Extenuating Circumstances, Fit to Sit Policy, Plagiarism Declaration and Learning Outcomes

Extenuating Circumstances

Extenuating Circumstances

If there are any exceptional circumstances that may have affected your ability to undertake or submit this assignment, make sure you contact the Advice Centre on your campus prior to your submission deadline.

Fit to sit policy:

The University operates a fit to sit policy whereby you, in submitting or presenting yourself for an assessment, are declaring that you are fit to sit the assessment. You cannot subsequently claim that your performance in this assessment was affected by extenuating factors.

Plagiarism and Unfair Practice Declaration:

By submitting this assessment, you declare that it is your own work and that the sources of information and material you have used (including the internet) have been fully identified and properly acknowledged as required

Additionally, the work presented has not been submitted for any other assessment. You also understand that the Faculty reserves the right to investigate allegations of plagiarism or unfair practice which, if proven, could result in a fail in this assessment and may affect your progress.

This assignment addresses the following learning outcome of the module:

• LO1. Analyse and critically evaluate relevant theory and literature with minimum guidance.
• LO2. Clearly identify problems and apply appropriate technical knowledge to solve these problems within the timescale of a major project.
• LO3. Effectively present the findings of a project both orally and in writing.
• LO4. Appreciate the broader implications of a problem including personal responsibility and professional code of conduct.

Has demonstrated comprehensive and detailed knowledge with specialism and depth in some areas. High levels of understanding shown throughout the project.

A very good level of understanding attained throughout the work. Competence in evidence throughout the project but without the depth of knowledge that would be shown by a firstclass student

General levels of understanding consistently good throughout with acceptable levels of knowledge overall but some evidence of minor misconception and gaps in certain areas of the subject.

Knowledge and understanding patchy with evidence of substantial areas of ignorance.

Limited understanding of the subject area and general lack of awareness.

Only some glimmers of recognition of the subject area and fundamental misconceptions.

Little to no evidence of any knowledge or understanding of the subject and probably incapable of gaining any. Methodology and approach to research 20

Independent original responses to situations with evidence of innovative application.

With limited guidance has shown good to very good application of novel techniques to given situations.

Sound application of standard techniques or methods undertaken with supervision. Little evidence of innovation

Lacking in creativity and absence of innovation. Supervision bordering on directed work required.

Capable of appreciating a creative solution to a problem only when shown.

Unable to confront problems and provide or recognize solutions even when directed.

Demonstrated, with little or no guidance, the ability to develop/apply appropriate complex analysis of gathered research. Evidence of reflective analysis and selfdevelopment.

Evidence of competent analysis leading to realistic solutions with limited supervision.

Showed good levels of analysis but required supervision to achieve appropriate solutions.

Analysis was flawed in areas and there was a general lack of rigor

Fundamental errors to large parts of the analysis despite high levels of supervision.

The report was fluently written and very readable. All aspects of the report were of a high professional standard, presentation, format and logical layout.

The report was complete and the correct format. The work undertaken was described accurately in a good logical format

Although complete the report lacked clarity in some areas.

The report was disjointed and generally confusing with omissions such as references to source material

An incomplete and confused report without logical format and acknowledgement of source material.

A professional performance with all questions answered fully and skilfully

A confident defence of the report with only one or two minor points of concern.

A well conducted, solid viva, with some unanswered questions but not in areas of fundamental importance

A barely adequate viva with areas which could not be defended by the candidate.

Unacceptable viva. Issues of major concern arose with the candidate unable to describe major areas of his/her project work.