代做Introduction to Spatial Planning Assessment 1 – Essay帮做R编程

Introduction to Spatial Planning

Assessment 1 – Essay

Introduction

This module is partly assessed by an essay that provides you with the opportunity to explore some of the themes of the module in greater depth. You are required to produce an essay that addresses one of the five titles below. The word count for the essay is 2,500 words. The word count of 2,500 is a hard limit (no 5 or 10% flexibility) and includes everything from the start of the introduction to the end of the conclusion. So, the references section at the end of the essay is not included in the word count, but everything else is (including in-text citations, captions, tables etc.).   

Your essay should be submitted via the ISP Canvas site, through the Assignments tab.

Essay titles

1. Identify a key person or movement in urban planning from the 19th Century or first half of the 20th Century. Consider the impact of that person or movement on the field of urban planning, and their legacy today.

2. Compare and contrast the approaches advocated by Ebenezer Howard and Le Corbusier for the planning of settlements.  

3. Review and critically evaluate the most common justifications for why we need systems for urban and regional planning, drawing on theoretical arguments and other evidence. To conclude, you should formulate your own arguments about why it is necessary (or not) to have a planning system in England or another country.

4. Calls for planning reform. often focus on the need to speed up plan making processes, whilst at the same time widening community participation. To what extent are these aims compatible and why?

5. It is often said that England has a ‘discretionary’ system for Development Management. Using examples to support your arguments, critically consider the extent to which this is the case.

6. Drawing on examples, consider the arguments for and against the centralisation of planning powers. You may draw from regional, local, and or community scale examples.

7. Urban and Regional Planning is widely considered to be both a ‘science’ and an ‘art’. Using examples, consider the extent to which you would agree with this position, and the implications of your conclusions for how we approach planning practice.

8. The notion of the ‘public interest’ has traditionally provided a key justification for the existence of systems for urban and regional planning. Critically consider the relevance and influence of the ‘public interest’ in contemporary planning systems and decision-making.

Assessment criteria

The generic assessment criteria for the MSc Urban and Regional Planning are shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. However, these criteria are general and are applied across all assessments. Below, in Table 1, more specific guidance is provided on how this particular essay will be marked. The criteria discussed in Table 1 are descriptive and illustrate the general characteristics of essays in the various marking bands. They are therefore not comprehensive but aim to give a general guide as to the generic characteristics of essays falling under each grade band.

Table 1: Characteristics of essays in different marking bands

Mark	Description
80 or more	An excellent essay which is clearly written, well-structured and shows a comprehensive and thorough understanding of the topic. The essay presents a clear and well considered argument, which is discussed on the basis of a thorough reading of relevant literature. A high degree of understanding of the literature and the general subject is shown throughout. The level/creativity of intellectual thinking and the general presentation is of close to publishable quality.
70-79	A very good essay which shows a comprehensive coverage of the subject. There is evidence of a very good level of reading and comprehension of the literature. A clear and logical argument is made which is well linked to discussions in the Literature. There is perhaps scope for the argument to be more creative, but overall the level of intellectual understanding is high. The essay is well referenced, logically structured and clearly written.
60-69	The essay shows a good understanding of the subject. There is evidence of a good level of reading and the argument presented is logical and clear. There is well-rounded and reasonably comprehensive coverage of the various debates relevant to the subject, and the student shows a good ability to synthesize the literature. In general, the essay is well presented, but could be a slightly more clearly written and structured in places. The level of intellectual thinking is good, but not high enough for a 70+ grade. There is also scope for greater creativity in the approach.
50-59	The essay shows a satisfactory effort and an acceptable level of understanding of the subject/s discussed. There is a logical structure to the discussion and a satisfactory amount of literature is drawn upon. However, there is either no argument presented, or the argument is relatively simplistic and lacks intellectual depth. In general, whilst the basic structure and content of an essay discussion are present, there is a lack of clarity in places and a general lack of intellectual engagement with the literature and independent thinking. The referencing could also be improved in places and there is scope for a wider range of reading.
49 or less	The essay shows some understanding of the subject, and there is some attempt shown to structure the essay appropriately. There is also some evidence of wider reading on the subject. However, overall, the essay lacks sufficient engagement with the subject to pass. There is a lack of clarity in the discussion, and perhaps the structure is illogical (either in places or overall). There is either no argument presented or a very basic argument which shows a lack of intellectual engagement with the literature. There is either little or no creativity shown and mistakes throughout in the referencing. Some of the discussion is also very unclear and there are omissions of significant points or areas of relevant literature.

Formative feedback

You are encouraged to obtain formative feedback on your ideas for the essay as they develop in the early weeks of the semester. At any point up to and including Week 4, you can submit an essay outline that briefly (250-300 words maximum) summarises your initial thoughts and ideas, for formative feedback.

Use of Generative AI

Generative AI tools have the potential to be used by students to support and enhance their learning experience in ISP. In this assessment, they can be used in an assistive role. This means that you can use them to help you with some of the work involved, but you are not required to, and none of the content that is created by Generative AI can be used in your assessment submission. So, for example, you might use Generative AI to identify relevant background material or sources, to help you understand an idea or concept introduced in class or in an essay title, or to test your ideas. However, the outputs of Generative AI are not always reliable, and they can shut down your own creativity and critical thinking (and diminish your learning if used in inappropriate ways). In this assessment, you must not attempt to pass off as your own any content created by a Generative AI tool. Nor should you copy and paste anything from a Generative AI tool. In addition, as part of your assessment submission, you are required to include a statement of your use of AI in your assessment coversheet. Please indicate which of the following three statements applies:

a) “Generative AI tools were not used in any way to create this assessment.”

b) “Generative AI tools were not used to create, change or translate text, nor to develop ideas, arguments and explanations for this assessment. However, AI tools were used for editorial purposes to guide spelling, grammar and formatting.”

c) “I acknowledge the use of [insert AI system(s) and link] to generate materials for background research and self-study which informed the drafting of this assessment.”

Appendix 1: MSc Urban and Regional Planning marking criteria

These criteria are given for guidance only. They are not intended as a rigid marking scheme as students’ work may match some criteria from one band and some from another. The criteria given demonstrate what is typically expected in any one band. Examiners will use their professional judgment to award the overall mark. Depending on the nature of the assessment only a subset of the criteria may apply.

1	Engagement:	Critical engagement with the question Relevance of material utilised Awareness of relevant literature(s)
2	Structure:	General organisation of material Use of paragraphs and/or headings Flow of argument
3	Knowledge:	Relevance and accuracy of factual content Understanding of conceptual material
4	Argument:	Critical evaluation of sources Logic, coherence and consistency
5	Illustration:	Use of appropriate material Appropriate use of case studies, maps, figures where relevant Suitable use of quoted material(s) where appropriate
6	Execution:	Originality Writing style Spelling, grammar, syntax
7	Reading:	Evidence of wider reading Appropriate citation style Appropriate bibliographic format Systematic referencing and text citations

Appendix 2: MSc Urban and Regional Planning marking bands

80+	An excellent answer. Excellent attainment with respect to all criteria 1-7. Very well written and structured. All material presented is relevant to the question set. Full understanding, with insight, comprehensive synthesis of ideas or critical analysis. All relevant literature identified, used and clearly referenced Is approaching publishable quality.
70-79	A highly comprehensive answer. Excellent attainment with respect to virtually all criteria 1-7. All material presented is relevant to the question set. Well written and structured. All major points given in the course included and fully understood. Synthesis of ideas and/or critical analysis. Demonstrates wide evidence of knowledge from relevant outside reading/additional material. Elements of publishable quality, but requires additional insight and/or analysis.
60-69	A substantive and cogent answer. Scores highly with respect to most criteria 1-7 but with slippage in one or more areas. Answer covers most of the material of relevance to the question. Structure/presentation must be sound. Includes the most important points given in the course accurately and with good understanding. Evidence of knowledge from relevant outside reading/additional material. Shows breadth and depth of thought
50-59	A satisfactory answer. Answer generally derived from the lectures but with some relevant literature identified and cited. Includes many of the key points but lacking in detail with some irrelevant material. Shows an adequate knowledge and understanding of the topic. Structure/presentation generally good. May contain a small number of errors, ambiguities and/or unclear explanations.
40-49	An unsatisfactory answer. An incomplete answer, covering only the basic issues. Some irrelevant material. Structure/presentation lacking in several respects. Includes basic information derived solely from the lectures, but with some significant errors or omissions. Shows breadth rather than depth of thought. Inadequate use of key literature
30-39	A poor answer. May have omissions of major points. Poorly structured. Little material relevant to the question but evidence that the question has been, at least partly, understood. Fails to meet required standards for most of criteria 1-7
20-29	Very poor answer. Unsatisfactory - containing one or two relevant points but at a very elementary level. Very poor organisation of material. Some muddled material or significant errors of fact. Could be missing the point.
10-19	Little of value – one major or a small number of minor points in note form. which may be just relevant. Fails to address the question.
1-9	Virtually nothing of value – maybe one or two very minor points, phrases or words that are barely relevant. Very limited/No evidence of understanding the question.
0	Answer contains nothing relevant to the question