An individual draft of 1000 words has to be written by the individual student. The draft shall outline the fundamental theories and concepts that are relevant to the chosen assignment topic. The draft constitutes a literature review, a brief historical overview of the relevance of the chosen topic and the extent of the current discussion. . The paper shall be formulated in an analytical style which includes mathematical/ quantitative/ and/or graphical representations. The group work also needs to contain empirical analysis to demonstrate the skill of evidence based analysis. The group project needs to be structured to include a list of contents, an introduction, a summary and conclusions, and a bibliography. Further Details: The assignment should follow the following structure: • Introduction – the outline of the paper • Discussion – the body of knowledge ; the purpose & general procedures ; the way study will be conducted; debate • Conclusions/Policy Recommendations – results/outcomes & suggestion of future research • Bibliography or list of references What will be expected in the assignment in ascending order: • Evidence of basic knowledge of the topic • Clarity of expression • Attempt to address the question in the light of the instructions • Use of appropriate theoretical analysis and empirical evidence • Evidence of wide reading • A coherent well developed argument • Some degree of originality of thought How the assignment should be presented: • Title page (student ID or name, title of paper, course code and title, word count) • Pages should be numbered • Section headings should be used • Font size: 12, double spacing • Harvard Referencing Style The table outlines the grading for the group project and is to be used in conjunction with the grade descriptors in the course syllabus. Each student receives an individual grade on the basis of the group project grade and the peer assessment. 1. Introduction • Provides a convincing interpretation of the question and explains why this is important to write about. • Provides a clear thesis statement. • Provides a succinct summary of the key arguments which the paper will subsequently develop. • Explains key concepts that will be used in the paper (this can be done here, or in the beginning of the discussion section). 10% Excellent: All of the above is present and well-written. Good: One or two of the above are missing Poor: Two or more of the above are missing and/or writing style makes it difficult to understand what is being argued. 2. Discussion/ Body • Demonstrates understanding of the topic. • Key terms/concepts/models are defined/explained (this may have been done in introduction). • Theoretical analysis is logically consistent. • Empirical evidence is provided which is appropriate and clearly explained. nb. Some flexibility is possible where little or no empirical evidence is provided but theoretical analysis is particularly strong (or vice-versa) 60% Excellent: Does all of the above. Outstanding papers will clarify how the paper fits into the debate within the literature, and use a variety of academic sources beyond what was given in the suggested reading list. Very good: Does all of the above, possibly with some minor flaws in the provision of evidence. Good: Does most of the above, with some flaws in the argument or evidence. Poor: Theoretical argument is not logically developed. Empirical evidence provided is misrepresented or of questionable relevance. 3. Conclusion/ Policy Recommendation Key arguments in support of thesis are reiterated. Policy implications of the argument are discussed. 10% Excellent: The above is present and well-written. Good: Key arguments are reiterated and linked to the thesis. Poor: Key arguments are not clearly re-stated or linked to the thesis. Writing style makes it difficult to understand what is being concluded. 4. Overall Structure Uses appropriate format and presents items in a logical structure. Writing is clear and concise. Ensures correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Uses the Harvard referencing system correctly. 20% Excellent: All of the above is present with no or very few small errors. Good: All of the above is present with a few errors in structure or format. Poor: Significant problems in layout and writing style. Usage shows carelessness. Harvard system is poorly implemented or absent.