ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Assessment Coursework
Assessment code: 010
Academic Year: 2023/2024
Trimester: 1
Module Title: Postgraduate Major Project/Dissertation
Module Code: MOD006892
Level: 7
Module Leader: Ardavan Amini
Weighting: 100%
Word Limit: 12,000 words
This excludes the bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.83 of the Academic Regulations:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.p df
Assessed Learning Outcomes Knowledge and Understanding
1. Establish a method for investigation/exploration of a significant and complex business problem in an international context.
2. Demonstrate detailed knowledge and understanding of the chosen field of research.
Intellectual, practical, effective, and transferrable skills
3. Critically evaluate complex issues from a variety of standpoints.
4. Justify and rigorously apply appropriate methodologies and methods for the exploration/investigation of the chosen research problem.
5. Develop and convey effective arguments to generate relevant and academically rigorous solutions to the agreed research questions.
6. Formulate solutions to real-life business problems, taking into consideration wider international, ethical, environmental, and sustainability issues.
Submission Deadline: Please refer to the deadline on the VLE
WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
• This assignment must be completed individually.
• You must use the Harvard referencing system.
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement
of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
• Number all pages.
SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – if your work is submitted on the same day as the deadline by midnight, your mark will receive a 10% penalty.
Work that is submitted late – up to TWO working days after the published submission deadline - will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.
Work cannot be submitted if the period of 2 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will meanthatyou have failed the assessment.
Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. A request must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline. See rule6.64-6.73:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Mitigation: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please
contact the Director of Studies Team -
DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. See rules 6.112 – 6.141:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION Assessment:
Formative Assessment
Students will be expected to produce interim chapters outlining the progress of the dissertation/report at suitable points during the process. This timetable will be identified by the supervisor, in consultation with the student.
These interim chapters/sections will serve as milestones and progress indicators. These should be submitted to the supervisor no later than week eight after the student has started the Postgraduate Major Project module.
Summative Assessment
The dissertation/consultancy report is an independent study project involving the collection and analysis of data from essentially secondary sources, carried out by an individual student on a relevant topic of their choice. Primary sources may be employed in exceptional circumstances.
The dissertation/consultancy report should be no more than 12,000 words in length, excluding the appendix and bibliography.
As an alternative to the written dissertation, students may elect, following consultation and approval by their supervisor, a consultant’s report, see Table 1. Students electing to submit a consultant’s report will be required to conform to accepted academic standards.
Table 1: Types of Assessment
Assessment number Learning
Outcomes to be met Type of assessment
Weighting
Word count
010
1 - 6 Dissertation, (or)
100% 12,000 words
Consultancy report 12,000 words
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Unlike other assessments, the MBA International, MSc International Marketing, MSc International Project Management, MBA Healthcare dissertation, will be assessed in an integrative manner with marks awarded against categories indicated in Table 2. More detailed criteria for grade boundaries are outlined in Table 3.
Table 2: Assessment of the Postgraduate Major Project
CRITERIA
Mark
Weight FAIL LOW
RANGE
(0 - 29%) FAIL
STANDARD RANGE
(30 - 39%) Basic Pass (40- 49%) SATISFACTORY
PASS
(50 –59%) CREDIT
PASS(60 –
69%) DISTINCTION
PASS (70-
100%)
MARK
Non- existent, very poor in
fulfilling the
requirements of the assessment. Limited knowledge,
understanding and
understanding
of the area and its methodologies. Basic with omissions
in fulfilling the
requirements of the assessment. Satisfactory in fulfilling the
requirements of the
assessment but
critical, synthesis skills need
development and there is
some missing or irrelevant material. Good – very good in fulfilling the requirements of the
assessment; but
gaps in the use of
critical and synthesis
skills and materials. Excellent/
Outstanding in fulfilling the
requirements of the
assessment; no
significant gaps
in the use of critical and
synthesis skills and materials.
1. Is the abstract/executive summary adequate? Is there a clear aim and rationale for the study? Is there a clear set of objectives and/or research questions? 10
2. Was the research design and methodology well- chosen, valid, and evaluated? Were all the ethical considerations identified andevaluated? 10
3. Was the range of literature appropriate, adequate and contemporary? Has a critical review of the relevant literature been adopted? 30
4. Has the data/information been accurately presented and analysed, or are the findings merely descriptive? Has the appropriate theory been applied? Is there a synthesis of theory and practice? 20
5. Are conclusions clearly outlined and reasoned? Do the conclusions correspond with the objective(s) and formulate solutions to real-life business problems, taking into consideration wider international, ethical, environmental and
Sustainability issues. Has
the candidate 20
reflected on the extent they have achieved their objectives?
6. Correct grammar, structure, style, and punctuation. Harvard referencing correctly applied. Appropriate use of
tables/diagrams/charts and other visual material? Appropriate bibliography correctly presented. 10
Provisional
Total
Mark
100
INTEGRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF MASTERS DISSERTATION/PROJECT REPORT
Table 3: PMP Assessment Criteria and Marking Standard (reflective of ARU Generic criteria), Table 4.
Unlike other assessments, the Masters dissertation/project report, is assessed in an integrative manner with the broad learning outcomes, relating to (i) Knowledge & Understanding and (ii) Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills, (Table 3), split into three broad assessment criteria, (a) Research skills and analysis and evaluation of key issues/ concepts/ ethics (b) Development of conceptual structures and argument and synthesis, and (c) Use of academic conventions and Presentation as presented in this table and analysed in the marking frame, Table 1..
Research skills and analysis and evaluation of key Use of academic conventions
Development of conceptual structures and argument and synthesis
issues/ concepts/ ethics and Presentation
(~40% of total)
(~50% of total) (10% of total)
Examples: EIsx thereamp lae clears: aim and rationale for the study? Is there a clear set of objectives Examples:
Was the range of literature appropriate, adequate and Is there evidence of use of correct
and/or research questions?
Mark Bands contemporary? Has a critical review of the relevant grammar, structure, style and
Has appropriate theory been applied? Is there a synthesis of theory and practice? literature been adopted? punctuation. Is Harvard referencing
Are conclusions clearly outlined and reasoned? Do the conclusions correspond
Was the research design and methodology well- correctly applied. Is there appropriate
with the objective(s) and formulate solutions to real-life business problems, taking
chosen, valid and evaluated? Were all the ethical use of tables/ diagrams/ charts and
into consideration wider international, ethical, environmental and sustainability
considerations identified and evaluated? other visual material? Is the
issues? Has the candidate reflected on the extent they have achieved their
Has the data/information been accurately presented and bibliography appropriate and correctly
objectives?
analysed, or are the findings merely descriptive? Is the abstract/executive summary adequate? presented?
Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. An exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/intellectual skills. Work pushes the
90-100% boundaries of theAn exceptional answer discipline adopts and may bea logical structure considered for external and identifies pertinent publication theories, outlined above, with exceptional intellectual originality and imagination, enabling a discussion as to how this may be applied. Arguments are supported by a wide range of relevant contemporary academic theories and paradigms, demonstrate an exceptional management of resources. Relevant theory is critiqued and applied before reaching exceptional balanced conclusion(s).
Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Very high-level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Exemplary academic/intellectual skills.
80-89% An outstanding answer adopts a logical structure and identifies pertinent theories with outstanding intellectual originality and imagination, enabling a discussion as to how this may be applied. Arguments are supported by a wide range of relevant contemporary academic theories and paradigms. Relevant theory is critiqued and applied before reachi ng balanced conclusion(s).
Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. High-level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent academic/intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality.
70-79% An excellent answer adopts a logical structure and identifies pertinent theories, with depth, flair and imagination and discusses how this may be applied. Arguments are supported by a wide range of relevant contemporary academic theories and paradigms. Relevant theory is critiqued and applied before reaching balanced conclusi on(s).
Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions.
60-69% A good answer adopts a logical structure and identifies pertinent theories, to underpin the work, discussing how their ideas might be appli ed. Arguments are supported by relevant contemporary theories and paradigms. Omissions and inaccuracies are minor.
Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in the discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions.
50-59% A satisfactory answer determines most issues and demonstrates knowledge and starts to discuss how this could be applied. There are some omissions in content as well as some inconsistencies in application and inaccuracies in expression. Structure is generally quite logical.
Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Generally descriptive, with a restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent.
40-49% A basic answer identifies main issues and demonstrates knowledge, at a superficial level with little discussion as to how this is applied. It demonstrates difficulties and expression lacks academic maturity. Answers in this category often adopt a write-all-you-know-about-the-topic approach including little or no application.
Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/ Professional skills not yet secure. Weak academic/
30-39% intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.A qualifying answer identifies some/ main issues and demonstrates a very limited knowledge, at a very superficial level and discusses (at a very basic level) with no discussion as to how this i s applied. Expression is weak.
Answers in this category often adopt a write-all-you-know-about-the-topic approach including little or no application.
7
20-29% Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument.
Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem-solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Very weak academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of the use of scholarly conventions
10-19% Inadequate knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Wholly descriptive, with an inadequate synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate argument.
Inadequate use of research skills, learning resources and problem-solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Extremely weak academic/intellectual skills.
Inadequate use of scholarly conventions
1-9% No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever.
No evidence of the use of research skills, learning resources and problem-solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills non-existent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills.
No evidence of the use of scholarly conventions
0% Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (e.g.: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes
8
Table 4: ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS - LEVEL 7
Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.
Mark Bands
Outcome Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
Knowledge & Understanding Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills
90-
100%
Achieves module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy. An exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument making exceptional use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. An exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional
expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication
80-89%
Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics with clear originality and autonomy. An outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument making exemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Very high- level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding
expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Exemplary academic/intellectual skills
70-79%
Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument making excellent use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. High-level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent
academic/intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality
60-69% Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions
50-59% Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in the discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in the discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions
40-49% A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Generally descriptive, with the restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little
argument. Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Generally descriptive, with a restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent.
30-39% A marginal fail in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Possible compensation.
Satisfies qualifying mark.
Limited knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Largely descriptive, with a restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions.
Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/ Professional skills not yet secure. Weak academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions
20-29%
Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO. Qualifying mark not satisfied. No
compensation available Little evidence of knowledge of key
issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument. Little evidence of the use of scholarly conventions. Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem-solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Very weak academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of the use of scholarly conventions
10-19% Inadequate knowledge of key
issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Wholly descriptive, with an inadequate synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate argument. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions. Inadequate use of research skills, learning resources and problem-solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Extremely weak academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions
1-9% No evidence of knowledge of key
issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever. No evidence of the use of scholarly conventions. No evidence of the use of research skills, learning resources and problem-solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills non-existent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No evidence of the use of scholarly conventions
0% Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (e.g.: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes
9