Task Sheet Writing Coursework (II) – Written Report

LUE1001

Task Sheet 

Writing Coursework (II) – Written Report 

 

Comprises 25% of your final course grade

Due date: midnight Sunday 11 April (end of week 13)

Your final writing coursework due for this course is a Written Report of 1,100 – 1,300 words,  which will use all the writing and language skills taught throughout the semester.

 

For more details about grading, see the Marking Scheme at the end of this document.

 

Your report scenario

You are an External Consultant who has been employed by a university/college department to improve their webpage homepage design (Webpage A). You need to research existing webpages of similar organizations and choose one that would seem to fit your department’s needs (Webpage B). You will compare and evaluate features of both webpages using criteria chosen and defined by yourself. Also, you will need to interview at least one person to gather more data. Based on your evaluation and your interviewee’s views, you will make a final recommendation to your department as to how to improve their homepage web design.  You will write a written report to the department.

 

Report Sections Word Limit Range
Header Not counted
1. Introduction  50-100 words
2. Methodology   300-350 words
3.    Findings & Discussion 

− evaluation of two webpages based on your chosen criteria and

− your interviewee’s views and opinions about the webpages chosen

4.    Conclusion & Recommendations 

 

500-550 words

 

 

 

 

 

250-300 words  

You will also include:

5.    References (in APA style)

− This includes the 2 webpages under study

− You should include at least 1 written source other than the interview(s).

6.    An Appendix with your interview questions.

 

Not counted
TOTAL WORD COUNT:   1,100 – 1,300 words      

 

 

                

Suggested Stages of the Research and Writing

 

Stage of research To be completed by the end of:
Identify your university/college department and webpage (Webpage A).

 

Week 6
•       Choose your other university/college department webpage for comparison. (Webpage B)

•       Choose your webpage criteria and define them.

Week 6
Analyse/evaluate and compare the two webpages

 

Week 7
Decide which type(s) of people will be interviewed.

 

Week 8
Write questions for interview(s) and conduct the interview(s).

Important notes:

•       Keep accurate notes about date(s) and people interviewed – you will need the dates for the Methodology section.

•       The interviews should be conducted in English.

•       Each interview should last at least 10-15 minutes.

•       The interview(s) should be audio-recorded.

→ This is to help you select appropriate quotes or paraphrases.

→ The audio recordings must be submitted along with your final report.

Week 9
Write the Introduction and Methodology sections of the report.

 

Week 10
Write the rest of the report, synthesizing your evaluation with your interviewee’s comments and including recommendations and visuals. Week 11
•    At the end of your report, include the following information about your Word Count:

WORD COUNT Sections 1-4        [Number]   words Excluding quotes & captions — [Number]   words

NET WORD COUNT                  =    [Number]   words

•       Submit your report through Turnitin on Moodle – see the instructions below.

•       Submit your audio recording through Moodle.

Week 12

 

Submitting your report through Turnitin:

 

Your report will be submitted to Turnitin. It is a web-based system which checks your writing against all content published on the Internet and all student writing previously submitted. Read this short document produced by the Lingnan University Teaching and Learning Centre to understand how you will upload your work to Turnitin through the Moodle page:

https://tlc.ln.edu.hk/tlc/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/SubmittingaTurnitinassignment_2020v1.pdf

 

 

It is important that you refer to the Originality Report generated on Turnitin and make necessary changes to your work if any plagiarised text is highlighted in your submission and re-submit your work again BEFORE the due date (Note: Originality Report generation for resubmissions is subject to a twenty-four hour delay).

 

 

 

 

 

LUE1001 Writing Coursework (II) – Written Report Marking Scheme  (25%)

Names of student:  ______________________________________________________                                                                                                                Section no.:________________

  5

(*IELTS 8)

4

(*IELTS 7-6)

3

(*IELTS 5)

2

(*IELTS 4)

1 (*IELTS <4) Marks
-Includes in-depth relevant introductory information explaining the purpose and focus of the report. -Includes a very clear description of the web search process.

-Gives very clear definitions and reasons for the criteria. -Describes the interviewing process with comprehensive details.

-All sources used are cited and referenced correctly.

-Includes relevant introductory information explaining the purpose and focus of the report. -Includes a clear description of the web search process.  -Gives clear definitions and reasons for the criteria. -Describes the interviewing process with adequate details. -Most sources used are cited and referenced correctly. -Includes adequate introductory information relevant to the purpose and focus of the report.  -Includes a description of the web search process.

-Gives definitions and reasons for the criteria but are not always clear

-Describes the interviewing process with relevant details. -Any sources used are cited and referenced but with minor flaws.

-Includes some introductory information to introduce the topic and/or focus, but lacks development. -Includes a description of the web search process but this is incomplete. -Gives definitions and reasons for the criteria but they are confusing. -Describes the interviewing process but only in brief or somewhat unclearly.

-Any sources used are cited but  referenced incorrectly.

-Introductory information insufficient, irrelevant or unclear.

– Details on methodology insufficient, irrelevant and unclear.

-Any sources used are not cited.

 
-In-depth evaluation of webpages based on chosen criteria, including both detailed description and analysis through very effective comparison.

-Interviewee’s views very clearly support the webpage evaluation findings and are skilfully integrated into the evaluation.

– Comprehensively and concisely summarizes main points and findings. – Very clear and relevant recommendations made and justified well.

-All sources used are cited and referenced correctly.

–                    Adequate evaluation of webpages based on chosen criteria, including both detailed description and analysis through effective comparison. -Interviewee’s views clearly support the webpage evaluation findings and are integrated into the evaluation.

–                    Adequately summarizes main points and findings but include some unnecessary details.

-Clear or relevant recommendations made and justified quite well.

–                    Most sources used are cited and referenced correctly.

-Evaluation includes description as well as some degree of analysis but comparison is less effective;  -Interviewee’s views support the webpage evaluation findings and are mostly integrated into the webpage evaluation although there is some inconsistency /irrelevance.

-Summarizes most main points and findings, however some areas could be developed further.

-Recommendations made and justified.

-Any sources used are cited and referenced but with minor flaws.

 

-Evaluation majors on description with only a limited degree of analysis or ineffective/limited comparison; -Uses interviewee’s views but these do not adequately support the webpage evaluation findings and are not integrated into the webpage evaluation or are irrelevant.

-Briefly summarizes main points and findings, however some ideas are repetitive/irrelevant.

-Recommendations made but with little or unclear justification.

-Any sources used are cited and/or referenced incorrectly.

-Evaluation includes only description and no analysis. No comparison is attempted. -Little or no use of interviewee’s views to support the webpage evaluation findings; any views reported are simply stated and not integrated into the findings. -Summary is too brief or neglects to cover one of more of the main points or findings.

– very unclear recommendations and or justification.

-Any sources used are not cited or referenced correctly or at all.

 

 

-Paragraphs are very wellstructured with clear topic sentences, clear and relevant supporting details.

-Patterns such as comparison, definition, cause-effect are used very effectively and appropriately.

– Very well-organized throughout with logical progression of ideas, and excellent use of topic continuity and cohesive devices.

-Paragraphs are well-structured with clear topic sentences and relevant supporting details. -Patterns such as comparison, definition, cause-effect are used appropriately.

-Well-organized throughout with logical progression of most ideas, and there is good use of topic continuity and cohesive devices.

-Paragraphs are well-structured with topic sentences and supporting details.

– Patterns such as comparison, definition, cause-effect are used are used to some good effect. – Obvious lapses in organization and the arrangement of ideas, resulting from poor topic continuity and poor use of cohesive devices.

-Paragraphs have topic sentences which are mostly clear, and some supporting details which are repetitive/irrelevant.

– Patterns such as comparison, definition, cause-effect are used are sometimes used and/or are sometimes used inappropriately.

-Organization is a little unclear; the arrangement of ideas is confusing and requires effort to follow.

-Paragraphs do not have topic sentences and limited supporting details which are repetitive/irrelevant.

– Patterns such as comparison, definition, cause-effect are used are not used or are used inappropriately.

-Organization is unclear or inappropriate with very confusing arrangement of ideas,

making it difficult to understand.

 
-Uses a wide range of vocabulary appropriate to the context.

-Very effective use of descriptive language/techniques. – Makes only very occasional errors or inappropriacies.

-Uses a fair range of vocabulary appropriate to the context. -Effective use of descriptive language/techniques.

– A few errors or inappropriacies in word choice or register.

-Uses a reasonable range of vocabulary mostly appropriate to the context.

-Adequate use of descriptive language/techniques

-Some errors and inappropriacies in word choice and register but do not impede meaning.

-Uses a somewhat limited or repetitive range of vocabulary, which are not appropriate to the context. -Some use of descriptive language/techniques.

-Errors and inappropriacies in word choice and register which impede meaning at times.

-Use of vocabulary very limited and/or repetitive and are not  appropriate to the context. -Little or no use of descriptive language/techniques. -Frequent vocabulary errors which severely impedes meaning.  
-Uses a wide range of structures.

-The majority of sentences are error-free.

– Very good control of grammar and punctuation.

-Uses a fair range of structures. -Most sentences are error-free. – Fairly good control of grammar and punctuation. -Uses a reasonable range of structures, mostly accurate. -Produces frequent error-free sentences.

-Has reasonable control of grammar and punctuation but makes a few errors.

-Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence structures

-Complex sentences tend to be less accurate than simple sentences. -Makes some errors in grammar and punctuation but they rarely reduce communication.

-Uses only a very limited range of structures.

-Errors predominate, and/or punctuation is often faulty, which hinders communication.

 

 
-Includes a reference list in APA style.

-Report between 1,100-1,300 words.

-Includes recording of the interview.

– uses at least 1 written source.

 

 

Does not meet one of the above requirements. Does not meet two of the above requirements. Does not meet three of the above requirements. Does not meet any of the above requirements.  
 

Penalty 1:  _______% (5%  per late day)       Penalty 2: ______ % (copying)                                                               TOTAL MARK: __________/ 100%

Note 1: Choose one band only. No half bands should be awarded.

Note 2: Deduct 5% from the total possible mark (100%) for each instance of copying of more than 5 words consecutively (without acknowledging the source), excluding formulaic expressions, proper names and technical terms.  For serious plagiarism, 0 marks will be awarded for the assessment.

 

Other comments:

 

============================================================================================================================================================================= * When referring to the IELTS score equivalences shown in this mark scheme, students should note the following:

  • These scores should be taken as approximate matches to selected aspects of the IELTS mark scheme, not as accurate predictions of students’ likely performance in an IELTS test.

 

  • IELTS uses specially designed assessment tasks for writing and speaking which are not exactly the same as this assignment, for this reason scores may be different in this assignment to those done in an IELTS test.
  • IELTS is a test carried out in a limited time under examination conditions, therefore students’ performance in the test may differ from their performance in longer homework assignments.
  • For more detailed information about IELTS or preparation for the test, students should take the elective course LUE3004 IELTS Preparation (https://www.ln.edu.hk/ceal/courses/LUE3004.pdf) or contact English Language Support Services (ELSS https://elss.ln.edu.hk/elss) for information about IELTS Practicum sessions and other resources to help you prepare for the test.