The use of Generative AI is allowed within this assessment, but any use must be cited in your work where appropriate and the integrity form attached to this  assessment  must  be  submitted  with  your  work. This assessment tests your ability to critically reflect upon information, or to apply theory or knowledge to a range of situations. In this assessment Generative AI can be used as a tool to support the development and research phase of the assessment process but not the final submission. Remember there are limitations of AI generated content and therefore you need to use the skills developed through

your degree programme to engage with the assessment

 Introduction

Literature review

 Data description

 Methodology

 Discussion

 Professionalism

Clearly describes

Provides critical analysis of the empirical results, including meaningful interpretation of the findings.

Results are discussed in relation to the research question, with consideration of limitations and implications.

The report is coherent in structure and style. Sections are well defined, and paragraphs and sentences have logical structure.

Citation is appropriate and follows the Harvard style

Establishes the

the provided

Clearly

problem

dataset and its

describes the

studied in the

key features. The

manner which

Definition of Criteria

Provides a succinct summary of the study

essay and

outlines the importance of

structure and

characteristics of the data are

the study was

conducted. The empirical

and main conclusions

the topic

discussed,

model is

researched and

including any

described and

puts it in

features that are

justified to

context on the

important for the

address the

literature

subsequent

topic analysed

analysis.

Distinction

85%,

95%,

100%

The Introduction clearly summarizes all pertinent aspects of the study (i.e. aims/what was done/ what was found/interpretation) in a way which encourages the non- expert reader to continue reading the paper.

The discussion shows an outstanding grasp of the relevant literature and key concepts. Existing findings are brought together in a thoughtful and critical way, helping to highlight important gaps or limitations. The research question is clearly focused and well- motivated, with good awareness of what the available data can and cannot address.

Overall, the discussion reflects independent thinking and a high level of conceptual understanding

The provided dataset is described comprehensively. All variables are accurately defined in the student’s own words, with clear explanation of their relevance to the research question. The sample structure and any limitations of the dataset are critically discussed. The data is described using appropriate descriptive statistics, and salient patterns worth noticing or with impact further on in the study are clearly analysed

The methodological framework is well justified in relation to the research problem and the data used. There is a deep and critically informed understanding of the methodology, including thoughtful evaluation of its assumptions and limitations.

The discussion shows a strong level of analytical insights. The results are interpreted critically and confidently in relation to the research question, hypotheses, and relevant literature, with clear awareness of the theoretical and methodological context.

Alternative explanations are considered thoughtfully, demonstrating independent judgement in assessing the strengths, limitations, and wider significance of the findings. The conclusions are well integrated and clearly set out both the contribution of the analysis and

its limitations.

Produces work at a high level of professionalism, completely and competently following a coherent referencing style.

Distinction 72%,

75%,

78%

The introduction clearly summarizes all pertinent aspects of the study (i.e. aims/what was done/ what was found/interpretation) in a way which encourages the non- expert reader to continue reading the paper.

Demonstrates strong coverage of the topic, relevant literature, and underlying concepts.

There is a clear and coherent synthesis of previous findings, with thoughtful analysis that goes beyond description. An informative and logically defensible evidence- based rationale is presented.

Research questions and hypotheses (where appropriate) are clearly formulated and well justified in relation to the given data and relevant conceptual

frameworks.

The provided dataset is clearly described.

Variables are accurately defined and their relevance to the research question is clearly explained. The sample structure is described, and appropriate descriptive statistics are presented.

The methodological framework is well justified in relation to the research problem and the data used. There is a clear and accurate understanding of the methodology and its key assumptions and limitations. Appropriate critical reflection is evident.

Clearly summarizes all the following: the question, the results, the support for the hypotheses, links to existing findings/theory, methodological problems, future research. There are original and evidence- justified alternative explanations explored. There is a clear explanation provided by the critical analysis made in the discussion.

There are logical conclusions and a clear take- home message.

Produces work which is professional and entirely adheres to the referencing standard chosen format with barely any faults.

Merit 62%,

65%,

68%

The introduction summarises the key aspects of the study in a relatively concise manner and provides adequate context and motivation for the research. Any vagueness or redundancy in expression or detail is minor in nature. The introduction is informative to a non- expert reader, though the rationale for the study may lack depth or critical development.

The literature review outlines the relevant context and key debates using appropriate academic sources.

Previous findings are discussed with some attempt at synthesis, though critical evaluation and depth of analysis are limited. Links to the research question and hypotheses (where appropriate) are evident but not always clearly articulated or fully developed. The discussion could be strengthened through deeper engagement with the literature.

The dataset is described and variables are defined, with some explanation of their relevance to the research question. The sample is described, but the descriptive analysis is limited.

The econometric methodology is well fundamented in line with the problem presented and the data used. There is a good understanding of the methodology used. No limitations presented

The discussion section clearly restates the main aims of the study and summarises the findings at a conceptual level. The results are linked to relevant literature introduced earlier. There is sound conceptual analysis of the findings, with some evaluation of the study’s strengths and limitations.

Possible alternative explanations are considered, though not always in depth. The conclusions are clearly summarised.

Produces professional looking work. References match citations and are complete, and the chosen referencing style is followed, with only a few minor formatting faults.

Pass 52%,

55%,

58%.

The introduction contains most of the core aspects of the study conducted.

Despite vagueness and potential missing information or inaccuracies, a reader can understand broadly the nature of the study.

Demonstrates some coverage of the topic, previous findings, and relevant theory. It could be improved in terms of evaluation/ depth of coverage.

There is an inclusion of aims and hypotheses which is partially justified.

The dataset is described at a basic level.

Variable definitions are vague or partially inaccurate, and their relevance to the research question is weakly explained.

Minimal descriptive analysis is provided.

There is a limited understanding of the methodology used. Method is justified as appropriate to the problem, but this is limited.

Understanding of assumptions and limitations is limited.

Some results are discussed, and there is an attempt to interpret the findings in relation to the research question and hypotheses (where applicable).

Interpretation is largely descriptive, with limited analytical depth. Links to relevant theory and literature are present but weak or underdeveloped. Evaluation of results is partial, with limited discussion of methodological issues or implications. A basic conclusion is provided, but it lacks synthesis or critical

insight.

The report demonstrates an acceptable standard of structure, presentation, and referencing. Referencing largely follows the chosen style, and sources are mostly complete; however, inconsistencies or formatting errors are present and detract from professionalism. Organisation and clarity are generally adequate but uneven in places, with some weaknesses in presentation or coherence.

Fail 42%,

45%,

48%

The introduction contains references for the study conducted. The structure is not entirely logical or easy to follow. There are some of the basic information mentioned yet with substantial elements missing for the introduction to be complete or informative.

The research question is unclear, poorly motivated, or inadequately framed.

Shows very limited engagement with the relevant literature and previous findings.

Coverage of the topic lacks breadth and depth, with minimal evaluation and weak integration of conceptual or analytical frameworks. The research question and hypotheses (where appropriate) are only partially included and are not fully operationalised or adequately justified in relation to the underlying

rationale.

The dataset is poorly described. Variable definitions are mostly incorrect or missing, with little or no explanation of relevance. The sample is not meaningfully described. No descriptive analysis is provided.

Provides a weak and unclear description of the methodology. The methodological framework is poorly justified or inappropriate for the research problem, with limited evidence of understanding. No meaningful discussion of assumptions or limitations is provided.

Very little discussion of some of the following: the question, the results, the support for the hypotheses, links to existing findings/theory, methodological problems, future research. The conclusion may be missing or too brief to be meaningful for the reader to understand the main contribution of the study.

The format is not uniform across the essay. Different styles are evident across the work showing little coordination across the team.

Referencing is inconsistently made

Fail 35%,

30%,

15%

The introduction is substantially incomplete and barely relates to the study conducted or is difficult to comprehend.

Barely shows any coverage of the topic, and previous findings. It needs major improvement in terms of evaluation/ breadth and depth of coverage/ inclusion of theory. The aims, research question and hypotheses may be missing or poorly formulated.

There is little or no attempt to describe the dataset.

Variables are not defined, their relevance is not discussed, and the sample is not described. No descriptive analysis is attempted.

Methodology not properly described or justified as appropriate. No limitations presented

Incorrect or weak discussion of some of the following: the question, the results, the support for the hypotheses, links to existing findings/theory, methodological problems, future research.

The format is not uniform across the essay. Different styles are evident across the work showing little coordination across the team. Little or no referencing made.

Fails to demonstrate an acceptable level of postgraduate competence across multiple criteria.