The Independent Business Analysis Project | My Assignment Tutor

Authorised: Authorised: FoSS version 1 – Approved by: FAEC November 8th 2016. Ref: 2 Module Assessment Briefing FormFaculty of Arts & Social Sciences: Assessment Brief for Students 2020-2021 Module code and title7MG001: The Independent Business Analysis Project 20-21Module leaderKate MoseleyDietAll CohortsFirst attempt (re-sit is the same submission with improvements ;asadvised by the supervisor)Assessment typeSecond Assessment – A Report: DISSERTATION/CONSULTANCYREPORT/SLMDA WORK BASED PROJECT/OTHERSubmission dateVarious: depending upon start dateSubmission methodSUBMISSION ON CANVAS ONLY (Electronic)Assessment limitsMinimum 12,000 words – maximum 16,000 wordsAssessment weighting67% of the module Assessment BriefYou are asked to produce a piece of original work; based on your own independent research whichmay be based on purely academic research, a live work based project, a case study or a consultancyinititiative. For the award of a Master’s degree, candidates must present the Independent Reportwithin their specific field of study. It should demonstrate a range of advanced intellectual andpractical skills in carrying out an “evidence based research project” as highlighted in the learningoutcomes of the module. (See below)The report must be within a business and management context (linked to a specific subject area) andwill, as a minimum, include a clear rationale for the research, reference to academic literature frompeer reviewed journals, a critique of research methodology, analysis of the data and findings. Thereport format will differ depending on your course and the type of project you embark on. Yoursupervisor will advise you regarding this and there are some format examples for dissertations/workbased project and consultancy projects in the Canvas materials which you are advised to follow.N.B. The word count /content for each section will vary depending upon the course, research approachand topic studied. Candidates will receive further guidance from their Supervisor as to the specificcontent/approach. Assessment Criteria (The actual assessment components for this assignment)Specific Criteria:WeightingABSTRACT or EXECUTIVE SUMMARYN/AINTRODUCTION & RATIONALEN/ACRITICAL REVIEW OF LITERATUREN/AEXPLANATION AND LIMITATIONS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS USEDN/A Authorised: Authorised: FoSS version 1 – Approved by: FAEC November 8th 2016. Ref: 2 Module Assessment Briefing Form DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISN/AFINDINGS & DISCUSSION RELATED TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS/HYPOTHESESN/APRESENTATION/STRUCTURE /REFERENCINGN/A Pass markPost Graduate 50%Performance descriptors in use:• University of Wolverhampton Yes• Professional or Statutory Body Yes• Module specific Yes• Other No Return of assessments(Instructions for return /collection of assessments)Not applicable, feedback sheet available through Canvas usually 4 weeksafter submission date This assessment is testing Module Learning outcomesTick if tested hereLO1Evidence of masters level study/research skills in the planning anddesign of a research or consultancy proposal.LO2Demonstrate an advanced level of analytical, numerical and linguisticskills associated with the evaluation of secondary and primary data atmaster’s level.✔LO3Critically evaluate and apply the core principles of researchmethodology, philosophy and methods of business managementresearch/consultancy (empirical or non empirical).✔LO4Provide evidence of an advanced level of competence in the design,execution and reporting of an independent research orconsultancy/project related to the masters award.✔LO5LO5 Evaluate and reflect on learning through either work based professionalpractice and/or personal development activities✔ Additional information for studentsThe University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range oftopics to support your studies, and develop your academic skills including a guide to academic referencing module guide and course handbook contain additional and important information regarding;• The required referencing style for your assignment.*Whilst many modules require referencing in accordance with the Harvard Referencing convention,some modules – for example those within the School of Law – require Oxford Referencing. Pleasefamiliarise yourself with the requirements of your module.Authorised: Authorised: FoSS version 1 – Approved by: FAEC November 8th 2016. Ref: 2 Module Assessment Briefing Form• Submission of your work• Marking, feedback and moderation in accordance with the University of WolverhamptonAssessment Handbook• Extensions on submission dates *• Additional support *• Academic conduct with regards to cheating, collusion or plagiarism *• Links to appropriate sources of relevant information ** Further information regarding these and other policies can be accessed through your student portal on keep a copy of your work and a file of working papersThe requirement to keep a file of working papers is important. There may be circumstances where it isdifficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is the case, you may be asked to submit your file andpossibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration confirming that:• The submission is your own work• Any material you have used has been acknowledged and appropriately referenced• You have not allowed another student to have access to your work• The work has not been submitted previously.The following information is important when:• Preparing for your assignment• Checking your work before you submit it• Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.Module Learning OutcomesModule Learning Outcomes are specific to this module, and are set when the module was validated.Assessment CriteriaThe module Learning Outcomes tested by this assignment, and precise criteria against which your workwill be marked are outlined in your assessment brief.Performance DescriptorsPerformance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the assessment criteria. Thedescriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.To help you further:• Re-sit opportunities are available for students who are unable to take the first sit opportunity, or who needto re take any component.• Refer to the Canvas topic for contact details of your module leader / tutor, tutorial inputs, recommendedreading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on the Canvas module topic.• The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studiesand develop your academic skills Authorised: FoSS version 1 – Approved by: FAEC November 8th 2016. Ref: 2 Module Assessment Briefing FormFoSS Generic Assessment Performance DescriptorsBased on – University Performance Descriptors (updated September 2015)Note that these are generic descriptors that apply mainly, though not exclusively, to written academic work. The relevant performance descriptors for the appropriate level (as below) should appear in the module guide.Any further module-specific assessment criteria, such as number of words, should be clearly stated in the assignment brief. L7 (Masters Level) 50% Pass mark Required90-100%This work is outstanding and is of a standard, which could be considered for future publication in a professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic debate, whichpresents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied, and a totally justified position. The work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to currenttheory and/or practice and specific, focused examples of contestability. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation.No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.80-89%The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for future publication in a professional context. The work demonstrates engagement in an academic debate, which presents clear evidenceof a considered understanding of the professional issues, studied, the approach adopted and the position taken. The work enhances current theory and/or practice and displays a range of examplesof contestability. There is evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of theoretical models and/or practical applications has resulted in a distinct level oforiginality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.70-79%There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the complexity ofthe context in which it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinctmanner and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which current views are based and to challenge received opinion. Few errors inreferencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.60-69%The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria forthe judgement of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and acomparative review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practicalapplication within a given professional context. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate50-59%The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there isevidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learningoutcomes. Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.40-49%FailWhilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address each of the outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability toapply the principles of the module to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis orevaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered. There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to suggest that theparticipant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.30-39%FailThe work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. There are fundamental misconceptions of the basis of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understandingof relevant theory. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the author will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.20-29%FailThis work shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is little reference to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought or criticality. Overall the work is undulydescriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the essential issues.0-19%FailThis work is not coherent and shows severe faults in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It is unstructured and extremely badlypresented. It is totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *