MOD009379 Principles of International Project Management Assessment 010 Brief 2026 | a.r.u
ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS
|
Assessment: |
Practical – Individual Presentation (Serbia Primary Education Project) |
|
Assessment code: |
010 |
|
Trimester: |
3 |
|
Module Title: |
Principles of International Project Management |
|
Module Code: |
MOD009379 |
|
Level: |
7 |
|
Module Leader: |
Titus Kehinde Olaniyi |
|
Weighting: |
40% |
|
Time Limit: |
9 minutes, or equivalent, per student |
|
Assessed Learning Outcomes: |
Knowledge and Understanding: 1. Analyse the business environment(s), and their governance, within which projects are formulated and the importance of aligning project scope with business need. Intellectual, practical, effective and transferable skills 4. Demonstrate a critical awareness of how ‘management by project’ within business is conducted and how project management professionalism adds value to an enterprise. |
|
Assessment Date: |
Please refer to the deadline on the VLE |
YOUR PRESENTATION:
- Must be completed individually.
- No extensions are available for this assessment.
- Exceptional Circumstances: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team – DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. See rules 6.112 6.141: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
- Each Student has a maximum of 9 minutes to present.
- If using slides when presenting, you must include your name and student ID number on each slide.
SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
The assessment will be evaluated on the content of your presentation. Your presentation MUST be prepared using Microsoft PowerPoint software submitted electronically with the file name as follows: MOD9379, Group Number, First Name, Last Name, Student ID, Campus ID.
ASSESSMENT TASKS
Background:
UCL Institute of Education, (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/), is generally recognised as one of the best Universities for teacher training. For this assessment, you will assume the role of a faculty member of UCL’s Department of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/departments-and-centres/curriculum-pedagogy-and-assessment), who through the UCL Consultants’, (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/consultants/work-ucl-consultants), Service wish to bid for the ‘Serbia Inclusive Primary Education Improvement Project’.
(see page 6 of the Serbia Project overview on the VLE (and also available at https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/document-detail/P181557?type=projects).The Association for Project Management, (APM), asserts that appropriate contract management should be a proactive process that critically evaluate the impact of size, complexity, and significance of a project on managing contract performance
You are required to deliver a 9-minutes in-person oral presentation through with use of power-point to the leadership team of UCL Consultants, covering the following tasks:
Task 1: Contract management / Capability development
Review the profile of UCL’s Department of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment and critique their ability to deliver the proposed work, clearly showing both the strengths and gaps in the firm’s capabilities.
(40 Marks)
Task 2: Governance arrangements / Communication management
(a)Propose a governance structure for UCL’s Department of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment relating to their delivery of the consultancy work clearly showing both the internal lines of reporting within the company and the line(s) of reporting into the client Serbia Ministry of Education.
You should assume that the project is co-sponsored by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia ministry’s Assistant Minister for Preschool and Primary Education and the ministry’s Assistant Minister of Finance; (See https://prosveta.gov.rs/o-ministarstvu/, and also available on the VLE).
(20 Marks)
(b)Critique some of the benefits of your proposed governance structure, discussing any possible challenges, considering the contract delivery context.
(20 Marks)
Task 3: Ethics, compliance, and professionalism / Professional presentation
(a)Introduction (setting the scene for the board, including a broad outline of the main and subsidiary aspects of the presentation).
(10 Marks)
(b)Presentation (content, style, professionalism, creativity, and cohesion).
(10 Marks)
Total: 100 Marks.
Do You Need Help with MOD009379 Assessment 010: Practical – Individual Presentation?
Order Non Plagiarized Assignment
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Your presentation consists of two elements:
1.Appropriate slides developed using presentation software such as Microsoft PowerPoint, Google Slides, Apple Keynote, Prezi, Canva, etc. The deck of slides must be uploaded to TurnitIn by the submission due date, indicated on the VLE.
You will not be able to present orally if you have not uploaded your deck of slides to Turnitin by the submission due date., and therefore yours will be recorded as a failed attempt.
2.In-person oral presentation, with time to answer questions, The date for the oral presentation will be posted on the VLE.
It is suggested that you use the available time of 9 minutes as follows:
oPresentation (using slides) 6 minutes
oQuestion and answer session 3 minutes
BE WARNED THAT YOU HAVE NO ETHICAL APPROVAL TO, AND THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT, CONTACT ANY ORGANISATION, OR PERSONELL WORKING IN ORGANISATIONS METIONED IN AID OF COMPLETING THIS ASSIGNMENT
THE TIME LIMIT FOR YOUR PRESENTATION WILL BE STRICTLY APPLIED, AND YOU WILL BE STOPPED IF YOU REACH THE ALLOWED MAXIMUM TIME
Your presentation will be marked and graded with reference to Table 1.
READING REQUIREMENT
Required reading for the assignment includes APMBOK7 & APMBOK8, APM Competency framework (2023) and other core reading texts for the module plus a minimum of ten researched academic sources.
Note the following are links to information, that is critical to completing the assignment.
- UCL’s Department of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/departments-and-centres/curriculum-pedagogy-and-assessment)
- UCL Consultants’, (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/consultants/work-ucl-consultants)
- Serbia Inclusive Primary Education Improvement Project overview, (https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/document-detail/P181557?type=projects).
- Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia Delivery, (https://prosveta.gov.rs/o-ministarstvu/,)
Table 1: ASSESMENT MARKING AND GRADING RUBRIC (Also see Table 2)
The work will be assessed in an integrative manner as indicated in the marking rubric that is consistent with Anglia Ruskin University generic assessment criteria and marking standards
|
GRADE à .
CRITERIA ↓ |
0 – 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills., inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 – 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 – 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 – 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 – 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
|
Task 1 Demonstrate an understanding of the client organisation and their ability to deliver the case study project work, clearly critiquing both their strengths and challenges (in terms of upside /downside risks). |
The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student did not submit the correct content or practically demonstrate an understanding of the topic. There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed only to an inadequate degree and there was inadequate evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student demonstrated only inadequate or inappropriate knowledge of the topic. There is Inadequate use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed to a limited degree. For example, the student demonstrated only limited understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is limited use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is limited knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is descriptive but may be able to list several relevant concepts. |
The task was followed to a sound degree. For example, the student demonstrated sound understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is sound use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is sound knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is somewhat descriptive, but able to evidence understanding of several relevant concepts. |
Good knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with good secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is good use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is good knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies analysis and evaluation of scenario data (or data derived therefrom) and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Excellent knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with excellent secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is an excellent use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is excellent knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scenario data and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Outstanding knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task with evident originality and autonomy of research skills. There is an outstanding use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. The work exceeds the taught material in many areas, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses. |
Exceptional knowledge base of their discipline with extraordinary originality and autonomy.
There is exceptional use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and develop detailed solutions and recommend course(s) of action
The work significantly exceeds the taught material, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses, recognising anomalies. |
|
40 Marks |
0-11 |
12-15 |
16-19 |
20-23 |
24-27 |
28-31 |
32-35 |
36-40 |
|
GRADE à . CRITERIA ↓ |
0 – 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills., inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 – 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 – 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 – 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 – 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
|
Task 2
Demonstrate an understanding of corporate and project governance and the inter-relationship between the two including lines of reporting. |
The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student did not submit the correct content or practically demonstrate an understanding of the topic. There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed only to an inadequate degree and there was inadequate evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. For example, the student demonstrated only inadequate or inappropriate knowledge of the topic. There is Inadequate use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed to a limited degree. For example, the student demonstrated only limited understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is limited use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is limited knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is descriptive but may be able to list a number of relevant concepts. |
The task was followed to a sound degree. For example, the student demonstrated sound understanding of or research into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is sound use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is sound knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is somewhat descriptive, but able to evidence understanding of several relevant concepts. |
Good knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with good secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is good use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is good knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies analysis and evaluation of scenario data (or data derived therefrom) and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Excellent knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task, with excellent secondary research, into the topic area through several appropriate sources. There is an excellent use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. There is excellent knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work applies comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scenario data and presents clear and appropriate conclusions. |
Outstanding knowledge of the tools / techniques required to undertake the task with evident originality and autonomy of research skills. There is an outstanding use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and present appropriate responses. The work exceeds the taught material in many areas, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses. |
Exceptional knowledge base of their discipline with extraordinary originality and autonomy.
There is exceptional use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario and develop detailed solutions and recommend course(s) of action
The work significantly exceeds the taught material, demonstrating intellectual originality. Work is able to analyse and evaluate the scenario data, and creatively synthesise predictive hypotheses, recognising anomalies. |
|
40 Marks |
0-11 |
12-15 |
16-19 |
20-23 |
24-27 |
28-31 |
32-35 |
36-40 |
|
GRADE à . CRITERIA ↓ |
0 – 29: No, or at best little, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills. No, or at best, little demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
030- 39: Inadequate, evidence of knowledge. Of key issues/concepts/ethics , research skills and academic / intellectual skills., inadequate demonstration of expressive, Team/ practical/ professional skills. |
40 – 49: Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. The work is fairly descriptive. . Team/Practical/Profes sional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions.: |
50 – 59: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive but has some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. |
60 – 69: Good analysis-consistent use of scholarly conventions.: Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills.: |
70 – 79: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigor and consistency.: Excellent Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and intellectual rigour. |
80 - 89: Outstanding analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Outstanding Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
90 - 100: Exceptional analysis: work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.: Exceptional Academic /Expressive /professional skills and creativity |
|
Task 3 (a) Setting the scene: Introduction (setting the scene for, and presenting a broad outline of, the presentation |
The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. Scene setting is confusing, irrelevant, or overly brief. Audience struggles to connect. There is little to no knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed only to an inadequate degree and scene-setting is vague or minimally descriptive. minimally relevant or weak transition into content. Audience interest may not be captured. There is inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
The task was followed to a limited degree. Scene-setting is such that context is understandable but underdeveloped. Limited audience engagement. Transition feels functional rather than smooth. There is limited knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. Work is descriptive but may be able to list several relevant concepts. |
The task was followed to a sound degree. Scene-setting provides context but is somewhat generic or lacks descriptive richness. Connection to audience and transition to the main presentation is moderate. There is sound knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
Good scene-setting. Presentation includes good and clear and relevant detail, although at times there is lack of compelling detail. Transition into the main body could be smoother. There is good knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
Excellent scene-setting. is clear and contains excellent detail, engages audience although some elements could be stronger. There is excellent knowledge of key issues / concepts of the discipline. |
Outstanding Scene-setting is highly engaging and relevant, with strong descriptive elements. Smooth transition into main content, minor room for enhancement. The work exceeds the taught material in many areas, demonstrating intellectual originality. |
Exceptional and masterful scene-setting. The presentation is fully relevant and engaging. Details create a strong sense of the content of the forthcoming presentation, and there is seamlessly transition into the main content, The work significantly exceeds the taught material, demonstrating intellectual originality. |
|
10 Marks |
0-2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9-10 |
|
Task 3 (b) Presentation (content, style, professionalism, creativity, and cohesion). Use of academic conventions: E x a m p l e s i n c l u d e t h e u s e of recognized academic conventions including in-text citations. |
The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. There is little or no use of academic conventions such as Harvard referencing, naming, and referencing tables and figures. |
The task was followed only to an inadequate degree and there was inadequate evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. There is Inadequate use of academic conventions such as Harvard referencing, naming, and referencing tables and figures. |
Limited to satisfactory use of recognized academic conventions e.g., not all claims have referenced citations. |
Adequate to satisfactory use of recognized academic conventions e.g., not all claims have referenced citations |