| MODULE NAME: | MODULE CODE: |
| INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH | INRS7311; INRS7311d; INRS7311e; INRS7311f; INRS7311p; INRS7311w |
| INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH | INRS7321; INRS7321d; INRS7321f; INRS7321p; INRS7321w |
ASSESSMENT TYPE: ASSIGNMENT 1 (PAPER ONLY)
TOTAL MARK ALLOCATION: 100 MARKS TOTAL HOURS: 10 HOURS
By submitting this assignment, you acknowledge that you have read and understood all the rules as per the terms in the registration contract, in particular the assignment and assessment rules in The IIE Assessment Strategy and Policy (IIE009), the intellectual integrity and plagiarism rules in the Intellectual Integrity Policy (IIE023), as well as any rules and regulations published in the student portal.
INSTRUCTIONS:
- No material may be copied from original sources, even if referenced correctly, unless it is a direct quote indicated with quotation marks. No more than 10% of the assignment may consist of direct quotes.
- Any assignment with a similarity index of more than 25% will be scrutinised for plagiarism. Please ensure you attach an originality report to your assignment if required.
- Make a copy of your assignment before handing it in.
- Assignments must be typed unless otherwise specified.
- All work must be adequately and correctly referenced.
- Begin each section on a new page.
- Follow all instructions on the assignment cover sheet.
- This is an individual assignment.
Referencing Rubric
Providing evidence based on valid and referenced academic sources is a fundamental educational principle and the cornerstone of high- quality academic work. Hence, The IIE considers it essential to develop the referencing skills of our students in our commitment to achieve high academic standards. Part of achieving these high standards is referencing in a way that is consistent, technically correct and congruent. This is not plagiarism, which is handled differently.
Poor quality formatting in your referencing will result in a penalty of a maximum of ten percent being deducted from the mark awarded, according to the following guidelines. Please note, however, that evidence of plagiarism in the form of copied or uncited work (not referenced), absent reference lists, or exceptionally poor referencing, may result in action being taken in accordance with The IIE’s Intellectual Integrity Policy (0023).
Markers are required to provide feedback to students by indicating (circling/underlining) the information that best describes the student’s work.
Minor technical referencing errors: 5% deduction from the overall mark – the student’s work contains five or more errors listed in the minor errors column in the table below.
Major technical referencing errors: 10% deduction from the overall mark – the student’s work contains five or more errors listed in the major errors column in the table below.
If both minor and major errors are indicated, then 10% only (and not 5% or 15%) is deducted from the overall mark. The examples provided below are not exhaustive but are provided to illustrate the error.
| Required: Technically correct referencing style | Minor errors in technical correctness of referencing style Deduct 5% from mark awarded | Major errors in technical correctness of referencing style Deduct 10% from mark awarded |
| Consistency The same referencing format has been used for all in-text references and in the bibliography/reference list. | Minor inconsistencies. -The referencing style is generally consistent, but there are one or two changes in the format of in-text referencing and/or in the bibliography. -For example, page numbers for direct quotes (in-text) have been provided for one source, but not in another instance. Two book chapters (bibliography) have been referenced in the bibliography in two different formats. | Major inconsistencies. -Poor and inconsistent referencing style used in-text and/or in the bibliography/ reference list. -Multiple formats for the same type of referencing have been used. -For example, the format for direct quotes (in-text) and/or book chapters (bibliography/ reference list) is different across multiple instances. |
| Technical correctness Referencing format is technically correct throughout the submission. Position of the reference: a reference is directly associated with every concept or idea. For example, quotation marks, page numbers, years, etc. are applied correctly, sources in the bibliography/reference list are correctly presented. | Generally, technically correct with some minor errors. -The correct referencing format has been consistently used, but there are one or two errors. -Concepts and ideas are typically referenced, but a reference is missing from one small section of the work. -Position of the references: references are only given at the beginning or end of every paragraph. -For example, the student has incorrectly presented direct quotes (in-text) and/or book chapters (bibliography/reference list). | Technically incorrect. -The referencing format is incorrect. -Concepts and ideas are typically referenced, but a reference is missing from small sections of the work. -Position of the references: references are only given at the beginning or end of large sections of work. -For example, incorrect author information is provided, no year of publication is provided, quotation marks and/or page numbers for direct quotes missing, page numbers are provided for paraphrased material, the incorrect punctuation is used (in-text); the bibliography/reference list is not in alphabetical order, the incorrect format for a book chapter/journal article is used, information is missing e.g. no place of publication had been provided (bibliography); repeated sources on the reference list. |
| Congruence between in-text referencing and bibliography/reference list All sources are accurately reflected and are all accurately included in the bibliography/reference list. | Generally, congruence between the in-text referencing and the bibliography/ reference list with one or two errors. -There is largely a match between the sources presented in-text and the bibliography. -For example, a source appears in the text, but not in the bibliography/reference list or vice versa. | A lack of congruence between the in-text referencing and the bibliography. -No relationship/several incongruencies between the in- text referencing and the bibliography/reference list. -For example, sources are included in-text, but not in the bibliography and vice versa, a link, rather than the actual reference is provided in the bibliography. |
| In summary: the recording of references is accurate and complete. | In summary, at least 80% of the sources are correctly reflected and included in a reference list. | In summary, at least 60% of the sources are incorrectly reflected and/or not included in reference list. |
Overall Feedback about the consistency, technical correctness and congruence between in-text referencing and bibliography:
| Brief explanation of the assignment: For this assignment, you will be required to identify a research topic that is relevant to your discipline of study. You will need to work on describing the topic, the context within which the research topic is situated, formulating and presenting the research problem, and explaining the purpose of your research. A relevant theory will need to be identified, explained and applied to your topic and you will need to conceptualise the key terms related to your topic. A significant part of this assignment concerns the review of previous research related to your topic. In the review, you need to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of relevant literature as well as your ability to synthesise complex information into a coherent whole. By doing a literature review, you clarify how and where the proposed study fits into the debate in the literature. This assignment is assessing the following Learning Objectives: At the end of this assessment, students should be able to: Apply the research process;Formulate a research problem based on the research topic;Argue in favour of a particular research topic;Formulate research questions based on a research problem;Formulate null and alternative hypotheses;Create a theoretical framework;Compile a literature review;Formulate a construct(s) based on concepts relevant to a research study. Marks to be awarded based on the following components: | ||
| Components for which marks will be awarded | Marks | |
| Research Title and Topic | 5 | |
| Background | 5 | |
| Research problem | 10 | |
| Relevance/ motivation | 5 | |
| Research question and hypotheses/ objectives | 5 | |
| Theoretical foundation | 15 |
| Review of previous research | 30 | |
| Conceptualisation or operationalisation of key terms | 10 | |
| Formatting and logical flow | 5 | |
| Spelling, grammar and academic writing | 10 | |
| In-text references and reference list | Negative marking | |
| The successful completion of the assignment rests upon you reviewing Learning Units 1, 2 and 3 on Learn – these will actively assist you! Your assignment will be made up of the following parts: |
| Research Title and Topic _ (Marks: 5) |
| Objectives: Explain the research process.Argue in favour of a particular research topic Identify a research topic that interests you. Please note that it is imperative that you identify a topic that relates to an aspect or aspects of your discipline area (related to the content of the core modules of your degree). Search journals related to your discipline to see the types of research others have done. You can use Google Scholar and the IIE library resources, including Ebscohost, for this purpose. Then formulate the title of your research. Conduct a search of local university research output in terms of theses and dissertations on topics in your discipline. Note how specific many of the titles of these reports are. Refer to the section of the prescribed textbook Identifying a Research Topic on pages 61–64 to assist you in identifying an appropriate research topic, and to Theme 1 of Learning Unit 2 on Learn. |
| Background (Marks: 5) |
| Objective: Explain the research process. A background allows you to contextualise your study. The purpose of contextualising your study is to explain broadly what you want to do in the study and what your main argument is. By giving the necessary background and context, you allow for the reader to understand the nature of your research topic. You should assume the reader has no prior knowledge about the topic. Ensure that you research and reference this background information. |
| Research problem (Marks: 10) |
| Objective: Formulate a research problem based on the research topic. Formulate a research problem based on the research topic you have identified. This section will require considerable review and rework. Refer to pages 64 to 68 in your textbook and to Learn for practical examples. The following should be included: Indicate what the research problem is;Why it is a problem; andWhy it needs to be solved.The purpose of the research. Note the criteria for forming a research problem in your textbook and on Learn. The following is an example of a research problem. Notice how the researcher explains why it is a problem in need of a solution: Face-saving practices influence the interpersonal interactions of employees in an organisation. However, managers often have a limited understanding of how different cultures use face-saving practices. With the different cultural and ethnic groups represented in South African organisations, a misunderstanding of face-saving practices is a threat to effective interpersonal understanding. Little, if any, research has been conducted on face-saving practices in South African organisations and on how individuals from different cultural backgrounds view socially acceptable behaviour in conflict situations. Saving-face, that is often referred to as ‘face-work’, is particularly important in high-context cultures, such as most African cultures, and it is the responsibility of employers to ensure that employees for whom face-work is important remains unharmed (Kim & Nam 1999, Littlejohn & Foss 2008, & Phuong-Mai 2008). The purpose of this study is to gain an in-depth understanding of cultural differences in face-saving practices in an organisational context, with specific reference to how it benefits or impedes effective interpersonal communication. |
| Relevance/ motivation (Marks: 5) |
| Objective: Argue in favour of a particular research topic. Convince the reader why your research is worth doing. Indicate the practical value – who could use your results? What academic gap would it fill? You must also specify how the research links to your degree. |
| Research question and hypotheses/ objectives (Marks: 5) |
| Objective: Formulate research questions based on a research problem;Formulate null and alternative hypotheses. State in a single sentence the main question you seek to answer in your research. This should flow directly from the research problem. It should provide focus and clarity. A common error is to make the research question too broad and impractical. The way you word your research question should indicate whether your research is quantitative or qualitative. Refer to your textbook on pages 68 to 70 as well as pages 88 to 89 and as well Learn for practical help. Next, do one of the following, depending on the nature of your research (see page 288): If your research is quantitative and explanatory in nature, then specify the hypotheses for your study that you will test in order to answer your research question(s).If your research is quantitative but not explanatory, then specify sub-questions that are directly related to your main research question.If your research is qualitative, then specify the objectives of your research that are directly related to your research question.If your research is mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative), then you can have a combination of the above. If you continue on with the Research Practice (REPR7312) module in second semester, you will be required to develop a questionnaire, something you may want to keep in mind when identifying the research topic you wish to explore. |
| Theoretical foundation (Marks: 15) |
| Objective: Create a theoretical framework. Identify a suitable theory that is related to your research topic. Ensure that you capture the essence of the theory and that you provide a justification for the relevance of the theory to your proposed study. Review pages 55-58 of your textbook and to Learn for assistance. |
| Review of previous research (Marks: 30) |
| Objective: Compile a literature review. Consult at least five academic resources (preferably peer-reviewed academic journals) on your research topic. It is very important that the literature relates to, and is relevant to, your topic and research problem. Ensure that you structure your literature review in a logical manner and that you reference the relevant material correctly. Also, make sure that you do not merely copy the material, but that you engage with it critically and only use what is relevant to your own study. You also need to synthesise the literature, meaning that you have to combine the information and present it in a unique way. Thus, you need to take different pieces of literature that make the same point and combine it to form a coherent whole. You will also receive marks for your ability to demonstrate independent thinking, to synthesise, to analyse and for your ability to put together a logical argument. This means you cannot simply summarise the literature. Review pages 103-105 in your textbook and Theme 1 of Learning Unit 3 on Learn. |
| Conceptualisation of key terms (Marks: 10) |
| Objective: Formulate a construct/s based on concepts relevant to a research study. Once you have completed your review of the previous literature, you need to identify and communicate the abstract keywords in your study, and then develop specific meaning of each in your own words so that the reader understands what you mean by these terms. Conceptualisation involves specifying the higher level constructs (often identified from your title) and their related concepts. Refer to page 108-109 in your textbook and to Theme 2 in Learning Unit 3 on Learn. |
| Additional points to note |
| Referencing: You need to reference every point in your literature review – this adds credibility to your argument. Referencing other sources helps build a foundation on which you can build your own argument, so that the reader understands that you have investigated and understand the scope of previous literarture on the topic. Picture your argument as a bridge over a stream, and each reference is a brick used to build that bridge. In order to get the reader to believe in your argument (follow you across the bridge), you need to provide them with as many solid and reputable references (bricks) to build your argument (a solid bridge that can be crossed safely). By the time the reader is finished reading your assignment they should have been provided with a solid foundation of previous literature (a selection of solid and carefully selected bricks) in order to believe enough in your argument to have crossed the bridge with you. Please compile an accurate reference list of all the sources you have consulted. Referencing is important in research and the standard of referencing extremely high. Your referencing formatting must be accurate. Refer to the IIE referencing guide and ask your librarian for assistance. Remember that referencing errors will result in a reduction of marks (see referencing rubric at start of assignment). Presentation requirements and guidelines: Analyse the assignment instructions before you begin to write. Ensure that you have addressed all the sections asked of you correctly. Be prepared to draft and redraft sections of your assignment. The paper that you submit should not be the first draft you write. Good academic writing requires that you write several drafts in order to ensure that there is a logical flow in your writing. Please check your spelling and grammar and use an academic tone, with no superlatives. Keep your writing concise and be mindful of the word count. Please consult your lecturer for guidelines. Word count: The maximum word count for this assignment is 2 400 to 2 600 words. Students should note that the lecturer will not mark beyond the maximum word count for the question. This means that students exceeding the word count substantially would lose marks. For example, a student exceeding an 2 600 words by submitting a 2 800 words, could find that they lose all marks allocated to the conclusion if their whole conclusion fell into the 200 words not marked. |
[TOTAL MARKS: 100]
Appendix A
Please note: Tear off this section and attach it to your work when you submit it.
| MODULE NAME: | MODULE CODE: |
| INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH | INRS7311/d/e/f/p/w |
| Criterion | Poor 0-20% | Weak 21-40% | Average 41-60% | Good 61-80% | Excellent 81-100% |
| RESEARCH TITLE AND TOPIC | 0-1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| The title gives little information about the study. | Research topic is somewhat vague or far too ambitious for one research study. The title gives some information about the study, but is either too short or too wordy. | Research topic is clear and relevant to discipline area under study although perhaps somewhat ambitious or too narrow to form a meaningful study. The title adequately describes the study, giving the reader a good insight into what to expect. | Research topic is clear and researchable and relevant to discipline area under study. The title describes the study, including the research processes in a clear and concise manner. | In addition, the research topic is insightful in relation to the discipline area under study. In addition, the title is catchy and readily gains the reader’s interest. | |
| BACKGROUND | 0-1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Background information is either missing or poorly described. No resources have been used to provide context of study. | Background information is unclear, leaving reader unsure of why the issue/ concern should be studied. Reader is left wondering about the context within which the study will take place. Little to no resources used to contextualise the study. | Background provides a clear indication of why the issue/ concern should be studied. Context is clearly aligned to a discipline area. Resources limited to only one or two sources and they lack integration or alignment between sources. | Background provides a clear indication of why the issue/ concern should be studied. Context is clearly aligned to discipline area. Two or more sources have been used and integration between sources is evident. | In addition, multiple, three or more, sources are integrated to provide a holistic and in depth understanding of the context and discipline area within which the study will take place. |
| RESEARCH PROBLEM | 0-2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
| Research problem is either missing, or the explanation thereof is so vague that the reader is left confused or with a poor understanding of the research to be undertaken. | An attempt at outlining a research problem is somewhat evident in the discussion however the reader is left in doubt as to what the problem actually is. The answer either provides an explanation of what the problem is, or why it is a problem or why it needs to be solved, but not all three. Criteria of a research problem have not been taken into consideration. | Good attempt at outlining the research problem, however, some aspects are still a little unclear. The answer either provides an explanation of what the problem is, or why it is a problem or why it needs to be solved, but not all three. Criteria may or may not be specifically stated (as in the criteria have been integrated into the discussion), but it is evidence that some consideration has been given to two to three of the research criteria for a research problem (pg. 66 of prescribed text). Instead of an integrated discussion, criteria are used in almost bulleted form to explain research problem. | Research problem is clearly outlined; reader is left in no doubt of the research problem. The answer provides an explanation of what the problem is, why it is a problem and why it needs to be solved. Criteria may or may not be specifically stated (as in the criteria have been integrated into the discussion), but it is evident that careful consideration has been given to three to four of the research criteria for a research problem (pg. 66 of prescribed text). | Research problem is clearly outlined; reader is left in no doubt of the research problem. The answer provides an explanation of what the problem is, why it is a problem and why it needs to be solved. Criteria may or may not be specifically stated, but it is evident that careful consideration has been given all of the research criteria for a research problem (pg. 66 of prescribed text). | |
| RELEVANCE/ MOTIVATION | 0-1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| The relevance of the study does not answer the question ‘why should this research be undertaken?’ | The relevance of the study attempts to justify the necessity of the study, but the justification is poorly argued. | The relevance of the study justifies the necessity of the study, and the justification is generally well-argued. No link to current studies. | The relevance of the study justifies the necessity of the study, and the justification is generally well-argued. Link to current studies is evident. | The relevance of the study justifies the necessity of the study, and the justification is generally well-argued. Link to current studies is evident. In addition, there is evidence of understanding who and how the research will be used. |
| RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES/ OBJECTIVES | 0-1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Research questions are not phrased as questions. Research questions are not linked to the research problem in any way. Reader has no discernible way of knowing if the research is qualitative or quantitative. Hypothesis/ objectives are missing. | Research questions are tenuously linked to the research problem throwing their relevance into question. Research questions are phrased as questions, but the questions suppose the answers. Reader has no discernible way of knowing if the research is qualitative or quantitative. Hypothesis/ objectives are provided but are either poorly worded or inappropriate for question (e.g. hypothesis for qualitative study). | The research question is vaguely linked to the research problem. Reader is able to tell from the question if the research is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Research question is phrased as a question and the question does not suppose answers. Hypothesis/ objectives are provided as per research question but wording could be improved upon. | The research question is clearly linked to the research problem Research question is phrased as a question and the question does not suppose answers. Hypothesis/ objectives are provided as per the research question and are clear and will lead to investigation of the research problem/ issue. | In addition, the questions and hypothesis/ objectives are sharp, specific, clear and concise, and seem feasible and ethical in nature. | |
| THEORETICAL FOUNDATION | 0-3 | 4-6 | 7-9 | 10-12 | 13-15 |
| Understanding of theory is lacking. Theory chosen is unsuitable. Justification of theory is poorly explained or missing. | At least one suitable theory has been identified but the explanation of that theory is poor or confusing. There is an attempt to explain the theory, but little evidence to suggest that the theory is understood. There is an attempt to justify the use of the theory, but needs work. OR Chosen theory is unsuitable, but explanation and justification are good and some form of linking to research is attempted. | One suitable theory has been identified. Explanation of theory is provided, and justification of the use of theory for the suggested research is provided, but the explanations are not clear or could use additional work. The explanation and justification of the theory are not integrated into a holistic discussion. | At least one suitable theory has been identified. Either the explanation of theory or the justification of the theory is clear and well argued – but not both. The explanation and justification of the theory are integrated into one discussion. | One or more suitable theories have been identified and there is a clear and coherent discussion of how the theory applies to the research. Both the explanation of theory and the justification of the theory is clear and well argued. The explanation and justification of the theory are integrated into one holistic discussion. |
| REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH | 0-6 | 7-12 | 13-18 | 19-24 | 25-30 |
| Relevant or credible sources of academic literature are either not evident or very poorly explained. The ability to synthesise and logically and coherently and critically describe and apply previous literature is not evident. | The following is evident: Less than five relevant and credible sources of academic literature and previous research studies identified and described. Application of the previous literature to the research topic is evident. The following is not evident: Coherent structure and organisation of the literature. Critical analysis of the literature, rather than a summarised or annotated bibliography. Independent thinking demonstrated, student has positioned their research and identified academic gap. Argumentation follows logically and is substantiated. Sources have been integrated and synthesised. | The following is evident: Minimum of five relevant and credible sources of academic literature and previous research studies identified and described. Application of the previous literature to the research topic is evident. Coherent structure and organisation of the literature. There is no evidence of the following: Critical analysis of the literature, rather than a summarised or annotated bibliography. Independent thinking demonstrated, student has positioned their research and identified academic gap. Argumentation follows logically and is substantiated. Sources have been integrated and synthesised. | The following is evident: Minimum of five relevant and credible sources of academic literature and previous research studies identified and described. Application of the previous literature to the research topic is evident. Coherent structure and organisation of the literature. There is evidence that the following were attempted but need work: Critical analysis of the literature, rather than a summarised or annotated bibliography. Independent thinking demonstrated, and has been positioned within research and identified academic gap. Argumentation follows logically and is substantiated. Sources have been integrated and synthesised. | The following is evident: Minimum of five relevant and credible sources of academic literature and previous research studies identified and described. Application of the previous literature to the research topic is evident. Coherent structure and organisation of the literature. Critical analysis of the literature, rather than a summarised or annotated bibliography. Independent thinking demonstrated, and has been positioned within research and identified academic gap. Argumentation follows logically and is substantiated. Sources have been integrated and synthesised. |
| CONCEPTUALIS ATION OR OPERATIONALI SATION OF KEY TERMS | 0-2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
| Key concepts have not been identified or explained. It is evident that there is no understanding of conceptualisation and operationalisation. | Key concepts are identified but they are poorly explained. Or, key concepts identified are not relevant to the research problem and question. | Key concepts have been identified and a very basic definition has been provided that is relevant to the research but does not show any evidence of combining sources to conceptualise and operationalise the concepts. Key concepts are not explained in relation to research problem. | Key concepts have been identified and a concise definition is provided that combines sources to conceptualise and operationalise key concepts. Key concepts are not explained in relation to research problem. | Key concepts have been identified and a concise definition is provided that combines sources to conceptualise and operationalise key concepts. Key concepts are explained in relation to research problem. | |
| FORMATTING AND LOGICAL FLOW | 0-1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| No headings. No logical structure. Content jumps from one section to another with no transitions. | Headings are provided. No sub-headings. No structure in that one section does not follow on from the other. Transitions between sections non-existent. | Headings are provided. No sub-headings. There is a semblance of a structure but still needs work. There are attempts at transitioning from one paragraph/ section to the next but needs work. | Headings are provided. Sub-headings are provided. There is a semblance of a structure but still needs work. There are attempts at transitioning from one paragraph/ section to the next but needs work. | Headings are provided. Sub-headings are provided. Structure is clear. Transitions between sections are clear. | |
| SPELLING, GRAMMAR AND ACADEMIC TONE | 0-2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
| Multiple grammar and spelling errors, in that there are the same errors repeated throughout. And there is more than on error in a paragraph and on each page. Errors show lack of preparation and editing. Language used is inappropriate for academic writing (e.g. slang, colloquial, first person etc.). | Grammar and spelling errors are present but they are spread throughout the document. There are multiple errors on each page, but they are not the same mistakes repeated. Errors show lack of preparation and editing. There are some inappropriate language errors (e.g. slang, colloquial, firs person etc.). | Minor spelling or grammar errors, no more than ten throughout the document. Language used is appropriate for academic writing (e.g. there is no slang, colloquial, first person etc.) A little bit verbose, could be more concise. | Minor spelling or grammar errors, no more than five throughout the document. Language used is appropriate for academic writing (e.g. there is no slang, colloquial, first person etc.). A little bit verbose, could be more concise. | No spelling or grammar errors. Easy to read, fluent and appropriate academic style. Language used is appropriate for academic writing (e.g. there is no slang, colloquial, first person etc.). Concise writing avoiding unnecessary verbosity. | |
| Total | /100 | ||||
| Deduction of marks for referencing errors | % | ||||
| Final Total | % | ||||
[TOTAL MARKS: 100]
Get expert help for INRS7311; INRS7311d; INRS7311e; INRS7311f; INRS7311p; INRS7311w and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
