Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?
Talk to an Expert| Category | Assignment | Subject | Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Anglia Ruskin University (a.r.u | London) | Module Title | MOD009379 Principles of International Project Management |
| Word Count | 3,000 words |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Assessment 011: Coursework - Analytical Report |
|
Assessment: |
Coursework - Analytical Report (Serbia Primary Education Project) |
|
Assessment code: |
011 |
|
Academic Year: |
2026 |
|
Trimester: |
3 |
|
Module Title: |
Principles of International Project Management |
|
Module Code: |
MOD009379 |
|
Level: |
7 |
|
Module Leader: |
Titus Kehinde Olaniyi |
|
Weighting: |
60% |
|
Word Limit: |
3,000 words This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the Academic Regulations: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/acad emic_regs.pdf |
|
Assessed Learning Outcomes: |
Knowledge and Understanding: 2. Critically understand how projects are initiated and progress through a life cycle to completion and decommissioning. Intellectual, practical, effective, and transferable skills 3. Respond to the ‘project environment’ and use and deploy tools and techniques to prepare, scope and manage the project through its life cycle. |
|
Submission Deadline: |
Please refer to the deadline on the VLE |
UCL Institute of Education, (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/), is generally recognised as one of the best Universities for teacher training. For this assessment, you will assume the role of a faculty member of UCL’s Department of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/departments-and-centres/curriculum-pedagogy-and-assessment), who through the UCL Consultants’, (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/consultants/work-ucl-consultants), Service wish to bid for the ‘Serbia Inclusive Primary Education Improvement Project’.
(see page 6 of the Serbia Project overview on the VLE (and also available at (https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/document-detail/P181557?type=projects).
The Institute of Project Management defines project scope as outlining the boundaries and objectives of a project, specifying what is included and excluded, and defining how the team will deliver the outcome. It is a crucial phase in project planning that establishes the project's goals, deliverables, budget, and schedule. Effectively managing scope ensures alignment with organizational goals, manages stakeholder expectations, and prevents "scope creep" (uncontrolled addition of features or tasks). The Institute of Project Management further defines five types of work breakdown structure (WBS), (deliverable-based, phase-based, resource-based, responsibility-based, and risk-based).
You are required to submit a proposal to the leadership team of UCL Consultants, addressing the following tasks:
Critique the utility of a resource-based work breakdown structure in framing UCL’s Department of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment’s bid for the ‘consultancy-work.
(30 marks)
(a)Using data from the ‘Serbia Inclusive Primary Education Improvement Project’ report, and any relevant research you conduct, prepare an appropriate work breakdown structure (WBS) itemising the main consultancy work elements required to complete all of the consultancy project work.
Level 0 is the title; in this case ‘Serbia Inclusive Primary Education Improvement Project’.
Level 1 comprises the sub-sub-phases identified in the client’s Outline Delivery Plan.
You are required to produce a breakdown structure for this Subcomponent to at least level 3 (i.e., to at least four levels).
(20 Marks)
(b)Using indicative cost data noted in the various reports relating the Serbia Inclusive Primary Education Improvement Project’, and any other relevant data, including that from your answer to Task 2 (a), estimate the delivered cost of the consultancy work, clearly explaining and justifying any assumptions you have found it necessary to make.
(20 Marks)
(c)Consider any contingencies that may be needed and provide a clear recommendation to aid in firming the bid costing.
(20 Marks)
Presentation (content, style, professionalism, creativity, and cohesion).
(10 Marks)
Total: 100 marks.
Pay & Get Instant Answer of MOD009379 Assessment 011: Coursework - Analytical Report Before Deadline
Order Non Plagiarized AssignmentYou should carefully consider all the data available to you and, where you feel it necessary or appropriate undertake additional research, (and/or make assumptions about the circumstances or data you use), to complete the assignment. You should clearly state, and justify, each assumption you make.
The work will be assessed in an integrative manner as indicated in the marking rubric that is consistent with Anglia Ruskin University generic assessment criteria and marking standards
|
GRADE à .
CRITERIA ↓ |
0 - 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics, research skills and academic / intellectual skills. Inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 - 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 - 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 - 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 - 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic/ Expressive/ professional skills and creativity |
|
Task 1 (a)
Demonstrate a critical understanding of project management tools/ techniques/ strategies, etc., (e.g., work breakdown structure), and their utility in managing projects across the life cycle. |
The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student did not submit the correct content or practically demonstrate an understanding of the topic. There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed only to an inadequate degree and there was inadequate evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student demonstrated only inadequate or inappropriate knowledge of the topic. There is Inadequate use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed to a limited degree.
For example, the student demonstrated only limited understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is limited use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is limited knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is descriptive but may be able to list several relevant concepts. |
The task was followed to a sound degree.
For example, the student demonstrated sound understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is sound use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is sound knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is somewhat descriptive, but able to evidence understanding of several relevant concepts. |
Good knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with good secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is good use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is good knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies analysis and evaluation of scenario data (or data derived therefrom) and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Excellent knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with excellent secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is an excellent use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is excellent knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scenario data and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Outstanding knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task with evident originality and autonomy of research skills. There is an outstanding use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. The work exceeds the taught material in many areas, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses. |
Exceptional knowledge base of their discipline with extraordinary originality and autonomy.
There is exceptional use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and develop detailed solutions and recommend course(s) of action The work significantly exceeds the taught material, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses, recognising anomalies. |
|
30 Marks |
0-8 |
9-11 |
12-14 |
15-17 |
18-20 |
21-33 |
24-26 |
27-30 |
|
GRADE à . CRITERIA ↓ |
0 - 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics, research skills and academic / intellectual skills. Inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 - 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 - 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 - 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 - 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic/ Expressive/ professional skills and creativity |
|
Task 2 (a) Demonstrate ability to utilise project management tools/ techniques/ strategies, etc., (e.g., work breakdown structure) in itemising and scheduling project work or resources |
The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student did not submit the correct content or practically demonstrate an understanding of the topic. There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed only to an inadequate degree and there was inadequate evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student demonstrated only inadequate or inappropriate knowledge of the topic. There is Inadequate use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed to a limited degree. For example, the student demonstrated only limited understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is limited use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is limited knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is descriptive but may be able to list a number of relevant concepts. |
The task was followed to a sound degree. For example, the student demonstrated sound understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is sound use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is sound knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is somewhat descriptive, but able to evidence understanding of several relevant concepts. |
Good knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with good secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources.
There is good use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is good knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies analysis and evaluation of scenario data (or data derived therefrom) and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Excellent knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with excellent secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources.
There is an excellent use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is excellent knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scenario data and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Outstanding knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task with evident originality and autonomy of research skills.
There is an outstanding use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. The work exceeds the taught material in many areas, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses. |
Exceptional knowledge base of their discipline with extraordinary originality and autonomy.
There is exceptional use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and develop detailed solutions and recommend course(s) of action The work significantly exceeds the taught material, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses, recognising anomalies. |
|
20 Marks |
0-5 |
6-7 |
8-9 |
10-11 |
12 |
14-15 |
16-17 |
18-20 |
|
GRADE à .
CRITERIA ↓ |
0 - 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics, research skills and academic / intellectual skills. Inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 - 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 - 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 - 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 - 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic/ Expressive/ professional skills and creativity |
|
Task 2 (b)
Demonstrate ability to utilise project management tools/ techniques/ strategies, etc., (e.g., work breakdown structure) in developing a business case/ budget or other project management decision-support deliverable for a project |
The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student did not submit the correct content or practically demonstrate an understanding of the topic. There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed only to an inadequate degree and there was inadequate evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student demonstrated only inadequate or inappropriate knowledge of the topic. There is Inadequate use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed to a limited degree. For example, the student demonstrated only limited understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is limited use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is limited knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is descriptive but may be able to list several relevant concepts. |
The task was followed to a sound degree. For example, the student demonstrated sound understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is sound use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is sound knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is somewhat descriptive, but able to evidence understanding of several relevant concepts. |
Good knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with good secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is good use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is good knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies analysis and evaluation of scenario data (or data derived therefrom) and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Excellent knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with excellent secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is an excellent use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is excellent knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scenario data and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Outstanding knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task with evident originality and autonomy of research skills. There is an outstanding use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. The work exceeds the taught material in many areas, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses. |
Exceptional knowledge base of their discipline with extraordinary originality and autonomy. There is exceptional use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and develop detailed solutions and recommend course(s) of action The work significantly exceeds the taught material, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses, recognising anomalies. |
|
20 Marks |
0-5 |
6-7 |
8-9 |
10-11 |
12 |
14-15 |
16-17 |
18-20 |
|
GRADE à .
CRITERIA ↓ |
0 - 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics, research skills and academic / intellectual skills. Inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 - 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 - 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 - 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 - 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic/ Expressive/ professional skills and creativity |
|
Task 2 (c)
Recommend a course of action as requested |
The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student did not submit the correct content or practically demonstrate an understanding of the topic. There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed only to an inadequate degree and there was inadequate evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student demonstrated only inadequate or inappropriate knowledge of the topic.There is Inadequate use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed to a limited degree. For example, the student demonstrated only limited understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is limited use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is limited knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is descriptive but may be able to list a number of relevant concepts. |
The task was followed to a sound degree. For example, the student demonstrated sound understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is sound use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is sound knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is somewhat descriptive, but able to evidence understanding of several relevant concepts. |
Good knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with good secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is good use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is good knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies analysis and evaluation of scenario data (or data derived therefrom) and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Excellent knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with excellent secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources.
There is an excellent use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses.
There is excellent knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scenario data and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Outstanding knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task with evident originality and autonomy of research skills.
There is an outstanding use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses.
The work exceeds the taught material in many areas, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses. |
Exceptional knowledge base of their discipline with extraordinary originality and autonomy.
There is exceptional use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and develop detailed solutions and recommend course(s) of action
The work significantly exceeds the taught material, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses, recognising anomalies. |
|
20 Marks |
0-5 |
6-7 |
8-9 |
10-11 |
12 |
14-15 |
16-17 |
18-20 |
|
GRADE à .
CRITERIA ↓ |
0 - 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics, research skills and academic / intellectual skills. Inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 - 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 - 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 - 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 - 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic/ Expressive/ professional skills and creativity |
|
Task 3 (a) Presentation (content, style, professionalism, creativity, and cohesion). Use of academic conventions: E x a m p l e s i n c l u d e t h e u s e of recognized academic conventions including in-text citations.
Audience engagement: Examples include, Quality of visual aids and presentation of data and information, Clarity in the use of formal language and quality of argumentation and spelling, punctuation and: grammar (SPaG). |
There is no or, at best, little use of recognizable academic conventions such as Harvard/OSCOLA referencing style, naming, and referencing tables and figures. The work will exhibit severe inconsistencies in bibliography or in-text citation |
There is Inadequate use of recognizable academic conventions such as Harvard referencing, naming, and referencing tables and figures. The work will exhibit severe inconsistencies in bibliography or in-text citation |
Limited to satisfactory use of recognized academic conventions, i.e., use of the Harvard referencing style is adequate, with some inconsistencies in the bibliography or in-text citation. Not all claims have referenced citations. |
Sound use of recognized academic conventions, i.e., the Harvard referencing style is consistently used with perhaps some minor mistakes in in-text citation and bibliography. Not all claims have referenced citations. |
G o o d u s e of recognized academic conventions, i.e., the Harvard referencing style is consistently used throughout., Nearly all claims have referenced citations. Nearly all tables and figures are named and referenced in-text. |
Excellent use of recognized academic conventions, i.e., the Harvard referencing style is consistently used throughout. All claims are referenced, however, there may be missing elements in the references list |
Outstanding to exceptional use of recognized academic conventions., i.e., the Harvard referencing style is consistently used throughout, implementing in every respect OSCOLA/ the Anglia Ruskin version of the Harvard standard. All claims are referenced, and sources are listed. At the lower end of marks, there may be errors/omissions. |
exceptional use of recognized academic conventions., i.e., the Harvard referencing style is consistently used throughout, implementing in every respect OSCOLA/the Anglia Ruskin version of the Harvard standard. All claims are referenced, and sources are listed. At the lower end of marks, there may be errors/omissions. |
|
Visual elements such as graphs and tables may be poorly formatted to the extent that legibility is affected; presentation of graphs and tables might be confusing. spelling, punctuation, and grammar often deviate considerably from expected norms at Level 7 with grammatical errors, such that the poor SPG makes it impossible or extremely difficult to discern meaning in the work. |
A significant number of visual elements such as graphs and tables may be poorly formatted to the extent that legibility is affected; presentation of graphs and tables might be confusing. spelling, punctuation, and grammar might deviate from expected norms at Level 7 with grammatical errors, such that the poor SPG makes it difficult to discern meaning in the work. |
Visual elements such as graphs and tables may exhibit some flaws in presentation but without completely losing their explanatory value. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar might deviate somewhat from best practice at Level 7. |
Visual elements such as graphs and tables will generally be clear and legible with some minor flaws. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar might adhere adequately to best practice at Level 7. |
Visual elements such as graphs and tables will be clear and legible for their type. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar will be generally consistent with best practice for Level 7, with a few minor flaws. |
Visual elements such as graphs and tables will approach optimal design characteristics for their type. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar will exhibit few flaws and some sophistication as to language and syntax. |
Visual elements such as graphs and tables will be largely flawless. Even at the lower end, visual elements will be optimally designed and presented for their type. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar will exhibit very few UK English at a high level of sophistication as to language and syntax, approaching doctoral or publication quality in places or throughout. Even at the lower end of marks, SPaG will exhibit minimal flaws and considerable sophistication as to language and syntax. |
Visual elements such as graphs and tables will be entirely flawless. Even at the lower end, visual elements will be optimally designed and presented for their type. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar will exhibit faultless UK English at a high level of sophistication as to language and syntax, approaching doctoral or publication quality in places or throughout. Even at the lower end of marks, SPaG will exhibit minimal flaws and considerable sophistication as to language and syntax. |
|
GRADE à .
CRITERIA ↓ |
0 - 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics, research skills and academic / intellectual skills. Inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 - 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 - 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 - 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 - 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic/ Expressive/ professional skills and creativity |
|
Structure: Examples include the formatting of the work, e.g., in terms of layout (e.g., report, briefing note, etc.) and writing structure (e.g., chronological, argumentative, logical, compare-contrast, problem-solution, cause-effect, classification, Spatial, etc.) |
The structure might exhibit considerable flaws and inconsistencies, e.g., an essay instead of the required report; bullet-points instead of descriptive and critical narrative, etc. |
The structure might exhibit considerable flaws and inconsistencies; |
The structure might be generally consistent but exhibits some flaws and inconsistencies. |
The structure will be generally consistent with perhaps minor flaws and inconsistencies. |
The structure will be consistent and logical throughout. |
The structure will be almost entirely clear, consistent, and logical. |
The structure will be entirely clear, consistent, and logical. Even at the lower end, the structure will be entirely clear, consistent, and logical. |
The structure will be entirely clear, consistent, and logical. Even at the lower end, the structure will be entirely clear, consistent, and logical |
|
10 Marks |
0-3 |
3-4 |
4-5 |
5-6 |
6-7 |
7-8 |
8-9 |
9-10 |
|
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 |
Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2) |
|
|
Knowledge & Understanding |
Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills |
||
|
90- 100% |
Achieves module outcome(s) |
Exceptional analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates exceptional 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. 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. Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument making an exemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates outstanding independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency |
Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Outstanding 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. Outstanding 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. |
Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, excellent |
|
|
|
Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. |
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% |
A marginal pass in module outcome(s) |
Sound knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Occasionally descriptive but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions. |
Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in discipline. Occasionally descriptive but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions. |
|
40- 49% |
A marginal fail in module outcome(s) . Satisfies default qualifying mark |
Limited knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Fairly descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions. |
Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions. |
|
30- 39% |
Fails to achieve module outcome(s) .Qualifying mark not satisfied |
Inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate evidence of argument. Inadequate evidence of use of scholarly conventions. |
Inadequate evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Inadequate evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate evidence of use of scholarly conventions. |
|
20- 29% |
Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument. Little evidence of 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. Little evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions |
|
|
10- 19% |
Deficient knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in |
Deficient use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Major |
|
|
|
discipline. Wholly descriptive, with deficient synthesis of existing scholarship and deficient argument. Deficient use of scholarly conventions. |
problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Deficient use of scholarly conventions |
|
1-9% |
No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions. |
No evidence of 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 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 |
||
Get Answer of MOD009379 Principles of International Project Management Assessment 011 Before Deadline
Pay & Buy Non Plagiarized AssignmentIf you are studying MOD009379 Principles of International Project Management at A.R.U. London, getting the right academic support can make your learning easier. Our Online Assignment Help service provides well-structured, plagiarism-free, and easy-to-understand solutions prepared according to university guidelines. We also offer expert Project Management Assignment Help to help students improve their understanding of important concepts and complete assignments with confidence. You can also access our Free List of Assignment Samples Answers PDF For Students for guidance, better writing ideas, and improved academic performance.
Get Your Free Academic Quote
No hidden fees · Instant response · 100% confidential
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
