Final Assessment Guidelines
Module title: Developing Critical Professional Practice
Assessment Point: Critical Report
Word count limit: 4,500 words
Submission deadline: Please consult the VLE.
Submission procedure: Please submit via the respective submission links on the VLE.
Extenuating circumstances
If you are experiencing unforeseen personal circumstances that are affecting your ability to
submit within the stipulated deadlines, you are required to communicate these issues to the
Unicaf Extenuating Circumstances team in the first instance, via
extenuating.circumstances@unicaf.org, for further information on how to make a personal
circumstances application for consideration.
Personal circumstances requests may usually only be made within 5 working days of the
original deadline unless valid justification, along with appropriate evidence, exists to show
that you could not have reasonably communicated the issues any earlier. It is
important to keep in mind that if the claim is not upheld and you have not submitted by the
deadline, the module shall be failed as a result of no submission of the summative
assessment.
Please submit your module summative assessment(s) by 11:59 pm (23:59 hours) VLE
(UTC) time on the due date at the latest. Any summative assessment submitted up to 5
days late will be accepted, but the mark will be capped at 50%. Any work submitted
more than 5 days late after the submission deadline will be recorded as 0%.
Academic misconduct including plagiarism
………
……….
……….
By submitting your work you acknowledge that you have read and agree
with the above statements.
General Guidance
Your assignment should be word processed (handwritten assignments are not accepted),
using time new roman size 12 font, double spaced, with numbered pages and your student
number printed as a footer on every page.
The word limits stated for this assignment excludes the reference list at the end of the
assignment but includes all text in the main body of the assignment (including direct
quotations, in-text citations, footnotes, tables, diagrams and graphs).
Please be aware that exceeding the word count limit will affect the academic judgement of
the piece of work and may result in the award of a lower mark.
Appendices are not considered a supplement, and thus, will not be assessed as part of the
content of the assignment. As such, they will not contribute to the grade awarded, however
it may be appropriate to use an Appendices section for any material which is a useful reference
for the reader. Please note that appendices are not included in the word count.
The majority of references should come from primary sources (e.g., journal articles,
conference papers, reports, etc.) although you can also utilise area specific textbooks. You
must ensure that you use the Harvard style of referencing.
Please indicate the word count length at the end of your assignment.
Please note that you are required to submit an extended literature review project where you
will critically evaluate scholarly articles and books in order to answer specific research
questions.
NO STUDENT WILL BE ALLOWED TO COLLECT ANY PRIMARY DATA
Written Assessment Guidelines
Your summative assessment is a Critical Report discussing and analyzing the role of Critical
Professional Practice. Students need to critically tackle the learning outcomes mentioned below
that analyze the concept of professional development and growth through the different topics
(Professional Development, Critical Thinking, Theoretical Frameworks and Concepts, Reflecting
on Learning, Professional Practice and Knowledge Sharing and the Case Studies) discussed in
the course and provide their experiences and personal practices. The critical report consists of a
4,500-word equivalent text which will be graded out of 100.
Learning outcomes assessed in this assessment
Critically analyze key theoretical frameworks and concepts in relation to an identified
aspect of your own professional practice
Critically analyze and synthesize research findings and other evidence (case studies) to
inform the identified aspects of your practice
Reflect on and critically evaluate the impact of your learning on professional practice
and of sharing knowledge in an appropriate way
Structure of the Critical Report Essay
Your work should include and cover the following sections/aspects and content (as
shown and stated in the table below). The specific percentage marks allocated to each
section/aspect of your work is stated below. Please also note that the Level 7 marking
criteria (located towards the end of this assessment brief) will also be used to reflect this
overall grade.
Marks
Title of section Further Explanation Available
100/100
Introduction Introduce what the assignment’s focus will be.
and Give some background here on your first thoughts. 10
rationale Provide the context and the rationale of the report.
Research aims Explain the aims and objectives of the report and explain in detail 10
what you will be critically analyzing.
Explain your search strategy - How did you go about this?
Books? Journals? Databases etc.? - Perhaps use a table here and
Methodology show, which databases (Emerald/Sage etc) you used and which 20
journals come from where.
What does the literature tell you in relation to the different
topics you need to develop?
Did anything startling come out of the review that you were not
expecting?
Findings of the Are your findings relevant to your personal professional practices
literature 25
review and methods? How so?
What is the relation between your professional tactics and the
topics explored and analyzed?
Do you critically evaluate the impact of your learning on your
professional practice?
Conclusions Try to summarize your text and discuss the implications and
and recommendations you have found. 20
Implications This section should not include any new material.
Cover Page, Table of Contents, Page numbering, Line spacing,
Presentation Appendices (if it is necessary), Font consistency, Separation of 10
paragraphs.
Harvard Citations and reference list according to the Harvard referencing
5
referencing style.
LJMU Level 7 Grading Criteria
Mark Performance
range characteristic Grading criteria
Exemplary attainment of all learning outcomes
90-100 Exceptional Demonstrates an outstanding synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the
Pass analysis of key issues in the subject area
Wide-ranging emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the
forefront of the discipline
Offers an exhaustive exploration of the literature and evidence-base
The material covered is accurate and relevant
The argument is highly sophisticated
The standard of writing is refined
No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.
Excellent attainment of all learning outcomes, with some met to an exemplary
80-89 Outstanding standard
Pass Demonstrates a comprehensive synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the
analysis of key issues in the subject area. Wide-ranging emphasis on knowledge
and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
Extends far beyond expected levels of engagement with the literature and
evidence- base
The material covered is accurate and relevant
The argument is generally very astute
The standard of writing is refined
No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.
Excellent attainment of all learning outcomes
70-79 Excellent Demonstrates a thorough synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the
pass analysis of key issues in the subject area
Strong emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the
discipline
Thorough use the literature and evidence-base
The material covered is accurate and relevant
The argument is persuasive and there are very perceptive elements
The standard of writing is refined
No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.
Good attainment of all learning outcomes
60-69 Good Pass Demonstrates detailed synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the
analysis of key issues in the subject area
Good emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the
discipline
Good consideration of the literature and evidence-base that
develops from recommended readings
The material covered is accurate and relevant
The argument is persuasive
The standard of writing is refined
No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.
Adequate attainment of all learning outcomes
50-59 Pass Demonstrates a limited, but sufficient, synthesis of varied theoretical
positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
Some emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the
discipline
Sufficient consideration of the literature and evidence-base, but little
consideration beyond recommended readings
The material covered is mostly accurate and relevant
The argument is straightforward and relatively clear
The standard of writing is well clear and readable, with some sophisticated
phrasing
No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.
Meets most, but not all learning outcomes
40-49 Needs some Demonstrates limited synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of
improvement key issues in the subject area
Less than expected emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the
forefront of the discipline
Basic consideration of the literature and evidence-base, but
restricted to recommended readings
Some inaccuracies or irrelevant materials that suggest confusion and
misunderstanding
The argument is relatively clear, although some elements are difficult to
understand
The standard of writing is well clear and readable, but overly simplistic
Minor errors in the use of the specified referencing system, but meets key
principles
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.
Approximately half the learning outcomes are met
30-39 Needs major Demonstrates very little synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the
improvement analysis of key issues in the subject area
Little emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
Minor consideration of the literature and evidence-base, with
inadequate use of recommended reading and no exploration outside
that
Some materials is accurate, but the amount of inaccurate or irrelevant
materials indicates insufficient understanding of key concepts
The argument is poorly defined and defended
The standard of writing is mostly clear and readable
Some errors in the use of the specified referencing system, but meets key
principles
Generally, well presented and organised, but does not always conform
to conventions of academic presentation.
Most learning outcomes are not met
20-29 Needs Demonstrates no synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of
significant key issues in the subject area
revision Little or no emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the
discipline
Superficial consideration of the literature and evidence-base
There are major inaccuracies or significant amounts of irrelevant material
The argument is very weak
The standard of writing is reasonable and there are very few areas of
confusion and/or errors in spelling/grammar
Attempts to use of the specified referencing system. Meets key principles, but
there are systematic errors
Good presentation that may include some organisational errors and/or
tendency not to conform to conventions of academic presentation.
Does not meet any learning outcomes
0-19 Needs Demonstrates misunderstanding of varied theoretical positions in the
substantial analysis of key issues in the subject area
work No emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
No engagement with the literature and evidence-base
The material covered is inaccurate or irrelevant
The argument is incoherent
Standard of writing is acceptable. The structure is reasonable, but there are
some areas of confusion and/or some errors in spelling/grammar
Attempts to use the specified referencing system, but there are significant errors
Acceptable presentation that may include some organisational errors and a
tendency not to conform to conventions of academic presentation.
