Assignment 2: Individual portfolio Deadline: Monday 12th December 2011

(2,500 words) (Weighting: 60%)

You should submit an individual portfolio consisting of two parts: Part 1: Analysis of data generated through small scale research (2000 words) and presentation slides (not included in the word count) Part 2: Personal Development Plan (500 words) and CV (not included in the word count) Both parts need to be submitted to Turnitin as a single document. Part 1: Analysis of data generated through small scale research (2000 words) and presentation slides For part 1, you are required to conduct a small scale research employing at least two different data collection methods (e.g. survey, observation, interview, etc.) and analyse your findings. You need to choose ONE question from the list below for your small scale research: What do UEL students think about the future of university education

and why? What problems do UEL students expect to have in their future

professional careers and what are their plans to overcome them?

For your research, as evident from the above questions, you should collect data from UEL students only. Your analysis should NOT just be a list of events in chronological order (i.e. I interviewed two students on Monday and coded my data on Tuesday, etc.). In your analysis you need to justify your research methods and explain why these have been preferred to alternative methods, and how you implemented your sampling method. You need to explain why the data you collected and analysed is relevant to your question. You should demonstrate how your analysis serves to answer the question.

You are advised to demonstrate background reading to justify you reasons for data collection and sampling methods. You also need to attach presentation slides to your appendices. You will not need to make any presentations, but you will need to attach PowerPoint slides of your small scale research as if you have delivered a presentation. You should have no more than 6 slides. For example, you can have 1- Small scale research topic/question, 2- Brief introduction/significance 3- Methods used, sample and limitations, 4- Main findings, 5- Main discussion points. You should use the in text Harvard referencing system (see Cite them Right). Your analysis should be written in Times Roman, font size 12, with 2.0 line spacing. Use of bibliography is not required for Assignment2. Part 2: Personal Development Plan (500 words) and CV (not included in the word count) In part 2, you are required to complete an up-to-date Personal Development Plan. You also need to attach your up-to-date CV to your PDP. Your CV will not be included in the word count. Most of you would already have submitted a PDP for the HR2012 Career Management in Business module, however, this PDP is different and has only 2 questions. So, simply revamping your old PDP will lead to your failing the PDP component of your assignment. In no more than 500 words please answer both questions below: Question 1 How and to what extent has studying for the degree been beneficial to you? Explain and justify your answer. Question 2 Explain what you intend to do after the degree in terms of work or further study and identify how you might transfer your academic skills to be effective in what you plan to do.

Your PDP should be written in Times Roman, font size 12, with 2.0 line spacing.

Assessment Criteria for Assignment 2

The assessment criteria for the project proposal will be as follows: Application of Appropriate Techniques (30%) Did the analysis provide a satisfactory answer to the research question? Did it employ at least two different research methods? Were the data collection methods appropriate? Was sampling method appropriate? Logical Sequence and Development (20%) Was the portfolio organised and structured in an effective way? Was the portfolio logical, detailed, realistic and well-thought through sequence of activities? Evidence of Background Reading (10%) Was there clear evidence of reading from sufficient and appropriate sources to justify and explain the use of methods in the correct style for Part 1 of the portfolio? Appropriate Depth of Critical Analysis (30%) Was the data analysis critical and linked to the question and methods used? Was there a good justification for the data collection and sampling methods chosen and satisfactory explanation for why these have been preferred to alternative methods? Presentation (10%) Was the portfolio: Clear? Concise? With conventional spelling and grammar? Did the assignment contain a CV and presentation slides?

Assignment 2 Typical performance at different mark bands:

Classification Mark (%) Description

1st

70-100

Covers all the requirements of the portfolio with exceptional clarity, providing a highly focused and well thought analysis with clear justification of sampling and data collection methods and evidence of background reading. Demonstrates a very good understanding of personal reflection, use of transferable skills and relevance of employability in the PDP. Very well organised and presented with almost perfect spelling and grammar.

2:1

60-69

Good, well-presented, coverage of the requirements of the portfolio with clear justification of sampling and data collection methods. Well demonstrated and justified analysis with evidence of background reading. Demonstrates a good understanding of reflection, transferable skills and employability in the PDP. Well delivered and presented.

2:2

50-59

Coverage of the requirements of the outline with a reasonably clear justification of methods and analysis. Demonstrates some understanding of reflection, transferable skills and employability in the PDP. Reasonably clear and accurate presentation.

3rd

40-49

Covers the main requirements of the portfolio, providing an account of the research methods. Some attempt is made to explain the relevance of the analysis in answering the question, but weakly. PDP is not personal and specific enough. Some errors, deficiencies or vagueness. Adequate presentation.

Fail

<40

Some requirements of the assignment not covered or covered very vaguely or inadequately.