UWBS038g Assessment Briefing for Students
Assessment Briefing 2: 7MG001- Independent Business Analysis Project (please scroll down for the specific briefing)
Module leader: Kate Moseley
Academic Year: 2014 /15
Semester 1/ Semester 2/ Year Long
Module assessment detail (approved at validation as amended by module modification)
Module code & title 7MG001 Independent Business Analysis Project
Module Learning Outcomes:
LO1 Demonstrate competence in the linguistic, numerical and analytical skills associated with study at Masters level
LO2 Critically interpret data and use data in organisational contexts.
LO3 Critically understand and ethically apply appropriate research approaches and methodological techniques that facilitate detailed investigation into business and management issues.
LO4 Produce an original piece of work as defined by your Masters’ Award that uses evidence and academic sources in analytical manner to reach clear conclusions
Assessment types Weightings (%)
Dissertation / Independent Project 67% of module assessment marks
Mode of Working: Individual
Presentation Format: Research Project (see guidance on WOLF)
Method of Submission: Submission via electronic e-submission by via WOLF on the due date. In addition 2 hard copies and a disc are required, submitted on the same due date at MX student office only.
Mark required to pass this coursework: 50%
Hand in date & time See schedules and submission dates on WOLF page
Date & method by which you will receive feedback Normally 4 working weeks following submission date
Resit/retrieval date
Assessment limits (in accordance with UWBS assessment tariff) Between 12,000 15,000 words, excluding appendices and reference list
Do clearly state your name, student number and supervisor when submitting work.
Always keep a copy of your work.
Always keep a file of working papers (containing, for instance, working notes, copied journal article and early drafts of your work, etc.) that show the development of your work and the sources you have used. You may need to show this to the supervisor at some point so notes should be clear and written in English. This is an important requirement . There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is so you may be asked to submit your file within 3 working days and possibly meet with your supervisor to answer questions on your submission.
Explanation of submission requirements and further guidance
• Assessment’s are subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of approach across all modules. Your work should not exceed the limit indicated (excluding appendices). Do not feel that you have to “achieve” this word count in your work. What is important is that the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are articulated through the assessment criteria (see following page).
• Care is taken to ensure that work has been marked correctly. Dissertations are double marked and an independent expert from outside the University on batches of work.
• Your work will not be returned to you but you will receive detailed feedback explaining how your mark has been arrived at and how your work could have been improved upon.
• Always use the Harvard style referencing system. The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies and develop your academic skills including a guide to Harvard referencing http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
• Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers for submissions are not required please refer to guidelines in the dissertation resources topic on presentation.
• The Business School has a policy of anonymous marking of individual assessments which applies to most modules but not the dissertation for obvious reasons.
Avoid academic misconduct
Warning: Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious offences that can result in a student being expelled from the University. The Business School has a policy of actively identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this nature and routinely applying detection techniques including the use of sophisticated software packages.
• Avoid Collusion. The Business School encourages group working, however to avoid collusion always work on your own when completing individual assessments. Do not let fellow students have access to your work at any stage and do not be tempted to access the work of others. Refer to your module tutor if you do not understand or you need further guidance.
• Avoid Plagiarism. You must use available and relevant literature to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject, however to avoid plagiarism you must take great care to acknowledge it properly.Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others. For this reason it is important that you cite all the sources whose work you have drawn on and reference them fully in accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. (This includes citing any work that you may have submitted yourself previously). Extensive direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because it represents a poor writing style, and it could lead to omission errors and a plagiarism offence could be committed accidentally.
• Avoid the temptation to “commission” work or to cheat in other ways. There are temptations on the internet for you to take “short cuts”. Do not be tempted to either commission work to be completed on your behalf or search for completed past academic work.
When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration that the submission is your own work, any material you have used has been acknowledged and referenced, you have not allowed another student to have access to your work, the work has not been submitted previously, etc.
Assessment Brief/ Task
The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:
The production of a piece of original work based on independent research is an essential part of study at Masters level. For the award of a Master’s degree, candidates must present a Dissertation/Independent Business Analysis Project
within their Master’s field of study which demonstrates a range of intellectual and practical skills in carrying out evidence based research project. This will normally be within a business and management context and will include identifying the implications of the findings.
The work should follow the prescribed format as advised by the supervisor and the module material held on WOLF,(which will also be covered in the taught module content). The dissertation will be between 12,000 and 15,000 words in length and should include the following sections:
• INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
• CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & LITERATURE REVIEW
• METHODOLOGY
• RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
• CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• REFERENCE LIST
N.B. Candidates will receive further guidance from their supervisors as the
content may vary depending upon the subject/topic area investigated.
The following information is important when:
• Preparing for your assessment
• Checking your work before you submit it
• Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.
Assessment Criteria
The module learning outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated on above. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked are as follows:
• INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
• CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & LITERATURE REVIEW
• METHODOLOGY
• RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
• CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• PRESENTATION
Performance descriptors
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
Criteria 70-100% Work of an outstanding, standard Merit 60-69% Work of a good standard. Pass 50-59% Work of a pass standard. 40-49% FAIL
(Retrievable) 0-39% FAIL
Introduction and background Excellent Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature clearly delineated; research problem stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions clearly stated, appropriate and aligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. Clear Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature delineated; research problem stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions mostly appropriate and aligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. Good introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature has gaps; research problem unclear, research aims, objectives and primary questions mostly show some misaligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. Introduction & background wholly descriptive; synopsis of relevant literature absent; research problem, research aims, objectives and primary questions misaligned. Methods and research approach inappropriately framed. The focus, purpose and method of the project are not made clear to the reader.
Literature Review and Conceptual Analysis Authoritative selection of material from comprehensive array of relevant sources; attention to both scholarly and practitioner dimensions, with excellent evidence of originality; argument is logical, systematic and persuasive; shows high degree of critical awareness of linkage between literature and aims Substantial range of apposite sources consulted; attention to both scholarly and practitioner dimensions, with small omissions with respect to the argument; generally systematic and persuasive narrative; shows evidence of critical awareness of linkage between literature and aims Limitations in variety and depth of sources; reasonable grasp of those consulted and with relevance to the argument; no particular originality; some unevenness in presentation; narrative is mostly descriptive; modest awareness of linkage between literature and aims Obvious omissions of relevant sources; some misunderstanding; argument not following a particularly clear thread, or not particularly convincing; narrative is wholly descriptive; little awareness of linkage between literature and aims Key sources obviously omitted, much misunderstanding; little if any argument; lack of a critical stance chapter is just an incomplete list of authors, taken mainly from basic texts. No evident link to research being undertaken. Overall, the author appears to have read little and understood less
Methodology Clearly articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be adopted e.g. deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes the relation between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the research hypothesis(es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection qualitative and/or quantitative; primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments Methodology generally sound, articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be adopted e.g. deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes the relation between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the research hypothesis(es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection qualitative and/or quantitative; primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments Methodology discussed though with incomplete awareness of several aspects and/or omissions. Methods described but key areas hazy and lacking in justification and complete information Methodology confused with description of methods and techniques; unaware of or confused about research design; methods and techniques taken for granted; errors in sampling, which may be incomplete Insufficient discussion of methodology, little awareness of its importance; unaware of research design; methods and techniques inappropriate or incomplete; sampling unconsidered as an issue
Results, Analysis and Discussion Very reliable data. Triangulated results drive the argument onwards, completely and fairly; contrary findings used to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide crystal clear rationale using published sources to support the argument seamlessly. Has explained and linked (signposted) the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends the chapter Reliable data. Results substantiate the argument, some triangulation attempted, contrary findings highlighted to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide clear rationale using published sources to support the argument. Has signposted the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends the chapter Mostly reliable data. Results substantiate the argument, some triangulation attempted, contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument are weak. Library-based projects provide some rationale using published sources to support the argument. Has signposted the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Some attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. Synopsis of findings ends the chapter Some doubts about data reliability. Results do not substantiate the argument, no triangulation attempted, no contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument. Use of secondary data for library-based projects is narrow and not justified. Some signposting the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Insufficient attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis techniques inappropriate to data or not explained. Use of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations is lacking thought. No synopsis of findings ends the chapter Little clear argument, reliability of data in serious doubt; no contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument. Use of secondary data for library-based projects is insufficient or unsubstantial. No signposting the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). No attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis techniques inappropriate to data or not explained or incorrectly used. Use of tables, graphs, and other illustrations is scrappy. No synopsis of findings to speak of
Conclusions, Implications
& Recommendations Well-organised, logical, fully supported by evidence, conclusions clear and arise from results/discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate). Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders Well-organised, logical, supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate) Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders Reasonably well-organised, logical, generally supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; implications considered for all stakeholders but criticality weak; practical and feasible, with un clear or weak consideration of budget issues (if appropriate). Recommendations not always driven by conclusions and not for all stakeholders Poor organisation; gaps in reasoning; some obvious conclusions omitted for the list; other conclusions not especially driven by the findings but from ‘common sense’. No real implications and recommendation considered for stakeholders Assertions little related to evidence, frequently illogical or arbitrary; conclusions if presented are disorganised; alternatives not considered; no real understanding of the need to draw conclusions, implications and recommendations from results
Presentation Fully documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive, engaging, and compelling language; ; text free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations beautifully prepared; excellent allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements Well documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive, engaging, and compelling language; ; apart from a few instance, text free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; very good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements Reasonably well documented and styled according to the brief; written in engaging language; ; text not wholly free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Mostly conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements Some incompleteness of documentation and styled according to the brief; written language fails to meet postgraduate standard; text not wholly free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Mostly conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements Documentation seriously at fault: missing, misplaced, difficult to find one’s way around; persistent errors in spelling and grammar, solecisms or occasional failure in conveying meaning; typescript messy with uncorrected errors and missing or incomplete illustrations, tables. Charts.. Referencing and formatting errors widespread
.
To help you further:
• Refer to the WOLF topic for contact details of your module leader/tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on WOLF.
• The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills

UWBS038g Assessment Briefing for Students
Assessment Briefing 2: 7MG001- Independent Business Analysis Project (please scroll down for the specific briefing)
Module leader: Kate Moseley
Academic Year: 2014 /15
Semester 1/ Semester 2/ Year Long
Module assessment detail (approved at validation as amended by module modification)
Module code & title 7MG001 Independent Business Analysis Project
Module Learning Outcomes:
LO1 Demonstrate competence in the linguistic, numerical and analytical skills associated with study at Masters level
LO2 Critically interpret data and use data in organisational contexts.
LO3 Critically understand and ethically apply appropriate research approaches and methodological techniques that facilitate detailed investigation into business and management issues.
LO4 Produce an original piece of work as defined by your Masters’ Award that uses evidence and academic sources in analytical manner to reach clear conclusions
Assessment types Weightings (%)
Dissertation / Independent Project 67% of module assessment marks
Mode of Working: Individual
Presentation Format: Research Project (see guidance on WOLF)
Method of Submission: Submission via electronic e-submission by via WOLF on the due date. In addition 2 hard copies and a disc are required, submitted on the same due date at MX student office only.
Mark required to pass this coursework: 50%
Hand in date & time See schedules and submission dates on WOLF page
Date & method by which you will receive feedback Normally 4 working weeks following submission date
Resit/retrieval date
Assessment limits (in accordance with UWBS assessment tariff) Between 12,000 15,000 words, excluding appendices and reference list
Do clearly state your name, student number and supervisor when submitting work.
Always keep a copy of your work.
Always keep a file of working papers (containing, for instance, working notes, copied journal article and early drafts of your work, etc.) that show the development of your work and the sources you have used. You may need to show this to the supervisor at some point so notes should be clear and written in English. This is an important requirement . There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is so you may be asked to submit your file within 3 working days and possibly meet with your supervisor to answer questions on your submission.
Explanation of submission requirements and further guidance
• Assessment’s are subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of approach across all modules. Your work should not exceed the limit indicated (excluding appendices). Do not feel that you have to “achieve” this word count in your work. What is important is that the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are articulated through the assessment criteria (see following page).
• Care is taken to ensure that work has been marked correctly. Dissertations are double marked and an independent expert from outside the University on batches of work.
• Your work will not be returned to you but you will receive detailed feedback explaining how your mark has been arrived at and how your work could have been improved upon.
• Always use the Harvard style referencing system. The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies and develop your academic skills including a guide to Harvard referencing http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
• Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers for submissions are not required please refer to guidelines in the dissertation resources topic on presentation.
• The Business School has a policy of anonymous marking of individual assessments which applies to most modules but not the dissertation for obvious reasons.
Avoid academic misconduct
Warning: Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious offences that can result in a student being expelled from the University. The Business School has a policy of actively identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this nature and routinely applying detection techniques including the use of sophisticated software packages.
• Avoid Collusion. The Business School encourages group working, however to avoid collusion always work on your own when completing individual assessments. Do not let fellow students have access to your work at any stage and do not be tempted to access the work of others. Refer to your module tutor if you do not understand or you need further guidance.
• Avoid Plagiarism. You must use available and relevant literature to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject, however to avoid plagiarism you must take great care to acknowledge it properly.Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others. For this reason it is important that you cite all the sources whose work you have drawn on and reference them fully in accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. (This includes citing any work that you may have submitted yourself previously). Extensive direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because it represents a poor writing style, and it could lead to omission errors and a plagiarism offence could be committed accidentally.
• Avoid the temptation to “commission” work or to cheat in other ways. There are temptations on the internet for you to take “short cuts”. Do not be tempted to either commission work to be completed on your behalf or search for completed past academic work.
When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration that the submission is your own work, any material you have used has been acknowledged and referenced, you have not allowed another student to have access to your work, the work has not been submitted previously, etc.
Assessment Brief/ Task
The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:
The production of a piece of original work based on independent research is an essential part of study at Masters level. For the award of a Master’s degree, candidates must present a Dissertation/Independent Business Analysis Project
within their Master’s field of study which demonstrates a range of intellectual and practical skills in carrying out evidence based research project. This will normally be within a business and management context and will include identifying the implications of the findings.
The work should follow the prescribed format as advised by the supervisor and the module material held on WOLF,(which will also be covered in the taught module content). The dissertation will be between 12,000 and 15,000 words in length and should include the following sections:
• INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
• CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & LITERATURE REVIEW
• METHODOLOGY
• RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
• CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• REFERENCE LIST
N.B. Candidates will receive further guidance from their supervisors as the
content may vary depending upon the subject/topic area investigated.
The following information is important when:
• Preparing for your assessment
• Checking your work before you submit it
• Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.
Assessment Criteria
The module learning outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated on above. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked are as follows:
• INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
• CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & LITERATURE REVIEW
• METHODOLOGY
• RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
• CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• PRESENTATION
Performance descriptors
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
Criteria 70-100% Work of an outstanding, standard Merit 60-69% Work of a good standard. Pass 50-59% Work of a pass standard. 40-49% FAIL
(Retrievable) 0-39% FAIL
Introduction and background Excellent Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature clearly delineated; research problem stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions clearly stated, appropriate and aligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. Clear Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature delineated; research problem stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions mostly appropriate and aligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. Good introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature has gaps; research problem unclear, research aims, objectives and primary questions mostly show some misaligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. Introduction & background wholly descriptive; synopsis of relevant literature absent; research problem, research aims, objectives and primary questions misaligned. Methods and research approach inappropriately framed. The focus, purpose and method of the project are not made clear to the reader.
Literature Review and Conceptual Analysis Authoritative selection of material from comprehensive array of relevant sources; attention to both scholarly and practitioner dimensions, with excellent evidence of originality; argument is logical, systematic and persuasive; shows high degree of critical awareness of linkage between literature and aims Substantial range of apposite sources consulted; attention to both scholarly and practitioner dimensions, with small omissions with respect to the argument; generally systematic and persuasive narrative; shows evidence of critical awareness of linkage between literature and aims Limitations in variety and depth of sources; reasonable grasp of those consulted and with relevance to the argument; no particular originality; some unevenness in presentation; narrative is mostly descriptive; modest awareness of linkage between literature and aims Obvious omissions of relevant sources; some misunderstanding; argument not following a particularly clear thread, or not particularly convincing; narrative is wholly descriptive; little awareness of linkage between literature and aims Key sources obviously omitted, much misunderstanding; little if any argument; lack of a critical stance chapter is just an incomplete list of authors, taken mainly from basic texts. No evident link to research being undertaken. Overall, the author appears to have read little and understood less
Methodology Clearly articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be adopted e.g. deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes the relation between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the research hypothesis(es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection qualitative and/or quantitative; primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments Methodology generally sound, articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be adopted e.g. deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes the relation between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the research hypothesis(es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection qualitative and/or quantitative; primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments Methodology discussed though with incomplete awareness of several aspects and/or omissions. Methods described but key areas hazy and lacking in justification and complete information Methodology confused with description of methods and techniques; unaware of or confused about research design; methods and techniques taken for granted; errors in sampling, which may be incomplete Insufficient discussion of methodology, little awareness of its importance; unaware of research design; methods and techniques inappropriate or incomplete; sampling unconsidered as an issue
Results, Analysis and Discussion Very reliable data. Triangulated results drive the argument onwards, completely and fairly; contrary findings used to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide crystal clear rationale using published sources to support the argument seamlessly. Has explained and linked (signposted) the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends the chapter Reliable data. Results substantiate the argument, some triangulation attempted, contrary findings highlighted to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide clear rationale using published sources to support the argument. Has signposted the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends the chapter Mostly reliable data. Results substantiate the argument, some triangulation attempted, contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument are weak. Library-based projects provide some rationale using published sources to support the argument. Has signposted the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Some attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. Synopsis of findings ends the chapter Some doubts about data reliability. Results do not substantiate the argument, no triangulation attempted, no contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument. Use of secondary data for library-based projects is narrow and not justified. Some signposting the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Insufficient attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis techniques inappropriate to data or not explained. Use of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations is lacking thought. No synopsis of findings ends the chapter Little clear argument, reliability of data in serious doubt; no contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument. Use of secondary data for library-based projects is insufficient or unsubstantial. No signposting the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). No attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis techniques inappropriate to data or not explained or incorrectly used. Use of tables, graphs, and other illustrations is scrappy. No synopsis of findings to speak of
Conclusions, Implications
& Recommendations Well-organised, logical, fully supported by evidence, conclusions clear and arise from results/discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate). Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders Well-organised, logical, supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate) Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders Reasonably well-organised, logical, generally supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; implications considered for all stakeholders but criticality weak; practical and feasible, with un clear or weak consideration of budget issues (if appropriate). Recommendations not always driven by conclusions and not for all stakeholders Poor organisation; gaps in reasoning; some obvious conclusions omitted for the list; other conclusions not especially driven by the findings but from ‘common sense’. No real implications and recommendation considered for stakeholders Assertions little related to evidence, frequently illogical or arbitrary; conclusions if presented are disorganised; alternatives not considered; no real understanding of the need to draw conclusions, implications and recommendations from results
Presentation Fully documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive, engaging, and compelling language; ; text free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations beautifully prepared; excellent allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements Well documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive, engaging, and compelling language; ; apart from a few instance, text free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; very good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements Reasonably well documented and styled according to the brief; written in engaging language; ; text not wholly free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Mostly conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements Some incompleteness of documentation and styled according to the brief; written language fails to meet postgraduate standard; text not wholly free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Mostly conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements Documentation seriously at fault: missing, misplaced, difficult to find one’s way around; persistent errors in spelling and grammar, solecisms or occasional failure in conveying meaning; typescript messy with uncorrected errors and missing or incomplete illustrations, tables. Charts.. Referencing and formatting errors widespread
.
To help you further:
• Refer to the WOLF topic for contact details of your module leader/tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on WOLF.
• The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills