代写ECMM410课程、代写C++，Java编程语言

日期：2022-03-13 12:05

ECMM410: Research Methodologies Course 2021-2022

Chris Edwards 60%, Mark Baldwin 20% and Pierre Friedlingstein 20%

Background

r>The aim of the course is to introduce some of the ‘soft skills’ required to do

research: for example, communication, literature review, critical thinking etc.

Because of the mix of different subjects within the expected cohort, it is not

possible to cover ‘hard skills’ e.g. statistical analysis, as different students will

have a different baseline and have different requirements for their work.

Structure

All the timetabled lecture/interactive sessions are scheduled to take place in

Term 1. The assessed coursework will be requested in phases: two towards

the end of Term 1 and the final one in the middle of Term 2.

Wk Date Lecturer 2-hour lecture/interactive session

2 27-Sept CE Introduction: aims of course, why do we do

research? the scientific method, plagiarism, what

is original research? the research process

(including different approaches), explanation of

coursework, communication techniques

3 4-Oct CE The Scientific Literature: finding and reading

research papers: library and on-line journals,

searching, google and Wikipedia

4 11-Oct MB Data graphics and typography

5 18-Oct CE Scientific writing: Structures of MSc/PhD theses,

long and short journal papers, popular articles,

lucidity, the peer-review process, set assessed

coursework: review of paper from the literature

6 25-Oct MB Communicating research: talks, conferences,

workshops, meetings, posters, making an impact

7 1-Nov CE Literature review: literature review vs

assessment vs synthesis, assessed coursework:

literature review

Split MSc and PhD MSc PhD

8 8-Nov CE/PF Presentations Presentations

9 15-Nov CE/PF Presentations Presentations

10 22-Nov MB Presentations

Assessed Coursework

There is no formal exam - 100% coursework assessment.

There are three pieces of coursework.

The two pieces of written coursework are individual exercises and hence

your attention is drawn to the University guidelines on collaboration and

plagiarism (University academic misconduct procedure)

All coursework is compulsory for both PGT (i.e. MSc) and PGR (i.e.

MPhil/PhD) students.

Coursework #1: Presentation (10% of total marks)

Each student will make a short 5-6 minute presentation to a subgroup of the

cohort which will provide:

A brief description of your educational background prior to becoming an

MSc/PGR student at Exeter University

What attracted you to come to study at Exeter University

What subject are you currently studying at Exeter University1

What are your goals and aspirations after completing you studies

How will your time at Exeter help you achieve these goals

The presentation may or may not involve/require slides. You will not be

penalized for not preparing slides - although some presenters find them useful

as ‘cues’ and aide-memoires to keep ‘on theme’. Presentations which are

significantly shorter than 5 minutes will be penalized as well as ones which

over-run the allotted time.

The presentations will take place in Week 8 or 9. (The cohort will be subdivided

and so each student will either present in Week 9 or Week 9.)

Marking Structure

The presentations will be marked against the following set of criteria

The extent to which the presenter adequately addresses each of the

themes outlined in the remit above

Audibility and pace of delivery

Organization

The fluency with which the material is delivered

Time-keeping

extent of eye contact and engagement

(use of appropriate visual aids if employed)

1 For PGR students the emphasis of the talk should be on explaining your research topic in an

accessible way.

Coursework #2: Peer-Review of Journal Paper (30% of total marks)

The objective is to produce a peer-review of a paper that has already

appeared in the literature. It will develop critical reading and thinking.

This coursework is worth 30% of the overall module assessment.

Date coursework set: week 4 (reminder week 6)

Hand-in date/time: 9/12/2021

Hand-in method: PGT & CDT students must use the BART System.

Paper: student to suggest, possibly in consultation with other members

of academic staff or supervisors (in the case of PhD students)

The report must not exceed 2 sides of A4.

Suggested peer-review structure

There is no formal structure for peer reviews, however a suggested

format is:

o Title of the form “Review of Smith et al….”

o Short summary of what is done in the paper and what it

concludes

o A list of major comments/issues/improvements

o A list of minor comments/issues/improvements

o A summary for the Journal Editor to guide their decision

Written Coursework Marking Structure

Since the marker cannot be expected to be knowledgeable about all the

topics chosen by students submitting paper/literature reviews, you are not

expected to assess the review from the standpoint of an expert in those

topics; rather it will be assessed against general criteria, as follows:

Written Coursework #2: Peer-Review of Journal Paper

1. Has a suitably terse summary of the paper been produced? [20 marks]

2. Are major issues/improvements identified? [25 marks]

3. Are minor issues/improvements identified? [25 marks]

4. Would it be easy to make a minor revisions/major revisions/reject

decision based on the review? [20 marks]

5. Is the document well-structured and well-presented and is the standard

of writing adequate? (N.B.: Non-native speakers of English should not

be penalized heavily for language errors unless these are so numerous

as to seriously interfere with the intelligibility of the review.) [10 marks]

Written Coursework #3: Literature Review (60% of total marks)

The objective is to produce a literature review report on a given topic. It

involves developing skills like critical paper reading and writing up the

literature review.

This coursework is worth 60% of the overall module assessment.

Date coursework set: week 7

Hand-in date/time: 11 Feb 2022

Hand-in method: PGT & CDT students must use the EBART System.

Topic: to be suggested by the student in consultation with Chris

Edwards or other members of academic staff or supervisors (in the

case of PhD students it should be the supervisor)

The report must not exceed 6 sides of A4 including references.

Suggested report structure:

1. Title. Short, informative title.

2. Introduction. A short section providing motivation, the overall aim and

any specific objectives for the literature review undertaken.

3. Background. You may want to provide here any background

information relevant/required for the review in the next section.

4. Main part of the report. This should contain the review itself including

analyses/discussion on pros and cons of collected references or

approaches, together with the identification of any potential limitations

and/or gaps. Links between the major references analyzed should also

be established here, together with relevant classification(s). If possible,

you may also want to illustrate some of the main discussion points on

one or more example(s).

5. Summary and Conclusion. Summarize briefly the work presented in the

report, draw the main conclusions and provide future work

recommendations based on your findings/opinion.

6. References. Provide the list of references cited in the report.

Remember that each reference listed here must be cited at least once

somewhere in the report text. (Also, if a reference is cited somewhere

in the text, it must appear in this list too.)

The assessment will be based on the following:

1. Content: this will be based on the critical review itself, i.e. on the

discussion(s)/comments made, including identified pros/cons of

analyzed pieces of work, potential knowledge gaps identified, links

identified, classifications and future work recommendations made.

2. Presentation: This will be based on general presentation and the use of

references, figures, tables, equations, etc.

3. Typography, document layout, and data graphics. This will be based on

implementing the principles discussed in the lecture on Data Graphics

and Typography.

Written Coursework Marking Structure

Since as a marker you cannot be expected to be knowledgeable about all the

topics chosen by students submitting paper/literature reviews, you are not

expected to assess the review from the standpoint of an expert in those

topics; rather it should be assessed against general criteria, as follows:

Written Coursework #3: Literature Review

1. Has the topic been clearly defined and introduced? [10 marks]

2. Have a reasonable number of sources been reviewed (neither too

many nor too few), and do they all seem to be appropriate to the topic?

(At least eight sources should be reviewed, and probably not more than

a dozen — depending on the topic.) [15 marks]

3. Have the sources been critically analyzed (as opposed to merely

reported), and compared? [25 marks]

4. Is there a good overall summary of the conclusions from the review?

[20 marks]

5. Is the document well-structured and well presented, with sectioning,

figures, tables, equations as appropriate to the subject matter, and is

the standard of writing adequate? (N.B.: Non-native speakers of

English should not be penalized heavily for language errors unless

these are so numerous as to seriously interfere with the intelligibility of

the review.) [20 marks]

6. Is the referencing complete and in a consistent style, with everything

cited in the text included in the bibliography, and everything listed in the

bibliography cited in the text? [10 marks]

7. Is the review within the stipulated length limit — neither too long nor too

short? (It is required to be no more than 6 pages of A4; anything less

than 4 pages is too short.) [Drop 5 marks for each page that it exceeds

6 pages, or for each page that it falls short of 4 pages.]

In terms of the BART sheet

Intro + summary /30

Structure + critical comments /45

Referencing + style + length /25