Recent Question/Assignment

Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing 7000EXQ
Assignment Brief 2020/21
Module Title
Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Ind/Group Individual Cohort Sept Module Code 7000EXQ
Coursework Title (e.g. CWK1)
Portfolio Hand out date:
14TH SEPTEMBER 2020
Lecturer
Dr. Ben Vivian Due date:
30th November 2020
Estimated Time (hrs): 50hrs
Word Limit*: equivalent 3,000
Coursework type: Individual % of Module Mark
100
Submission arrangement online via CUMoodle:
File types and method of recording: MSWord or pdf
Mark and Feedback date: within 2 weeks
Mark and Feedback method: via Moodle
Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:
1. Apply the principles of multi-stakeholder identification, evaluation and engagement in the context of sustainable business's strategy and approaches to managing a range of corporate/stakeholder relationships.
2. Analyse and compare stakeholder engagement approaches in different parts of the world, at various geographical scales and different statuses of power/influence.
3. Critically assess the importance of context and desired outcome in defining content and presentation styles, including the use of digital media.
4. Create written and oral presentation materials and practice skills which can effectively engage people of different knowledge and ability levels on sustainability topics.
Task and Mark distribution:
Create and submit a structured portfolio covering the following tasks.
1. 600 word Stakeholder Map and Evaluation 20% (ILO1)
2. 600 word Critical Reflective piece 20% (ILO1) “What am I trying to achieve with this?”
3. Two (2) pieces of created communications: one audio-visual (e.g. a narrated PowerPoint or a video) of no longer than 3 minutes and one as a poster on the same theme to the same audience which is defined and specified by the student. 20% equally weighted (ILO 4)
4. Found communication (hand out to due date) 20% (ILO 2 & 3) – this is student led but must meet the ILO.
5. 600 words Reflection on Action (Tasks 3 & 4) 20% (ILO 2-4)
Students must submit a portfolio containing all 5 tasks, failure to submit a task will result in deduction of the allocated marks from their grade equivalent to the total available for that task.
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
If you get less than 40% in this assignment you will need to resit in the next semester.
For the re-assessment of 7000EXQ portfolio, you should improve your initial attempt to a satisfactory level using the feedback provided (on CU Moodle). Your resit attempt should address all feedback comments which may include conducting further analysis, incorporating additional literature, strengthening your academic argument and improving the format and/or structure of your work.
Resit submission 5th April 2021
Notes:
1. You are expected to use the APA referencing format. For support and advice on how this students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).
2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.
3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined here.
4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to save it on the University system.
5. If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period. This will be communicated via email and as a CUMoodle announcement.
6. Assignments that are more than 10% over the word limit will result in a deduction of 10% of the mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction of 6% to 54%. The word limit includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography, reference list and tables*. *There is a limit to total word count used in tables of 10% of the total allowed or 300 words contained in all tables.
Mark allocation guidelines to students (Read from Right to Left)
Please also watch the additional narrated PowerPoint in this section of Moodle for additional insights which might be useful.
Distinction Merit Pass Fail
80% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 40%
Stakeholder
Mapping
Innovative and creative application of the principles.
Consideration of failings and improvement in the evaluation processes which may have been exposed through this case study.
Evidence of wider reading is used to justify evaluation or suggestions.
Clear application of the principles of multistakeholder identification, evaluation and engagement using relevant evidence.
Comparison with other
situations or organisations, indicating wider reading of both academic and other literature and deeper understanding of the application of the principles.
Evaluation is comprehensive and
will consider the use of more than one technique for mapping the stakeholders.
Good or very good evidence of the stakeholders and their relationship and relevance to the issues and context.
Consideration is given to their roles at different scales or at different times in the scenario’s cycle.
Evaluation is complete and provides detailed insight into the relative power and/or influence.
Evaluation of the stakeholders shows detailed understanding in terms of organisations and mentions individuals.
Consideration is given to stakeholders in different spatial and temporal scales which are relevant to the chosen case.
Evaluation is clearly presented and annotated. Good evidence of understanding of the stakeholders and their relationship and relevance to the selected issue and context.
Stakeholders are clearly identifiable to the issues and context.
Evaluation is complete and provides insight into their relative power and/or influence of stakeholders.
Evaluation of the stakeholders shows understanding in terms of organisations but does not include consideration of individuals.
Evaluation is clearly presented Stakeholders are mapped in a simple way without recognition of interrelationships.
Stakeholders are largely described as aggregated groups
or generic archetypes.
Evaluation of stakeholders is basic and/or incomplete but uses a recognised process.
Relationships between stakeholders are inappropriate or simple and/or incomplete. Unclear and confused scenario on which to base the mapping exercise.
Work shows lack of understanding of the
principles of stakeholder identification and evaluation.
A very limited number and range of stakeholders have been selected for the situation described.
Little or no attempt is made to consider the relationships between stakeholders.
Reflection on the stakeholder mapping and analysis Clear and consistent reflection utilising up to date and relevant academic literature Provides an excellent analysis of why you did it the way you did, including what went Provides brief, clear and sufficient description of what was done.
Provide a clear description of some of the processes selected. Other descriptions might not be clear. This is separate from the evaluation (Task 1) of the stakeholder maps in Reflection is vague and provides only a description of the problem/issues
to illustrate elements of the mapping process.
well and what did not go well
Provides some comparative insights, to other cases or techniques.
Suggests possible changes to recognised techniques which are supported by wider reading and evidence.
Contains a very good analysis of why you did it the way you chose to do it, including what went well and what did not go well.
Identifies one or two changes you would make in future, supported by justification with use of academic sources and with clear links to evidence from Task 1.
Any referencing is correctly referenced according to APA style
Provides good analysis of why you did it the way you did, including what went well and what did not go well. Evidence from Task 1 is used occasionally to support reflection.
Identifies areas for improvement and suggests generic changes of approach. technical terms. This work reflects on how you undertook the process and considers the process in detail rather than the situation presented in the case chosen for the mapping.
Provide a vague description of what happened.
Provides generic analysis of why you did it the way you did.
encountered without any analysis.
Two pieces of created communication The two pieces of communication contain creative content of an outstanding standard, with care and consideration given to the overall communication process including:
use of colours, images and sound to support and enhance the delivery of the message. High quality, fit-forpurpose communication. The work demonstrates some level of creativity and originality.
The work demonstrates wide reading or viewing of relevant materials to gain ideas or content.
Has carefully considered the audience and the Very good quality communication which meets the general needs of the audience.
The work is creative in some of the elements but essentially mimics existing examples of communication.
Choice of words and images are not consistently appropriate and likely to engage the intended audience.
The work is appropriate for the chosen medium or channel of communication. Good quality communication which partially addresses and engages the intended audience.
The communication is essentially a reworking of examples studied in class and show limited originality or evidence of wider study.
Choice of words or images are not consistently appropriate and not likely to engage the intended audience. Satisfactory quality which doesn’t really address the needs of the audience. Is rather generic and is inappropriate in form or format for the audience or topic.
There is a structure to the
communication, but it is not always clear or effective in Has not considered the purpose or audience for which the communication is intended. The standard of material is carelessly thought out and presented with a lack of attention to detail: such as out of focus or lopsided images, eligible text or use of confusing array of fonts and colours.
design and delivery of the communication meets those considerations.
engaging the audience.
Quality of design and imagery is basic and of poor quality
Found
communication
– scrapbook
Critically assess the importance of context and desired outcome in defining content and presentation styles, including the use of digital media. The scrapbook provides an outstanding insight into the main events and stories from the period of study.
The reporting and opinions included have been very well chosen and may contain elements personally significant to the student.
Scrapbook is very well structured with internal crossreferencing which demonstrates appreciation of the bigger picture and the relationship between the scrapbook items.
You have considered how the information you have found relates to other reading or other modules from the course.
Includes sources/stories from many parts of the world.
Included and then critically assessed content from a variety of sources.
Consideration is given to the reliability of the content or message of the selected communication, e.g. bias is recognised.
A wide range of sources and communications platforms show a high level of engagement. Communication is from a mixture of channels and covers at least ILO.
Annotation includes a brief justification for choosing the communication, including an evaluation of credibility of the source
If presented from home country and is not in English then a simple translation should be provided in annotations. Varied range of found communication, covering the full period of the semester.
Annotation is provided for some and is mainly descriptive.
Communication are mainly web-based from one or two media or platforms. Scrapbook has no annotation or commentary.
Found materials cover a limited scope of topics (without justification) and were sourced over a short time period.
Reflection on the production of the various communication – found and produced Gives genuine insight into the way these tasks have enhanced your understanding of communication is two different formats.
Wider consideration is given and academic literature has added strong support for the reflection.
Critical comparison is made between the Provides an excellent critical analysis of why you did it the way you did, including what went well and what did not go well.
There should be consideration of approaches based on existing methods from both academic and non-academic literature.
Provides a very good analysis of why you did it the way you did, including what went well and what did not go well.
Identifies a number of improvements or alternatives and briefly outlines how this would improve their work.
Considers the task in isolation and as a group of tasks Provide a brief, clear description of what was done. The reflection is balanced for the created and found communication.
Provides good analysis of why you did it the way you did, including what went well and what did not go well.
Identifies some areas for improvement and how, based on personal reflection and some evidence of wider reading and study. Provide a vague, unstructured description of what was done.
Provides generic critical analysis of the work in terms of context and outcome.
Limited reflection on personal feelings in relation to the tasks.
Reflection is limited and vague and provides only a description of the process of producing
Tasks 3, 4 and 5
means and methods found in examples in the scrapbook with those created by yourself. Provides some comparative insights based on other similar tasks performed.
Any referencing is correctly referenced according to APA style. Does not consider work in wider context of the course.
Provides unbalanced critical reflection on Task 3
& 4
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.

Looking for answers ?


Recent Questions