FST7008

Risk Perception, Assessment and Communication

2022-23

2

[email protected] but questions on this assessment should be sent to [email protected]

Risk perception essay

WRIT1

50% of the module mark

Pass marks are 40% for undergraduate work and 50% for postgraduate work unless stated otherwise.

The Institute of Risk Management says: “Risk perception is a highly personal process of decision making, based on an individual’s frame of reference developed over a lifetime, among many other factors.”

With regard to this, critically evaluate key risk perception theories that can influence people’s risk-taking behaviour regarding a hazard that is appropriate to your programme of study.

The essay should be written in Arial 12-point text with 1.5 spacing between lines (line spacing in tables can be spaced as appropriate).

3000

This a reflection of the effort required for the assessment. Word counts will normally include any text, tables, calculations, figures, subtitles and citations. Reference lists and contents of appendices are excluded from the word count. Contents of appendices are not usually considered when determining your final assessment grade.

Critical – Critical thinking is explained in the video accessible through this link.

Evaluate – To judge or calculate the quality, importance, amount, or value of something.

Hazard – Something with the potential to cause harm.

This will be provided on the Moodle submission point.

Return Date

This will normally be 20 working days after initial submission.

Time:

By 2.00pm on the deadline day.

Any assessments submitted after the deadline will not be marked and will be recorded as a non-attempt unless you have had an extension request agreed or have approved mitigating circumstances. See the School Moodle pages for more information on extensions and mitigating circumstances.

The assessment must be submitted as a pdf document (save the document as a pdf in your software) and submit through the Turnitin submission point in Moodle.

Your assessment should be titled with your:

student ID number, module code and assessment ID,

e.g. st12345678 BHL5007 WRIT1

Feedback for the assessment will be provided electronically via Moodle. Feedback will be provided with comments on your strengths and the areas which you can improve. View the guidance on how to access your feedback.

All marks are provisional and are subject to quality assurance processes and confirmation at the programme Examination Board.

Assess and display the contribution of social, cultural and psychological factors to variation in the perception of and response to risk

Appraise the relevance of underpinning psychological and psychosocial concepts to the development of intervention strategies designed to protect and enhance health and wellbeing

This includes elements of the Cardiff Met EDGE (Ethical, Digital, Global and Entrepreneurial skills) and other attributes developed in students through the completion of the module and assessment. These will also be highlighted in the module guidance, which should be read by all students completing the module. Assessments are not just a way of auditing student knowledge. They are a process which provides additional learning and development through the preparation for and completion of the assessment.

Critical thinking

Time management

Essay writing

Referencing

Online searches in academic (and non-academic) sources

Reviewing the literature

Evaluation of sources

Self-management

Setting out arguments

Self-audit of work against marking criteria

Proof reading

Please note that your writing must be your own work. Directly copying the writing of others is an academic offence and may lead to a range of sanctions, including being removed from your programme of study. You must also avoid taking sentences and paragraphs from your sources and attempting to re-word them whilst keeping the original sentence/paragraph structure. You should write entirely in your own words.

The assessment marking rubric for FST7008 WRIT1 is provided below:

>70%

60-69%

50-59%

35-49%

<35%

Introduction

Concise and clear introduction setting out the subject matter of the essay and introducing the reader to the key terms and concepts. Discussion is clearly supported by relevant citations. Introduction shows that the author has a strong understanding of the subject matter.

Clear introduction setting out the subject matter of the essay and introducing the reader to the key terms and concepts. Sources are cited. Introduction shows that the author has a reasonable understanding of the subject matter.

Introduction setting out the subject matter of the essay. Some key terms and concepts are introduced but others may be omitted. Sources of information are cited. Introduction may ramble.

Introduction may be unclear or poorly referenced. Introduction may be rambling and does not make it clear what the essay will cover.

Personal opinion may be used and sweeping generalisations may feature in work at this level.

Introduction may be unclear with little or no use of references to indicate where information has been taken from.

Introduction does not follow the conventions of academic writing at Cardiff Met. (e.g. may be written in the 1^st person).

Choice of hazard relevant to programme of study and linking of risk-taking behaviour to hazard.

Hazard chosen shows a clear understanding of the definition of a hazard. Hazard chosen is clearly appropriate to the programme of study. Risk taking behaviour discussed is clearly linked to the hazard.

Thorough and nuanced awareness of the hazard and people’s risk-taking behaviour in relation to the hazard.

Hazard chosen shows a strong understanding of the definition of a hazard. Hazard chosen is clearly appropriate to the programme of study. Risk taking behaviour discussed is clearly linked to the hazard.

Hazard chosen and references to the hazard show an understanding of the definition of a hazard, but description of the hazard may show uncertainty around the use of the terms hazard and risk.

Hazard chosen is generally appropriate to the programme of study.

Risk taking behaviour may always not be clearly linked to the hazard where appropriate.

Hazard chosen and references to the hazard show a poor understanding of the definition of a hazard. The writer may refer to a category of hazards rather than an individual hazard.

Hazard chosen is not appropriate to the programme of study or may not be clearly referred to in the context of the risk-taking behaviour being discussed.

What is referred to as a hazard in the essay may not be a hazard or may refer to multiple different categories of hazards (e.g. manual handling and food safety). Hazard chosen is not appropriate to the programme of study.

A hazard may not be referred to.

Clear lack of understanding of relevant core knowledge in this field.

Critical evaluation – risk perception theories

Clearly argued choice of risk perception theories to be critically evaluated.

Theories clearly and concisely explained with strong use of citations from high quality sources such as peer reviewed journals.

Clear and strong engagement with the relevant literature.

Demonstrates awareness of the limits of relevant risk perception theories.

Appropriate choices for risk perception theories to be critically evaluated.

Theories clearly explained with appropriate use of citations.

Clear engagement with the academic literature.

Mostly appropriate choices for risk perception theories to be critically evaluated.

Theories explained with appropriate use of citations, but explanation may be unclear in places.

Some engagement with the relevant literature extending beyond that provided in the module learning materials.

There may be confusion but not to a point where it interferes with the overall meaning and understanding for the reader.

Citations/references may be from secondary sources or poor-quality sources.

Risk perception theories to be evaluated may not be key or major theories in the field or may be multiple versions of the same theory.

There may be confusion to a point where it interferes with the overall meaning and understanding.

Writing may lack citations where they are required.

Poor engagement with the relevant literature.

Risk perception theories may not be risk perception theories. Risk perception theories may not have been articulated.

There will be confusion in the writing or the author may demonstrate a lack of understanding to a point where the overall meaning is unclear to the reader.

Writing will lack citations where required and may include irrelevant citations/references.

Clear lack of engagement with the relevant literature.

Critical evaluation – academic literature

Thorough and accurate critical evaluation of the risk perception theories in the context of people’s risk-taking behaviour and the hazard in question. This is based on full consideration of relevant academic literature and awareness of its limitations. Attempts to draw together discussion/arguments to form conclusions and form new insights through critical evaluation. Assumptions are challenged. Synthesis of available sources. Thorough engagement with the relevant literature.

Clear engagement with the academic literature and application of that literature to appraise the risk perception theories in the context of people’s risk-taking behaviour and the hazard in question. Wide range of references considered. Discussion is presented in a logical and structured manner. Attempts to draw together discussion/arguments to form conclusions. Synthesis of available sources.

General engagement with the relevant academic literature. Critical evaluation of the methods may be superficial and/or may include omissions, but the whole is still sufficient to appraise the risk perception theories being evaluated. Reading may be limited.

Poor engagement with the relevant academic literature. Critical evaluation may be unclear or limited, with serious omissions. Significant problems with presentation of arguments.

Little or no engagement with the relevant academic literature. Critical evaluation lacking, unclear, unsuccessful and/or with serious omissions. Significant problems with presentation of arguments.

Conclusions

Logical and clearly presented conclusions drawn clearly from the previous discussion. No new areas presented. Conclusions are concise and presented cautiously, with an awareness of their limits given previous debate.

Clearly presented conclusions drawn from the previous discussion. Some new areas may be presented but the focus is on what can be drawn from the author’s previous debate.

Some conclusions drawn from the previous discussion, but new areas are presented, not linked to the previous discussion. Conclusions may be vague. Sweeping statements are mostly absent.

Conclusions are vague and not clearly linked to previous discussion. Conclusions may be inappropriate, or sweeping, without adequate supporting evidence from previous discussion in the essay.

Conclusions are vague and not linked to previous discussion. Conclusions may be lacking in justification. Poorly presented and unclear.