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 research2
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 DIn 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 research5
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.