and title:

and type:

Portfolio (3000 words)

weighting:

and Date:

This assignment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your

achievement of the following module learning outcomes:

Prepare a professional report as the result of a research activity

Apply good project management processes to ensure SMART objectives and

managed efficiently and delivered within the timeframe

Provide a portfolio of evidence of performance across the project

Reflect on the skills required to deliver the project in terms of individual and

team functions and skills

Identify skills development requirements

Global Banking School (GBS) is a fast-growing higher education provider in the United Kingdom (UK). Currently, GBS as eight campuses across four cities. Due to its popularity and successful operations, GBS is planning to open a new campus, in a new city, Liverpool.

GBS has now decided to hire you as a project manager for its new project in Liverpool.

For the summative assignment, students are required to prepare a 3000-word portfolio containing three elements:

a 2000-word project plan (LO 1, 2, 4, 5)

a 500-word mid-way progress report (LO 2, 3)

a poster on the benefits of studying at GBS with explanatory commentary (500 words) (LO 3).

Description of the Task

The project plan (2000 words) will consist of:

A statement of work (SoW) containing clear project objectives devised using SMART goals,

You must reference all information used in the presentation and the report, using the Harvard Referencing Guide. You are required to include a reference list at the end of the report arranged in alphabetical order irrespective of the sources.

You can access guidance to Harvard referencing here: https://libguides.uos.ac.uk/academic/referencing/Harvard

Your work will be assessed on the extent to which it demonstrates your achievement of the stated learning outcomes for this assignment (see above) and against other key criteria, as

defined in the University’s institutional grading descriptors. If it is appropriate to the format of your assignment and your subject area, a proportion of your marks will also depend upon your use of academic referencing conventions.

This assignment will be marked according to the grading descriptors for Level 5.

This assignment must be submitted to Turnitin before 23:59 on Monday, 13th March 2023.

You should submit all work for the summative assessment by the above deadline. Work submitted up to three working days after the deadline will be accepted and marked, but the mark will be capped at the pass mark (40%) unless there is a valid reason for the late submission (i.e., having been granted an extension to the deadline or a deferral under the terms of the Extenuating Circumstances Policy). Work submitted more than three working days after the deadline without a valid reason will not be accepted and will be recorded as 0% RN (refer, no work submitted). For more information, please refer to: http://studenthandbook.uos.ac.uk/index.php/student-

guides/assessment-the-basics-undergraduate

Feedback and marks for this assignment will be available weekly.

Level 5

In accordance with the FHEQ, at the end of Level 5 students will be expected to have a sound knowledge of the basic underlying concepts and principles of a subject, and an ability to evaluate and interpret these within the context of that area of study. They should be able to present, evaluate and interpret qualitative and quantitative data to develop lines of argument and make sound judgements in accordance with basic theories and concepts of their subject(s) of study. They will have learned how to take different approaches to solving problems and will be able to communicate the results of their study/work accurately and reliably, and with structured and coherent arguments.

Knowledge and understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s)

High quality work showing detailed understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s).

Work of solid quality showing competent and consistent understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s)

Adequate work showing understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s), but lacking depth and breadth.

Simple factual approach showing limited understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s). Narrow or misguided selection of material, with elements missing or inaccurate.

Weak work showing limited, fragmentary understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s). Work characterised by inaccuracies, irrelevant material and/or absence of appropriate information.

Unsatisfactory work showing weak and flawed understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s), for example through serious inaccuracies, inclusion of a significant amount of irrelevant material and/or absence of appropriate information.

Highly unsatisfactory work showing major gaps in understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s). Inclusion of largely irrelevant material, absence of appropriate information and significant inaccuracies.

Cognitive and intellectual skills

Excellent presentation, interpretation and evaluation of concepts or evidence, facilitating a highly logical, coherent and balanced development of judgements or arguments. Strong awareness of other stances.

Good presentation, interpretation and evaluation of concepts or evidence, facilitating a logical and coherent development of judgements or arguments that shows awareness of other stances.

Adequate presentation, interpretation and evaluation of concepts or evidence, facilitating a largely logical and coherent development of judgements or arguments. An emerging awareness of other stances.

A limited use of concepts or evidence to support emerging judgements or arguments, although not always logical or coherent and with inaccuracies.

Largely descriptive work, with limited effort made to use concepts or evidence to develop judgements or arguments. Information accepted uncritically, with unsubstantiated opinions evident.

Descriptive work with no effort made to use concepts or evidence to develop judgements or arguments. Views expressed are often illogical, invalid or irrelevant. Minimal or no use of evidence to back up views.

Work is largely irrelevant or inaccurate, characterised by descriptive text and unsubstantiated generalisations. Complete lack of evidence to back up views.

Application of theory to practice (for courses with a professional practice element)

Excellent application of theory to practice, with the student making highly appropriate, developed and articulated links between the two.

Sound application of theory to practice, with the student making appropriate, well-developed and articulated links between the two.

Consistent and accurate application of theory to practice, with the student making appropriate links between the two.

Relevant theoretical knowledge and understanding applied in practice, but with students not always making logical links between the two.

Limited understanding of the application of theory to practice, with the student often not making appropriate links between the two.

Weak understanding of the application of theory to practice, with only occasional evidence of the student making appropriate links between the two.

Very weak theoretical knowledge and understanding, with no evidence of appropriate application in practice.

Reading and referencing

Critical engagement with a wide range of relevant reading, including research-informed literature where relevant. Consistently accurate application of referencing.

Engagement with a wide range of relevant reading. Sound application of referencing, with no inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

Engagement with an appropriate range of reading beyond essential texts. Referencing may show minor inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

Evidence of reading, largely confined to essential texts, but mainly reliant on taught elements. Referencing may show inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies.

Poor engagement with essential texts and no evidence of wider reading. Heavily reliant on taught elements. Inconsistent and weak use of referencing.

Limited evidence of reading and/or reliance on inappropriate sources. Limited engagement with taught elements. Very poor use of referencing.

No evidence of reading or engagement with taught elements. Absent or incoherent referencing.

Presentation, style and structure *

Highly effective presentation of work that is coherently structured and clearly expressed throughout.

Competent presentation of work in terms of structure and clarity of expression.

Work is structured in a largely coherent manner and is for the most part clearly expressed.

Ordered presentation in which relevant ideas / concepts are reasonably expressed.

Work is loosely, and at times incoherently, structured, with information and ideas often poorly expressed.

Work is poorly presented in a disjointed and incoherent manner. Information and ideas are very poorly expressed, with weak English and/or inappropriate style.

Work is extremely disorganised, with much of the content confusingly expressed. Very poor English and/or very inappropriate style.