EPDM95 RESEARCH METHODS IN EDUCATION – Solved

Human Writers vs. AI: Why Real Voices Still Matter in 2025 EPDM95

EPDM95 RESEARCH METHODS IN EDUCATION

 

ASSESSMENT 1 GUIDANCE

 

Assessment 1: Thesis Proposal

(2500 words equivalent)

 

For this assessment we would like you to create and deliver a narrated presentation (PowerPoint or similar) articulating and justifying your proposed study. The presentation you deliver should be between 5 and 10 minutes long, with 5 minutes reserved for questioning from the member of academic staff you will be presenting to afterwards.

 

The sections below will become the starting point for the chapters in your actual thesis, so please use them to scaffold the content you present and discuss. Please include the following in your PowerPoint slides (or equivalent) or your narration. It will not be possible to cover all the below in detail on your slides, so please use the slides to give ‘headline’ information and use your narration to give more detail and critically justify your choices in planning your study:

 

  • A carefully crafted titleor overarching research question which sums up your topic very clearly and precisely in an unbiased way.
  • Arationale for your question (why have you chosen it?). You will be expected to outline the main reasons why this topic is an important one to study (e.g. professional or educational reasons as well as literature-informed reasons). You should also provide some contextual information (background, setting, social/political considerations). Although your rationale may include some personal reasons for your interest in the topic, you will need to use literature to support your rationale in order to validate it.
  • Key aims of your research and the contribution it will make to this area. (An extended version of this will become Chapter 1: Introduction to your actual thesis). Aim to provide 2 or 3 key aims/research questions, usually in bullet-points, which will act as a roadmap for your study. By the end of your study, you should have been able to clearly address each of the aims outlined. Be mindful of the time you will have to complete your thesis (around 6 months) and, therefore, the limited time you will have to collect data.
  • Review of key literature on your chosen question. Aim to compare and contrast arguments from current/previous research on this topic (include definitions of any key concepts/words, any exclusions). You are aiming to provide the assessor with an overview of the current literature that exists in this field. (An extended, written version of this will become Chapter 2: Literature Review in your thesis).
  • Methodology: We will be expecting you to justify your own decision-making around the methodological choices you have made for your study. Try to make a comment about your chosen paradigm (or philosophical approach). We expect you to define and justify your methodological approach, data collection methods and any ethical considerations, making consistent references to methodological literature to support your decisions. You must be very clear – which methods have you chosen, how many participants are involved, how will you select them, and why, how long will interviews be, how many observations do you plan to conduct, etc.? You might also like to include why you have not chosen a particular method, making links to your research aims to show why a decision to include or exclude a certain approach was appropriate – always using literature to support your arguments.
  • Analysis: Justify how you will analyse your data. Discuss areas such as triangulation, validity, integrity, credibility – and refer to literature to support your discussion. An extended version of the two previous sections will become your Chapter 3: Methodology in your thesis.

 

Reference List: Please provide a full reference list of the citations used within your presentation at the end, referenced according to Harvard Referencing conventions.

 

 

EPDM95 RESEARCH METHODS IN EDUCATION

 

ASSESSMENT 2 GUIDANCE

 

Assessment 2: Critical Analysis of Two Papers (2500 words, +/- 10%)

Write a simultaneous critical analysis of the methodologies of two research papers of your choosing. You must refer to relevant methodological literature. Structure your assignment using the following headings:

 

  1. Methodological Approach
  2. Sampling (sample size and technique)
  3. Ethical Considerations
  4. Data Collection Methods
  5. Data Analysis Approaches

 

You will need to choose a subject/topic in education and find two research papers on it which explain the methodology the researchers used for their research. Remember to focus on the methodology of the papers, not the topic itself. However, if you choose papers related to the topic of Assessment 1, it may help you when it comes to moving through to your thesis, as you will have pooled your reading on your topic of interest.

 

You will need to give the full references of both papers at the start of your assignment (or as an appendices) using Harvard Referencing convention (see Cite Them Right on the University library website for guidance). Label each as Paper 1 or Paper 2, as you can then just use these names when referring to them in your discussion, rather than providing the citation (e.g. ‘Paper 1 has chosen a qualitative design….’).

 

You are looking to compare and contrast the methodologies the authors used, referring to relevant methodological literature throughout. Please note: You cannot pass this without discussion of the methodological literature.

 

Try to consider thoughtfully what was useful or problematic about the chosen methodologies and methods, how they differed, or how they might have been improved. All methodologies and methods have advantages and disadvantages. Critical analysis means well-informed discussion and analysis of the methodology in these papers and comparing the decisions to general methodological literature (i.e. refer continually to other reading about methodology) to create an informed argument.

 

Try not to waste many words describing the subject or findings. A simple explanation of the topic they address is sufficient as you need to focus on the methodological decisions. If their explanation of the methodology is inadequate in places – for example, they don’t justify their methods or mention ethics – then say so and find general methodological literature that outlines the importance of these justifications. If it is a very good and appropriate methodology for the questions researched, then say so and use literature to show why it is.

 

Section 1: Methodological Approach

What was the overall approach and structure of the study (e.g. qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods)? Did they use a specific methodological approach (e.g. ethnography/case study etc), and why was this approach chosen? Do you think it was an appropriate approach? Justify your comments with reference to literature. Try to make analytical comments explaining strengths and weaknesses of the approach, or suggesting alternative approaches that might have been more effective. Avoid simple description without supporting citations.

 

Section 2: Sampling (sample size and technique)

What was the sample, sample size and sampling techniques? Was it appropriate to the aims of the study? Was it justified clearly? Justify your comments with reference to literature. Try to make analytical comments about samples; avoid simple description. Did the study raise ethical issues? Did the researchers discuss ethics? Make a critical comment and back by literature on ethics.

 

Section 3: Ethical Considerations

This section asks you to consider how well the authors addressed any ethical considerations associated with their studies. Did the authors explain any ethical considerations that were relevant to their study? Were these explored adequately/critically? Were the ethical considerations that the authors put in place appropriate? How the quality of the data was ensured (e.g. triangulation, validity, reliability etc)? Was it discussed in sufficient detail to be convincing? Was the credibility of the study justified? Make reference to methodological literature which discusses these important areas to support your argument.

 

Section 4: Data Collection Methods

Discuss the appropriateness of the chosen data collection methods. Justify your comments/discussion with references to general methodological literature that outlines the pros and cons of the data collection methods. What are the limitations of certain methods (e.g. questionnaires, observations, focus groups)? Why, despite these limitations, were these methods still (or not) appropriate for the research study? Did they help to gather data that would address the research aims?

 

Section 5: Data Analysis Approaches

Were the authors clear about how they analysed the data they had collected? Did they outline their findings clearly so that the reader could make their own judgements on the presentation and credibility of the data? Use literature to support your arguments about whether the management and analysis of the data answered the overall research aims. Do not describe how this was achieved, but rather be analytical about whether the decisions made were appropriate. If you think they were not appropriate, why not, and support with reference to other authors who would support your view.

 

Please ensure you use the Harvard Referencing system. If you are unsure, you can access Cite Them Right online from the library using your University ID and password. Do not copy text from the internet or other sources unless you put it in quotes and provide the source and page number as this will be flagged up by Turnitin and can be construed as plagiarism. Please do not copy chunks from the articles you are analysing; instead, use your own words by paraphrasing the main ideas.

 

Reference List: It is impossible to gain a pass on this piece of work without reading and referring to a range of books/journal articles on methodology. Please provide a full reference list of the citations used within your assignment, according to Harvard Referencing conventions. Please be consistent in your referencing and try to provide a reference for every assertion that you present.

 

 

EPDM95 Generic Assessment Criteria – Postgraduate

These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working

  Categories
  Grade Relevance Knowledge Analysis Argument and Structure Critical Evaluation Presentation Reference to Literature
Pass 86 – The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the
100% qualification. There is also unequivocal evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is
  expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument,
  interpretation or discourse.
76-85% The work examined is excellent and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also
  excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be
  excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse and
  some evidence of originality.
  The work examined is of a high standard and there is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification.
70 – There is clearly articulated evidence demonstrating that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected
75% that the standard of the work will be high in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument,
  interpretation or discourse.
  Directly relevant to A substantial Comprehensive Well supported, focussed Contains distinctive Well written, with Critical appraisal of up-to-
60 – the requirements knowledge of analysis – clear argument which is clear or independent standard spelling date and/or appropriate
69% of the assessment relevant material, and orderly and logically structured. thinking; and begins and grammar, in a literature. Recognition of
    showing a clear presentation   to formulate an readable style with different perspectives.
    grasp of themes,     independent position acceptable format Very good use of a wide
    questions and     in relation to theory   range of sophisticated
    issues therein     and/or practice.   source material.
  Some attempt to Adequate Significant Generally coherent and May contain some Competently Uses a good variety of
50 – address the knowledge of a fair analytical logically structured, using distinctive or written, with only literature which includes
59% requirements of range of relevant treatment which an appropriate mode of independent thinking; minor lapses from recent texts and/or
  the assessment: material, with has a clear argument and/or may begin to standard grammar, appropriate literature,
  may drift away intermittent purpose theoretical mode(s) formulate an with acceptable including a substantive
  from this in less evidence of an     independent position format amount beyond library
  focused passages appreciation of its     in relation to theory   texts. Competent use of
    significance     and/or practice.   source material.
40 – Some correlation Basic Some analytical Some attempt to construct Sound work which A simple basic style Evidence of use of
49% with the understanding of treatment, but a coherent argument, but expresses a coherent but with significant appropriate literature
  requirements of the subject but may be prone to may suffer loss of focus position only in broad deficiencies in which goes beyond that
  the assessment addressing a description, or to and consistency, with terms and in uncritical expression or referred to by the tutor.
  but there are limited range of narrative, which issues at stake stated only conformity to one or format that may Frequently only uses a
  instances of material lacks clear vaguely, or theoretical more standard views pose obstacles for single source to support a
  irrelevance   analytical mode(s) couched in of the topic the reader point.
      purpose simplistic terms      
Fail 35 – Relevance to the A limited Largely A basic argument is Some evidence of a Numerous Barely adequate use of
39% requirements of understanding of a descriptive or evident, but mainly view starting to be deficiencies in literature. Over reliance
  the assessment narrow range of narrative, with supported by assertion formed but mainly expression and on
  may be very material little evidence of and there may be a lack derivative. presentation; the material provided by the
  intermittent, and   analysis of clarity and coherence   writer may achieve tutor.
  may be reduced to         clarity (if at all) only  
  its vaguest and         by using a  
  least challenging         simplistic or  
  terms         repetitious style  

 

 

    The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied – for compensation consideration.
30 – The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence provided
34% shows that some of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators.
15-29% The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence
  shows that few of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators.
0-14% The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The
  evidence fails to show that any of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the
  indicators.