Assignment Brief
As part of the formal assessment for the programme you are required to submit a Legal Research Methods and Project dissertation. Please refer to your Student Handbook for full details of the programme assessment scheme and general information on preparing and submitting assignments.
Learning Outcomes:
After completing the module, you should be able to:
1. Demonstrate an awareness of the ethical issues related to your legal research.
2. Show a critical understanding of the merits of a range of literature in support of the research.
3. Select, evaluate and apply critical legal thinking to a legal issue.
4. Critically evaluate the techniques and processes used to investigate a legal issue.
5. Demonstrate an awareness of the ethical issues related to your legal research.
6. Synthesise information to arrive at a coherent conclusion
Your assignment should include: a title page containing your student number, the module name, the submission deadline and a word count; the appendices if relevant; and a reference list in OSCOLA format. You should address all the elements of the assignment task listed below. Please note that tutors will use the assessment criteria set out below in assessing your work.
Maximum word count: 9000 words
Please note that exceeding the word count by over 10% will result in a reduction in grade by the same percentage that the word count is exceeded.
You must not include your name in your submission because Arden University operates anonymous marking, which means that markers should not be aware of the identity of the student. However, please do not forget to include your STU number.
Warning:
QLD Regulations require that unfair practice findings are referred to the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) and BSB (Bar Standards Board) and can prevent admission as a barrister or a solicitor. Take your referencing seriously. Do not risk you career.
Page 3 of 8
Assessment Task
This assessment is worth 100% of the total marks for the module.
This assessment consists of TWO parts, Part A and Part B. You must complete both parts.
Part A is a research proposal plan of the comparative law project that you will complete in Part B. Part A must be completed and agreed by your tutor. Part A carries no marks. You cannot move onto Part B until Part A has been agreed by your tutor. Once Part A has been agreed by your tutor, you can complete Part B, the dissertation. Part B carries 100% of the marks.
You can choose your own research area OR research ONE of the three research areas posted to the assessments tab of the module homepage. You must ONLY research ONE area.
Part A – Research Proposal Plan
You must complete a research proposal plan of your comparative research project and submit to your tutor. Your work will either be supervised by your tutor or by a subject specialist supervisor allocated by your tutor. Your research plan MUST compare the law in England and Wales to at least one other jurisdiction. Once your supervisor has agreed your research proposal plan you can move onto Part B.
Your research proposal plan must EITHER research an area of your own choosing OR research one of the THREE areas posted to the assessments tab on the module homepage. You must ONLY research one area.
If you are choosing your own research area, you MUST contact your tutor by email before you start work on your proposal to discuss the research area with the tutor. Your tutor will consider suitability of the research area and allocate a supervisor. If there is no suitable subject specialist to supervise your work available, then you will need to select a new area to research.
If you are researching one of the three suggested research areas posted to the module homepage, you MUST contact your tutor before you commence work on your proposal so that your tutor can allocate an appropriate supervisor.
If you wish to complete any empirical research, you MUST contact your tutor to discuss. Empirical research requires ethical approval and cannot be commenced until ethical approval has been given. Your tutor will provide you with ethical approval forms. Completion of empirical research without appropriate approval will result in a zero grade and referral to the Ethics Committee.
Page 4 of 8
For your chosen research area, you are required to design a research proposal plan which includes:
• Working title
• The aim of your research
• Why the research is important
• The comparator country or countries chosen
• Why you have chosen the comparator country
• The comparative legal research methods you will use
• The literature you will to rely on
• The ethical issues related to your legal research
• Your research timeline
Your supervisor will provide support over email and, if you wish, one live session which could be completed using Skype, Adobe Connect, Live Chat or equivalent. The purpose of this support is to ensure that you understand what you need to do and to clarify any problems you may be experiencing.
Your research proposal plan should be no more than 1,000 words.
Submit your research proposal plan to your supervisor by email. Your supervisor will respond within five working days. Response could require further work on the proposal prior to signing off the proposal or signing the proposal off. Remember to leave enough time to complete your dissertation.
Part B – Comparative Law Project
DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS PART UNTIL PART A HAS BEEN SIGNED OFF. IF PART B IS SUBMITTED BEFORE PART A HAS BEEN SIGNED OFF BY YOUR WORK YOU WILL BE GRADED ZERO FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT.
Research, write, reference and submit your comparative law research project, ensuring that the focus of the project reflects the feedback you received from your tutor or supervisor regarding your proposal. Your project has a maximum word count of 9,000 words.
Your project should be written in Arial 12, double spaced, and written in essay format. It should also include a bibliography and be correctly referenced throughout, using OSCOLA referencing).
(100 marks)
(LO 1 – 6)
(9,000 words)
Page 5 of 8
Formative Feedback
You have the opportunity to submit a draft of the dissertation to receive formative feedback.
The feedback is designed to help you develop areas of your work and it helps you develop your skills as an independent learner.
If you are a distance learning student, you should submit your work, by email, to your supervisor, no later than two weeks before the actual submission deadline. If you are a blended learning student, your tutor or supervisor will give you a deadline for formative feedback and further details.
Formative feedback will not be given to work submitted after the above date
Warning:
QLD Regulations require that unfair practice findings are referred to the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) and BSB (Bar Standards Board) and can prevent admission as a barrister or a solicitor. Take your referencing seriously. Do not risk you career.
Student Guidelines
Development of academic skills:
You MUST underpin your analysis and evaluation of the key issues with appropriate and wide ranging academic research and ensure this is referenced using the OSCOLA system. The My Study Skills Area contains an OSCOLA Referencing Interactive Tutorial.
You must use the OSCOLA Referencing method in your assignment.
Additional Notes:
Students are required to indicate the exact word count on the title page of the assessment. The word count excludes the title page, executive summary, tables, figures, diagrams, footnotes, reference list and appendices. Where assessment questions have been reprinted from the assessment brief these will also be excluded from the word count. ALL other printed words ARE included in the word count. See ‘Word Count Policy’ on the homepage of this module for more information.
Page 6 of 8
Submission Guidance:
Assignments submitted late will not be accepted and will be marked as a 0% fail.
Your assessment should be submitted as a single Word (MS Word) or PDF file. For more information please see the “Guide to Submitting an Assignment” document available on the module page on iLearn.
You must ensure that the submitted assignment is all your own work and that all sources used are correctly attributed. Penalties apply to assignments which show evidence of academic unfair practice. (See the Student Handbook which is on the homepage of your module and also in the Induction Area).
Page 7 of 8
Assessment Criteria: Level 6
Level 6 study represents the student’s increasing autonomy and independence in relation to their knowledge, understanding and skills. At Level 6, students are expected to demonstrate problem solving skills in both practical and theoretical contexts. This should be supported by an understanding of appropriate theory, creativity in expression and thought based on independent but informed judgments. Students should demonstrate the ability to seek out, invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories and claims to knowledge and work in a critically constructive manner. Work at this level is articulate, coherent and skilled. Grade Mark Bands Generic Assessment Criteria First (1)
80%+
An exceptional knowledge base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and any associated ethical considerations. The work demonstrates extraordinary independence of thought and originality. There is exceptional management of learning resources and a high degree of autonomy is demonstrated which goes above and beyond the brief. The work demonstrates intellectual originality and creativity. Writing is exceptionally well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Where appropriate, outstanding professional skills are demonstrated. The work is original and with some additional effort could be considered for internal publication.
70-79%
An excellent information base within which the discipline is explored and analysed. There is considerable originality in the approach and the work demonstrates confidence and autonomy and extends to consider ethical issues. Learning resources have been managed with exceptional confidence and the work exceeds the assessment brief. Writing is exceptionally well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Where appropriate, an excellent level of professional skills are demonstrated and the work demonstrates a high level of intellectual and academic skills. Upper second (2:1)
60-69%
A very good knowledge base which explores and analyses the discipline, its theory and any associated ethical issues. There is evidence of some originality and independence of thought. A very good range of learning resources underpin the work and there is clear evidence of self-directed research. The work demonstrates the ability to analyse the subject and apply theory with good academic and intellectual skills. Academic writing skills are good, expression is accurate overall and the work is consistently referenced throughout.
Page 8 of 8
Lower second (2:2)
50-59%
A satisfactory understanding of the discipline which supports some analysis, evaluation and problem-solving within the discipline. There may be reference to some of the ethical considerations. The work shows a sound level of competence in managing basic sources and materials. Academic writing skills are good and accurate overall and the work is planned and structured with some thought. Professional skills are satisfactory (where appropriate). The work may lack originality but academic and intellectual skills are moving into the critical domain. The work is referenced throughout.
Third (3)
40-49%
Basic level of performance in which there are some omissions in the understanding of the subject, its underpinning theory and
ethical considerations. There is little evidence of independent thought and the work shows a basic use of sources and materials. Academic and intellectual skills are limited. The work may lack structure overall. There are some difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). There is an attempt to reference the work. Marginal Fail
30-39%
A limited piece of work in which there are clear gaps in understanding the subject, its underpinning theory and ethical considerations. The work shows a limited use of sources and materials. Academic and intellectual skills are weak and there are errors in expression and the work may lack structure overall. There are difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought and is largely imitative.
29% and below
A poor performance in which there are substantial gaps in knowledge and understanding, underpinning theory and ethical considerations. The work shows little evidence in the use of appropriate sources and materials. Academic writing skills are very weak and there are numerous errors in expression. The work lacks structure overall. Professional skills (where appropriate) are not developed. The work is imitative.