| Assignment Brief | |
| BMM6452 – Professional Learning Through Work | |
| Assignment type | Final Assessment (Assessment 3)-To be Negotiated |
| Learning outcomes (Please see module Handbook for all learning outcomes) | By the end of this module, the student should be able to: Demonstrate enhanced graduate employability skills, knowledge, behaviours and attitudes developed through working for the placement agency or through completing a skills development project, through guided and self-directed study, and through undertaking study of this module. Evidence creation and completion of a ‘negotiated project’ (which could include a ‘work-based project or intervention’ or an alternative ‘skills development project’). Demonstrate ability to critically analyse, synthesise and evaluate data/information and research (including managing research ethics issues); construct informed arguments and present findings appropriately; and devise and implement evidence-based solutions and projects to successful completion, outputs and outcomes, related to a critical business issue within the placement employer or skills development issue(s) which the student has self-identified. Evidence ability to negotiate learning outcomes and formats of assessment to meet the expectations of Level 6 study, related to a ‘work-based project or intervention’ or a ‘skills development project’. |
| Weighting: | 80% |
| Word Count or Equivalent | 2,500 words or equivalent |
| Submission deadline: | Next week |
| Post date: | Feedback will be available on Moodle 15 days after the deadline (excluding national holidays, staff sickness and annual leave). |
Assessment and Deadlines
| Component form (e.g. Essay or Online test) | Magnitude (e.g. 2,000 words or 2 hours) | Weighting and/or Pass/Fail | Assessment Deadline | Feedback Date | Module Intended Learning Outcome(s) assessed (e.g. 1, 2) |
| Project proposal | 500 words | 20% | 10th December | 15 working days after submission on Moodle page (excluding national holidays, sickness and annual leave) | 1, 2,3, 4 |
| Completion of work placement hours or employability skills development hours | 60 hours minimum | Pass/Fail | Complete in Semester 2 | 15 working days after submission on Moodle page(excluding national holidays, sickness and annual leave) | 1, 3 |
| Final Assessment – to be negotiated | 2,500 words or equivalent | 80% | End of semester 2 (1st May 2026) | 15 working days after submission on Moodle page(excluding national holidays, sickness and annual leave) | 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Final project report or equivalent: You are required to submit a 2,500 word assignment, presentation or poster etc. depending on the nature of your project, with personal reflections. It should include a review and assessment of your successes (i.e., the project outputs, outcomes, and impact, as well as the employability skills you have developed, and this should be supported with sources of evidence); the challenges/weaknesses you faced and how you overcame them; a critical reflection on the module and whole process, evidencing your learning gained and areas for improvement; and it should also include an academic review, of how academic study supported your project and development of your employability skills.
Word Count: The word count for written assessments is as noted above, +/- 10% is allowed. This does not include the references list, bibliography list, or appendices list. If you exceed the word limit, any work after the allowed wordcount will not be marked. Whilst you are not penalised for being under the word count, work that is substantially under the word count will be more limited in meeting the programme learning outcomes.
For the oral presentation, submit it to Turnitin and present it on a scheduled date. It includes a 15-minute presentation and a 5-minute Q&A session. Exceeding the time limit means extra content won’t be marked. Being significantly under may limit meeting outcomes.
The digital poster requires a Turnitin submission and a scheduled presentation, consisting of a 15-minute talk and a 5-minute Q&A. Exceeding or significantly undercutting the time could impact outcome fulfillment.
Tentative Structure:
A tentative structure for the final project report could include the following sections:
- Introduction: Overview of the project, including objectives and significance.
- Project Review: Detailed assessment of project outputs, outcomes, and impact. Discussion on employability skills developed with supporting evidence.
- Challenges and Solutions: Analysis of challenges faced during the project and strategies employed to overcome them.
- Critical Reflection and Academic Review: Reflect on the learning process, gains, and areas for improvement throughout the module. Also evaluate how academic study supported the project and skill development.
- Conclusion and Future Directions: Summarize key findings, reflections, and potential future directions.
- References: List of sources cited in APA format.
- Appendices: Supplementary material including the supporting evidence relevant to the project (excluded from word count). Evidence can be different for different projects, some examples include:
- Technical Projects: Code snippets, software documentation, or project GitHub links.
- Research Projects: Survey/questionnaire results, data analysis files, or detailed research methodology.
- Creative Projects: Artwork, digital designs, or photography portfolios.
- Business Projects: Business plans, financial models, or market analysis reports.
Feedback Date: Feedback will be available on Moodle 15 days after the submission date (excluding national holidays, staff sickness and annual leave).
Referencing: You are required to use the American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. Please visit the Library guide here for more information APA 7th Referencing Guide – APA 7th Referencing Guide and here Referencing – Library at Leeds Trinity University
Assessment Components:
Final project report or equivalent: You are required to submit a 2,500-word assignment, presentation or poster etc. depending on the nature of your project, with personal reflections. It should include a review and assessment of your successes (i.e., the project outputs, outcomes, and impact, as well as the employability skills you have developed, and this should be supported with sources of evidence); the challenges/weaknesses you faced and how you overcame them; a critical reflection on the module and whole process, evidencing your learning gained and areas for improvement; and it should also include an academic review, of how academic study supported your project and development of your employability skills.
Word Count: The word count for written assessments is as noted above, +/- 10% is allowed. This does not include the references list, bibliography list, or appendices list. If you exceed the wordlimit, any work after the allowed wordcount will not be marked. Whilst you are not penalised for being under the word count, work that is substantially under the word count will be more limited in meeting the programme learning outcomes.
If you make oral presentation, it would be 15 minutes. If youexceed this allowed time, any work after the allowed time will not be marked. Whilst you are not penalised for being under the time allowed, presentations that are substantially under the allowed time will be more limited in meeting the programme learning outcomes.
Feedback Date: Feedback will be available on Moodle 15 days after the submission date (excluding national holidays, staff sickness and annual leave).
Referencing: You are required to use the American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. Please visit the Library guide here for more information APA 7th Referencing Guide – APA 7thReferencing Guideand here Referencing – Library at Leeds Trinity University
All modules will include a session which unpacks the assessment brief, providing opportunities for you to clarify any questions you have about the assessment task. The assessment criteria and rubric will be examined in these sessions to support your understanding of the expectations of the task(s). Your module tutor will provide generic feedback on what a good assessment looks like, common misconceptions, pitfalls, construction of arguments, format, spelling and referencing. You are encouraged to bring selected sections of your work or a one-page plan to assessment support sessions for verbal feedback and where appropriate, peer discussion. Your module tutor will not give any indication of mark or classification for any draft work presented. Where you have received previous feedback, your tutors will encourage you to reflect on this to support your acquisition of knowledge and academic skills development. Feedback on a full draft of an assessment for submissions, prior to the submission deadline, is not normally permitted.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in this module
- You may use generative AI such as ChatGPT to assist you in the process of undertaking the assessment in the following ways: brainstorming, research, planning, feedback, editing.
- All use of generative AI must be explicitly acknowledged, and any artificially generated content (e.g. images) explicitly labelled, with the source of the AI tool referenced using current APA referencing conventions You can find further guidance on the library website on their AI webpage).
- In submitting your assignment, you agree to disclose the extent to which you have used generative AI in preparing this work, and include evidence of your AI use in your appendices (e.g. dated screen shots of your use of this tool or copy and paste your AI chat into Word).
- If you use AI, include following statement at the end of your assignment before references ‘This assignment used generative AI in the following ways for the purposes of completing the assignment (choose 1 to 5 of the following): brainstorming, research, planning, feedback, editing.’
- Failure to disclose your generative AI use may result in a 0 for your assignment and a referral for academic misconduct (see the Student Academic Misconduct Policy under Essential Info in the MyLTU app).
Assessment Criteria
Your work will be assessed in line with the generic marking criteria for undergraduate assessments. The University now operates a system of Categorical Marking for all undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.
Work assessed as being of a first or outstanding first-class standard typically: –
- Answers all parts of the assessment task.
- Demonstrates deep and nuanced understanding of contemporary developments at the forefront of the discipline(s) (i.e., theories, models, approaches, schools of thought, and research findings).
- Underpins throughout, with purposeful and systematic use of both primary and secondary sources of literature and evidence. Shows sustained, clear, independent, and original thought, and a well thought out methodological approach.
- Includes extensive, selective, and evaluative use of research evidence, which is rigorous applied.
- Offers a sophisticated and highly nuanced argument and structure, which is perceptive, insightful, and original.
- A highly professional, succinct, concise, to the point writing, highly appropriate to the audience and discipline.
- Offers original, detailed, and perceptive analysis; rigorous and sustained critical evaluations and appraisals; and convincing, well-argued conclusions and recommendations (if appropriate to the assignment/assessment task).
- Flawless referencing and use of other academic conventions.
Weaker work assessed as being a failure is often characterised by:
- Failing to read and understand all parts of the question/task.
- Failing to answer all parts of the question/task.
- Failing to underpin throughout with theory.
- Demonstrating limited understanding of key concepts, issues, and debates, and showing little awareness of the complexity of the discipline.
- Demonstrating limited or inappropriate selection and use of primary and secondary sources of evidence, and little application of research evidence to underpin throughout.
- Offering a flawed basic argument or structure, with flawed or inaccurate writing, with limited awareness of the discipline, and the audience it is written for.
- Offering an overly/mainly descriptive approach, with little analysis and evaluations; with inconclusive unbalanced arguments; inadequately/weakly supported conclusions.
- Inaccurate flawed referencing, and poor use of other academic conventions.
Using essay writing services, plagiarising, and using non-academic and non-peer reviewed sources of literature and evidence.
Extensions and Mitigating Circumstances
The LTU Mitigating Circumstances Policy outlines the number of extensions that students are permitted in an Academic Year. Under the current policy, students are allowed 5 automatic extensions of 5 working days per level of study. Extensions must be applied for via eVision. In exceptional cases, a student’s 5-day extensions may be increased by an additional 5 days to make a total of 10 working days.
Academic Integrity
Waltham International College, in partnership with Leeds Trinity University, is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive environment where students are expected to act with integrity, self-discipline, and respect in all academic and professional activities. Academic Integrity refers to conducting scholarly work in an open, honest, and responsible manner. Students must respect the intellectual property of others by properly attributing and acknowledging sources. Through authentic learning, students are encouraged to develop independent thought and analysis, ensuring the academic standards and value of the University’s awards. It is the responsibility of students to ensure their work upholds these standards.
Academic Misconduct
Academic misconduct involves any form of dishonesty in academic work, whether intentional or unintentional, that undermines the integrity of assessments. Any suspected misconduct will be investigated, and common types of misconduct include:
- Poor Scholarship: Incorrect referencing or misunderstanding of academic standards.
- Self-Plagiarism: Reusing one’s work without proper acknowledgement.
- Plagiarism: Using others’ work without citation.
- Collusion: Unauthorized collaboration on individual tasks.
- Fabrication: Falsifying data or manipulating academic documents.
- Research Misconduct: Failing to conduct ethical research.
- Impersonation: Allowing someone else to assume your identity for academic gain.
- Contract Cheating/Use of AI: Seeking assistance from a third party or using AI tools to complete your assignment.
Waltham International College and Leeds Trinity University are dedicated to investigating all instances of academic misconduct and applying appropriate disciplinary measures when necessary.
Assessment Criteria Grid
| Classification: Criterion: | Exceptional1st / Distinction 100,95, 92 | Outstanding1st / Distinction 88,85,82 | 1st /Distinction78, 75, 72 | 2.1 / Merit 68,65,62 | 2.2 /Pass 58,55,52 | 3rd /Pass48,45,42 | Fail38,35,32 | AbjectFail25,20,10,0 |
| Knowledge&Understanding | Polished grasp of subject. Astute and authoritative approach to complexity. | Comprehensive and confident grasp with strong sense of subject complexity. | Thorough understanding evident and well applied to specific assessment task. | Secure, general understanding and reasonable application to assessment task. | Sound knowledge relevant to the assessment task. | Limited knowledge shows basic understanding. Some awareness of the context of the assessment task. | Faulty understanding of assessment task or concepts. Irrelevant or mostly absent content. | No understanding of assessment task or concepts. Irrelevant or absent content. |
| Structure,Argument | Effective and integrated over- arching argument or structure, clear, insightful synthesis. Highly creative understanding of topic. | Effective overall argument with clear and insightful connections between claims. Creative understanding of topic. | Clear and logical focus and direction with valuable connections made between claims. Good level of creativity. | Well-focused on the question with some clear connections made between claims and some overall direction. Some creativity. | Addresses the topic with some direction and makes some connections between claims or different parts of artefact/assignment. | Argument is weak and difficult to detect. Connections made between statements limited | Lack of argument. Faulty connection between statements. | No argument. Many faulty connections between statements. |
| AnalysisandConclusions | Original and searching analysis, critical appraisal of task and judicious conclusions. | Searching analysis with pertinent conclusions drawn. | Insightful analysis throughout with appropriate conclusions drawn. | Strong analysis of salient illustrative examples. Some general conclusions drawn. | Some conclusions drawn based on some reasonable comparisons and examples. | Basic analysis. Remains descriptive, little evaluation or comparison. Few clear conclusions. | Insufficient evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical insufficient. | No evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical or absent. |
| Sources&Evidence | Extensive and evaluative use of evidential support for argument. | Extensive use of evidence with some evaluation. | Clear support of argument with well selected evidence. | Draws on relevant independent sources and evidence to support claims. | Makes simple use of evidence from recommended sources. | Relies on superficial statements with little supporting evidence. | Lack of evidence or relevant sources. | No evidence or relevant sources. |
| AdherencetoReferencingConventions, TechnicalSkills | Flawless referencing or technical skills. | Flawless referencing or technical skills. | Excellent referencing or technical skills. | Consistent and accurate referencing or technical skills. | Largely consistent accurate referencing. or technical skills. | Limited referencing/ adherence to convention or technical skills. | Inadequate referencing or technical skills. | Inadequate or no referencing or technical skills. |
| Written/Visual/Oral Style&Clarity | Professional and sophisticated with exceptional clarity and coherence. Excellent, controlled, confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement. | Professional and fluent with great clarity and coherence. Confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement. | Fluent and accurate with great clarity and coherence. Mostly confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement. | Clear and coherent. Good delivery, pace, and audience engagement | Some lapses of clarity. Some expression is ineffective. Satisfactory delivery, pace, and audience engagement | Adequate, but awkward expression throughout with little clarity. Poor delivery, pace, and audience engagement | Inadequate and unclear presentation. Impaired communication. Error-strewn. | Grossly inadequate and unclear presentation. Severely impaired communication. Error-strewn. |
Resources
The library holds several editions of many of the books you will find useful, but references are given here only for the most recent editions. Access to catalogues can be found on the ‘My LTU app’ or via the website: https://lib.leedstrinity.ac.uk
Core resources
- Moodle Page for the Module: https://moodle.leedstrinity.net/course/view.php?id=1017
- Library: https://lib.leedstrinity.ac.uk and phone number 0113 2837244
Core texts
Biech, Elaine. (2021). Skills for Career Success. Macmillan Publishers.
Bolton, G. E. J., & Delderfield, R. (2018). Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development (Fifth ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cottrell, Stella. (2019). The Study Skills Handbook (Bloomsbury Study Skills, 30) (5th ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Helyer, R., Wall, T., Minton, A., Lund, A., Perrin, D., Simpson, D., Meakin, D., Rowe, L., Mirza, N., Beckett, K., Scowcroft, S., Hadfield, P., Graham, S., & Ions, K. (2020). The Work-Based Learning Student Handbook. Van Haren Publishing.
Trought, F. (2017). Brilliant Employability Skills: How to Stand Out from the Crowd in the Graduate Job Market. Pearson Education Unlimited.
Recommended texts
Burns, T., & Sinfield, S. (2022). Essential Study Skills: The Complete Guide to Success at University (Student Success) (Fifth ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cottrell, S. (2021). Skills for Success: Personal Development and Employability (Bloomsbury Study Skills, 79) (4th ed.). Red Globe Press.
Cottrell, S. (2017). Critical Thinking Skills: Effective Analysis, Argument and Reflection (Bloomsbury Study Skills, 100) (3rd ed.). Red Globe Press.
Dowson, P. (2015). Personal and Professional Development for Business Students. SAGE Publications. Fanthome, C. (2017). Work Placements – A Survival Guide for Students. Van Haren Publishing
Additional Resources
We recommended that you read widely on the subjects being covered, and I personally believe it best to find the books that work for you, i.e., ones that you find easily accessible, and which meet your own individual learning style and needs. Additional appropriate and current resources will be introduced and posted to Moodle during the course of study on this module.
Useful Websites
TED presentations – https://www.ted.com/topics/
Useful Journals
Harvard Business Review (1922-present)
Leadership and organization development (1980 – present) Strategic Management Journal (1980 – present)
Leadership quarterly (Online) (1990 to present) Journal of Management Studies (1997 – present) Management Today (1998-present)
Leadership (London, England : Online) (2005-to present) Journal of Leadership Studies
Journal of Business Ethics
