Assessment	Coursework – Report
Assessment code:	011
Academic Year:	2021/2022
Trimester:	1
Module Title:	Undergraduate Major Project – Integrated Case Study
Module Code:	MOD003463
Level:	Level 6
Module Leader:	William Jefferies
Weighting:	80%
Word Limit:	4000 words This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the Academic Regulations: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Assessed Learning Outcomes	1 – 5
Submission Deadline :	Please refer to the deadline on the VLE

 

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES:

• This assignment must be completed individually.
• You must use the Harvard referencing
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. You must not exceed the specified maximum number of words.  When a written assessment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 74).
• Submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
• You must number all pages.
• No extensions nor late submissions are available for this
• Your work must be submitted on to Turnitin on VLE as a MS Word document only. If you submit a PDF document your work will not be marked.

 

 

Exceptional Circumstances: The deadline for submission of exceptional circumstances in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact   the   Director   of   Studies   Team   –   [email protected]   See   rules   6.112   –   6.141: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf

 

 

ASSESSMENT TASK

Choose one of the following organisations upon which to base your answer:

1. West Cornwall Pasty Company co.uk/
2. Touch Associates https://www.toucom/
3. Nutmeg Saving and Investment LTD https://nutmeg.com/
4. BenevolentAI https://www.benevcom/
5. Inntravel https://www.inntraveco.uk/
6. Kids Planet Day Nurseries Ltd https://www.kidco.uk/
7. Cancer Research UK https://www.canceorg/ Write a report with the following sections

1.0 TITLE PAGE

2.0 SUMMARY

3.0 CONTENTS

4.0 MAIN BODY

• Strategic Issues – general problems that confront society or the sector
• Challenges – the impact of the general problems on the organisation
• Solutions – an organisation level solution to the impacts of these challenges
• Implementation – a plan to put a solution into practice

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0 REFERENCES

• APPENDICES

 

 

FORMAT OF SUBMISSION

• You should include a minimum of 20 appropriate sources within your work including at least one example of each designated source.
• You should include an ARU Harvard-formatted reference list at the end of the submission, that includes all cited sources.
• You should include at least one author produced figure from designated data
• You should proofread your work prior to submission to reduce likelihood of errors.

 

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA and MARKS

To pass this assignment you must satisfactorily complete all elements of the Report.

 

Research and investigation – 40 marks

 

• Coherent and logically structured explanation of points, evidenced with quantitative and qualitative data
• Discussions should be supported by at least 20 appropriate sources of current, relevant evidence and data, models and theories,
• Including designated sources and author produced figures

Analysis and use of models and theories – 40 marks

 

• Analysis of points and evidence with appropriate models and theories
• Critical assessment of gaps, contradictions and limitations of points, evidence, models and theories

Formatting and Referencing – 20 marks

 

• An absence of any avoidable mistakes in spelling, grammar, formatting or referencing
• Sources must be from the middle or top of the Hierarchy of Sources
• Sources must be relevant and appropriate
• Accurately cited using Anglia Ruskin University Harvard Referencing.

 

 

 

ARU GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS: LEVEL 6 – the Depth

stage

 

Assessment criteria inform the assessment process by providing academic staff with a link between academic standards as set at the level of the award (these are defined in Section 2 of the Academic Regulations) and academic standards at module level. Assessment criteria are written in a language that is both generic and general, reflecting the Generic Learning Outcomes of ARU awards which, in turn, reflect the principal national reference point for academic standards, the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree- Awarding Bodies (FHEQ) (QAA, 2014).

 

Assessment criteria are not to be confused with marking schemes.

 

Assessment criteria identify student achievement of generic learning outcomes in the broadest possible terms by correlating three key variables – level of learning, marking standards, and student achievement – in a taxonomy of statements about assessment.

 

 

 

• level is as identified in the FHEQ and ARU’s Academic Regulations, ranging from Level 3 (Access), through Levels 4-6 (Undergraduate) to Level 7 (Postgraduate). A separate table is provided for each of the five

 

 

• marking standards are identified by means of a percentage scale covering the mark of 0% (zero) and ten mark bands: 1%-9%, 10%-19%, 20%-29%, 30%-39%, 40%-49%, 50%-59%, 60%-69%, 70%-79%, 80%-89% and 90%-100%. Marking standards are expressed as rows in the following

 

 

• student achievement consists of a hierarchy of descriptors which are used by markers to distinguish between grades of student achievement:

 

 

Band (%)	Principal Descriptor
90-100	Exceptional
80-89	Outstanding
70-79	Excellent
60-69	Good
50-59	Sound
40-49	Adequate
30-39	Limited
20-29	Little evidence
10-19	Deficient
1-9	No evidence

 

A marking scheme is used at module level to inform the first marking and internal and external moderation of each item of assessment. Marking schemes identify the knowledge and skills which students must demonstrate to achieve the learning outcomes of the module and are used to calculate the total mark to be awarded for an individual item of assessment. ARU’s generic assessment criteria are intended to advise the writing of marking schemes, ensuring that they are broadly comparable across the institution.

 

 

 

A module marking scheme customises the ARU’s generic assessment criteria to fit a specific item of assessment for a module, identifying the basis on which marks are awarded. A marking scheme may range from the fairly general to the highly specific. In relatively open- ended assessments (e.g.: where students are asked to select one of a range of essay questions) a Module Leader would not necessarily expect to provide a detailed marking scheme specifying a ‘model answer’ to each specific essay question, but rather to provide a general marking scheme which identifies the characteristics of a good essay and can be applied to any of the essay questions set. The same would apply to many aspects of practice, performance or studio work. In contrast, less open-ended assessment tasks such as translation would require both a ‘model translation’ of the passage and a detailed marking scheme adapted to the specifics of the passage translated.

 

 

 

To facilitate consistency first markers constantly refer to the marking scheme when marking student work. They pass the marking scheme on to the internal moderator/second marker and eventually to the external examiner with student scripts. This enables all parties to understand the basis on which marks are awarded and lends a fundamental transparency to the assessment process. It should always be clear to the internal moderator and external examiner how marks have been determined.

 

Level 6 is characterised by an expectation of students’ increasing autonomy in relation to their study and developing skill sets. Students are expected to demonstrate problem solving skills, both theoretical and practical. This is supported by an understanding of appropriate theory; creativity of expression and thought based in individual judgement; and the ability to seek out, invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories or methods of working in a critically constructive and open manner. Output is articulate, coherent and skilled in the appropriate medium, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism.
Mark Bands	Outcome	Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
		Knowledge & Understanding	Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills
90-   100%	Achieves module outcome(s)	Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary originality and autonomy. Work may be considered for publication within ARU	Exceptional management of learning resources, with a higher degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. Exceptional structure/ accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/professional skills. Work may be considered for publication within ARU
80-   89%		Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality and autonomy	Outstanding management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Outstanding team/practical/professional skills
70-   79%		Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with considerable originality	Excellent management of learning resources, with degree of autonomy/research that may exceed the assessment brief. Structured and creative expression. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills and practical/team/ professional/ problem-solving skills

 

60-   69%		Good knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem- solving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with some originality	Good management of learning resources, with consistent self-directed research. Structured and accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/ professional/problem solving skills
50-   59%		Sound knowledge base that supports some analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/practice/ethics of discipline	Sound management of learning resources. Some autonomy in research but inconsistent. Structured and mainly accurate expression. Sound level of academic/ intellectual skills going beyond description at times. Sound team/practical/professional/problem-solving skills
40-   49%	A marginal pass in module outcome(s)	Adequate knowledge base with some omissions at the level of ethical/ theoretical issues. Restricted ability to discuss theory and/or or solve problems in discipline	Adequate use of learning resources with little autonomy. Some difficulties with academic/ intellectual skills. Some difficulty with structure/ accuracy in expression, but evidence of developing team/practical/professional/ problem-solving skills
30-   39%	A marginal fail in module outcome(s). Satisfies default qualifying mark	Limited knowledge base. Limited understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline	Limited use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Still mainly descriptive. General difficulty with structure/ accuracy in expression. Practical/ professional/problem-solving skills that are not yet secure
20-   29%	Fails to achieve module outcome(s) Qualifying mark not satisfied	Little evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline/ ethical issues. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline	Little evidence of use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Little evidence of academic/ intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Significant difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Little evidence of practical/professional/ problem- solving skills

 

10-   19%		Deficient knowledge base. Deficient understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Major difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline	Deficient use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Deficient input to teams. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Major difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Deficient practical/professional/problem- solving skills
1-   9%		No evidence of knowledge base; no evidence of understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Total inability with theory and problem solving in discipline	No evidence of use of learning resources. Completely unable to work autonomously. No evidence of input to teams. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Work wholly descriptive. Incoherent structure/accuracy and expression. No evidence of practical/professional/ problem-solving skills
0%		Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes