Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering Faculty of Engineering and Environment
MCE | Learning and Teaching Version 2.0 | Page 1 of 4
Coursework Specification Referral/Deferral
1 Module Information 1.1 Module Title Construction project planning and delivery
1.2 Module Code Number KB7039
1.3 Module Level and Credit Points 7 20 credits
1.4 Module Leader Hazel Ponton
1.5 Assessment Component Number (on Module Specification) 01
1.6 Assessment Weighting (on Module Specification) 100%
1.7 Coursework Title Solutions to a construction industry problem
1.8 Coursework Specification Author Hazel Ponton
1.9 Academic Year and Semester(s) 2020-2021 Semester 2 only
2 Coursework Submission and Feedback 2.1 Release Date of Coursework Specification to Students As per eLP
2.2 Mechanism Used to Disseminate Coursework Specification to Students eLP
2.3 Date and Time of Submission of Coursework by Students As per eLP
2.4 The mechanism for Submission of Coursework by Students eLP
2.5 Return Date of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark(s) and Feedback to Students As per eLP 2021
2.6 The mechanism for Return of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark(s) and Feedback to Students eLP
MCE | Learning and Teaching Version 2.0 | Page 2 of 4
3 Assessment Details 3.1 Module Learning Outcomes (MLOs) Assessed by Coursework
What will I be expected to achieve? Knowledge & Understanding: MLO1 – Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the work-based practice through the analysis and evaluation of research-based theory and relevant case studies, by formulating solutions to the effective and efficient delivery of construction engineering projects. Intellectual / Professional skills & abilities: MLO2 – Critically evaluate innovative approaches to product, process and services delivery in construction engineering through consideration of theory and practice. Personal Values Attributes: MLO3 – Formulate strategies for improvement within the global construction engineering industry to demonstrate cultural, ethical and sustainable awareness.
3.2 Coursework Overview The assessment requires you to consider a single existing problem related to poor productivity in the construction industry, relating to one of the 8 forms of lean waste. Once you have selected a single problem and can define the problem in relation to lean waste, you need to critically analyse the potential solutions formulated from the module and provide considered solutions to the problem, with clear links between the problem and the potential solutions.
3.3 Coursework Tasks to be Completed by Students You will produce an individual illustrated journal of no more than 6no. A3 pages (landscape) (Excluding front page, Content page and Reference List). The illustrated journal needs to include all of the following:
1. Select a single construction industry problem related to poor productivity and one of the 8 forms of lean waste discussed during the module, include a short description and a statement that clearly and concisely defines the scope of the problem in the boundaries of this module.
2. Justify (through good quality industry and academic literature) why this is a problem, who the problem affects, and the impact of the problem on a project/industry.
3. Critically analyse possible solutions to the problem from learning during this module AND independent research.
4. Create a visual illustration that links the problem to the solutions, i.e. fishbone diagram, mind map or another suitable visual tool.
5. Create a visual improvement model which summarises HOW the problem can be solved. 6. The illustrated journal should use an effective combination of text AND images to provide an interesting and
visually engaging document. All images should be relevant and of an appropriate size and quality.
The illustrated journal should include cited, good quality academic literature and industry literature. The content should be guided by the learning outcomes, the marking criteria and the learning from this module.
3.4 Expected Size of Submission An individual illustrated journal of no more than 6no. A3 pages (landscape) (Excluding front page, Content page and Reference List). If more than 6 pages of content are provided, only the first 6 pages will be marked and assessed. The illustrated journal is to include approximately 50% text (using font size 10) and approximately 50% images of appropriate size.
MCE | Learning and Teaching Version 2.0 | Page 3 of 4
3.5 Referencing Style
You are to write your coursework using the Cite Them Right version of the Harvard referencing system. An online guide to Cite Them Right is freely available to Northumbria University students at: https://www.citethemrightonline.com/
3.6 Assessment Criteria Quality of presentation (including the ability to generate audience interest) 10% Depth of analysis of the industry problem 30% Selection and analysis of possible solutions 40% Ability to relate the problems to the solutions (visual illustration) 10% Quality and originality of the improvement model. 10%
The Referral Attempt opportunity will generally take place after the end-of-level Progression and Awards Board (PAB). If you become eligible to complete a Referral Attempt but are subsequently unable to undertake the opportunity when required, you will be permitted to re-sit the module at the next scheduled sitting of the module assessment. This will typically entail the suspension of your progression on your programme of study until such time that you have completed the level and become eligible to proceed.
5 Guidance for Students on Policies for Assessment
The University has several policies for assessment. The following information, which is available to you from the link below, provides guidance on these policies, including relevant procedures and forms.
(1) Assessment Regulations and Policies (a) Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards (b) Group Work Assessments Policy (c) Moderation Policy (d) Retention of Assessed Work Policy (e) Word Limits Policy
(2) Assessment Feedback (a) Anonymous Marking Policy
(3) Late Submission of Work and Extension Requests (4) Personal Extenuating Circumstances (5) Technical Extenuating Circumstances (6) Student Complaints and Appeals (7) Academic Misconduct (8) Student Disability and Unforeseen Medical Circumstances
MCE | Learning and Teaching Version 2.0 | Page 4 of 4
KB7039 Construction Project Planning and Delivery – Component 1 Name ………………………………… Mark:
OUTCOMES I CAN’T BELIEVE IT!
WOW! [ 85%] DISTINCTIVE [ 75%] COMMENDABLE [ 65%]
PASS [ 55%] FAIL [ 45%] POOR FAIL [ 0%]
Quality of presentation (including the ability to generate audience interest) 10%
This work is of outstanding quality and has surprised the markers.
Shows deeper learning than would normally be expected.
Excellent and very clear with few problems.
Very good and reasonably clear with some problems.
Quite a few problems but overall the message was received
Too many problems so the presentation was unclear.
Very poor with little ability to express the ideas in a clear and interesting manner.
Depth of analysis of the industry problems 30%
A good attempt with few mistakes – the student clearly understands the problems.
A good attempt with some mistakes – the student’s understanding is generally good
Some attempt with some mistakes – the student’s understanding is acceptable.
Little attempt with many mistakes – the students show little understanding.
Very little effort has gone into this – the student shows no real understanding.
Analysis of possible solutions 40%
The student has an excellent grasp of possible solutions.
The student has a good grasp of possible solutions although there are some minor problems.
The student does not fully grasp the solutions but there is some merit in what is said.
The student is not able to analyse solutions though there is evidence of a fair attempt.
The student has little or no grasp of the issues.
Ability to relate the problems to the solutions (visual) 10%
Solutions are clearly and cogently linked to problems.
Solutions arise from problems in most instances although there is some lack of clarity.
Some linkage of solutions and problems but the work lacks depth.
Evidence of only surface understanding of linkages.
Little evidence of ability to derive the solutions from the problems.
Clarity and relevance of the improvement model 10%
The clarity of expression and cogency of the argument are generally excellent with few problems.
The clarity of expression and cogency of the argument are generally good though there are a few problems.
The clarity of expression and cogency of the argument are generally acceptable but there is some confusion.
The work lacks clarity and cogency – difficult to follow
The work is confusing and has little merit.
Feedback – 3 areas of good practice, 3 areas for potential improvement:
- 1 Module Information
- 1.1 Module Title Construction project planning and delivery
- 1.2 Module Code Number KB7039
- 1.3 Module Level and Credit Points 7 20 credits
- 1.4 Module Leader Hazel Ponton
- 1.5 Assessment Component Number (on Module Specification) 01
- 1.6 Assessment Weighting (on Module Specification) 100%
- 1.7 Coursework Title Solutions to a construction industry problem
- 1.8 Coursework Specification Author Hazel Ponton
- 1.9 Academic Year and Semester(s) 2020-2021 Semester 2 only
- 2 Coursework Submission and Feedback
- 2.1 Release Date of Coursework Specification to Students As per eLP
- 2.2 Mechanism Used to Disseminate Coursework Specification to Students eLP
- 2.3 Date and Time of Submission of Coursework by Students As per eLP
- 2.4 The mechanism for Submission of Coursework by Students eLP
- 2.5 Return Date of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark(s) and Feedback to Students As per eLP 2021
- 2.6 The mechanism for Return of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark(s) and Feedback to Students eLP
- 3 Assessment Details
- 3.1 Module Learning Outcomes (MLOs) Assessed by Coursework
- 3.2 Coursework Overview
- 3.3 Coursework Tasks to be Completed by Students
- 3.4 Expected Size of Submission
- 3.5 Referencing Style
- 3.6 Assessment Criteria
- 4 Referral
- 5 Guidance for Students on Policies for Assessment