Description
As part of this assignment, you are required to present the below method used for Hazard and Risk Assessment using a case study or an example.
Bow-Tie Method
The Presentation shall be around 20 minutes in front of an audience consisting of tutors and classmates, followed by questions and answers from assessors and students.
Notes:
This is an individual assignment
It is your responsibility to ensure that your work is neatly and accurately presented.
The Presentation shall be in PowerPoint or any other digital presentation formats.
Maximum Slides – 12 to 15.
The report must be submitted via UCLan Blackboard Turnitin.
Referencing:
All academic writing must be referenced, and if you use other people’s ideas without referencing them, you are plagiarizing their work. Follow the Harvard system of referencing within your text. Missing in-text referencing/citation will be strictly penalized by reducing marks.
Presentation Format
Title
Aim and Objectives
Introduction
Methodology/Approach
Example/Case study
Merits/Demerits
Future Scope
Conclusion
References
Note: The presentation shall be prepared in a white background with black font.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2023 – 2024
Programme: B.Sc. (Hons) Fire Safety Management and B.Sc. (Hons) Health Safety
and Environmental Management
Module Code/Module: FV3103 / Hazard and Risk Management
Module Tutors: Amal S. George, Ali Imran
Assessment Title/Number: Presentation
Date of Issue: 11/02/2024
Date of Submission: 17/03/2024
Date of Feedback: 14/04/2024
(Tick in the appropriate box)
You are encouraged to word process your assessment.
You are required to submit this assessment electronically through
Blackboard.
Instructions:
•
•
•
•
This assignment contains ONE QUESTION/TASK.
Complete the task fully with all possible evidence for achieving the learning
outcome/s.
You should not reveal your name or any identity on the assignment
submitted, failing to which your submission will be invalid.
This assessment is worth 20% of the module mark.
Please do not submit this assessment brief with your work.
Page 1 of 7
ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET 2023-2024
Programme: B.Sc. (Hons) Fire Safety Management and B.Sc. (Hons) Health Safety
and Environmental Management
Module Code/Module: FV3103 / Hazard and Risk Management
Module Tutors: Amal S. George, Ali Imran
Assessment Title/Number: Presentation
Date of Issue: 11/02/2024
Date of Submission: 17/03/2024
Date of Feedback: 14/04/2024
(Tick in the appropriate box)
I confirm that this piece of work which I have
submitted is all my own work and that references and
quotations from both primary and secondary sources
have been fully identified and properly acknowledged.
I am fully aware that plagiarism and collusion are
academic offences.
I also confirm that I have not used translation services
or translation software in the production of this
assignment.
Student’s signature:
Question/
Task
Max.
Mark
Mark
in
Percentage
Subject
Knowledge
and Verbal
Presentation
50
50%
Presentation
Format
50
50%
Total
100
100%
Date:
Please note the following penalties for late
submission:
Date
of
Submission
Maximum Mark
1-5 working days
late
40%
More
than
5
working days late
0%
1 Marker
Name:
2 Marker*
Name:
UCLan Verification
Name:
External
Initials
Name:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
st
nd
Examiner
* 2nd Marking on sample basis. Please note that all marks are provisional subject to confirmation by the Module
Assessment Board of the University of Central Lancashire, UK.
Page 2 of 7
Task 1
(100 Marks)
Presentation on Hazard and Risk Assessment Methods
As part of this assignment, you are required to present the below method used for
Hazard and Risk Assessment using a case study or an example.
•
Bow-Tie Method
The Presentation shall be around 20 minutes in front of an audience consisting of tutors
and classmates, followed by questions and answers from assessors and students.
Notes:
•
•
•
•
•
This is an individual assignment
It is your responsibility to ensure that your work is neatly and accurately
presented.
The Presentation shall be in PowerPoint or any other digital presentation
formats.
Maximum Slides – 12 to 15.
The report must be submitted via UCLan Blackboard Turnitin.
Referencing:
All academic writing must be referenced, and if you use other people’s ideas without
referencing them, you are plagiarizing their work. Follow the Harvard system of
referencing within your text. Missing in-text referencing/citation will be strictly penalized
by reducing marks.
Presentation Format
• Title
• Aim and Objectives
• Introduction
• Methodology/Approach
• Example/Case study
• Merits/Demerits
• Future Scope
• Conclusion
• References
Note: The presentation shall be prepared in a white background with black font.
Page 3 of 7
Academic Misconduct Definitions
•
Cheating is any deliberate attempt to deceive and covers a range of offences
described in the ICEM Policy on Unfair Means to Enhance Performance.
•
Plagiarism describes copying from the works of another person without suitably
attributing the published or unpublished works of others.
•
Collusion is an attempt to deceive the examiners by disguising the true
authorship of an assignment by copying or imitating in close detail another
student’s work – this includes with the other student’s consent and also when 2
or more students divide the elements of an assignment amongst themselves
and copy one another’s answers.
•
Re-presentation is an attempt to gain credit twice for the same piece of work.
•
Fabrication is making up research data or results and reporting the same.
•
Falsification is manipulating the research data or results such that inaccurate
information is reported.
Accepted Similarity Index
•
The College uses an online Assessment Tool called Turnitin. Students are
required to self-submit their own assignment on Turnitin and will be given access
to the Originality Reports arising from each submission.
•
The accepted similarity percentage for an assessment is about 10%. However,
the case may still be reported for investigation if the similarity percentage is
below 10% subject to the Module Tutor’s academic judgment.
•
Similarity percentages above 10 % will be reported to the Unfair Means to
Enhance Performance Committee subject to the discussion with the Module
Tutor/justification from the Module Tutor. The case may or may not be formally
investigated.
Penalties of Academic Misconduct
All instances or allegations of the use of unfair means within summative assessment
will be investigated in line with the college UMEP policy. If an allegation is found to be
proven, then the appropriate penalty will be implemented:
•
For the first time: the penalty will be 0% for the element of assessment, the
plagiarized element of assessment must be resubmitted to the required
Page 4 of 7
standard and the mark for the module following resubmission will be restricted
to the minimum pass mark (i.e. 40%).
•
In the event of a repeat offence of cheating, plagiarism, collusion or representation on the same or any other module within the course; the appropriate
penalty will be 0% for the module with no opportunity for reassessment and you
being able to retake the module in a subsequent year.
Penalties for Over-Length Assignments
•
Assignment briefs will include clear instructions about word counts. Students are
expected to adhere to the word count requirements for each assessment. If students
exceed these word count limits, they may receive a reduction in marks as follows.
•
For written assignments that exceed a word count limit by
❖ 0-10% – no penalty
❖ +>10.1% – 20%: 2.5% reduction in mark
❖ +>20.1% – 30%: 5% reduction in mark
❖ +>30.1% – 40%: 7.5% reduction in mark
❖ +>40.1% – 50%: 10% reduction in mark
❖ +>50.1% – 60%: 12.5% reduction in mark
❖ +>60.1% – 70%: 15% reduction in mark
❖ +>70.1% – 80%: 17.5% reduction in mark
❖ +>80.1% – 90%: 20% reduction in mark
❖ +>90.1% – 100%: 22.5% reduction in mark
❖ >100%: 25% reduction in mark but no student will fail an assessment because
of a penalty for exceeding the word limit
Artificial Intelligence Guidance
Artificial Intelligence (AI) will breach the academic regulations when: “Using technological
aids and AI, including translation software, paraphrasing tools, text generating software
(essay bots), and tools to generate graphics or artworks, without specific authorisation.”
(source QAA April
Initial Key Principles for Students on the use of Artificial Intelligence
•
Using AI under the tutor’s guidance will be acceptable in certain situations but students
need to ensure that they comply with the academic regulations on Academic Integrity.
•
Ensure the use of the AI tool is in line with the assessment brief and any further advice
from the tutor setting the assignment.
•
Do not rely solely on AI tools to complete assignments. Use AI tools to enhance your
work, not as a replacement for it.
Page 5 of 7
•
Acknowledge the extent to which AI has been used as part of referencing their sources,
clarifying the contribution of AI to make clear what is their own work. Students have to
cite AI tool they used (such as ChatGPT) and describe how they used it.
•
Avoid assuming that AI responses are always accurate. AI-generated information may
sometimes be inaccurate or misleading.
•
Keep drafts to evidence the thinking and development of the work if requested.
•
Students may be asked to respond to questions to test their knowledge of their
assessed work.
•
Failure to follow this advice may lead to allegations of academic misconduct and will
impact students’ ability to defend themselves.
Marking Criteria
Criteria
Subject
knowledge and
Verbal
Presentation
Presentation
Format
Description
Verbal presentation style, subject
knowledge of the presenter, is the
presenter audible and fluent, has it
been rehearsed? Question
handling etc.
Aim and Objectives
Introduction
Methodology/Approach
Example/Case study
Merits/Demerits and Future Scope
Conclusion
References
Total
Marks
Total
50
50
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
50
100
Page 6 of 7
Marking Scheme
Classi
ficatio
n
Grade
100
94
st
1
87
80
Relevance
Knowledge
Analysis
Argument
Structure
20%
Directly relevant to
title. Able to address
the
implications,
assumptions
and
nuances of the title.
Relevance
to
practice
is
thoroughly
and
explicitly addressed.
20%
Makes effective use of a
comprehensive range of
theory
and
practice
knowledge.
Demonstrates ability in
the manipulation and
transfer
of
subject
material to demonstrate a
solid understanding of the
issues in both theory and
practice.
15%
A
comprehensiv
e analysis of
the
material
resulting
in
clear
and
illuminating
conclusions.
Directly relevant to
title.
Is
able
to
demonstrate
effective
practice
relevance.
Makes effective use of
good theory and practice
knowledge.
Manipulates
and
transfers some material
to demonstrate a clear
grasp of the themes,
questions and issues in
theory and practice.
Good analysis
of the material
resulting
in
clear
and
logical
conclusions.
Generally,
addresses the title,
sometimes
addresses irrelevant
issues.
Relevance
to
practice effectively
addressed, may be
implicit in places.
Adequate knowledge of a
fair range of relevant
theoretical and practice
related material with
evidence
of
an
appreciation
of
its
significance.
Adequate
analytical
treatment, with
occasional
descriptive or
narrative
passages
which
lack
clear analytical
purpose.
Conclusions
are clear.
Some degree of
irrelevance to the
title is common.
Only
the
most
obvious issues are
addressed at a
superficial level and
in
unchallenging
terms.
Relevance
to
practice
is
superficially
addressed
and
rarely made explicit
Relevance to the
title is intermittent or
missing.
The topic is reduced
to its vaguest and
least
challenging
terms.
Relevance
to
practice is barely
considered or not at
all.
Basic understanding of a
limited range of relevant
theoretical and practice
related material.
Largely
descriptive or
narrative
in
style
with
limited
evidence
of
analytical
capability.
Conclusions
are not always
clear or logical
A
basic
argument
is
evident
but
tends to be
supported
by
assertion and
lacks
proper
development.
Coherence and
clarity
are
evident
only
intermittently
A limited understanding
of a narrow range of
relevant theoretical and
practice related material
or a lack of basic
knowledge in either or
both theory and practice
necessary
for
an
understanding of the
topic
Heavy
dependence
on description
and/or
narrative.
Paraphrase is
common.
Evidence
of
analysis
is
lacking.
Clear
and
logical
conclusions
are sparse
Little evidence
of
coherent
argument.
There is a lack
of development
and the work
may
be
repetitive and/or
thin.
74
68
2.1
65
62
58
2.2
55
52
48
45
3
42
40
35*
30*
Fail
25
10
Page 7 of 7
&
Originality
Presentation
20%
Coherent and
logically
structured,
making creative
use
of
an
appropriate
mode
of
argument
and/or
theoretical
model.
15%
Distinctive
work showing
independent
thought and
critical
engagement
with
alternative
views.
10%
A very well
written answer
with standard
spelling and
syntax.
Generally
coherent
and
logically
constructed.
Uses
an
appropriate
mode
of
argument
or
theoretical
model.
Adequate
attempt
to
construct
a
coherent
argument, but
may suffer loss
of focus and
consistency.
Issues at stake
may lack clarity
or
theoretical
models
couched
in
simplistic terms.
Contains
some
distinctive or
independent
thinking.
Beginning to
formulate an
independent
position
Sound work
which
expresses a
personal
position,
often in broad
terms
and
tends
towards
uncritical
conformity to
one or more
standard
views of the
topic.
Largely
derivative.
No personal
view
is
adequately
formulated
Wholly
uncritical and
conforming to
one or more
standard
views.
Almost wholly
derivative.
The writer’s
contribution
rarely goes
beyond
simplifying
paraphrase.
No evidence
of personal
thought.
Style is lucid
and
resourceful
with
an
appropriate
bibliographical
apparatus.
Well
written
with standard
spelling and
syntax.
Style is lucid
utilising
an
appropriate
format
and
bibliographical
apparatus.
Competently
written
with
only
minor
lapses
from
standard
spelling and
syntax.
Style
is
readable with
acceptable
format
and
bibliographical
status.
Style
of
presentation
makes reading
difficult.
Deficiencies in
spelling,
syntax, format
or
bibliographical
apparatus
impact
significantly
upon clarity.
Poorly written
with numerous
deficiencies in
syntax,
spelling,
expression
and
presentation.
The writer may
achieve clarity
(if at all) only
by
using
simplistic
or
repetitious
style.
ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2023 – 2024
Programme: B.Sc. (Hons) Fire Safety Management and B.Sc. (Hons) Health Safety
and Environmental Management
Module Code/Module: FV3103 / Hazard and Risk Management
Module Tutors: Amal S. George, Ali Imran
Assessment Title/Number: Presentation
Date of Issue: 11/02/2024
Date of Submission: 17/03/2024
Date of Feedback: 14/04/2024
(Tick in the appropriate box)
You are encouraged to word process your assessment.
You are required to submit this assessment electronically through
Blackboard.
Instructions:
•
•
•
•
This assignment contains ONE QUESTION/TASK.
Complete the task fully with all possible evidence for achieving the learning
outcome/s.
You should not reveal your name or any identity on the assignment
submitted, failing to which your submission will be invalid.
This assessment is worth 20% of the module mark.
Please do not submit this assessment brief with your work.
ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET 2023-2024
Page 1 of 7
Programme: B.Sc. (Hons) Fire Safety Management and B.Sc. (Hons) Health Safety
and Environmental Management
Module Code/Module: FV3103 / Hazard and Risk Management
Module Tutors: Amal S. George, Ali Imran
Assessment Title/Number: Presentation
Date of Issue: 11/02/2024
Date of Submission: 17/03/2024
Date of Feedback: 14/04/2024
(Tick in the appropriate box)
I confirm that this piece of work which I have
submitted is all my own work and that references and
quotations from both primary and secondary sources
have been fully identified and properly acknowledged.
I am fully aware that plagiarism and collusion are
academic offences.
I also confirm that I have not used translation services
or translation software in the production of this
assignment.
Student’s signature:
Question/
Task
Max.
Mark
Mark
in
Percentage
Subject
Knowledge
and Verbal
Presentation
50
50%
Presentation
Format
50
50%
Total
100
100%
Date:
Please note the following penalties for late
submission:
Date
of
Submission
Maximum Mark
1-5 working days
late
40%
More
than
5
working days late
0%
1st Marker
Name:
2nd Marker*
Name:
UCLan Verification
Name:
External
Initials
Name:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Examiner
* 2nd Marking on sample basis. Please note that all marks are provisional subject to confirmation by the Module
Assessment Board of the University of Central Lancashire, UK.
Task 1
(100 Marks)
Presentation on Hazard and Risk Assessment Methods
Page 2 of 7
As part of this assignment, you are required to present the below method used for
Hazard and Risk Assessment using a case study or an example.
•
Bow-Tie Method
The Presentation shall be around 20 minutes in front of an audience consisting of tutors
and classmates, followed by questions and answers from assessors and students.
Notes:
•
•
•
•
•
This is an individual assignment
It is your responsibility to ensure that your work is neatly and accurately
presented.
The Presentation shall be in PowerPoint or any other digital presentation
formats.
Maximum Slides – 12 to 15.
The report must be submitted via UCLan Blackboard Turnitin.
Referencing:
All academic writing must be referenced, and if you use other people’s ideas without
referencing them, you are plagiarizing their work. Follow the Harvard system of
referencing within your text. Missing in-text referencing/citation will be strictly penalized
by reducing marks.
Presentation Format
• Title
• Aim and Objectives
• Introduction
• Methodology/Approach
• Example/Case study
• Merits/Demerits
• Future Scope
• Conclusion
• References
Note: The presentation shall be prepared in a white background with black font.
Academic Misconduct Definitions
•
Cheating is any deliberate attempt to deceive and covers a range of offences
described in the ICEM Policy on Unfair Means to Enhance Performance.
Page 3 of 7
•
Plagiarism describes copying from the works of another person without suitably
attributing the published or unpublished works of others.
•
Collusion is an attempt to deceive the examiners by disguising the true
authorship of an assignment by copying or imitating in close detail another
student’s work – this includes with the other student’s consent and also when 2
or more students divide the elements of an assignment amongst themselves
and copy one another’s answers.
•
Re-presentation is an attempt to gain credit twice for the same piece of work.
•
Fabrication is making up research data or results and reporting the same.
•
Falsification is manipulating the research data or results such that inaccurate
information is reported.
Accepted Similarity Index
•
The College uses an online Assessment Tool called Turnitin. Students are
required to self-submit their own assignment on Turnitin and will be given access
to the Originality Reports arising from each submission.
•
The accepted similarity percentage for an assessment is about 10%. However,
the case may still be reported for investigation if the similarity percentage is
below 10% subject to the Module Tutor’s academic judgment.
•
Similarity percentages above 10 % will be reported to the Unfair Means to
Enhance Performance Committee subject to the discussion with the Module
Tutor/justification from the Module Tutor. The case may or may not be formally
investigated.
Penalties of Academic Misconduct
All instances or allegations of the use of unfair means within summative assessment
will be investigated in line with the college UMEP policy. If an allegation is found to be
proven, then the appropriate penalty will be implemented:
•
For the first time: the penalty will be 0% for the element of assessment, the
plagiarized element of assessment must be resubmitted to the required
standard and the mark for the module following resubmission will be restricted
to the minimum pass mark (i.e. 40%).
Page 4 of 7
•
In the event of a repeat offence of cheating, plagiarism, collusion or representation on the same or any other module within the course; the appropriate
penalty will be 0% for the module with no opportunity for reassessment and you
being able to retake the module in a subsequent year.
Penalties for Over-Length Assignments
•
Assignment briefs will include clear instructions about word counts. Students are
expected to adhere to the word count requirements for each assessment. If students
exceed these word count limits, they may receive a reduction in marks as follows.
•
For written assignments that exceed a word count limit by
❖ 0-10% – no penalty
❖ +>10.1% – 20%: 2.5% reduction in mark
❖ +>20.1% – 30%: 5% reduction in mark
❖ +>30.1% – 40%: 7.5% reduction in mark
❖ +>40.1% – 50%: 10% reduction in mark
❖ +>50.1% – 60%: 12.5% reduction in mark
❖ +>60.1% – 70%: 15% reduction in mark
❖ +>70.1% – 80%: 17.5% reduction in mark
❖ +>80.1% – 90%: 20% reduction in mark
❖ +>90.1% – 100%: 22.5% reduction in mark
❖ >100%: 25% reduction in mark but no student will fail an assessment because
of a penalty for exceeding the word limit
Artificial Intelligence Guidance
Artificial Intelligence (AI) will breach the academic regulations when: “Using technological
aids and AI, including translation software, paraphrasing tools, text generating software
(essay bots), and tools to generate graphics or artworks, without specific authorisation.”
(source QAA April
Initial Key Principles for Students on the use of Artificial Intelligence
•
Using AI under the tutor’s guidance will be acceptable in certain situations but students
need to ensure that they comply with the academic regulations on Academic Integrity.
•
Ensure the use of the AI tool is in line with the assessment brief and any further advice
from the tutor setting the assignment.
•
Do not rely solely on AI tools to complete assignments. Use AI tools to enhance your
work, not as a replacement for it.
Page 5 of 7
•
Acknowledge the extent to which AI has been used as part of referencing their sources,
clarifying the contribution of AI to make clear what is their own work. Students have to
cite AI tool they used (such as ChatGPT) and describe how they used it.
•
Avoid assuming that AI responses are always accurate. AI-generated information may
sometimes be inaccurate or misleading.
•
Keep drafts to evidence the thinking and development of the work if requested.
•
Students may be asked to respond to questions to test their knowledge of their
assessed work.
•
Failure to follow this advice may lead to allegations of academic misconduct and will
impact students’ ability to defend themselves.
Marking Criteria
Criteria
Subject
knowledge and
Verbal
Presentation
Presentation
Format
Description
Verbal presentation style, subject
knowledge of the presenter, is the
presenter audible and fluent, has it
been rehearsed? Question
handling etc.
Aim and Objectives
Introduction
Methodology/Approach
Example/Case study
Merits/Demerits and Future Scope
Conclusion
References
Total
Marks
Total
50
50
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
50
100
Page 6 of 7
Marking Scheme
Classi
ficatio
n
Grade
100
94
st
1
87
80
Relevance
Knowledge
Analysis
Argument
Structure
20%
Directly relevant to
title. Able to address
the
implications,
assumptions
and
nuances of the title.
Relevance
to
practice
is
thoroughly
and
explicitly addressed.
20%
Makes effective use of a
comprehensive range of
theory
and
practice
knowledge.
Demonstrates ability in
the manipulation and
transfer
of
subject
material to demonstrate a
solid understanding of the
issues in both theory and
practice.
15%
A
comprehensiv
e analysis of
the
material
resulting
in
clear
and
illuminating
conclusions.
Directly relevant to
title.
Is
able
to
demonstrate
effective
practice
relevance.
Makes effective use of
good theory and practice
knowledge.
Manipulates
and
transfers some material
to demonstrate a clear
grasp of the themes,
questions and issues in
theory and practice.
Good analysis
of the material
resulting
in
clear
and
logical
conclusions.
Generally,
addresses the title,
sometimes
addresses irrelevant
issues.
Relevance
to
practice effectively
addressed, may be
implicit in places.
Adequate knowledge of a
fair range of relevant
theoretical and practice
related material with
evidence
of
an
appreciation
of
its
significance.
Adequate
analytical
treatment, with
occasional
descriptive or
narrative
passages
which
lack
clear analytical
purpose.
Conclusions
are clear.
Some degree of
irrelevance to the
title is common.
Only
the
most
obvious issues are
addressed at a
superficial level and
in
unchallenging
terms.
Relevance
to
practice
is
superficially
addressed
and
rarely made explicit
Relevance to the
title is intermittent or
missing.
The topic is reduced
to its vaguest and
least
challenging
terms.
Relevance
to
practice is barely
considered or not at
all.
Basic understanding of a
limited range of relevant
theoretical and practice
related material.
Largely
descriptive or
narrative
in
style
with
limited
evidence
of
analytical
capability.
Conclusions
are not always
clear or logical
A
basic
argument
is
evident
but
tends to be
supported
by
assertion and
lacks
proper
development.
Coherence and
clarity
are
evident
only
intermittently
A limited understanding
of a narrow range of
relevant theoretical and
practice related material
or a lack of basic
knowledge in either or
both theory and practice
necessary
for
an
understanding of the
topic
Heavy
dependence
on description
and/or
narrative.
Paraphrase is
common.
Evidence
of
analysis
is
lacking.
Clear
and
logical
conclusions
are sparse
Little evidence
of
coherent
argument.
There is a lack
of development
and the work
may
be
repetitive and/or
thin.
74
68
2.1
65
62
58
2.2
55
52
48
45
3
42
40
35*
30*
Fail
25
10
Page 7 of 7
&
Originality
Presentation
20%
Coherent and
logically
structured,
making creative
use
of
an
appropriate
mode
of
argument
and/or
theoretical
model.
15%
Distinctive
work showing
independent
thought and
critical
engagement
with
alternative
views.
10%
A very well
written answer
with standard
spelling and
syntax.
Generally
coherent
and
logically
constructed.
Uses
an
appropriate
mode
of
argument
or
theoretical
model.
Adequate
attempt
to
construct
a
coherent
argument, but
may suffer loss
of focus and
consistency.
Issues at stake
may lack clarity
or
theoretical
models
couched
in
simplistic terms.
Contains
some
distinctive or
independent
thinking.
Beginning to
formulate an
independent
position
Sound work
which
expresses a
personal
position,
often in broad
terms
and
tends
towards
uncritical
conformity to
one or more
standard
views of the
topic.
Largely
derivative.
No personal
view
is
adequately
formulated
Wholly
uncritical and
conforming to
one or more
standard
views.
Almost wholly
derivative.
The writer’s
contribution
rarely goes
beyond
simplifying
paraphrase.
No evidence
of personal
thought.
Style is lucid
and
resourceful
with
an
appropriate
bibliographical
apparatus.
Well
written
with standard
spelling and
syntax.
Style is lucid
utilising
an
appropriate
format
and
bibliographical
apparatus.
Competently
written
with
only
minor
lapses
from
standard
spelling and
syntax.
Style
is
readable with
acceptable
format
and
bibliographical
status.
Style
of
presentation
makes reading
difficult.
Deficiencies in
spelling,
syntax, format
or
bibliographical
apparatus
impact
significantly
upon clarity.
Poorly written
with numerous
deficiencies in
syntax,
spelling,
expression
and
presentation.
The writer may
achieve clarity
(if at all) only
by
using
simplistic
or
repetitious
style.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
