School of Environment and Life Sciences
School of Environment and Life Sciences
COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2016/2017
| LEVEL | MODULE | Lecturer/Assessor | Weighting (% of module mark) | |||
| 7
|
Risk: Perception and Management |
|
70%
|
|||
| Assessment type (tick) | Title | Date Set | Submission Date | |||
| Practical Class
Essay Seminar Poster Computer Aided Learning Field Course report Site visit report Problem Solving Tutorial Other- Case-study portfolio* |
Case study portfolio – risk perception |
25/09/16
|
20/01/17 4pm via Turnitin |
|||
| Proposed return date: | ||||||
| 10/02/2017 | ||||||
| Assignment Description | ||||||
|
This assignment requires you to produce a case study portfolio relating to the risk perception for the particular safety, health and/or environmental hazard of your choice*, comprising:
· Discussion of the safety, health and/or environmental hazard from the perspective of risk perception by different key actors involved (30%) · Evaluation of the appropriateness of the key tools used to assess risk and identify relevant sources of uncertainty (20%) · Synthesis of evidence in the form of a briefing note for a particular peer/stakeholder (for e.g. policy maker or general public or corporate client) to decide on the “best policy” (30%) · The development and presentation of ONE piece of publicity material such as a leaflet or poster or web blog etc. addressing your perception of risk for the particular hazard in question including possible mitigation options (20%)
The percentages represent the desired distribution of literature/input/content under each key point towards the entire work. * The topic for this assignment is independent of the previous assignment on Literature review and you can choose any relevant topic |
||||||
| Expected Learning Outcomes (ELO) | ||||||
| The assignment is capable of testing the following learning outcomes:
1. Critically evaluate the influence of risk in decision making processes (IOL 2). 2. Appraise contemporary risk management process models in the identification, analysis, evaluation and treatment of risk and apply to contextual situations (IOL 3). 3. Critically review, analyse, and resynthesize literature from a variety of robust sources in an applied context (IOL 4). 4. Formulate, apply and critique relevant criteria, indicators and techniques for the assessment of hazards and risks in contextual situations (IOL 5) 5. Effectively communicate ideas in a variety of forms for a range of recipients (IOL 6) 6. Make critical judgements about the influence of risk in decision making processes taking account of uncertainty (IOL 7)
Where IOL represents intended learning outcomes based on the module specification |
||||||
| Subject specific/Key Skills to be acquired | Method of Assessment / Submission Requirements | |||||
| Practical/subject Skills
Written communication. Self-management of learning Numerical and computational skills Critical analysis
Key Skills Communication Application of Numeracy Information technology Problem solving Managing own learning
|
Essay Test / Short Question/answers Full practical/field report Annotated Drawings/Graphs etc. Calculations / Problem solving Oral Presentation Poster Presentation Group Project In class practical ability Work portfolio þ (Case-study portfolio) (Word Count guide) 4000 (Max)
Other |
|||||
| Assessment Criteria (Give details of the criteria used for assessment and include or attach the assessment guide (mark scheme)
Attached (below)
|
||||||
Assessment Criteria
| Descriptor
% Band |
Knowledge and Interpretation
(ELO 3) |
Application to address the requirement of the coursework
(ELO 1,2,4) |
Analysis, synthesis and critical thinking
(ELO 2,4,6) |
Presentation, structure and communication
(ELO 5) |
| (25%) | (30%) | (30%) | (15%) | |
| Outstanding
100-90 |
Extremely accurate and relevant detail supplied. Authoritative grasp of key concepts. Explicit evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Exceptionally coherent and effective arguments supported by robust evidence covering all the four sections of the case study portfolio. | Exceptionally robust and critical account of subject matter. Opinions logical and coherent.
Insightful and imaginative conclusions drawn from the evidence. |
Exceptionally well presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly and lucidly expressed. |
| Excellent
89-80 |
Highly accurate and relevant detail supplied. Excellent grasp of key concepts. Evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Highly coherent and effective arguments supported by evidence covering all the four sections of the case study portfolio. | Highly robust and critical account of subject matter. Opinions logical and coherent. Insightful and original conclusions drawn from the evidence | Excellently presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly and coherently expressed. |
| Very good
79-70 |
Accurate and relevant detail supplied. Very good grasp of key concepts. Some evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Very coherent and effective argument covering all the four sections of the case study portfolio. Draws on a range of suitable materials and examples. | Sound evidence of critical examination of subject matter. Opinions logical and coherent. Sound and original conclusions drawn from the evidence | Very well presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly expressed. |
| Good
69-60 |
Reasonably accurate and detailed. Good grasp of key concepts. Some evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Coherent and effective argument covering all the four sections of the case study portfolio. Draws on a sufficiently extensive range of materials and examples. | Satisfactory evidence of critical examination of subject matter. Opinions logical but lacks some coherence. Sound conclusions drawn from the evidence | Well presented. Good structure. Well expressed.
|
| Satisfactory
59-50 |
May contain inaccuracies and/or lack depth and breadth of relevant detail. Fair grasp of key concepts displayed. Limited evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Sound argument supported by some evidence of analytical thinking covering all the four sections of the case study portfolio. | Some critical thinking displayed. Able to consider ideas with an open mind and draws appropriate but limited conclusions.. | Reasonably well presented. Suitable structure and well expressed. |
| Unsatisfactory
49-40 |
May include some irrelevant information. Unsatisfactory grasp of key concepts. Little evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Some attempt at discussion but may be unfocussed and lacking evidence to support claims for the four different sections of the case study portfolio. Or does not address all the four sections | Limited critical thinking displayed. Responds to familiar questions but fails to grasp complexity of issues. Few conclusions drawn | Unsatisfactory presentation. Unsatisfactory structure. Basic expression. |
| Inadequate
39-30 |
May include much irrelevant information. Unsatisfactory grasp of key concepts. Very little evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Unsatisfactory argument, lacking sufficient evidence of synthesis and analysis for the four different sections of the case study portfolio. Or has not addressed all the four sections. | Very little critical thinking displayed. Limited ability to recognise complexity of issues. Inappropriate or no conclusions drawn. Incomplete response to tasks posed. | Unsatisfactory presentation. May lack a suitable structure and only basic expression. |
| Poor
29-20 |
May include a significant proportion of irrelevant information. Poor grasp of key concepts. No evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Poor attempt to present an argument for the four different sections of the case study portfolio. Or has not addressed all the four sections. | Very little critical thinking displayed. Simplistic responses to issues. No attempt to draw conclusions. Incomplete response to the task | Poorly presented. |
| Very poor
19-10 |
Insufficient volume of work. Very poor grasp of key concepts. No evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject. | Very poor argument and non-attainment of the four different sections of the case study portfolio. Very little awareness of the nature of sound/unsound argument. | Very limited attempt. No evidence of analysis and no conclusions drawn. Does not address the task. | Very poorly presented. |
| Extremely poor
9-0 |
Insufficient volume of work. Extremely poor grasp of key concepts. No evidence of originality within the known boundaries of the subject.
/ No attempt. |
Insufficient volume of work. Extremely poor argument. / No attempt to the four different sections of the case study portfolio | Insufficient volume of work. No serious attempt. Does not address the task. / No attempt. | Extremely poorly presented. / No attempt. |
*The %Band indicates the distribution of marks for the entire work i.e. the whole portfolio following the stated descriptors
Assessment grid for 100% marking (the maximum marks than can be obtained for individual descriptors under each element of the portfolio)
| The perspective of risk perception by different key actors involved (30 %) | Appropriateness of the key tools used to assess risk and identify relevant sources of uncertainty (20%) | Briefing note for a particular peer/stakeholder to decide on the “best policy” (30%) | Publicity material on your perception of risk (20%) | |
| Knowledge and Interpretation (25%) | 7.5 % | 5 % | 7.5 % | 5 % |
| Application to address the requirements of the coursework (30%) | 9 % | 6 % | 9 % | 6 % |
| Analysis, synthesis and critical thinking (30%) | 9 % | 6 % | 9 % | 6 % |
| Presentation, structure and communication (15%) | 4.5 % | 3 % | 4.5 % | 3 % |