联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

School of Environment, Education and Development Planning and Environmental Management PLAN30081 Semester One, 2022-2023 Assessment Brief PLAN30081 Urban Theory, Planning Theory and Professional Values (20 credits) Assessment Details This module is assessed by two essays. The first is weighted at 35% and the second is weighted at 65% of the total module mark. Students are expected to critically engage with their chosen question. You will be expected to develop a coherent argument that is rooted in the critical literature introduced throughout the module – try to see these questions as linked to ideas raised across the different lectures and not simply to a particular lecture. Time will be available to discuss your essay ideas during the seminar programme. See Blackboard for really useful links to advice on essay writing, referencing and so much more. Submission Please submit your assessments via Blackboard. I will open the link for submission two weeks before the deadline. Do not put your name on your essay. Do put your student number at the start of the essay or as footer. Advice on Turn-it-in: http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx DocID=13010 Marking Criteria are appended to this assessment brief. Word counts Maximum word counts set by the assessors should not be exceeded. The word count includes any footnotes and endnotes, quotations and tables. It does not include the bibliography. You must include a word count on your first page. Failure to indicate the word count, or the provision of a false word count, may lead to disciplinary action. What are the penalties Markers can use their discretion to take into account minor transgressions of up to 10% within the existing marking criteria, which means that you can lose marks for not being concise for instance. However, harsher penalties apply for more major transgressions. If you exceed the word count by between 10-50%, then your mark for that essay will be capped at a maximum of 50%. 2 Work exceeding the word count by 50% will be viewed as not having met the requirements of that part of the assessment. The essay will not be marked and a mark of zero will be recorded. Assessment 1: Essay – 35% of marks. Deadline: Wednesday 23rd November 2022, before 2pm The first assessment requires an essay of 1,000 words maximum (excluding bibliography and title of essay). Student should choose one of the following essay questions to answer: 1. What are the key ‘take home points’ we should derive from the RTPI’s ethical guidance to planners (https://www.rtpi.org.uk/press-releases/2020/january/code-of-professional-conduct/ and https://www.rtpi.org.uk/membership/professional-standards/professional-ethics/) In your response reflect on whether you think the current advice provided by the RPTI is sufficient or whether it can be improved. 2. Discuss whether you think planning is actually necessary for fair societies, sustainable futures and efficient markets. 3. Critically discuss the contribution of communicative planning to planning practice. 4. Critically discuss the relevance of ideas about postpolitics for the way in which we manage future urban development. Assessment 2: Essay – 65% of marks. Deadline: Wednesday 25th January 2023, before 2pm The second assessment requires an essay of 1,500 words maximum (excluding bibliography and title of essay). Choose one of the following essay questions to answer: 1. Which theoretical debates best help us to understand the evolution of English planning since 2010 You can focus on either the theories that justify the government’s changes or those which critique it, or both. 2. Critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of work on developing a Greater Manchester Spatial Framework in relation to one or more planning theories or urban theories. 3. Critically discuss the emergence of New Urbanism ideas, reflecting in your response on the implications for countries outside North America. 4. On paper, the pursuit of sustainable development remains a cornerstone of the English planning system. Drawing on debates in planning theory, urban theory and /or environmental theory, critically discuss whether we can be proud of planning’s role in supporting sustainable development, reflecting on the period since 2004 when this goal was declared to be the statutory purpose of planning. 3 Marking Criteria UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT Department of Planning & Environmental Management Undergraduate Assessment Criteria Essays, Exams and Project Work for Years 1-3 The four main categories of criteria are: 1. Breadth & depth of knowledge and understanding 2. Synthesis and critical analysis 3. Structure, style and argumentation 4. Transferable skills Please note that the overall mark is NOT derived from a notional average of the levels achieved for each of the criteria. Class Mark 90 -1 0 0 Exceptional First class Exceptional work of the highest quality attaining all leaning outcomes of the unit, all criteria of assessment and displaying significant originality and/or deep insight. 1. Outstanding answer with no significant omissions. Excellent breadth and depth of understanding of context for the question and addresses wider issues and interrelationships. Shows significant innovation and/or originality. 2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy) to very good effect showing very advanced knowledge and are highly relevant to the question, very substantial and of excellent quality, from extensive sources covering principles, techniques, evidence and theories beyond the module lectures/core textbooks, with outstanding critical analysis and insight and very effective integration with own ideas. 3. Excellent structure/organisation expressing clarity and originality. Highly relevant, logical and well-focussed progression of argument. Situates analysis very effectively within current academic and/or policy debates. 4. Excellent writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references sources in line with your student handbook. Excellent presentation skills including use of IT databases and other resources. Upper- range first 100 Upper- range first 95 Upper- range first 92 80 -8 9 Outstanding First class Outstanding work of the highest quality, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge, excellent critical analysis and/or originality, high level of accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. 1. Excellent answer with no significant omissions. Excellent breadth and depth of understanding of context for the question, key issues and interrelationships. Shows some ambitious and perceptive use of innovation in methods and thinking. 2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy) to very good effect and are highly relevant to the question, substantial and of very good quality data and/or literature, from a wide range of sources beyond the module lectures/core textbooks, with excellent critical analysis and very good integration with own ideas. 3. Very high level structure/organisation. Very well focussed/relevant, logical, coherent and convincing argument throughout. Situates analysis effectively within current academic and/or policy debates. 4. Excellent writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references sources in line with your student handbook. Excellent presentation skills including use of IT databases and other resources. Mid- range first 88 Mid- range first 85 Mid- range first 82 4 Class Mark 70 -7 9 First class Excellent work of high quality, demonstrating extensive knowledge, very good critical analysis, high level of accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. 1. Very good answer with no significant omissions. Very good understanding of context for the question, key issues and interrelationships. Shows good independent thinking or use of very good methods. 2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy) which are highly relevant to the question, substantial and of good quality, from a range of reading beyond the module lectures/core textbooks, with good critical analysis and integration with of original thought. Further and wide ranging evidence could have been incorporated. 3. Very good structure and argumentation. Well focused showing considerable analytical skills, relevant and coherent argument throughout. Very good awareness of relevant academic and/or policy debates but opportunities to improve the balance of the arguments presented. 4. Very good writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references sources in line with your student handbook. Excellent presentation skills including use of IT databases and other resources. Lower- range first 78 Lower- range first 75 Lower- range first 72 60 -6 9 Upper Second class High quality work, demonstrating very good knowledge and understanding, good critical analysis, accuracy, relevance, presentation and understanding. 1. Good coverage of question and sound demonstration of the topic, but may have some omissions. Broad understanding of context for the question, key issues and interrelationships. Shows some independent thinking and an appreciation of application of methods. 2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy) which are generally of good quality, perhaps with some reading from beyond the module lectures/core textbooks, with some critical analysis and integration with own ideas. Further and wide ranging evidence could have been incorporated 3. Comprehensive structure, organisation and argumentation skills. Generally focused/relevant and coherent argument in most sections. Good awareness of relevant academic and/or policy debates but greater depth of analysis could have been included. 4. Good writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references sources in line with your student handbook. Good presentation skills including use of IT databases and other resources. 2.1 68 2.1 65 2.1 62 Essays that do not engage with material beyond that in module lectures / workshops / fieldtrips / key texts and do not follow referencing guidelines outlined in the student handbook can only get a maximum 59%. 50 -5 9 Lower Second class Competent/good and generally accurate work, demonstrating some relevant knowledge and breadth, and sound understanding though undeveloped with limited critical reasoning. 1. Fair answer to question, with some omissions. Shows reasonable understanding of the issues, principles, theories, evidence and techniques, perhaps with some confusion/inaccuracies. Mainly derivative from module material, lacks evidence of independent thought/research. 2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy), but not substantial or restricted to module lectures/core textbooks or of poor quality, with some critical analysis, but mainly descriptive and lacks analytical depth. 2.2 58 2.2 55 5 Class Mark 3. Fair structure and coherent argumentation, but argument may lack focus/depth in some sections. Reasonable awareness of relevant academic and/or policy debates, but with some gaps or minor inaccuracies. Further critical analysis and evidence of independent reading and thought could be incorporated. 4. Reasonable writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references sources in line with your student handbook. Fair presentation skills including use of IT databases and other resources. 2.2 52 40 -4 9 Third Class Work of sufficient though limited quality, demonstrating some relevant knowledge and fair understanding with possible errors and omissions. 1. Basic or simple answer to question lacking detail, depth and with significant omissions. Superficial understanding of the issues and some confusion/inaccuracies. Regurgitates taught or given material with no evidence of independent thought/research. 2. Range and use of material (academic and policy) is lacking or not relevant to the question or of poor quality. Mostly descriptive with lack of a substantive critical analysis. 3. Weak structure and argumentation. Argument may lack focus/relevance, evidence and coherence in many sections. Limited engagement with relevant academic and/or policy debates, either dated, with gaps, or too many inaccuracies with a lack of balance discussion. 4. Writing style and grammar and spelling may be poor, with frequent errors. Inconsistently and/or incompletely references sources, not in line with your student handbook. May use some inappropriate presentation skills including the poor use of IT databases and other resources. 3 48 3 45 3 42 Pass mark 30 -3 9 Compensatory Fail Work below the standard required for an honours degree. There may be some evidence of basic understanding and/or achievement but is insufficient with errors or other inadequacies. 1. Partial answer to question, with major omissions. Weak understanding of the issues, theories, principles, techniques and evidence, and considerable confusion/inaccuracies. Regurgitates taught or given material with no evidence of independent thought/research. 2. Range and use of material (academic and policy) are lacking or not relevant to the question or of very poor quality. Uncritical and descriptive, with some sections being derivative of other sources lacking in originality or critical analysis. 3. Minimal understanding of structure and argumentation. Argument is poorly focused/irrelevant and/or incoherent/confused in many sections including unsubstantiated arguments/evidence. 4. Shows problems in writing style and grammar and spelling may be poor, with frequent errors. Inconsistently and/or incompletely references sources, not in line with your student handbook. Uses inappropriate presentation skills including the poor use of IT databases and other resources. F 38 F 35 F 32 16 -2 9 Fail Poor work that does not demonstrate even basic awareness of the subject and deficient in understanding or relevance, weak execution and/or presentation. 1. Incomplete or largely irrelevant answer to question and does not demonstrate even basic awareness of the subject and. Very little understanding and considerable confusion/inaccuracies, although some attempt made. Little relevance to taught material or discussion of key theories, principles, techniques or evidence. F 28 F 25 6 Class Mark 2. Range and use of material (academic and policy) are lacking or not relevant to the question and/or of very poor quality. Uncritical and descriptive, with some sections being highly derivative. 3. Poor structure and argumentation. Argument is poorly focused/irrelevant and/or incoherent throughout lacking independent thought, originality and includes unsubstantiated arguments. Shows substantial problems in writing style, grammar and spelling, with many errors. Referencing lacking or inadequate, not in line with your student handbook. Uses inappropriate presentation skills including the poor use of IT databases and other resources. F 22 1- 15 Poor Fail Poor work that is profoundly inadequate in quantity. 1. Incomplete, brief and wholly irrelevant answer to question/task. No understanding of the issues and little attempt made to address them. No relevance to taught material, principles, theories, techniques or evidence. 2. Literature/data/evidence are highly irrelevant to the task/question or of extremely poor quality. No critical analysis, although may regurgitate material that lacks relevance. 3. Very poor structure/organisation. Lacks any argument, use of evidence or clear focus and misrepresentative of the evidence illustrating a failure to demonstrate understanding of material. 4. Shows substantial problems in writing style, grammar and spelling, with many errors. Referencing lacking or inadequate, not in line with your student handbook. Uses inappropriate presentation skills that are incoherent including the mis-use of IT databases and other resources. F 15 F 5 0 Zero Absent, work not submitted or unacceptable performance, work of no merit.