辅导案例-GSOE9010

欢迎使用51辅导,51作业君孵化低价透明的学长辅导平台,服务保持优质,平均费用压低50%以上! 51fudao.top
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
51作业君

Email:51zuoyejun

@gmail.com

添加客服微信: abby12468