please make research from books as well
Faculty of Business Sport and Enterprise Southampton Solent University Assessment Brief Assessment Details Unit Title: Wave and Tidal Energy Systems Unit Code: SEF503 Unit Leader: Chris Patterson Level: 5 Assessment Title: Report Assessment Number: AE1 Assessment Type: Assignment Restrictions on Time/Length : 1500 words Individual/Group: Individual Assessment Weighting (%): 40 Issue Date: 5th April 2019 Hand In Date: 3rd May 2019 Planned Feedback Date: 31st May 2019 Mode of Submission: Online Submission Number of copies to be submitted: 1 Anonymous Marking This assessment will : be anonymously marked Assessment Task Please see briefing document Assessment Criteria Please see briefing document Learning Outcomes Practical and Professional Skills P1 Demonstrate the application of practical skills and techniques within a laboratory, workshop or industry environment. P2 Evaluate critically the practical application of emerging technology based on a systematic review of relevant technical literature. Cognitive Skills C3 Research and analyse practical projects, including workplace projects and realise creative and effective design solutions to complex problems through the synthesis of ideas from a wide range of sources. Extenuating Circumstances The University’s Extenuating Circumstances procedures are in place if there are genuine circumstances that may have affected your academic performance. Remember however you need to be ‘fit to study’, this means that you can either submit your assessed work or declare extenuating circumstances, but you cannot do both. A summary of guidance notes for students is given below: http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234570925 Academic Misconduct Any submissions must be your own work and, where facts or ideas have been used from other sources, these sources must be appropriately referenced. The University’s Academic Handbook, includes the definitions of all practices that will be deemed to constitute academic misconduct. You should check this link before submitting your work. Procedures relating to student academic misconduct are given below: http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234570157 Ethics Policy The work being carried out by the student must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then the student will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project. The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook: http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234569791 Anonymous Marking A copy of the University’s Policy on Anonymous Marking, process details and student guidance on submission sheet completion can be found on the following links, which are also uploaded on the Student Portal. The guidance ‘fact sheet’ will be available at Faculty Reception Points. Policy: http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234574213 Process: http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234574215 Fact Sheet: http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RN=1234574214 Grade marking The University uses a letter grade scale for the marking of assessments. Unless you have been specifically informed otherwise your marked assignment will be awarded a letter grade. More detailed information on grade marking and the grade scale can be found on SOL. The guidance ‘fact sheet’ is available at the Student Hub. Policy: http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234569864 Fact sheet: http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234576014 http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234570925 http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234570157 http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234569791 http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234574213 http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234574215 http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RN=1234574214 http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234569864 http://docman.solent.ac.uk/DocMan8/OCSFile?RNS=1234576014 Assignment Brief: You are to produce a report in the form of a professional consultancy report into one aspect of wave and tidal energy systems. The report should explore one of the following: The potential for wave and/or tidal energy systems to generate power for a particular geographical location of your choosing e.g. the Solent, the Gibraltor Straights, the Isle of Man. The potential of one particular wave or tidal energy system to generate power in suitable locations e.g. a particular tidal stream device proposed or being tested. You should consider how the system would be deployed and associated infrastructure. Your report should be written for a non-specialist reader in the form of a briefing document. The report should consist of: Cover Page including an Executive Summary Contents page Table of figures Introduction – this should give an overview of the location or type of wave/tidal energy device under consideration. Main body of the report divided into appropriate sections Recommendations Conclusions References The report will be marked as per the criteria at the end of this document. The report is worth 40% of the unit marks, and the report should be around 1500 words. Marking Criteria Criteria F3-F2 F1 D C B A4-A3 A2-A1 General layout and professionalism The work is very unprofessional. There is no pagination, sections are missing or not labelled, diagrams are poor and not cross referenced to the text. The overall impression is that very little effort has been made to achieve the learning outcomes. The work is unprofessional. There is no pagination, sections are not clearly labelled, diagrams are poor and not cross referenced to the text. The overall impression is that little effort has been made to achieve the learning outcomes. The quality of work is just adequate. Pagination is used, sections are labelled, figures etc are cross referenced, but the overall impression of the work is amateur. The quality of work gives the impression of competence. Pagination is used, sections are labelled, figures etc are cross referenced, styles and formats are consistent and the overall impression of the work is acceptable but with areas that could be improved. The quality of work gives the impression of professionalism and competence. Pagination is used, sections are labelled, figures etc are cross referenced, styles and formats are consistent and the overall impression of the work is good but with minor areas that could be improved. The work is very good, exceeding undergraduate expectations at this level. The quality is that which would be expected from a professionally commissioned report. The work is exemplary, and is the quality that would be expected from a professionally commissioned report in industry. Descriptive Content The descriptive content is very poor or substantially missing. There is no critical analysis, with the work limited to unconnected and incorrect statements. The descriptive content is poor with some details missing. There is no critical analysis, with the work limited to unconnected statements. The descriptive content is just acceptable. There is very limited critical analysis in small areas, with the work limited to poorly connected but correct factual statements. The descriptive content is acceptable but requires further development. There is some critical analysis in most of the work, with assumptions correctly noted with some discussion. The descriptive is good. There is some critical analysis, discussion of some assumptions, discussion of limitations and an accurate commentary. The descriptive is very good, exceeding undergraduate expectations at this level. There is clear critical analysis, discussion of a range of assumptions, validation of ideas and insightful commentary. The descriptive content is exemplary, and is the quality that would be expected from a professionally commissioned report in industry. There is clear and sustained critical analysis, discussion and analysis of a range of assumptions, validation of ideas and insightful commentary. Referencing References are not used or substantially missing. References have some errors or omissions. References are limited to internet sources and not cross checked. References are include printed and internet sources with little cross-checking. References are good but could be improved with more cross- checking. References are comprehensive and support the work. References are comprehensive and show clear cross- checking and verification.