Field visit research report - human geography
AT4 FIELDWORK RESEARCH REPORT MARKING RUBRIC (40% of unit mark) CRITERIA TASK FAIL (<50%) pass (50-59%) credit (60-69%) distinction (70-79%) high distinction (80-100%) students read/follow assignment instructions and framework identify key concepts/approaches and determine appropriate data and knowledge to complete task in a sophisticated manner. key concepts from the task not addressed response to task irrelevant very limited identification of key concepts response to task with some relevance some key concepts from the tasks identified but in a limited capacity response to task satisfactory majority of key concepts/ issues are identified appropriate response to task with insightful interpretation all the key concepts and issues are identified sophisticated response to the task demonstrates insight and sophistication in applying knowledge gained students generate appropriate fieldwork data and source relevant secondary data. generate and gather appropriate data through geographical fieldwork methods and other secondary data sources to connect city- based topics to sustainability to show extent of research. no/little evidence of fieldwork research no evidence of secondary data sources irrelevant theories and concepts are used limited evidence of fieldwork research limited number of secondary data sources information sources are mostly old/out of date or not related to topic theories and concepts are not relevant some evidence of fieldwork research satisfactory number of secondary data sources information sources are sometimes old/out of date or not related to topic some theories and concepts are relevant evidence of wide fieldwork research large number of secondary data sources sources are mostly contemporary and clearly related to topic relevant theories and concepts obtained from sources evidence of extensive fieldwork research a broad range of secondary data sources contemporary sources used throughout highly relevant theories and concepts obtained from sources students identify and critically evaluate appropriate information/data evaluate information based on academic reliability and credibility, currency, and arguments presented, showing comprehension of material. no/few academic sources used to support concepts, issues, or theories sources used are not credible academic sources used to back up concepts, issues, or theories have low credibility. poorly presented or misinterpretation of information limited use of sources to back up concepts, issues, or theories some credible sources some evidence to present and interpret information correctly appropriate use of sources to back up concepts, issues, or theories sources are credible information appropriately presented and interpreted excellent use of sources to back up concepts’ issues, or theories sources are highly credible highly effective presentation and interpretation of information students organise and present information logically structure and argument logically organised according to the appropriate writing style, using arguments that are supported by relevant evidence report does not conform to required structure report lacks clear introduction, body, and/or concluding paragraphs arguments are (mostly) illogical. arguments lack evidence no concluding statement report does not clearly conform to required structure report not clearly organised with introduction, body, and/or concluding paragraphs arguments display some logic but are largely unsubstantiated. conclusion is present, but unclear report conforms to required structure report mostly organised with introduction, body, and/or concluding paragraphs arguments are mostly accurate and logical. arguments do not always flow logically between paragraphs. arguments are sometimes supported with little or unreliable evidence. conclusion present, but either overly long, too short, or confusing. report conforms to required structure report clearly organised with appropriate paragraphs arguments are accurate and logical. mostly clear links between paragraphs/sections. arguments are adequately supported by evidence. a succinct conclusion present. report conforms to required structure excellent organisation of ideas into clear, flowing structure. arguments presented are logical and convincing. clear links between paragraphs/sections. arguments are strongly supported by evidence. a highly developed and succinct conclusion present students synthesise, analyse, and apply new knowledge knowledge generated is synthesised, analysed, and applied in a cohesive manner which aids the reader’s understanding, showing quality of research insights. analysis of information and data generated not/rarely presented. evaluation of evidence not/rarely presented excessive use of quotations or raw data. plagiarism evident some attempt at analysis of information and data generated. some attempt at evaluation of evidence random or excessive use of quotations or raw data. paraphrasing skills require development to avoid plagiarism. some attempt at analysis of information and data generated some attempt at evaluation lacks a clear writers’ voice/interpretation reasonable ability to paraphrase ideas reasonable attempt at analysis of evidence, information and data generated. reasonable attempt at evaluation of evidence. writers’ voice/interpretation is mostly present. good ability to paraphrase ideas insightful analysis of evidence, information and data generated. evaluation of evidence clearly expressed. writers’ voice/interpretation is very clear throughout. excellent ability to paraphrase ideas students communicate knowledge with ethical, social and cultural awareness appropriate use of discipline specific academic language accurate spelling, grammar, punctuation; professional presentation; and correct acknowledgement of sources referenced using harvard referencing lay language used academic tone not demonstrated substantial errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar. incorrect acknowledgement of sources reference does not conform to harvard referencing. mostly lay language used. attempted use of academic tone several errors in spelling, punctuation and/or grammar. partial acknowledgement of sources minimal harvard referencing. mainly discipline-specific language used. academic tone demonstrated, but inconsistent few errors in spelling, punctuation and/or grammar. all sources are acknowledged mostly correct harvard referencing. discipline-specific language used. academic tone mostly correctly demonstrated no errors in spelling, punctuation and/or grammar. all sources are acknowledged correct harvard referencing throughout. a range of discipline specific language used throughout academic tone correctly and consistently used. no errors in spelling, punctuation and/or grammar. all sources are acknowledged correct harvard referencing throughout. student name: grade: percentage: feedback commentary: ats3229 self-guide field visit research report instructions word count: 2500-words (including intext citations) in either a word document or pdf. (maps, sketches, tables, photos, figures, graphs (and their respective captions) and the final reference list will not be counted in the word count and are highly encouraged). due date: friday 27th may 2022 (11:55pm) acknowledgements: we respectfully acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we walk on, the bunurong boon wurrung and wurundjeri woi wurrung peoples of the eastern kulin nation and pay respect to their elders past, present and emerging. background part of the learning outcomes in ats3229 is to engage you in geographical thought and how we can come to understand ‘the urban’ or ‘the city’. the aim of this assessment is to encourage you to use the selected geographic research skills and concepts we have explored in the unit to examine a relevant sustainability issue within an urban context (a key learning outcome for this unit). this assessment is designed to help you look at a space and start to understand what process are at work. fundamentally, and in line with hall and barrett (2012), an important part of this task is to “encourage you to brave the weather and to get out and study the city, to perhaps look at the taken for granted urban environment that you pass through every day with fresh eyes” (p.5). by drawing on these walking tours and getting you to look for intersections with sustainability, this assessment draws your attention to the multiplicities and complexities of urban life and form. before you embark upon this task, reflect on your understanding of the city – how do you ‘know’ the city (i.e. through experiences? what experiences?) and what key features in your mind make a city sustainable? this particular assessment piece asks students to get out and physically head to the city to undertake a self-guided walk in order to collect data for your assessment task (more detail below). the city is “home” to many individuals, families, organisations, businesses, politics and more. we have spent quite a bit of time in the unit unpacking the different ‘layers’ of the urban fabric so be sure to reflect on this as you move through the space. also, you can draw on the various techniques we have suggested as methods for your data collection. task description before selecting your self-guided walk from those listed below, we encourage you to identify a particular sustainability theme you would like to examine in more detail within the city of melbourne. this will guide not only your fieldwork data collection, but also provide you with a focus when searching for academic and grey literature. however, you might also choose to approach this task from an ‘exploratory’ research position (which you will need to explain in your report), which will bring with this, certain interpretations. you will need to select from one of the pre-selected self-guided city of melbourne walking tours. • following your selected guide map. stop at the pre-defined locations suggested on the map (and others you deem interesting/unusual/worth reporting) pass="" (50-59%)="" credit="" (60-69%)="" distinction="" (70-79%)="" high="" distinction="" (80-100%)="" students="" read/follow="" assignment="" instructions="" and="" framework="" identify="" key="" concepts/approaches="" and="" determine="" appropriate="" data="" and="" knowledge="" to="" complete="" task="" in="" a="" sophisticated="" manner.="" key="" concepts="" from="" the="" task="" not="" addressed="" response="" to="" task="" irrelevant="" very="" limited="" identification="" of="" key="" concepts="" response="" to="" task="" with="" some="" relevance="" some="" key="" concepts="" from="" the="" tasks="" identified="" but="" in="" a="" limited="" capacity="" response="" to="" task="" satisfactory="" majority="" of="" key="" concepts/="" issues="" are="" identified="" appropriate="" response="" to="" task="" with="" insightful="" interpretation="" all="" the="" key="" concepts="" and="" issues="" are="" identified="" sophisticated="" response="" to="" the="" task="" demonstrates="" insight="" and="" sophistication="" in="" applying="" knowledge="" gained="" students="" generate="" appropriate="" fieldwork="" data="" and="" source="" relevant="" secondary="" data.="" generate="" and="" gather="" appropriate="" data="" through="" geographical="" fieldwork="" methods="" and="" other="" secondary="" data="" sources="" to="" connect="" city-="" based="" topics="" to="" sustainability="" to="" show="" extent="" of="" research.="" no/little="" evidence="" of="" fieldwork="" research="" no="" evidence="" of="" secondary="" data="" sources="" irrelevant="" theories="" and="" concepts="" are="" used="" limited="" evidence="" of="" fieldwork="" research="" limited="" number="" of="" secondary="" data="" sources="" information="" sources="" are="" mostly="" old/out="" of="" date="" or="" not="" related="" to="" topic="" theories="" and="" concepts="" are="" not="" relevant="" some="" evidence="" of="" fieldwork="" research="" satisfactory="" number="" of="" secondary="" data="" sources="" information="" sources="" are="" sometimes="" old/out="" of="" date="" or="" not="" related="" to="" topic="" some="" theories="" and="" concepts="" are="" relevant="" evidence="" of="" wide="" fieldwork="" research="" large="" number="" of="" secondary="" data="" sources="" sources="" are="" mostly="" contemporary="" and="" clearly="" related="" to="" topic="" relevant="" theories="" and="" concepts="" obtained="" from="" sources="" evidence="" of="" extensive="" fieldwork="" research="" a="" broad="" range="" of="" secondary="" data="" sources="" contemporary="" sources="" used="" throughout="" highly="" relevant="" theories="" and="" concepts="" obtained="" from="" sources="" students="" identify="" and="" critically="" evaluate="" appropriate="" information/data="" evaluate="" information="" based="" on="" academic="" reliability="" and="" credibility,="" currency,="" and="" arguments="" presented,="" showing="" comprehension="" of="" material.="" no/few="" academic="" sources="" used="" to="" support="" concepts,="" issues,="" or="" theories="" sources="" used="" are="" not="" credible="" academic="" sources="" used="" to="" back="" up="" concepts,="" issues,="" or="" theories="" have="" low="" credibility.="" poorly="" presented="" or="" misinterpretation="" of="" information="" limited="" use="" of="" sources="" to="" back="" up="" concepts,="" issues,="" or="" theories="" some="" credible="" sources="" some="" evidence="" to="" present="" and="" interpret="" information="" correctly="" appropriate="" use="" of="" sources="" to="" back="" up="" concepts,="" issues,="" or="" theories="" sources="" are="" credible="" information="" appropriately="" presented="" and="" interpreted="" excellent="" use="" of="" sources="" to="" back="" up="" concepts’="" issues,="" or="" theories="" sources="" are="" highly="" credible="" highly="" effective="" presentation="" and="" interpretation="" of="" information="" students="" organise="" and="" present="" information="" logically="" structure="" and="" argument="" logically="" organised="" according="" to="" the="" appropriate="" writing="" style,="" using="" arguments="" that="" are="" supported="" by="" relevant="" evidence="" report="" does="" not="" conform="" to="" required="" structure="" report="" lacks="" clear="" introduction,="" body,="" and/or="" concluding="" paragraphs="" arguments="" are="" (mostly)="" illogical.="" arguments="" lack="" evidence="" no="" concluding="" statement="" report="" does="" not="" clearly="" conform="" to="" required="" structure="" report="" not="" clearly="" organised="" with="" introduction,="" body,="" and/or="" concluding="" paragraphs="" arguments="" display="" some="" logic="" but="" are="" largely="" unsubstantiated.="" conclusion="" is="" present,="" but="" unclear="" report="" conforms="" to="" required="" structure="" report="" mostly="" organised="" with="" introduction,="" body,="" and/or="" concluding="" paragraphs="" arguments="" are="" mostly="" accurate="" and="" logical.="" arguments="" do="" not="" always="" flow="" logically="" between="" paragraphs.="" arguments="" are="" sometimes="" supported="" with="" little="" or="" unreliable="" evidence.="" conclusion="" present,="" but="" either="" overly="" long,="" too="" short,="" or="" confusing.="" report="" conforms="" to="" required="" structure="" report="" clearly="" organised="" with="" appropriate="" paragraphs="" arguments="" are="" accurate="" and="" logical.="" mostly="" clear="" links="" between="" paragraphs/sections.="" arguments="" are="" adequately="" supported="" by="" evidence.="" a="" succinct="" conclusion="" present.="" report="" conforms="" to="" required="" structure="" excellent="" organisation="" of="" ideas="" into="" clear,="" flowing="" structure.="" arguments="" presented="" are="" logical="" and="" convincing.="" clear="" links="" between="" paragraphs/sections.="" arguments="" are="" strongly="" supported="" by="" evidence.="" a="" highly="" developed="" and="" succinct="" conclusion="" present="" students="" synthesise,="" analyse,="" and="" apply="" new="" knowledge="" knowledge="" generated="" is="" synthesised,="" analysed,="" and="" applied="" in="" a="" cohesive="" manner="" which="" aids="" the="" reader’s="" understanding,="" showing="" quality="" of="" research="" insights.="" analysis="" of="" information="" and="" data="" generated="" not/rarely="" presented.="" evaluation="" of="" evidence="" not/rarely="" presented="" excessive="" use="" of="" quotations="" or="" raw="" data.="" plagiarism="" evident="" some="" attempt="" at="" analysis="" of="" information="" and="" data="" generated.="" some="" attempt="" at="" evaluation="" of="" evidence="" random="" or="" excessive="" use="" of="" quotations="" or="" raw="" data.="" paraphrasing="" skills="" require="" development="" to="" avoid="" plagiarism.="" some="" attempt="" at="" analysis="" of="" information="" and="" data="" generated="" some="" attempt="" at="" evaluation="" lacks="" a="" clear="" writers’="" voice/interpretation="" reasonable="" ability="" to="" paraphrase="" ideas="" reasonable="" attempt="" at="" analysis="" of="" evidence,="" information="" and="" data="" generated.="" reasonable="" attempt="" at="" evaluation="" of="" evidence.="" writers’="" voice/interpretation="" is="" mostly="" present.="" good="" ability="" to="" paraphrase="" ideas="" insightful="" analysis="" of="" evidence,="" information="" and="" data="" generated.="" evaluation="" of="" evidence="" clearly="" expressed.="" writers’="" voice/interpretation="" is="" very="" clear="" throughout.="" excellent="" ability="" to="" paraphrase="" ideas="" students="" communicate="" knowledge="" with="" ethical,="" social="" and="" cultural="" awareness="" appropriate="" use="" of="" discipline="" specific="" academic="" language="" accurate="" spelling,="" grammar,="" punctuation;="" professional="" presentation;="" and="" correct="" acknowledgement="" of="" sources="" referenced="" using="" harvard="" referencing="" lay="" language="" used="" academic="" tone="" not="" demonstrated="" substantial="" errors="" in="" spelling,="" punctuation,="" or="" grammar.="" incorrect="" acknowledgement="" of="" sources="" reference="" does="" not="" conform="" to="" harvard="" referencing.="" mostly="" lay="" language="" used.="" attempted="" use="" of="" academic="" tone="" several="" errors="" in="" spelling,="" punctuation="" and/or="" grammar.="" partial="" acknowledgement="" of="" sources="" minimal="" harvard="" referencing.="" mainly="" discipline-specific="" language="" used.="" academic="" tone="" demonstrated,="" but="" inconsistent="" few="" errors="" in="" spelling,="" punctuation="" and/or="" grammar.="" all="" sources="" are="" acknowledged="" mostly="" correct="" harvard="" referencing.="" discipline-specific="" language="" used.="" academic="" tone="" mostly="" correctly="" demonstrated="" no="" errors="" in="" spelling,="" punctuation="" and/or="" grammar.="" all="" sources="" are="" acknowledged="" correct="" harvard="" referencing="" throughout.="" a="" range="" of="" discipline="" specific="" language="" used="" throughout="" academic="" tone="" correctly="" and="" consistently="" used.="" no="" errors="" in="" spelling,="" punctuation="" and/or="" grammar.="" all="" sources="" are="" acknowledged="" correct="" harvard="" referencing="" throughout.="" student="" name:="" grade:="" percentage:="" feedback="" commentary:="" ats3229="" self-guide="" field="" visit="" research="" report="" instructions="" word="" count:="" 2500-words="" (including="" intext="" citations)="" in="" either="" a="" word="" document="" or="" pdf.="" (maps,="" sketches,="" tables,="" photos,="" figures,="" graphs="" (and="" their="" respective="" captions)="" and="" the="" final="" reference="" list="" will="" not="" be="" counted="" in="" the="" word="" count="" and="" are="" highly="" encouraged).="" due="" date:="" friday="" 27th="" may="" 2022="" (11:55pm)="" acknowledgements:="" we="" respectfully="" acknowledge="" the="" traditional="" custodians="" of="" the="" land="" we="" walk="" on,="" the="" bunurong="" boon="" wurrung="" and="" wurundjeri="" woi="" wurrung="" peoples="" of="" the="" eastern="" kulin="" nation="" and="" pay="" respect="" to="" their="" elders="" past,="" present="" and="" emerging.="" background="" part="" of="" the="" learning="" outcomes="" in="" ats3229="" is="" to="" engage="" you="" in="" geographical="" thought="" and="" how="" we="" can="" come="" to="" understand="" ‘the="" urban’="" or="" ‘the="" city’.="" the="" aim="" of="" this="" assessment="" is="" to="" encourage="" you="" to="" use="" the="" selected="" geographic="" research="" skills="" and="" concepts="" we="" have="" explored="" in="" the="" unit="" to="" examine="" a="" relevant="" sustainability="" issue="" within="" an="" urban="" context="" (a="" key="" learning="" outcome="" for="" this="" unit).="" this="" assessment="" is="" designed="" to="" help="" you="" look="" at="" a="" space="" and="" start="" to="" understand="" what="" process="" are="" at="" work.="" fundamentally,="" and="" in="" line="" with="" hall="" and="" barrett="" (2012),="" an="" important="" part="" of="" this="" task="" is="" to="" “encourage="" you="" to="" brave="" the="" weather="" and="" to="" get="" out="" and="" study="" the="" city,="" to="" perhaps="" look="" at="" the="" taken="" for="" granted="" urban="" environment="" that="" you="" pass="" through="" every="" day="" with="" fresh="" eyes”="" (p.5).="" by="" drawing="" on="" these="" walking="" tours="" and="" getting="" you="" to="" look="" for="" intersections="" with="" sustainability,="" this="" assessment="" draws="" your="" attention="" to="" the="" multiplicities="" and="" complexities="" of="" urban="" life="" and="" form.="" before="" you="" embark="" upon="" this="" task,="" reflect="" on="" your="" understanding="" of="" the="" city="" –="" how="" do="" you="" ‘know’="" the="" city="" (i.e.="" through="" experiences?="" what="" experiences?)="" and="" what="" key="" features="" in="" your="" mind="" make="" a="" city="" sustainable?="" this="" particular="" assessment="" piece="" asks="" students="" to="" get="" out="" and="" physically="" head="" to="" the="" city="" to="" undertake="" a="" self-guided="" walk="" in="" order="" to="" collect="" data="" for="" your="" assessment="" task="" (more="" detail="" below).="" the="" city="" is="" “home”="" to="" many="" individuals,="" families,="" organisations,="" businesses,="" politics="" and="" more.="" we="" have="" spent="" quite="" a="" bit="" of="" time="" in="" the="" unit="" unpacking="" the="" different="" ‘layers’="" of="" the="" urban="" fabric="" so="" be="" sure="" to="" reflect="" on="" this="" as="" you="" move="" through="" the="" space.="" also,="" you="" can="" draw="" on="" the="" various="" techniques="" we="" have="" suggested="" as="" methods="" for="" your="" data="" collection.="" task="" description="" before="" selecting="" your="" self-guided="" walk="" from="" those="" listed="" below,="" we="" encourage="" you="" to="" identify="" a="" particular="" sustainability="" theme="" you="" would="" like="" to="" examine="" in="" more="" detail="" within="" the="" city="" of="" melbourne.="" this="" will="" guide="" not="" only="" your="" fieldwork="" data="" collection,="" but="" also="" provide="" you="" with="" a="" focus="" when="" searching="" for="" academic="" and="" grey="" literature.="" however,="" you="" might="" also="" choose="" to="" approach="" this="" task="" from="" an="" ‘exploratory’="" research="" position="" (which="" you="" will="" need="" to="" explain="" in="" your="" report),="" which="" will="" bring="" with="" this,="" certain="" interpretations.="" you="" will="" need="" to="" select="" from="" one="" of="" the="" pre-selected="" self-guided="" city="" of="" melbourne="" walking="" tours.="" •="" following="" your="" selected="" guide="" map.="" stop="" at="" the="" pre-defined="" locations="" suggested="" on="" the="" map="" (and="" others="" you="" deem="" interesting/unusual/worth="">