Assessment Information/Brief 2021-22
To be used for all types of assessment and provided to students at the start of the module. Information provided should be compatible with the detail contained in the approved module specification although may contain more information for clarity.
| Module title | Mobile Robotics |
| CRN | 32307/33145 |
| Level | 7 |
| Assessment title | Mobile Robotics: Management and Risk |
| Weighting within module | This assessment is worth 80% of the overall module mark. |
| Submission deadline date and time | Friday, 29th April 2022 @ 4pm |
| Assessment task details and instructions Choose a robot of a specific application and design, and: Conduct commercial and market analysis and evaluate economic potential of the chosen robot.Analyse professional standards and legal requirements for the robot operations.Suggest ways to improve customer satisfaction and social acceptance of the robot.Conduct sustainability assessment of the robot.Identify ethical issues related to the robot.Evaluate and manage risks associated with the robot operations.Use PESTEL blank template in order to provide the details (most important ) Important! You should demonstrate extensive reading and use of different information sources, such as official web sites of regulatory bodies, robot manufacturers, related organisations and associations, textbooks, related industrial journals, and magazines, etc. Both content and references will be assessed. Arial 12, single line spacing. Use APA 6th (Harvard) style for referencing. DOC or PDF format. |
| Assessed intended learning outcomes On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to: Knowledge and Understanding Robot commercial and market analysis.Professional standards and legal requirements for robot development and operations.Customer satisfaction in robotics.Sustainability aspects of robotics.Ethical issues related to robotics.Risk management in robotics Practical, Professional or Subject Specific Skills Conduct commercial and market analysis and evaluate economic potential of a robot.Be aware of professional standards and know legal requirements for robot development and operations.Suggest ways to improve customer satisfaction.Conduct sustainability assessment of a robot.Identify ethical issues related to a robot.Evaluate and manage risks associated with robot operations. Transferable Skills and other Attributes 1. Use planning, organizational, research, critical and creative thinking, problem-solving and decision-making skills. |
| Module Aims Develop management skills to investigate the financial impact of mobile robots in society. |
| Word count/ duration (if applicable) 2500 words (5 pages) +/- 10%, excluding references and appendices. |
| Feedback arrangements You can expect to receive feedback no later than in 15 working days after submission via e-mail and during office hours in Semester 2 – on request. |
| Support arrangements You can obtain support for this assessment by regular contact with the lecturer during each class, during office hours or you can request to arrange a meeting via email (expect to get a reply in 3 working days). |
| Assessment Criteria |
The pass mark is set at 50% and the marking scale is:
| Percentage mark | Level of performance |
| 90-100 | Outstanding |
| 80-89 | Excellent |
| 70-79 | Very good |
| 60-69 | Good |
| 50-59 | Satisfactory |
| 40-49 | Unsatisfactory |
| 30-39 | Inadequate |
| 20-29 | Poor |
| 10-19 | Very poor |
| 0-9 | Extremely poor |
| Extremely poor / Very poor / Poor / Inadequate (0-39) | Unsatisfactory (40-49) | Satisfactory (50-59) | Good (60-69) | Very good (70-79) | Excellent (80-89) | Outstanding (90-100) | |
| – Shows little or | – Shows very | – Limited and/or | – Good | – Good | – Very good | – Exceptional | |
| no knowledge | limited | basic knowledge | comprehension, | knowledge and | knowledge and | comprehension | |
| and | understanding | and | though there | understanding, | understanding of | and critical | |
| understanding, | and knowledge | understanding | may be some | awareness of | theoretical & | understanding of | |
| no awareness of | and/or misses the | with significant | errors and/or | underlying | methodological | the theoretical & | |
| key theoretical/ | point of the task; | errors and | gaps, and some | theoretical and | issues; | methodological | |
| methodological | – Technical | omissions and | awareness of | methodological | – Technical | issues; | |
| issues and/or | vocabulary, | generally | underlying | issues; | vocabulary, | – Technical | |
| fails to address | where | ignorant or | theoretical / | – Technical | where | vocabulary, | |
| Knowledge | the task; | appropriate: no | confused | methodological | vocabulary, | appropriate: | where |
| and | – Technical | usage, or | awareness of key | issues with little | where | accurate and | appropriate: |
| understanding | vocabulary, | misunderstood | theoretical/ | understanding of | appropriate: | sophisticated | accurate and |
| (30%) | where | methodological | how they relate | attempts use, | usage | exceptionally | |
| appropriate: no | issues; | to the task; | but occasionally | sophisticated | |||
| usage, or | – Technical | – Technical | without full | usage. | |||
| fundamentally | vocabulary, | vocabulary, | understanding | ||||
| misunderstood | where | where | or success | ||||
| appropriate: little | appropriate: | ||||||
| and/or | limited, perhaps | ||||||
| inaccurate usage | attempted, but | ||||||
| not always | |||||||
| successful usage | |||||||
| – Unsuccessful | – Incoherent or | – Largely misses | – Capacity for | – A generally | – A coherent | – A critical, | |
| or no attempt to | illogical structure; | the point of the | argument is | critical, | argument that is | analytical and | |
| construct an | evidence used | task, asserts | limited with a | analytical | logically | sophisticated | |
| argument and an | inappropriately or | rather than | tendency to | argument that is | structured and | argument that is | |
| incoherent or | incorrectly; | argues a case; | assert/state | reasonably well | supported by | logically | |
| illogical | – Unsatisfactory | underdeveloped | opinion rather | structured and | evidence | structured and | |
| structure; | analytical skills; | or chaotic | than argue based | well-supported | – Demonstrates | well-supported; | |
| evidence used | – Limited, | structure; | on reason and | – Some critical | a capacity for | – Evidence of | |
| inappropriately | uncritical and | evidence | evidence; | capacity to see | intellectual | independent | |
| or incorrectly; | generally | mentioned but | structure may | the implications | initiative/ | thought and | |
| – Very poor | confused account | used | not be evident; | of the task, | independent | ability to “see | |
| analytical skills; | of a very narrow | inappropriately | – Tendency to | though not able | thought and an | beyond the task” | |
| – Limited, | range of sources | or incorrectly; | be descriptive | to ‘see beyond | ability to engage | – Evidence of | |
| uncritical and | – Very little | rather than | the question’ | with the material | extensive reading | ||
| Argument | generally | attempt at | critical, but some | enough to | critically | and creative use | |
| (50%) | confused | analysis or | attempt at | develop an | – Use of | of evidence to | |
| account of a very | synthesis, | analysis; | independent | appropriate | enhance the | ||
| narrow range | tending towards | – Limited | approach | material from an | overall | ||
| of sources | excessive | capacity to | – Some critical | extensive range | argument; | ||
| description; | discern between | knowledge of | of sources | demonstrates | |||
| – Limited, | relevant and | relevant sources | the ability to | ||||
| uncritical and | non-relevant | demonstrating | synthesise | ||||
| generally | sources | some ability to | appropriate | ||||
| confused account | be selective in | principles by | |||||
| of a narrow range | the range of | reference, where | |||||
| of sources | sources used | appropriate, to | |||||
| and to | primary sources | ||||||
| synthesise | and knowledge | ||||||
| rather than | at the forefront | ||||||
| describe | of the area | ||||||
| Very poor | Unsatisfactory | Satisfactorily | Adequately | Well presented: | High quality | Extremely well | |
| quality of | presentation e.g. | presented: but | presented: | no significant | organisation and | presented: no | |
| presentation and | not always easy | not always easy | writing style | grammatical or | style of | grammatical or | |
| limited or no | to follow; | to follow; | conveys meaning | spelling errors; | presentation | spelling errors; | |
| attempt at | frequent | frequent | but is sometimes | written | (including | written in a | |
| providing | grammatical and | grammatical and | awkward; some | clearly and | referencing); | fluent and | |
| references and | spelling errors | spelling errors; | significant | concisely; | minimal | engaging style; | |
| Presentation | containing | and limited or no | limited attempt | grammatical and | largely | grammatical or | exemplary |
| (20%) | bibliographic | attempt at | at providing | spelling errors; | consistent | spelling errors; | referencing and |
| omissions | providing | references | inconsistent | referencing and | written in a fluent | bibliographic | |
| references and | (e.g. only | referencing but | bibliographic | and engaging | formatting | ||
| containing | referencing direct | generally | formatting | style | |||
| bibliographic | quotations) and | accurate | |||||
| omissions | containing | bibliography | |||||
| bibliographic | |||||||
| omissions |
Get expert help for Mobile Robotics: Management and Risk and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
