Faculty of Social and Health Sciences
School of Sport & Wellbeing
SHN6164 : Dissertation
Welcome to Dissertation
Welcome to your Dissertation module. In this module you will design, conduct, analyse and present in a written document a research project that relates to your degree programme.
This booklet was designed to provide essential information for students who are about to embark on their final year Dissertation. The contents will answer many of the questions that may arise in the coming months. Each student is assigned a supervisor who will guide them through the process, but remember this module is primarily focused on the development of independent learning. It will be challenging yet rewarding and will give each student the opportunity to explore an area of personal interest while drawing on the skills that have been developed in other modules. It is fair to say that the students that get the most from this ‘journey’, in terms of knowledge, skills and understanding are the students that:
- Start early. Project design, data collection and analysis all take considerable amounts of time.
- Pick a topic that interests you. Make sure that the area you will focus on is something that will sustain your enthusiasm over the length of the project but is also realistic and simple enough to be manageable. This must be done in conjunction with your supervisor.
- Develop a good working relationship with your supervisor -This person will expect to see you frequently. Plan for any meetings and consider any questions you may have before you see your supervisor.
- READ LOTS –The best dissertations consider a wide range of academic sources. This will help you produce a study that builds on previous research.
- Work consistently– Since this module is largely independent, the importance of good time management cannot be overstated. There are a number of times where other work may take priority but if you set aside time each week to work on your dissertation then the process will run much more smoothly.
Hopefully this module will allow you to maximise your potential and will be one that you can look back on at when you graduate as one that showed you how much you have developed as a student since starting at Leeds Trinity University.
You should use this handbook in conjunction with the other forms of information, guidance and support available to you for the module. The dissertation is obviously different from the more usual format of structured, timetabled modules where you are taught in groups in regular weekly classes, and so are the methods of working for it:
The great majority of the work you do is very individual – that is, it is specific to your project and, therefore, requires tailor-made advice and training. Your supervisor is a key source for this, and the supervisory relationship is therefore a central form of support for your research. An outline of this relationship is given in this handbook.
Although most of your contact with staff will be with your supervisor, there may be times when you have a more general issue to raise. I am the overall co-ordinator for the dissertation module, and you are welcome to contact me on these occasions. If you have any general points you want to discuss, please get in touch by e-mailing me (email@example.com).
|1.||Module Code and Title:|
|2.||Where and When:|
|Delivery for the group session of this module. There are seven group lectures for this module which this year: Monday 26th September @ 10 am Monday 3rd October @ 10 am Monday 10th October @ 10 am Monday 17th October @ 10 am (Elective Session – Systematic Reviews) Monday 9th January @ 10 am Monday 16th January @ 10 am (Elective Session – Quantitative statistics session) Monday 23rd January @ 10 am (Elective session – Qualitative Analysis Session) The remainder of the contact time is with your academic supervisor. It is your responsibility to book regular tutorials with your assigned supervisor. You are expected to have at least 3 hours of tutorials with your assigned supervisor during the module.|
|Dr Rich Warner|
|4.||Module Leader Contact Details & Availability:|
|Office: Manchester Campus Phone: 07308514552 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Office hours: Monday to Friday (please email to book one-one sessions).|
|5.||Module Team Tutors / Contact Details:|
|Your supervisor who you will be allocated at the start of the module. Your supervisor is the person you will meet with the most throughout this module.|
|6.||Summary of Content:|
|You will work with a tutor to select an appropriate topic for research reflecting personal interest and areas, or approaches, previously introduced in the programme. This may include original research and data collection methods such as case studies, dietary surveys, laboratory work, interviews and other surveys. Systematic reviews of published research are also permitted. You may undertake a discipline-based, or professionally focused study. You will be required to comment on the significance of your results in relation to the work of other researchers and communicate their findings coherently. There may also be opportunities for you to undertake research for external organisations under careful supervision with both the tutor and outside mentor. All projects are required to obtain appropriate ethical approval prior to data collection in line with the School and University Ethics procedures. All projects are required to obtain appropriate ethical approval prior to data collection in line with the School and University Ethics procedures. On successful completion of the module, you will be able to: 1 Plan and carry out a piece of research in a logical, ethically acceptable and systematic manner using the appropriate methods. 2 Analyse and interpret results. 3 Present an appropriate project report reflecting on the results obtained.|
|7.||Learning and Teaching Strategies|
|What you can expect from the module: It is crucial that you work steadily throughout the duration of the module. The module has a 40 credit weighting because it is a substantial piece of work. It accounts for one third of your final year credits and has a workload of 400 hours. The average weekly workload, therefore, ranges from ~13 to ~17 hours pending on whether you complete academic work in the Christmas and Easter holidays; i.e., the equivalent of 1½ to 2 working days of effort per week, throughout the duration of the module. The standard of work required cannot be achieved in a mad rush as the deadline approaches. Ethical approval is required prior to collecting any data from participants, details of this can be found in the supplementary supporting material. In preparation of completing and submitting your request for ethical approval and designing your project there will be three workshops The learning hub will be an integral part of the delivery team of this module, to support you through this major piece of independent work. It is important you engage with your supervisor and establish a good working relationship from the outset of the module. Equity and Social Justice are central to our approach to learning and teaching. Our learning spaces, curriculum, and the way we teach have been designed to contribute to providing an environment that respects the dignity of all people whatever their background. We are an anti-racist university, and we will work with you to understand what it means to be anti-racist within your practice and how to develop an equitable approach within your subject. We will encourage open discussions which will help us to progress in our collaborative efforts to ensure that all people feel like they have a place in the university. Building community and belonging at LTU are at the heart of what we do. We expect our colleagues and students to have respect for one another, to uphold each other’s dignity and to support each other to thrive. We do this in a way which is collaborative in line with our institutional values of solidarity and service. Our expectations are that we create and contribute in a way which recognises that collaboration and success requires each of us to individually engage and learn what it means to approach learning through a social justice approach. We will be on this journey with you. It is possible that there may be content or discussion within this course that may be difficult for some students. Please look to the module schedule to ensure you are aware of the broad subject content. The module team will flag especially difficult content proactively so that we ensure this classroom space is one that acknowledges that each of us will experience these discussions differently. If you are upset by the content of your subject there are a number of resources that can support you (Include Student Space, LTU Student Wellbeing or Samaritans). If you need to leave a session because you are distressed, please inform the lecturer or a peer and seek support from Student Support who can be contacted via and via text/phone on 07458109288 between 9am-5am Mon-Fri and 12pm-5am on weekends.|
|8.||How your Module is Delivered|
|Your time on campus, learning through in-person teaching, is at the heart of your academic experience and the way we deliver our programmes. It helps to ensure that you are part of a connected learning community which provides you with the opportunity to interact with your peers and your tutors. Your on-campus in-person teaching sessions are supported and enhanced by a range of additional learning activities, including digital teaching materials and online platforms. This multi-modal approach to your programme of study is designed to ensure a positive learning, teaching and academic experience, and has been carefully designed around three stages: Pre Live Post These stages work as follows: Preparation: You will be given clear tasks to support you in preparing for live, in-person teaching. This may include watching a short, pre-recorded lecture (or other open educational resource), reading a paper or text chapter, finding resources to discuss with your peers in class, reading and commenting on a paper or preparing other material for use in class. Your Module Tutor will give you information to help you understand why you are completing an activity and how this will be built on during live, in-person teaching. Live: All your live, in-person teaching will be designed around active learning, providing you with valuable opportunities to build on preparation tasks and interact with staff and peers, as well as helping you to deepen your understanding, apply knowledge and surface any misunderstandings. Post: Follow-up activities will include clear opportunities for you to check understanding and apply your learning to a new situation or context. These activities will also be a source of feedback for staff that will inform subsequent sessions. For further information on what is expected of you before, during and after in-person sessions, please refer to your module schedule at the end of your handbook.|
|9.||Assessment and Deadlines|
|Assessment & Submission For this module you will complete a single up to 8000-word report on your project with a deadline of noon on the 24th April 2023 for submission. Submission for this module consists of one electronic copy submitted through Turnitin. Ethical Approval for Research All research requires ethical approval prior to data collection. Guidance on ethical approval application process can be found on the module Moodle page. Format, Structure and Content of the Dissertation The following sets out the expected format, structure, and content of a dissertation. It is relatively long but contains important information. Format The final assessment should be submitted with page margins of 2.54 cm on all sides. Text should be double spaced and Size 12 Arial Font. Tables do not need to be double line spaced but ensure the row heights are appropriate with the text centred vertically and horizontally. Page number should be on each page starting from the introduction and be located at the bottom centre of each page. The order of the report should be as follows and each section should start on a new page: Title pageAbstractAcknowledgementsIntroductionLiterature ReviewResearch Question / HypothesisMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesAppendices It is important that each section is wrote in a scientific style and tense. Scientific writing is typically very direct, concise, and specific. The whole report should be written in the third person. The tense that should be used changes during the report. The abstract, literature review, methods, results, and discussion should all be in the past tense. The introduction should be a combination of the past and present tense depending on the context of the sentence. Title and Abstract The title page must bear the title of the research, your name, student ID number, the degree title for which you are registered, the School and University name. See module handbook for an example. The title should be clear, concise, and precise enough to identify the area of the problem, and descriptive enough to permit the study to be indexed in its proper category. Superfluous words such as “a study of”, or “an investigation into”, or “an analysis of”, together with catchy, misleading, and vague phrases, should be avoided. Nouns identifying the major variables under consideration should form the basis of the title. The abstract should summarise the dissertation as a whole and include information on the background to the study, the research question, the methods, the results, and a conclusion. Well written abstracts always include the primary research results (i.e., numeric values) along with statistics. The abstract should be no longer than one page and be in the formatting expected of the whole dissertation. The word count of the title page and abstract, does not contribute to the word count of the assessment. Acknowledgements On the page following the title page and abstract, you may, if you wish, write an acknowledgement to anyone who has provided you with assistance with your project. It is polite to acknowledge help that you have received with your project, but don’t get carried away and produce a list of everyone who’s ever ‘been there for you’. The word count of the acknowledgements does not contribute to the word count of the assessment. Introduction & Literature Review & Research Question / Hypothesis The introduction and literature review sections should be used to provide a scientific rationale for the research you are going to conduct in a progressive, logical narrative. An introduction provides a rationale through the discussion of the nature of the problem being addressed. The section should start broad and progress to being specific around the area of your focus, concluding in your research question. A literature review provides a rationale by identifying, critiquing, and synthesising the current knowledge base around your research question. This section should provide a theoretical underpinning to your research area and the state of current understanding in your research area. These sections should provide a foundation to identify how your research is progressing the research area and consequently the published research needs to be evaluated and not just stated. The research question / hypothesis section should follow your introduction and literature review. This section should identify your specific research question and hypothesis. A hypothesis should include a null and experimental hypothesis. This section should also identify how your research is progressing from other research based on the literature review. Undergraduate dissertations typically progress the research area by (1) addressing a clear gap in the literature, (2) identifying limitations of past research and addressing these limitations or (3) providing confirmation of prior findings (replication studies). This section will consider your (1) knowledge and understanding, (2) structure and argument, (3) analysis and conclusions and (4) written/visual style and clarity. Methods This section should provide clear, complete, and precise details on the methods used allowing others to recreate your study. If someone reading your methods cannot replicate your work, given the appropriate skills and resources, then your written description is probably inadequate. Of course, some assumed knowledge from the ‘reader’ is acceptable, but it is important to include methodological descriptions that support the reliability and validity of the data collected. Methods should contain information on the participants, study design, procedures, and data analysis (it is common sub sections are used in results to increase clarity). The methods should be in the past tense and third person. Participants: Describe your selection of participants, including sampling techniques and recruitment. Briefly describe the critical features of your participants (sex, age range, mean age, any characteristic you may think is relevant and the informed consent and screening process. Do not use participants’ names, initials, or other identifying factors. In all cases mention that ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection. Study Design:Describe the study design (e.g., within, between or mixed measures), organisation of test sessions, randomisation, or other intervention strategy (e.g., pair-matching and counter-balanced order) experimental controls (methods or participants). You should identify the validity and reliability of your study design. Procedures: Describe the procedures used to obtain data in a clear, concise, and logical order such that it allows replication of methods. You should identify the design and construction of equipment (brief manufacturer details are normally included – e.g., Seca, Hamburg, Germany when using scales to measure body mass) and identify any substances used and their amounts (e.g., concentration of a carbohydrate solution). You should identify the validity and reliability of your procedures; this could be done by providing reference to an appropriate prior study that has used your procedures or research around the approach you are taking. Data Analysis:Clearly state how data was analysed and what the analysis was for. Describe data analysis methods in sufficient detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported findings Results This section should be text based and identify your study’s observations and text should be supported by tables and/or figures which clearly communicate key observations. However, avoid undue repetition of data in figures and tables and do not start your results section with a table or figure. In quantitative studies this section should be very factual in that you only report what was found and avoid providing explanations at this stage therefore, you should use concise factual statements, rather than debate, commentary, or speculation. Qualitative studies often merge the results and discussion together and therefore some explanation and interpretation may be evident. This should be discussed further with your supervisor to ensure the correct presentation of the results. Figures: These should be numbered consecutively and can be in the form of photographs, line drawings or graphs, and care should be taken to ensure good standards of presentation. A clear and complete numbered (Arabic numerals) title should be placed below the body of the illustration. All figures should be referred to in the text and should be large enough for easy reading. Your figures should be embedded within the results section at an appropriate point relative to the descriptive text (at least ½ a side of A4 in size). Tables: A table should be simple, logically arranged, and easy to read. Data should be centred in each cell. The title is situated above the table. Tables should be numbered consecutively and referred to in the text by their numbers (e.g., Table 1). Tables only normally have some horizontal lines inserted for sub-sectioning; vertical lines are not normally included. Discussion & Conclusion This section should discuss and critically appraise your results in relation with the current knowledge in the area where you consider differences or similarities in findings. Although this section is normally simply called the discussion it is the ‘discussion of the study results. It is common to read discussions written by inexperienced researchers that fail to remain focused on the results of the current study. The results of your study should be compared with related studies in the literature. In the discussion you can demonstrate your understanding of the underlying theory and, where appropriate, to examine the mechanisms that may have led to your results. It is imperative that you draw extensively on the extant literature to write this section but take care not to extend your discussion beyond what the results support directly. A degree of speculation may be possible, but you should liaise with your supervisor to check the extent to which you should do this. This section should also identify strengths and limitations of the research, future directions for the research and application of the research. This section should finish with a conclusion to the research that identify the key results and how these relate to your research question and/or hypothesis. There may be a statement around the implications or use of the findings but remember these statements need to be based on your data. References A reference list should be provided that includes every source mentioned in text. Referencing should follow the university’s Harvard format. There is no correlation between the length of the reference list and the mark awarded; scanning through recent issues of most sport and exercise science journals will reveal that the number of references used can vary considerably, but many limit this to 40 references (for a 4000-word article). You will minimise the time needed to compile your reference list if you make sure that each time you read an item you retain the full reference, even if you think you are not going to use it. A great deal of time may be wasted later in trying to identify the full references for items that you have referred to in the text. Appendices The appendices should contain information necessary to augment the reader’s understanding of your project work. For example, it might be useful to include one (clean) copy of a questionnaire that you used, the complete text of the standardised instructions, or examples of experimental stimuli. You must include (anonymised) transcripts of any interviews, as well as a full copy of your interview schedule. Do not get carried away, though; the appendices should not be too long. Your supervisor will advise you on what, and how much, to include in the appendices, but remember to include your Dissertation Tutorial Record (Appendix 6). There must be nothing in your report that would allow individual participants to be identified, as this violates participant anonymity, which you will have promised to maintain! Generally, you should include an (uncompleted) example of each of the materials presented to participants in your appendix. As always, though, remember that it should be possible for the reader to understand the details of your study without having to refer to an appendix to make sense of it. Information in appendices can augment the report but should not be an essential part of it. Each appendix should be clearly labelled and referred to in the text where appropriate. The appendix should be preceded by a sheet containing the word APPENDIX (capitalised and centred on the page). Possible appendices include copies of letters used, questionnaires, tests and other data gathering devices may be placed in the appendix. However, extensive appendices are rarely appropriate. Each separate entry heading is listed APPENDIX A, APPENDIX B,… Late Submission: Where there is no agreed request for an extension, a deduction of 5 marks will be made for assignments which are submitted in the 24-hour period immediately after the deadline. This means that work submitted one minute after the submission time will lose 5 marks. Subsequent deductions of 5 marks will be made for assignments submitted during subsequent 24-hour periods (not including non-working days), down to a mark of 0%. Submitted more than 5 working days after the deadline will not be marked and a mark of zero will be returned. Word Count: The word count for this assessment is up to 8000 words. This does not include the references list. If you exceed the word limit, any work after 8000 words will not be marked. Whilst you are not penalised for being under the word count, work that is substantially under the word count will be more limited in meeting the module learning outcomes. Feedback Date: Feedback will be available on Moodle on 24th May 2023 All modules will include a session which unpacks the assessment brief, providing opportunities for you to clarify any questions you have about the assessment task. The assessment criteria and rubric will be examined in these sessions to support your understanding of the expectations of the task(s). Your module tutor will provide generic feedback on what a good assessment looks like, common misconceptions, pitfalls, construction of arguments, format, spelling and referencing. You are encouraged to bring selected sections of your work or a one-page plan to assessment support sessions for verbal feedback and where appropriate, peer discussion. Your module tutor will not give any indication of mark or classification for any draft work presented. Where you have received previous feedback, your tutors will encourage you to reflect on this to support your acquisition of knowledge and academic skills development. Feedback on a full draft of an assessment for submissions, prior to the submission deadline, is not normally permitted. Use the Fit to Submit checklist 19before you submit your work.|
|The assessment is to be marked holistically using the universities generic marking criteria (see section 11) with the marker providing an indicator and category for each of the following sections for your feedback (see section 11 for typical descriptors for each classification). Title & Abstract – This section requires you to concisely state your research question, methods, results and conclusion which links to all three learning outcomes of the module. It is important this section is reflective of the actual content of the dissertation. Introduction & Literature Review & Research Question / Hypothesis – This section requires you to provide a rationale for the research you are conducting, the current understanding in the research area, the underlying theory/mechanisms and how it progresses understanding in your field linking to learning outcome 1 of the module. It is important this section is factually correct, makes links between prior research findings leading to conclusions and relates to your research question. Methods – This section requires you to state your methodological approaches with sufficient detail to allow the methods to be recreated and consideration for the rigour of your methods allowing all learning outcomes of the module to be shown. It is important that your study allows your research question to be addressed and the extent of this will be considered in the allocated mark for this section (learning outcome 1 & 2). Results – This section requires you to present your observations in a clear, concise and logical order following academic conventions and links to learning outcome 2 and 3 of the module. It is important that not only can you identify how to analyse data but that this analysis is performed and reported correctly, consequently this will be considered in the allocated mark for this section. Discussion & Conclusion – This section requires you to interpret and explain your observations (learning outcome 2) and to highlight limitations of the research which may have impacted your observations (learning outcome 2 and 3) and any future research (learning outcome 1). It is important this section is focused on the interpretation, comparison and explanation of your data and any statements are factually correct. It is important this section is progressive and in a clear, logical order. Referencing, Overall Style, Structure and Presentation– It is important that all points are supported by literature (covered in the section allocation) but that this evidence is cited in text with a reference list provided in a set format. This relates to learning outcome 3 of the module. It is important that your work is presented clearly, in the requested format with a scientific/academic voice throughout. This relates to learning outcome 3.|
|11.||Assessment Criteria Grid|
|1st 70% + 2:1 60 – 69% 2:2 50 – 59% 3rd 40 – 49% Fail 30 – 39% Abject Fail 0 – 29% Title An informative and concise title that has explicit detail in relation to the content of the dissertation. An informative and concise title that provides specific detail in relation to the content of the dissertation. An informative and concise title that provides some specific detail in relation to the content of the dissertation. A general title that lacks detail or specific relation to the content of the dissertation. An uninformative and inappropriate title that has does not relate to the content of the dissertation in any way. An extremely uninformative and inappropriate title that has does not relate to the content of the dissertation in any way. Abstract Well organised, succinct and comprehensive. Offers a very clear and effective summary of the study’s aims, methods, results and implications. The abstract contains not just statements but actual data too. Organised, succinct and covering most of the necessary information. Offers a clear and effective summary of the study’s aims, methods, results and implications. The abstract contains not just statements but actual data too. Organised and covers most of the relevant information. Offers a fairly clear and reasonably effective summary of some if not all of the study’s aims, methods, results and implications. Some organisation and covers some of the relevant information. Offers a basic and ineffective summary of some if not all of the study’s aims, methods, results and implications. Lacks organisation and does not provide enough information about the study’s aims, methods, results and implications. Disorganised, uninformative and inappropriate. Introduction Literature Review Research Question Very well organised with a clear focus. It provides extensive and appropriate coverage of relevant issues/theories and clearly demonstrates a thorough understanding of the area. The rationale for the study is very clear and convincing, follows logically from the literature review and extends previous work. There are very clear and precise aims and objectives with explicit, unambiguous hypotheses or research questions that are fully explained and leave the reader with very little room for doubt about the reasoning underpinning the study’s design. Clear use of well-selected evidence to develop the rationale. There is appropriate evidential support for claims made along with evaluation and critical analysis. Appropriate literature has been explored extensively and critically in developing the rationale. Overall, a thorough understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Well organised and focused. It provides good and appropriate coverage of a range of relevant issues/theories and clearly demonstrates an understanding of the area. A rationale is presented and this is well focused, follows logically from the literature review and extends previous work. There are clear and precise aims and objectives with explicit, unambiguous hypotheses or research questions that are explained so that the reader has a good understanding of the reasoning underpinning the study’s design. Draws on relevant independent sources and evidence to develop the rationale. Overall, a secure, general understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Reasonably well organised and reasonably focused. It provides reasonably good and largely appropriate coverage of relevant issues/theories and demonstrates some conceptual understanding of the area. A rationale is presented and this addresses the topic and largely follows from previously published work. There are aims and objectives that are mainly clear and precise. Hypotheses or research questions are presented and there is an attempt to explain the link between these and previous studies. The reader is provided with a reasonable understanding of the reasoning underpinning the study’s design. Makes simple use of evidence from sources to develop the rationale. Sound knowledge of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Some evidence of organisation and focus. Basic in its coverage of relevant issues/theories and demonstrates basic conceptual understanding of the area. There is an attempt to provide a rationale, although this is weak or difficult to detect. There are aims and objectives. Hypotheses or research questions are presented but the link between these and previous studies is not made explicit or is not convincing. The reader has a limited understanding of the reasoning underpinning the study’s design. Makes superficial use of sources with little supporting evidence to develop the rationale. Overall, limited knowledge shows basic understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Largely irrelevant with no focus. Highlights insufficient relevant issues/theories and conceptual understanding of the area is barely evident. There is no rationale for the study, or the rationale has no basis in published studies. Aims and objectives are absent or inappropriate. Hypotheses or research questions are presented but the link between these and previous studies is not made. The reader is provided with a very limited understanding of the reasoning underpinning the study’s design. There is a lack of evidence or relevant sources. Overall, faulty understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Insubstantial, irrelevant and unfocused. It does not highlight insufficient relevant issues/theories or demonstrate conceptual understanding of the area. There is no rationale for the study, which appears unconnected to previous studies or to psychology more broadly. Aims and objectives, hypotheses or research questions are absent or seriously flawed. The reader is provided with no understanding of the reasoning underpinning the study’s design. There is no evidence or relevant sources. Overall, no understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Irrelevant or absent content. 1st 70% + 2:1 60 – 69% 2:2 50 – 59% 3rd 40 – 49% Fail 30 – 39% Abject Fail 0 – 29% Methods Study design, methods and data analysis employed are entirely appropriate to the research aims, represent a novel, creative and sophisticated approach and are explicitly justified. The reporting of the methods is accurate and displays complete attention to detail such as to furnish the reader with a clear understanding of the study and the reasoning behind it, whilst remaining concise. The information is organised appropriately, including the use of correct subheadings. Information has been presented in the appropriate subsection and the sequence of information within each subsection is logical and effective. Study design, methods and data analysis employed are appropriate to the research aims, are somewhat novel, creative and sophisticated, and are explicitly justified. The reporting of the methods is very good with clear and explicit accounts of all major and most minor details. A ‘minor’ detail would be one that, if the reader’s educated guess were wrong, would not seriously impact upon the reader’s understanding of how the study was conducted or fundamentally change the nature or outcome of the study if a replication were attempted The information is organised appropriately, including the use of correct subheadings. Information has been presented in the appropriate subsection and the sequence of information within each subsection makes sense and aids understanding. Study design, methods and data analysis employed are largely appropriate to the research aims, with a little evidence of novelty, creativity or sophistication. There is some explanation of the choice of method. The reporting of the methods is generally good and provides accounts of most major and minor details. A ‘minor’ detail would be one that, if the reader’s educated guess were wrong, would not seriously impact upon the reader’s understanding of how the study was conducted or fundamentally change the nature or outcome of the study if a replication were attempted. The description is reasonably concise. The information is organised reasonably well, including the use of correct subheadings. Information has been presented in the appropriate subsection and the sequence of information within each subsection makes reasonable sense and aids understanding. Study design, methods and data analysis employed are basic and broadly appropriate to the research aims. There is an attempt to provide a rationale for the choice of method. The reporting of the methods is provides some description of the main details of the study. The description would allow a broadly similar study to be conducted, but this would be likely to differ in key aspects that have not been explained clearly or at all. The information is organised so that some understanding of the appropriate format is evident. Information is provided in incorrect subsections or in a sequence that does not make sense. Study design, methods and data analysis employed are inappropriate to the research aims and there is no rationale for their selection. The reporting of the methods is poor and it is difficult to understand how the study was conducted in all but the very broadest sense. Organisation is poor, both in terms of the overall structure and the organisation of material within sections. Study design, methods and data analysis employed are completely inappropriate to the research aims. There is no apparent awareness of the need to provide a rationale. The reporting of the methods is very poor and it is very difficult to understand how the study was conducted. The report’s structure does not conform to any recognised convention. Results The analysis of the data is entirely accurate with advanced application of analytical procedures. The analysis of the data is reported clearly and correctly, with insight, conciseness, and sophistication. The analysis of the data is accurate with standard and correct application of analytical procedures. The analysis of the data is reported clearly and correctly, and is reasonably insightful, concise and sophisticated. The analysis of the data is largely accurate and has been, mainly, applied correctly. The analysis of the data is reported correctly and, in the main, clearly. There is some evidence of insight and understanding The analysis of the data is broadly accurate and has been applied correctly but may be limited by flaws in the design or be very simple and low level. The analysis of the data represents a basic understanding of how to report results. The analysis of the data is inaccurate and incorrect, or there is no analysis at all. The analysis is unclear and has been reported incorrectly. There is no analysis at all or totally inaccurate. 1st 70% + 2:1 60 – 69% 2:2 50 – 59% 3rd 40 – 49% Fail 30 – 39% Abject Fail 0 – 29% Discussion Insightful analysis throughout with appropriate conclusions drawn. The discussion provides a comprehensive and effective consideration of the issues covered in the introduction as well as a very effective account of the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the research findings. Overall, the analysis and conclusions provide an excellent summary of the study and its findings. Sophisticated with a very high standard of critical analysis. Overall, a thorough understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Strong analysis of salient illustrative examples. Some general conclusions drawn. The discussion relates the findings to the issues covered in the introduction and provides a very good account of the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the research findings. Overall, the analysis and conclusions provide a good summary of the study and its findings. A good standard of critical analysis. Overall, a secure, general understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Some conclusions drawn based upon some reasonable comparisons and examples. The discussion relates the findings to the issues covered in the introduction and provides a reasonable account of some theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the research findings. Overall, the analysis and conclusions provide a slightly basic and unsophisticated summary of the study and its findings. Some attempt at critical analysis. Overall, a sound knowledge of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Basic analysis. Remains descriptive, with little evaluation or comparison. Few clear conclusions. The discussion relates the findings to the issues covered in the introduction in a superficial way and provides a limited account of some basic theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the research findings. Overall, the analysis and conclusions provide a basic and low-level summary of the study and its findings. Some attempt at critical analysis, but this is unconvincing. Overall, limited knowledge shows basic understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Insufficient evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical and insufficient. The discussion provides, at best, a very superficial account of some basic theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the research findings. Overall, the analysis and conclusions provide an inadequate summary of the study and its findings. Critical analysis is not evident. Overall, faulty understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. No evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical or absent. The discussion provides no discernible account of theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the research findings. Overall, the analysis and conclusions provide no acceptable summary of the study and its findings. Critical analysis is entirely absent. Overall, no understanding of relevant theory, findings and methods associated with the area of research. Irrelevant or absent content. Referencing Conventions are meticulously observed Conventions are very well observed Conventions are reasonably well observed Is evident Incomplete and incorrectly formatted, with too many errors Is haphazard or absent. Presentation The assignment is excellent, with all information in the appropriate sections. The assignment is generally very good, with almost all of the information presented in the correct section. The organisation and structure of the assignment is reasonably good. The organisation and structure of the assignment shows some understanding of the correct format. The assignment is poor. Key information presented inappropriately. Subsections of the report are incomplete or missing. The report fails to conform to any recognised convention. Academic Style Succinct, vigorous, lucid and fluent. Direct and accurate. Style is coherent. Is adequate. Somewhat impairs communication of meaning or is error-strewn. Seriously impairs communication of meaning and is riddled with errors.|
|There is no specific reading list for this module and each of you on this module will be using different resources based on your specific research project. Journals are expected to be your primary resource in your project. They provide up to date research material which has been rigorously reviewed. Some examples of useful journals are; Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance; Journal of Sport Sciences; Journal of Sport and Social Issues; Sociology of Sport Journal; Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. Journals are especially important when carrying out a Dissertation as some of the best projects are based on previous work and pass grade classifications require the use of this form of resource. The reference list below details texts that are relevant to the course; nevertheless, you will need to use your initiative to find extra appropriate readings as this is by no means an exhaustive list and there are a variety of other good research method texts available in the library. Due to the individual nature of the project it is unlikely that every student will use all of the books below. Your tutor will be able to give you individual guidance. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage. Fallowfield, J., Hale, B.J. and Wilkinson, D.M. (2005). Using Statistics in Sport and Exercise Research. Chichester: Lotus Publishing. Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage Publications. Gratton, C. and Jones, I. (2009). Research Methods for Sport Studies. London: Routledge. Green, J. and Thorogood, N. (2009). Qualitative Methods for Health Research. London: Sage. Hinton, P.R. (2004). Statistics Explained. London: Routledge. Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Research. London: Sage. Lynch, C. (2010). Doing your research project in sport. Exeter: Learning Matters. Newendorf, K.A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. London: Sage. Riffe, D., Lacey, S. and Fico, F.G. (2005). Analysing Media Messages Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. London: Erlbaum Ass. Sands, R. (2002). Sport Ethnography. Leeds: Human Kinetics. Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative Research. Theory, Methods & Practice. London: Sage. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage. Silverman, D. (2007). A short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: Sage. Thomas, G. (2009). How to do your research project. A guide for students in education & applied social sciences. London: Sage. Thomas, J.R., Nelson, J.K. and Silverman, S.J. (2011). Research Methods in Physical Activity. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics. Williams, C. and Wragg, C. (2004). Data Analysis & Research for Sport & Exercise Science. A Student Guide. London: Routledge.|
|13. Academic Support|
|The primary source of academic support for this module is from your academic supervisor. You are expected to have regular meetings with them. Remember it is your responsibility to organise these meetings and the focus of discussion. Tutor support: Students are advised to speak to their supervisor for most queries relating to this module. The module leader will be available if the supervisor is unable to answer the query. Please speak to your supervisor on how best to book a meeting with them. Facilities and Equipment Bookings: Booking facilities and equipment should be done via the Sport Science, Food, and Nutrition Technician Moodle: Further learning resources will be available on the module Moodle page. You can access Moodle via the following link Course: SHN6164 Dissertation (40 credits) (leedstrinity.net) Making Use of Feedback Probably the most important feedback you will get is formative feedback which tutors give you before you submit your assignments. This will happen during your timetabled sessions and/or tutors’ office hours. During such sessions, tutors will be able to answer questions about your work and provide guidance as to how you can improve it before submission. Tutors will read and discuss plans/presentation outlines/etc. and give guidance on approach and content. They will not read full drafts of reports/presentations/etc. at these sessions and comment on them as there is not time to do this. Where you want to take a draft of an assessment to discuss with a tutor, you will be expected to have identified areas of it which you think are weaker or where you think you might have some level of misunderstanding. These areas you have identified will form the basis of the discussion. Tutors will also only read part of the work, in such sessions to give you general guidance on your approach and writing style. Again, you will be told if you are making spelling and grammar errors, but tutors will not identify all the corrections you need to make – you must carefully proof read yourself. Please do not email drafts of work to tutors and expect feedback by return. Feedback is given in face-to-face meetings. You get the most out of feedback when you engage in one-to-one or group discussion. Do not leave such conversations until the last minute and do not expect to be able to arrange such a meeting with your tutor at less than a week’s notice. If such a meeting has been arranged the tutor may suggest that material is emailed to her/him beforehand. You should also remember that alongside the help you are able to access from academic tutors, you can also book appointments to get sections of drafts of your work looked at by the Learning Hub. They can also help with time management and a range of other useful academic skills. For this module all students will receive feedback within 20 working days of it being submitted. Please remember that weekends, Bank Holidays and the closure period over Christmas and New Year are not working days. Any mark you receive for assessed work will have formal feedback with it. This will help to explain your mark and give you suggestions as to how you can improve next time. You should download your marked work along with the feedback as soon as possible after these dates. Using this as part of a discussion with your Personal Tutor and the module tutor will greatly increase your understanding of where you can make improvements in your work. Learning Hub The Learning Hub at Leeds Trinity University is here to help you develop the skills you need to succeed in your studies. Having effective academic skills from the start will make for a more enjoyable university experience. You’ll find the work easier; you’ll save time and you’ll get more out of your course. We can help with a variety of things including: The essay writing process Time management Revision strategies Critical thinking and reading Note-taking And much, much more! All details around the learning hub can be found on MyLTU app (Home Page – myLTU – Leeds Trinity University) A tutorial can also be booked from here.|
|14. Action taken/Changes made in response to student feedback|
|As a result of feedback last year, I have kept the systematic review lecture to semester 1. As students are less familiar with this type of research it was felt that students would benefit this content in time for submitting ethical approval. I have also added in an additional teaching group session in semester 2 to further support students through the write up of the Dissertation and looking ta the marking criteria.|
|15. Essential Library and Learning Resources|
|Leeds Trinity’s Library is based in the Andrew Kean Learning Centre (AKLC). In it, you will find: Friendly, helpful staffBooks to support your studiesGroup, quiet and silent study spacesPCsLaptops for loanA café where you can relaxA 24 hour IT roomStudent Information Point The Library Website Access either by clicking on the Library icon on MyLTU or go to Home – LTU Library – Leeds Trinity University Library at Leeds Trinity University From here you can: Find and access print and electronic booksResearch a specific topicAccess subject specific resourcesGet information on referencingCheck our latest opening hours Access library help and support Book a study room Use our ‘Request’ service to suggest an item for the library to purchase Getting Help For help with using the Library, contact the Library Helpdesk: Or call: 0113 283 7244 You can also make an appointment with your Liaison Librarian, Rachel Davies who will help you get the most out of the library during your time at Leeds Trinity. Rachel delivers teaching sessions and offers 1-2-1 appointments to help you develop your research and referencing skills.|
|16. Graduate Outcomes, Employability and Attributes|
|Depending on the type of project you undertake you will have the opportunity to develop a variety of graduate attributes and skills, including digital confidence; research and thinking critically; working independently; resilience; adaptability; professional outlook; ethics, diversity, and sustainability; effective communication and enterprise and entrepreneurship .|
|17. Race Equality|
|We acknowledge that racism is ingrained across our society, institutionalised within the higher education sector and our university. We recognise that racism is not always overt and manifests in the everyday life of our staff and students; the impact of which is significantly harmful to individuals and our community. We hold ourselves accountable and empower everyone to be anti-racist, challenge all forms of racism and work to dismantle structures that perpetuate racism including challenging ourselves. We are committed to eliminating racial inequality and will take systematic action to address racial inequities. We expect all staff, students, and all members of our university community including partners and stakeholders to embody these values and behaviours.|
Fit to Submit: Assignment Checklist
This brief assignment checklist is designed to help you avoid some of the most common mistakes made in coursework. You can sometimes lose marks by forgetting some of the more straightforward elements of your assignments. We recommend that you “tick off” each of the points below as you prepare your work for submission. If you need any help. you can ask your module tutor.
□ Have you read and understood the assessment criteria?
□ Have you addressed the learning outcomes? You will lose marks and your work may even be failed if you have not.
□ Have you kept to the word count? 10% under or over the word count is usually OK. If you are not sure, check with your tutor.
□ Have you demonstrated that you can write critically? Show you have supported your arguments using academic literature; you have presented ideas and information which challenges thinking, and you have offered discussion points which extends your own or others’ viewpoints.
□ Have you maintained an academic tone throughout your work? Have you tried to avoid repeating the same words? Have you attempted to use the technical language of your subject area?
□ Have you properly referenced the sources you have used?
□ Have you checked that the referencing/bibliography in your assignment is in line with your course requirements?
□ Have you proof-read your work and used spellcheck software to check your spelling and grammar? Have you made sure your font size, colour, style, line spacing and margins are consistent and appropriate to the work as specified by your tutor?
□ Can you confirm that the work submitted is your own and not plagiarised?
|YOUR MODULE AT A GLANCE – Teaching, Learning & Assessment|
|Module Code||SHN6164||Module Title||Dissertation|
|Module Leader||Rich Warner||Semester||1&2|
|Weeks||Pre (on-demand learning – available to all students on Moodle)||Live (in person learning)||Post (on-demand learning – available to all students on Moodle)||Assessment (mode of assessment, component weighting, submission and feedback date)|
|Weekly topic overview||Learning resource sets (Guided & Independent learning activities)||Hours||Face-to-face sessions on campus||Hours||Learning resource sets (Guided & Independent learning activities)||Hours|
|Sem 1 Week 1||Introduction to module and transition to level 6||Read your feedback from your research methods assessment in level 5||1||What are the different types of projects and working with your supervisor?||1||Book meeting with supervisor for week 2 or 3. Complete asynchronous content from learning hub on.||1|
|Sem 1 Week 2||Ethics and choosing your topic||Look through ethics content on Moodle page and familiarise||1||Agree research topic with supervisor and agree meeting schedule. Overview of the ethics procedure and choosing an appropriate research topic||1||Complete asynchronous content from learning hub.||1|
|Sem 1 Week 3||Moving forwards||Formative Feedback: start methods section of your ethics application.||1||Agree research topic with supervisor and agree meeting schedule. Receive feedback on proposed methods Progress check and guidance for moving forwards. Research at level 6.||1||Credit where it’s due asynchronous content||1|
|Sem 1 Week 4||Systematic Reviews||Create systematic review title||0.5||Elective session on how to undertake systematic reviews.||1||Review title and check it is appropriate||0.5|
|Sem 2 Week 1||Writing of Dissertation||Read the module handbook for structure. Look at marking criteria.||0.5||Detailed look at marking criteria and written submission of Dissertation.||1||Write a plan for completion of the write up. Including set deadlines for each section.||0.5|
|Sem 2 Week 2||Quantitative analysis||Decide what is the appropriate statistical analysis||1||Quantitative inferential statistics.||1||Complete data analysis||1|
|Sem 2 Week 3||Qualitative analysis||Plan type of qualitative analysis||1||Undertaking a qualitative research project.||1||Undertake transcription.||1|
|Total Guided Learning Hours||22|
|Independent learning hours||378|
|Overall learning hours||400|
|YOUR MODULE AT A GLANCE – Employability|
|Module Code||SHN6164||Module Title||Dissertation|
|Module Leader||Rich Warner||Semester||1 & 2|
|Assessment||Leeds Trinity University Graduate Attributes and Skills Framework||Skills and Attributes Group|
|Component||DIGITAL CONFIDENCE||Effective Leaning|
|ü||Digital Tools and Software|
|RESEARCH & THINKING CRITICALLY|
|ü||Analysis and Evaluation|
|ü||Planning and Organising|
|ü||Motivation and Purpose|
|Coping with ambiguity|
|Articulating your skills|
|Graduate Identity & Social Intelligence|
|ETHICS, DIVERSITY, SUSTAINABILITY||Making an Impact|
|ü||Social Justice & Responsibility|
|ü||Networking & Collaborating|
|ü||Leadership & Working with others|
|ENTERPRISE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP|
|Commercial and Business/Sector Awareness|
|ü||Negotiating and Influencing|
Get expert help for SHN6164 Social and Health Sciences and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!