University of Lincoln Assessment Framework
Assessment Briefing 2021-2022
Module Code & Title: Dissertation BUS9036M
Contribution to Final Module Mark: 10%
Description of Assessment Task and Purpose:
The aim of this assessment is to produce a research proposal and work plan for your dissertation.
This must be in the format of the form on Blackboard. Please locate the template for the Proposal
on Blackboard (see Assessments tab).
Further Guidance:
Specific texts and source materials are dependent upon the focus and methodology of your
research. Generic guidance can for example be found in texts such as:
• Biggam, J. (2018) Succeeding with your Master’s Dissertation 4th Edition Sage:London
In addition, learning Resources which will support this assessment include – a variety of which can
be found here (including how you can manage your dissertation process). Additional Learning
Resources are also available via the blackboard module site.
You may find the information contained in the ‘Late Arrivals’ guide on Blackboard useful in engaging
with this module.
Learning Outcomes Assessed:
The learning outcomes for this assessment are as follows- that at the end of an effective
submission you will be able to:
LO1 Communicate the aims, objectives and relevance of your chosen research project.

LO2	Develop achievable and logical plans to guide the implementation of your chosen research project.

Knowledge & Skills Assessed:
The successful completion of this assessment task will contribute to the development of the
following for you:
Subject Specific Knowledge, Skills and Understanding: Literature searching, Referencing,
Subject-specific knowledge, Project Planning, Techniques and Skills.
Professional Graduate Skills: independence and personal responsibility, written
communication, critical thinking, working under pressure to meet deadlines, self-reflection,
problem solving, effective time management.
Emotional Intelligence: motivation, resilience, self-confidence.
Assessment Submission Instructions:
You will produce a project proposal (One document) – this will be the equivalent of 1000 words and
will form the basis of an agreed Plan of work. Please use the template for this found on Blackboard.
The submission date of this Assessment is JUNE 22nd at 12 noon (UK) time 2022
Date for Return of Feedback: Three weeks after the submission date
Format for Assessment: Please use the template provided on the Blackboard Site.
Marking Criteria for Assessment:
Please see the Appendix for a detailed rubric across all grading thresholds.
Feedback Format: Feedback is provided by Grademark Studio on Turnitin and through the use of
the rubric. Additional time slots will be available for face to face feedback as required/requested.
Please note that all work is assessed according to the University of Lincoln Management of
Assessment Policy and that marks awarded are provisional on Examination Board decisions (which
take place at the end of the Academic Year.
Assessment Support Information:
Learning Resources which will support this assessment include:
Research and Dissertations
Introduction to Postgraduate Study Skills
Postgraduate Study Skills: Being Critical at Master’s Level
Postgraduate Study Skills: Managing the Dissertation Process
Postgraduate Study Skills: Academic Writing and the Research Process
Postgraduate Study Skills: In-depth Critical Literature Review
Postgraduate Study Skills: Reading Critically
Harvard Referencing
Important Information on Dishonesty & Plagiarism:
University of Lincoln Regulations define plagiarism as ‘the passing off of another person’s thoughts,
ideas, writings or images as one’s own…Examples of plagiarism include the unacknowledged use of
another person’s material whether in original or summary form. Plagiarism also includes the copying
of another student’s work’.
Plagiarism is a serious offence and is treated by the University as a form of academic dishonesty.
Students are directed to the University Regulations for details of the procedures and penalties
involved.
For further information, see plagiarism.org
Assessment Rubric (Assessment 1)

Clarity 12%	Excellent (5)	Good (4)	Satisfactory (3)	Fair – with risk of failure (2)	Poor – needs significant improvement (1)	Not Evidenced (0)
Is the focus of the project clear and suitable? Do we have a central aim and related objectives? Is the focus suitable for the degree title?	Excellent Clarity	Aims and objectives clearly expressed but would benefit from further improvement/tightening	Aims and objectives apparent and workable, but some further clarification required	General aim apparent but are insufficient to provide the guidance or structure required.	General aims weekly identified but need further refinement and objectives need to be articulated appropriately	Not Evidenced
Rationale 20%
What is the justification for and relevance of the topic; in terms of academic literature, contemporary business practice and/or enterprise development?Is there scope for critical thinking and originality/creativity?	Excellent Rationale – clear and concise.	Rationale fundamentally sound but would benefit from further thought/stronger argument in some areas.	Rationale as outlined is generally relevant, but lacks originality and/or scope for creativity/criticality. The rationale needs to be clearer/stronger in some respects; to enable the work to make appropriate recommendations/develop stronger conclusions.	Rationale is weak and arguments need strengthening in several important respects if the work is to meet a pass standard.	Rationale unclear/inconsistent. The argument insufficiently supported and lacks clarity/relevancy.	Not Evidenced
Suitability 20%

 

Is the approach to the problem or project sound? Are the potential sources of evidence identified and to what extent can this material be assembled? Have sources of evidence been evaluated? Are the sources/subject accessible?

Excellent – clear relationship between aims/objectives and chosen approach. If followed through competently the work should address all aims and objectives.

The approach is generally suitable and, if carried out competently should enable the general aims and most of the objectives to be met. There are some minor concerns/potential improvements required

Approach being taken is broadly appropriate. However, there are some doubts about some aspects and further work is needed in several important respects. However, there is confidence that the approach should enable the work to succeed.

There are significant doubts about the suitability of the approach being taken/proposed. Unless the issues are addressed then the work is unlikely to meet the standard expected.

Methods/Sources are either inappropriate or ill defined. Unless the approach is changed/further developed the work is likely to fail.

Not Evidenced

 

References 12%
Is the scope and extent of the literature understood? Have the key sources been identified an accessed? Are the citations correct?	Excellent – precise and appropriate with no obvious limitations	The references/sources are broadly and specifically appropriate to the purpose of the research. If used well they should enable the work to reach a high standard. Some minor additions/adjustments are needed to improve the potential.	The evidence presented confirms that the sources are broadly sufficient and accessible. Further work is needed to either identify more focused material/sources and/or broaden the evidence base. If used appropriately, the evidence base is sufficient to enable the work to reach a pass standard.	Basic sources identified but further sources are needed to scope the study. Unless the sources are developed, the work is unlikely to pass.	References inappropriate/insufficient, further literature search needed. As it stands the evidence base is insufficient to enable the work to pass.	Not Evidenced
Structure 12%
Is the proposed structure logical and consistent with the aims and objectives?	Excellent – no further improvements required	The proposed structure is consistent with the proposed approach and follows conventions. There are only minor improvements needed.	The proposed structure of the work is consistent with the general principles of research. If the work was presented in the manner suggested it would be likely to meet a pass standard. However, the proposed structure could be enhanced in some key respects.	Structure needs more work and unless improvements are made the final output is unlikely to pass	Structure flawed in several respects and unless these issues are resolved, the dissertation is highly likely to fail	Not Evidenced
Schedule 12%

 

Is the proposed structure of final output appropriate? Is the schedule fully outlined and agreed with the supervisor? Is the schedule clear and achievable?	Excellent – the schedule has built in contingency and is highly likely to succeed.	The schedule is clear and logical. However, there are some minor concerns and/or limited evidence of contingency planning.	The workflow is generally clear and milestones appropriate, The schedule may be ambiguous in part and have limited contingency; or be inconsistent with some of the supervisor’s expectations. However, if all goes according to plan, the work has a high probability of being completed on time.	More work needed to clarify workflow and milestones, and more importantly, the work is at risk of failing to meet the deadline	Schedule flawed in several respects and the work is highly unlikely to be completed satisfactorily unless these are resolved	Not Evidenced
Ethics 12%
Fully articulated and all dilemmas identified and outlined	Generally well articulated and no significant issues unidentified. There may be minor issues associated with argument and presentation – but fundamental issues have been addressed. There are no reasons to limit progress of the project.	Generally sufficient to allow an application to be made but some minor matters need to be resolved. Ethical approval is likely.	Some ethical dilemmas either need further argument or resolutions needed before the work can expect to secure ethical approval. Ethical approval is unlikely to be supported at this stage	Limited awareness of ethical principles and/or responsible management. The work cannot proceed until these are addressed.	Not Evidenced