HLS Assessment Brief
\nModule title &
\ncode
\n7000BOP Learning, Training and Development
\nModule Leader Lisa Burman
\nAssessment
\ncomponent (e.g.
\nCW, class test)
\nCoursework
\nAssessment
\ndetails and
\ninstructions
\nThe assessment for this module comprises of a training programme
\nreport. The word count is 3500 words (+\/- 10%) plus relevant
\nappendices and assess learning outcomes 1-3 above.
\nYou will be required to submit your coursework via the Turnitin link
\nprovided in Aula.
\nDetails on
\nformat for
\nsubmission
\nYour submissions should be presented in a formal script e.g. Arial, or
\nTimes New Roman, size 11. Your writing must be 1.5. line spacing. there
\nshould be a line space between each paragraph.
\nHeading and sub-headings should be in an emphasised font (bold or
\nunderlined and larger size).
\nMargins should be at least 2cm, preferably \u2018normal\u2019 2.54cm top,
\nbottom, left and right. Pages should be numbered.
\nCover pages provided when requested, with your student identification
\nnumber but not your name.
\nSubmission
\ndeadline
\n21\/11\/2022
\nGrade release
\ndate
\nGrades will be released 2 weeks after the deadline on Aula after your
\nsubmission date. The module leader will inform you if there are any
\nchanges to this date.
\nLearning
\noutcomes
\nassessed
\n1. Evidence a critical understanding and application of training needs,
\ntraining design, training methods and training Assessment;
\n2. Evaluate and critically analyse factors which influence effective
\ntraining design and delivery;
\nHLS Assessment Brief
\n3. Evidence working within ethical guidelines with sensitivity and
\nintegrity.
\nMarking Please find a marking rubric below for information on how your
\nsubmission will be graded.
\n3
\nASSESSMENT MARKING GUIDELINES
\nMarking Rubric for Learning, Training and Development
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\nUnderstanding of
\ntraining needs and tasks
\nsuitable for training
\nwith critical analysis of
\ncontext (LO1 and LO2) \u2013
\n10%
\nDetailed description of the
\ncontext for the training
\nprogramme with an
\nexcellent critical analysis of
\nthe training needs and why
\nthey have arisen.
\nClear and detailed outline of
\nthe task\/goal for training
\nsuitable to meet the training
\nneed.
\nDetailed description of
\npotential trainees with clear
\nsample demographics
\npresented.
\nAt the higher end there
\nshould be no omissions and
\ndata may be presented to
\nsupport analysis.
\nDetailed description of
\nthe context for the
\ntraining programme with
\na good critical analysis of
\nthe training needs and
\nwhy they have arisen.
\nClear outline of the
\ntask\/goal for training
\nsuitable to meet the
\ntraining need.
\nDetailed description of
\npotential trainees with
\nclear sample
\ndemographics presented
\nalthough there may be
\nminor omissions.
\nDescription of the context
\nfor the training
\nprogramme is presented
\nwith an acceptable critical
\nanalysis of the training
\nneeds and why they have
\narisen.
\nOutline of the task\/goal
\nfor training suitable to
\nmeet the training need
\nbut may lack clarity.
\nDescription of potential
\ntrainees with sample
\ndemographics presented
\nalthough there may be
\nomissions or a lack of
\nclarity.
\nSimple description of the
\ncontext for the training
\nprogramme is presented
\nwith a limited critical
\nanalysis of the training
\nneeds and why they have
\narisen.
\nOutline of the task\/goal for
\ntraining but lacks clarity or
\nrelevance to training need.
\nDescription of potential
\ntrainees is brief with
\nlimited sample
\ndemographics presented.
\nDescription of context is very
\nlimited or missing, and no
\ncritical analysis presented.
\nTask or goal for training is
\nnot presented or unsuitable
\nfor the training need.
\nDescription of potential
\ntrainees is missing or very
\nlimited.
\nHLS Assessment Brief
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\nPresentation of
\nhierarchical training
\nanalysis and training
\nissues (LO1 and LO2) \u2013
\n40%
\nClear, logical, and fully
\ncomplete hierarchical task
\nanalysis table presented as
\noutlined in brief with all
\ntasks and sub-tasks
\ndescribed and redescribed
\nwhere necessary.
\nAppropriate use of stop
\nrule.
\nInput, Action and Feedback
\ncorrectly applied to all tasks
\nand subtasks.
\nNotes section outline clear
\nand detailed issues for
\ntraining. Conditions for task
\ncompletion are clearly
\noutlined.
\nTraining issues table is
\nclearly cross-referenced to
\nHTA table and structure
\ncompletely follows the
\ntemplate provided in brief.
\nSuitable and insightful
\ntraining methods presented
\nwith strong use of literature
\nto justify use.
\nAt the higher end there will
\nbe no errors\/omissions and
\nappendices may be used to
\nClear, and logical
\nhierarchical task analysis
\ntable presented as
\noutlined in brief with
\nmain tasks and sub-tasks
\ndescribed and
\nredescribed where
\nnecessary. Use of stop
\nrule mostly applied
\nappropriately.
\nInput, Action and
\nFeedback correctly
\napplied to all or most
\ntasks and subtasks.
\nNotes section outline
\nissues training and
\nconditions for task
\ncompletion are mostly
\nclearly outlined.
\nTraining issues table is
\ncross referenced to HTA
\ntable and follows the
\ntemplate outlined in the
\nbrief. Suitable training
\nmethods presented with
\ngood use of literature to
\njustify use.
\nAppendices may have
\nbeen used to provide
\nHierarchical task analysis
\ntable presented as
\noutlined in brief but there
\nmay be a lack of clarity or
\nomissions of main tasks
\nand sub-tasks. Use of
\nstop rule mostly applied
\nappropriately.
\nInput, Action and
\nFeedback applied to all or
\nmost tasks and subtasks
\nbut there may be some
\nerrors in application.
\nNotes section has been
\nused to outline issues for
\ntraining or conditions for
\ntask competition but
\nthere may be some
\nomissions or errors.
\nThere is some attempt to
\ncross referenced training
\nissues table to HTA table.
\nStructure of table follows
\nthe template outlined in
\nthe brief. Mostly suitable
\ntraining methods
\npresented with literature
\npresented to justify use.
\nHierarchical task analysis
\ntable presented but
\nstructure may not follow
\nthe template and there is a
\nlack of clarity or omissions
\nof main tasks and sub tasks. Use of stop rule may
\nnot be applied
\nappropriately.
\nErrors in the application of
\nInput, Action, Feedback.
\nNotes section is brief
\nand\/or lacks depth of
\nunderstanding of the
\ntraining issues or
\nconditions under which the
\ntask is performed.
\nThere is some attempt to
\ncross referenced training
\nissues table to HTA table
\nbut may feel confused.
\nStructure of table follows
\nthe template outlined in
\nthe brief and training
\nmethods are presented but
\nliterature may only weakly
\njustify use.
\nNo Hierarchical task analysis
\ntable presented or structure
\nis confusing and lacks logical
\nflow.
\nInput, Action and Feedback
\ninappropriately applied or
\nnot applied at all.
\nNotes section fails to identify
\ntraining issues or the
\nconditions under which the
\ntask is to be performed.
\nNo cross-reference between
\nHTA and training issues
\ntable. No training methods
\npresented or are unsuitable.
\nLittle or no use of literature
\nto justify methods.
\nHLS Assessment Brief
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\npresent flowcharts and
\nsupporting information.
\nalternative presentation
\nof HTA.
\nCritical analysis of
\ntraining design with
\nreference to individual
\nlearning needs and
\napplication of
\nAssessment methods for
\ntraining programmes
\n(LO1, LO2 and LO3) \u2013
\n40%
\nClear and detailed
\npresentation of training
\nprogramme with detailed
\ntraining objectives.
\nPracticalities such as
\nscheduling and resourcing
\nare fully considered.
\nThe methods used within
\nthe training design are fully
\njustified through an
\nexcellent critical
\nText describing what
\nmeets this scale for this
\ncriterion.
\nDetailed presentation of
\ntraining programme with
\ntraining objectives.
\nPracticalities such as
\nscheduling and resourcing
\nare considered.
\nThe methods used within
\nthe training design are
\nPresentation of training
\nprogramme with training
\nobjectives but there may
\nbe a lack of clarity in
\nplaces. Practicalities such
\nas scheduling and
\nresourcing are mostly
\nconsidered but there may
\nbe some omissions.
\nThe methods used within
\nthe training design are
\nSimple presentation of
\ntraining programme with
\ntraining objectives but
\nthere is a lack of clarity in
\nplaces. Practicalities such
\nas scheduling and
\nresourcing are somewhat
\nconsidered but there are
\nmajor omissions.
\nThere is some attempt to
\njustify methods used
\nPresentation of training
\nprogramme lacks detail or is
\nmissing. No consideration of
\nthe practicalities of the
\ntraining.
\nLittle or no justification of
\nthe methods used.
\nLittle or no consideration of
\nthe individual learning needs
\nof trainees.
\nHLS Assessment Brief
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\nengagement with the
\nliterature.
\nAn excellent consideration
\nof individual learning needs
\nand participant
\ncharacteristics supported by
\nthe literature.
\nFully detailed description of
\na valid Assessment method
\nwhich addresses both
\nprocess and outcomes with
\nan excellent consideration
\nof the stakeholder of the
\nAssessment. Evidence of how
\nAssessment methods will
\naddress learning outcomes
\nis presented with an
\nexcellent use of academic
\nand practical materials to
\njustify their use.
\nmostly justified through a
\ngood critical engagement
\nwith the literature.
\nA good consideration of
\nindividual learning needs
\nand participant
\ncharacteristics mostly
\nsupported by the
\nliterature.
\nDetailed description of a
\nvalid Assessment method
\nwhich addresses both
\nprocess and outcomes
\nwith a good consideration
\nof the stakeholder of the
\nAssessment. Evidence of
\nhow Assessment methods
\nwill address learning
\noutcomes is presented
\nwith a good use of
\nacademic and\/or practical
\nmaterials to justify their
\nuse.
\nsomewhat justified
\nthrough an acceptable
\ncritical engagement with
\nthe literature.
\nAn acceptable
\nconsideration of
\nindividual learning needs
\nand participant
\ncharacteristics somewhat
\nsupported by the
\nliterature.
\nDescription of Assessment
\nmethod is presented but
\nthere may be omissions
\nin the Assessment of
\nprocess and outcomes.
\nAn acceptable
\nconsideration of the
\nstakeholder within the
\nAssessment. The
\nAssessment methods will
\naddress learning
\noutcomes but there may
\nbe a lack of clarity in
\nplaces. Use of academic
\nand\/or practical materials
\nto justify methods is at an
\nacceptable level.
\nthrough an adequate
\ncritical engagement with
\nthe literature.
\nAn adequate consideration
\nof individual learning
\nneeds and participant
\ncharacteristics but this may
\nnot always be supported
\nby the literature.
\nSimple description of
\nAssessment method is
\npresented but there are
\nomissions in the Assessment
\nof process and outcomes.
\nAn adequate consideration
\nof the stakeholder of the
\nAssessment but there may
\nbe some omissions. The
\nAssessment methods may
\nfail to adequately address
\nthe learning objectives in
\nplaces. Use of academic
\nand\/or practical materials
\nto justify methods is at an
\nadequate level.
\nPoor or no presentation of
\nthe method of Assessment.
\nHLS Assessment Brief
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\nCompleteness and
\nEvidence of being able
\nto work within ethical
\nguidelines with
\nsensitivity (LO3) – 10%
\nEthical issues of training
\ndesign fully considered with
\nreference to appropriate
\nguidelines (BPS, ABP, CIPD
\nas an example).
\nSensitive and inclusive
\napproach to all aspects of
\nthe training cycle presented
\nwithin the report.
\nExcellent writing style and
\nall citations and references
\nin the appropriate style.
\nAt the top higher the work
\nis of publishable quality.
\nEthical issues of training
\ndesign largely considered
\nwith reference to
\nappropriate guidelines
\n(BPS, ABP, CIPD as an
\nexample).
\nSensitive and inclusive
\napproach to all aspects of
\nthe training cycle
\npresented within the
\nreport.
\nVery good writing style
\nand all citations and
\nreferences in the
\nappropriate style with
\nonly minor errors.
\nEthical issues of training
\ndesign have been
\nconsidered with
\nreference to appropriate
\nguidelines (BPS, ABP,
\nCIPD as an example),
\nalthough there may some
\nomissions.
\nA mostly sensitive and
\ninclusive approach to
\naspects of training cycle
\npresented within the
\nreport.
\nGood writing style and all
\ncitations and references
\nin the appropriate style
\nwith only some errors.
\nEthical issues of training
\ndesign have been
\nconsidered and there may
\nbe reference to
\nappropriate guidelines
\n(BPS, ABP, CIPD as an
\nexample), although there
\nmay some omissions.
\nA mostly sensitive and
\ninclusive approach to
\naspects of training cycle
\npresented within the
\nreport.
\nAdequate writing style and
\ncitations and references
\nbroadly follow the
\nappropriate style but there
\nmay be errors.
\nEthical issues have not been
\nconsidered or
\ninappropriately applied. No
\nreference to appropriate
\nguidelines.
\nLack of sensitivity and
\ninclusivity within the report.
\nPoor writing style and major
\nerrors in referencing
\nFaculty of Health and Life Sciences
\nMSc Business & Organisational Psychology
\nModule Code: 7000BOP
\nLearning, Training and Development
\nAssignment brief: Training programme
\nreport
\nAcademic Year: 2022- 2023
\nModule Leader: Lisa Burman
\nper138@coventry.ac.uk
\n1
\nContents
\nWelcome and Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………2
\nLearning Outcomes………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2
\nAssignment instructions…………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
\nCoursework: Training programme report (3,500 words)…………………………………………………..2
\nPresentation of your submissions……………………………………………………………………………………..5
\nSpecific Help Available and Further Helpance……………………………………………………………………5
\nCoursework Submission …………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
\nAcademic Dishonesty ………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
\nTurnitin ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7
\nGood scholarly practice………………………………………………………………………………………………..7
\nReferencing…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8<\/p>\n
2
\nWelcome and Introduction
\nWelcome to 7000BOP, Learning, Training and Development. You may already have
\nexperienced learning, training and development in the workplace. This module aims to
\npromote and in-dept and applied understanding of these vital processes within organisations.
\nSeminars will be highly participative and with a focus on best practice and contemporary
\ntheory.
\nLearning Outcomes
\nThe intended learning outcomes are that on completion of this module the student should be
\nable to:
\n1. Evidence a critical understanding and application of training needs, training design, training
\nmethods and training Assessment;
\n2. Evaluate and critically analyse factors which influence effective training design and delivery;
\n3. Evidence working within ethical guidelines with sensitivity and integrity.
\nAssignment instructions
\nThe assessment in this module consists of one assignment:
\nComponent % of module mark Learning outcomes
\nassessed
\nSubmission Date
\nA training
\nprogramme report
\n(3,500 words) 100% 1, 2, and 3
\n21st November 2022
\nby 18.00
\nGoing above or below the word counting by 10% or more will be considered when providing
\nfeedback and grades. The reference list is not included in the word count.<\/p>\n
Please note that this module is part of the course accredited by the Association for Business
\nPsychology ABP. To gain ABP accreditation your overall grades for the course must be above
\n50%.
\nCoursework: Training programme report (3,500 words)
\nThe assessment for this module comprises of a training programme report. The word count is
\n3500 words (+\/- 10%) plus relevant appendices and assess learning outcomes 1-3 above.
\nThe deadline for submission is 21st November 2022 by 18.00.
\n3
\nYou will be required to submit your coursework via the Turnitin link in Aula. Further details of
\nhow to do this will be provided during the module.
\nPlease note that you are only able to upload one document via Turnitin. Therefore, your
\ncoursework must be collated into one document.
\nPlease note that by submitting your coursework you are declaring that your coursework is
\nentirely your own work – if you are in any doubt regarding the correct referencing of sources or
\nwhat constitutes plagiarism or collusion, please consult your course handbook. If you still have
\nany queries or doubts regarding plagiarism or collusion please speak to the module leader or
\nyour course director. Students found guilty of plagiarism or collusion face severe penalties, so
\nit is essential that you understand and follow standard procedures for referencing other
\npeople\u2019s work.
\nInstructions and Marking Scheme
\nThe assessment outline (training report)
\nYou are required to produce a training programme report based on the design of a training
\nprogramme. A word count for each section is shown to help you but this is only provided as a
\nguide and you may differ in where the words are spread across your own report. The overall
\nword count guide for the report is 3500 words.
\nINTRODUCTION (Guide 500 words)
\nYou should identify a task that can be related to a training programme. This can be work related, for example the implementation of a new IT system for a financial team, or it can be
\nrelated to a task, such as helping students to cook a meal, or perhaps showing a group of elderly
\npeople how to operate a microwave. What is important here is that those who will be carrying
\nout the task are clearly identified as this may have an effect on the design of the training
\nprogramme. You should set the scene clearly, so provide a description of the contextual basis
\n(work, home, school etc.) and give specific details of the sample (age, gender, levels of existing
\nknowledge for the task and any known abilities or difficulties). Please give the report a title and
\nprovide a short summary.
\nTASK ANALYSIS (Guide 800 words)
\nThis next section of the report should include a Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) of the task
\nidentified in the introduction. You should systematically analyse the task using the HTA process.
\nThe HTA process is described in the relevant lecture and associated materials. The HTA should
\nbe presented as a table as shown in the lecture notes, you may also include the task level
\ndiagram. Note, you will not be able to complete the whole analysis as this would take you too
\nlong, so please stop at levels 2 or 3. The main aim of this process is to break down the tasks so
\nthat you then identify how and where training needs to take place. You may have to select just
\none or two areas of the task if it is a large one, for example, if teaching students to cook, you
\nmay want to focus on utilising the equipment safely and cooking a very simple recipe (e.g. an
\nomelette). As a guide there should be no more than 3-4 pages for the table. With regards to
\n4
\nperformance of this task, indicate whether there any standards required or conditions under
\nwhich it needs to be performed.
\nIDENTIFICATION OF TRAINING ISSUES (Guide 600 words)
\nIn this section you should use your analysis to identify and record any issues associated with
\ntraining this task; this will be based on your HTA. You should cover: the types of training
\nmethods or principles, give a brief explanation of the principle and use relevant literature and
\ncross reference back to your analysis. For example, you may have identified that older\/younger
\npeople may have difficulty using certain equipment, how will this be addressed through a
\ntraining method? You can use a table to record this information, a suggested format and
\nexample is given below:
\nIssue
\nidentified
\nin HTA
\nCross
\nreference
\nto HTA
\nType of
\ntraining
\nmethod or
\nprinciple
\nExplanation of
\nwhy method or
\napproach chosen
\nRelevant
\ncitations
\nAny other
\ncomments
\nInformation
\nrequired
\nabout
\nhealth and
\nsafety
\nwhen using
\na cooker.
\nTask 1:
\nusing
\noven
\ngloves to
\nremove
\nitems
\nfrom the
\noven.
\nComputer
\nbased
\nlearning
\n(e.g., e learning)
\nPresenting
\nmaterials online
\nso that individuals
\ncan access the
\ninformation in
\ntheir own time.
\nDolezalek,
\n(2004, cited
\nin Arnold,
\n2011).
\nE-learning is
\na good way
\nto gain
\nknowledge
\nwithout the
\ndirect aid of
\nface-to-face
\nteaching.
\nTRAINING PROGRAMME DESIGN (Guide 900 words)
\nThis section should set out very clearly the training programme that you have devised for the
\ntask and the training method selected. The training objectives both for the overall task and for
\nthe separate parts should be provided. The order and content of the training programme should
\nbe made clear. You should provide justification (using relevant literature) for the methods
\nchosen. You should address how you have considered different learning styles required by your
\nsample of learners. Give some consideration to the practicalities, scheduling and timescale of
\nthe training programme too.
\nTRAINING Assessment (Guide 700 words)
\n5
\nThis part of the report should detail how you will assess the learner\u2019s progress through the task
\nand their attainment at the end. You should draw on academic and applied materials to show
\nyour understanding of how training is effectively evaluated.
\nSpecific help available
\n1. During the module students will receive information on how to complete the
\nhierarchical task analysis; a practice will be given as part of the lecture activities.
\n2. The reading lists provided in lectures will help in starting to find appropriate
\nmaterial in preparation for the assignment.
\n3. On-line material to support this assignment can be found on Moodle.
\nPlease note that if you are unable to submit coursework or attend an assessment (i.e. a test or
\nexamination) you may be eligible to apply for an extension or a deferral. Please refer to the
\nRegistry guidance for students at the following link:
\nhttps:\/\/share.coventry.ac.uk\/students\/Registry\/Pages\/Deferrals-and Extension.aspx
\nPresentation of your submissions
\nYour submissions should be presented in a formal script e.g. Arial, or Times New Roman, size
\n11. Your writing must be 1.5. line spacing. there should be a line space between each
\nparagraph.
\nHeading and sub-headings should be in an emphasised font (bold or underlined and larger
\nsize).
\nMargins should be at least 2cm, preferably \u2018normal\u2019 2.54cm top, bottom, left and right. Pages
\nshould be numbered.
\nCover pages provided when requested, with your 21student identification number but not
\nyour name.
\nReference List
\nFollowing the APA (7th edition) all citations should be double line spaced and have a hanging
\nindent in a Reference List.
\nA “hanging indent” means that each subsequent line after the first line of your citation should
\nbe indented by 0.5 inches. You can find a sample here ld.php (up.edu)
\nSpecific Help Available and Further Helpance
\n6
\nPlease attend all the teaching sessions, these sessions are designed to extend and apply your
\nunderstanding of theory that you accessed on FutureLearn. Engagement with teaching
\nsessions, Future Learn and Aula will help you to complete the assignment successfully. If you do
\nneed Helpance outside of these times, then you may contact the course team during their
\noffice hours.
\n1. During the module students will receive information in lectures and seminars and
\nexamples will be given as part of the lecture activities
\n2. The reading lists provided within lectures will provide help in starting to find
\nappropriate material in preparation for the assignment.
\n3. Online material will be available to support the assignment and can be found on
\nAula.
\nCoursework Submission
\nThe Submission Date for the coursework is 28th March 2022. An electronic copy ONLY is
\nrequired to be submitted via Aula Turnitin by 18:00hrs on the date indicated.
\nYou have a 24hour \u2018grace period\u2019 in which to submit your assignment to account for any
\ntechnical difficulty you may encounter. If, however, you fail to submit within this grace period
\n(up to 18.00hrs) your submission will receive a grade of 0.
\nPlease be aware that any submission that has been granted an extension (5 days) there is no 24
\nhour grace period.
\nThe electronic version needs to be submitted through Turnitin to guarantee against plagiarism
\nand collusion. Please note, failure to submit your report through Turnitin will result in failure of
\nthe coursework. Please note that if you are unable to submit coursework assessment you may
\nbe eligible to apply for an extension or a deferral. Please refer to the Extenuating Circumstances
\nguidance for students at the following link: registry
\nIMPORTANT – You can submit copies of your coursework to a \u2018similarity check link\u2019 to check your
\nsimilarity scores \u2013 but please make sure your final submission is submitted to the \u2018final\u2019
\nsubmission link as this is the one that is marked.
\nAcademic Dishonesty
\nAcademic dishonesty covers any attempt by a student to gain an unfair advantage (e.g. extra
\nmarks) for her\/himself, or for another student, by unauthorised means. Examples of such
\ndishonesty include collusion, falsification, deceit, plagiarism and cheating in examinations.
\nIt is strongly recommended that students refer to the University\u2019s guidelines regarding
\nacademic dishonesty, which are displayed on the module page of CU online. Any assessment
\nyou submit must be your own work: plagiarism will be severely penalised.
\nThe University takes very seriously any attempt to cheat in coursework or examinations by any
\nstudent and if a case is proven there are a range of penalties, which include expulsion from the
\nUniversity.
\n7
\nYou should refer to your student handbook for information on cheating, but generally speaking,
\ncheating includes acts of plagiarism (extracting information from other sources without
\nreferencing the source), collusion (the unauthorised action of working with another student to
\nproduce coursework) or taking unauthorised materials into an examination.
\nTurnitin
\nAll coursework is submitted via Turnitin, which detects plagiarism and collusion by checking for
\nany unoriginal content by comparing submitted papers to several databases. It scans its own
\ndatabases here at the University, as well as other institutions. Turnitin also scans commercial
\npages from books, newspapers, journals and the information publicly accessible on the Internet.
\nThis means Turnitin will detect similarities between a student\u2019s submission and:
\n\u00b7 any previous submissions from the student (this can reveal potential acts of self plagiarism)
\n\u00b7 submissions from other students for this cohort or previous cohorts (this can reveal
\npotential acts of collusion)
\n\u00b7 most information available either through a hard copy or via the Internet (this can
\nreveal potential acts of plagiarism)
\nAny cases of suspected plagiarism or collusion are referred to an Academic Conduct Officer,
\nwho will then investigate the case to see whether there is a case to answer to. If a case of
\nplagiarism or collusion is proven, there are a range of outcomes, from a warning to expulsion
\nfrom the University.
\nCollusion is straight-forward to avoid, by ensuring that you work independently to produce your
\ncoursework. However, you should consider it a good academic practice to invite a fellow
\nstudent to provide any useful feedback on your written work.
\nPlagiarism can also easily be avoided because it is usually the result of poor scholarly practice.
\nIf you engage appropriately with sources of information in the production of academic writing,
\nyou should never have any concerns about the risk of plagiarism. Here are some good scholarly
\npractice tips to follow:
\nGood scholarly practice
\n\u2022 DO NOT COPY AND PASTE INFORMATION FROM ANOTHER SOURCE. Even if you do this with
\nthe intention of adapting the information later, there is a risk that you may not do so
\nsufficiently. Instead
\n\u2022 MAKE NOTES ON WHAT YOU HAVE READ, and always note down the source of
\ninformation (title, author, page numbers, publisher name and location, date) so that
\nyou can provide a correctly formatted citation and full reference later on.
\n\u2022 PARAPHRASE so that what you write is in your own words.
\n8
\n\u2022 PROVIDE A CITATION RIGHT NEXT TO THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE OBTAINED
\nFROM YOUR SOURCES. Good paraphrasing and injecting your own arguments result
\nin a combination of information from your sources and from you! Therefore, you
\nshould insert a citation next to the information that is from your sources (even if it
\nis in the middle of a sentence) so that the reader can clearly distinguish between
\nwhat other authors have said (your sources) and what YOU are saying.
\n\u2022 USE DIRECT QUOTATIONS SPARINGLY. This should only be when there is no better
\nway of expressing the point\/argument. Always use quotation marks (\u201c) and cite the
\nsource directly afterwards including the page number \u2013 e.g. (Smith and Jones 2015:
\n8).
\n\u2022 DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PRIMARY SOURCES AND SECONDARY SOURCES. Always
\nensure that you make it clear whether you have read the original source (primary)
\nor read about the information elsewhere (secondary) and cite the source
\naccordingly.
\n\u2022 FORMAT CITATIONS AND REFERENCES ACCORDING TO APA (7th edition), unless
\ninstructed otherwise by the module leader.
\nIf you have any concerns about plagiarism please speak to the module leader or the Centre for
\nAcademic writing CAW
\nReferencing
\nCoventry University has adopted the APA format of referencing as the standard format for
\ncitations and references. There is a Centre for Academic Writing (located next to the library,
\nalso see the links here) which can provide detailed support on the APA System. As part of the
\nassessment, you are expected to reference using the APA style both in-text and for the
\nreference list \u2013 any deviation from this will be considered during marking. There is also a useful
\nreference guide on the APA Style that we advise you to download and keep. This can be found
\nhere
\n9
\nASSESSMENT MARKING GUIDELINES
\nMarking Rubric for Learning, Training and Development
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\nUnderstanding of
\ntraining needs and
\ntasks suitable for
\ntraining with critical
\nanalysis of context
\n(LO1 and LO2) \u2013 10%
\nDetailed description of the
\ncontext for the training
\nprogramme with an
\nexcellent critical analysis of
\nthe training needs and why
\nthey have arisen.
\nClear and detailed outline
\nof the task\/goal for
\ntraining suitable to meet
\nthe training need.
\nDetailed description of
\npotential trainees with
\nclear sample demographics
\npresented.
\nAt the higher end there
\nshould be no omissions
\nand data may be
\npresented to support
\nanalysis.
\nDetailed description of
\nthe context for the
\ntraining programme
\nwith a good critical
\nanalysis of the training
\nneeds and why they
\nhave arisen.
\nClear outline of the
\ntask\/goal for training
\nsuitable to meet the
\ntraining need.
\nDetailed description of
\npotential trainees with
\nclear sample
\ndemographics presented
\nalthough there may be
\nminor omissions.
\nDescription of the
\ncontext for the training
\nprogramme is presented
\nwith an acceptable
\ncritical analysis of the
\ntraining needs and why
\nthey have arisen.
\nOutline of the task\/goal
\nfor training suitable to
\nmeet the training need
\nbut may lack clarity.
\nDescription of potential
\ntrainees with sample
\ndemographics
\npresented although
\nthere may be omissions
\nor a lack of clarity.
\nSimple description of the
\ncontext for the training
\nprogramme is presented
\nwith a limited critical
\nanalysis of the training
\nneeds and why they have
\narisen.
\nOutline of the task\/goal
\nfor training but lacks
\nclarity or relevance to
\ntraining need.
\nDescription of potential
\ntrainees is brief with
\nlimited sample
\ndemographics presented.
\nDescription of context is
\nvery limited or missing, and
\nno critical analysis
\npresented.
\nTask or goal for training is
\nnot presented or unsuitable
\nfor the training need.
\nDescription of potential
\ntrainees is missing or very
\nlimited.
\n10
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\nPresentation of
\nhierarchical training
\nanalysis and training
\nissues (LO1 and LO2) \u2013
\n40%
\nClear, logical, and fully
\ncomplete hierarchical task
\nanalysis table presented as
\noutlined in brief with all
\ntasks and sub-tasks
\ndescribed and redescribed
\nwhere necessary.
\nAppropriate use of stop
\nrule.
\nInput, Action and Feedback
\ncorrectly applied to all
\ntasks and subtasks.
\nNotes section outline clear
\nand detailed issues for
\ntraining. Conditions for
\ntask completion are clearly
\noutlined.
\nTraining issues table is
\nclearly cross-referenced to
\nHTA table and structure
\ncompletely follows the
\ntemplate provided in brief.
\nSuitable and insightful
\ntraining methods
\npresented with strong use
\nof literature to justify use.
\nAt the higher end there
\nwill be no errors\/omissions
\nand appendices may be
\nused to present flowcharts
\nand supporting
\ninformation.
\nClear, and logical
\nhierarchical task analysis
\ntable presented as
\noutlined in brief with
\nmain tasks and sub-tasks
\ndescribed and
\nredescribed where
\nnecessary. Use of stop
\nrule mostly applied
\nappropriately.
\nInput, Action and
\nFeedback correctly
\napplied to all or most
\ntasks and subtasks.
\nNotes section outline
\nissues training and
\nconditions for task
\ncompletion are mostly
\nclearly outlined.
\nTraining issues table is
\ncross referenced to HTA
\ntable and follows the
\ntemplate outlined in the
\nbrief. Suitable training
\nmethods presented with
\ngood use of literature to
\njustify use.
\nAppendices may have
\nbeen used to provide
\nalternative presentation
\nof HTA.
\nHierarchical task
\nanalysis table presented
\nas outlined in brief but
\nthere may be a lack of
\nclarity or omissions of
\nmain tasks and sub tasks. Use of stop rule
\nmostly applied
\nappropriately.
\nInput, Action and
\nFeedback applied to all
\nor most tasks and
\nsubtasks but there may
\nbe some errors in
\napplication.
\nNotes section has been
\nused to outline issues
\nfor training or
\nconditions for task
\ncompetition but there
\nmay be some omissions
\nor errors.
\nThere is some attempt
\nto cross referenced
\ntraining issues table to
\nHTA table. Structure of
\ntable follows the
\ntemplate outlined in the
\nbrief. Mostly suitable
\ntraining methods
\npresented with
\nliterature presented to
\njustify use.
\nHierarchical task analysis
\ntable presented but
\nstructure may not follow
\nthe template and there is
\na lack of clarity or
\nomissions of main tasks
\nand sub-tasks. Use of stop
\nrule may not be applied
\nappropriately.
\nErrors in the application
\nof Input, Action,
\nFeedback.
\nNotes section is brief
\nand\/or lacks depth of
\nunderstanding of the
\ntraining issues or
\nconditions under which
\nthe task is performed.
\nThere is some attempt to
\ncross referenced training
\nissues table to HTA table
\nbut may feel confused.
\nStructure of table follows
\nthe template outlined in
\nthe brief and training
\nmethods are presented
\nbut literature may only
\nweakly justify use.
\nNo Hierarchical task
\nanalysis table presented or
\nstructure is confusing and
\nlacks logical flow.
\nInput, Action and Feedback
\ninappropriately applied or
\nnot applied at all.
\nNotes section fails to
\nidentify training issues or
\nthe conditions under which
\nthe task is to be performed.
\nNo cross-reference
\nbetween HTA and training
\nissues table. No training
\nmethods presented or are
\nunsuitable. Little or no use
\nof literature to justify
\nmethods.
\n11
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\nCritical analysis of
\ntraining design with
\nreference to individual
\nlearning needs and
\napplication of
\nAssessment methods
\nfor training
\nprogrammes (LO1, LO2
\nand LO3) \u2013 40%
\nClear and detailed
\npresentation of training
\nprogramme with detailed
\ntraining objectives.
\nPracticalities such as
\nscheduling and resourcing
\nare fully considered.
\nThe methods used within
\nthe training design are
\nfully justified through an
\nexcellent critical
\nengagement with the
\nliterature.
\nAn excellent consideration
\nof individual learning
\nneeds and participant
\ncharacteristics supported
\nby the literature.
\nFully detailed description
\nof a valid Assessment
\nmethod which addresses
\nboth process and
\noutcomes with an
\nexcellent consideration of
\nthe stakeholder of the
\nAssessment. Evidence of
\nhow Assessment methods
\nwill address learning
\noutcomes is presented
\nwith an excellent use of
\nacademic and practical
\nmaterials to justify their
\nuse.
\nText describing what
\nmeets this scale for this
\ncriterion.
\nDetailed presentation of
\ntraining programme
\nwith training objectives.
\nPracticalities such as
\nscheduling and
\nresourcing are
\nconsidered.
\nThe methods used
\nwithin the training
\ndesign are mostly
\njustified through a good
\ncritical engagement with
\nthe literature.
\nA good consideration of
\nindividual learning needs
\nand participant
\ncharacteristics mostly
\nsupported by the
\nliterature.
\nDetailed description of a
\nvalid Assessment method
\nwhich addresses both
\nprocess and outcomes
\nwith a good
\nconsideration of the
\nstakeholder of the
\nAssessment. Evidence of
\nhow Assessment methods
\nwill address learning
\noutcomes is presented
\nwith a good use of
\nPresentation of training
\nprogramme with
\ntraining objectives but
\nthere may be a lack of
\nclarity in places.
\nPracticalities such as
\nscheduling and
\nresourcing are mostly
\nconsidered but there
\nmay be some omissions.
\nThe methods used
\nwithin the training
\ndesign are somewhat
\njustified through an
\nacceptable critical
\nengagement with the
\nliterature.
\nAn acceptable
\nconsideration of
\nindividual learning
\nneeds and participant
\ncharacteristics
\nsomewhat supported by
\nthe literature.
\nDescription of
\nAssessment method is
\npresented but there
\nmay be omissions in the
\nAssessment of process
\nand outcomes. An
\nacceptable
\nconsideration of the
\nstakeholder within the
\nAssessment. The
\nSimple presentation of
\ntraining programme with
\ntraining objectives but
\nthere is a lack of clarity in
\nplaces. Practicalities such
\nas scheduling and
\nresourcing are somewhat
\nconsidered but there are
\nmajor omissions.
\nThere is some attempt to
\njustify methods used
\nthrough an adequate
\ncritical engagement with
\nthe literature.
\nAn adequate
\nconsideration of
\nindividual learning needs
\nand participant
\ncharacteristics but this
\nmay not always be
\nsupported by the
\nliterature.
\nSimple description of
\nAssessment method is
\npresented but there are
\nomissions in the
\nAssessment of process and
\noutcomes. An adequate
\nconsideration of the
\nstakeholder of the
\nAssessment but there may
\nbe some omissions. The
\nAssessment methods may
\nfail to adequately address
\nPresentation of training
\nprogramme lacks detail or
\nis missing. No consideration
\nof the practicalities of the
\ntraining.
\nLittle or no justification of
\nthe methods used.
\nLittle or no consideration of
\nthe individual learning
\nneeds of trainees.
\nPoor or no presentation of
\nthe method of Assessment.
\n12
\nCriterion >70 60-69 50-59 40-49 <39
\nacademic and\/or
\npractical materials to
\njustify their use.
\nAssessment methods will
\naddress learning
\noutcomes but there may
\nbe a lack of clarity in
\nplaces. Use of academic
\nand\/or practical
\nmaterials to justify
\nmethods is at an
\nacceptable level.
\nthe learning objectives in
\nplaces. Use of academic
\nand\/or practical materials
\nto justify methods is at an
\nadequate level.
\nCompleteness and
\nEvidence of being able
\nto work within ethical
\nguidelines with
\nsensitivity (LO3) – 10%
\nEthical issues of training
\ndesign fully considered
\nwith reference to
\nappropriate guidelines
\n(BPS, ABP, CIPD as an
\nexample).
\nSensitive and inclusive
\napproach to all aspects of
\nthe training cycle
\npresented within the
\nreport.
\nExcellent writing style and
\nall citations and references
\nin the appropriate style.
\nAt the top higher the work
\nis of publishable quality.
\nEthical issues of training
\ndesign largely
\nconsidered with
\nreference to appropriate
\nguidelines (BPS, ABP,
\nCIPD as an example).
\nSensitive and inclusive
\napproach to all aspects
\nof the training cycle
\npresented within the
\nreport.
\nVery good writing style
\nand all citations and
\nreferences in the
\nappropriate style with
\nonly minor errors.
\nEthical issues of training
\ndesign have been
\nconsidered with
\nreference to
\nappropriate guidelines
\n(BPS, ABP, CIPD as an
\nexample), although
\nthere may some
\nomissions.
\nA mostly sensitive and
\ninclusive approach to
\naspects of training cycle
\npresented within the
\nreport.
\nGood writing style and
\nall citations and
\nreferences in the
\nappropriate style with
\nonly some errors.
\nEthical issues of training
\ndesign have been
\nconsidered and there may
\nbe reference to
\nappropriate guidelines
\n(BPS, ABP, CIPD as an
\nexample), although there
\nmay some omissions.
\nA mostly sensitive and
\ninclusive approach to
\naspects of training cycle
\npresented within the
\nreport.
\nAdequate writing style
\nand citations and
\nreferences broadly follow
\nthe appropriate style but
\nthere may be errors.
\nEthical issues have not been
\nconsidered or
\ninappropriately applied. No
\nreference to appropriate
\nguidelines.
\nLack of sensitivity and
\ninclusivity within the
\nreport.
\nPoor writing style and
\nmajor errors in referencing<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
HLS Assessment Brief Module title & code 7000BOP Learning, Training and Development Module Leader Lisa Burman Assessment component (e.g. CW, class test) Coursework Assessment details\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7695,1463,7667,7669,7684,7696,7683,7657,7663,7662,7685,7694,2751,7665,7664,1468,7666,7659,7660,7661,7658,1465],"tags":[642,618,8825,576,116,631,19,643,473,633,630,628,450,597,594,626,635,574,622,624,620,621,619,623,617,625,627,634,629,632,644,645,42,66],"class_list":["post-93904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-assignment-essay-help","category-best-nursing-paper-writing-service","category-buy-bsn-nursing-papers-online","category-buy-dnp-nursing-papers-online","category-dream-assignment-help","category-essay-writing-service-help","category-go-assignment-help","category-healthcare-management-assignment-help-from-experts","category-help-my-assignment","category-ireland-assignment-help","category-my-assignment-help","category-my-essay-assignment-help","category-online-healthcare-assignment-help","category-online-nursing-essay","category-online-nursing-paper-writers","category-online-nursing-papers","category-online-public-healthcare-assignment-help","category-online-tutors-helps","category-sample-assignment","category-top-essay-writing","category-urgent-assignment-helper","category-write-my-nursing-paper","tag-apps-that-write-essays-for-you-free","tag-assignment-writing-services-in-usa","tag-bes","tag-best-dissertation-writing-services","tag-best-essay-writing-service","tag-best-paper-writing-services","tag-best-research-paper-writing-services-in-usa","tag-best-website-to-write-my-essay","tag-cheap-essay-writing-service","tag-cheap-research-paper-writing-service","tag-college-paper-writing-service","tag-dissertation-help-online","tag-dissertation-writing-services","tag-dissertation-writing-services-illegal","tag-dissertation-writing-services-near-me","tag-dissertation-writing-services-usa","tag-essay-writing-service","tag-free-dissertation-writing-services","tag-homework-essay-writer","tag-homework-essay-writer-free","tag-homework-help-global","tag-homework-help-services","tag-homework-help-usa","tag-homework-writing-help","tag-homework-writing-service","tag-legit-research-paper-writing-services","tag-legitimate-dissertation-writing-services","tag-research-paper-writer-online-free","tag-research-paper-writing-services-online","tag-research-paper-writing-websites","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-cheap","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-tik-tok","tag-write-my-essay-free","tag-write-my-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93904","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93904"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93904\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}