- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hello trephena,
I am re-writing my thesis and this is my third and my last submission. I actually need some tips from you now.On my first attempt markers raised concern regarding my references, marker advised me to give more references which I have given in my second attempt but unfortunately I forgot to put 4 references on my reference list and they failed me on the ground for not putting the references into reference list only, they didn’t raise concern on my referencing style
Now in this period I want to include some more references, so my query is, do they will penalise me? If I make any mistake in referencing style or sth else such as quoting directly from authors journal for my new references which I am willing to include.
And my other query is, do they fail on plagiarism on third attempt?
Actually My mentor is telling me to include more references that’s why I am willing to include more
Thanks in advance
You will not be penalised if you reference every fact, opinion or the work of others.
Have you read the Golden rules in our referencing guide available on our homepage? The guide sets out more or less everything you need to know about referencing appropriately.
The issue with failing in Information gathering and referencing is that it can be a fail because your information sources are not broad enough, or your refencing is poor /inconsistent or mostly absent, or both – that is sources and referencing are both weak.
Plagiarism (copying the work and / or ideas of others and passing it off as your own by failing to acknowledge the original source or author) is an academic offence and of course you can be failed for this, whether it is the first or final attempt and if there is significant evidence of plagiarism in work it can also be referred to the Academic Conduct Office. Plagiarism normally involves copying and pasting sections into your work and even if referenced though technically not plagiarism, is still considered bad academic practice. If such copying and pasting is considered excessive, the report will be tailed.
Having said all of that, all work this failed is reviewed and a third and final attempt is looked at more from the point of view of seeing if does meet the assessment criteria rather than focusing on endorsing the fail
No you do not have to resubmit your SLS if you passed both parts. If you failed the report t unless you actually failed the Presentation slides then you do not have to rework them. If you did fail the Presentation then obviously you will have to deal with the reasons it failed and resubmit it too.
There used to be an issue that if you failed either Presentation or SLS the system expected you to load both files in which case you just loaded the new file for the part that failed and the old file for the part that passed (just to be able to complete the submission).
It depends what and where you intend to include this. When I work with resubmitting Topic 8 students I usually get them to rework their PEST and SWOT as this can help them recognise the connection between the business and financial analyses and appreciate the impact of these factors in relationships of management strategic decisions on financial performance. So updated information about the business environment from recent articles can help produce better application of the models and provide insight into the trends they find from the analysis.
The reason for this comment is that your research is supposed to be in sufficient depth that you know the reasons for most of the trends and not just this “may be due to” or “may have increased probably due to”. More definite causes are expected.
As explained in my previous post it is a good idea to do a good PEST and SWOT and look to see how these factors have influenced and impacted on management strategic decisions. Also read the CEO and Directors’ reports as they will often outline their strategies and policies.
Taking your last comment: “The rate of growth in net book value of fixed assets may have increased probably due to the sequential purchase of fixed assets”: although this may be the case at a basic level it is rather vague, and doesn’t really tell the reader much more than if they looked at the balance sheet or notes to the accounts. However if you read the Chairman / directors’ reports you may find that the company has invested in new production facilities or expanded its output as a definite policy to make their production more efficient or to meet increase in demand and linking the increase in fixed assets to this (with a reference to the report) would show that you are combining information sources and demonstrating research skills rather than speculating about what might have (or equally might not have) happened.
Dear All,
I was failed in the “self-reflection” aspect of SLS as the marker remarked regarding my SLS that sufficient weaknesses and the ways of combating them were missing in it. Contradicting to it, numerous weaknesses and methods of eliminating them using my strengths were adequately articulated in the SLS.
The second comment of the marker regarding the SLS relates to the discussion of personal goal in the SLS instead of RAP objective, however, nothing like that was brought into discussion in the entire SLS.
Now, I want to know that if I resubmit the SLS then what level of weaknesses and methods of overcoming them need to be stated in it as I referred SLS exemplars given on the OBU website and the weaknesses and strengths I articulated in it are way more than the weaknesses specified in the SLS exemplars. Moreover, how the way I can convince marker this time that I utterly focused on RAP objective and financial and non-financial aspects of the company “Glencore” cannot be my personal objective in any way.
Kindly help me out in this regard.
The exact remarks of the marker are given below regarding the failed SLS.
“The purpose of this statement is to demonstrate reflection, identifying your strengths and weaknesses, reflecting on how you overcame those weaknesses. Your answer to question 1 was more of a description of the process than any reflection. You begin answering question 2 by talking about your main research objective which is a personal goal rather than a research objective”
The marker highlighted only Question no. 1 and 2 in the feedback sheet in which issues exist. Do I need to re-write only Question 1 and 2 or I will have to redraft the entire SLS?
Dear madam,
Even though I passed my SLS and presentation I failed my RR due to lack of analysis. If I want to resubmit do I need a mentor? While submission should I provide my mentor’s details?fatimafareed78692 – it does seem a bit odd that they ignored your reflection on your strengths and weaknesses. I am wondering if there is some ambiguity n the marker feedback with the objectives as Q2 is about how you felt about achieving your report objectives – what was challenging, what came easy, how you might have approached it differently if starting out now (and this is often where you can bring in your strengths and weaknesses) e.g. because I had done well in financial analysis in my exams I thought this would be easy but I now realise that applying it to an actual situation is far harder than anticipated. However I was guided by the fact that there should be linkages between the business and financial analyses and so by focusing on the factors highlighted in the models this helped me recognise what lay behind some of the company trends. Reading the chairman and directors reports also helped but I now appreciate that a text book analysis and doing a real life analysis are very different. However recognising this difference and the challenge it presents will help me going.
As the marker only mentioned q 1 & 2 you probably don’t have to rewrite the other questions, although I encourage students who come to me who have failed the SLS to consider other parts too.
If a report has failed on evaluation and analysis – the main component i.e. Part 3, then you do need to find yourself a good mentor. (Oherwise you are likely to make the same mistakes again).
Passing the SLS and Presentation is a minor detail in comparison in the RAP. I would point out that Analysis, Evaluation & Conclusions is the most frequently failed area of the assessment. Most of my work with my own mentees is focused on Part 3 as it is impossible to pass without adequate original analysis and reliable commentary.
Thanks for your reply madam. Please advise me whether I should go with my former mentor or is it okay to go with new mentor for resubmission as I’m not satisfied with my former mentor.
Thanks!
There are no rules on this. As long as the mentor is listed you may choose whomever you like.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.