research proposal

It should be presented as if you are submitting such a proposal for approval. It contains the same introductory sections as
material describing the intended procedure.
You may re-use (recycle) ideas from Assignment 1 but the written content must improve on the first
assignment. Major revisions of Assignment 1 sections are expected. Sections common to both
assignments will be assessed against a higher standard in Assignment 2. Expect a lower mark for
material that is identical to what you submitted in Assignment 1 and was identified as needing
improvement. It is possible for material that passed in Assignment 1 to fail in Assignment 2 because
of insufficient improvement. Minor revisions from Assignment 1, whilst retaining its deficiencies, will
not score well. This requirement applies particularly to the background information (i.e., “what needs
to be known”) sections, less so to shorter sections such as the title if done well in the first assignment.
Evidence of learning across assignments is an assessable criterion.
The required content for Assignment 2 is as follows (bolded items indicate headings). As per

1. Title
2. Research problem
3. What is already known – background information with expanded literature review.
ƒ Literature review: At least five articles from peer reviewed journals are recommended,
plus other sources, to a possible and recommended maximum of 10 sources. Sources
300398 Methods of Researching – Autumn 2013 Page 13 of 38Learning guide
may include those used in Assignment 1 but you must add to the first version. Reviews
that hardly differ from the first Assignment in content or wording will likely fail, even if
scoring at Distinction level in Assignment 1. Turnitin will highlight text matches in the first
and second assignments. These matches will not be considered as academic
misconduct, but if excessive they may indicate little advancement in learning from the first
assignment to the second.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!