The objective of assignments is that Course Members should apply what they have learned from their studies, reading and Group discussions to important problem situations using organisations as examples, with a view to being able to implement appropriate action. From this it follows that the Course Member must investigate the situation and add something to it (i.e. make a contribution). An assignment is not intended to be merely a description of organisational procedures and practices, nor just an exposition of theory, but rather a combination of the two, enhanced by the opportunity to share, compare and test ideas with other Group members. In each instance it will be based on a historical or real life situation. 

A balance must be attained between theory and practice. In the pursuit of effective action, Course Members must not overlook the conceptual and theoretical background. A pass mark will not be obtained without discussion of appropriate theories, models and paradigms. It will readily be seen that this stipulation applies to all items of the marking scheme and will be reflected in the marks awarded throughout. For example, consideration of appropriate models of investigation will influence ''design'' and ''execution'', whilst a review of theoretical concepts and models relevant to the area of study is pertinent to ''analysis, generation and evaluation of options''. 
 

Characteristics of a good assignment 

Presentation. The overriding criteria are ease of reading, ease of reference and that the reader's attention should be directed towards the important aspects of the data (or evidence), problem, options and recommendations for action. Clear, concise and logical presentation is required. 

Establishment of a clear frame of reference and definition of aims. 

Examination of relevant theory and concepts from core courses and own reading and appropriate application to the practical frame of reference. If necessary, an indication should be given as to why the theory does not fit the situation and the provision of a reasoned alternative scenario. 

Demonstration that appropriate learning from the core courses has taken place. 

Demonstration of an ability to ''stand outside'' the situation and take an objective view. 

Appropriate methodology. 

Scope of data gathering sufficiently comprehensive. 

Use of appropriate techniques of data gathering and analysis. 

Competent analysis using evidence in an analytical, as opposed to a descriptive, manner. 

Problem definition clear, following logically from the problem analysis and definition. 

Generation of possible options and evaluation against stated criteria, which have a logical relationship with the problem definition. 

Recommendations for action which take into account the realistic possibilities and problems of implementation. 

Recognition that implementation is the management of change. Consideration of how and in what time-scale it might be achieved.

 

Characteristics of a poor assignment 

 

Presentation. Confused, difficult to follow, ''woolly'', lacking in planning. Containing grammatical and stylistic errors, use of undefined terms and abbreviations. Excessive or inadequate length. 

Lack of defined brief - no definition of parameters or aim of the exercise. 

No reference to relevant previous work, theory, concepts from studies. Inappropriate use of theory, insufficient explanation - lack of demonstration of its relevance and application, or of how it has influenced the student's thinking. 

Subjective or prejudiced perspective as opposed to reasoned argument based on facts. 

No evidence of any investigation having taken place, insufficient data on which to base a case. 

Data presented descriptively rather than analytically. 

Lack of analysis of data. Conclusions reached on insufficient evidence. 

Failure to define the problem. 

Lack of consideration of options. Jumps from problem to recommendation without evaluating other feasible courses of action. 

Does not establish criteria against which to evaluate options. 

Recommendations unsupported by reasoned argument. 

No consideration of implementation and how the process of change will be managed. 

No logical progression from evidence to problem definition to recommendations.

 

Also, please, refer to the marking criteria.

 

Resources