微信客服：xiaoxionga100
微信客服：ITCS521
2023-T3-无代写
时间：2023-11-02
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 1
GSOE9011 Engineering
PGCW Research Skills
Faculty of Engineering
A04 Research Proposal (50%)
Due dates Submission/s
Research Question Friday, Week 4 2355/1155pm
Draft proposal Friday, Week 8 2355/1155pm
Final proposal Friday, Week 10 or 11 2355/1155pm
Overview and motivation
Early in the Term, you will be assigned to a team of 4-6 students, and that team will research a
topic under one of the Engineering Research Challenges, developing a research question, and then
a proposal for conducting that research, appropriate to one of the scenarios presented below.
Note that there is a process for selection of teams will be done by the GSOE9011 teaching team
based on the student’s choice of area of interest. Once we have everyone’s area of interest, teams
will be organized into groups of 4-6 students, depending on the number of students under each topic
area. You will not be allowed to form your own team. In circumstances where only 1 or 2
students pick a certain topic area, we will merge these groups together. The proposal topic does
not necessarily need to reflect the topic area listed (although there should be some obvious
alignment).
Note also that teams of a different initial size will be considered only under exceptional
circumstances, and non-one will be allowed to work on their own. If team members withdraw early
enough in the term, teams may be merged. Loss of team members after early tasks have been
completed may mean smaller teams continue their work, rather than disrupting other teams. This
cannot be helped, nor changed, and reflects real-world circumstances, under which tasks
sometimes need to be completed by a team smaller than original intended or envisaged. We have
had teams shrink to two members, and the task has still been completed, and on time.
Back to the task itself…
The Research Proposal is the major assessment task in this course, bringing together in a specific
context and in a single document many of the ideas covered in the learning materials and activities,
along with the collective experience, interest, knowledge, perspectives, skills and attitudes of the
team members.
Students continuing on to undertake a Research Project in their Masters program can use it as a
way of developing a proposal to show to potential supervisors. Students who have been exempted
from the Research Project can use it as practice for developing research proposals in an industry
setting. Whichever focus you take, the document must satisfy the requirements described below.
Learning outcomes
Upon successful completion of this task, you will have:
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 2
• critically reviewed, in some depth and detail, the literature on an aspect of one Engineering
Research Challenge (ERC) in detail, and;
• proposed a research plan to answer a research question under one ERC topic.
Format
During the term, your team will identify an engineering research problem in a discipline that you find
interesting and plan a research project to investigate a solution. Note that you may not be able to
work in your specific, individual area of interest or professional activity, but in a team that has, at
least, a broad, shared interest.
You must first select one of two scenarios for your research proposal:
• A proposal for a 12-month research project to be undertaken at a university, such as a Masters
Thesis project. The ‘target audience’ is your desired academic supervisor (however, you must
write in a way that a non-expert could also understand your proposal). Assume they have
many students applying to do projects with them and you need to convince them to choose
you.
• A proposal for a 12-month research project to be undertaken in an industrial setting. The target
audience is your boss (however, you must write in a way that a non-expert could also
understand your proposal). Assume you are working in a company in an R&D team that has a
certain budget for projects for the year. You want to convince your boss that your project idea
should be funded and go ahead.
In either case, you want to show that you have a good idea and a solid plan, that you know what it
is you need to do and how you will approach the research. In both cases, remember that this is a
piece of research to be undertaken by one person (maybe you!) or a small team of people (your
team) within 12 months. The question to be answered and the proposal develop from it need to be
suitably constrained to meet that expectation.
Your final report will be 4,000–5,000 words. Be sure to include pictures, graphs and tables where
appropriate (citing the source of any idea, text, image or data you did not develop or produce
yourself). Any word limits below are intended as a guide only, rather than being prescriptive, serving
to guide you to a structure that meets the overall word limit.
Final report structure
Researchers frequently need to write applications for funds to carry out research projects. A typical
research funding application would contain: a high-level introduction, some context for the work, a
description of the project and a budget. It is also important to explain the expected impact of the
project. Your report will be structured in a similar way to these applications, but without the need to
provide a budget or budget justification (though you may wish to provide some indication of the level
of funding required). It should have the following structure:
Title page
Information on the title page should include the name of the institution, faculty and course,
assessment name, collaborative research group, assessment title, your names and Student ID
numbers, plus the date submitted (ensure this is current, consistent with the date you submit online).
Abstract
The abstract is essentially an executive summary, which gives a brief overview of the entire
document. It is different from an ‘introduction’. An abstract should not include any material that does
not appear also in the body, no figures or tables, and no referencing (include the references in the
body). You should explain briefly, in non-technical terms what the project is, why it is important, how
it will be approached and what could be the possible outcomes. It should be only one or two
paragraphs in length (around 300 words).
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 3
Introduction
The Introduction briefly explains the background or context of the project. It sets out how the project
fits in broad context, what it involves, why it is important, and what will be the benefits of a successful
outcome. It should be only one or two paragraphs in length (200-300 words).
Literature Review
The Literature Review needs to set the narrower context for the project and describes in detail the
background to the problem you plan to solve. You should describe the various aspects, limitations,
constraints, and so forth, of the problem, and should describe and analyse any prior work either in
this particular problem (or a closely related problem, if your problem hasn’t yet been addressed).
The strengths and weaknesses of prior work need to be identified and you need to “carve out” the
precise problem as an approach to address existing weaknesses (identify a ‘gap’ in knowledge or
technology). In this section, you should also provide an analysis of the experimental techniques that
are relevant to this problem, especially those techniques that have been used in prior work.
Conclude your literature review with a gap analysis.
This section clearly requires careful citation of the literature.
A comprehensive background should be around 1,300–1,500 words.
Significance and Innovation
This section should be around 100-150 words.
Significance — Describe how the research is significant and how it addresses an important
problem. Describe how the anticipated outcomes will advance the knowledge base of the discipline.
What is profound and transformational about your project? How will your project make a difference
in your field and cognate fields – which other fields will be interested in what you are doing?
Innovation — Detail how the aims of and concepts in the Proposal are novel and innovative. Detail
what new methodologies or technologies will be developed in the course of the research and how
they will advance knowledge, and the way in which you believe the project is innovative (how/why)
rather than describing the innovation itself.
Proposal
The Research Proposal needs to describe a potential research project to investigate your problem.
You should first suggest a potential solution to the problem you described in the Literature Review.
(Note: Since this is speculative, you don’t actually have to provide a complete solution).
If you have done some analysis to check the feasibility of the solution, present that here.
Finally, describe how you plan to demonstrate that your solution works effectively and efficiently.
This involves describing what experimental techniques you would use, and how you would analyse
the results. The proposal should be around 1,200–1,400 words.
Break up the text, as appropriate, with relevant figures and diagrams, bullet points, selective use
of bold/italics to highlight key statements. Some of the sub-headings (and related contents) in this
section might include Approach, Methodology, Conceptual framework, Timeline, Dissemination of
results, National/International benefits.
Conclusion
Include a brief conclusion to draw together the key points of your proposal (100 words).
References
Collect the sources of all sections of your proposal here. Format your sources consistent with the
style of a research journal appropriate to your selected area of research and cite that journal choice
at the top of this section.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 4
Appendices
In the final version of the Proposal (including the research question) you should, as a minimum,
document the changes you made in response to the feedback you received on your draft
version.
IMPORTANT CHANGE: Note that, for this Term, we expect you to submit your draft and final
versions as Word documents. Based on feedback from your peers (through peer review) and/or
feedback from the teaching team, you must mark up your final submission with the comments made
by those people, at an appropriate point (if not immediately obvious), and show, in your final
submission, how you have acted upon that feedback. This process aligns with grant funding
processes, among others, so it has strong professional value. Failure to do this can result in
penalty of up to 10% of the Final Proposal mark.
Additional appendices may be included as appropriate. Use appendices for any large figures or data
sets that would interrupt the flow of your text. Appendices do not count towards word or page limits,
but do not use Appendices to pad out the body of your Proposal.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 5
Advice
Consider the following guidelines when writing your report:
DO DO NOT
Write the Proposal as a formal document. Treat the Proposal as a minor extension of the
workshop tasks.
Describe your ideas in your own words. Use long quotes from other people, and
especially without proper citation.
Use reputable references (articles from highly
ranked journals and top-tier conferences).
Referencing inaccessible sources, web pages,
internal reports
Follow the structure given above. Copy any material without referencing the
source
Write in a precise and concise style. Use verbose or “flowery” language.
Keep close to the specified word ranges. Exceed 5000 words total for the whole Proposal,
and aim to keep the final version closer to 4000
words
Submission
Research Question and ERC Selection
Submit, through the dedicated portal in Moodle, the question for which your team intends to develop
a research proposal aimed at providing an answer. You will have been asked to consider already
the broad category of Challenge, and the specific, numbered ERC, as part of the team formation
process and your team should have agreed the category and ERC, if there was any dissent.
Remember that your research question should not be something that can be answered by simply
retrieving existing data but rather points to a gap in knowledge that your project will (help) fill.
Answering the research question should not just require you to assemble a set of facts/data but
require the development and testing of theories that can predict or explain phenomena – research
to be conducted.
As highlighted already above, your research question should be concise, ultimately producing some
kind of ’yes/no’ answer to which the outcome of research can point, and focused enough that it is
answerable in a 12-month research project.
Draft Proposal
For the Draft, you should submit, at least, the first stage of your Proposal, consisting of Title,
Introduction, Literature Review, and Significance and Innovation, though if your team makes good
progress, you can submit additional sections.
You need to submit a copy of the Draft Proposal to three portals, a PDF version to the “Draft
Research Proposal submission for similarity check (Turnitin)”, a Word version to the “Draft Research
Proposal submission for peer review (Workshop)” and a Word version to the “Draft Research
Proposal submission for TA feedback (Assignment)” activities on Moodle. The closing date and time
for all submissions is the same.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 6
Final Proposal
For the final submission, you must provide the definitive version of all sections specified in the Final
Proposal structure given above.
While preparing your final version, you should consider the comments/suggestions you received for
the Draft, from teachers and peers. As highlighted above, the final version for marking by TAs must
be a marked-up version, showing how you have improved your work from draft to final. You can also
include an Appendix if you have dealt with more general comments, requiring changes or
improvements in multiple places.
You need to submit a PDF copy of the final version of the Research Proposal to the “Final Research
Proposal - submission for similarity check” and a word version to the “Final Research Proposal
submission for marking” activities on Moodle. The closing date and time for both submissions is to
be negotiated, but they will be the same.
Assessment criteria
The Research Proposal is worth 50% of your final course mark. All marking will be performed
according to the rubrics included below. The marks are spread across the three submissions as
follows.
Marks Marks
Research question 5
Draft Proposal 15
Final Proposal 30
Total 50
Working in a team
Students will be assigned to and, as much as possible (circumstances permitting), must work in a
team of 4-6 members, aligned with one of the course learning outcomes, around teamwork. The
number of members has been chosen to create a team dynamic, while not being so large that logistic
problems are likely to arise and also, not creating too many groups (as a logistic issue in the course).
Working alone is completely unacceptable, and requesting to working in a pair or trio (2-3), is
typically unacceptable except under exceptional circumstances, as this, particularly solo work, does
not meet the learning outcome requirements of the course. Teams will be formed by me, the Course
Coordinator, based on characteristics of team members derived from questions asked of you in an
online survey (details to be advised separately, through Moodle). The survey questions have been
negotiated between staff and students, with the aim to create groups that have key similarities and
differences. Online facilities will be provided to facilitate your interaction, but your team may need to
find further, creative solutions to enable your team work (collaboration). As part of a team, you will
complete an evaluation of your team members, along with submission of the final version of the
Research Proposal, and that evaluation may, and indeed has been be used to adjust marks to reflect
individual student contributions to the team outcome. All of these processes reflect the professional
world, seeing people working in teams, at times remotely from one another, and being accountable
or responsible for effort and outcomes of a team project.
Calculation of your final mark for each submission
1. Preliminary total mark out of 100%
• The mark for the draft Proposal will be given by a teaching staff member. The marks and
comments given during peer review may be used to moderate the staff mark, but they will
not be used to calculate the initial mark. We have found that, while comments from peers
are typically very useful, the marks assigned, especially when students are new to
assessment, can be either overly generous, or unusually harsh, but often unfair. This has
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 7
led to modification of this aspect of this assessment task, based on consideration of
student feedback and our own observations.
• The teacher mark, with any moderation based on peer feedback, or moderation between
staff members, will give you a preliminary mark out of 100%.
• Failure to complete your peer review assignments results in a loss of marks.
2. Similarity deductions
• TurnItIn will generate a percentage similarity score for your assignment. It is not a realistic
goal to achieve 0% similarity, however, below 15% is a reasonable expectation (excluding
the bibliography).
• Therefore, and after due consideration of evidence, 2% may be deducted for each
similarity score percentage point exceeding 15%. Note that this is not imposed
automatically – it will be checked by your staff assessor to determine the nature of the
similarity, and whether it constitutes plagiarism. Further, in significant instances of
plagiarism, a mark of 0 (zero) may be imposed immediately, and, as this is a graduate
course, more significant penalties may be imposed. Read on…
• For example, if your preliminary mark is 70%, but your similarity score is 20%, you may
be awarded only 60%. This is calculated as follows: 70 – 2x (20-15) = 60%.
• However, blatant plagiarism is simply not acceptable. If your submitted proposal is found
to be in breach of university academic conduct policy, then a range of penalties may be
imposed. You may be allowed and required to rewrite and resubmit the proposal, with a
substantial mark penalty imposed (to be decided, based on the extent of the misconduct).
You may be awarded zero for the task and, in very severe cases, this could have serious
implications for your ability to pass the course. In fact, given this is a graduate course, a
blatant and cynical case of plagiarism can result in failure in the course itself! Reporting of
such cases can also see the university impose further and more severe penalties.
• It is very important, given that this is a team task, that you work together to ensure
plagiarism is avoided, and that each of you, individually, consider your responsibility to
your teammates.
3. Late penalties
• Under UNSW3+, with compressed teaching periods, timely submission is essentially for
timely provision of feedback, including that from peers, and, especially at the end of term,
finalisation of marks and grades. Thus, the submission dates and times are adhered to
very strictly. Notwithstanding legitimate reasons for lateness, penalties will be applied.
• If the proposal is submitted less than 24 hours late, 0.5% per hour will be deducted.
• If the proposal is submitted more than 24 hours late, in addition to the penalties above,
20% per day (or partial day) late will be deducted.
Marking rubrics for the Research Proposal
Marking rubrics for the various parts of this assessment are given on the following pages. Note that
these are provided as a guide to criteria and standards that help you produce an appropriate piece
of work. Marking takes these to consideration and they are applied, but typically a rich assessment
task is marked holistically and with qualitative feedback, while taking all criteria into account.
Typically it is not atomistic and not a simple sum of marks for parts.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 8
Marking rubric for Research Question
Criteria
(and weighting)
Description Marking
Question (10%) Is the Research Question actually posed in the form
of a question?
No (0)
Yes (0.5)
Scope
(10%)
Can the Research Question be answered reasonably
through a 12-month industry or university research
project?
No (0)
Yes (0.5)
Gap
(40%)
Does the Research Question target a gap or gaps in
our knowledge of the topic that can't simply be
answered by retrieving existing data?
Unsatisfactory (0)
Satisfactory (1)
Outstanding (2)
Hypothesis
(40%)
Does the Research Question require the development
and testing of theories that can predict or explain
natural phenomena or the performance of systems?
Unsatisfactory (0)
Satisfactory (1)
Outstanding (2)
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 9
Marking rubric for Draft
Criteria (and
weighting)
Deficient
(<40%)
Partly Competent
(40% to 60%)
Competent
(60% to 80%)
Mastery
(80% to 100%)
Introduction
(20%): setting
the context and
articulating a
research
question
The team has done a poor job of
explaining the context and research
aims to the reader – I'm not really
sure what this is about.
The general topic is introduced. A
research question may be stated
but there is no clear explanation of
why the question is still open and
why it is significant.
The research question is clearly
stated and identifies a poorly
understood issue. The team makes
the project background clear to the
reader, and sets the significance of
the research question within a
discipline context.
In addition to the previous level, this
introduction sets the research
question and project background in
a broader or wide context.
Literature
review (50%):
discussion of
context,
analysis of
literature
The background does not seem to
be related to the problem outlined in
the Summary. References are
minimal (five or less) and of dubious
quality, or even non-existent.
Only provides a vague
understanding of the problem
context, with a modest reference list
(6 – 9) articles, and not necessarily
of good quality. It is not quite clear
how prior work is relevant to the
topic.
The context of the problem is
covered reasonably well. There is a
good reference list (10 – 20) of
quality articles, or an extensive list
of articles of varying quality. Prior
work is described well and related to
the problem. There is a good
description of relevant experimental
and/or analytical techniques.
The context of the problem is well-
covered, using an extensive list
(>20) of good quality articles. How
the prior work fits into the problem
space is clearly identified.
Experimental/analytical techniques
relevant to the field are described
well.
Significance
and Innovation
(20%)
No mention about significance and
innovation. OR What is written is
irrelevant. It is hard to understand
the significance of the project. The
innovative aspect of the project is
not explained.
Attempted to explain the
significance and innovation but only
vaguely conveys the message.
Significance and innovation is
explained clearly.
Significance and innovation is
explained clearly with appropriately
identifying and labelling these
aspects..
Style (10%):
Structure,
readability,
navigation,
style, use of
references
Much effort is required to read and
understand the report: writing is
poor, many mistakes with spelling
and grammar, and possibly
inappropriate langue style (e.g. too
informal). May not follow the
required structure. References are
either not cited or cited in the wrong
places.
The report is somewhat difficult to
read: writing is just okay, broad
ideas come across, spelling and
grammar have some flaws, not quite
appropriate language style. It
follows the required structure
somewhat. Citing of references is
either lacking or not appropriate
when used.
The report is reasonably easy to
read: writing is clear enough, with
good spelling and grammar, and
reasonable choice of language
style. It follows the structure OK.
References are mostly well cited.
The report is easy to read: well-
written, with very good spelling and
grammar, and appropriate language
style for a scientific report. It follows
the required structure. References
are cited properly.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 10
Marking rubric for Final Report
Criteria (and
weighting)
Deficient
(<40%)
Partly Competent
(40% to 60%)
Competent
(60% to 80%)
Mastery
(80% to 100%)
Introduction
(20%): high-
level
description of
proposed
project, selling
benefits of
project
After reading the summary, we are
no wiser what the project is all
about. Both the purpose and the
benefits are unclear.
The purpose of the proposed project
is a little unclear or incomplete. The
benefits are not explained clearly.
The proposal is summarised
reasonably well,but may be overly
long or missing some points. The
benefits are identified reasonably
well.
The proposal (problem statement,
proposed solution) is summarised
clearly, concisely and completely.
The benefits of the proposed
solution are identified.
Background
(20%):
discussion of
context,
analysis of
literature
The background does not seem to
be related to the problem outlined in
the Summary. References are
minimal (5 or less) and of dubious
quality, or even non-existent.
Experimental and analytical
techniques are not discussed.
Only provides a vague
understanding of the problem
context, with a modest reference list
(6-14) articles, and not necessarily
of good quality. It is not quite clear
how prior work is relevant to the
problem, and the description of
experimental/ analytical techniques
is sketchy or not particularly
relevant.
The context of the problem is
covered reasonably well. There is a
good reference list (15-25 articles)
of quality articles, or an extensive
list of articles of varying quality.
Prior work is described well and
related to the problem. There is a
good description of relevant
experiment/ analytical techniques.
The context of the problem is well-
covered, using an extensive list
(>25) references to good quality
articles. How the prior work fits into
the problem space is clearly
identified. Experiment/ analytical
techniques relevant to the field are
described well.
Method and
Evaluation
(20%):
description of
relevant
experimental
and analytical
techniques
Little attempt has been made to
describe how the project would be
evaluated, or what information was
given would not allow a researcher
to independently carry out the
evaluation.
Some experimental and analytical
techniques are described, but either
not well- described or not properly
related to the proposal. It would be
difficult for another researcher to
use this information to replicate the
work and conduct an independent
evaluation.
An approach is described which
looks likely to provide an evaluation
of the success of the project, but
may be lacking some details or may
be not quite complete. Experimental
techniques are described, but not
related well to the project’s goals.
Similarly, the description of
analytical techniques is not
sufficiently detailed that another
researcher could replicate the
evaluation.
A suitable approach is described to
provide an evaluation of how well
the project has succeeded.
Experimental techniques are
described in detail and related to the
proposal. Analytical techniques for
taking the experimental results and
determining the project’s success
are also detailed. Another
engineering researcher would be
able to take this information and
independently perform the
evaluation.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 11
Criteria (and
weighting)
Deficient
(<40%)
Partly Competent
(40% to 60%)
Competent
(60% to 80%)
Mastery
(80% to 100%)
Significance
and innovation
(10%)
No mention about significance and
innovation. OR What is written is
irrelevant. It is hard to understand
the significance of the project. The
innovative aspect of the project is
not explained.
Attempted to explain the
significance and innovation but only
vaguely conveys the message.
Significance and innovation is
explained clearly.
The significance and innovation is
clearly explained and the potential
outcomes of the project are
connected to the big picture context
outlined in the introduction.
Project Maturity
(20%):
description and
analysis of
proposed
research
project
It is not clear that a research project
is being proposed. There appear to
be no goals or there is insufficient
detail to determine what will be
done. There is little or no attempt to
analyse the proposal or its likely
outcomes.
Some suggestions are given that
hint at a research project, but there
is not enough detail to be clear what
are the goals or what will be done.
Analysis is superficial and does not
give a convincing case that the
project might produce useful results.
A research project is described
which is potentially plausible, but
either the description is not
complete or it is not entirely
convincing. The goals of the project
are reasonably clear. Some analysis
has been conducted, but there are
some doubts about the project’s
likely outcomes.
A plausible research project is
described in sufficient detail. The
goals of the project are clear.
Sufficient analysis is provided to
make it clear that the project has a
reasonable chance of success. and
what the likely outcomes will be.
Style (10%):
Structure,
readability,
navigation,
style, use of
references
Much effort is required to read and
understand the report: writing is
poor, many mistakes with spelling
and grammar, and possibly
inappropriate langue style (e.g. too
informal). May not follow the
required structure. References are
either not cited or cited in the wrong
places.
The report is somewhat difficult to
read: writing is just ok, broad idea
comes across; spelling and
grammar have some flaws, not quite
appropriate language style. It
follows the required structure
somewhat. Citing of references is
either lacking or not appropriate
when used.
The report is reasonably easy to
read: writing is clear enough, with
good spelling and grammar, and
reasonable choice of language
style. It follows the structure OK.
References are mostly well-cited.
The report is easy to read: well-
written, with good spelling and
grammar, and appropriate language
style for a scientific report. It follows
the required structure. References
are cited properly.
GSOE9011 Engineering
PGCW Research Skills
Faculty of Engineering
A04 Research Proposal (50%)
Due dates Submission/s
Research Question Friday, Week 4 2355/1155pm
Draft proposal Friday, Week 8 2355/1155pm
Final proposal Friday, Week 10 or 11 2355/1155pm
Overview and motivation
Early in the Term, you will be assigned to a team of 4-6 students, and that team will research a
topic under one of the Engineering Research Challenges, developing a research question, and then
a proposal for conducting that research, appropriate to one of the scenarios presented below.
Note that there is a process for selection of teams will be done by the GSOE9011 teaching team
based on the student’s choice of area of interest. Once we have everyone’s area of interest, teams
will be organized into groups of 4-6 students, depending on the number of students under each topic
area. You will not be allowed to form your own team. In circumstances where only 1 or 2
students pick a certain topic area, we will merge these groups together. The proposal topic does
not necessarily need to reflect the topic area listed (although there should be some obvious
alignment).
Note also that teams of a different initial size will be considered only under exceptional
circumstances, and non-one will be allowed to work on their own. If team members withdraw early
enough in the term, teams may be merged. Loss of team members after early tasks have been
completed may mean smaller teams continue their work, rather than disrupting other teams. This
cannot be helped, nor changed, and reflects real-world circumstances, under which tasks
sometimes need to be completed by a team smaller than original intended or envisaged. We have
had teams shrink to two members, and the task has still been completed, and on time.
Back to the task itself…
The Research Proposal is the major assessment task in this course, bringing together in a specific
context and in a single document many of the ideas covered in the learning materials and activities,
along with the collective experience, interest, knowledge, perspectives, skills and attitudes of the
team members.
Students continuing on to undertake a Research Project in their Masters program can use it as a
way of developing a proposal to show to potential supervisors. Students who have been exempted
from the Research Project can use it as practice for developing research proposals in an industry
setting. Whichever focus you take, the document must satisfy the requirements described below.
Learning outcomes
Upon successful completion of this task, you will have:
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 2
• critically reviewed, in some depth and detail, the literature on an aspect of one Engineering
Research Challenge (ERC) in detail, and;
• proposed a research plan to answer a research question under one ERC topic.
Format
During the term, your team will identify an engineering research problem in a discipline that you find
interesting and plan a research project to investigate a solution. Note that you may not be able to
work in your specific, individual area of interest or professional activity, but in a team that has, at
least, a broad, shared interest.
You must first select one of two scenarios for your research proposal:
• A proposal for a 12-month research project to be undertaken at a university, such as a Masters
Thesis project. The ‘target audience’ is your desired academic supervisor (however, you must
write in a way that a non-expert could also understand your proposal). Assume they have
many students applying to do projects with them and you need to convince them to choose
you.
• A proposal for a 12-month research project to be undertaken in an industrial setting. The target
audience is your boss (however, you must write in a way that a non-expert could also
understand your proposal). Assume you are working in a company in an R&D team that has a
certain budget for projects for the year. You want to convince your boss that your project idea
should be funded and go ahead.
In either case, you want to show that you have a good idea and a solid plan, that you know what it
is you need to do and how you will approach the research. In both cases, remember that this is a
piece of research to be undertaken by one person (maybe you!) or a small team of people (your
team) within 12 months. The question to be answered and the proposal develop from it need to be
suitably constrained to meet that expectation.
Your final report will be 4,000–5,000 words. Be sure to include pictures, graphs and tables where
appropriate (citing the source of any idea, text, image or data you did not develop or produce
yourself). Any word limits below are intended as a guide only, rather than being prescriptive, serving
to guide you to a structure that meets the overall word limit.
Final report structure
Researchers frequently need to write applications for funds to carry out research projects. A typical
research funding application would contain: a high-level introduction, some context for the work, a
description of the project and a budget. It is also important to explain the expected impact of the
project. Your report will be structured in a similar way to these applications, but without the need to
provide a budget or budget justification (though you may wish to provide some indication of the level
of funding required). It should have the following structure:
Title page
Information on the title page should include the name of the institution, faculty and course,
assessment name, collaborative research group, assessment title, your names and Student ID
numbers, plus the date submitted (ensure this is current, consistent with the date you submit online).
Abstract
The abstract is essentially an executive summary, which gives a brief overview of the entire
document. It is different from an ‘introduction’. An abstract should not include any material that does
not appear also in the body, no figures or tables, and no referencing (include the references in the
body). You should explain briefly, in non-technical terms what the project is, why it is important, how
it will be approached and what could be the possible outcomes. It should be only one or two
paragraphs in length (around 300 words).
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 3
Introduction
The Introduction briefly explains the background or context of the project. It sets out how the project
fits in broad context, what it involves, why it is important, and what will be the benefits of a successful
outcome. It should be only one or two paragraphs in length (200-300 words).
Literature Review
The Literature Review needs to set the narrower context for the project and describes in detail the
background to the problem you plan to solve. You should describe the various aspects, limitations,
constraints, and so forth, of the problem, and should describe and analyse any prior work either in
this particular problem (or a closely related problem, if your problem hasn’t yet been addressed).
The strengths and weaknesses of prior work need to be identified and you need to “carve out” the
precise problem as an approach to address existing weaknesses (identify a ‘gap’ in knowledge or
technology). In this section, you should also provide an analysis of the experimental techniques that
are relevant to this problem, especially those techniques that have been used in prior work.
Conclude your literature review with a gap analysis.
This section clearly requires careful citation of the literature.
A comprehensive background should be around 1,300–1,500 words.
Significance and Innovation
This section should be around 100-150 words.
Significance — Describe how the research is significant and how it addresses an important
problem. Describe how the anticipated outcomes will advance the knowledge base of the discipline.
What is profound and transformational about your project? How will your project make a difference
in your field and cognate fields – which other fields will be interested in what you are doing?
Innovation — Detail how the aims of and concepts in the Proposal are novel and innovative. Detail
what new methodologies or technologies will be developed in the course of the research and how
they will advance knowledge, and the way in which you believe the project is innovative (how/why)
rather than describing the innovation itself.
Proposal
The Research Proposal needs to describe a potential research project to investigate your problem.
You should first suggest a potential solution to the problem you described in the Literature Review.
(Note: Since this is speculative, you don’t actually have to provide a complete solution).
If you have done some analysis to check the feasibility of the solution, present that here.
Finally, describe how you plan to demonstrate that your solution works effectively and efficiently.
This involves describing what experimental techniques you would use, and how you would analyse
the results. The proposal should be around 1,200–1,400 words.
Break up the text, as appropriate, with relevant figures and diagrams, bullet points, selective use
of bold/italics to highlight key statements. Some of the sub-headings (and related contents) in this
section might include Approach, Methodology, Conceptual framework, Timeline, Dissemination of
results, National/International benefits.
Conclusion
Include a brief conclusion to draw together the key points of your proposal (100 words).
References
Collect the sources of all sections of your proposal here. Format your sources consistent with the
style of a research journal appropriate to your selected area of research and cite that journal choice
at the top of this section.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 4
Appendices
In the final version of the Proposal (including the research question) you should, as a minimum,
document the changes you made in response to the feedback you received on your draft
version.
IMPORTANT CHANGE: Note that, for this Term, we expect you to submit your draft and final
versions as Word documents. Based on feedback from your peers (through peer review) and/or
feedback from the teaching team, you must mark up your final submission with the comments made
by those people, at an appropriate point (if not immediately obvious), and show, in your final
submission, how you have acted upon that feedback. This process aligns with grant funding
processes, among others, so it has strong professional value. Failure to do this can result in
penalty of up to 10% of the Final Proposal mark.
Additional appendices may be included as appropriate. Use appendices for any large figures or data
sets that would interrupt the flow of your text. Appendices do not count towards word or page limits,
but do not use Appendices to pad out the body of your Proposal.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 5
Advice
Consider the following guidelines when writing your report:
DO DO NOT
Write the Proposal as a formal document. Treat the Proposal as a minor extension of the
workshop tasks.
Describe your ideas in your own words. Use long quotes from other people, and
especially without proper citation.
Use reputable references (articles from highly
ranked journals and top-tier conferences).
Referencing inaccessible sources, web pages,
internal reports
Follow the structure given above. Copy any material without referencing the
source
Write in a precise and concise style. Use verbose or “flowery” language.
Keep close to the specified word ranges. Exceed 5000 words total for the whole Proposal,
and aim to keep the final version closer to 4000
words
Submission
Research Question and ERC Selection
Submit, through the dedicated portal in Moodle, the question for which your team intends to develop
a research proposal aimed at providing an answer. You will have been asked to consider already
the broad category of Challenge, and the specific, numbered ERC, as part of the team formation
process and your team should have agreed the category and ERC, if there was any dissent.
Remember that your research question should not be something that can be answered by simply
retrieving existing data but rather points to a gap in knowledge that your project will (help) fill.
Answering the research question should not just require you to assemble a set of facts/data but
require the development and testing of theories that can predict or explain phenomena – research
to be conducted.
As highlighted already above, your research question should be concise, ultimately producing some
kind of ’yes/no’ answer to which the outcome of research can point, and focused enough that it is
answerable in a 12-month research project.
Draft Proposal
For the Draft, you should submit, at least, the first stage of your Proposal, consisting of Title,
Introduction, Literature Review, and Significance and Innovation, though if your team makes good
progress, you can submit additional sections.
You need to submit a copy of the Draft Proposal to three portals, a PDF version to the “Draft
Research Proposal submission for similarity check (Turnitin)”, a Word version to the “Draft Research
Proposal submission for peer review (Workshop)” and a Word version to the “Draft Research
Proposal submission for TA feedback (Assignment)” activities on Moodle. The closing date and time
for all submissions is the same.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 6
Final Proposal
For the final submission, you must provide the definitive version of all sections specified in the Final
Proposal structure given above.
While preparing your final version, you should consider the comments/suggestions you received for
the Draft, from teachers and peers. As highlighted above, the final version for marking by TAs must
be a marked-up version, showing how you have improved your work from draft to final. You can also
include an Appendix if you have dealt with more general comments, requiring changes or
improvements in multiple places.
You need to submit a PDF copy of the final version of the Research Proposal to the “Final Research
Proposal - submission for similarity check” and a word version to the “Final Research Proposal
submission for marking” activities on Moodle. The closing date and time for both submissions is to
be negotiated, but they will be the same.
Assessment criteria
The Research Proposal is worth 50% of your final course mark. All marking will be performed
according to the rubrics included below. The marks are spread across the three submissions as
follows.
Marks Marks
Research question 5
Draft Proposal 15
Final Proposal 30
Total 50
Working in a team
Students will be assigned to and, as much as possible (circumstances permitting), must work in a
team of 4-6 members, aligned with one of the course learning outcomes, around teamwork. The
number of members has been chosen to create a team dynamic, while not being so large that logistic
problems are likely to arise and also, not creating too many groups (as a logistic issue in the course).
Working alone is completely unacceptable, and requesting to working in a pair or trio (2-3), is
typically unacceptable except under exceptional circumstances, as this, particularly solo work, does
not meet the learning outcome requirements of the course. Teams will be formed by me, the Course
Coordinator, based on characteristics of team members derived from questions asked of you in an
online survey (details to be advised separately, through Moodle). The survey questions have been
negotiated between staff and students, with the aim to create groups that have key similarities and
differences. Online facilities will be provided to facilitate your interaction, but your team may need to
find further, creative solutions to enable your team work (collaboration). As part of a team, you will
complete an evaluation of your team members, along with submission of the final version of the
Research Proposal, and that evaluation may, and indeed has been be used to adjust marks to reflect
individual student contributions to the team outcome. All of these processes reflect the professional
world, seeing people working in teams, at times remotely from one another, and being accountable
or responsible for effort and outcomes of a team project.
Calculation of your final mark for each submission
1. Preliminary total mark out of 100%
• The mark for the draft Proposal will be given by a teaching staff member. The marks and
comments given during peer review may be used to moderate the staff mark, but they will
not be used to calculate the initial mark. We have found that, while comments from peers
are typically very useful, the marks assigned, especially when students are new to
assessment, can be either overly generous, or unusually harsh, but often unfair. This has
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 7
led to modification of this aspect of this assessment task, based on consideration of
student feedback and our own observations.
• The teacher mark, with any moderation based on peer feedback, or moderation between
staff members, will give you a preliminary mark out of 100%.
• Failure to complete your peer review assignments results in a loss of marks.
2. Similarity deductions
• TurnItIn will generate a percentage similarity score for your assignment. It is not a realistic
goal to achieve 0% similarity, however, below 15% is a reasonable expectation (excluding
the bibliography).
• Therefore, and after due consideration of evidence, 2% may be deducted for each
similarity score percentage point exceeding 15%. Note that this is not imposed
automatically – it will be checked by your staff assessor to determine the nature of the
similarity, and whether it constitutes plagiarism. Further, in significant instances of
plagiarism, a mark of 0 (zero) may be imposed immediately, and, as this is a graduate
course, more significant penalties may be imposed. Read on…
• For example, if your preliminary mark is 70%, but your similarity score is 20%, you may
be awarded only 60%. This is calculated as follows: 70 – 2x (20-15) = 60%.
• However, blatant plagiarism is simply not acceptable. If your submitted proposal is found
to be in breach of university academic conduct policy, then a range of penalties may be
imposed. You may be allowed and required to rewrite and resubmit the proposal, with a
substantial mark penalty imposed (to be decided, based on the extent of the misconduct).
You may be awarded zero for the task and, in very severe cases, this could have serious
implications for your ability to pass the course. In fact, given this is a graduate course, a
blatant and cynical case of plagiarism can result in failure in the course itself! Reporting of
such cases can also see the university impose further and more severe penalties.
• It is very important, given that this is a team task, that you work together to ensure
plagiarism is avoided, and that each of you, individually, consider your responsibility to
your teammates.
3. Late penalties
• Under UNSW3+, with compressed teaching periods, timely submission is essentially for
timely provision of feedback, including that from peers, and, especially at the end of term,
finalisation of marks and grades. Thus, the submission dates and times are adhered to
very strictly. Notwithstanding legitimate reasons for lateness, penalties will be applied.
• If the proposal is submitted less than 24 hours late, 0.5% per hour will be deducted.
• If the proposal is submitted more than 24 hours late, in addition to the penalties above,
20% per day (or partial day) late will be deducted.
Marking rubrics for the Research Proposal
Marking rubrics for the various parts of this assessment are given on the following pages. Note that
these are provided as a guide to criteria and standards that help you produce an appropriate piece
of work. Marking takes these to consideration and they are applied, but typically a rich assessment
task is marked holistically and with qualitative feedback, while taking all criteria into account.
Typically it is not atomistic and not a simple sum of marks for parts.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 8
Marking rubric for Research Question
Criteria
(and weighting)
Description Marking
Question (10%) Is the Research Question actually posed in the form
of a question?
No (0)
Yes (0.5)
Scope
(10%)
Can the Research Question be answered reasonably
through a 12-month industry or university research
project?
No (0)
Yes (0.5)
Gap
(40%)
Does the Research Question target a gap or gaps in
our knowledge of the topic that can't simply be
answered by retrieving existing data?
Unsatisfactory (0)
Satisfactory (1)
Outstanding (2)
Hypothesis
(40%)
Does the Research Question require the development
and testing of theories that can predict or explain
natural phenomena or the performance of systems?
Unsatisfactory (0)
Satisfactory (1)
Outstanding (2)
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 9
Marking rubric for Draft
Criteria (and
weighting)
Deficient
(<40%)
Partly Competent
(40% to 60%)
Competent
(60% to 80%)
Mastery
(80% to 100%)
Introduction
(20%): setting
the context and
articulating a
research
question
The team has done a poor job of
explaining the context and research
aims to the reader – I'm not really
sure what this is about.
The general topic is introduced. A
research question may be stated
but there is no clear explanation of
why the question is still open and
why it is significant.
The research question is clearly
stated and identifies a poorly
understood issue. The team makes
the project background clear to the
reader, and sets the significance of
the research question within a
discipline context.
In addition to the previous level, this
introduction sets the research
question and project background in
a broader or wide context.
Literature
review (50%):
discussion of
context,
analysis of
literature
The background does not seem to
be related to the problem outlined in
the Summary. References are
minimal (five or less) and of dubious
quality, or even non-existent.
Only provides a vague
understanding of the problem
context, with a modest reference list
(6 – 9) articles, and not necessarily
of good quality. It is not quite clear
how prior work is relevant to the
topic.
The context of the problem is
covered reasonably well. There is a
good reference list (10 – 20) of
quality articles, or an extensive list
of articles of varying quality. Prior
work is described well and related to
the problem. There is a good
description of relevant experimental
and/or analytical techniques.
The context of the problem is well-
covered, using an extensive list
(>20) of good quality articles. How
the prior work fits into the problem
space is clearly identified.
Experimental/analytical techniques
relevant to the field are described
well.
Significance
and Innovation
(20%)
No mention about significance and
innovation. OR What is written is
irrelevant. It is hard to understand
the significance of the project. The
innovative aspect of the project is
not explained.
Attempted to explain the
significance and innovation but only
vaguely conveys the message.
Significance and innovation is
explained clearly.
Significance and innovation is
explained clearly with appropriately
identifying and labelling these
aspects..
Style (10%):
Structure,
readability,
navigation,
style, use of
references
Much effort is required to read and
understand the report: writing is
poor, many mistakes with spelling
and grammar, and possibly
inappropriate langue style (e.g. too
informal). May not follow the
required structure. References are
either not cited or cited in the wrong
places.
The report is somewhat difficult to
read: writing is just okay, broad
ideas come across, spelling and
grammar have some flaws, not quite
appropriate language style. It
follows the required structure
somewhat. Citing of references is
either lacking or not appropriate
when used.
The report is reasonably easy to
read: writing is clear enough, with
good spelling and grammar, and
reasonable choice of language
style. It follows the structure OK.
References are mostly well cited.
The report is easy to read: well-
written, with very good spelling and
grammar, and appropriate language
style for a scientific report. It follows
the required structure. References
are cited properly.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 10
Marking rubric for Final Report
Criteria (and
weighting)
Deficient
(<40%)
Partly Competent
(40% to 60%)
Competent
(60% to 80%)
Mastery
(80% to 100%)
Introduction
(20%): high-
level
description of
proposed
project, selling
benefits of
project
After reading the summary, we are
no wiser what the project is all
about. Both the purpose and the
benefits are unclear.
The purpose of the proposed project
is a little unclear or incomplete. The
benefits are not explained clearly.
The proposal is summarised
reasonably well,but may be overly
long or missing some points. The
benefits are identified reasonably
well.
The proposal (problem statement,
proposed solution) is summarised
clearly, concisely and completely.
The benefits of the proposed
solution are identified.
Background
(20%):
discussion of
context,
analysis of
literature
The background does not seem to
be related to the problem outlined in
the Summary. References are
minimal (5 or less) and of dubious
quality, or even non-existent.
Experimental and analytical
techniques are not discussed.
Only provides a vague
understanding of the problem
context, with a modest reference list
(6-14) articles, and not necessarily
of good quality. It is not quite clear
how prior work is relevant to the
problem, and the description of
experimental/ analytical techniques
is sketchy or not particularly
relevant.
The context of the problem is
covered reasonably well. There is a
good reference list (15-25 articles)
of quality articles, or an extensive
list of articles of varying quality.
Prior work is described well and
related to the problem. There is a
good description of relevant
experiment/ analytical techniques.
The context of the problem is well-
covered, using an extensive list
(>25) references to good quality
articles. How the prior work fits into
the problem space is clearly
identified. Experiment/ analytical
techniques relevant to the field are
described well.
Method and
Evaluation
(20%):
description of
relevant
experimental
and analytical
techniques
Little attempt has been made to
describe how the project would be
evaluated, or what information was
given would not allow a researcher
to independently carry out the
evaluation.
Some experimental and analytical
techniques are described, but either
not well- described or not properly
related to the proposal. It would be
difficult for another researcher to
use this information to replicate the
work and conduct an independent
evaluation.
An approach is described which
looks likely to provide an evaluation
of the success of the project, but
may be lacking some details or may
be not quite complete. Experimental
techniques are described, but not
related well to the project’s goals.
Similarly, the description of
analytical techniques is not
sufficiently detailed that another
researcher could replicate the
evaluation.
A suitable approach is described to
provide an evaluation of how well
the project has succeeded.
Experimental techniques are
described in detail and related to the
proposal. Analytical techniques for
taking the experimental results and
determining the project’s success
are also detailed. Another
engineering researcher would be
able to take this information and
independently perform the
evaluation.
GSOE9011 Engineering PGCW Research Skills A04 Research Proposal
GSOE9011, 2023-T3 11
Criteria (and
weighting)
Deficient
(<40%)
Partly Competent
(40% to 60%)
Competent
(60% to 80%)
Mastery
(80% to 100%)
Significance
and innovation
(10%)
No mention about significance and
innovation. OR What is written is
irrelevant. It is hard to understand
the significance of the project. The
innovative aspect of the project is
not explained.
Attempted to explain the
significance and innovation but only
vaguely conveys the message.
Significance and innovation is
explained clearly.
The significance and innovation is
clearly explained and the potential
outcomes of the project are
connected to the big picture context
outlined in the introduction.
Project Maturity
(20%):
description and
analysis of
proposed
research
project
It is not clear that a research project
is being proposed. There appear to
be no goals or there is insufficient
detail to determine what will be
done. There is little or no attempt to
analyse the proposal or its likely
outcomes.
Some suggestions are given that
hint at a research project, but there
is not enough detail to be clear what
are the goals or what will be done.
Analysis is superficial and does not
give a convincing case that the
project might produce useful results.
A research project is described
which is potentially plausible, but
either the description is not
complete or it is not entirely
convincing. The goals of the project
are reasonably clear. Some analysis
has been conducted, but there are
some doubts about the project’s
likely outcomes.
A plausible research project is
described in sufficient detail. The
goals of the project are clear.
Sufficient analysis is provided to
make it clear that the project has a
reasonable chance of success. and
what the likely outcomes will be.
Style (10%):
Structure,
readability,
navigation,
style, use of
references
Much effort is required to read and
understand the report: writing is
poor, many mistakes with spelling
and grammar, and possibly
inappropriate langue style (e.g. too
informal). May not follow the
required structure. References are
either not cited or cited in the wrong
places.
The report is somewhat difficult to
read: writing is just ok, broad idea
comes across; spelling and
grammar have some flaws, not quite
appropriate language style. It
follows the required structure
somewhat. Citing of references is
either lacking or not appropriate
when used.
The report is reasonably easy to
read: writing is clear enough, with
good spelling and grammar, and
reasonable choice of language
style. It follows the structure OK.
References are mostly well-cited.
The report is easy to read: well-
written, with good spelling and
grammar, and appropriate language
style for a scientific report. It follows
the required structure. References
are cited properly.
