COURSEWORK QUESTION PAPER: 1st Sit Autumn 2023 Year

Module Code: FE6061NI

Module Title: Personal Finance

Module Leader: Bijaya Manandhar

Coursework Type: Individual Course Work – 2,000 to 2,200 Words

Coursework Weight: This coursework accounts for 40% of your total module
grades.

Submission Date: TBA

When Coursework is given out: TBA

Submission Instructions: Submit the following to the Islington College RTE

department before the due date:
● 1 x Final Submission PDF
● File name example: 12312324 Darshan Gyawali
Warning: London Metropolitan University and Islington College take Plagiarism
seriously. Offenders will be dealt with sternly.

© London Metropolitan University

Individual coursework Component – FE6061NI Personal Finance

Section A: Learning outcomes of the assessments

The assignment addresses the following learning outcome/s of the module:

LO1. To formulate and employ Action Learning strategies involving the cycle of experience,
reflection, understanding and action/decision for the development of knowledge, skill and
attitudinal competencies in personal finance

LO2. To synthesize theory and practice by critically evaluating personal finance concepts and theory
and their practical application in relation to one's own individual circumstances

LO3. To demonstrate critical knowledge and skills competencies in the domains of financial capability
identified by the Financial Services Authority: money management, keeping track of finances,
planning ahead, making choices and staying informed

Section B: Introduction

This coursework must represent the work of individual students and references to published works
must be cited. Plagiarism constitutes an examination offence and if discovered will render a
student(s) liable to the appropriate provisions of the University’s Examination Regulations.

Section C: Assessment Strategy

Read scholarly articles published in scholarly-refereed journals, and explore Bloomberg and other sources,
related to your chosen personal financial issue.

Applying theoretical concepts and strategies as derived from scholarly journals and other sources to your
practical personal finance issue develop and critically evaluate your action plan for the future, in relation to
achieving your personal finance goal/s identified.

The answer should be in the form of a report. The report (not inclusive of appendices) should be between 2000
and 2200 words. The number of words should be clearly indicated in the title page of the report. A list of
references should be furnished in the form of an appendix to the report. The Harvard referencing system should
be used, and references should be shown both within the text as well as at the end of the report.

Section D: Assessment submission

The student must work individually to develop the answers to the given assignment. There is no
tolerance for COLLUSION.

The student should submit one final file for each task in a pdf format in my second teacher portal on the
given deadline. The word limit of the final report is a 2,000 to 2,200 -word limit excluding appendices
and bibliography. Submissions of excessive length, or which attempt to subvert length criteria with the
misuse of appendices will be penalized.

Standard University regulations regarding plagiarism will apply and be rigorously enforced. THIS
INCLUDES THE USE OF PUBLISHED SECONDARY RESEARCH (E.G. MINTEL, ETC.) WITHOUT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND/OR INTERPRETATION. The course tutor will also apply penalties to
submissions which in his/her sole opinion show evidence of collusion.

Please ensure that coursework is submitted online via My Second Teacher not later than 4pm on the
due date.

Section E: Marking Criteria: How you will be evaluated?

The paper will be evaluated on the following major criteria.
● Evidence of an understanding of personal finance concepts and principles.
 ● Demonstration of independent reading that includes scholarly refereed journal
articles and use of a range of sources
● Evidence of research (In the classroom and external)
● Construction of argument
● Collection and sound use of relevant information
● Quality of argument: evidence of understanding, judgement, originality, logic
and synthesis, critical thinking, analysis and exposition
● A coherently structured argument
● Well-supported conclusions
● A sound professional quality presentation
● Language and clarity ,citation and Referencing

Section F: Recommended Structure:

SN Section Weight
1 Cover Page 2
2 Table of content 3
3 Introduction 5
4 Theoretical Foundation 15
5 Analysis of Own Personal Finance Issues 15
6 Application of Personal Finance Strategies 20
7 Critical Evaluation of Financial Strategies 15
8 Integration of Competencies and Action Learning 10
9 Conclusion 5
10 Recommendation 10
11 Overall Writing and Presentation 10

Section G: Recommended Reading for references

Books:

Core Texts:
 Luu, L., Lowe, J., Butler, J. and Byrne, T. (2017) ‘Essential Personal Finance: A Practical
Guide for Students’ Routledge, London

 McGill, I. and Brockbank, A. (2004) ‘The Action Learning Handbook’ Routledge Falmer,
London

 Redhead, K. (2012) ‘Personal Finance and Investments: A Behavioural Finance Perspective’,

Routledge Abingdon

Other Texts:
 King, J. and Carey, M. (2017) ‘Personal Finance’ 2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford

 Callaghan, G. Fribbance, I. and Higginson M. (Eds.) (2011) Personal Finance Palgrave

Macmillan, Chichester

Journals:
 Financial Services Review
 Journal of Consumer Research
 Journal of Economic Psychology
 Journal of Consumer Studies
 Journal of Business Research
  Current Option in Psychology
 Journal of Banking and Finance
 Journal of Financial Service Professionals
 Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
 Sociological Review
 The Journal of Consumer Affairs

Professional Journals/Newspapers:
 Financial Times
 Financial World

Policy Report:
 Atkinson, A., McKay, S., Kempson, E. and Collard, S. (2006) Levels of Financial Capability in
the UK: Results of a baseline survey, Prepared for the Financial Services Authority by
Personal Finance Research Centre University of Bristol

Websites:
 My Second Teacher Student Resources:
 The Financial Services Ombudsman: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk
 The Money Advice Service: www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk
 Personal Finance Society (PFS): http://www.thepfs.org/

Electronic Databases:
 Science Direct
 Emerald Management e-Journals
 Ingenta Connect

Section H: Assessment Grade Description

GSBL UNDERGRADUATEGENERAL GRADE DESCRIPTORS

Level 3 or 4 Level 5 Level 6

General Acquisition of broad Generate ideas through Critically review,

knowledge analysing concepts consolidate and extend a
Evaluate information Demonstrate a command body of knowledge using
Use information to plan, of specialised skills specialised skills
develop and problem solve Formulate responses to Critically evaluate
well defined and abstract concepts and evidence
Analyse and evaluate from a range of sources
information Transfer and apply skills
and exercise significant
judgement in a range of
situations
70-100 Very good
(A) Demonstration of very
good comprehension of
the task with evidence of
analysis, synthesis,
evaluation and critical
appraisal
Use of a wide variety of
appropriate sources
Transformation of
knowledge
Independent thinking and
development of ideas
Ability to
communication very clearly
and effectively
Very good evidence of
preparation
Very good organisation,
structure and presentation
of work – minimal errors
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity). No
errors in reference list or
citations.
60-69 (B) Very good
Demonstration of very
good comprehension of
the task with evidence of
analysis, synthesis,
evaluation
Use of a wide variety of
appropriate sources
Transformation of
knowledge
Independent thinking and
development of ideas
Ability to communication
clearly and effectively
Very good evidence of
preparation
Very good organisation,
structure and presentation
of work – minimal errors
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity).
Minimal or no errors in
reference list or citations.
50-59 © Adequate – Satisfactory
Some analysis but limited
Some insight and
exploration of ideas
Sound conclusions
No significant inaccuracies
or omissions
Some analysis, evaluation
or synthesis of information
Lacking clarity at times
Excellent
Advanced scholarship
Goes beyond the material
provided
Excellent link to research
Excellent analysis,
synthesis, evaluation and
critical appraisal
Excellent evidence of
preparation
Comprehensive and critical
understanding of the topic
Excellent ability to
communicate clearly and
effectively
Excellent organisation,
structure and presentation
of work
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity). No
errors in reference list or
citations.
Very good
Demonstration of very
good comprehension of
the task with evidence of
analysis, synthesis,
evaluation
Use of a wide variety of
appropriate sources
Transformation of
knowledge
Independent thinking and
development of ideas
Ability to communication
clearly and effectively
Very good evidence of
preparation
Very good organisation,
structure and presentation
of work – minimal errors
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity).
Minimal or no errors in
reference list or citations.
Adequate – Satisfactory
Some evidence of thinking
independently to develop
own ideas
Evaluation of relevant
theories or literature
Reasonable ability to
communicate clearly and
effectively
Excellent – Outstanding
(for use at far end of
range)
Outstanding
understanding, exploration
and insight
Strong evidence of
originality and
development of own ideas
Develop a highly complex
argument
Outstanding ability to
communicate topics clearly
and concisely
Advanced organisation,
structure and presentation
of work
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity). No
errors in reference list or
citations.
References well utilised
and critiqued
Very Good
Advanced scholarship
Goes beyond the material
provided
Very good link to research
Very good analysis,
synthesis, evaluation and
critical appraisal
Very good evidence of
preparation
Comprehensive and critical
understanding of the topic
Very good ability to
communicate clearly and
effectively
Very good organisation,
structure and presentation
of work
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity). No
errors in reference list or
citations.
Adequate- Satisfactory
Evidence of thinking
independently to develop
own ideas
Evaluation of relevant
theories or literature
Ability to communicate
clearly and effectively
Report information in a
structured way
 Some evidence of
preparation
Referencing is sound.
Mostly appropriate
sources. Numerous errors
or inconsistencies
40-49 (D) All learning outcomes
met
Competent (practical)
May be incomplete in
knowledge (some errors or
omissions)
Insufficient analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Limited application of
theories/knowledge
An awareness of
appropriate
principles/theories/techniq
ues
Irrelevance to the task at
times
Disorganised work with
weak standard of
presentation
Numerous aberrations
from the requirements of
the task
Referencing is attempted
although may be
inconsistent, many errors,
weak sources
Condone Learning outcomes not
d Pass met
30-39 Little relevant knowledge
(R2/F1) Lacking structure
Numerous errors in
structure and form
Limited understanding of
concepts/theories
No appropriate analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Significant
inaccuracies/omissions
Not competent
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with errors
Under 30 Little engagement with the
(R2/F2) task
Report information in a
structured way
Use of an appropriate
format
Quite comprehensive
knowledge
Satisfactory evidence of
preparation
Satisfactory referencing,
appropriate sources.
Numerous but minor errors
in references
All learning outcomes
met
Competent (practical)
May be incomplete in
knowledge (some errors or
omissions)
Weak or no analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Some application of
theories/knowledge
An awareness of
appropriate
principles/theories/techniq
ues
Irrelevance to the task at
times
Disorganised work with
weak standard of
presentation
Aberrations from the
requirements of the task
Referencing is attempted
although may be
inconsistent, many errors,
weak sources
Learning outcomes not
met
Little relevant knowledge
Lacking structure
Numerous errors in
structure and form
Limited understanding of
concepts/theories
No appropriate analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Significant
inaccuracies/omissions
Not competent
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with errors
Little engagement with the
task
Use of an appropriate
format
Reasonably Accurate,
quite comprehensive
knowledge
Satisfactory evidence of
preparation
Coherent and well
presented – minor errors
Satisfactory referencing,
appropriate sources.
Minor errors in references
All learning outcomes
met
Competent (practical)
May be incomplete in
knowledge (some errors or
omissions)
Weak or no analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Some application of
theories/knowledge
An awareness of
appropriate
principles/theories/techniq
ues
Irrelevance to the task at
times
Disorganised work with
weak standard of
presentation
Aberrations from the
requirements of the task
Referencing is attempted
although may be
inconsistent, many errors,
weak sources
Learning outcomes not
met
Little relevant knowledge
Lacking structure
Numerous errors in
structure and form
Limited understanding of
concepts/theories
No appropriate analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Significant
inaccuracies/omissions
Not competent
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with errors
Little engagement with the
task
 No basic understanding of
the subject matter
Poor communication
(written or verbal)
Lacking or no structure
Significant errors in
structure and form
Many significant
inaccuracies/omissions –
very little correct
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so, very
weak with many significant
errors
(0%) No submission
Nothing of relevance in the
work submitted
End of the Document
No basic understanding of
the subject matter
Poor communication
(written or verbal)
Lacking or no structure
Significant errors in
structure and form
Many significant
inaccuracies/omissions –
very little correct
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so, very
weak with many significant
errors
No submission
Nothing of relevance in the
work submitted
No basic understanding of
the subject matter
Poor communication
(written or verbal)
Lacking or no structure
Significant errors in
structure and form
Many significant
inaccuracies/omissions –
very little correct
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so, very
weak with many significant
errors
No submission
Nothing of relevance in the
work submitted