ICM218 Research Project Assignment Brief 2024-25 | UoR

Guidance on academic misconduct (including using the Turnitin practice area)

The work you produce must be your own. It must not have been submitted as part of other assessments, at this or another institution. You should ensure that the work you produce adheres to the University’s statement on academic integrity and to the regulations regarding academic misconduct (such as plagiarism and cheating). 

You are encouraged to put a draft of your work through the Turnitin practice area to satisfy yourself that the work is your

own original work. You can seek advice from the Module Convenor.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools

*What do we mean by GenAI? GenAI tools create new content in the form of text, code, images, videos, music etc. The most common GenAI tools at the time of writing are ChatGPT, CoPilot, Claude, Llama and Gemini. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. Please refer to the article here which frequently updates its list of well-known GenAI tools.

There are three categories of GenAI use in assessments in operation at the University of Reading. The ticked box below indicates which category this assignment belongs to:

☐   1.     GenAI tools cannot be used in any way in the assessment

☒ 2.      GenAI tools can be used to support student learning and development (to sketch initial ideas, find sources, explore unfamiliar concepts, provide structure etc)

☐   3.     The use of GenAI tools is actively encouraged to help students develop their skills in the use of such tools and understand how their use can be incorporated into authentic writing tasks. Specifically: 

If option 2. or 3. above is checked, you must include a statement to acknowledge your use of GenAI tools* within the assessment itself. This statement should be written in complete sentences and include the following information:

·  Name and version of the GenAI tool used; e.g. ChatGPT-3.5

·  Publisher (company that provides the GenAI system); e.g. OpenAI

·  URL of the AI tool (if applicable)

·  Brief description (single sentence) of the way in which the GenAI tool was used

·  Confirmation that the work is your own

For example:

I acknowledge the use of ChatGPT 3.5 (OpenAI, https://chat.openai.com/) to generate an outline for background study. I confirm that no output generated by GenAI has been presented as my work.

Note: if you have not used GenAI tools to help with your assessment, you must still include a statement to acknowledge this fact, e.g. I declare that no GenAI tools have been used to produce this work.

The misuse of GenAI tools, including the failure to appropriately acknowledge the use of such tools, is considered academic misconduct and carries sanctions, as detailed in the Assessment handbook

Please also refer to the student guidance on 

Academic misconduct penalties

☒ The University’s standard policy on academic misconduct

applies.

☐  Other:

Assessment criteria

80+

Outstanding

70–79

Excellent

60–69

Very good

50–59

Good

49 and below Fail

39 and below Major Fail

Motivation and novelty

Weight: 20%

The motivation of the project is extremely well explained and the topic has a very significant practical relevance.

The content is very original and provides an outstanding contribution to existing research.

The motivation of the project is very well explained and the topic has a significant practical relevance.

The content is original and provides an excellent contribution to existing research.

The motivation of the project is well explained and the topic has some practical relevance.

The content has some elements of originality and provides a very good contribution to existing research.

The motivation of the project is sufficiently explained and the topic has a few elements of practical relevance.

The content has a few features of originality and provides a good contribution to existing

research.

The motivation of the project is not well- explained and the topic does not have any practical relevance.

The content is not original and provides a limited contribution to existing research.

The motivation of the project has not been explained and the topic does not have any practical relevance.

The content is not original and provides a very limited contribution to existing research.

Structure and Flow Weight: 20%

The project is extremely well-structured in an orderly and logical fashion and the empirical results are interpreted at the greatest depth.

The project is very well- structured in an orderly and logical fashion and the empirical results are interpreted at a great depth.

The project is well- structured in an orderly and logical fashion and the empirical results are interpreted at a very good depth.

The project’s structure is satisfactory and the empirical results are interpreted at a good depth.

The project lacks structure and the empirical results are not sufficiently interpreted.

The project has poor structure and the empirical results are not interpreted.

Understanding and Independence

Weight: 20%

The student shows an outstanding understanding of the topic and there is very strong evidence of independent research.

The student shows an excellent understanding of the topic and there is strong evidence of independent research.

The student shows a very good understanding of the topic and there is good evidence of independent research.

The student shows a good understanding of the topic and there is sufficient evidence of independent research.

The student shows limited understanding of the topic and there is not enough evidence of independent research.

The student shows very limited understanding of the topic and there is no evidence of independent research.

Sophistication and Technical Level

Weight: 20%

The sophistication and technical level of the work are outstanding with the methodology being very clearly expressed.

The sophistication and technical level of the work is excellent, with the methodology being clearly expressed.

The sophistication and technical level of the work is very good with the methodology being well-expressed.

The sophistication and technical level of the work is good, with the methodology being sufficiently expressed.

The sophistication and technical level of the work is poor, with the methodology not being sufficiently expressed.

The sophistication and technical level of the work is very poor with the methodology not being expressed. 

Presentation and overall effort

Weight: 20%

Outstanding structure and presentation.

The Research Project uses clear English with no spelling, grammatical or typographical mistakes, and the graphs and tables are very easily comprehensible. Outstanding writing skills and overall effort

demonstrated.

Excellent structure and presentation.

The Research Project uses clear English with very few spelling, grammatical or typographical mistakes, and the graphs and tables are easily comprehensible.

Excellent writing skills and overall effort

demonstrated.

Very good structure and presentation.

The Research Project uses clear English with a few spelling, grammatical or typographical mistakes, and the graphs and tables are comprehensible. Very good writing skills and overall effort

demonstrated.

Good structure and presentation.

The Research Project uses clear English with some spelling, grammatical or typographical mistakes, and the graphs and tables are comprehensible. Good writing skills and overall effort demonstrated.

Poor structure and presentation.

The Research Project has many spelling, grammatical or typographical mistakes, and the graphs and tables are not easily comprehensible. Poor writing skills and overall effort were demonstrated.

Very poor structure and presentation.

The Research Project has significant spelling, grammatical or typographical mistakes, and the graphs and tables are not comprehensible. Very poor writing skills and overall effort

demonstrated.