Note: Use this template for guidance only. You may change the title of the sections as appropriate.
Overall Title
Student Name
Overall Introduction
Critique 1 Title (Repeat the process for all the three critiques)
Introduction
Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:
• Name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator.
• Describe the main argument or purpose of the work.
• Explain the context in which the work was created. This could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience.
• Have a concluding sentence that signposts what your Assessment of the work will be. For instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed Assessment.
Summary
Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical Assessment.
Critical Assessment
This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.
A critical Assessment does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.
Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:
• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?
This Assessment is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.
To support the Assessment, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your Assessment of the work.
Conclusion
This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:
• A statement indicating the overall Assessment of the work
• A summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical Assessment, why this Assessment was formed.
In some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.
Part 1: Report
Title page Mark
Overall introduction (150 words)- Clearly introduce all three chosen papers; Provide a context; justify why these were chosen and why you feel they are important to critically evaluate. Clearly outline how the question will be address (plus conclusion *) 7
Table of contents
Paper 1 – write a 580-word critique 12
Paper 2 – write a 580-word critique 12
Paper 3 – write a 580-word critique 12
Overall conclusion (110 words) *
References
Appendices
Writing – Evidence of:
Format: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Grammar, spelling, punctuation; Writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative) 7
Total 50
Assessment
Brief
Module Code Module Title
CIS7008 Technology Project Management
Academic Year Semester
2022/2023 1
Module Leader email
Content
CONTENT 1
ASSESSMENT DETAILS 3
SUBMISSION DETAILS 5
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 7
FURTHER INFORMATION 16
Preparing for placement 16
Equality and diversity 16
Students with additional requirements 16
Who can answer questions about my assessment? 17
Referencing and independent learning 17
Technical submission problems 18
Extensions and mitigating circumstances 18
Unfair academic practice 18
How is my work graded? 19
Assessment Details
Assessment title Abr. Weighting
Technology Project Management – Critique WRIT1 50 %
Pass marks are 40% for undergraduate work and 50% for postgraduate work unless stated otherwise.
Task/assessment brief:
Choose three papers from the titles listed below and write a 580-word critique of each. You should evaluate the points made, giving your own opinions where appropriate. The complete assignment will be a total of 2000 words (+/- 10%).
Author Title Journal/Text
Zaheer, R.A., Tanveer, A. and Fatima, H.M., 2016 An Agile, Intelligent and Scalable Framework for Global Software Development. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Computer, Electrical, Automation, Control and Information Engineering, 10(4), pp.628-635.
Bjørn, P., 2016. New fundamentals for CSCW research: from distance to politics. Interactions, 23(3), pp.50-53.
Coram, M. and Bohner, S., 2005, April. The impact of agile methods on software project management. In 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS’05) (pp. 363-370). IEEE.
Berger, H. and Lewis, C., 2011. Stakeholder Analysis is Key to Successful Client-Supplier Relationships of Global Outsourcing Projects. Stakeholder analysis is key to client–supplier relationships of global outsourcing project success. International Journal of Information Management, 31(5), pp.480-485.
Mishra et al., 2020
Personal response systems through the prism of students’ experiences Computer Applications in Engineering Education. https://repository.cardiffmet.ac.uk/handle/10369/11150
Lewis, R. (2019) Want to mislead and confuse? Use statistics! https://scientistsarehumans.com/2019/01/26/want-to-mislead-and-confuse-use-statistics/
Each team will have a team leader who will coordinate the submission of the report. Team members will have to jointly prepare the report and each student will have to ensure that the team leader will have all the required content well before the submission deadline.
As this assignment is a team submission, individual student marks will be calculated by applying the fair contribution mark weightage to the team mark.
Word count (or equivalent): 2000
This a reflection of the effort required for the assessment. Word counts will normally include any text, tables, calculations, figures, subtitles and citations. Reference lists and contents of appendices are excluded from the word count. Contents of appendices are not usually considered when determining your final assessment grade.
The Critique Template
The following showcases the main features of a critique and is provided as one example.
Introduction
Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:
• Name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator.
• Describe the main argument or purpose of the work.
• Explain the context in which the work was created. This could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience.
• Have a concluding sentence that signposts what your Assessment of the work will be. For instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed Assessment.
Summary
Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical Assessment.
Critical Assessment
This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.
A critical Assessment does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.
Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:
• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?
This Assessment is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.
To support the Assessment, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your Assessment of the work.
Conclusion
This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:
• A statement indicating the overall Assessment of the work
• A summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical Assessment, why this Assessment was formed.
• In some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.
Checklist for a critique
Have I:
• Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
• Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
• Mainly focused on the critical Assessment of the work?
• Systematically outlined an Assessment of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
• Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
• Formed an overall Assessment of the work, based on critical reading?
• Used a well-structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation;
• Used the Harvard referencing style for all references (including images)? Include all resources cited in your critique in a reference list.
Submission Details
Submission Deadline: Week 6 Estimated Feedback
Return Date This will normally be 20 working days after initial submission.
Submission
Time: By 4.00pm on the deadline day.
Moodle/Turnitin: Any assessments submitted after the deadline will not be marked and will be recorded as a non-attempt unless you have had an extension request agreed or have approved mitigating circumstances. See the School Moodle pages for more information on extensions and mitigating circumstances.
File Format: The assessment must be submitted as a pdf document (save the document as a pdf in your software) and submit through the Turnitin submission point in Moodle.
Your assessment should be titled with your:
student ID number, module code and assessment ID,
e.g. st12345678 BHL5007 WRIT1
Feedback Feedback for the assessment will be provided electronically via Moodle. Feedback will be provided with comments on your strengths and the areas which you can improve. View the guidance on how to access your feedback.
All marks are provisional and are subject to quality assurance processes and confirmation at the programme Examination Board.
Assessment Criteria
Learning outcomes assessed
Part 1: Report
Title page
Overall introduction (150 words)- Clearly introduce all three chosen papers; Provide a context; justify why these were chosen and why you feel they are important to critically evaluate. Clearly outline how the question will be address (plus conclusion *) 7
Table of contents
Paper 1 – write a 580-word critique 12
Paper 2 – write a 580-word critique 12
Paper 3 – write a 580-word critique 12
Overall conclusion (110 words) *
References
Appendices
Writing – Evidence of:
Format: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Grammar, spelling, punctuation; Writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative) 7
Total 50
Other skills/attributes developed
This includes elements of the Cardiff Met EDGE (Ethical, Digital, Global and Entrepreneurial skills) and other attributes developed in students through the completion of the module and assessment. These will also be highlighted in the module guidance, which should be read by all students completing the module. Assessments are not just a way of auditing student knowledge. They are a process which provides additional learning and development through the preparation for and completion of the assessment.
This module assessment provides opportunities for students to demonstrate development of the following EDGE Competencies:
• Ethical concerns of team management and human centred approaches to conflict resolution.
• Digital management methods are examined and used throughout the module and tasks.
• Perspectives of global software development (GSD) are examined and discussed. Task involves reasoning of multi-cultural teams in multiple countries.
• How Project Management can used to Help tight budgets and the entrepreneurial development.
Marking/Assessment Criteria
70 – 100%
(Distinction)
The requirements detailed in the specification are met fully. An excellent critique of the three chosen papers that effectively focuses on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. Excellent integration and balance of your opinion to produce reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with quality arguments and research. An excellent introduction and conclusion. The report is excellently presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content. In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a high standard. The report is formatted to contain all relevant sections. Higher grades of A will show evidence of creativity & extra effort such as reading around the subject or commenting on the merits or otherwise of the system/research documented.
60-69%
(Merit)
The requirements detailed in the specification are almost fully met. A good critique of the three chosen papers that has (in many places) effectively focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. Good integration and balance of your opinion. Reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with quality arguments and research. A good introduction and conclusion. The report is well presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content. The report is formatted to contain all relevant sections. The content will be complete and will be to a competent but less exacting standard than for a 70+. In general, the report will contain all the essential sections, it will be well-written, but the high standard may be less consistent in some sections of the report than others.
50-59%
(Pass)
The requirements detailed in the specification are somewhat met. A fairly good critique of the three chosen papers that has in a few places focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. A fairly good integration and balance of your opinion to produce fairly reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with some quality arguments and research. A fairly good introduction and conclusion. The report is fairly well presented and written, with a fairly good logical flow of content. In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a fairly good standard. The content will be somewhat complete and will be of an acceptable level. The report will contain all the essential sections, written to a fairly good level.
40-49%
(Fail)
The requirements detailed in the specification have not been met or poorly met in places. An incomplete/ not effective/ non-existent critique of the three chosen papers that has no focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. A very poor integration and balance of your opinion, poor arguments that are not backed up with quality arguments and research. A poor/average introduction and conclusion. Overall, the report is poor (both in terms of presentation and writing), with no logical flow of content. Content and presentation are lacking in most aspects.
<35%
(Clear Fail)
The requirements detailed in the specification have not been met. No critique of the three chosen papers is present. No focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing has been provided. No integration and balance of your opinion, very poor arguments that are not backed up with quality arguments and research. A poor introduction and conclusion. Overall, the report is very poor (both in terms of presentation and writing), with no logical flow of content. Content and presentation are lacking in all aspects.
Further Information on assessment, referencing and grading can be found in the Module Handbook (on Moodle)
Marking/Assessment Criteria
Questions Sub Questions <35%
Clear Fail 35-39%
Fail 40-49%
3rd 50-59%
2:2 60-69%
2:1 >70%
1st
Overall introduction and conclusion of report 7% A very poor or no introduction of all three chosen papers; A very poor (or no) context provided; A very poor (or no) justification of why these papers were chosen and why you feel they are important to critically evaluate. A very poor (or no) outline of how the question will be address and A very poor (or no) conclusion. A poor introduction of all three chosen papers; A poor context provided; A poor justification of why these papers were chosen and why you feel they are important to critically evaluate. A poor outline of how the question will be address and a poor conclusion. An average introduction of all three chosen papers; An average context provided; An average justification of why these papers were chosen and why you feel they are important to critically evaluate. An average outline of how the question will be address and an average conclusion. A fairly clear introduction of all three chosen papers; A good context provided; A good justification of why these papers were chosen and why you feel they are important to critically evaluate. A good outline of how the question will be address and a good conclusion. A clear introduction of all three chosen papers; A very good context provided; A very good justification of why these papers were chosen and why you feel they are important to critically evaluate. A very good outline of how the question will be address and a very good conclusion. A very clear introduction of all three chosen papers; Excellent context; Excellent justification of why these papers were chosen and why you feel they are important to critically evaluate. Excellent outline of how the question will be address and excellent conclusion.
Critique1 12% Introduction
(2%) A very poor introduction. Very little and/ or no clarity or structure in the introduction. A poor introduction. Little clarity and/ or structure in the introduction. An average introduction. Some clarity and/ or structure in places in the introduction. A good and fairly convincing introduction. A somewhat clear and well-structured introduction. A very good and convincing Introduction. A reasonably clear and well-structured Introduction. Excellent and very convincing Introduction. A clear and well-structured Introduction.
Summary
(2%) A very poor summary. A summary with little or no detail, no depth and no insight that covers none of the relevant points of the critique. A poor summary. A summary with little detail, depth and insight that covers very few of the relevant points of the critique. An average summary. A summary with average detail, depth and insight that covers a few of the relevant points of the critique. A good and fairly convincing summary. A some what detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers some of the relevant points of the critique. A very good and convincing summary. A detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers nearly all of the relevant points of the critique. Excellent and very convincing summary. A detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers all of the relevant points of the critique.
Critical Assessment (6%) The requirements detailed in the specification have not been met. No critique of the chosen paper is present. No focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing has been provided. No integration and balance of your opinion, very poor arguments that are not backed up with quality arguments and research. Overall, the report is very poor (both in terms of presentation and writing), with no logical flow of content. Content and presentation are lacking in all aspects. No references used. The requirements detailed in the specification have not been met. An incomplete/ not effective/ non-existent critique of the chosen paper that has no focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. A very poor/missing integration and balance of your opinion, poor arguments that are not backed up with quality arguments and research. Overall, the critical Assessment is poor (both in terms of presentation and writing), with no logical flow of content. Content and presentation are lacking in most aspects. Little quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification have been poorly met in places. An average critique of the chosen paper that has a little focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. An average integration and balance of your opinion to produce average arguments that are backed up with only a few quality arguments and research. The critical Assessment is average (both in terms of presentation and writing), with an average logical flow of content. The content will be to a fairly acceptable level, although there may be some minor omissions and inconsistencies. An average quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are somewhat met. A fairly good critique of the chosen paper that has in a few places focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. A fairly good integration and balance of your opinion to produce fairly reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with some quality arguments and research. The Assessment is fairly well presented and written, with a fairly good logical flow of content. In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a fairly good standard. The content will be somewhat complete and will be of an acceptable level. The critical Assessment will be written to a fairly good level. Good quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are almost fully met. A good critique of the paper that has (in many places) effectively focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. Good integration and balance of your opinion. Reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with quality arguments and research. The Assessment is well presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content. The content is complete and will be to a competent but less exacting standard than for a 70+. In general, the Assessment is well-written, but the high standard may be less consistent in some sections of the report than others. A very good quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are met fully. An excellent critique of the chosen paper that effectively focuses on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. Excellent integration and balance of your opinion to produce reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with quality arguments and research. The Assessment is excellently presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content. In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a high standard. Higher grades of A will show evidence of creativity & extra effort such as reading around the subject or commenting on the merits or otherwise of the system/research documented. Excellent quality of references used.
Conclusion
(2%) A very poor conclusion provided which covers little to none of the required points. A poor conclusion provided which covers a few of the required points. An average conclusion provided which covers some of the required points. A good and fairly effective conclusion provided which covers most of the required points. A very good and effective conclusion provided which covers nearly all the required points. Excellent and very effective conclusion covering all the required points.
Critique2 12% Introduction
(2%) A very poor introduction. Very little and/ or no clarity or structure in the introduction. A poor introduction. Little clarity and/ or structure in the introduction. An average introduction. Some clarity and/ or structure in places in the introduction. A good and fairly convincing introduction. A somewhat clear and well-structured introduction. A very good and convincing Introduction. A reasonably clear and well-structured Introduction. Excellent and very convincing Introduction. A clear and well-structured Introduction.
Summary
(2%) A very poor summary. A summary with little or no detail, no depth andno insight that covers none of the relevant points of the critique. A poor summary. A summary with little detail, depth and insight that covers very few of the relevant points of the critique. An average summary. A summary with average detail, depth and insight that covers a few of the relevant points of the critique. A good and fairly convincing summary. A soemwhat detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers some of the relevant points of the critique. A very good and convincing summary. A detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers nearly all of the relevant points of the critique. Excellent and very convincing summary. A detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers all of the relevant points of the critique.
Critical Assessment (6%) The requirements detailed in the specification have not been met. No critique of the chosen paper is present. No focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing has been provided. No integration and balance of your opinion, very poor arguments that are not backed up with quality arguments and research. Overall, the report is very poor (both in terms of presentation and writing), with no logical flow of content. Content and presentation are lacking in all aspects. No references used. The requirements detailed in the specification have not been met. An incomplete/ not effective/ non-existent critique of the chosen paper that has no focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. A very poor/missing integration and balance of your opinion, poor arguments that are not backed up with quality arguments and research. Overall, the critical Assessment is poor (both in terms of presentation and writing), with no logical flow of content. Content and presentation are lacking in most aspects. Little quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification have been poorly met in places. An average critique of the chosen paper that has a little focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. An average integration and balance of your opinion to produce average arguments that are backed up with only a few quality arguments and research. The critical Assessment is average (both in terms of presentation and writing), with an average logical flow of content. The content will be to a fairly acceptable level, although there may be some minor omissions and inconsistencies. An average quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are somewhat met. A fairly good critique of the chosen paper that has in a few places focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. A fairly good integration and balance of your opinion to produce fairly reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with some quality arguments and research. The Assessment is fairly well presented and written, with a fairly good logical flow of content. In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a fairly good standard. The content will be somewhat complete and will be of an acceptable level. The critical Assessment will be written to a fairly good level. Good quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are almost fully met. A good critique of the paper that has (in many places) effectively focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. Good integration and balance of your opinion. Reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with quality arguments and research. The Assessment is well presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content. The content is complete and will be to a competent but less exacting standard than for a 70+. In general, the Assessment is well-written, but the high standard may be less consistent in some sections of the report than others. A very good quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are met fully. An excellent critique of the chosen paper that effectively focuses on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. Excellent integration and balance of your opinion to produce reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with quality arguments and research. The Assessment is excellently presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content. In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a high standard. Higher grades of A will show evidence of creativity & extra effort such as reading around the subject or commenting on the merits or otherwise of the system/research documented. Excellent quality of references used.
Conclusion (2%) A very poor conclusion provided which covers little to none of the required points. A poor conclusion provided which covers a few of the required points. An average conclusion provided which covers some of the required points. A good and fairly effective conclusion provided which covers most of the required points. A very good and effective conclusion provided which covers nearly all the required points. Excellent and very effective conclusion covering all the required points.
Critique3 12% Introduction
(2%) A very poor introduction. Very little and/ or no clarity or structure in the introduction. A poor introduction. Little clarity and/ or structure in the introduction. An average introduction. Some clarity and/ or structure in places in the introduction. A good and fairly convincing introduction. A somewhat clear and well-structured introduction. A very good and convincing Introduction. A reasonably clear and well-structured Introduction. Excellent and very convincing Introduction. A clear and well-structured Introduction.
Summary
(2%) A very poor summary. A summary with little or no detail, no depth andno insight that covers none of the relevant points of the critique. A poor summary. A summary with little detail, depth and insight that covers very few of the relevant points of the critique. An average summary. A summary with average detail, depth and insight that covers a few of the relevant points of the critique. A good and fairly convincing summary. A soemwhat detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers some of the relevant points of the critique. A very good and convincing summary. A detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers nearly all of the relevant points of the critique. Excellent and very convincing summary. A detailed, in-depth and insightful summary that covers all of the relevant points of the critique.
Critical Assessment (6%) The requirements detailed in the specification have not been met. No critique of the chosen paper is present. No focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing has been provided. No integration and balance of your opinion, very poor arguments that are not backed up with quality arguments and research. Overall, the report is very poor (both in terms of presentation and writing), with no logical flow of content. Content and presentation are lacking in all aspects. No references used. The requirements detailed in the specification have not been met. An incomplete/ not effective/ non-existent critique of the chosen paper that has no focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. A very poor/missing integration and balance of your opinion, poor arguments that are not backed up with quality arguments and research. Overall, the critical Assessment is poor (both in terms of presentation and writing), with no logical flow of content. Content and presentation are lacking in most aspects. Little quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification have been poorly met in places. An average critique of the chosen paper that has a little focus on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. An average integration and balance of your opinion to produce average arguments that are backed up with only a few quality arguments and research. The critical Assessment is average (both in terms of presentation and writing), with an average logical flow of content. The content will be to a fairly acceptable level, although there may be some minor omissions and inconsistencies. An average quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are somewhat met. A fairly good critique of the chosen paper that has in a few places focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. A fairly good integration and balance of your opinion to produce fairly reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with some quality arguments and research. The Assessment is fairly well presented and written, with a fairly good logical flow of content. In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a fairly good standard. The content will be somewhat complete and will be of an acceptable level. The critical Assessment will be written to a fairly good level. Good quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are almost fully met. A good critique of the paper that has (in many places) effectively focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. Good integration and balance of your opinion. Reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with quality arguments and research. The Assessment is well presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content. The content is complete and will be to a competent but less exacting standard than for a 70+. In general, the Assessment is well-written, but the high standard may be less consistent in some sections of the report than others. A very good quality of references used. The requirements detailed in the specification are met fully. An excellent critique of the chosen paper that effectively focuses on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing. Excellent integration and balance of your opinion to produce reasonable and convincing arguments that are backed up with quality arguments and research. The Assessment is excellently presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content. In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a high standard. Higher grades of A will show evidence of creativity & extra effort such as reading around the subject or commenting on the merits or otherwise of the system/research documented. Excellent quality of references used.
Conclusion
(2%) A very poor conclusion provided which covers little to none of the required points. A poor conclusion provided which covers a few of the required points. An average conclusion provided which covers some of the required points. A good and fairly effective conclusion provided which covers most of the required points. A very good and effective conclusion provided which covers nearly all the required points. Excellent and very effective conclusion covering all the required points.
Writing 7% Very Poor format: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Very poor grammar, spelling, punctuation; Very poor writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative) Poor format: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Poor grammar, spelling, punctuation; Poor writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative) Average formatting: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Average grammar, spelling, punctuation; Average writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative) Good formatting: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Good grammar, spelling, punctuation; Good writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative) Very good formatting: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Very good grammar, spelling, punctuation; Very good writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative) Excellent format: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Excellent grammar, spelling, punctuation; Excellent writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative)
Further Information
Preparing for placement
As detailed in the Academic Handbook, Cardiff Metropolitan University will ensure that a risk assessment of the work-based or placement learning opportunity is completed before you commence the opportunity. We will also ensure that a written agreement setting out the responsibilities of all parties
exists between the university, the student and the work-based or placement learning provider.
You will need to complete the necessary pre-placement preparation as directed and please speak with your Module Leader if there’s anything that you’re uncertain about. All pre-placement preparation needs to be completed prior to commencing placement. Until the necessary documentation is completed, any placement activity will not be recognised by the university.
Equality and diversity
Cardiff Metropolitan University is committed to promoting and implementing best practice in Equality and Diversity (E&D) in order to provide a working and learning environment to enable both staff and students to reach their full potential.
We wish to work beyond the legislative requirements in the delivery of E&D policies, and aim for equality of opportunity to be embedded in everything we do. Cardiff Metropolitan University is an organisation where diversity is valued, equality is promoted and services are delivered to support all staff and students.
The University is aware of the need to recognise people’s identities as multi-dimensional and is committed to providing a positive working and learning environment free from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex or sexual orientation.
As a placement student, you are bound by the same policies and we expect you to treat peers, colleagues, university staff, and all others with dignity and respect at all times. Should you have any concerns regarding this, please contact your Module Leader.
Students with additional requirements
Cardiff Metropolitan University and placement providers are required to ensure equality of opportunity for all students. To support student needs, we and placement providers will make ‘reasonable adjustments’ and ensure proportional changes to processes and procedures to provide an accessible working and learning environment.
‘Reasonable adjustments’ are the adjustments made by educational and placement providers to ensure equality for students or employees with a disability. These adjustments could be removing physical barriers or providing certain aids or equipment. Reasonable adjustments in education can include allowing students to audio-record lectures or have longer time within exams. The requirements of your module and placement need to be adhered to by all students, however reasonable adjustments can adapt how the requirements are achieved.
In order to adhere to the Equality Act, if you have disclosed in your placement preparation that you have a mental or physical disability and are being supported by the Cardiff Metropolitan University Wellbeing Service, your additional needs in relation to placement will be discussed with a relevant member of staff. The impact of your disability will be discussed and reasonable adjustments for placements will be identified and considered. With your permission, we will disclose this information to your placement provider to ensure they can support your needs.
This information (with your consent) is also shared with Cardiff Metropolitan Wellbeing Service to ensure parity and effective support.
We strongly advise that you remain open, honest and proactive regarding any difficulties that may occur within your placement and keep Cardiff Metropolitan staff updated so that we can support you appropriately.
You have the right not to disclose your disability in your preparation for placement, and you may elect not to attend a meeting to discuss its impact. However, in this instance we will not be able to support you or make adjustments and this could impact on your placement experience and overall performance.
In some cases, students may have a condition which they do not regard as a disability, however if adjustments are required within their placements in order to manage this condition, students will be required to disclose this through Student Services. We are unable to make adjustments without an assessment of need having been made.
Who can answer questions about my assessment?
Questions about the assessment should be directed to the staff member who has set the task/assessment brief. This will usually be the Module Leader. They will be happy to answer any queries you have.
Staff members can often provide feedback on an assignment plan but cannot review any drafts of your work prior to submission. The only exception to this rule is for Dissertation Supervisors to provide feedback on a draft of your dissertation.
Referencing and independent learning
Please ensure you reference a range of credible sources, with due attention to the academic literature in the area. The time spent on research and reading from good quality sources will be reflected in the quality of your submitted work.
Remember that what you get out of university depends on what you put in. Your teaching sessions typically represent between 10% and 30% of the time you are expected to study for your degree. A 20-credit module represents 200 hours of study time. The rest of your time should be taken up by self-directed study.
Unless stated otherwise you must use the HARVARD referencing system. Further guidance on referencing can be found in the Study Smart area on Moodle and at www.citethemrightonline.com (use your university login details to access the site). Correct referencing is an easy way to improve your marks and essential in achieving higher grades on most assessments.
Technical submission problems
It is strongly advised that you submit your work at least 24 hours before the deadline to allow time to resolve any last minute problems you might have. If you are having issues with IT or Turnitin you should contact the IT Helpdesk on (+44) 2920 417000. You may require evidence of the Helpdesk call if you are trying to demonstrate that a fault with Moodle or Turnitin was the cause of a late submission.
Extensions and mitigating circumstances
Short extensions on assessment deadlines can be requested in specific circumstances. If you are encountering particular hardship which has been affecting your studies, then you may be able to apply for mitigating circumstances. This can give the teachers on your programme more scope to adapt the assessment requirements to support your needs. Extensions and mitigating circumstances policies and procedures are regularly updated. You should refer to your degree programme or school Moodle pages for information on extensions and mitigating circumstances.
Unfair academic practice
Cardiff Met takes issues of unfair practice extremely seriously. The University has procedures and penalties for dealing with unfair academic practice. These are explained in full in the University’s Unfair Practice regulations and procedures under Volume 1, Section 8 of the Academic Handbook. The Module Leader reserves the right to interview students regarding any aspect of their work submitted for assessment.
Types of Unfair Practice, include:
Plagiarism, which can be defined as using without acknowledgement another person’s words or ideas and submitting them for assessment as though it were one’s own work, for instance by copying, translating from one language to another or unacknowledged paraphrasing. Further examples include:
• Use of any quotation(s) from the published or unpublished work of other persons, whether published in textbooks, articles, the Web, or in any other format, where quotations have not been clearly identified as such by being placed in quotation marks and acknowledged.
• Use of another person’s words or ideas that have been slightly changed or paraphrased to make it look different from the original.
• Summarising another person’s ideas, judgments, diagrams, figures, or computer programmes without reference to that person in the text and the source in a bibliography/reference list.
• Use of assessment writing services, essay banks and/or any other similar agencies (NB. Students are commonly being blackmailed after using essay mills).
• Use of unacknowledged material downloaded from the Internet.
• Re-use of one’s own material except as authorised by your degree programme.
Collusion, which can be defined as when work that that has been undertaken with others is submitted and passed off as solely the work of one person. Modules will clearly identify where joint preparation and joint submission are permitted, in all other cases they are not.
Fabrication of data, making false claims to have carried out experiments, observations, interviews or other forms of data collection and analysis, or acting dishonestly in any other way.
How is my work graded?
Assessment grading is subject to thorough quality control processes. You can view a summary of these processes on the Assessment Explained Infographic.
Grading of work at each level of Cardiff Met degree courses is benchmarked against a set of general requirements set out in Volume 1, Section 4.3 of our Academic Handbook. A simplified version of these Grade Band Descriptors (GBDs) with short videos explaining some of the academic terminology used can be accessed for Foundation, 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year undergraduate and MSc programmes.
We would strongly recommend looking at the Study Smart area of Moodle to find out more about assessments and key academic skills which can have a significant impact on your grades. Always check your work thoroughly before submission.
