1
Assessment Specification
Assessment Title Assessment 1
Unit Title Project Management Dissertation Unit Code BSS037-6 Number of Credits 45
Unit Leader Dr Teslim Oyegoke Bukoye
Assessment Weighting (%) or % contribution to assessment component
0% - 3,000 words
Issue Date Academic week 2
Submission Deadline Assessment 1: - Interim report (Dissertation Proposal) Sunday 28th May 2017 via turn-it-in latest 10:00am - Proposal presentation - Tuesday 30th May 2017 - 3pm to 4pm (Venue - TBC)
Procedure for/where to submit work (including file name format for TurnItIn where applicable)
Via TurnitIn unless otherwise advised. Required file naming formats are described below.
Expected Return Date Three official weeks after submission
Description of Assessment Task
Students will be provided with a list of possible research areas to choose from. The final research topic (and area) should be agreed with the supervisor.
Assessment 1 - Interim individual report
The Interim individual report is a 3,000 words formative report to ensure you are 'on track' with your writing. The interim report provides an important formative piece of work and must be completed as part of the unit.
It should address the following: Aim of the research
2
Research objectives Research questions Literature review (not extensive) Methodology (not extensive but detail enough) Research project plan (Gantt Chart)
Please ensure that the file is the final version of your document and not a draft. Drafts submitted by mistake will be marked as your assignment. Resubmission at a later date can only ever achieve a maximum of D-
In the final presentation slides, If the deliverables are more than 50% copied then this will be viewed as an E-grade
Note:
The highest levels of presentation are expected for all assignments and poor presentation will be penalised. The ‘Harvard’ system of referencing should be used in your work.
PAD offers advice on BREO on the Harvard referencing system.
All assignments should also be submitted electronically via TurnItIn on BREO unless otherwise specified. Where files are sent to the tutor directly, a receipt will be provided.
All files submitted on Turn-it-in should be named in the following way:
Assignment {number} _ (assignment type e.g. /report/presentation/H&S assessment } _ {group name} _ {student number}
No late submission is accepted unless proper approval is provided. Late work will be treated in accordance with the regulations of the Modular Credit Scheme contained in the Student Handbook and at www.student.beds.ac.uk.
Unit Learning Outcomes assessed:
Students will need to:
Define a research topic, develop a proposal to solve a problem, select and design appropriate methodological approaches, perform appropriate analysis on the data/information (quantitative and/or qualitative) collected, and produce appropriate conclusions and recommendations based on the findings from the research.
3
Word Limit Part A Report – 3,000 words Part B Presentation – maximum 10 slides, total time including questions is 10-15 minutes.
Resources/Support Available
Students are encouraged to use the course material, recommended and background reading and additional web resources to address the brief.
Assessment Criteria Students will have to: Define a research topic and develop a proposal to solve a problem, Establish a draft outline of a literature review Select and design an appropriate methodological approach
Peer / Self Assessment Required
No
Details of how feedback will be provided
Grading matrices will be used for the presentation and final report. The individual grades and feedback are available on Breo after moderation by another tutor.
Referral assignment If you fail this assignment (as a result of non-submission or poor academic performance), you will be required to undertake a referral assignment using another project brief with similar questions.
4
MSc PM_the project_assessment 1_ Interim presentation and proposal report_grading matrix
Presentation Criterion 1-34% Fail 35-39% Marginal 40-49% Pass 50-59% 60-69% 70-100% Aim (20%) No appropriate explanation of what the research is trying to achieve. Unclear links back to original topic area. No explanation of the potential importance of the research Weak explanation of what the research is trying to achieve. Unclear links back to original topic area. Weak or no explanation of the potential importance of the research ( E.g., gap in literature, phenomena not yet studied, studies exist but not in your sector) Weak explanation of what the research is trying to achieve. Clear links back to original topic area. Weak explanation of the potential importance of the research ( E.g., gap in literature, phenomena not yet studied, studies exist but not in your sector) Satisfactory explanation of what the research is trying to achieve. Clear links back to original topic area. Satisfactory explanation of the potential importance of the research ( E.g., gap in literature, phenomena not yet studied, studies exist but not in your sector) Good explanation of what the research is trying to achieve. Clear links back to original topic area. Good explanation of the potential importance of the research ( E.g., gap in literature, phenomena not yet studied, studies exist but not in your sector) Very clear explanation of what the research is trying to achieve. Clear links back to original topic area. Very good explanation of the potential importance of the research ( E.g., gap in literature, phenomena not yet studied, studies exist but not in your sector) Research Objectives (15%) Nothing of academic merit Limited and maybe off target. No research objective satisfactorily supports the research aim Limited and maybe off target. However, at least one research objective supports the research aim At least two research objectives support the research aim Good -at least three research objectives support the research aim Comprehensive and logically support the research aim Research Questions (15%) Nothing of academic merit Simple rewording of each research objective into a research question and original research objectives very poor. Simple rewording of each research objective into a research question and original research objectives weak. Satisfactory - adequately supports the research objectives and at least one research objective has more than one research question associated with it Good - logically supports the research objectives and at least one research objective has more than one research question associated with it Comprehensive and insightful - logically supports the research objectives and at least one research objective has more than one research question associated with it Literature Review (10%) Nothing of academic merit Poor mind map format and no appropriate detail on research questions Poor mind map format and limited detail on research questions Poor mind map format but some detail on research questions Good mind map format with some detail on research questions Clear mind map format and provides adequate detail on research questions Methodology (10%) Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment An attempt made at discussing few aspects of the methodology Methodology identified, some evaluation of the Methodology discussed and more analysed done Methodology discussed and more analysed done quite Outstanding evaluation of the appropriate research
5
methods conducted satisfactorily. extensively. methodology for the study
Project Plan Gantt Chart (10%)
Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment
Very poor attempt at a gantt chart
Weak gantt chart with several errors in logic or several activities may be missing
Satisfactory gantt chart but a few errors in logic or an activity may be missing
Clear gantt chart but minor error
Logical, clear gantt chart
Quality of Presentation (10%)
Unacceptable presentation with poor fluency and difficulty in presenting the content of slides. Content is of limited academic merit.
Unacceptable presentation with Very poor fluency. Many errors in content.
Weak presentation with many “silly” mistakes. Lots of “reading” off notes or poor fluency. Time management may be poor.
Acceptable presentation but some errors in fluency and perhaps some dependency on “reading” off notes. May not quite keep to time
Good clear fluent overall presentation Good time management.
Fluent, clear and very convincing presentation. Excellent time management
Ability to Answer Questions (10%)
Unable to answer questions.
Mainly wrong answers provided.
Questions answered but with several errors or omissions.
Questions answered satisfactorily but some only partially.
Any given questions answered well with only minor errors.
Any given questions answered well.