FDPP2336 Work Based Project
FDPP2336 Work Based Project (Double Module)
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 |
Introduction
- Students are required to develop and submit a project proposal, in line with an acceptable format, which is to be agreed with their tutor. (1000 words)
- Students are required to negotiate a project with their organisation. The focus of the project is to be a deep study of a live issue/problem in the organisation. (5000 words)
Note well: Throughout your work you must relate appropriate theory to the practice on which you are commenting.
Learning outcomes
- Develop a research design and strategy
- Work independently, self-critically and in an organised way on research tasks
- Critically judge concepts, theories and models appropriate to a work-based issue.
- Relate those concepts, theories and models to a work-based issue while sustaining a coherent and logical argument.
- Relate the findings of a research project appropriately.
- Determine feasible opportunities for organisational development
Assessment criteria
Marking will be in accordance with the attached Assessment Criteria.
Handing in
Electronic submission of assignments is mandatory. Please note that every assessment must be submitted clearly noting the student’s name and number. Work must be word-processed/typed.
You are required to keep a copy of work handed in.
Late submission of work
It is essential that you submit your work, in order to be able to pass the module. Full details of the regulations regarding late submission and applying for mitigation are available via the Student Handbook and website.
Academic Misconduct Penalties
When a student is found guilty of academic misconduct (cheating), the penalties are severe.
- The assignment will be awarded a fail grade, with zero credit.
- Penalties may extend beyond the single assignment, and may affect the module grade, and even the classification of the final award.
- The academic misconduct will be mentioned in any reference given by the university. This means that graduates will find it very difficult to enter careers that involve trust, including Accountancy, Law, Computer Systems Administration, and Computer Security.
- If the course (or module) is recognised or accredited by a professional organisation, that recognition or accreditation may be withheld from the student.
The normal penalties for a first offence are as below. Penalties for later offences (of any nature) are escalated, and the ultimate penalty is exclusion from the university. The list of offences below is not exhaustive.
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. |
| Direct quotation or close paraphrasing without quote marks, sources NOT included in reference list 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. |
Word Limits
Included in the word limit is:
Anything contained within the main body of your report, between the contents page and the reference list. All quotations, citations and the captions to pictures and diagrams. The contents of any tables within the main body.
Not included in the word limit is:
The title page, contents page or reference list. Any computer programme code listings, content within diagrams, or any appendices.
The following penalties can be applied to work which exceeds the stated word limit of 6000 words:
- Up to 10% over: no penalty
- 10% to 20% over: one grade point penalty (e.g. B+ to B)
- 20% to 30% over: two grade points penalty (e.g. B+ to B-)
- More than 30% over: three grade points penalty (e.g. B+ to C+)
Guidance for students:
- The Study Material for this module is a guide to writing the Project. You are advised to use the material to help you through this major piece of work.
- You are studying at Level 5 which is the same as the second year of a degree. Simple description or your opinion will not gain you the marks you want. You must be analytical and compare what is happening in your workplace with the theory available in that subject area. Evaluation requires you to make judgements about your subject of study.
- When using the work of others, such as citing theory, you must reference the other person’s work. You will have been given guidance on how to reference on the teaching day.
- The higher marks are gained by those students who take the time to read up on the subject and who use a range of alternative sources against which to evaluate their workplace practices.
- Use the Assessment Criteria as a guide to what is required. Remember that the person marking your work will be using it as well!
FDPP2333 Work Based Project (Double Module): Level 5 Grade Descriptor
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 |
