Assessment 2
Individual report (2000 words) 50%
This individuaI assessment is Iinked to Assessment 1 but requires the interrogation of a specific site area within Digbeth. In this scenario, the site you identify wiII be for saIe 一 your report is for a potentiaI purchaser (deveIoper / specuIator), and as such is a cIient pIanning report scenario.
You wiII seIect and define a focused site area in the first instance. This shouId be circa 1 hectare in size. For this site you wiII produce a professionaI site anaIysis report for a cIient covering the foIIowing section:
1) Site Iocation in context (where is it…) and boundary
2) Site context (Digbeth context overview)
3) Site history
4) Site pIanning appIication history if avaiIabIe
5) Area/site pIanning poIicy (NationaI and Birmingham City CounciI)
6) Site analysis (as reIevant to site i.e. architecture, heritage, amenity, environmentaI, sociaI, economic, infrastructure etc)
7) Site deveIopment potentiaI OR management and enhancement strategy Your presentation is required to incIude your own:
• Photography
• Annotated mapping
• GIS anaIysis/outputs/products
• TabIe/graph data
• Diagramming
• Sketch
• SWOT or simiIar summary anaIysis tooI
• (RambIr’virtuaI tour or introduction (site or area)
AI 一 In this assessment you are required to use Generative AI as a resource to support the compIetion of one section (1-6) of this report. You must not incIude any GI generated outputs directIy in your work. You must identify in your work the section where you have used GenAI. You must incIude the originaI generated materiaI from AI in your appendix (incIuding your questions asked), and confirm which GenAI system was used. You must not use AI in any other section of this assessment. Your cover page must incIude the statement “I acknowledge the use of [insert AI system(s) and link] to generate materials for background research for section [insert section title] which informed the drafting of this assessment.”
Appendix - You wiII incIude:
• your AI generated (conversation’output, incIuding aII questions asked and responses
Referencing 一 This assessment simuIate a professionaI character assessment. Referencing remains important to ensure the rigour of the piece, but this shouId be done in Iine with professionaI practice; you wiII find footnotes and embedded referencing heIpfuI.
As a professional report, your submission should have the look and feel of a planning consultancy or government output (as opposed to a research report).
Marking criteria and feedback
You will receive your feedback via the following:
|
Module name
|
Skills for Planners
|
|
Student number
|
|
|
Title of assessment
|
Assessment 2 – Individual report
|
|
%
|
Descriptor
|
Criteria
|
|
|
|
1. Response to the
requirements of the brief
|
2. Process of investigation
|
3. Analysis and findings
|
4. Format and
presentation
|
|
80-
100
|
PASS
Outstanding
|
All aspects of the brief fully addressed.
Outstanding awareness of context. Very little
irrelevant material.
Evidence of independent / innovative thought.
|
Exceptional and rigorous investigative approach. Outstanding use of
professional skills and techniques.
|
Exceptionally thorough and
rigorous analysis of the
problem or issues. Exceptional insight and understanding of relevant theory and/or
practice. Impressive range of reading, some beyond the
recommended source materials.
|
Highest standards of
literacy and professional presentation. References (in-text and references
section) conform
precisely to assessment requirements.
|
|
70-
79
|
PASS
Excellent
|
All aspects of the brief
fully addressed. Excellent awareness of context.
Very little irrelevant
material. Evidence of
independent / innovative thought.
|
Excellent and highly
effective investigative
approach. Excellent use of professional skills and
techniques.
|
Excellent rigour and
systematic analysis of the
problem or issues. Excellent depth and sophistication.
Evidence of reading beyond the recommended source materials.
|
Very clearly written and professionally presented; no significant lapses.
References (in-text and references section)
largely conform precisely to assessment
requirements.
|
|
60-
69
|
PASS
Good
|
Most aspects of the brief fully addressed. Good / very good awareness of context. Some minor
omissions of detail / inclusion of irrelevant material.
|
Good and effective
investigative approach. Good use of professional skills and techniques.
|
Good / very good, coherent
and systematic analysis of the problem or issues. Some signs of depth and sophistication. Good / very good use of
evidence.
|
Clearly written and
professionally presented with only minor lapses.
References (in-text and
references section) largely conform. to assessment
requirements.
|
|
50-
59
|
PASS
Competent
|
Most aspects of the brief addressed adequately / competently, with
awareness of context.
Some omissions of detail. Errors or
misunderstandings of the brief.
|
Competent and broadly effective investigative approach. Solid use of professional skills and techniques.
|
Generally adequate /
competent, methodical
analysis covering the key
issues. Limited in depth and use of supporting evidence.
|
Generally clearly written and neatly presented.
References (in-text and
references section) largely conform. to assessment
requirements.
|
|
40-
49
|
PASS
Weak
|
More than half of the
brief addressed. Some
important aspects
referred to, but omissions of key detail. Errors or
misunderstandings of the brief.
|
Limited and simplistic investigative approach. Adequate only use of professional skills and techniques.
|
Some knowledge and
understanding of the issues, but very little depth of
analysis. Weak use of supporting evidence.
|
Comprehensible and neatly presented.
References (in-text and
references section) largely conform. to assessment
requirements.
|
|
30-
39
|
FAIL
Poor
|
Some requirements of the brief met. Substantial
omissions, errors or
misunderstandings. Much of the content is of limited relevance.
|
Poor and overly simplistic investigative approach.
Inadequate use of
professional skills and techniques.
|
A generally limited and
superficial analysis. Poor
understanding of issues. Poor use of sources.
|
Poor levels of literacy and presentation. Source
attribution does not
conform. to assessment requirements.
|
|
29-0
|
FAIL
Very poor
|
Does not meet the
substantive aspects of the brief. May be regarded as a partial / incomplete
submission.
|
Very poor and inadequate investigative approach.
Unacceptable or lacking use of professional skills and
techniques.
|
Very little analysis or
understanding of issues.
|
Very poor levels of
literacy and presentation. Source attribution does not conform. to
assessment
requirements.
|
|
Additional marker comments
|
|
Suggested ways to improve your work
|
Your assessment will be marked based upon the following standard marking criteria:
1) Engagement
• Critical engagement with the question
• Relevance of material (including, case studies, maps, figures where relevant, quoted material and images) utilised
• Evidence of engagement with relevant literature(s)
• Evidence of reading and engagement beyond the lecture material
2) Structure and execution
• General organisation of material
• Use of paragraphs and/or headings
• Flow of argument
• Writing style.
• Appropriate bibliographic format
• Consistent referencing and text citations
3) Argument and conclusions
• Critical evaluation of sources
• Logic, coherence and consistency
• Selection of relevant evidence to support argument
• Originality of argument
• Relevance and accuracy of factual content
Additionally, for this assessment your mark will be informed by:
4) Visual communication
• Visual qualities of presentation
• Professional execution of assessment
5) Written communication
• Written communication effectiveness
• Professional execution of assessment