Assignment:

The assignment has two parts, weighted equally. Part A involves analysing and commenting on the data visualisation of others; part B assesses your ability to select and present data in appropriate form.

Part A. Using any published sources, find two examples of sub-standard data visualisations (charts, graphs, etc.). You  must choose examples so that there are no fewer than three areas of improvement identified. You can use examples of potentially misleading (intentionally or accidentally), incorrect, unethical, or biased data visualisation if  you address the issue(s) in your  discussion.   Explain  how/why  each  of  the  examples   is  sub- standard;  explain  your understanding of the data as it is currently presented, and what reasonable and realistic steps you would take to become better informed.

Note:  the  maximum  word  count for  part A  is  750  words  (excluding  reference  list).  Data visualisation examples must be in English; the examples must be different from the ones discussed in the module.

Part B. Choose ONE of the three following scenarios.

- Assume the role of a new junior research assistant for a small eco-charity. You have been  tasked with writing a short info-piece for general audience on the ecological problems of     [town/city of your choice]. The piece must be of a maximum 750 words and must include 3 charts/diagrams. You need to reference your data and other sources with Harvard

referencing style. Approach this task as if you were in a workplace.

- Assume the role of a new junior research assistant in an international media (films, TV

shows, videogames, etc.) production & distribution company. You have been tasked with    writing a short 750 words with 3 diagrams/charts presentation about the current situation   on the market [you will need to choose any media market in any country of your choice] for the next meeting of assistant directors and prospective clients. You need to reference your    data and other sources with Harvard referencing style. Approach this task as if you were in a workplace.

- Assume the role of a new junior research assistant working for a TV news desk. The high- profile show presenters have asked you to prepare a short 750 words, 3 charts/diagrams info- sheet about the inflation in a country [of your choice] before the next show. You need to reference your data and other sources with Harvard referencing style. Approach this task as if you were in a workplace.

Note: the maximum word count for part B is 750 words (excluding reference list). You are advised to think carefully about which data are needed and how to present it in the most effective way. Remember that this is a data visualisation task, so the charts and figures you produce are very important.  You must produce your own data  visualisations  (rather than copying other sources). You also should bear in mind the audience of this report.

Referencing : you must adhere to usual referencing style (Harvard) within-text references and a list of references at the end. Note that you will have to reference the data sources for parts A & B. This referencing requirement may be different from what you would expect in part B, but for the  purposes  of this  assignment  you  must  adhere  to  the  standards  of academic referencing regardless.

Module Learning Outcomes:

In this assessment the following learning outcomes will be covered:

LO  2.  Apply  reflective  practice to  their  own  personal,  academic,  and  professional development.

LO 3. Demonstrate an ability to use numerical data in an economic context being aware of professional ethics standards.

Grading Criteria (step marking is applied):

Marking criteria for part A:

- The  choice  of  examples  is  appropriate:  each  of  the  two  examples  has  no  fewer  than  three  areas  of improvement; the examples / areas of improvement are not too simplistic and correctly identified.

- The explanation of the current understanding, including the points of confusion/lack of information is based on the presented visualization; the suggested further steps are reasonable and realistic (e.g. it is not realistic to suggest a new data collection).

For this task, we will use stepped increments: 100, 80, 60, 40, 20 and 0.

Outstanding (100%): The data report is extremely well written, with a clear structure. The choice of examples is appropriate and the examples / areas of improvement are not too simplistic and correctly identified. The explanation of the current understanding is based on the presented visualization and the suggested further steps are reasonable and realistic. Concepts from lectures are applied well. The word limit is respected.

Excellent (80%): The data report is well written, with a clear structure but perhaps lacks focus in places. The choice of examples is appropriate and the examples / areas of improvement are somewhat simplistic and correctly identified. The explanation of the current understanding is based on the presented visualization; the suggested further steps  are  reasonable  and  realistic  but  may  have  excess  description  and/or  lack  critical analysis. Concepts from lectures are applied. The word limit is respected.

Good (60%): The data report is relatively well written and presented, but either lacks structure, contains some poorly formulated sentences. The choice of examples is appropriate but the examples / areas of improvement are simplistic with some errors in identification. The explanation of the current understanding is based on the presented visualization; the suggested further steps are somewhat reasonable and realistic. The piece is well presented, follows the guidance and advice (as above), but may have excess description and/or lack critical analysis. Responses that exceed the word limit will not score higher than 60.

Acceptable (40%): The data report could be improved in terms of writing style, presentation and/or structure. It does not follow the guidance and advice (as above). The report is almost entirely descriptive with little or no critical analysis. Advice  has  not  been followed. The  choice of examples  is somewhat appropriate and the explanation of the current understanding are somewhat reasonable and realistic.

Poor (20%): The data report is poorly written, too short, does not address the substance of the question or provides a very weak description of experiences. The choice of examples is not appropriate and the explanation of the current understanding are neither reasonable or realistic.

Fail (0%): The data report is of no value and does not address the question at all. Naturally, 0 will also be awarded if the data report is not submitted

Marking criteria for part B:

-      The writing style is clear, written in the formal English, and appropriate for the specified audience and to  meet  the  assessment  guidance.  The  referencing  style  and  the  choice  of  the  data  sources  is appropriate; no fewer than 5 and no more than 10 sources should be included.

-      The diagrams/charts are constructed well and match both the data and the audience/aim of the piece. The diagrams are both presented well (positioned well on the page/in the text, clear, well- labelled, with appropriate colour scheme, referenced, etc.) and useful (choice of data to present, including timeline; choice of type of chart/diagram; any creative elements, etc.) to address the task.

-      The text needs is coherent, focused on the question/task (e.g. introduction and conclusions are not needed); the diagrams are clearly referred to and used  in the text.

Outstanding (100%): The writing style is extremely clear, written in the formal English, and appropriate for the specified audience and to meet the assessment guidance. The referencing style and the choice of the data sources is appropriate; no fewer than 5 and no more than 10 sources should be included. The diagrams/charts are extremely well constructed and match both the data and the audience/aim of the piece. The diagrams are both presented extremely well to address the task. The text needs is coherent, focused on the question/task; the diagrams are clearly referred to and used in the text. The word limit is respected.

Excellent (80%): The writing style is very clear, written in the formal English, and appropriate for the specified audience and to meet the assessment guidance. The referencing style and the choice of the data sources is appropriate; no fewer than 5 and no more than 10 sources should be included. The diagrams/charts are very well constructed and match both the data and the audience/aim of the piece. The diagrams are both presented very well to address the task. The text needs is coherent, focused on the question/task; the diagrams are clearly referred to and used in the text but may have excess description and/or lack critical analysis. The word limit is respected.

Good (60%): The writing style is clear, written in the formal English, and appropriate for the specified audience and to meet the assessment guidance. The referencing style and the choice of the data sources is appropriate but with some errors and sourcing requirement not fully met. The diagrams/charts match both the data and the audience/aim of the piece but not well constructed. The diagrams are both presented to address the task. The text needs is somewhat coherent but not always focused on the question/task; the diagrams are not always clearly referred to and used in the text and may have excess description and/or lack critical analysis. Responses that exceed the word limit will not score higher than 60.

Acceptable (40%): The data report could be improved in terms of writing style, presentation and/or structure. It does not follow the guidance and advice (as above). The report is almost entirely descriptive with little or no critical analysis. Advice has not been followed. The diagrams/charts does not adequately match both the data and the audience/aim of the piece. The diagrams presented does not fully address the task. The text needs is somewhat coherent and not always focused on the question/task

Poor (20%): The data report is poorly written, too short, does not address the substance of the question or provides a very weak description of experiences. The diagrams/charts do not match both the data and the audience/aim of the piece. The diagrams presented do not address the task. The text needs is incoherent and is not focused on the question/task.

Fail (0%): The data report is of no value and does not address the question at all. Naturally, 0 will also be awarded if the data report is not submitted