinction 6 - Distinction 5 - Credit 4 - Pass 3 - Marginal Fail 2 - Fail 1 - Low Fail Understanding of the research problem and its context – The ability to: • cater for the reading audience • identify the significance of the research problem and discuss its central issues • apply and integrate critical analysis to support the case for investigating the research problem • Problem statement clearly expresses the purpose, objective and scope of the research. • Research topic is clearly defined and key issues are identified. • Ideas are developed in clear, concise and ordered stages. • Well focused with the appropriate reading audience in mind. Clearly identifies relevant contexts. • Effectively establishes a relationship between theory and practice, as needed. • Problem statement outlines purpose, objective and scope of the research. • Discussion is well focused on the topic and majority of key issues are identified. • Central ideas are clearly apparent. • Generally acknowledges and meets the needs of the reading audience. • Takes into account the potential contexts with clear relationship between theory and practice. • Problem statement provides general indication of the scope of the research. • Discussion is focused on the topic however some key issues may be missing or under- represented. • Central ideas are apparent but may be generalized or too trivial. • Acknowledges the reading audience, but may only partially meet their needs. • Recognises the significance of relating theory to practice, but attempts to do so may not be successful. • Problem statement gives some indication of the scope of the research but requires further development. • Discussion generally aimed at the topic, however grasp of the topic may be inadequate. • Central ideas are general and/or lack clear focus and may be confused and/or are supported weakly. • Barely adequate allowance for the reading audience. • Acknowledges the need to consider the practical context, but weak examples • Limited problem statement provided. • Limited evidence of knowledge or understanding relevant to the topic. • Limited explanation of central ideas. • Weak consideration of the reading audience. • Context not clearly recognized as relevant. • Unclear or inappropriate practical examples or significance provided. • Unclear problem statement provided. • Poor evidence of knowledge or understanding relevant to the topic. • Poor explanation of central ideas. • Poor consideration of the reading audience. • Context barely recognized as relevant. • Poor practical examples or significance provided. • No clear problem statement provided. • No evidence of knowledge or understanding relevant to the topic. • No adequate explanation of central ideas. • No consideration of the reading audience. • Context not recognized as relevant. • No practical examples or significance provided. Assignment 2: Criteria for Assessment IFN600, Understanding Research Page 2 provided. Critical thinking and planning (for three research questions) – The ability to: • clearly explain a “researchable” question inspired by a general problem • clearly link the anticipated results to the question • convincingly argue the value of the question in the context of the research problem • convincingly argue that the question is feasibly answerable • All three research questions are clearly distinct and are described extremely clearly in layperson’s terms. • The nature of the new knowledge produced by answering each of the three questions is extremely clear. • Excellent arguments are provided for the ways in which the questions’ answers will contribute to the solution of the overall research problem. • The method(s) proposed for answering each question are explained exceptionally clearly and their feasibility with contemporary principles and resources is entirely convincing. • All three research questions are clearly distinct and are described clearly in layperson’s terms. • The nature of the new knowledge produced by answering each of the three questions is clear. • Very good arguments are provided for the ways in which the questions’ answers contribute to the solution of the overall research problem. • The method(s) proposed for answering each question are explained clearly and their feasibility with contemporary principles and resources is largely convincing. • Three research questions are described, but with a slight lack of clarity or some slight degree of overlap. • The nature of the new knowledge anticipated is described well but with some slight lack of clarity or detail. • Good arguments are provided for the ways in which the questions’ answers will contribute to solving the overall research problem, but the linkage is not entirely clear. • The method(s) proposed for answering each question generally seem appropriate and feasible but with a slight lack of clarity or convincingness. • Three research questions are described adequately, but with some noticeable lack of clarity or distinctness. • The nature of the new knowledge anticipated is described in general terms but lacks some clarity or detail. • Adequate but not wholly convincing arguments are given for the ways in which the questions’ answers contribute to solving the overall research problem. • The method(s) proposed for answering each question mostly seem appropriate and feasible but the argumentation lacks some compelling elements. • The three research questions lack distinctness or are described with a significant lack of clarity; or • The new knowledge anticipated is described in vague terms and/or lacks compelling detail in parts; or • Arguments for the ways in which the questions’ answers link to the overall research problem are sometimes inadequate or unconvincing; or • The methods proposed for answering the questions are sometimes inappropriate or appear infeasible. • The research questions overlap significantly and/or are described poorly and unclearly; and/or • The new knowledge anticipated is described poorly and unclearly or does not seem to relate to the question; and/or • Largely inadequate arguments are provided for the ways in which the questions’ answers relate to the overall research problem; and/or • Largely inappropriate or infeasible methods are proposed for answering the research questions. • None of the three questions is described clearly; and/or • None of the anticipated new knowledge is described clearly; and/or • No satisfactory link is provided between the research questions and the research problem; and/or • No appropriate or feasible methods are described for answering the questions. Assignment 2: Criteria for Assessment IFN600, Understanding Research Page 3 Question Comparison – The ability to: • compare and contrast one’s own research ideas • identify the importance of the ideas • identify the feasibility of the ideas • A compelling and entirely clear explanation is given for which research question should be prioritised based on effective comparison of multiple questions. • The argument for the value of the research question links in a convincing way to the overall problem. • A largely compelling and clear explanation is given for which research question should be prioritised based on effective comparison of multiple questions. • The argument for the value of the research question links in a generally convincing way to the overall problem. • A good explanation is given for which research question should be prioritised, but is not entirely clear and convincing, and/or is lacking in the comparison with other questions. • The value of the research question with respect to solving the overall problem is not fully clear and convincing. • An attempt is made to explain why the chosen question should be prioritised, but needs significant improvement and/or is lacking in the comparison with other questions. • An adequate attempt is made to argue for the value of the research question in solving the original problem, but could be considerably improved. • Weak, unconvincing attempt to explain which question should be prioritised. The comparison with other questions is inadequate. • Weak, unconvincing attempt to relate the question’s value to the original problem. • Poor, inadequate attempt to explain which question should be prioritised. The comparison with other questions is incomplete or non- existent. • Poor, inadequate attempt to relate the question’s value to the original problem. • No clear explanation for which question should be prioritised and/or no clear comparison with other questions. • No clear argument for the value of the research question in the context of the original problem.