ES5628 Part 1 Environmental Tools and Methodologies Assessment Brief | BUL

Programme: MSc Environmental Management

Module Code and Name: ES5628 –

Environmental Tools & Methodology

Assessment Title: Environmental Tools &

Methods PowerPoint Slides Assessment 

Submission / assessment date: 

PowerPoint Slides must be submitted via WISEflow before 12 noon 8th December 2026.

• Synthesis of ideas from different areas
• Logical and critical thinking

• Present complex scientific data
• Analyse and investigate cross-disciplinary and cutting-edge environmental methods & tools.

Core technical skills

-  Academic writing

-  Critical assessment of scientific evidence - Secondary data collection and analysis

Subject specific skills 

- Understanding of the scope of assessment and organising the

work accordingly

Transferable skills

-  Scientific research

-  Complex knowledge synthesis

-  Science communication skills

-  Time management

Maths / Statistics - Interpretation of published data, figures

and statistical analysis.

Assessment 1:  PowerPoint Presentation  

Prepare a PowerPoint presentation that demonstrates your understanding of the tools and methodologies covered in the Module ES5628. Your presentation must cover all of the following tools/method:

1.    Experimental Study Designs in Environmental Sciences

2.    Analytical Science and Environmental Toxicology

3.    Ecology and Environmental Field Sampling

4.    Method Validation and Data Analysis in Environmental Sciences

5.    Life Cycle and Sustainability Assessment and Mapping

6.    Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing

7.    Systematic Literature Review

For each tool or methodology, your presentation should:

• explain its underlying principles and key concepts;
  
  
• discuss its relevance and applications within environmental science and environmental management; and
  
  
• identify and explain the key factors that drive or influence its implementation in environmental management, including where appropriate scientific, regulatory, technological, economic, or practical considerations.

Your presentation should be a maximum of 15 content slides, excluding the title slide and reference slide(s).

Presentation guidance

• The overall structure, design, and format of the presentation are up to you. You are encouraged to present the material in a clear, engaging, and visually effective way that supports, rather than distracts from, your main messages.
  
  
• You may incorporate appropriate figures, diagrams, photographs, maps, tables, graphs, and other visual materials to communicate your ideas effectively.
  
  
• Remember that the University's requirements concerning academic integrity, referencing, and appropriate attribution of sources apply equally to PowerPoint presentations and other forms of assessed work.
  
  
• All information obtained from external sources should be appropriately referenced. This includes text, data, figures, diagrams, photographs, maps, and other visual materials.
  
  
• Where images or other third-party materials are used, ensure that you have the appropriate rights or permission to use them. Where possible, use appropriately licensed materials, such as Creative Commons or public-domain resources, and provide suitable attribution.
  
  
• If you are uncertain about appropriate referencing, use of sources, copyright, or what may constitute academic misconduct, please seek guidance before submitting your work.

Relevant Senate Regulations concerning Taught Postgraduate Programmes:

• Senate Regulation 3 Taught Postgraduate Programmes for students registering in or after September 2020

Extenuating circumstances (ECs)

• The Extenuating Circumstances Procedure exists for situations where a student's performance in assessments is significantly affected by an event that was unavoidable, unexpected and beyond the control of the student.
  
  
• Alternatively, please contact your personal tutor, module leader or programme leader for further support. 

Plagiarism, collusion, and academic offenses

• For further clarification of academic misconduct please watch the following video and engage with the Brightspace short course on plagiarism.

Criteria

Outstanding

80%+

Excellent

70-79%

Very Good

60-69%

Good

50-59%

Acceptable

40-49%

Unsatisfactory

35-39%

Unacceptable

>35%

Critical analysis of all the

tools/methods, demonstrating outstanding understanding and indepth analyses of the tools and methods. The evaluation presented demonstrates originality and independence. Outstanding selection of relevant material to substantiate the tools/methods. Depth of understanding exceptional. 

The evaluation presented demonstrates high level of independent thinking and originality. Excellent selection of information and analysis included. Presented in appropriate depth, showing excellent level of understanding

of all the tools/methods.

Evaluation presented shows independent thinking and originality. Very good choice of information and analysis included. Presented in good detail, indicating a very good level of understanding of the tools and methods.

Very few omissions.

The evaluation of the methods/tools presented is unsatisfactory. There is no evidence of independent thinking

and originality. There is some evidence of understanding of the key topic, but this is very limited. 

The evaluation of the methods/tools presented has not been developed at all. No indication that the material is understood.  

No evidence of any reputable sources of information being used to prepare the presentation.

Outstanding understanding and explanation of the key principles of all the tool/method; and their application in environmental sciences and management. 

Depth of understanding exceptional.

Excellent explanation of the underlying principles and application of all the

tools and methodologies in environmental sciences and management. Presented in appropriate depth, showing excellent level of understanding. 

Very good explanation of the underlying principles and application of all the

tools and methodologies in environmental sciences and management.

Presented in good detail, indicating a very good level of understanding. Very few omissions.  

No explanation of the underlying principles and application of the tools/methods is presented. No indication that the material is understood.  

No evidence of any reputable sources of information being used to prepare the presentation.

Understanding of   the factors affecting implementation of the proposed method/tool.

Excellent 
understanding
of the factors
affecting implementation
of the tools/
methods.

Good understanding of the  

factors affecting implementation of the methods/tools.

Scientific 
communication of a complex topic  

Exceptional ability to communicate complex topics using accurate and scientific terminology.  

The PowerPoint Slides are outstanding and engaging, and specifically targeted to a group of scientists, environmental managers & colleagues

An excellent ability to communicate clearly and concisely using scientific terminology.  

The PowerPoint Slides are very good and very engaging. It is clearly aimed at a group of scientists, environmental managers & colleagues

An ability to communicate clearly and concisely using good and appropriate scientific terminology.  

Most of the report is clear and engaging.

An ability to communicate clearly and effectively using appropriate scientific terms.  

The presentation conveys

the message appropriately. 

Little evidence of effective communication. The report lacks clarity and/or does not use appropriate scientific language. 

Visual clarity and appeal of the PowerPoint Slides (structure & clarity, layout, use of visual

aids, slides,

The material is presented to a standard expected of a professional

presentation. Visual aids were selected with outstanding skill and judgement.

The presentation is not well planned or structured and contains significant errors. Materials are not used appropriately. The

structure of the presentation partly prevents information being conveyed effectively. 

Poor report plan and structure. Materials are either not present or not appropriate. The design of the report has a considerable negative

effect on the conveyance of information.

Material is derived from a significant number of excellent sources e.g.  

peer-reviewed papers and reviews most relevant and authoritative reports.