FDPP2336 Work Based Project

Words:

6000

Weighting:

100%

Submission date:

As per key date schedule

Learning Outcomes Assessed:

All

Module Leader: Verified by:

Heart of Worcester College CIPP

Electronic copy available:

Student website

Offence

Penalty (all points apply)

Inadequate referencing, for example occasional omission of quote marks and/or citations

Collusion (working with another student or students, except for designated group work)

Failure to gain ethical approval for primary research (particularly surveys, questionnaires, interviews, user testing, etc.)

Failure of the assignment.

Reassessment required.

Reassessment assignment grade capped at a D-.

Direct quotation or close paraphrasing without quote marks, sources included in reference list

Taking a prohibited device into an exam, for example a calculator (unless permitted), a mobile phone, or a dictionary

Communicating with anyone other than an invigilator during an exam (for example another candidate; someone outside the exam room…)

Failure of the assignment.

Reassessment required.

Module grade capped at a D-.

Using another student’s work without proper acknowledgement

Modifying or inventing data that form part of the assignment

Failure of the module.

Module must be retaken, with attendance and fees.

Stealing another student’s work and submitting it as if it were your own

Copying from another candidate during an exam or test

In an exam, possession of unauthorised written material (e.g. crib notes), or electronic devices that could be used to access unauthorised material (e.g. smartphones

Module grade capped at a D-.

Getting someone else to complete the assignment, paid or unpaid

Sending someone else to take an exam for you

Failure of the module.

Module must be retaken, with attendance and fees.

Module grade capped at a D-.

Final award classification downgraded.

L5

Relationship to assessment criteria

Knowledge and understanding

Evidence of independent study and relevant academic sources

Application of disciplinary analysis

Communication skills

Quality of argument

Relevant technical/creative/ transferable skills development

A+ – A-

Exceptional response to all the assessment criteria for the task

Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge together with very strong clear independent critically evaluative understanding

Goes well beyond what is taught in reading/researching to inform learning

Authoritative grasp of disciplinary concepts and analysis to issues and problems

Exceptional communication/ presentation skills, appropriate to audience, and demonstrating excellent ability in relation to accuracy, clarity and judgement in conveying understanding and

meaning

Significant ability to construct and sustain evidence-based arguments, through excellent

synthesis and

critical interpretation of scholarly reviews and/or primary evidence

Exceptional demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills in managing and

developing own learning and making decisions in complex contexts

B+ – B-

Strong response to most of the assessment criteria for the task

Knowledge demonstrates thorough depth and breadth of learning together with independent critically evaluative understanding

Evidence of insight in selection and use of material to go beyond what is taught

Ability to relate facts/disciplinary concepts together and apply good disciplinary analysis to issues and problems

Very good communication/ presentation skills, appropriate to audience to convey meaning, demonstrating strong competence,

accuracy, clarity and judgement

Arguments logically constructed, coherent and evidence-based on synthesis of scholarly review of a range of academic sources and critical insight

Very good demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills in managing and

developing own learning and making decisions in relatively complex

contexts

C+ – C-

Good response to most of the assessment criteria for the task

Knowledge demonstrates good depth and breadth of learning together with emerging independent critically evaluative

understanding

Good breadth of understanding of taught content and set reading/ references

Responses are relevant to subject matter and show evidence of disciplinary analysis albeit with some limitations

Communication/ presentation of information/ evidence to convey understanding and meaning demonstrates competence, accuracy and clarity

Logically constructed coherent argument, using scholarly review of academic sources, with some insight but possible weaknesses in structure/evidence

Sound demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills outside of areas in which first studied

D+ – D-

Adequate response to main

assessment criteria for the task

Knowledge sufficient to demonstrate sound learning with some standard critically evaluative understanding

Relies on adequate selection of set materials/standard readings and references

Responses are relevant to subject matter but balanced to descriptive and derivative rather

than disciplinary analysis

Competent accurate communication/ presentation of information/ evidence to convey understanding, possibly with some minor weaknesses

Logically structured coherent argument with supporting evidence, using scholarly review of academic sources, but with some weaknesses/gaps

Adequate demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills in

structured predictable contexts

E – Fail

Some engagement and understanding, but overall does not quite meet criteria for task

Some knowledge and understanding to demonstrate effective learning

Some evidence of study from taught content and/or relevant academic sources and references

Some ability to apply disciplinary conceptual understanding to evaluate and interpret issues/

problems/data

Communication/presentati on is weak and problematic in conveying understanding

Some evidence of a logically structured argument with some review of academic sources, but with weaknesses/gaps

Some evidence of relevant skills development or application