Hertfordshire Law School
Coursework Assessments
Level 7
2021-22
Contents
How to Submit. 3
1.1. Presentation 3
1.2. Page Limit 3
1.3. Late Submission 3
1.4. Referencing 4
1.5. Extensions 5
1.6. Serious Adverse Circumstances 5
Results and Feedback 5
Academic Misconduct. 7
Grading Criteria 8
OSCOLA Quick Reference Guide ………11
How to submit:
Written Coursework:
Ensure that you consult the Assessment Details section on your Module for details on individual assessments.
Presentation
The assignment itself must be submitted as a Word document in Arial font size 11 and in double line spacing.
Your name must not appear on your assignment. All assessed coursework is blind marked using your student registration number on your ID card. Your student registration number and module name should appear on every page of your essay and each page should be numbered. This is best achieved by use of the header and footer tool. You are also required to put your student registration number and module title in the file name of your assignment when submitting on Canvas (e.g. Banking Law 14043489.doc).
Work Length
Your assessment has a maximum word limit. Do not exceed the word limit in relation to your answer by more than 10%. Your word count must appear at the end of your work.
Word limits will be strictly applied as you are being assessed on your ability to produce an answer within a proscribed format. Do not exceed the word limit in relation to your answer. Markers will not mark any work that appears beyond the prescribed word count and you will not be given any credit for the additional work.
The word count for coursework will NOT include footnotes or the bibliography. However, footnotes must not be used as a means of circumventing the word count by including material that should be in the body of the answer.
Late Submission of Coursework
Submission deadlines are not flexible. Students should submit their work well in advance of the deadline (ideally several hours) to be sure of a reliable internet connection and sufficient upload time. Work submitted at any point (including seconds) after the deadline is recorded as a late submission on Canvas and will be subject to penalties.
All students must note that failure to submit coursework by the dates and time specified has SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. The penalties for late submission of coursework are as follows:
Unless there are accepted Serious Adverse Circumstances (SAC) or an extension has been given:
For each day or part thereof (or for hard copy submission only, working day or part thereof) for up to five days after the published deadline, coursework relating to modules at Level 7 submitted late (including deferred coursework, but with the exception of referred coursework), will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches or is 50. Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than 50, no lateness penalty will be applied;
Referred coursework submitted after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0).
Coursework (including deferred coursework) submitted later than five days (five working days in the case of hard copy submission) after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0).
(Note for guidance:
For assessments requiring hard copy submission, working day refers to a weekday when the University is open for business, including vacation times)
Referencing
All quotations from or use of other writers’ work must be properly referenced – that is, you must give the author, title, and date of publication of the work concerned, and the page or section number of the passage quoted or cited. Reference style should remain consistent throughout each submitted assignment.
All your assignments should be properly referenced using the OSCOLA Referencing System.
You should include a full bibliography at the end of your work.
Resources
You should make good use of library resources as part of your research to find relevant cases, legislation and authoritative commentary such as monographs and journal articles.
Many of these will be available in the academic and legal databases such as LexisLibrary and Westlaw, but you will also find print and ebooks in Library Search
Link to Legal resources page – https://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/LIS.nsf/lis/law
For guidance in using resources please contact the Information Manager for Law and Criminology – Jane Bilson j.bilson@herts.ac.uk
Turnitin
All written assessments within the School will offer students the opportunity to use Turnitin formatively. This formative Turnitin submission will be limited to one attempt per assignment in line with the University policy which seeks to support the development of students’ academic writing skills and to promote good academic practice.
Turnitin may also be used on individual pieces of work in which plagiarism is suspected, taking account of the level of study, the level of writing maturity expected of the student and the nature of the assignment task.
Extensions
The latest by which you may request an extension is BY 11AM ON THE DAY OF SUBMISSION.
Please follow the instructions at the link below:
https://herts.instructure.com/courses/70457/pages/applying-for-extensions-on-assignments?module_item_id=915722
Do note, if you are requesting either a 7 or 14 day extension, you MUST submit your request AT LEAST ONE DAY BEFORE (24hrs) the day of the original deadline for the assignment in question.
All requests for extensions must be supported with the provision of appropriate evidence. Failure to provide supporting evidence may result in extensions being rejected or retroactive penalties being applied.
All details may be found at the link above or on your module and LLM programme pages.
Extensions are a one-time request. Repeat extension requests for the same assessment will not be considered. Therefore, ensure that you request the relevant period of extension by the deadlines indicated.
Serious Adverse Circumstances
Serious Adverse Circumstances are significant circumstances beyond a student’s control that would have affected your ability to perform to your full potential if you were to sit or submit an assessment at the appointed time. As a general rule, if a student has a valid claim for serious adverse circumstances then they should not sit the affected examination(s) or submit the affected coursework(s). If the Board of Examiners accepts your claim, you will be offered a deferred assessment.
If you sit/submit an assessment, by doing so you are stating that you are fit and well to do so. Therefore, you will not usually be able to claim later that Serious Adverse Circumstances have affected your work/performance.
The serious adverse circumstances form and guidance are available through Ask Herts and on the Exams Office page on Canvas. You can also find the SAC form on the LLM Programme site within Programme Information at link below:
https://herts.instructure.com/courses/70457/pages/submitting-serious-and-adverse-circumstances-for-assignments?module_item_id=1455792
What happens when I submit an assessment?
All work is blind marked.
All work is marked against grading criteria.
Each element of assessment has a marking scheme attached to it to ensure that teams which have more than one marker are marking against objectively determined principles.
Once marked, a sample of the assignments will be internally moderated by at least one other tutor, who has not normally first-marked the work, to ensure that there is consistency in both the mark and the feedback given by all markers.
The module external examiner will moderate the assessment in advance of the Module Board.
In some cases (such as a dissertation), work is double-blind marked meaning that assignments are marked independently by two markers and a final mark is agreed.
Your marked assignment and mark will be returned within four calendar weeks. If there is a delay to this (for example due to marker illness), you will be notified in advance by the Associate Dean of School (Academic Quality Assurance).
All marks are provisional and await confirmation by the relevant Board of Examiners.
If you have any queries about your marked work following its return, please arrange an appointment to speak with the marker in the first instance.
Academic Misconduct
Specific detail relating to academic offences is located in UPRs AS13 and AS14.
Assessment (by examination or coursework) can be stressful but it is part of everyday life for students and most people manage it well. There are a small number who seek to gain an unfair advantage over their fellow students by acts of academic misconduct.
Academic misconduct comes in various forms but the most common are plagiarism (i.e. presenting another person’s work as your own), falsification of data, collusion and cheating.
Plagiarism is presenting another person’s work as your own work (whether intentionally or unintentionally) without acknowledgement of the source. Plagiarism includes copying or paraphrasing work from any published or unpublished source (whether textbook, journal, newspaper, the internet or other electronic media, lecture slides, hand-outs, or a fellow student’s work) and presenting this for assessment without full acknowledgement of the source. Plagiarism will occur if you:
Word for word copy from sources (copy & paste);
Use quotes without the use of quotation marks;
Copy a sentence or paragraph into your assignment and change a few words or phrases (word switch);
Collusion will occur if you work with or assist another student when you are expected to work independently;
The University takes a very dim view of such activity and the penalties can be severe. The best advice is not to do it in the first place. If you are finding a module difficult then speak to one of the teaching staff.
Any finding of misconduct can be recorded on your student record and this can be reported to any professional bodies or in an academic reference.
NB: PLEASE ENSURE YOU HAVE VIEWED VIDEO/QUIZ IN LINK BELOW PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF YOUR COURSEWORK:
Academic Conduct Offences Explained
Grading Criteria
Expectations of written assessments at Level 7:
Presentation & structure
Includes:
Content / Knowledge
Includes:
Breadth / Depth & Integration of Sources
Includes:
Analysis, Synthesis & Evaluation
Includes:
Presentation of References
Includes:
Structure work to review the key issues and/or writers in the areas
Relate this review to the arguments underlying the question
Combine elements in different patterns in a structure which follows development of the argument
Use of legal and academic language to best effect
Present work in an academic format with extensive use of footnotes and well designed formatting
Properly identify all legal or other relevant issues raised by the question
Attach appropriate emphasis to each issue depending upon its significance in the discussion
State the law or other sources accurately and in appropriate detail
Provide a confident evaluation of potentially complex or contradictory issues towards a well reasoned and supported conclusion
Demonstrate an extensive use of primary sources and secondary sources without over-reliance on secondary texts
Aim for a sharply focused evaluation of the issues raised by the question
Integrate supporting material very concisely and relevantly into your argument
Analysis:
Use your material to demonstrate your understanding of the significance of the different issues in the question
Synthesis:
Bring together the competing arguments within the question, providing an overall viewpoint in your conclusion
Evaluation:
Assess the validity of competing arguments, reflect and come to conclusions on the validity of different interpretations or approaches
Use a full range of footnotes to cite your references from a wide range of reading
Ensure an accurate approach to referencing using the full range of resources available within the recommended system
Include all references in your bibliography
Use the OSCOLA referencing system – information available on Studynet under Learning Resources and the Law Subject Toolkit
Key tips:
Ensure your work appears as well presented as possible by comparison with journal articles or other equivalent material you have researched
Spell check your work and check for grammar and sentence construction
Ensure your spell checker is set to English UK
Write in clear English and avoid informal language
Avoid using personal pronouns, e.g. I, We, My.
Avoid inappropriate abbreviations, e.g. Can’t, doesn’t, they’re.
Key tips:
Aim for a balance of appropriate detail highlighting the issues from your sources depending on the significance of the issue to the answer
Aim for both synthesis and evaluation in your answer highlighting and identify any possible approaches to apparently irresolvable issues
Key tips:
For a higher mark you will need to show evidence of extensive reading in primary sources
Research as widely as possible to find relevant material to support your answer outside of those supplied to you through the module
Key tips:
Review the instruction in the Question – synthesis and evaluation are likely to be the main focus
Ensure you address your answer to these aspects
In a problem question scenario, you need to analyse and then bring together the competing arguments for and against the party you are asked to advise by synthesis and evaluation in a comprehensive and detailed conclusion
Key tip:
Avoid plagiarism
Ensure you use the maximum detail of the referencing system, including references quoted in other sources you have used
[The following are guidelines for understanding the marking criteria. They are not definitive. They are intended to clarify the kinds of qualities or failings which examiners look for in the assessment of written work, whatever form it takes, and to provide some indication as to how those relate to the grading process. The examiner will have greater expectations of a student studying at Level 7 and this will be reflected in the precise marking criteria adopted for specific assessments. These guidelines provide some indication of the differentiation between the levels of study. At postgraduate level, students are expected to discuss issues of law in a critical and contextual way. Descriptions of the law will earn no more than a bare pass mark.]
Interpretation of Grade
Written Work Level 7 Grading Criteria
Indicative Classification Descriptor
Numeric Grade (19 point scale)
Grade Point
Grade Descriptor
Presentation & structure
Content / Knowledge
Breadth / Depth & Integration of Sources
Analysis, Synthesis & Evaluation
Presentation of References
Distinction
95
4.5
Outstanding
Outstanding presentation & clarity.
No significant grammatical / spelling errors. Work reads fluently with clear, appropriate structure.
Outstanding exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding. All relevant points have been identified and student may have shown awareness of the wider issues around the topic.
Outstanding breadth & depth of sources used, showing student has read widely on the topic. Outstanding integration of appropriate authoritative sources into work – student has fully engaged with the sources in building an argument/case.
Outstanding level of Analysis, Synthesis & Evaluation.
Highly developed / focused work which has fully engaged with the question and has presented a convincing, well-supported argument.
Outstanding standard of referencing within text with accuracy to those on list.
Accurate list & use of recommended referencing system in footnotes and bibliography, as well as in the main body of the work.
85
Excellent
Excellent structure.
Fluent writing style with very few errors.
Excellent level of knowledge & demonstrated. Covers all relevant points & issues.
Excellent breadth & depth.
Excellent integration of appropriate sources into work to help develop an argument.
Excellent level of Evaluation, Analysis & Synthesis.
Excellent standard of referencing within text with accuracy to those on list.
Accurate list & use of recommended referencing system.
77
4.25
Very good
Very good clear structure.
Articulate & fluent writing style. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes.
Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Key points are identified but some minor issues may not be fully explored or applied
Very good breadth & depth appropriate to topic, some evidence of wider reading.
Sources integrated very well to provide supporting evidence.
Very good level of Evaluation, Analysis & Synthesis but not consistently taken to full extent.
Very good standard of referencing within text with general accuracy to those on list.
Use of recommended referencing system.
72
4.00
Commendation
68
3.75
Good
Good clear presentation & structure with paragraphing.
Writing is mainly clear but some spelling &/ or grammatical errors.
Good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Most major issues explored with some minor aspects not considered
Key sources are identified but limited evidence of wider reading.
Sources may not be fully integrated into the work or may not always be the most authoritative sources.
Good level of Evaluation, Analysis & Synthesis but some issues could be addressed or developed further.
Some minor omissions.
Style may be a little more descriptive.
Consistent standard of referencing within text but may not have fully complied with the recommended referencing system.
65
3.50
62
3.25
Pass
58
3.00
Clear Pass
Reasonable structure. Generally written clearly but there may be occasional grammatical & / or spelling errors.
Reasonable level of knowledge & understanding but with incomplete integration into topic set. A few major issues not fully explored and minor issues omitted.
Reasonable breadth & depth appropriate to topic.
Some additional sources will be mentioned but too much reliance on key cases or textbook.
Reasonable level of Evaluation, Analysis & Synthesis but tends towards the descriptive and a few matters superficially addressed or omitted
Reasonable use of appropriate referencing within text & in the bibliography.
Some inaccuracies in recording.
55
2.75
52
2.50
Not applicable
48
2.25
Marginal Fail
A basic structure.
Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors.
Basic level of knowledge & understanding but with limited integration into topic set. Some major issues not fully explored and minor issues omitted.
Basic breadth & depth appropriate to topic.
Some sources will be mentioned but too much reliance on key cases or textbook.
Basic level of Evaluation, analysis & synthesis, with a number of matters superficially addressed or omitted.
Basic referencing within text & broadly consistent use of referencing system.
Some inaccuracies in recording.
45
2.00
42
1.75
Not applicable
38
1.00
Clear Fail
Weak format, limited or poor structure.
Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors.
Unsatisfactory evidence of knowledge & understanding with limited exploration or omission of the major issues
Limited or muddled understanding of the topic with limited reference to relevant sources with some irrelevant to topic.
Limited evidence of evaluation, analysis & synthesis.
More development & comment needed. Answer generally limited to accurate description.
Use of referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Limited referencing within the text. Limited accuracy of in-text references compared to those in the final Reference list.
35
0.75
32
0.50
25
0.25
Inadequate format & poor paragraphing / signposting.
Inappropriate writing style
Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar.
Inadequate evidence of knowledge & understanding with very limited exploration or omission of the major issues.
Very limited understanding of topic with very limited reference to relevant sources and possible reference to irrelevant sources
Inadequate.
Very limited evidence of evaluation, analysis or synthesis.
Answer generally limited to description, some of which is inaccurate.
Inadequate
Inaccurate use of referencing system or absence of use of system.
10
0.00
Little or Nothing of merit
Nothing of merit.
Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting.
Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar.
Nothing of merit.
No evidence of appropriate knowledge & understanding.
Nothing of merit
No breadth or depth to answer nor reference to relevant sources.
Nothing of merit.
No evidence of evaluation, analysis or synthesis. Question has not been answered.
Nothing of merit
Referencing system was not or very poorly used.
OSCOLA Quick Reference Guide
Primary Sources
Do not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate citations with a semi-colon.
Cases
Give the party names, followed by the neutral citation, followed by the Law Reports citation (eg AC, Ch, QB). If there is no neutral citation, give the Law Reports citation followed by the court in brackets. If the case is not reported in the Law Reports, cite the All ER or the WLR, or failing that a specialist report.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008] 1 AC 884
R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 1031, [2005] QB 410
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)
When pinpointing, give paragraph numbers in square brackets at the end of the citation. If the judgment has no paragraph numbers, provide the page number pinpoint after the court.
Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001] 1 WLR 2112 [42], [45]
Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2006] 3 All ER 336 [1]–[37]
R v Leeds County Court, ex p Morris [1990] QB 523 (QB) 530–31
If citing a particular judge:
Arscott v The Coal Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR 6 [27] (Laws LJ)
Statutes and statutory instruments
Act of Supremacy 1558
Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b)
Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, SI 2004/3166
EU legislation and cases
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13
Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1, art 5
Case C–176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I–7879, paras 47–48
European Court of Human Rights
Omojudi v UK (2009) 51 EHRR 10
Osman v UK ECHR 1998–VIII 3124
Balogh v Hungary App no 47940/99 (ECHR, 20 July 2004)
Simpson v UK (1989) 64 DR 188
Secondary Sources
Books
Give the author’s name in the same form as in the publication, except in bibliographies, where you should give only the surname followed by the initial(s). Give relevant information about editions, translators and so forth before the publisher, and give page numbers at the end of the citation, after the brackets.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (first published 1651, Penguin 1985) 268
Gareth Jones, Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution (1st supp, 7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)
K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, OUP 1998)
Contributions to edited books
Francis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’ in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds), Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (OUP 2006)
Encyclopedias
Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53
Journal articles
Paul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in Public Law’ [2005] PL 440
When pinpointing, put a comma between the first page of the article and the page pinpoint.
JAG Griffith, ‘The Common Law and the Political Constitution’ (2001) 117 LQR 42, 64
Online journals
Graham Greenleaf, ‘The Global Development of Free Access to Legal Information’ (2010) 1(1) EJLT accessed 27 July 2010
Command papers and Law Commission reports
Department for International Development, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2009) ch 5
Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com No 313, 2008) paras 3.12–3.17
Websites and blogs
Sarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’ (Naked Law, 1 May 2009) accessed 19 November 2009
Newspaper articles
Jane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’ Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3
10
The post Hertfordshire Law School Coursework Assessments Level 7 2021-22 Contents How to Submit. appeared first on PapersSpot.