LO6 Critically reflect on your skills and abilities as a researcher
BMP6001 Dissertation 2020-21 Full Time
Assessment 3 Brief
|
Assessment Title
|
Reflective Viva
|
|
Assessment Number
|
3 of 3
|
|
Assessment Type (Weighting)
|
15 Minute Presentation + Questions (20%)
|
|
Submission Deadline
|
|
Learning Outcomes Assessed
|
LO6
|
Critically reflect on your skills and abilities as a researcher
|
Brief
You will prepare and deliver a fifteen-minute presentation in which you will reflect on aspects of your skills, abilities and learning and how these developed during your engagement with the dissertation process. You will then respond to questions from your supervisor based on your presentation.
You will agree the time and date for your presentation with your supervisor to take place during the week commencing Monday 10 May 2021. A copy of your research presentation should be uploaded (format/tool to be agreed with supervisor) to Moodle using the appropriate submission link by 1pm Friday 7 May 2021.
It is anticipated that most students will use Powerpoint1 and a template will be available on Moodle. Using Powerpoint as a model, an example of structure and contents follows:
- Title Slide (1 slide)
- Module code and module name
- Title: “Reflection on Dissertation Process”
- Name and Student Number
- Reflection on Objectives (2-5 slides)
- Statement of initial objectives
1 This is not the required format/tool and, as noted in the previous paragraph, the student will agree the final format/tool with his/her supervisor; other possibilities include pdf, Prezi, infographic, etc
- To what extent these were attained
- Appropriateness on these initial objectives
- This could be a particular challenge or a particularly enjoyable aspect that surprised you or an occasion to develop a skill that you were not expecting, etc.
- Model of reflection used to structure discussion of this
- Reflection: what happened, what you learned and how you will take this learning forward
3. Reflection on a Formative Experience
- Reflection on the Overall Dissertation Process (2-5 slides)
- Initial personal SWOT grid
- Current personal SWOT grid
- Comments on most significant changes
- References (Not presented; included for completeness)
To facilitate your reflection throughout the dissertation process, which you can use to support your viva preparation, consider keeping a journal or diary (a space is provided on Moodle for this, if you wish to use it); and undertaking a personal SWOT analysis at the start of the module, at the beginning of Semester 2, and after you have submitted your dissertation (there are resources on Moodle to guide through these and a space for you to record your analysis).
Minimum Secondary Research Sources Requirements
It is expected that the Reference List for your viva will contain a minimum of one source, which is most likely to be a model of reflection that you have used. Citations and references should follow the Harvard Referencing System: see https://www.bolton.ac.uk/leaponline/My-Academic-Development/My-Writing- Techniques/Referencing/Level-2/Harvard-Referencing.aspx.
Specific Assessment Criteria (Rubric)
|
Exceptional 85-100%
|
Areas of reflection were succinctly analysed and reasons for their choice given; reflection was structured by recognised model(s) of reflection. The model(s) chosen were justified and alternative(s) briefly outlined. Learning was explicitly linked to the examples chosen and how this will be taken forward was presented using a development plan. The presentation had a logical structure and was presented to a professional standard. The development over the duration of the dissertation process was clearly evident. Questions were fully addressed and where appropriate cross- referenced to the presentation and/or supported by further examples of reflection.
|
|
Excellent 70-85%
|
Areas of reflection were succinctly analysed and reasons for their choice given; reflection was informed by recognised model(s) of reflection.
Learning was emphasised in the examples chosen and how this will be taken forward was presented using a set of learning goals. The presentation had a logical structure and was presented to a professional standard. Questions were fully addressed and where appropriate cross-
|
|
|
referenced to the presentation and/or supported by further examples of reflection.
|
|
Very good 60-69%
|
Areas of reflection were examined, but these would have benefited from further analysis; and there was some effective reflection, supported by recognised model(s) of reflection. Points of learning were highlighted in the examples chosen and related to future learning goals. The presentation had a logical structure and was largely error-free. Questions were fully addressed and where appropriate cross-referenced to the presentation.
|
|
Good 50-59%
|
Areas of reflection were explained, but these would have benefited from further detail and analysis; there was some reflection, but the links to the supporting model(s) of reflection were not always clear. Points of learning were highlighted in the examples chosen, but not all of these were related to appropriate future learning goals. The presentation had a logical structure and contained few errors. Most questions were addressed and where appropriate linked to points in the presentation.
|
|
Satisfactory 40-49%
|
Areas of reflection were described, but these would have benefited from further detail and there was limited analysis; there was limited reflection, and how the supporting model(s) of reflection informed this was not always clear. Points of learning were summarised but not always directly related to the examples presented; not all of these were related to appropriate future learning goals and some the learning goals were not clear. The presentation had a logical structure but contained several errors. Most questions were addressed and where appropriate linked to points in the presentation.
|
|
Borderline Fail 35-39%
|
Areas of reflection were described, but these would have benefited from further detail and there was very little analysis; there was very little reflection; model(s) of reflection were described rather than being used. Challenges that arose were described, but it was not always clear what learning was derived; future learning goals were not clearly related to the challenges discussed. The presentation contained many errors. Answers to questions were not always clear and rarely linked to the presentation.
|
|
Fail
Less than 35%
|
Areas of reflection were identified but not all were described, and there was very little if any analysis; there was very little or no reflection; a model of reflection was mentioned, without proper explanation, and not applied. Challenges that arose were described, but would have benefited from clarification; it was not always clear what learning was derived; future learning goals were not clearly related to the challenges discussed. The presentation contained many errors. Answers to questions were always clear and rarely linked to the presentation.
|
Please note that the General Assessment Criteria (see Module Guide) are a useful supplement to guide and indicate the general academic qualities expected at HE6.
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
tailored to your instructions