Negotiated Module (Commercial and Technical Leadership)

Module Overview:

This Negotiated Technical Module encourages you to engage with the specific aspect of Commercial and Technical Leadership that should complement and extend your academic studies at Master’s level. The module includes aspects of negotiation, project management, target setting and implementation of objectives situated in practical experience realised in the context of work-based learning. The alignment of the agreed project aims and objectives with the required Learning Outcomes for the module is an important and integral requirement for the successful completion of this module.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Negotiated Module (Commercial and Technical Leadership)
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Learning Outcomes:

On successful completion of this module, you will be able to:

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

  1. Establish appropriate objectives, within the subject area of Commercial and Technical Leadership, to realise effectively the aims of a Work Based Learning project at postgraduate level.
  2. Critically reflect on the experiences of the project, evaluating strengths, weaknesses, benefits accrued and industry relevance within the subject area of Commercial and Technical Leadership.

Assessment

Formative Activities & Assessment

Formative Activities and Assessments are opportunities for you to apply, practice and make sense of the learning materials and content that you have encountered.  These may take the form of individual tasks, such as reading some text or watching a video and documenting your reaction to it, responding to some discussion points on the discussion forum, considering a case study, or participating in a live online classroom session.  The main aim of formative activities is for you to receive feedback on your contribution or performance that will help you prepare for and complete your final module assessment.

Summative Assessment

Summative assessments are the pieces of coursework that you complete, which contribute towards your final grade in this module.  You should take the feedback that you receive from the completion of coursework in this module and use it to help you improve your performance in future assessments.

Summative assessment in this module is two pieces of submitted coursework.  You will be expected to submit your summative assignments via the Turnitin assessment points on the Assessment page in My Learning section of your module.

 

 

Coursework 1

Assessment weighting:                   30%

Word count:                                      1,500 words

Submission Date/Time:                   T2 week 6, Wednesday 8th Mar 9pm (2100 GMT 08/03/17)

Title:  Project Proposal

The Proposal should establish objectives to realise the aims of a suitably challenging project.

The project must be approved by the module leader, and must include the aims of the project (3 maximum) a project plan (e.g. in the form of a Gantt chart), and a summary of any work done so far.

 

Marking scheme

  • 25%: subject matter knowledge.
  • 25%: proposed methodology and plan.
  • 25%: evidence of wider reading
  • 25%: presentation and English.

Coursework 2

Assessment weighting:                   70%

Word count:                                      4,000 words or equivalent

Submission Date/Time:                   T2 week 11, Wednesday 12th April 9pm (2100 GMT 12/04/17)

Assignment: Project Portfolio

You will present a Portfolio that includes a report of your Commercial and Technical Leadership investigation along with your structured reflection. The report should demonstrate your outcomes in an academic context, with reference to relevant theoretical analysis and evidence of research. The Portfolio must include critical evaluation of the work carried out on the project undertaken, and present the evidence to support that the agreed objectives have been achieved to the appropriate level. You will be encouraged to include a variety of material to evidence the development of the investigation, including non-text based material that serves as an outcome of the project. The assessment of the Portfolio will evaluate the extent to which the aims and objectives of the proposal have been met by the achieved investigation outcomes.

 

Marking scheme

  • 25%: subject matter understanding and judgment
  • 25%: critical analysis.
  • 25%: evidence of wider reading.
  • 15%: synthesis of ideas into a logical, coherent report.
  • 10%: presentation and English.

 

 

 

Assessment Presentation

When marking this assignment the academics will also be looking for the following criteria:

  • Clear legible presentation.
  • Good use of spelling, grammar and language throughout.
  • Appropriate focus, meeting learning outcomes/assignment criteria.
  • Logical progression and structure of arguments.
  • (Normally) an introduction, a well-developed discussion and a conclusion summarising the work.
  • The introduction will include an exploration of the focus of the assignment and discuss the way the assignment has been approached.
  • Evidence of a range of relevant supporting reading.
  • Use of accurate, evidence based information to support the arguments made.
  • Follow normal Academic Regulations in terms of Academic Offences, style and language.
  • Use the Harvard system of referencing and may include a bibliography that lists all resources referenced.
  • A declaration statement which says you have checked your Turnitin originality report and certain that the work is your own (and has never been submitted for marking before by you, or anyone else)
  • Maintain the confidentiality of clients/customers and persons associated with them, colleagues and organisations

This module uses a grading scale applicable to Level 7 in the University Credit Framework. The grade descriptors (on the next page) are typical characteristics of the standard of work associated with each grade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level 7 Grade Descriptor

% mark Grade Descriptors Category
70-100% Excellent

Outstanding; high to very high standard; a high level of critical analysis and evaluation, inclusive original thinking; commendable originality; exceptionally well coherence and logic.  Trivial or very minor errors.

Distinction
60-69% Very Good

A very good standard; a very good level of critical analysis and evaluation; significant originality; well researched; a very good standard of presentation; commendable clarity of ideas; thoughtful and effective presentation; very good sense of coherence and logic; minor errors only.

Merit
50-59% Good

A good standard; a fairly good level of critical analysis and evaluation; some evidence of original thinking or originality; quite well researched; a good standard of presentation; ideas generally clear and coherent, some evidence of misunderstandings; some deficiencies in presentation.

Pass
40-49% Satisfactory

A sound standard of work; a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of original thinking of originality; adequately researched; a sound standard of presentation; ideas fairly clear and coherent, some significant misunderstandings and errors; some weakness in style or presentation but satisfactory overall.

35-39% Unsatisfactory

Overall marginally unsatisfactory; some sound aspects but some of the following weakness are evident; inadequate critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of originality; not well researched; standard presentation unacceptable; ideas are unclear and incoherent; some significant errors and misunderstandings.  Marginal fail.

Marginal

Fail

21-34% Poor

Below the pass standard; a poor critical analysis and evaluation, virtually no evidence of originality; poorly researched; presentation unacceptable and not up to graduate standard; ideas confused and incoherent, some serious misunderstandings and errors.  A clear fail, short and pass standard.

Fail
1-20% Very Poor

Well below the pass standard, with many serious errors.  Standard of presentation totally unacceptable, incoherent and may be severely under-length.  No evidence of evaluation or application.  A very clear fail, well short of the pass standard.

NS Non-submission

No work has been submitted.

Z Academic offence notation

Applies to proven instances academic offence.