Faculty of

Computing, Engineering
and the Built Environment

Coursework Assessment Brief

Academic Year 2016-17
Module: BNV6114 (SL) Inter Professional Project (IPP)

Assignment
This brief relates to Individual
Coursework only
Birmingham School of the Built Environment in association
School:
with Colombo School of Construction Technology
Module Co-ordinator: Ms. Vathsala Somachandra

Module Tutor

Set Date:
See Moodle and ECMS on the intranet for details
Submission Deadline: http://moodle.bcu.ac.uk/tee
https://mytee.bcu.ac.uk/
Assessment Weighting:

Submission Method: Via Moodle

Nominal time to
150 hours
complete this
assignment:
Brief Assessment
2. Part 2 (50%) - Individual 1800 word report
Details
Deadline: 16th January 2016 before 5.00pm.

Group Assessment: The group submission comprises a presentation and group

report to client, to be given to the client. See separate briefing
document

Individual Assessment: To be submitted via ICBT SIS link before 5.00pm on 16th
January 2016

1
IMPORTANT STATEMENT

Plagiarism: the presentation of the work of another (from whatever source: book,
journal, internet etc.) as if it were ones own independent work. This can be
anywhere on a continuum ranging from sloppy paraphrasing to verbatim
transcription without crediting sources.

You are advised to refer to the Student Handbook on matters of cheating and plagiarism
as they relate to coursework, group assignments, class tests and examinations. Both
cheating and plagiarism are totally unacceptable and the University maintains a strict
policy against them. It is YOUR responsibility to be aware of this policy and to act
accordingly.

The University requires that the following statement is included in all module documents.

You are reminded of the University Disciplinary Procedures which refer to cheating.
Except where the assessment of an assignment is group-based, the final piece of work
which is submitted must be your own work. Close similarity between assignments is
likely to lead to an investigation for cheating. It is not advisable to show your
completed work to your colleagues or to share and exchange disks.

You must also ensure that you acknowledge all sources you have used. Work which is
discovered to be the result of collusion or plagiarism will be dealt with under the
Universitys Disciplinary Procedures, and the penalty may involve the loss of academic
credits.

If you have any doubts about the extent to which you are allowed to collaborate with
your colleagues, or the conventions for acknowledging the source you have used, you
should first of all consult module documentation and, if still unclear, your module tutor.

By submitting coursework, either physically or electronically, you are confirming that it is

your own work and that you are agreeing to the following statement:

I have read and understand the Universitys guidance on plagiarism and cheating. By
submitting any work for assessment, I confirm that the assignment is my own work (or,
in the case of a group submission, that it is the result of joint work undertaken by
members of the group that I represent) and that it contains no unreferenced material
from another source. I confirm that I have kept a copy of this assignment and will
provide this copy to the University if required. I understand that I and/or members of
my group may be subject to disciplinary action if an allegation of academic misconduct
is upheld in relation to this assessment.

Students should be aware that, at the discretion of the module co-ordinator, coursework
may be submitted to an electronic detection system in order to help ascertain if any
plagiarised material is present.

2
Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:

This assessment addresses the following outcomes, with particular focus on Outcome 4
1. Apply the methods and techniques of students own particular disciplines in a multi-
disciplinary and interdisciplinary context.
2. Interpret, question and action a complex client brief.
3. Conduct time-constrained delivery of a team project in an effective and professionally
appropriate manner.
4. Critically reflect on personal and professional conduct and competencies

Assessment Details PART 1: Group Presentation and Report (50%)

See separate briefing document

Assessment Details PART 2: Individual Report (50%)

This is to be submitted by 5.00 pm 16th of January 2016 at the latest via the link on
Moodle. The purpose of the individual report is to reflect upon your contribution to the
interdisciplinary team and your own work styles and the project and to evaluate the extent
to which your work informed and added value to the group presentation and report. This
reflection and evaluation is essential to passing this individual element of the module
assessment - a straight description of what happened is not sufficient. You should use
team and communications theory (Belbin, Tuckman etc) to deepen the insight you provide.

The report will need to focus on two specific areas: substance (what you did) and process
(how you did it). You are therefore required to:
1) Clearly explain which tasks or elements of these - you contributed to the project,
with reference to the client brief. Describe and evaluate the way you carried out
your allocated areas of research or other tasks and what your tasks output
contributed to the overall output of the team.
2) Critically analyse the process of working inter-professionally you experienced in this
project, with reference to appropriate literature. Within this, evaluate the
development and operation of your team throughout the project lifetime, identifying
relevant team and professional roles. Discuss the challenges you met during the
project process (individually and as a group) and the way in which you dealt with
and overcame these.
3) Reflect on how your own actions and attitudes contributed to the group
performance, with reference to the peer reviews you received, the work styles tests
carried out, and other appropriate literature where necessary.
4) Identify five key professional development priorities arising from your reflection on
experiences in the project and set out a brief action plan to address these over the
next 12 months.

3
The basis of assessment is as follows:
1) Description and evaluation of your individual tasks in relation to the group output
(15%)
2) Critical analysis of the process of and issues associated with the inter-professional
group work experienced and how issues were addressed, with reference to
appropriate literature (50%)
3) Evaluation of own performance and preferences and impact on the team (15%)
4) Production of an effective SMART action plan addressing professional development
arising from the project. (20%)

Be aware that weaknesses in one area may affect the strength of the whole the sections
are not mutually exclusive! Note that this report is a formal piece of academic writing and,
as such, its sources must be properly referenced and acknowledged, using Harvard
Referencing.

The word limit for the individual report is 1800 words, excluding contents page and
reference list. You get a 10% buffer either side as usual. Submissions in excess of this
will be penalised the excess words will NOT be marked and thus you will receive no
credit for their content!

Assessment Criteria

(Please refer next page)

4
Deliverables Marking Rubric Total
0 39 % 40 59 % 60 69 % 70 79 % 80 100 % 100
Evaluation on the Basic lack of Lack of understanding Basic understanding Thorough understanding is Comprehensive
individual task understanding is is there regarding the is there regarding the there regarding the understanding is there
there regarding the individual task, individual task, individual task, Relevant to regarding the individual
(15 Marks)
individual task Irrelevant to the Relevant to the the scenario, and all the task, Relevant to the
scenario, and scenario, and information presented with scenario, and all the
inappropriate appropriate good explanations information presented
information presented information presented with excellent
explanations
Analysis on the Literature review had Lack of literature Basic literature Thorough literature review Comprehensive
process and issues NOT carried out review had carried out review had carried had carried out literature review had
Poor or NO Some understanding out Descriptive analysis carried out
(50 Marks)
understanding presented for the Analysis provided for provided for the process and Critical analysis
presented for the process and issues the process and issues issues associated with the provided for the process
process and issues associated with the associated with the inter-professional group and issues associated
associated with the inter-professional group inter-professional work experience with the inter-
inter-professional work experience group work professional group work
group work experience experience
experience
Evaluation of own Not done Briefly done Done with moderate Done with good amount of Done with excellent of
performance and information and information and interrelated information and
impact on the team interrelated with each with each activity interrelated with each
activity activity
(15 Marks)

Action Plan Action Plan is not Relevant to the Identified Identified alternatives, Identified alternatives,
relevant to the given scenario, but only the alternatives, Relevant Relevant to the scenario, and Relevant to the scenario,
(20 Marks)
scenario general criteria are to the scenario, but all the criteria, and all the criteria,
covered only the general responsibilities presented responsibilities
criteria are covered with good explanations presented with excellent
explanations

5
6