Assessment Brief

Assessment Brief
*This document is for CU Group students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this
module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of
this rule should be reported to [email protected]

Submission Time: 18:00

Demonstrate an ability to work independently whilst demonstrating good time management skills in the development of the dissertation.

Demonstrate a critical awareness of research methodologies and theoretical perspectives.

Critically examine current research from the UK and internationally into health and social determinants within your chosen topic.

Develop personal research skills in use of academic literature, data collection, data analysis, critical thinking and academic writing in order to plan, carry out and write up an undergraduate degree dissertation

AssignmentTutorOnline

Guidance notes and considerations
Late Submission
If you are not able to complete your coursework on time due to extenuating circumstances, the ONLY
way to receive an extension (up to 5 working days) or a deferral (anything longer than 5 working days)
is to contact a Registry team member located at your specific CU site.
CU Coventry – [email protected]
CU London – [email protected]
CU Scarborough – [email protected]
* Extenuating circumstances are defined by CU as ‘genuine circumstances beyond your control or
ability to foresee, and which seriously impair your assessed work’.
* Please note that you will need to provide third party evidence to support your reasoning for requiring
an extension or deferral.
* Your course tutor is NOT able to approve an extension or a deferral, if you have not completed the
official forms and had your request approved your work will count as not submitted and receive a zero
mark.
Plagiarism and Malpractice
* You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on your
Moodle Web.
* Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other
students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the
academic conduct panel. This applies to all coursework and exam answers.
* A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class
discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you
having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own
work.
* If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version
and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts.
* You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either
for your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is specifically provided
for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information.
Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference
it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism.
Submission Guidelines
There should be a title page which clearly identifies the following;
* Student number * Name of the module
* Title of the Assessment * Assessment number
* Word count
The word count identified includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography and unless specifically
stated, encompasses a discrepancy of + or – 10%.

Exceptional knowledge base exploring, critically analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with extraordinary originality and autonomy.

Demonstrates an exceptional command of relevant critical analytical and/or evaluative techniques, and the ability to apply these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows an exceptional appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical approaches, where relevant. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is of an exceptional detail. High level of appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work, where relevant Approach to assessment task is clearly, appropriately and consistently theoretically informed across all relevant learning outcomes.

Exceptional exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assessment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with flawless synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas.

Exceptional answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present and referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner.

Outstanding knowledge base exploring, critically analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with clear originality and autonomy	Demonstrates an outstanding command of relevant critical and/or evaluative analytical techniques, and the ability to apply these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows an outstanding appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is of an outstanding detail. Appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work. Approach to assessment task is clearly, appropriately and consistently theoretically informed across all relevant learning outcomes.	Outstanding exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with a high degree of synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas.	Outstanding answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner.
Excellent knowledge base that supports critical analysis and/or evaluation and problem solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with considerable originality	Makes excellent use of a range of relevant critical analysis and/or evaluative techniques, and applies these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows well developed ability to compare alternative theories and apply them to the context of the assessment task and all learning outcomes. Demonstrates a detailed, accurate, systematic theoretical understanding.	Excellent exploration of wider academic sources with evidence of independent learning which may exceed the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated, with accurate synthesis of research leading to original and interesting ideas.	Excellent answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. The answer is entirely relevant and focused. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has

Appropriately selected theoretical knowledge is integrated into the overall assessment task and all learning outcomes.	been employed in an accurate manner.
Very good knowledge base that supports critical analysis and/or evaluation and problem solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with some originality displayed.	Makes good use of established techniques of critical analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Shows a developing ability to compare alternative theories and/or analytical approaches, where relevant. Shows a systematic and accurate understanding of key theories, where relevant, which are appropriately applied within the context of the assessment task and learning outcomes.	Very good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been accurately interpreted, integrated, with evidence of synthesis leading to original ideas.	Very good answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is relevant and focused with a clear argument/line of reasoning. Discipline specific vocabulary is used well and academic style applied throughout. Minor language errors may be present but do not impact on clarity of expression. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is accurate.
Good knowledge base that supports some critical analysis and/or evaluation and problem solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline.	Good use of established techniques of critical analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Sound descriptive knowledge of key theories, where relevant, with some appropriate application	Good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been interpreted and integrated, with some attempt at synthesis	Good answer with coherent and logical presentation. The answer is largely relevant but lacks focus at points. Evidence of an argument/line of reasoning. Discipline specific vocabulary is used and academic style applied throughout. Minimal language errors are present but does not impact on clarity. Referencing in

the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate.
Satisfactory knowledge base demonstrating comprehension and formulation of basic knowledge with some omissions at the level of theoretical understanding. Limited ability to discuss theory and solve problems within the discipline.	Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of critical analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Selection of theory, where relevant, is satisfactory but application and/or understanding is limited.	Satisfactory evidence of wider academic reading, but with minimal attempt to move beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable, but there may be some instances of misunderstanding. Poor synthesis of theories and concepts within the discipline.	Satisfactory answer with some attempt at coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains some irrelevant material and lacks focus at points. Some discipline specific vocabulary is used and an attempt at academic writing style is made. There is an attempt at an argument/ line of reasoning. Some language errors may be present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate but with some errors.
Outcomes not or partially met. Restricted knowledge base. Limited understanding of discipline and ethical issues. Difficulty with linking theory and	Attempts at critical analysis and/or evaluation are ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline. Knowledge of theory inaccurate and/or incomplete, where relevant. Choice of theory inappropriate. Application and/or understanding is very limited.	Limited evidence of wider reading at an academic level. Sources used may be inappropriate and interpreted poorly. Little evidence of integration or synthesis of discipline specific theories and concepts.	Answer is limited and lacks coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains irrelevant material and lacks focus throughout with no argument/line of reasoning. Language errors are present and impact on clarity of expression. No attempt at using discipline specific vocabulary and inconsistent

problem solving in discipline.	application of academic writing style. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is inconsistent.
Little or no evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline.	Lacks any critical analysis and/or evaluation. Absence of relevant theoretical content and/or use of theory, where relevant.	Inadequate or no evidence of reading at an academic level with poor application of sources and ideas. Answer is likely to include inappropriate references which are misunderstood and not integrated. Possibility of plagiarism OR no evidence of academic research. Answer may not be research based.	Answer is inadequate with serious flaws in coherence and presentation. Poorly structured with multiple language errors which impact on clarity. No attempt at subject specific vocabulary or inaccurately used. No evidence of academic writing style. Weak application of CU version of Harvard referencing style.