A Research on 5D BIM Adoption Level Among Quantity Surveyors as Estimation Tool in Construction Project Singapore

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 1 of 9
Instructions on Assessment: Research Article
You are required to write a 10,000-word article based on your research study (plus a 200-word abstract). Your article will include an introduction to the
focus/rationale of your study, a literature review, the research design, findings and analysis, conclusions and reference list, as well as an abstract. (Further
guidance is included in the brief about the contents and format of the article). The research-based study article tests all the module learning outcomes (below).
This substantive piece of coursework presents your in-depth, research based, study of your chosen subject. You will be required to demonstrate your
understanding and application of the research process as well as the advanced knowledge developed as a result of critical integrated analyses (see
assessment criteria, over).
Additional submission requirements: You are required to collate a file of supporting evidence (in digital format where at all possible) relating to the process
of doing your research-based study (eg: supervision diary sheets, participant consent forms, completed questionnaires, interview notes etc). While these are
not required to be submitted, they must be available if requested.
Module Learning Outcomes:
MLO1: A complex, effectively focused, in-depth critical analysis of a self -selected aspect of your discipline area, grounded in both new and existing knowledge.
MLO2: A critical evaluation of the theory and practice of research methods and the research process
MLO3: Define a researchable problem, establishing aims and objectives that are focused and justified in terms of professional relevance, theoretical framework, and research methodology
MLO4: Identify and critically evaluate relevant literature (both theoretical and professional/practice sources) to effectively inform analyses.
MLO5: Design and implement a programme of research, effectively applying your knowledge of research methods and the research process to the particular aims and objectives of your study,
critically reflecting on theoretical, methodological, ethical, and other constraints and limitations.
MLO6: Critically evaluate the subject area by analysing and synthesising research findings and literature/theory to advance knowledge and complexity of understanding, identifying evidence
based conclusions (and recommendations where appropriate).
MLO7: A professionally presented research based study article in an academically acceptable format; well written, effectively structured, appropriately referenced, with a coherent, substantiated
argument.
MLO8: Demonstrate the capacity for independent working, critical reflection and autonomous decision making, initiative and creativity in problem solving, and effective project management.
Module Specific Assessment Criteria
1. Clear and appropriate focus. Identification and definition of study aims and objectives, research question(s) (or a hypothesis) that are focused and
justified in terms of professional and academic context, theoretical framework, and research methodology, in order to facilitate a complex, in-depth
critical analysis grounded in both new and existing knowledge (10%)
2. Identification and critical evaluation of relevant literature to effectively inform analyses (25%)
3. Demonstrate appropriate and robust research design and implementation, critical justification of methodological approaches, data collection and
analysis techniques, appropriate to the context of the study. Critical reflection on theoretical, methodological, ethical considerations, and limitations
(20%)
4. Reporting and critical analysis of data, including synthesis with existing literature/theory, to advance knowledge and complexity of understanding (25%)
5. Identification and development of evidence-based conclusions. Critical reflection on overall conclusions, limitations, and potential further research
(10%)

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 2 of 9
6. Presentation of the article in an academically acceptable format; (appropriately presented, well written, effectively structured, appropriately referenced,
with a coherent, substantiated argument) (10%)
See further breakdown of marking criteria in the appendix to this document.
Word limits and penalties
If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply.
The word count is to be declared on the front cover page of your assignment.
What is included and not included in the word limit for PE7001:
 In text citations, direct secondary quotations, and sub-headings in the main body of the article do count towards the 10,000-word count.
 Front cover page, title, declaration form, reference list, acknowledgements do not count towards the 10,000-word count. The abstract is not
included in the 10,000-word count, however the abstract has its own word limit of 200 words (+ 10% applies to both 10,000 and 200 limits
separately)
 Any figures, charts, tables within the main body of the article do not count towards the word count. However, please note that judicious use of
tables, charts, figures is required ie they are not there to circumvent the word count but add to the quality of the assessment. Do think carefully
about what figures etc might be included and how to do this effectively within the context of a research-based article – avoid overuse, as it will
potentially disrupt the argument.
Students must retain an electronic copy of this assignment (including ALL appendices) and it must be made available within 24hours of requesting
it be submitted.
The full Word Limit Policy is available here.
Additional Guidance on Format, Content and Submission of your Research Based Article
1. The article and abstract should be submitted as a single document to the final submission Turnitin link on the module site.
2. The front cover page should include:
 Module Code:

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 3 of 9
 Date of submission:
 Student number:
 Title of your article:
 Abstract (200-word limit – provides a brief overview of the aim/context/research method/key findings)
 Key words (5 maximum)
3. The second page should include your completed and signed Declaration form (including the stated word count of the main article (10,000-word
limit)).
4. The main body of the article should include the following sections (see below for further details)
 Introduction
 Literature Review
 Research Methods
 Findings/Analysis/Synthesis/Discussion
 Conclusions
 (Acknowledgements – optional)
 References
There should be NO appendices
5. Presentation conventions for your article
A professionally presented research-based article, in an academically acceptable format is required. Please make sure that you proofread your article
carefully before submission and adhere to the requirements/conventions stated.

Font size : An appropriate 12 point font
Line spacing: 1.5
Pagination: Clearly number pages continued over
Format: Use subheadings for the different main sections of your article. (You can use generic headings or use your own (ensure you incorporate the
sections outlined in the guidance in terms of content required). You can also include subsections if you choose but be careful not to use too
many as it can break up discussion). Do not insert page breaks between sections. Do not use numbered sections within the article.
Tables/figures: Each figure/table should have a number and title underneath.
References: References used within the text should be included in a reference list at the end of the article. The HARVARD style should be used (in text and
reference list).
6. Additional guidance on content/balance of coverage within the article.

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 4 of 9
PLEASE NOTE: the guidance below is indicative. All research studies are different; different topics/approaches may have varying emphasis; however, all
sections need to be included. There is no precise answer in terms of the length of each section, but it is helpful to think about the balance/purpose of the
different sections within the overall 10,000-word limit, so I have included some indicative guidance below. Crucially, you must be sure that you address the
assessment criteria within your final research-based study article. (Also, do note that further guidance and support is available within the learning materials,
supporting workshops, and through the supervision process).
 Introduction (approx. 1,000 words)
Establishing a clear focus at the outset for the reader. Outlining a reasoned rationale for the focus with reference to literature; outlining the specific problem investigated in
the research (aims/objectives/research question/hypothesis, as appropriate); outlining parameters (supported by theoretical/methodological reasoning); brief overview of
methods; outline of the article to guide the reader.
 Literature Review (approx. 2,500 – 3,000 words)
The literature review provides a background and framework for the research article, developing a clearly oriented, critical evaluation of existing, relevant literature in
relation to the particular focus. As well as contextualising your study, the literature review should develop key relevant themes/concepts from existing sources,
demonstrate an awareness of current research in relation to the focus, and identify the gap/area of interest that this particular research article aims to contribute to. An
appropriate range of quality sources referenced thoroughly.
 Research Methods (approx. 1500-2000 words)
Outline the research design/approach/methods adopted in gathering and analysing the data that provides the evidence for the research article. This includes critically
evaluating/justifying/reflecting on methodological choices (including ethics issues) with reference to research methods literature and the goals of the research and
acknowledging limitations.
 Findings/Analysis/Synthesis/Discussion (approx. 3,000 – 3,500 words)
Reporting AND analysing data in relation to your focus; developing themes and significance in relation to existing knowledge. The chapter should include outlining your
findings, a critical analysis of your results, examining the correlations/ associations/patterns/themes(as relevant to the method used) in your data, critically considering
the appropriateness and reliability of your data sources, and developing the significance of findings in relation to the frameworks/existing evidence outlined in the literature
review.
Continued over
 Conclusions (approx. 1,000 words)
Provide an overview of key findings, bringing together the evidence from both research and literature in your concluding argument and relating back to your
objectives/research question/hypothesis and recognising limitations. Develop wider implications and significance of research, looking beyond – further research
opportunities.
 (Acknowledgements – optional)
A short statement can be made at the end of the article thanking key people – you may want to acknowledge the input of research participants, support of family
members, your supervisor, for example

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 5 of 9
 References
The reference list should contain all of the items cited within the article, using the Harvard referencing system. Further information relating to the use of the Harvard
referencing system can be found in ‘Cite Them Right’ which is available electronically via the library website or via the study skill link on the elp site. Additional information
on referencing is also available via such sources
7. Preparation of supporting evidence file.
This should NOT be included within the submission but must be available on request. You should collate records of supervision and the research process as you progress
your dissertation in digital format where at all possible (eg supervision diary sheets/e-mail correspondence; consent forms, completed surveys; transcripts/notes etc)
See appendix 1 for breakdown of marking criteria

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 6 of 9
Appendix 1: Breakdown of Marking Criteria for PE7001
Assessment Criteria 1: Clear and appropriate focus. Identification and definition of aims and objectives, research question(s) (or a hypothesis) that are focused and
justified in terms of professional and academic context, theoretical framework, and research methodology, in order to facilitate a complex, in-depth critical analysis
grounded in both new and existing knowledge (10%)
80% +
Higher Distinction
70% to 79%
Distinction
60% to 69%
Commendation
50% to 59%
Pass
40 to 49%
Fail
39% or less
Poor Fail
Higher end marks would reflect
addressing this criterion to an
outstanding level eg particularly
innovative and/or advanced
justification and definition of
focus supported by appropriate
approach; particularly good use of
conceptual understanding to
develop an effective focus
Demonstrates excellent focus with a carefully
and thoroughly considered rationale, purpose
and framework. Excellent rationale for the study,
well developed and effectively grounded in a
wide range of existing evidence (both
professional and academic/theoretical). An
extremely clear and well developed purpose;
appropriately and precisely defined
aims/objectives and research
question(s)/hypothesis. Clearly established and
well developed links between purpose and
proposed data collection. Demonstrates excellent
understanding of the topic area and a wide range of
reading.
Demonstrates good focus with a well-considered
rationale, purpose and framework. Good rationale
for the study, grounded in a range of existing
evidence (both professional and
academic/theoretical). A clear purpose,
appropriately defined aims/objectives and research
question(s)/hypothesis. Clear links between
purpose and proposed data collection.
Demonstrates a clear understanding of the topic
area and a good range of reading
Demonstrates adequate focus; adequately
considered rationale, purpose and framework.
Adequate rationale for the study with some
reference to supporting evidence. Purpose is
outlined adequately (albeit with potential for
further development); adequate definition of
appropriate aims/objectives and research
question(s)/hypothesis (albeit with the
potential for further clarity). Links between
purpose and proposed data collection are
evident to some extent. Demonstrates an
adequate understanding of the topic area and
an adequate range of reading.
Demonstrates inadequately developed
focus, poorly considered rationale, purpose,
and framework. Inadequate rationale for
the study with little or no reference to
supporting evidence. Unclear purpose;
inappropriate, inadequately defined
aims/objectives and research question(s) or
hypothesis). Links between purpose and
proposed data collection are not clear.
Demonstrates superficial knowledge of the
topic area and limited range of reading.
Lower end marks would
reflect particularly poor or
inappropriate aspects in
relation to this criterion.
10 – 8 7 6 5 4 3 – 0
Assessment Criteria 2: Identification and critical evaluation of relevant literature to effectively inform analyses (25%)
80% +
Higher Distinction
70% to 79%
Distinction
60% to 69%
Commendation
50% to 59%
Pass
40 to 49%
Fail
39% or less
Poor Fail
Higher end marks would
reflect a more comprehensive
and advanced evaluation of
relevant literature to inform
the development of a more
complex framework.
An excellent selection of relevant literature,
incorporating an extensive range of sources
(including both academic/theoretical and
professional sources). An excellent level of
critical evaluation of the literature is
evident. Literature has been used extremely
effectively in a focused analysis to develop
an effective framework.
A good selection of relevant literature,
incorporating a good range of sources (including
both academic/theoretical and
professional/practice sources). A good level of
critical evaluation of the literature is evident.
Literature has been used well in a focused analysis
to develop an appropriate framework
An adequate selection of relevant literature,
incorporating some variety. An adequate level
of critical evaluation of the literature is evident
– evaluation is clearly attempted albeit with
limitations in places. Links between the
literature and the study are evident, but may
be under-developed.
An inadequate selection of literature in
terms of extent, range and relevance.
Limited or no attempt at critical evaluation
of the literature. Very limited or absence of
linkages between the literature and the
study in an inadequately focused analysis.
Lower end marks would
reflect particularly
limited or missing
aspects in relation to this
criterion.
25 – 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 – 0

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 7 of 9
Assessment Criteria 3: Demonstrate appropriate and robust research design and implementation; critical justification of methodological approaches, data collection and
analysis techniques, appropriate to the context of the study. Critical reflection on theoretical, methodological, ethical considerations, and limitations (20%)
80%+
Higher Distinction
70% to 79%
Distinction
60% to 69%
Commendation
50% to 59%
Pass
40 to 49%
Fail
39% or less
Poor Fail
Higher level marks would reflect
addressing this criterion to an
outstanding level, for eg,
particularly innovative or
insightful research methodology
supported by a high level of
critical evaluation and reflection
Demonstrates an excellent understanding of
the research process in the context of the
study. Extremely sound, logical and achievable
research methodology, thoroughly outlined.
The relationship between research aims and
research design is well established.
Considerable critical evaluation of research
methods literature is used to effectively inform
design choices. Ethical considerations are
addressed to an excellent level. Excellent,
thoughtful critical reflection on
implementation of the research. Excellent –
thorough and thoughtful – identification and
critical consideration of limitations of the
research
Demonstrates a good understanding of the
research process in the context of the study.
Sound, logical and achievable research
methodology, outlined in good detail. The
relationship between research aims and
research design is clear. Critical evaluation of
research methods literature is used effectively
to inform design choices. Ethical
considerations are addressed to a good level.
Good, thoughtful critical reflection on
implementation of the research. A good level
of identification and critical consideration of
limitations of the research
Demonstrates adequate understanding of
the research process in the context of the
study. Research methodology generally
sound, logical and achievable but not fully
thought through with potential for more
detail. There is a relationship between
research aims and research design,
although potential to be more developed.
Some critical evaluation of research
methods literature to inform design
choices. Ethical considerations are
addressed adequately. Some critical
reflection on the implementation of the
research in practice. Some limitations of
the research are recognised, albeit with
potential for further critical reflection.
Demonstrates inadequate
understanding of the research process
in the context of the study. Inadequate
methodology, with key aspects missing.
Minimal or unclear relationship with
research aims. Little or no engagement
with research methods literature.
Minimal or no consideration of research
ethics. Limited reflection on
implementation of the research. Little
or no recognition of limitations.
Lower end marks
would reflect a
particularly
inappropriate or
insufficiently detailed
research methodology
with multiple aspects
relating to this
criterion missing.
20 – 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 – 0
Assessment Criteria 4: Reporting and critical analysis of data, including synthesis with existing literature/theory, to advance knowledge and complexity of understanding
(25%)
80% +
Higher Distinction
70% to 79%
Distinction
60% to 69%
Commendation
50% to 59%
Pass
40 to 49%
Fail
39% or less
Poor Fail
. Higher end marks would
reflect addressing this criterion
to an outstanding level eg
particularly innovative data
and analyses, a high level of
conceptual understanding
contributing to advanced
critical analysis.
Data has been collected thoroughly in the
manner identified in the research
methodology. The data is critically analysed
and appraised to an excellent level. The
significance of the data in relation to
existing literature and theory is developed
extremely well within an integrated critical
analysis and synthesis. Demonstrates
excellent skill in using theory, literature and
empirical evidence to contribute to
knowledge and complexity of understanding
Data has been collected in the manner
identified in the research methodology. The
data is critically analysed and appraised to a
good level. The significance of the data in
relation to existing literature and theory is
developed to a good level within a critical
analysis and synthesis which is integrated to a
significant extent. Demonstrates good skill in
using theory, literature and empirical evidence
to contribute to knowledge and complexity of
understanding.
Some data has been collected in the
manner identified in the research
methodology. The data is critically
analysed and appraised to an adequate
level. An attempt to develop the
significance of the data in relation to
existing literature and theory, with some
critical analysis and synthesis, albeit not
always integrated effectively.
Demonstrates adequate skill in using
theory, literature and empirical evidence
to contribute to knowledge and
complexity of understanding.
Little data has been collected. Minimal
or no attempt to carry out critical
analysis and appraisal of the data. No
relating of the data to existing
literature/theory. Little or no evidence
of synthesis with existing literature and
theory. Demonstrates inadequate skill
in using theory, literature and empirical
evidence to contribute to knowledge
and complexity of understanding
. Lower end marks
would reflect
particularly limited or
missing aspects in
relation to this
criterion
25 – 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 – 0

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 8 of 9
Assessment Criteria 5: Identification and development of evidence-based conclusions. Critical reflection on overall conclusions, limitations, and potential further research
(10%)
80% +
Higher Distinction
70% to 79%
Distinction
60% to 69%
Commendation
50% to 59%
Pass
40 to 49%
Fail
39% or less
Poor Fail
Higher end marks would
reflect addressing this criterion
to an outstanding level eg.
Particularly reflective and
insightful conclusions;
particularly extensive and
thoughtful critical reflection
Excellent conclusions which are integrated
and well developed. Clearly grounded in
evidence from the body of the dissertation.
Analysis and synthesis is related back to
objectives with a high level of critical
reflection. Excellent ability to show that
aims and objectives have been addressed.
Conceptual, complex understanding is
evident in bringing together the study.
Thorough and critically reflective
consideration of limitations of the study and
potential further research
Good conclusions and recommendations,
integrated to some extent. Developed and
grounded in the evidence from the body of the
dissertation. Analysis and synthesis is related
back to objectives with good critical reflection;
good ability to show that aims and objectives
have been addressed. Complex understanding
is evident in bringing together the study.
Critical reflection on a range of limitations of
the study and potential further research.
Satisfactory conclusions. Links to
evidence in the body of the dissertation
evident – albeit under-developed in
places. Analysis and synthesis is related
back to objectives to some extent; ability
to show that aims and objectives have
been largely addressed. Understanding is
evident in bringing together the study
(although may be simplistic in places).
Some limitations of the study and
potential further research identified.
Poor conclusions with little or no
reference to evidence from the body of
the dissertation. Little or no discussion
of the relationship between analysis
and synthesis and the objectives.
Limited or no ability to show that aims
and objectives have been met. Limited
or unclear understanding within a study
that lacks any coherence. Very little or
no consideration of limitations of the
study and potential further research.
Lower end marks
would reflect
particularly limited or
missing aspects in
relation to this
criterion
10 – 8 7 6 5 4 3 – 0
Assessment Criteria 6: Presentation of the article in an academically acceptable format; (appropriately presented, well written, effectively structured, appropriately
referenced, with a coherent, substantiated argument) (10%)
80% Grade+
Higher Distinction
70% to 79%
Distinction
60% to 69%
Commendation
50% to 59%
Pass
40 to 49%
Fail
39% or less
Poor Fail
Higher end marks would
reflect a particularly high level
of professional presentation
within an exceptionally well
written piece.
High level of professional presentation in
appropriate format. Extremely well written,
organised and referenced; effectively
bringing together wide ranging evidence
within a complex and coherent academic
article.
Good, professional presentation in appropriate
format, with few presentational errors. Well
written, organised and referenced within a
coherent academic article.
Adequate professional presentation in
appropriate format although there may
be some presentational errors. Written,
organised and referenced to an
acceptable level. An attempt to develop a
coherent article, albeit with some
limitations.
Poor level of presentation with a
number of errors. Poorly written,
organised and referenced, significantly
detracting from the coherence of the
article
Lower end marks
would reflect
particularly poor
presentation, with a
significant number of
errors.
10 – 8 7 6 5 4 3 – 0

Assessment Brief and additional guidance
Page 9 of 9
For information: Generic Postgraduate assessment criteria
80% +
Higher Distinction
70% to 79%
Distinction
60% to 69%
Commendation
50% to 59%
Pass
40 to 49%
Fail
39% or less
Poor Fail
Outstanding work providing
evidence of a high level of
knowledge, understanding and
skills appropriate at Masters
level. All learning outcomes met
at a high level. Excellent in use
of contemporary literature;
development of analysis and
structure of argument; critical
analysis and creative use of
theory, research methods and
findings
Excellent work providing evidence of
a high level of knowledge,
understanding and skills appropriate
at Masters level. All learning
outcomes met, many at high level.
Excellent in all or most of: use of
contemporary literature; development
of analysis and structure of argument;
critical analysis and creative use of
theory, research methods and findings
Commendable work providing
evidence of a high level of knowledge
and understanding and skills
appropriate at Masters level. All
learning outcomes met, many more
than satisfied. Good in all or most
of: use of up-to-date material from a
variety of sources; development of
analysis and structure of argument;
critical evaluation of relevant theory,
research methods and findings to the
problem in question
Satisfactory or adequate work
providing evidence of the knowledge,
understanding and skills appropriate
at Masters level. All learning
outcomes are met;
satisfactory/adequate in all or most of:
use of relevant material from a variety
of sources; development of analysis
and structure of argument; evaluation
of theory; application of relevant
theory, research methods and findings
to the problem in question
Work is not acceptable in providing
evidence of the knowledge,
understanding and skills appropriate
at Masters level. However, a majority
of the learning outcomes are met and
others are nearly satisfied. Adequate
in most but not all of the following
aspects: use of relevant material;
development of analysis and structure
of argument; evaluation of theory;
application of relevant theory,
research methods and findings to the
problem in question
Work is not acceptable and
provides little evidence of the
knowledge, understanding and
skills appropriate to Masters level.
Few of the learning outcomes are
met. Inadequate in some of the
following aspects or seriously
inadequate in at least one: use of
relevant material; development of
analysis and structure of argument;
evaluation of theory; application of
relevant theory, research methods
and findings to the problem in
question