Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technology on Accountants and Auditing

Accounting and Finance Dissertation
2019-20

 
Contents
1. Module Introduction 4
2. Indicative Content: 4
3. Learning Outcomes: 4
4. Teaching and Learning 5
5. Roles and Responsibilities: 5
6. Assessment Structure 6
7. Important Dates 7
8. The Dissertation Process 7
9. Assignment Support 8
10. Generic Grading Criteria 8
11. Assessment Submission 8
12. Late Submission of Work 9
13. Extensions 9
14. Mitigating Circumstances 10
15. Plagiarism and Academic Integrity 10
16. Feedback and Grades 10
17. Indicative Reading 11
18. Key Texts 11
19. Teaching and Learning Schedule 11
20. Front Sheet 14
21. Dissertation Supervision Record Sheet 15
22. Proposal Rubric 16
23. ACC4001 AS2 – Literature Review Rubric 17
24. ACC4001 D1 – Final Dissertation 18
25. Topic Submission Form 20
26. Undergraduate Grade Criteria 21

 

1. Module Introduction
This document is to be read in conjunction with the student handbook, the Dissertations and principal modules: Guidelines and procedures for students and material on Nile. The purpose of this module is to apply knowledge gained on the programme by carrying out independent research on a relevant topic of their choice and develop an ability to present, analyse and evaluate information in a reflective and critical manner.

2. Indicative Content:
• Research philiosophy and methododology.
• Status of research in Acounting and Finance.
• Sampling techniques.
• Qualitative research methods.
• Quantitative research methods.
• Validity and reliability of research.
• Qualitative Data and Data Analysis.
• Quantitative Data and Data Analysis.

3. Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of the module with limited guidance, students will be able to:
a) Identify a research topic, develop aims and objectives justified in literature.
b) Identify, evaluate and apply various literature and research methodologies in accounting and finance research.
c) Synthesise and critique the different literature and methodological frameworks that influence research.
d) Collect data, analyse and interpret it in the context of existing literature and future reseach
e) Develop independent working and project management skills.
f) To develop an extended piece of research that meets the requirements at level 6.
g) Initiate a reflective and independent approach to learning in managing an extended project.
h) Communicate information and present complex arguments, clearly and accurately in a manner suited to an academic audience.
Your grade will depend on the extent to which you meet these learning outcomes in the way relevant for this assignment. Please see the grading rubric at the end of this assignment brief for further details of the criteria against which you will be assessed.
4. Teaching and Learning
Learning, Teaching and Assessment activities Study hours
Contact hours: (total)
Comprising face-to-face and online contact hours as follows: 18
• Face-to-face (total) – this may include the following:
– Face to face interactive large group session (e.g. team-based learning)
– Other (e.g. dissertation tutorial, scheduled drop-in) – please specify

14
• Online contact hours (total)
(comprising online activities with mediated tutor input) 4
Guided independent study hours
(including hours for assessment preparation) 382
Module Total 400
This represents a major piece of individual research. Students are allocated a supervisor and attend research workshops. Students are expected to submit a proposal, literature review and the final dissertation at key times during the juration of the module. This is to promote early feedback on progress.

5. Roles and Responsibilities:
Student Supervisor
Arrange
Scheduled
Meetings Agree a schedule of meetings and deadlines and adhere to them.
Prepare for scheduled meetings Use supervisory time effectively by preparing tutorial in advance. Read draft work and provide formative feedback, engage in other appropriate preparatory work
Attend supervision meetings Keep appointments which have been arranged
Provide guidance
Record
Supervision meetings Take notes of supervisory meetings Record formal supervision meetings (ad hoc meetings in corridors do not count)
Manage any problems For example: ensure work is authentic (academic integrity), that ethical issues are addressed Contact students who (e.g.) Fail to attend arranged sessions (cause-for-concern)
Referencing / plagiarism

Seek ethical approval where appropriate Where work involves research with living subjects (human/animal), ensure that ethical approval is obtained prior to commencing the research Ensure students have prompt access to suitable ethics procedures at faculty level, appropriate to the nature of the work being undertaken. Ensure that no work with living subjects commences prior to clearance being obtained.

6. Assessment Structure
Assessment Activity
Learning Outcomes Weighting (%)
Code Assessment Type Assessment Deliverables
AS1 Proposal Research proposal
1000 words a, b, f 10
AS2 Literature Review Preliminary Literature Review Chapter
2000 words b, e 20
DI Dissertation Final Dissertation
7000 words c, d, g 70
Assessment criteria is detailed in the rubrics for all assessments. In accordance with the Assessment and Feedback Policy, as stated in section 4.40 where a submission exceeds the stipulated word limit by more than 10%, the submission will only be marked up to and including the additional 10%. Anything over this will not be included in the final grade for the assessment item. Abstracts, bibliographies, reference lists, appendices and footnotes are excluded from any word limit requirements. In line with section 4.41 of the same Policy, where a submission is notably under the word limit, the full submission will be marked on the extent to which the learning objectives have been met.

7. Important Dates
Activity Deadline Resit
Submit Topic On Nile
20 October 2019
11:59pm Formative Feedback
Submit Proposal (10%) Online: 30 November 2019 11:59pm Online 25 January 2020
Submit Literature Review (20%) Online: 25 January 2020
11:59pm 22 April 2020
Email Methodology to Supervisor Email: 28 February 2019
11:59pm Formative Feedback
Submit Dissertation (70%) Online: 22 April 2020
11:59pm July 2020

8. The Dissertation Process
It is essential to attend all the ACC4001 lectures and meet with the supervisor as agreed. All drafts need to be discussed with the supervisor at least two weeks before submission date. Only one draft will be reviewed per assessment.

Step 1
Complete the topic registration form and submit on Nile.. If the topic is approved, you will be allocated a supervisor. If the topic is not approved, you will need to submit another topic or opt out of the dissertation module.

Step 2
Draft a proposal based on the formative feedback and email that to your supervisor by the 10th of November 2019. The final proposal is due on Nile as stated under important dates. The proposal is graded and is 10% of the overall module grade.

Step 3
Draft a literature review chapter. The final literature review chapter is due on Nile as stated under important dates. The literature review draft is formally graded and is 20% of the overall module grade.

Step 4
Draft Research methodology chapter. This is not formally assessed. Please arrange to meet with your supervisor for formative feedback.

Step 5
Begin data collection, data analysis and writing up of the discussion/findings section of the dissertation. Email a draft of your final dissertation by the 20th of March 2019.

Step 6
Revise and submit your final dissertation on Nile. is due on Nile as stated under important dates. The final dissertation draft is formally graded and is 70% of the overall module grade.

9. Assignment Support
You will be allocated a supervisor to review one draft for every assessment.

10. Generic Grading Criteria
Also explained here are the meanings of the various G grades at the bottom of the grading scale.

11. Assessment Submission
To submit your work, please go to the ‘Submit your work’ area on the NILE site and use the relevant submission point to upload your report. The deadline for this is 11.59pm (UK local time) on the date of submission.

Written work (WORD format ONLY submitted to TURNITIN and Grade Centre will be subject to anti-plagiarism detection software. Turnitin checks student work for possible textual matches against internet available resources and its own proprietary database. When you upload your work correctly to TURNITIN and Grade centre you will receive a receipt which is your record and proof of submission.
N.B* Work emailed directly to your tutor will not normally be marked. The only exception to this is when you are instructed to do so because TURNITIN is down.
12. Late Submission of Work
For first sits, if an item of assessment is submitted late and an extension has not been granted, the following will apply:
• Within one week of the original deadline – work will be marked and returned with full feedback and awarded a maximum bare pass grade.
• More than one week from original deadline – maximum grade achievable LG (L indicating late).
At the second opportunity deadline (resits) work submitted late will be awarded a LG grade. There is no opportunity to submit work late for a bare pass.

13. Extensions
The module leader can, where appropriate, authorise a short extension of up to two weeks from the original submission date for first sits only. There are NO extensions for resits. The TWO weeks means 14 calendar days including weekends and any University closed days.
14. Mitigating Circumstances
Please note, however, that an application to defer an assessment on the grounds of mitigating circumstances should normally be made in advance of the submission deadline or examination date.

15. Plagiarism and Academic Integrity
Unless this is a group assignment, the work you produce must be your own with work taken from any other source properly referenced and attributed. Feedback and Grades
These can be accessed through clicking on the Feedback and Grades tab on NILE. Feedback will be provided by a rubric with summary comments.

16. Indicative Reading
You will have to draw upon a range of texts to be able to evaluate the research methods that you are likely to encounter in your chosen topic.

17. Key Texts
 Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2066) Research methods for business students, 6th edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall, 2006. Prentice Hall, Harlow.
 Keith F Punch (2016), Developing Effective Research Proposals, SAGE.
 Ghauri and Gronhaug (2013), Research methods in Business Studies, FT Prentice Hall.
18. Front Sheet
Common Academic Framework
Accounting & Finance Front Dissertation Sheet
NB. This sheet must be attached to any submission of Accounting & Finance field module coursework. No assignment will be accepted without it.
Student Name:
Student ID:
Title of Module: Accounting and Finance Dissertation
Module Code: ACC4001 STD/IL
Title of Coursework:
Module Leader:
Dissertation Supervisor:
Hand in Date:
Checklist before submission
1. Have you read, understood and acted in accordance with the referencing guidelines set out in the appropriate Accounting & Finance Module Guide.
2. Where you have quoted directly from or where you have paraphrased the work of others, have you acknowledged and appropriately referenced the source of your quotation in the body of the text?
3. Have you placed all direct quotations in inverted commas?
4. Have you listed and correctly cited all your sources in your reference list and bibliography?

Declaration by the candidate named above
1. I confirm that this is my own work (or, in the case of a group assignment, the work of my group) and that, although I may have consulted others in the course of assembling material for the work, the finished article has been completed without help or participation of any other person (other than, in group assignments, other members of the same group).
2. The work contains no material drawn from unattributed sources.

Student Signature (Type in) ________________________
 
19. Dissertation Supervision Record Sheet
(Student to maintain record)
Student Name: ………………………………………
Dissertation Supervisor: …………………………………….
N.B* Use this form as a cumulative record of meetings with your dissertation supervisor.
The completed sheet must be scanned into the dissertation as the last page when the work is submitted.
Date Discussion/Progress Date of Next meeting Tutor Signature
Meeting 1

Meeting 2
Meeting 3

Meeting 4
Meeting 5
Please use a continuation page if necessary
1. The timing of 1:1 supervision sessions is negotiated between the student and their supervisor.
2. Ensure that you attain the milestones as expected by your supervisor.
3. You need to ensure that your attendance record is good for both lectures and supervision sessions –you may receive notification for non-engagement if you do not attend lectures and supervision sessions.
4. Your will be invited to attend a viva-voce if your dissertation is submitted without evidence of engagement

20. Proposal Rubric
Learning Outcomes (a, b, f) Distinction
70-100 Merit
60-69 Commended
50-59 Satisfactory
40-49 Fail
0-39 No Submission
Identify a research topic, develop aims and objectives justified in literature.
20% The introduction is exemplary and provides evidence of a complete understanding of the dissertation topic. There is a clear rationale and aim of the research. The background and rationale, are innovative and original. Research question, aim, objectives and hypothesis are clearly defined, contextualised and scientifically grounded. Extensive research and creative competence. There is clear evidence of originality and ability to justify the research effort. Compelling evidence of research. The introduction is clear and demonstrates a sound level of understanding of concepts. The background and rationale are good. The research question, aim and objectives show great insights and originality. The research question, aims and objectives are directly relevant to the topic. There is substantial evidence of research. The introduction is relevant and illustrates an attempt to address the topic. Fairly clear research question, aims and objectives. The research question, aims and objectives are adequately defined and are linked to the topic. The introduction shows some correlation with the dissertation requirements. There is irrelevant information. The background, rationale, research question, aims and objectives stated but not justified. The introduction is descriptive and irrelevant. The work lacks clear justification of the research purpose. Aims and objectives are not defined. Work indicates limited engagement with the subject material and learning process. Poorly organised, sketchy and does not meet the threshold standards. Nothing presented, or work containing nothing of merit.
Identify, evaluate and apply various literature and research methodologies in accounting and finance research.
70% Excellent knowledge, coverage, interpretation and application of relevant literature. A clear demonstration of complete grasp of knowledge of the topic and relevant literature. Work demonstrates strong technical and creative competence. The theoretical framework to guide the research is clear. There is clear evidence of originality and ability to sustain an argument. The methodology shows an authoritative grasp of concepts, methodology and content appropriate to the subject. Compelling justification of how the data for the study will be collected and analysed. A thorough critique of previous methods and previous studies is presented. Areas for further research are outlined. Relevant examples and literature are used. Broad literature review with sound critique of seminal and previous research. Establishes sound critical evaluation of the theoretical framework guiding the study and the gap being addressed. There is evidence of originality and critical analysis.
Demonstrates in-depth understanding of the significance of the research and review of research methodology, techniques and analysis. Detailed discussion of suitability of methodology for collection of data. Shows above average awareness of the limitations in the chosen methodology. The literature review demonstrates good knowledge of a wide range of discussions. There evidence of an appreciation of the theoretical framework guiding the study. Uniqueness of the study and the gap are addressed. Adequate knowledge and understanding of the significance of the research. Good organisation and application of research methodology. Previous methods used in previous studies are outlined with limited critical evaluation. Areas for further research development are adequate. Seminal and previous researches are stated but not critically analysed. Basic arguments are presented. Evaluation of the theoretical framework lacks clarity. Shortcomings in the interpretation of application of literature. The gap in literature is vaguely identified. Basic understanding of the significance of the research. Limited knowledge of research methods used in previous studies. Lack of discussions, critique and justification. Identification of areas for further research development vague Discussions of seminal and previous research are descriptive with no analysis. Insufficient evidence of knowledge and research. No evaluation of theoretical framework guiding the study. The gap in literature is not identified. Insufficient understanding of the significance of the study and methodology. Limited examples and discussion. There is no justification and critique of previous methods. Section incomplete or is of unacceptable standard. Does not review literature or discuss methodology for collection of data
f) To develop an extended piece of research that meets the requirements at level 6.

10% Well written, with good standard of spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable formatting, use of English, tables and diagrams. Comprehensive citation, correct referencing and reference list. Excellent use of Harvard referencing. Clear timetable with definitive milestones.
Competently presented, with minor lapses from standard spelling and grammar, with acceptable format.
Uses a variety of literature that includes some publications, though not necessarily including substantive journal references. Citation and Harvard referencing is well presented. A basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or presentation. Some up-to-date literature used. Limited use of sources to support academic arguments. Citation and referencing is clear throughout. Deficiencies in presentation; standard spelling, grammar, formatting, tables and diagrams. Incorrect citation, poor referencing and reference list. Deficiencies in presentations, Incorrect referencing, grammar, spelling and citation. Dependency on textbook, websites and non-academic sources.
Section is incomplete or is of unacceptable standard.

 
21. ACC4001 AS2 – Literature Review Rubric
Learning Outcomes b, e A Distinction
70-100
B Merit
60-69
C Commended
50-59
D Merit
40-49
D- F Fail
0-39
G No Submission

Introduction

10% The introduction is exemplary and provides evidence of a complete understanding of the dissertation topic. There is a clear rationale and aim of the research. The background and rationale, are innovative and original. Research question, aim, objectives and hypothesis are clearly defined, contextualised and scientifically grounded. Extensive research and creative competence. There is clear evidence of originality and ability to justify the research effort. Compelling evidence of research. The introduction is clear and demonstrates a sound level of understanding of concepts. The background and rationale are good. The research question, aim and objectives show great insights and originality. The research question, aims and objectives are directly relevant to the topic. There is substantial evidence of research. The introduction is relevant and illustrates an attempt to address the topic. Fairly clear research question, aims and objectives. The research question, aims and objectives are adequately defined and are linked to the topic. The introduction shows some correlation with the dissertation requirements. There is irrelevant information. The background, rationale, research question, aims and objectives stated but not justified. The introduction is descriptive and irrelevant. The work lacks clear justification of the research purpose. Aims and objectives are not defined. Work indicates limited engagement with the subject material and learning process. Poorly organised, sketchy and does not meet the threshold standards. Nothing presented, or work containing nothing of merit.
b) Identify, evaluate and apply various literature and research methodologies in accounting and finance research.

60%

Excellent knowledge, coverage, interpretation and application of relevant literature. A clear demonstration of complete grasp of knowledge of the topic and relevant literature. Work demonstrates strong technical and creative competence. The theoretical framework to guide the research is clear. There is clear evidence of originality, insight and ability to sustain an argument. The methodology shows an authoritative grasp of concepts, methodology and content appropriate to the subject. Compelling justification of how the data for the study will be collected and analysed. A thorough critique of previous methods and previous studies is presented. Areas for further research are outlined. Relevant examples and literature are used. Broad literature review with sound critique of seminal and previous research. Establishes sound critical evaluation of the theoretical framework guiding the study and the gap being addressed. There is evidence of originality and critical analysis.
Demonstrates in-depth understanding of the significance of the research and review of research methodology, techniques and analysis. Detailed discussion of suitability of methodology for collection of data. Shows above average awareness of the limitations in the chosen methodology. The literature review demonstrates good knowledge of a wide range of discussions. There evidence of an appreciation of the theoretical framework guiding the study. Uniqueness of the study and the gap are addressed. Adequate knowledge and understanding of the significance of the research. Good organisation and application of research methodology. Previous methods used in previous studies are outlined with limited critical evaluation. Areas for further research development are adequate. Seminal and previous researches are stated but not critically analysed. Basic arguments are presented. Evaluation of the theoretical framework lacks clarity. Shortcomings in the interpretation of application of literature. The gap in literature is vaguely identified. Basic understanding of the significance of the research. Limited knowledge of research methods used in previous studies. Lack of discussions, critique and justification. Identification of areas for further research development vague Discussions of seminal and previous research are descriptive with no analysis. Insufficient evidence of knowledge and research. No evaluation of theoretical framework guiding the study. The gap in literature is not identified. Insufficient understanding of the significance of the study and methodology. Limited examples and discussion. There is no justification and critique of previous methods. Section incomplete or is of unacceptable standard. Does not review literature or discuss methodology for collection of data
e) Develop independent working and project management skills.

20% The Gantt chart demonstrates a convincing understanding of the expectations of the dissertation. The key tasks, activities and meetings that need to be completed are scheduled and sequenced in a logical manner. The conclusion is a clear summative discussion of the literature review. Citation and referencing is accurate, up-to-date and well presented. Authoritative. command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline. The Gantt chart demonstrates a very good understanding of the expectations of the dissertation. Most of the key tasks, activities and meetings that need to be completed are scheduled and sequenced clearly. The conclusion summarises the discussion of the literature review in some detail. Citation and referencing is well presented. Very good command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline. The Gantt chart demonstrates a good understanding of the expectations of the dissertation. The key tasks, activities and meetings that need to be completed are outlined. The conclusion is a narrow summary of the literature review. Citation and referencing is clear throughout. Good command of academic / professional conventions sufficient and appropriate to the discipline. The Gantt chart demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of the expectations of the dissertation. A few of the key tasks, activities and meetings that need to be completed listed. There are limited links between the conclusion and literature discussions. Citation and referencing is good in some parts. Satisfactory command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline. The Gantt chart demonstrates inadequate/limited understanding of the expectations of the dissertation. Most of the key tasks, activities and meetings that need to be completed are missing. There is no link between the conclusion and literature discussions. Citation and referencing is incorrect or missing in most parts. Poor command of academic conventions appropriate to the discipline Section not attempted or unacceptable.

 
22. ACC4001 D1 – Final Dissertation
Learning Outcomes
c, d, g, h. A Distinction
70-100 B Merit
60-69 C Commended
50-59 D Merit
40-49 F Fail
0-39 G No Submission

Abstract The abstract is a concise description of the study, a brief statement of the problem, exposition of methods and procedures and a summary of findings and implications that clearly warrants further studies. The abstract is a very good outline of study, a brief statement of the problem, exposition of methods and procedures and a summary of findings and implications. The abstract is a good description of the study. The methods, procedures, findings, analysis and conclusion are outlined. The abstract is a basic description of the study findings, analysis and conclusions. The abstract is not clear and not linked to the study. Section incomplete or is of unacceptable standard.
Introduction The introduction is exemplary and provides evidence of a complete understanding of the dissertation topic. There is a clear rationale and aim of the research. The background and rationale, are innovative and original. Research question, aim, objectives and hypothesis are clearly defined, contextualised and scientifically grounded. Extensive research and creative competence. There is clear evidence of originality and ability to justify the research effort. Compelling evidence of research. The introduction is clear and demonstrates a sound level of understanding of concepts. The background and rationale are good. The research question, aim and objectives show great insights and originality. The research question, aims and objectives are directly relevant to the topic. There is substantial evidence of research. The introduction is relevant and illustrates an attempt to address the topic. Fairly clear research question, aims and objectives. The research question, aims and objectives are adequately defined and are linked to the topic. The introduction shows some correlation with the dissertation requirements. There is irrelevant information. The background, rationale, research question, aims and objectives stated but not justified. The introduction is descriptive and irrelevant. The work lacks clear justification of the research purpose. Aims and objectives are not defined. Work indicates limited engagement with the subject material and learning process. Poorly organised, sketchy and does not meet the threshold standards. Nothing presented, or work containing nothing of merit.
c) Synthesise and critique the different literature and methodological frameworks that influence research. Excellent knowledge, coverage, interpretation and application of relevant literature. A clear demonstration of complete grasp of knowledge of the topic and relevant literature. Work demonstrates strong technical and creative competence. The theoretical framework to guide the research is clear. There is clear evidence of originality, insight and ability to sustain an argument. The methodology shows an authoritative grasp of concepts, methodology and content appropriate to the subject. Compelling justification of how the data for the study will be collected and analysed. A thorough critique of previous methods and previous studies is presented. Areas for further research are outlined. Relevant examples and literature are used. Broad literature review with sound critique of seminal and previous research. Establishes sound critical evaluation of the theoretical framework guiding the study and the gap being addressed. There is evidence of originality and critical analysis.
Demonstrates in-depth understanding of the significance of the research and review of research methodology, techniques and analysis. Detailed discussion of suitability of methodology for collection of data. Shows above average awareness of the limitations in the chosen methodology. The literature review demonstrates good knowledge of a wide range of discussions. There evidence of an appreciation of the theoretical framework guiding the study. Uniqueness of the study and the gap are addressed. Adequate knowledge and understanding of the significance of the research. Good organisation and application of research methodology. Previous methods used in previous studies are outlined with limited critical evaluation. Areas for further research development are adequate. Seminal and previous researches are stated but not critically analysed. Basic arguments are presented. Evaluation of the theoretical framework lacks clarity. Shortcomings in the interpretation of application of literature. The gap in literature is vaguely identified. Basic understanding of the significance of the research. Limited knowledge of research methods used in previous studies. Lack of discussions, critique and justification. Identification of areas for further research development vague Discussions of seminal and previous research are descriptive with no analysis. Insufficient evidence of knowledge and research. No evaluation of theoretical framework guiding the study. The gap in literature is not identified. Insufficient understanding of the significance of the study and methodology. Limited examples and discussion. There is no justification and critique of previous methods. Section incomplete or is of unacceptable standard. Does not review literature or discuss methodology for collection of data
d) Collect data, analyse and interpret it in the context of existing literature and future research Critical discussion of key findings and implications for the field of study. Key findings are specifically related to previous research. Shows critical analysis of research related to topic and compared to current study. The conclusions are logical, valid and show a strong awareness of the relevant literature. They are clearly communicated and evaluated. The final summary is relevant and communicates the purpose and findings of the study in clearly understandable terms. Recommendation flow logically from the conclusion. Critical discussion of key findings and implications for the field of study. Key findings are related to previous research. Shows critical analysis of research related to topic and compared to current study. The conclusions are logical and valid and show an awareness of relevant literature. The final summary is relevant and communicates the purpose and findings of the study. Recommendations for Further research point to topics that need examination. Some discussion of key findings and their implications. Shows some critical analysis of research related to topic and compared to current study. The conclusions are partially logical and/or valid. They are communicated clearly. The final summary only partially communicates the purpose and findings of the study. Basic recommendations for further research.

Shows some critical analysis of research related to topic and compared to current study. The conclusions are not in all respects logical and valid. They are communicated with only partial success. The final summary does not communicate the purpose and findings of the study. Limited recommendation.
No discussion to compare findings to previous research. Fails to discuss key findings. Shows little or no critical analysis of research related to topic and compared to current study. No logical/valid conclusions are reached. The final summary in no way communicates the purpose and findings of the study, and the use of terminology is confusing. No recommendations for further research. Nothing presented, or work containing nothing of merit.
g) Initiate a reflective and independent approach to learning in managing an extended project. The personal reflection is detailed evaluation of the personal experience on the project module, engagement and project management skills developed.
The personal reflection is good description of the experience on the project module, engagement and project management skills developed.
The personal reflection is a basic description of the experience on the project module, engagement and project management skills developed.
The personal reflection is not clearly linked to the experience on the project module, engagement and project management skills developed.
The personal reflection is not linked to the experience on the project module, engagement and project management skills developed.
Nothing presented, or work containing nothing of merit.
h) Communicate information and present complex arguments, clearly and accurately in a manner suited to an academic audience. Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable format and numbering. The writing style and layout of the dissertation are of very high quality. Use of tables and charts. There are no or extremely few linguistic and typographical errors, and almost no rectifications are required. Exceptional use of up-to-date research material. Citation and referencing is accurate, up-to-date and well presented. The referencing has been done in a proper and extensive manner. A complete and detailed reference list is correct and in line with Harvard referencing. The reference list contains the most important and most recent sources. The conclusion is a clear summative discussion of the dissertation.
Competently written, with only minor lapses from standard grammar, with acceptable format and numbering. The writing style and layout of the dissertation are of good quality. Use of tables and charts. There are omissions and linguistic and/or typographical errors
Very good: Uses a variety of literature that includes some recent texts and/or appropriate literature, though not necessarily including journals. Citation and referencing is well presented. The reference list includes the most important sources. The conclusion summarises the discussion of the dissertation in some detail. A simple basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or format that pose obstacles for reader. The writing style, formatting and numbering of the dissertation are of acceptable quality. There are less important omissions and linguistic and/or typographical errors. Proof reading would improve the text. Some up-to-date and/or appropriate literature used. Goes beyond the material tutor has provided. Limited use of sources to support a point. Citation and referencing is clear throughout. Some relevant sources have been omitted. The conclusion is a narrow summary of the dissertation. Numerous deficiencies in expression and presentation; there is no clarity. Use of simplistic or repetitive writing style. The writing style, formatting and numbering require serious attention, considering the numerous linguistic and typographical mistakes. No tables and charts. Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on non-academic material. Citation and referencing is good in some parts. Citing within text and referencing list are not in line with the Harvard referencing. Many relevant sources have been omitted. There are limited links between the conclusion and the dissertation discussions.
Deficiency in writing style, use of language, formatting and numbering. There are serious, conspicuous and unacceptable linguistic and typographical errors. The writing style and layout are plagued by serious problems and should be reviewed. Inadequate use of literature. Dependency on material provided by the tutor, websites and non-academic sources. Citation and referencing is incorrect / missing in most parts. There is no link between the conclusion and the dissertation discussions. Nothing presented or works containing nothing of merit.

23. Topic Submission Form
a) Proposed Dissertation Working Title
b) Research Question
c) Aims of study
d) Objectives (3-4) of study
e) Preliminary literature review to justify chosen topic (300 words).
f) Explain and justify chosen research methods and methodology to answer research question (150 words)
g) List at least 10 references that are key for your study.
 
24. Undergraduate Grade Criteria
Distinction A+ Work which fulfils all the criteria of the grade below, but at an exceptionally distinguished standard.
A Work that is distinguished is of very high quality, demonstrating evidence which is strong, robust and consistent, appropriate to the task or activity.
Authoritative command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
A- Work of threshold distinguished quality displays most but not all of the criteria for the grade above in relation to the learning outcomes.
Merit B+ Work that is worthy of a strong merit clearly fulfils the criteria for the grade below, but shows a greater degree of capability in relation to the relevant learning outcomes.
B Work which is a merit is of high quality, demonstrating evidence which is rigorous and convincing, appropriate to the task or activity.
Rigorous command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
B- Work that is worthy of a threshold merit contains most, but not all, of the characteristics of the grade above in relation to the learning outcomes.
Commended
C+ Work which is highly commended clearly fulfils all the criteria of the grade below, but shows a greater degree of capability in relevant intellectual / subject / transferable skills.
C Work that is commended is of sound quality, demonstrating evidence which is sufficient and appropriate to the task or activity.
Sound command of academic / professional conventions sufficient and appropriate to the discipline.
C- Work of threshold commended quality contains some of the characteristics of the grade above in relation to the relevant learning outcomes.
Pass D+ Work of highly satisfactory quality demonstrates evidence of reliably achieving the requirements of the learning outcomes.
Highly satisfactory command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
D Work of satisfactory quality demonstrates evidence of achieving the requirements of the learning outcomes.
Satisfactory command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
D- Work of a threshold (bare) pass standard demonstrates evidence of achieving the requirements of the learning outcomes, but only to a threshold level.
Threshold command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline, but only to a threshold level.
A Marginal Fail F+ Work which indicates some evidence of addressing the learning outcomes but which contains some significant omission or misunderstanding, or otherwise just fails to meet threshold standards.
A Fail F Evidence included or provided but missing in some very important aspects.
Poor command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
A Comprehensive
Fail F- Negligible or inappropriate evidence.
Unsatisfactory command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
Academic Misconduct AG Work submitted but academic misconduct proven and penalty given was to award an Academic Misconduct AG grade
Late Submission LG Work submitted but due to late submission is awarded a Late LG grade
Work of Nil Value NG Work submitted is of no academic value
Non-Submission/Nil Attempt G Nothing submitted