ARES20001 Introduction to Research Assessment Brief 2025/26 SF | NTU

Grading Matrix 

NB: Final grade determined by how well the criteria have been met overall and not the sum of the individual aspects of the work.

Class/

Grade

Assessment Criteria

Fail

Low | Mid

Marginal Fail

Third

Low | Mid | High

Lower Second

Low | Mid | High

Upper Second

Low | Mid |High

First

Low | Mid | High

First

Exceptional First

Abstract

(5%)

Lack of appropriate structure and logical flow. Does not provide an adequate outline of the full report.  Rationale and key findings inadequately defined. Absent. Very poorly communicated.

Limited structure and lack of logical flow. Poor representation of the contents of the report and research findings. Limited provision of rationale and key findings. Poorly communicated.

Shows an attempt communicate research findings with some clarity. An attempt to use a scientific approach. Key information provided but lacks a logical flow. Provides basic detail to gauge the basics of the report.

Good.

Generally, uses a clear and concise approach to communicate scientific findings. Scope for further brevity and/or detail.

All key information provided, concise in places with some logical flow. Provides good, but mostly concise detail to summarise research findings.

Very good. Uses a good scientific, clear and concise approach to communicate scientific findings.

All key information provided in a mostly concise manner. Mostly logical flow and easy to follow. Provides very good detail to summarise the research findings of the report clearly and concisely. Potential for further clarity or detail in places.

Excellent.

Uses an excellent scientific, clear and concise approach to communicate scientific findings. All key information provided in a concise and clear manner. Uses a logical structure and flow. Clearly defines rationale, methods, key research findings and implications of the study. Only minor adjustments needed.

Exceptional.

Use an exceptional scientific, clear and concise approach to communicate scientific findings.

All key information provided in a very clear and concise manner. Uses a very logical structure that is easy to follow. Very clearly defines rationale, methods, key research findings and implications of the study. Requires no or very minimal changes.

Introduction, aims, objectives and hypotheses

(20%)

Highly insufficient knowledge or understanding of the area of study; facts are reproduced in a disjointed or decontextualised manner; wholly descriptive in style; Lacks any attempt to evaluate the relevance, reliability, and validity of published research. typically ignores important sources in development of work.  Aims, objectives and/or hypotheses not identified. Section is absent or very minimal.

Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the area of study; some ability to select reading / research however work is more generally descriptive and very minimal; Very basic attempts to evaluate/identify the relevance, reliability and validity of published research which has been referred to. Limited use of sources, naively follows or may ignore set material in development of

work: arguments may be absent, weak/poor or weakly/poorly constructed; no introduction to the relevant subject area. Aims, objectives and hypotheses not clearly identified and/or do not link well to the subjects covered in the introduction.

Adequate. Limited definition of topic, and limited introduction to chosen area of study.  Knowledge and understanding are sufficient to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts but fails to make meaningful synthesis. Basic ability to select and evaluate reading/research that has been referred to, however work may be more generally descriptive. Arguments may be weak or poorly constructed. Aims, objectives and hypotheses stated but could be clearer, more relevant or more fully articulated. Weak links to the research topic being introduced.

Good. Topic area is clearly defined. Good breadth of knowledge and understanding of the chosen subject area although balanced towards the descriptive rather than analytical. Some good evaluation of the relevance, reliability and validity of published research that has been referred to.

Evidence of appropriate selection and some good evaluation of reading/research but generally reliant on limited sources. Shows clarity but structure may not always be coherent. Aims, objectives and hypotheses stated clearly and fully and link to the content of the introduction.

Very good. Topic area is clearly and concisely defined with good justification. Very good knowledge and understanding of the area of study. Ability to relate facts/concepts together with some ability to apply to known/taught contexts. Evidence of appropriate selection and evaluation of reading/research. Very good evaluation of the relevance, reliability and validity of published research. Very good demonstration of effective and scientific communication.  Introduction shows clarity with clear structure and progression. Aims, objectives and hypotheses stated clearly, accurately and link well to the content of the introduction.

Excellent to Outstanding. Topic is very clearly defined, with strong rationale. Excellent knowledge and understanding of the area of study that shows some critical awareness. Evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical evaluation/synthesis/analysis of reading/research. Some excellent evaluation of the relevance, reliability and validity of published research. Excellent demonstration of effective and scientific communication.  Aims, objectives and hypotheses stated very clearly and accurately with strong links to the content of the introduction.

Exceptional. Topic is defined clearly and concisely with strong and full justification of topic area. Wider context and relevance clearly established.  Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the area of study. Evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical evaluation/synthesis/analysis and of reading/research, to advance work/direct arguments.  Exceptional evaluation of the relevance, reliability, and validity of published research. Exceptional demonstration of communication. Performance deemed to be beyond expectation. Aims, objectives and hypotheses stated very clearly and accurately with excellent links to the content of the introduction/mini literature review.

Method

(20%)

Fails to address the outcomes addressed by the brief. Weak technical competence.  Little or no evidence of an appropriate method.  Little or no information regarding data analysis. No application of appropriate research design terminology or concepts. Very minimal detail or absent.

No identification of legislation relevant to an animal research context.

Fails to address some aspects of the brief. Experimental design/methods described is insufficient to provide appropriate data to answer study aims or to allow replication of the study. Very limited/poor or no application of appropriate research design terminology or concepts. Little or no information regarding statistical.

analysis. Poorly communicated.

Adequate. Some basic awareness and application of research design theory and concepts but lacks application of appropriate terminology. Adequate description of valid methods but lacks detail in several places and methods may lack validity and reliability. Sufficient detail to allow an attempt at replication of the study. Some attempt at describing the inferential statistical analysis but unclear or inaccurate. Shows evidence of basic planning and team work but this may be limited.

Good.  Some good awareness and application of research design theory and concepts but not consistently applied. Methods valid and appropriate to achieve project aims but write up may be lacking details. Some good detail that would allow an attempt at replication of the study. Some good description and justification of the inferential statistical analysis. Some details may be unclear.

Very good. Some very good awareness and accurate application of research design theory and concepts. Methods valid and appropriate to achieve project aims and written in concise detail that would allow replication of the study but lacks minor detail in places. Very good description and justification of the correct inferential statistical analysis. Some details may be a little unclear.

Excellent to outstanding.  Excellent awareness and accurate application of research design theory and concepts. Methods valid and appropriate to achieve project aims and written in very concise detail that would allow easy replication of the study. Excellent and accurate description and justification of the correct inferential statistical analysis.

Exceptional.  Exceptional awareness and accurate application of research design theory and concepts. Methods valid and appropriate to achieve project aims and written in very concise scientific detail that would allow easy replication of the study. Outstanding and accurate description and justification of the correct inferential statistical analysis.  

Results and inferential statistical analysis

(20% weighting)

Inadequate detail and documentation of results/ findings.    Wholly descriptive in style. No descriptive or inferential statistics presented and/or analysis is wholly inaccurate. Very poorly communicated

Insufficient detail and documentation of findings.  Only basic or raw results given and these are merely descriptive.  

Basic presentation of results is present with adequate presentation of results (includes graphs and text) but this is at descriptive level with very little statistical analysis / additional work. A basic attempt made at using inferential statistics may be made.

Good analysis of data. Figures/graphs generally presented well and appropriate for the data presented. Evidence of adequate analysis that evidences some understanding of the process. Key findings could be explained or highlighted more clearly. Appropriate inferential statistics completed correctly but may lack some detail or evidence of understanding in places.

Very good descriptive and inferential analysis of data.  Presentation and descriptions of results is clear and concise with good level of descriptive and quantitative analysis. Correct inferential statistics completed well, evidence of good understanding. Potential for further clarity or analysis in places.

Excellent to outstanding descriptive and inferential analysis of data.  Presentation of results is very clear and concise with excellent level of descriptive and quantitative analysis. Correct inferential statistics completed very well, evidence of very good understanding.  Analysis may go beyond basic/taught analysis, if relevant.

Exceptional consideration of data goes beyond expected standards and taught aspects.  Exceptional presentation of results. Very clear and concise with exceptional level of descriptive and quantitative analysis. Professional approach. Correct inferential statistics completed accurately, evidence of exceptional understanding. Analysis likely to go beyond basic analysis, if relevant.

Discussion (20%)

No meaningful evaluation or interpretation of results offered. Lacks an attempt to evaluate the relevance and application of research findings and how they link to prior research. Disjointed facts/reasons for findings offered with no synthesis of ideas and concepts.  Or section is very minimal or absent. Very poorly communicated

Minimal evaluation of results offered, or disjointed facts / reasons for findings offered with minimal synthesis of ideas and concepts. Very minimal to evaluate the relevance and application of the research findings and how they link to prior research. Interpretation may be heavily inaccurate or biased. Does not link to prior research. Poorly communicated.

A basic but adequate discussion. Includes some appropriate interpretation of results with some basic evaluation. Basic evaluation of the relevance and application of research findings and how they link to prior research. Lacks depth and detail. Includes some interpretation of results considering prior research, but this limited. Lacks a strong evidence base for arguments and interpretation. Basic awareness of limitations of the research and/or results but lacks an evidence base for arguments. Shows basic awareness of the wider implications of the research undertaken.

A good discussion that provides an evidence-based interpretation and discussion of the results. Some good evaluation of the relevance and application of the research findings and how they link to prior research. Some arguments or interpretation may require stronger evidence or more appropriate interpretation. Relevance and significance of findings considered.  Mostly written in an appropriate scientific manner with links to prior research. Some good awareness of limitations of the research and/or results, with a basic evidence base for arguments. Shows some awareness of the wider implications of the research undertaken.

Very good discussion that provides a strong evidence-based interpretation of results. Very good evaluation of the relevance and application of the research findings and how they link to prior research. Discussion utilises studies included in the literature review to interpret findings of study. The introduction and discussion link well. Written in a concise and scientific manner with clear links to prior research. Very good awareness of limitations of the research and/or results, with a good evidence base for arguments. Very good awareness of the wider implications of the research undertaken.

Excellent to outstanding discussion that provides a very strong evidence based and critical interpretation of the results. Excellent evaluation of the relevance and application of the research findings and how they link to prior research. Thorough discussion which utilises sources used in the literature review to interpret findings of study. Introduction and discussion link very well. Written in concise and scientific manner. Excellent to outstanding awareness of limitations of the research and/or results, with a strong evidence base for arguments. Very good awareness of the wider implications of the research undertaken.

Exceptional discussion that provides an excellent evidence based and critical interpretation and analysis of the results. Exceptional evaluation of the relevance and application of the research findings and how they link to prior research. Thorough discussion which utilises sources used in the literature review to interpret findings of study. Strong links between the introduction and discussion. Written in professional, concise and scientific manner. Exceptional awareness of limitations of the research and/or results, with a strong evidence base for arguments. Excellent awareness of the wider implications of the research undertaken.

Conclusion

(5%)

Concluding comments are either not present or are not relevant to the experimental aims and findings. Very poorly communicated.

Concluding comments marginally irrelevant to the experimental aims. Poorly communicated.

Some relevant conclusions. Significance/importance of findings only briefly considered. Fails to concisely report the main findings.

Concluding comments are clear and appropriate. Could more strongly link to the research aims.  Demonstrates a clear summary of the main findings.

Concluding comments are very clear, concise and appropriate.  Strong links to the research aims.  Demonstrates a very clear and concise summary of the main findings.

Concluding comments show excellent clarity in a concise manner. Appropriate to the research findings. Very strong and clear links to the research aims.  Demonstrates an excellent clear and concise summary of the main findings.

Concluding comments are exceptional and highly relevant to the aims.  Demonstrates an exceptional synthesis of the findings. Very strong and clear links to the research aims.  

Presentation, communication, range of sources, and academic approach

(10% weighting)

Poorly written and presented, making the report difficult to follow. No evidence of any attempt to reference work properly at all. Very limited or no adherence to academic conventions for scientific report. Very poorly communicated

There are significant errors in the use of vocabulary, in punctuation, spelling or grammar and very weak organisation.

Limited clarity of writing and/or poor presentation make the report difficult to follow and understand. Limited adherence to academic conventions for scientific report. A lack of referencing in some parts makes it difficult to see where statements are supported by published work.  Inaccurate referencing, with no consistent format adopted. Very limited references sources. Poorly communicated.

Communication shows limited clarity, with significant errors in the use of vocabulary, in punctuation, spelling or grammar poor presentation, structure may not be coherent with weak organisation.

Communication/presentation is generally competent but with several weaknesses. Better use of sections and headings would improve coherence. Lacks a scientific and concise writing style. Includes some citations. Referencing attempted but not fully compliant with Harvard conventions and some missed or inaccurate references/citations. Reference sources are limited.

Communication/presentation is generally competent but with some weaknesses in organisation and errors in the use of general and specialised vocabulary and punctuation, spelling or grammar.

Written communication and presentation are generally good (clarity, structure, conciseness, coherence), though structure could be improved. Generally good use of English language. Tends towards a scientific and concise writing style. Better use of sections and headings could improve coherence.  Some minor errors in referencing but generally complies with Harvard conventions. Uses a good range of academic sources.

Organisation may be weak and there may be some inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the use of general and specific vocabulary; there are some errors in spelling, punctuation and the use of grammar.

Written communication and presentation are good (clarity, conciseness, structure, coherence). Potential for minor improvements. Consistently good use of English language. Applies a scientific and concise writing style but could be more consistent. Good use of sections and headings giving good coherence.  Very few or no errors in referencing and complies with Harvard conventions. Uses a wide range of academic sources.

Strong communication skills demonstrating strong organisation, the use of general and specific vocabulary and few punctuation or grammatical errors

Written communication and presentation are very good to excellent (clarity, conciseness, structure, coherence). Potential for Minor improvements. Consistently good use of English language. Applies a scientific and concise writing with good consistency. Very good use of sections and headings giving good coherence.  Lacks errors in referencing and complies with Harvard conventions. Uses a very wide range of academic sources.

Excellent communication demonstrating excellent organisation, the consistent use of general and specific vocabulary and virtually no punctuation or grammatical errors

Written communication and presentation are excellent to outstanding (clarity, conciseness, structure, coherence). Potential for very few minor improvements. Consistently very good use of English language. Applies a scientific and concise writing with very good consistency. Excellent use of sections and headings giving good coherence.  Lacks errors in referencing and complies with Harvard conventions. Uses an exceptional range of academic sources.

Excellent communication demonstrating excellent organisation, the consistent use of general and specific vocabulary and virtually no punctuation or grammatical errors