Criteria 1: Critical understanding of literature in the topic area and the ability to critique this and make links to your study:
A commendable topic choice but the literature review is mostly descriptive rather than analytical and there is a lack of source support in many sections. There are some good ideas about issues related to inclusive classrooms, but you need to connect the discussion to your study more closely. Some attempts at synthesis and criticality are found though too much generalization leads to an unsatisfactory read..
Criteria 2: Critical understanding and justification of appropriate research methodology and methods to plan and implement a small-scale study with independence, with consideration of ethics.:
The Methodology is unclear and does not supply sufficient details. The research design needs to be further justified by the support from research methods literature as well as by elucidating the alignment among research philosophical, research questions, and research design. It’s good to recognise search strings and different cultures and disciplines (p.15), but you need explanations of your specific methods to gather sources. No details of your own ethical approach are given.
Criteria 3: Analysis of primary or secondary data collected, to present coherent discussion and propose responses to the research questions. Critique shows close links to existing literature to support discussion. Critique of your study, identifying strengths and limitations of the research design. State where possible, how these were overcome:
There are some positive ideas in your findings. However, the findings were not derived from synthesizing literature. There is no evidence for a rigorous data analysis having been conducted. The Discussion lacks clarity and depth in analysing the findings and should be better supported by the chosen secondary literature. There’s a lack of further interpretation of the literature and too much is seemingly based on your own opinions. No consideration of the RQs is offered, and the ESL focus is not sustained.
Criteria 4: Contribute to professional debate and development by communicating how the work that you have undertaken demonstrates originality and creativity. Relate your completed work and its outcomes to relevant professional contexts, by making recommendations for future practice and research.:
Implications and recommendations are interesting, and it’s good to highlight the gaps that exist in the current field of study. However, there’s almost no citations to back up your ideas and too much is based on generalizations. You need more specific focus and source support.
Next steps:
-Add source support throughout your work; it is essential that you show clear links with existing research to demonstrate academic credibility.
-Review your overall understanding of the expectations & grading criteria for the Masters Dissertation. Make sure that your paper has clear focus and directions throughout.
– Ensure you are clear on how to select and include/exclude sources. Consider the PRISM model for clarity of selection and include justifications.
– Consider your procedures for collecting & analyzing data; how could you have made clearer links between the various aspects of the study?
– Develop critical analysis in your writing by undertaking some self-directed learning in this area.
– Examine the specific comments added to the script throughout your submission.