Final Assignmen: Conservation Proposal

Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

Final Assignmen: Conservation Proposal

•     Identify the most relevant SDGs that will be addressed through this conservation proposal and provide a well-structured justification of how each SDG is addressed.

Deliverables

Your submission should include:

•     Please include your name, student ID, course name, and course number on the cover page. Each page must display your name, student ID, and page number in the footer.

•     The name and location of the building, with photographs that you have taken, showing its context and surrounding environment. Photographs from other sources will not be accepted.

•     Information about the surrounding environment, including nearby buildings, landscape features, proximity to natural water sources, slope of land, neighbouring industries, and  any activities that might affect the building. Include photos or sketches for key areas. All photos and sketches must be your own work.

•     A brief description of the building, its current use, and a statement of significance that clearly articulates how the character defining elements contribute to this significance, supported by archival research and appropriate sources.

• Photographs and drawings of your selected CDEs and identified defects, with proper markup (including date and time of recording defects).

•     All references to external documents must be correctly cited using MLA or Harvard citation style.

Mapping Assignment Components to Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) and Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

Marking Criteria (Letter Grades)

A (Excellent)

• Selection & Survey: Building selection is justified; survey is thorough, detailed, and contextual; risks are clearly identified and assessed.

• Conservation Philosophy: Clear, well-articulated philosophy, deeply connected to the building context and international/local best practice.

• Retention of Significance: CDEs are expertly identified; policies are clear, feasible, and well-rationalized; guidelines are actionable and referenced to relevant charters/standards.

• Remedial Recommendations: Defects are precisely documented; remedial policies are appropriate, innovative, and minimize impact on heritage significance; guidelines are clear and practical.

• SDG Mapping: The SDGs are relevant and the manner in which this conservation proposal will support the achievement of the SDGs is well justified and clearly articulated, demonstrating innovation, imagination and critical thinking.

• References: All sources cited accurately; excellent integration of archival research.

• Presentation: Exceptionally clear, logical, well-organized, with high-quality visuals; professional language and format; consistent use of terminology.

• Engagement: Deep engagement with heritage values, ethics, and policy frameworks; critical reflection evident.

• Correspondence to CLOs/PLOs: Addresses all outcomes at a high level.

B (Good)

• Selection & Survey: Well-chosen building; survey covers key aspects and context; risks identified.

• Conservation Philosophy: Philosophy is stated and linked to approach.

• Retention of Significance: CDEs are relevant; policies mostly clear and rationalized; guidelines are actionable and reference key charters/standards.

• Remedial Recommendations: Defects documented; remedial policies are appropriate; guidelines provided.

• SDG Mapping: The SDGs are mostly relevant, and the manner in which this

conservation proposal will support the achievement of the SDGs is justified, however the approach is not innovative and does not clearly demonstrate thoughtful and critical inquiry.

• References: Sources cited correctly; research supports arguments.

• Presentation: Clear and organized; good use of visuals and terminology.

• Engagement: Good engagement with heritage values and policy frameworks.

• Correspondence to CLOs/PLOs: Addresses all outcomes well.

C (Satisfactory)

• Selection & Survey: Building selection adequate; survey covers basic requirements; risks mentioned.

• Conservation Philosophy: Philosophy present but may lack depth or clarity.

• Retention of Significance: CDEs identified; policies are basic and rationale may be underdeveloped; guidelines may lack specificity.

• Remedial Recommendations: Defects identified; remedial policies are simplistic or generic; guidelines present but may lack detail.

• SDG Mapping: The SDGs is partially relevant, but the manner in which this conservation proposal will support the achievement of the SDGs is not well justified; lacks innovation and does not demonstrate thoughtful and critical inquiry.

• References: Some sources cited; research is sufficient but not comprehensive.

• Presentation: Generally clear; some issues with organization or visuals.

• Engagement: Engagement with values/policies is present but may be superficial.

• Correspondence to CLOs/PLOs: Addresses most outcomes adequately.

D (Pass,)

• Selection & Survey: Basic building selection and survey; minimal context or risk assessment.

• Conservation Philosophy: Philosophy is vague or poorly articulated.

• Retention of Significance: CDEs identified; policies and rationale are unclear or lacking; guidelines incomplete.

• Remedial Recommendations: Defects listed; remedial policies lack relevance or depth; guidelines minimal.

• SDG Mapping: The selection of SDGs are not very relevant, and the justification for the achievement of the SDGs through this conservation proposal is weak, there is no innovation or thoughtful and critical inquiry.

• References: Few sources cited; research is weak.

• Presentation: Organization or clarity lacking; visuals may be missing or poor quality.

• Engagement: Minimal engagement with heritage values or policy frameworks.

• Correspondence to CLOs/PLOs: Only basic outcomes addressed.

F (Fail)

• Selection & Survey: Building not selected from list or survey missing/inadequate.

• Conservation Philosophy: Philosophy missing or irrelevant.

• Retention of Significance: CDEs not identified or policies missing; guidelines absent.

• Remedial Recommendations: Defects and policies not addressed; guidelines absent.

• SDG Mapping: The selection of SDGs are not relevant or missing, justification for the achievement of the SDGs through this conservation proposal is incorrect, there is no innovation or thoughtful and critical inquiry.

• References: No sources cited; research absent.

• Presentation: Disorganized, unclear, or incomplete; visuals absent.

• Engagement: No engagement with heritage values or policy frameworks.

• Correspondence to CLOs/PLOs: Outcomes not addressed.