Research Proposal GSOE9010 Assessment Task Term 3 2020 Key Details Due Dates Tuesday, Week 5 (12/10/20) at 2PM – submit Research Proposal Outline Friday, Week 10 (20/11/20) at 5PM – submit final proposal using the “TurnItIn” system. Weighting 55% of course total Format A research proposal, submitted as a PDF document, performed individually. Motivation The research proposal is the major individual assignment in this course, and aims to bring together in a single document many of the ideas covered in the lectures and workshops. Students continuing on to undertake a Research Project in their MEngSc program can use it as a way of developing a proposal to show to potential supervisors. Students who have been exempted from the Research Project can use it as practice for developing research proposals in an industry setting. Whichever focus you take, the document must satisfy the requirements described below. The proposal should be developed by you individually, based on work carried out by you over the course of the semester to think about an engineering research problem in your own discipline. Researchers frequently need to write applications for funds to carry out research projects. A typical research funding application would contain: a high-level introduction, some context for the work, a description of the project, and a budget. Your research proposal will be structured somewhat like such an application, but without the need to provide a budget or budget justification. What is required? During the semester, you should identify an engineering research problem in your discipline that you find interesting, and plan a research project to investigate a solution. This research problem should not be related to your team project topic - you must select an independent research topic. You must first select one of two scenarios for your research proposal: 1. A proposal for a 12-month research project to be undertaken at a university, e.g. a masters thesis project. The ‘target audience’ is your desired academic supervisor (however, you must write in a way that a non-expert could also understand your proposal). Assume they have many students applying to do projects with them and you need to convince them to choose you. 2. A proposal for a 12-month research project to be undertaken in an industrial setting. The target audience is your boss (however, you must write in a way that a non-expert could also understand your proposal). Assume you are working in a company in an R&D team that has a certain budget for projects for the year. You want to convince your boss that your project idea should go ahead. In either case, you want to show that you have a good idea and a solid plan, that you know what it is you need to do and how you will approach it. The full word count of your proposal, including the bibliography, must not exceed 3500 words. The following paragraphs explain the structure and content that is expected. However, even more detail is provided in the assessment rubric at the end of this document. Abstract The abstract is essentially an executive summary, which gives a brief overview of the entire document. It is different from an ‘introduction’. An abstract should not include any material that does not appear also in the body. No figures or tables, and no referencing (include the references in the body). You should explain briefly, in non-technical terms what the project is, why it is important, how it will be approached and what could be the possible outcomes. It should be one paragraph in length (around 300 words). Literature Review The literature review needs to set the context for the project and describe the problem you plan to address in detail. You should describe the various aspects, trade-offs, etc. of the problem, and should describe and analyse any prior work either in this particular problem (or a closely related problem, if your problem hasn’t yet been addressed). The strengths and weaknesses of prior work need to be identified and you need to “carve out” the precise problem as an approach to address existing weaknesses. You should also, in this section, include discussion of the experimental techniques that are relevant to this problem, especially those techniques that were used in prior work. This section clearly requires careful referencing of the literature. A comprehensive background section should be around 1200 words. Experimental Plan You need to describe a potential research project to investigate your problem, and maybe develop a solution. Explain in detail the research work that is “planned” (hypothetical) to investigate the problem. Identify all of the factors that might affect your results (e.g. using a fishbone diagram as shown in the videos on ‘experimental design’) and clearly specify which factors are under investigation, which factors should be controlled and which factors should be measured. Include discussion of what resources are required and what experimental techniques will be used. It is probably only realistic to have a concrete (i.e. certain) plan for the first round of experiments because the design of subsequent experiments usually depends on the outcomes of initial experiments, but you may be able to suggest possible directions, or at least goals, for the entire project. Remember, your goals should NOT be goals for what results you want to achieve, or what you want to ‘prove’ because that introduces bias. You can only set goals for what you want to test/investigate, or a high-level goal to achieve a solution to a specific problem. If you have done any preliminary analysis to check the feasibility of the project, you can present that to make your plan more convincing. This plan section should be around 700 words in length. Data Analysis Plan It is not sufficient to only have an experimental plan because before you start any experimental work, you must be sure that you know how you will analyse the results. Start by explaining what type of data you will generate from your experimental work, and what quantity of data you will have to deal with. Do NOT include any results – remember, you have not done the experiments yet, you are writing a proposal for what will be done! Explain how you will assess whether the data is valid (i.e. how do you know there wasn’t a problem with the experiment which makes your data useless?), how you will analyse the data to find any meaningful results, and how you will draw conclusions from the results. This analysis section should be around 500 words in length. Conclusion A brief conclusion to draw together the key points of your proposal. (100 words) Hints and Tips DO: DO NOT: Write the proposal as a formal document. Write in a precise and concise style. Use verbose or “flowery” language. Describe your ideas in your own words. Use long quotes from other people, and especially without proper citation. Use solid references (articles from good journals and top-tier conferences). Use any material (e.g. diagrams, graphs, formulae, text) without referencing the source. Follow the structure given above. Write a report rather than a proposal. Keep close to the specified word ranges. Exceed 3500 words total for the whole proposal. Research Proposal Outline By week 4 of semester (refer to ‘key details’ above), you should have made a good start on your literature review and be exploring ideas for the experimental and data analysis plans. At the very least, you must have identified the research problem that your proposal will investigate. On Tuesday of week 5 you must submit a brief Research Proposal Outline that identifies your chosen topic and provides your tutor with an overview of your proposal. The purpose of this submission is for you to get some timely feedback from your tutor to ensure your ideas are on the right track. At minimum, this outline should answer the following questions (max. 500 words): 1. What is the broad and narrow research field? (e.g., Electrical Engineering / Transformers or Civil Engineering/Concrete Foundations) 2. What is the research gap/question that your proposal aims to address? 3. What is/are the experimental hypothesis/es? 4. What are the main steps in your experimental methodology to test the hypothesis and obtain the required results? 5. How will the experiments be conducted (e.g., in the lab, in the field, physical models, digital models/simulations, a combination of the above)? 6. Provide a brief timeline of the major milestones of the proposed research, demonstrating that it is feasible to complete within a year. (How long will it take to gather data, prepare the equipment, carry out a sufficient number of experiments, analyse the results, write the reports etc.?) 7. Which statistical/qualitative techniques will be used to analyse the results and provide evidence to accept/reject the hypothesis? (e.g., t-tests, chi-squared tests, visual observations, hypothesis testing for averages, correlations etc). While no mark is associated with this task, your tutor will assess your proposal outline against the following rubric and indicate whether you should proceed (“green” or “amber light”) or contact the tutor for help (“red light”): Research Field Acceptable field for engineering study Not exactly engineering Not at all engineering Problem/Gap Clearly identified and well-developed Partially (or vaguely) identified, or underdeveloped Unacceptable or not identified Experimental Hypotheses Clearly identified and well-developed Partially (or vaguely) identified, or underdeveloped Unacceptable or not identified Methodology Gives a clear, realistic and complete methodology Experimental methodology vague, unsuitable or incomplete Unacceptable or not identified Experimental Details A clear and detailed plan Somewhat vague Unacceptable or not identified Timeline/Feasibility Suitable for a one- year research project Might be suitable for a one-year project but some modification needed Far too little/too much for a one-year project Analysis A well-developed plan that identifies analytical approach Provides some sense of analytical approach but perhaps not specific enough No discussion of analysis, or very poorly defined Technical Level Just right Too specialised or not technical enough Not technical at all Proceed? Yes Needs some work: contact tutor if more feedback needed No: contact tutor immediately Draft submission By week 9 of semester (refer to ‘key details’ above), you should be ready to upload your first draft to ‘Turnitin’. Turnitin is a system that checks whether you have used text from other sources. It produces a ‘similarity report’, which highlights copied text and indicates the original source. The work you present for assessment must be your own and therefore written in your own words. Turnitin is a tool that ensures that the marks we award are for work you have performed. If you are worried that your document may be similar to the sources that you have used, you can upload a draft of the report ahead of the deadline and see for yourself the matches that Turnitin finds. There will always be at least a few highlighted words or phrases – this is normal and acceptable. It is only a problem if there are entire sentences or larger chunks of text copied from other sources, or if the report indicates heavy reliance on just a couple of sources. The TurnItIn assignment link in Moodle will be configured to allow you to upload draft submissions and generate similarity reports from week 9 up until the due date. We will ignore all early submissions before the due date and only assess the final submission. Be warned, however: Turnitin can take up to 24 hours to return a report. Therefore do not upload draft reports that you might need to change any later than 24 hours before the deadline. The TurnItIn assignment link will NOT allow you to further update your submission after the due date has passed. It only allows late submissions if nothing has yet been uploaded. Make sure your final version is uploaded before Friday week 10 before 5pm. Further assistance Academic writing is an important skill to learn. There are many factors to consider and bringing them all together is not easy! UNSW has resources and support services available to assist students to develop writing skills, referencing skills, etc. It is possible to book a consultation to receive one-on-one help with your academic writing and study. Please refer to https://student.unsw.edu.au/academic-skills for further information. How will it be assessed? Score: Your proposal will be given a score out of 100 marks. This score will be determined using the assessment rubric on the following pages. The research proposal is worth 55% of your final course mark. Feedback: The assessment will be done using Moodle so you will be able to review your scores and comments in Moodle. Late penalties will be applied: If the proposal is submitted less than 24 hours late, 0.2% per hour will be deducted. If the proposal is submitted more than 24 hours late, 5% marks per day (or partial day) late will be deducted. Academic misconduct procedures: If the proposal is found to be plagiarised, i.e. if the similarity report displays unacceptable levels of copying, then the plagiarised proposal will not be assessed. In most cases, the student will be given a chance to revise and re-submit the proposal. Only in particularly severe cases of academic misconduct, the case may be immediately escalated according to the university’s procedure. If a revised proposal is submitted, it will be assessed and then a penalty will be applied. Depending on the level of plagiarism, the penalty will be between 10%-50% of the total marks available for the task. Assessment Rubric Document: Marks 100% 85% 70% 55% 40% 25% Structure Are all pieces of information located in the correct sections? How well does the 'story' flow? 3 Yes all correct. Flows beautifully. Yes all correct. Easy enough to follow. Mostly correct but doesn't flow nicely. Most info is there but it 'jumps around' a fair bit Some sections missing or it's all quite muddled Major structural flaws Formatting How well are these features done? Section headings and/or numbering, fonts, images, tables, captions and in- text references to figures and tables. 3 Perfect, up to journal paper standard. Almost perfect, couple of minor errors. There are a few issues with the formatting. A basic level of formatting is applied. Formatting is messy and impedes reading. Formatting is barely attempted. Language How much effort is required to read and understand the proposal? And is the language appropriate, i.e. would a grants office take it seriously? Are there spelling or grammatical errors? 5 Perfect. Highly professional. A pleasure to read, but a grants office might be skeptical. Fairly easy to read and understand. With some effort, it can be understood. But far from professional. It cannot be fully understood. Barely makes any sense at all. Abstract Does it give a full overview of the proposal? Are both the problem statement and plan covered? Is it clear, concise and complete? 3 Perfect summary. Clear and concise. Yes it's all there. A fairly good overview. The basic ideas come across. Not the full picture, some parts missing. Really gives no idea about the project. Document total marks: 14 Referencing: 100% 85% 70% 55% 40% 25% Technical Is one referencing style used consistently? Are all the in- text citations done correctly and do they correspond to a correctly formatted reference list? 5 Perfect, up to journal paper standard. Almost perfect, couple of minor errors. Okay but more than a couple of errors. It's all there but the style is inconsistent. Some citations or list entries are missing or incorrect. Most of the citations are missing or incorrect. Acknowledging sources Are the sources acknowledged for all the ideas in the proposal that are not the authors own ideas? Is it clear whether images/tables are produced by the author and if not are the sources acknowledged? 5 All acknowledged AND well written* All ideas and image sources acknowledged Almost all acknowledged. Just a couple of 'dodgy' bits. Good attempt made, but a few ideas in text and/or images are not acknowledged Many ideas and/or images are not acknowledged Large fraction of ideas not acknowledged (borderline plagiarism) Quality and number of sources Are the cited materials appropriate and reliable sources of information? Does the list include mostly journal articles, conference papers, technical reports and appropriate web-based materials? Is there a decent number of references, i.e. not over-relying on a few sources? 5 All sources highly appropriate. A large number and range of sources. Just a couple of questionable sources. No over-reliance. More than a couple of questionable sources. And maybe too few sources? Over half the sources are good quality. Perhaps some over-reliance. Only around half the sources look decent. Over- reliance on a few. Only a short list of low quality sources. Much over-reliance. Referencing total marks: 15 *Sometimes an author writes a long paragraph of information and then puts a citation at the end. As reader, you don't know whether the whole paragraph is being attributed to that reference or just the last sentence. If well written, the sentences and paragraphs will clearly indicate which ideas are from which references. e.g. saying "A study about XX was conducted by Smith (ref). In the study, Smith found... The same study also showed..." This is the level expected for full marks. Similarly, even if an idea is a fairly standard one, such as E=mc2, it is still NOT the student's own idea, and should be referenced to Einstein. These are the details of referencing that are often done incorrectly, and for full marks a student needs to get all the details right. Lit Review: 100% 85% 70% 55% 40% 25% Background Is enough context provided for the reader to understand what the focus area is? The level of detail should be sufficient to be engaging but not wasting space or 'padding out' the length. 5 Just right; concise, engaging and informative. Context is clearly conveyed. No 'waffle'. The relevant context is fairly well covered but maybe a bit too long. The basic background is covered. The background does not give useful context for the prior work. The background adds very little value to the document. Prior work Does the lit review adequately explain what research work has previously been done that is relevant to this proposal. Does it seem to be a comprehensive overview of the prior work? And is it presented critically with the specific relevance of each project emphasised? (i.e. not just a simple explanation of a whole bunch of projects) 8 Perfectly comprehensive and critical review. A solid review, fairly comprehensive and presented fairly well. A decent review but either not fully comprehensive or not so well presented. Some relevant research work is presented at a basic level. An attempt is made but it doesn't actually discuss prior research Prior work barely addressed Techniques Does the discussion of prior work include details of the research techniques used in other projects? E.g. types of experiments, tools, materials, analysis. 5 Thorough discussion of techniques is well integrated in the LR Techniques are discussed for all of the prior work Techniques are discussed for some of the prior work There is some basic discussion of techniques. Techniques are mentioned but no useful discussion Techniques barely mentioned. Gap identified Is the lit review crafted to lead to the identification of a research gap? Is the gap clearly explained? 8 Gap is clearly and convincingly identified Yes, an appropriate gap is explained A gap is identified but lacks full explanation A gap is outlined, but it is a bit vague. A gap is suggested Gap barely mentioned Literature Review total marks: 26 Research Plan: 100% 85% 70% 55% 40% 25% Proposal pitch Is this written as a proposal for something to be done in the future, that has not been done before? Is the significance or potential impact of the project discussed? 5 Proposal, significance and impact are all perfectly formulated Clearly a future proposal. Significance/ impact is outlined Clearly a future proposal. Significance/ impact vaguely covered Basically written as a proposal but perhaps mixing future/past tense Some attempt made to write a proposal but confused, e.g. including results Not written at all as a proposal, just a report Difficulty Is the size and difficulty of the proposed research appropriate for a 1-year masters project? (i.e. not a high school science experiment, but not a full PhD either!) 3 Scope and difficulty precisely appropriate Scope and difficulty about right Either the scope OR the difficulty is a bit inappropriate Both the scope and the difficulty are a bit inappropriate Scope OR difficulty completely inappropriate Scope AND difficulty completely inappropriate Topic Is the topic actually about research? (i.e. discovering or testing something new or developing innovative techniques; not just applying standard technologies) Is the topic related to engineering? Note: It can be qualitative engineering research, that's fine! 5 Yes, definitely research and definitely engineering Yes, topic is basically fine (research and engineering) Either not really research OR not really engineering Not really research, AND not really engineering either Totally not research OR totally not engineering Not engineering AND not research Plan Are the goals of the project clear? Is the project plan plausible and the description complete and convincing? Is the work plan appropriate for a 1 year masters project? 8 Goals and plan perfectly convincing Goals and plan seem alright, fairly convincing Either goals OR plan are somewhat unconvincing Goals AND plan are somewhat unconvincing Either goals OR plan are missing or totally inadequate Both goals AND plan are missing or totally inadequate Detail Does the plan cover both what is going to be done and also how it is going to be done? Is there a solid plan for the experimental or qualitative research techniques? Are you convinced that variables will be controlled to avoid bias and produce meaningful results? 8 Confident yes to all 3 questions Confident yes to 2 questions and 1 "yes, more or less" Confident yes to 1 question and 2 "yes, more or less" "Yes, more or less" answer to 3 questions Answer no to 1 question Answer no to 2 questions Research Plan total marks: 29 Data Analysis Plan: 100% 85% 70% 55% 40% 25% Nature of data Does the plan clearly explain all the types and quantity of data that are anticipated as outputs of the project? And do the expectations seem realistic? 3 Yes, all perfectly explained and realistic Yes, all clear and fairly realistic Yes, all clear but somewhat unrealistic expectations Either the type or quantity of data is unclear Both the type and quantity of data are unclear Nature of data barely addressed Validity Is a suitable approach described to assess the validity of the data? 3 Yes, a perfect approach clearly described Yes, the approach will work well Approach is either somewhat unsuitable or not clearly described An approach is described but it will probably not work well An attempt is made to describe an approach but hard to understand Validity assessment is barely mentioned Analysis Is a suitable approach described to analyse and/or manipulate the data to generate results? 5 Yes, a perfect approach clearly described Yes, the approach will work well Approach is either somewhat unsuitable or not clearly described An approach is described but it will probably not work well An attempt is made to describe an approach but hard to understand Data analysis is barely mentioned Interpretation Is a suitable approach described to interpret the results to generate meaningful conclusions? 5 Yes, a perfect approach clearly described Yes, the approach will work well Approach is either somewhat unsuitable or not clearly described An approach is described but it will probably not work well An attempt is made to describe an approach but hard to understand Interpretation is barely addressed Data Analysis Plan total marks: 16 Entire assessment task total marks: 100 Note: although not shown in the table, zero marks are possible for any category, if the category is completely ignored. For example, if there is no interpretation of results in the proposal, 0 may be awarded under “Data Analysis Plan: Interpretation”.
欢迎咨询51作业君