Module code:

BMAF000-20

Module title:

Academic Study Skills

Assignment:

S1. Individual Report

Word count:

3000 words 

Contribution to module mark:

100% of overall grade

Submission deadline:

7^th October 2024 (Time: 23:59)

Learning outcome assessed:

By successful completion of the module, you will be able to demonstrate:

LO1: Time management, organisation skills and listening skills for note taking.

LO2: Integration of information from appropriate sources of literature to enhance and support your academic writing.

LO3: An understanding of academic integrity, plagiarism and referencing.

Assessment Task

 This assessment requires you to compile an Individual Report. 

Task 1: Report 

Select ONE from the following 4 academic writing topics as your report topic and conduct research on your selected topic.

1. A foreign visitor has only day to spend in your country. Where should this visitor go on that day? Why? Use specific reasons and details to support your choice.
2. Nowadays, electric cars have become popular. In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of electric cars? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
3. Due to COVID-19, most university classes are now delivered online. From your experience, what are the advantages and disadvantages of online learning? Use reasons and examples to support your answer.
4. 2021 saw the continuation of a decade of growth in the UK organic market. What’s the future of organic food in the UK? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 

Having gathered the relevant and appropriate information on the topic, you will now be required to complete an individual report (Max. 2000) presenting the research you have conducted and your views on the question based on this evidence. You must include in your report an introduction, main body with balanced arguments and a conclusion with comprehensive references of books, journals, and webpages.

Task 2: Essay 

Include at the end of your report a self-evaluative journal (Max. 1000 words) to reflect on your learning of this module and also the above research you conducted. You are required to explain what you have learned following the completion of your research and reveal your learning difficulties you have encountered when studying this module including the academic challenges faced, lesson learned, knowledge acquired, and the skills that you need to improve in order to enhance your future research and learning.

Criteria:

The individual Report will be marked according to the following criteria:

• Knowledge and Understanding (30%): Show knowledge and understanding of topics to be discussed.
• Argument (30%):  Integration of information from appropriate sources of literature to enhance and support your academic writing.
• Reflection, Structure and Communication (20%):  Reflection on achievement of module outcomes, module-related tasks, key points, examples.
• Referencing and use of language (20%):  Use appropriate Harvard Referencing style and in-text citations.

Assignment Structure: Report:

Cover Page 

• This should clearly follow the cover page template in your Module Handbook: your student ID, student name, module name and code, assignment name, and the word count. 

Introduction (1 page)

• Outline the content of the report. 
• Briefly provide the background to the topics you will write about.

Main Body (2-4 Pages)

• Present your findings for each topic.
• Include a balance of supporting and refuting statements.  

Conclusion (1 Page)

• Summarise the main points. 

Self-Evaluation (1-2 Pages)

• What problems/challenges did you face when finding research for this assignment?
• What did you enjoy about this assignment?
• Identify the lessons learnt and highlight any area for potential improvement.

References (1-2 Pages)

• Your assignment should be Harvard Referenced and show a range of sources. You must demonstrate at least 6 references, of which 4 must be from academic journals/ articles/textbooks. This is an academic report; therefore, appropriate referencing is expected. 

For all policies regarding submission of your work please refer to the Programme and Student Handbooks.

Fail 0-39

Poor quality

D. 40-49

Satisfactory quality

C. 50-59

Sound quality

B. 60-69

Good quality

A. 70-79

Excellent quality

A. 80-100

Outstanding quality

Knowledge and understanding

(LO1/2)

• adequate coverage of the subject area,
• the clarity and depth of the discussion,
• ability to evaluate different perspectives,
• ability to present a well-structured and balanced argument based on academic evidence.

30%

The submission is of poor quality and presents very little or no relevant material. Very little or no discussion on the topic. Arguments are poorly presented and based on little or no evidence.

A basic and descriptive summary of a very limited number of basic contributions/key points. Very little discussion or meaningful evaluation of perspectives. Greater focus needed on structuring arguments that are supported by evidence. 

Sound synthesis of relevant contributions. However, these are limited, and you are comparing them in a simple manner. Greater clarity of the discussion needed. The ideas presented need to be expanded upon. Less descriptive approach is required. Sound attempts to support the points with academic evidence. However, there is room for improvement. 

A good answer to the question, with examples of critical discussion. You have demonstrated a good ability to evaluate different perspectives on the issue. However, some arguments presented could have been further developed and/or better supported with examples/ evidence. 

An excellent review of the topic, where a rich set of relevant sources is effectively organised and compared helping to achieve the assessment’s objectives. Excellent and unbiased evaluation of different perspectives. A deep and engaging discussion. 

As before plus: an outstanding synthesis, with argumentation and materials/ evidence originally and critically compared and analysed. An exemplary submission. 

Argument

(LO2)

Integration of information from appropriate sources of literature to enhance and support your academic writing 

30%

No comprehension of the implications of the question and no attempt to provide a structure. No attempt at analysis. Limited, uncritical, and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources

Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used inappropriately or incorrectly. Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description. Limited, uncritical, and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources.

Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical; Tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue based on reason and evidence or argument not sustained by choice of evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical. Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit but displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant materials.

Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues, though not always displaying an understanding of how they link to the question. A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at independent thinking and is sensibly structured and generally well supported. Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the prescribed reading list, demonstrating the ability to be selective in the range of material used, and the capacity to synthesise rather than describe.

A critical, analytical, and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and well-supported. Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’. Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and perhaps some knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.

A critical, analytical, and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and extremely well-supported with elements of originality. Outstanding evidence throughout of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’. Evidence of reading exceptionally widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. 

Structure, effective communication, and reflection

Reflection on achievement of module outcomes, module-related tasks, key points, examples.

20% 

Little or no logic in the structure of the report. The overall flow of the report is confusing and unconvincing. Poor communication skills. Very little or no evidence of reflection.

The report lacks clarity and is not always easy to follow. The structure and flow of the report is quite poor and unconvincing. A simple and descriptive approach to discuss the module-related experience. Limited reflection on relevant points lacking in clear examples of some lessons learnt.

The report is sound in clarity and structure.  The overall flow of the report is reasonable and rather convincing. Sound reflection on the achievement of module outcomes with some evaluation of positives and negatives. However, there’s a limited set of examples and evidence supporting your points and at times the approach is descriptive. Reflection on possible future strategies is clear but could be more detailed. 

The report is very clear. Care and thought have gone into the structure and smooth flow of the report. Good reflection on the achievement of module outcomes with a good discussion on module-related tasks/key points. The engagement with interpersonal dimensions is supported using relevant examples. However some more work on clarity and including greater detail throughout is still needed.

The report is of an excellent standard - very clearly and professionally delivered, logically structured. An excellent example of professional communication. Excellent reflection across a range of issues, which demonstrates deep insight into own practice through the critical use of a diverse set of evidence. Future strategies are skilfully described. 

Outstanding integration of content throughout the report, logical and easy to follow structure. Communication at its highest standard. Outstanding example of reflection, where evidence is combined to demonstrate original thinking and advanced reflecting skills.

Referencing and 

accuracy of language 

(LO3)

• range of relevant materials and data,
• appropriate Harvard Referencing style,
• accuracy of the language (grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation).

20% 

The submission presents very little or no relevant material. You have not met the minimum requirement of the number of sources specified. Major errors in referencing or no referencing. Harvard Referencing Style not used. Exceedingly high number of language errors. 

A very limited number of basic contributions. References are used, but in a very poor manner (i.e., 6 references used, but fewer than 4 are academic; and/or poor in-text referencing). Major improvement needs to be made to one of these areas: grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation.

An adequate range of relevant sources presented, i.e., minimum of 6 references used, 4 of which are from academic journals/ articles/textbooks. However, the reference list could be broader. Sound referencing with some mistakes in the application of the Harvard Referencing style. Few issues with one of these areas: grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation.

A broad set of relevant academic sources used. Good referencing which supports the report well; however, with minor mistakes in the application of the Harvard Referencing style. There are hardly any errors in grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation.

A rich set of relevant sources. Excellent referencing - very accurate, skilful, and appropriate. The sources excellently support the report. No noticeable errors in grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation.

Outstanding synthesis, with materials originally and critically compared and analysed. An exemplary submission. Flawless referencing, an outstanding range of sources. There are no errors in grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation.