|
Module Code and Title: |
MM9831 - Circular Economy & Resource Recovery from Waste |
|
Assignment Title: |
Applying the InteRa Methodology |
|
Assignment Type: |
Summative |
|
Assignment Weighting |
30% of Module marks |
|
Word Limit |
Provide guidance on the word limit for the assessment and any penalties for exceeding the work count |
|
Set Date |
08/03/2023 |
|
Submission Date: |
Submit your 2 pieces by: 15/03/2023 – 20:00 GMT Please note that you cannot change the presentations after submitting. Presentations: 16/03/2023 – 9:00-12:00 GMT. All team members should present, and presentations are in person. |
|
Submission Method: |
On-line, via the VLE, one submission by each group, each group leader is responsible for submitting, 2 attempts to submit (in case anything goes wrong in the first attempt). |
|
Feedback Date: |
First part: Oral after the presentations on 16/03. Second part: Written as comments on the two submission documents by 31/03. |
|
Type of Feedback: |
See above. |
Rationale
In this assignment, you are asked to demonstrate comprehensive understanding and tangible skills relevant to the most important aspect of circular economy and resources recovery across the Global South: Materials recycling, as performed by informal recycling sector (IRS, waste pickers). IRS possibly accounts for more than half of all the martial recycled globally, and it features tens of millions of workers who work under sub-optimal conditions and are vulnerable on multiple levels. They are often subject to external organisations interventions, being state- philanthropy- or technical assistance- / capacity building-led. It is critical for implementing a sustainable circular economy in the Global South to be able to correctly assess on a systems level the role of any IRS recycling case and the overall performance of any intervention initiative that may attempt to include/ formalise or exclude them. This can be achieved by applying the Integration Radar (InteRa) methodology.
Learning outcomes being assessed
This course work is directly assessing the module learning outcome 2: “Able to apply engineering techniques and design system-level interventions, taking into account the commercial, industrial and regulatory constraints and the social context of the challenge at hand, as applicable to circular economy of solid waste”. And part of the learning outcome 3: “Apply relevant problem solving and communication skills in specific cases […]”.
Assignment Guidance
This is a group project. There are 6 groups. The groups you are assigned to are listed in the VLE / opening presentation (L01) / MS TEAMS channels. Allocation into these groups was random.
Within each team: Select a case study of waste pickers operating anywhere in the Global South. In your case study, you should assess the baseline situation. Collect, review and critically analyse information and apply the InteRa methodology to assess the existing situation, using the spreadsheet tool. To this each team has to submit two pieces:
Submission piece 1: MSExcel spreadsheet, containing the scores, and full justification of these scores for all the 4 interfaces. State any assumptions, explain any calculations, and cite any literature sources.
Submission piece 2: Present your results, discussion and conclusions in an MsPowerPoint presentation. You are expected to outline the wider relevant context (2 slides) of the country/ city where the case study takes place. Provide a generic description of the waste picker activities (2 slides). Summarise your findings for each of the 4 interfaces (1 slide each) and how does these compare (radar diagram) (1 slide). Reach conclusions on which are the well-performing (1 slide) and the most problematic aspects (1 slide) of the case study. Compare and contrast with other case studies around the world (1 slide). Supported by all evidence and insights, suggest 3 most important changes that should be prioritised as the next step towards an all stakeholders win-win integration of the waste pickers (1 slide).
Assessment Criteria and process
Generic assessment criteria as applicable to EPS Faculty apply for this assignment.
|
Aspect of Assignment |
Low score (0-3) |
Medium score (4-6) |
High score (7-10) |
|
Submission piece 1 |
|||
|
Quality of technical content: completeness of application of methodology – 6% |
Evidence not provided for all ‘specific actions’. Mixing of own judgement with literature. Not citing for sources of information. Not sufficient evidence provided to support scoring. Assumptions / calculations / extrapolations not stated. |
Clear differentiation between your judgement and information from literature sources. |
Extensive relevant evidence per specific action, based on literature and assumptions / judgements. Crystal clear what is literature what is your own overall judgement. All assumptions stated. |
|
Quality of technical content: correctness of application of methodology – 6% |
Weak logical reasoning and logical errors. Inconsistency between scoring and evidence provided. Poor understanding and use of technical terms. |
Good logical reasoning with minimal errors in rationale. Agreement between evidence and scoring, but with some uncertainty. Largely correct use of technical terms. |
Great logical reasoning demonstrating understanding of technical terms and the methodological steps and purpose. Critical appreciation of information. Consistency between evidence and scoring. Precise use of technical terms. |
|
Formatting suitable for technical communication – 3% |
Poorly formatted: Typos throughout and sentences that do not make sense. Inconsistently formatted in-text citations and list of. Makes it hard to follow the evidence. |
Some good formatting: Minimal typos. Clarity of expression that allows to follow logical arguments. Minimal errors in citations formatting. Can follow the evidence, but with some effort. |
Excellent formatting: No typos, formatting consistency throughout the document, plain technical expression allowing for effortless appreciation of the technical content. Citations to publication standard. |
|
Submission piece 2 and its presentation |
|||
|
Generic presentation skills – 3% |
Not audible, no eye contact, no awareness or control over body language. Problematic transition between speakers / slides. |
Well audible, with good eye contact, and obvious awareness of and control over body language. Smooth transitions. |
Brilliant delivery using body language to enhance the technical message and fully engage the audience in the process. Excellent, effortless transitions between slides. |
|
Technical content of presentation – 3% |
Less than the slides expected in briefing. Variables, precision and units incomplete. Technical terms inaccurately used
Poor synthesis of evidence and comparisons |
All slides expected in briefing. Variables, precision and units complete, with minor errors / inconsistencies. Technical terms largely used accurately. Good synthesis of evidence and comparisons |
All slides expected in briefing with core technical information.
Variables, precision and units complete, without any errors / inconsistencies. Technical terms used accurately. Comprehensive multi-faceted synthesis of evidence and insightful comparisons. |
|
Structure of presentation – 2% |
Inconsistent slide flow. Cannot follow a narrative. |
Consistent overall narrative and slide flow. |
Consistent overall narrative and slide flow, indicating logical progress and progressively synthesising evidence in the conclusions. |
|
Formatting of presentation – 3% |
Scientific / technical communications standards of diagrams not met. No overall slide formatting. Too much text on slides. Confusing arrangement of features on the slide. |
Scientific / technical communications standards of diagrams met. Consistent and aesthetically pleasing slide formatting. Enabling technical facts communication. |
Diagrams and wider visual communication of outstanding professional level and in line with scientific technical communications standards of met. Graphic design level formatting, enabling smooth and engaging presentation. |
|
Keeping the time – 2% |
Delay over 1 minute. |
+/- 1 minute from 12 minutes. |
Make good use of all 12 minutes. |
|
Answering technical questions – 2% |
Not answering question asked / not comprehensible / not audible / rambling. |
Good answer to question asked / fully comprehensible / audible / concise. |
Spot on answer with correct technical content and succinct. |
All key background material needed is provided in the VLE and explained in class CW-01 Session.
You may also find useful the University guidance on skills and on academic writing / presentation: https://library.leeds.ac.uk/skills.
For delayed team submissions, there will be a penalty for the mark (10% per each delay day).
All assessment will be second marked.
There will be peer-assessment within each group, using the on-line toolkit Buddycheck available to the University. Details will be provided just after the submission of the coursework. Individual marks will be obtained based on the team mark and the peer assessment.
Assessment Rubric/Grid
The assessment rubric/grid for the assessment must be provided to students – this can be included at the end of the assessment brief or a link can be provided to Minerva
The 30% marls are allocated as follows:
15% for content, judged on quality of technical content (12%) and formatting (3%), assessed from the Submission piece 1.
15% for your presentation skills, assessed only by your presentation performance, including: Technical content of presentation (3%); generic presentation skills (2%); structure (2%) and formatting of presentation (2%); keeping the time – 12 minutes maximum (2%); and, answering technical questions (2%).
Maximum presentation time is strictly 12 minutes, followed by 3 mins Q&A. Please provide concise and to the point answers.
For any enquiries please contact: Module convener: Dr Costas Velis: [email protected] and CC. Mr Ed Cook: [email protected]
版权所有：编程辅导网 2021 All Rights Reserved 联系方式：QQ:99515681 微信：codinghelp 电子信箱：99515681@qq.com
免责声明：本站部分内容从网络整理而来，只供参考！如有版权问题可联系本站删除。
