University of Central Lancashire
School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences
FZ2030 Short Notes Assignment Brief: Reassessment
Assignment Details
Write short (approximately 100 words, ± 10%) synopses or answers in response to the specific topics or questions listed below. Include the word count at the end of each question. Each question is worth 10 marks.
The purpose of this exercise is to test your ability to assemble information on a subject from a number of sources, including module lectures and wider library references, and then distil this information down to the key aspects and provide a succinct answer. Some subject areas will not have been covered by lectures in the module before the coursework is due to be handed in. This is intentional and is designed to test your ability to undertake independent research on a subject.
You should include a list of references that you have used in the research at the end of each question. Two of the available ten marks will be given for the appropriateness of the references.
Simple figures and tables can be included and these (and associated legends) will not count towards the total word count.
1. Discuss the ways in which you could distinguish between a human head hair and a dog hair. [10 marks]
2. If you were to design a new ideal method for glass analysis, what features should it have? Which of the current techniques for glass analysis best meets your requirements?
[10 marks]
3. Describe the intelligence information that might be determined from footwear marks recovered at a crime scene [10 marks]
4. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using fibre evidence in forensic investigation. [10 marks]
5. You are about to give a forensic awareness briefing to a new Police Officer who is attending a crime scene for the first time. What are the most important things they should know? [10 marks]
6. Compare and contrast the use of two different tests for blood. [10 marks]
The word limit is 600 words in total; each question must be 100 words (+/-10%). This excludes footnotes, tables and references but includes quotations. The word count must be printed underneath each question.
Remember:
• You must answer the questions set
• You must keep to the word limit of 600 words (100 words per question (+/-10%))
• You must demonstrate that you have met the learning outcomes
• As you construct and present your answers, consider the assessment criteria
Presentation Instructions
It is your responsibility to ensure that your work is neatly and accurately presented.
The work must be:
• Word-processed
• Single sided
• 1.5 or double line spaced
• Ariel 12 point font
• Justified
• Page numbered
• On A4 paper
• Margins left and right 3cm
• Stapled together at the top left-hand corner
• Attached to a cover sheet.
Marks may be deducted for failure to follow these instructions. Please look at the Student Guide to Assessment for more information.
Referencing
All academic writing must be referenced. If you use other people’s ideas without referencing them you are plagiarising their work.
Either:
Use the Harvard system of referencing within your text. This will take the form: surname, year of publication, page number, and is enclosed within brackets, for example (Bradley 1998, 277). At the end of your essay you should provide an alphabetical list of all the works you cite
Or:
Use the Numeric System of referencing within your text. At every point in the text where a reference is made, insert a number (in brackets or superscript) and then list the references numerically at the end of your work.
Or:
You may use OSCOLA (Oxford Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities).
If you do not do this you will unnecessarily lose marks.
Plagiarism
The use of work produced for another purpose by you, working alone or with others, must be acknowledged.
Copying from the works of another person (including Internet sources) constitutes plagiarism, which is an offence within the University’s regulations. Brief quotations from the published or unpublished works of another person, suitably attributed, are acceptable. You must always use your own words except when using properly referenced quotations.
You are advised when taking notes from books or other sources to make notes in your own words, in a selective and critical way.
Submission
Your work must be submitted with:
• a front cover sheet (detailing the module code and title, coursework title, module name and student name, word count, date submitted).
• submitted electronically with cover sheet via Turnitin (a guide to submitting work via Turnitin can be found on Blackboard).
The deadline for submission is Friday 24th April 2015
Every attempt will be made to ensure that the work will be marked and available for collection by Friday 8th May 2015
The assignment is worth 30% of the total module assessment.
Learning outcomes
This assessment will test your ability to meet the learning outcomes as described in your module booklet, specifically:
1. Illustrate how a forensic case is investigated.
2. Demonstrate the multidisciplinary scientific nature of the investigation.
3. Describe and evaluate the techniques commonly applied across the disciplines.
Assessment Criteria
For more information please see the marking guide at Appendix 1
Appendix 1
School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences
Assessment Criteria/Marking Proforma
Name………………………………………………… Module…………………………..
General Criteria
In grading your work we will be assessing the extent to which it matches the criteria attached. The criteria are not of equal importance, but it is not possible to ascribe an exact weighting to each. What follows is intended as a general guide to the standards.
1. Severe weakness in understanding the issues/arguments/theory is likely to result in a mark of less than 40%.
2. Thorough coverage of the relevant material, with statements supported by data, evidence, literature or examples, is necessary to gain 52% or above.
3. Work which is disorganised with points randomly ordered is unlikely to gain more than 48%.
4. A logical, well-explained argument, combined with other good characteristics is usually necessary to obtain 75%.
5. Fluent grammatical expression is important for expressing ideas clearly. Errors in this area are likely to lead to a reduction in marks.
General Comments:
Overall Grade
Markers Signature………………….Moderation Signature……………
Academic Level 5 Student……………………………………………
Classification Grade Relevance Knowledge Analysis Argument & Structure Originality Presentation
25% 20% 10% 20% 10% 15%
Outstanding 75 – 100% Directly relevant to case. Able to address the implications, assumptions and nuances of the case.
Relevance to practice is thoroughly and explicitly addressed. Makes effective use of a comprehensive range of theory and practice knowledge.
Is able to manipulate and transfer some material to demonstrate a grasp of some of the themes, questions and issues in both theory and practice. Adequate analysis of the material resulting in clear and logical conclusions. Coherent and logically structured, making use of an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical model.
Contains some distinctive or independent thinking.
Beginning to formulate an independent position. Well written with standard spelling and syntax.
Style is lucid utilising an appropriate and error free format and bibliographical apparatus.
Good 64-74% Directly relevant to case.
Is able to demonstrate effective practice relevance. Makes good use of ample knowledge of a fair range of relevant theoretical and practice related material.
Evidence of an appreciation of its significance is apparent. Adequate analytical treatment, with occasional descriptive or narrative passages which lack clear analytical purpose.
Conclusions are clear. Generally coherent and logically constructed.
Uses an appropriate mode of argument or theoretical model. Sound work that expresses a personal position, often in broad terms.
Some attempt to challenge standard views and engage with alternative views. Competently written with only minor lapses from standard syntax and spelling.
Style is readable with acceptable and generally error-free format and bibliographical apparatus.
Above Average 57-63% Generally addresses the case, sometimes addresses irrelevant issues.
Relevance to practice effectively addressed, may be implicit in places. Ample knowledge of a fair range of relevant theoretical and practice related material.
Intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance. Intermittent evidence of sound analytical ability.
Some description and narrative but still able to draw clear and logical conclusions in the main. Adequate attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency.
Issues at stake may lack clarity. Generally sound work that expresses a personal position, often in broad terms and tends towards uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of the topic.
Generally competent writing.
Intermittent lapses from standard spelling and syntax.
Presentation is generally acceptable as is the format and bibliographical status.
Average 50-56% Generally addresses the case, sometimes addresses irrelevant issues.
Demonstrates the ability to consider issues effectively, although does not always do so.
Relevance to practice is addressed, but may be implicit in places. Adequate knowledge of a limited range of relevant theoretical and practice related material with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance. Some evidence of analytical ability.
Intermittent passages of descriptive or narrative material, which lacks clear analytical purpose.
Conclusions are not always clear and logical. Reasonable to attempt to construct an argument is evident.
Occasionally lacks clarity and coherence. Largely derivative.
Attempts to present a personal view, but only in broad terms.
Is largely uncritical and conforms to one or more standard views. Generally competent writing although intermittent lapses from standard syntax and spelling and pose occasional obstacles for the reader.
Format and bibliography is generally error free and acceptable.
Below Average 41-49% Some degree of irrelevance to the case.
Superficial consideration of the issues.
Relevance to practice tends towards superficiality and largely implicit. Basic understanding of a limited range of relevant theoretical and practice related material.
Little appreciation of its significance Largely descriptive or narrative in style with limited evidence of analytical capability.
Conclusions are not always clear or logical
.
Some attempt to construct an argument is evident but it lacks in sufficient clarity and coherence.
Issues at stake are only vaguely stated. Almost wholly derivative.
No personal view is adequately formulated
Wholly uncritical and conforming to one or more standard views. Style of presentation, syntax, spelling and format all pose obstacles for the reader.
Nevertheless, meaning is clear and bibliographical apparatus acceptable.
Bare Pass 40% Some significant degree of irrelevance to the case is common.
Only the most obvious issues are addressed at a superficial level and in unchallenging terms.
Relevance to practice is superficially addressed and rarely made explicit. A limited understanding of a narrow range of relevant theoretical and practice related material.
Little appreciation of its significance to practice.
Clearly lacks awareness of the significance of knowledge. Heavy dependence on description and/or narrative.
Paraphrase is common.
Analysis is superficial and sparse.
Clear and logical conclusions are sparse A basic argument is evident but tends to be supported by assertion and lacks proper development.
Coherence and clarity are evident only intermittently. Almost wholly derivative.
The writer’s contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase.
No evidence of personal thought. Style of presentation makes reading difficult.
Deficiencies in spelling, syntax of format impact significantly upon clarity.
Bibliographical apparatus is acceptable.
Fail 0-39% Relevance to the case is intermittent or missing.
The topic is reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms.
Relevance to practice is barely considered or not at all. Lack of basic knowledge in either or both theory and practice necessary for an understanding of the topic. Inadequate and/or often inaccurate description and paraphrase.
Evidence of analysis is lacking. Little evidence of coherent argument.
There is a lack of development and the work may be repetitive and/or thin. No evidence of personal thought.
Cursory paraphrase or quotation of others. Poorly written with numerous deficiencies in syntax, spelling, expression and presentation.
The writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using simplistic or repetitious style.
Bibliographical apparatus is unacceptable.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|