Assignment Brief Template 24/25 – Module code/Title

Topic	Detail
Academic year / semester	2024 / 25 /Semester 1 and 2
Module code and title	6BU020 – The Professional Project
Module Leader	Lucy Critchley
Assignment name	The Professional Project
Assignment type	Project / Business Artefact and Critical Reflection
Assignment weighting and size	100% Weighting – Project. 5000-word (or equivalence) Business Artefact and 3000-word Critical Reflection. ( +/- 10% word count)
Assessment unpacking video location	Assessment Information & Support Topic, on the Assessment Information and Support Page.
‘What’s my assignment?’ unpacking date (if applicable)	Assessment Information & Support Topic, on the Assessment Information and Support Page.
Formative submission date (if applicable)	See Canvas front page.
Formative submission method (if applicable)	Upload to Canvas – see Assignment Tab in Canvas for details
Formative feedback date (if applicable)	Discuss in Class.
Summative (i.e., final) submission date	See Canvas front page.
Summative submission method	Upload to Canvas – see Assignment Tab in Canvas for details
Assignment requirements	Business Artefact (individual or team developed) You are required to produce a business artefact which could range from an HR Inclusivity Policy document through to a Marketing Video. Other examples would be a business web site; a marketing/sports/hospitality event through to a consultancy project. The only limitations (subject to supervisor agreement) are that it must address a business need and be able to meet the learning outcomes as stated below. Business artefacts can be developed individually or as part of a team of students. Critical Reflection Aspect (individual reflection) Part 1: Critically reflect on your own learning by drawing upon the theoretical themes and concepts covered in your business artefact development. The theoretical themes and concepts can be from your whole course of study, but your reflection should demonstrate how these have informed your chosen artefact development. Part 2: The second part of the critical reflection should focus on outlining what you would have done differently given the time over again. This is a crucial element of ‘reflection on action’ and should demonstrate critical reflective abilities.

Learning outcomes	LO1 – Demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate key information and data where appropriate. LO2 – Be able to reflect critically, drawing on the best principles the reflective practitioner. LO3 – Select appropriate communication content, medium and style intended for a range of professional and/or academic contexts. LO4 – Demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively, articulating and effectively explaining information.
Assessment criteria (see rubric below for performance criteria)	Critical Reflection – Depth and application of critical reflection – 25% Content – Breadth and relevance of academic content/context in the business artefact. This can be evidenced in the critical reflection also – 25% Analysis – Depth of synthesis, and critical evaluation, as applied to the development of the business artefact. This can be evidenced in the critical reflection also – 25% Written Communication – Grammar, coherence, logic of arguments, presentation, and Harvard referencing – 25%
Characteristics of a good submission	Demonstrates current understanding of some specialist areas in depth. Identifies the possibility of new concepts within existing knowledge frameworks and approaches. Achieves a body of work or practice that is coherent and resolved. Analyses new, novel and/or abstract data using an appropriate range of established subject-specific techniques. Takes responsibility for own learning and development using reflection and feedback to analyse own capabilities, appraises alternatives and plans and implements actions.
Additional instructions	Always keep a copy of your drafts and a file of working documents. There may be circumstances – for example, if there are questions relating to the academic integrity of your work – where you may be asked to submit the evidence of your work and meet with your tutor to answer questions about your submission. All submissions must be uploaded via Canvas; paper and email submissions will NOT be marked. Appendices and the reference list are NOT included in this word limit.
Professional Body requirements	N/A
University regulations	University’s Academic Regulations Academic Integrity Policy Level and Mark Descriptors
Support	Student Support and Wellbeing Study Guides Skills for Learning – Introduction to Academic Study Skills Academic English Language Skills You should also refer to your Course and Module Guides
Date by which feedback will be provided	4 working weeks after submission date.
Feedback format	Written
Resit details	The Resit requirement for this assignment is to provide a rework of the original submission, with additions and amendments highlighted, to indicate where you have applied the feedback received. The resit actual date will be available on Canvas approximately 6 weeks after the submission for the first assessment submission.

Assessment Rubric (to be appended)

Assessment criteria	70-79% Excellent 80-89% Outstanding 90-100% Exceptional	60-69% Very good	50-59% Good	40-49% Sufficient	30-39% Insufficient	0-29% Poor
Critical Reflection Depth and application of critical reflection – 25%	Excellent, outstanding or even exceptional evidence of personal reflection and development actions demonstrated. All areas of the reflection are supported by relevant theory.	Very good evidence of personal reflection and development actions demonstrated. Good use of relevant theory to support development actions and reflection.	Good evidence of personal reflection and development actions demonstrated. Relevant theory is used to support development actions and/or reflection.	Some evidence of personal reflection and development actions demonstrated. There is limited use of relevant theory to support the work.	Limited evidence of personal reflection or development actions. Very little or no theory is used to support reflection or actions. Limited engagement with the assignment brief.	No evidence of personal reflection or actions. No relevant theory was used to support the reflection. No engagement with the assignment brief.
Content Breadth and relevance of academic content/context in the business artefact. This can be evidenced in the critical reflection also – 25%	Full, detailed and original response within the given business artefact with all content relevant and focused to an excellent to exceptional level. Excellent demonstration of linked understanding and application of relevant theory, models and concepts to contextual issues, demonstrating synthesis of ideas, independent thinking and study. Evidence of wide reading around the topic.	The submission addresses most detailed aspects within the given business artefact. Content relevant and accurate. Very good knowledge and understanding of relevant theory/ concepts and application of theoretical models. Demonstrates an appreciation of contextual issues and attempts at synthesis of ideas. Evidence of reading beyond the core texts.	Main issues addressed and a good attempt to produce a business artefact. Some relevant content applied. Good knowledge and understanding of relevant theory/concepts together with identification of main contextual issues. Limited evidence of comparison and synthesis of ideas. Evidence of wider engagement with core texts.	Sufficient attempt made to address question/ issues with some content given in the business artefact. Demonstrates a general understanding of topic theory, concepts and context but very little comparison or synthesis of ideas. Material engages with relevant module materials, but largely repeats taught input and very little development or personal interpretation. Little evidence of wider engagement with core texts.	Few learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria met. Business artefact not covered fully. Content lacking in relevance; materials and ideas show only partial understanding of concepts, theories and context. Wholly descriptive. No attempt at analysis or evaluation. Little or no linkage of ideas. No evidence of engagement with relevant material.	No learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria met. Business artefact not relevant. Content lacking in relevance; materials and ideas do not show any understanding of concepts, theories and context. Wholly descriptive. No attempt at analysis or evaluation. No linkage of ideas. No evidence of engagement with any of the module materials. Little attempt to engage with the assignment brief.
Analysis Depth of synthesis, and critical evaluation, as applied to the development of the business artefact. This can be evidenced in the critical reflection also – 25%	Clear and very well-structured with high level of analysis. Excellent, outstanding or exceptional application of theory to the business artefact. Mature understanding and application of relevant theory, concepts and models applied consistently throughout.	Ability to compare issues, ideas, theories, models, and to apply theories and analyse more complex ideas. All parts clearly linked and contributing to the business artefact and supported throughout by theory.	Good attempt to apply theory and models to practice; limited critical appraisal; linkage of key elements demonstrated within the business artefact. More description than analysis is evident.	Largely descriptive very little critical analysis and application of theory. Tends to be descriptive or repetitive, some assertions made but not supported by appropriate evidence within the business artefact. Materials not used effectively to support work.	No development or application of theory to contextual issues within the business artefact. Where theory is used, it is reliant on extensive quoted passages. Lacks critical analysis and thinking.	No theory used, or where it is present, reliant on extensive quoted passages within the business artefact. No development or application of theory to contextual issues. No recognition of the complexity of the subject. Lacks critical analysis.
Written Communication Grammar, coherence, logic of arguments, presentation, and Harvard referencing – 25%	Excellent presentation clearly laid out, well-structured in both the reflection and business artefact. Clear writing style with few or no errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar or syntax. Logical progression of argument and sequencing of ideas. Harvard referencing is complete and accurate throughout both the text and reference list.	Very good presentation, layout and structure in both the reflection and business artefact. Clear writing style with limited errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and/or syntax. Evidence of developing arguments and ideas. Harvard referencing is complete and accurate throughout	Good presentation, layout and structure in both the reflection and business artefact. Writing style may need further clarity and may have some repeated errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar or syntax. Harvard referencing is correct and could be more consistently applied.	Presentation, layout and structure are sufficient in both the reflection and business artefact. Writing style lacks fluency and clarity with repeated errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax. Some attempt at referencing source material using Harvard Referencing but limited list which needs to be applied consistently and correctly.	Inaccurate Harvard referencing including references list in both the reflection and business artefact. Poor structure or sequencing of ideas. Little evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes.	Few or no references evident, and where present are inaccurate in both the reflection and business artefact. Very poor structure or sequencing of ideas. No evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes.