CFA Assesssment Brief

Current Financial Affairs

Assessment Briefs [Use in conjunction with the Assessment Overview already available on Blackboard]

Understanding our Assessments (click the boxes for tips)

Assessment 1 (Group Work)

Assessment 2: Individual Work

Prompting

Quality

AI

Writing

Judgement

Relevance

Roles

Sources

Overall Purpose

Research

Collaboration

Accountability

Analysis

Perspectives

Translation

Communication

Critique

Reflection

Context

Assessment 1: Applied Finance in the Digital Era (Worth 30%)

Follow the steps to Group Work success!

Assessment 2: Policy Brief (Worth 70%)

2000 words. Choose a country; focus on up to 3 module topics

analyse → evaluate → recommend. Submit via Turnitin on Blackboard; deadline on eVision.

Rubric

Maximise

Task

Checklist

Referencing

Data

Scope

Audience

Purpose

10

Draft

Diagrams

Structure

Excel

Rules

Ensure evidence checks

If Qualitative (concept explains in words), examples include:

• Definition Check: "Compare our script definition ‘[PASTE SCRIPT LINE]’ with the module note ‘[PASTE NOTE EXCERPT]’. List up to 3 mismatches, then rewrite script"

• Source Check: "Check our script is consistent with this paper — [AUTHOR, YEAR, TITLE/LINK]"

• Critique Check: "Show how two lenses (e.g. neoclassical vs behavioural) would frame [CONCEPT] differently; return 2 bullets per lens + one caveat line to add to the script"

If Quantitative (data-led insight on a topic), examples include:

• Data Check: "Is our script’s figure(s) consistent with evidence from [DATASET LINK]?"

• Source Check: "Are our script conclusions consistent with this paper’s findings? — [AUTHOR, YEAR, TITLE/LINK]."

• Critique Check: "Audit this script conclusion ‘[PASTE]’ for spuriousness. Return 3 risks based on relevant theory"

10

Is it compliant and ready to hand in? Meet word/time limits; upload work rather than sending in links; apply for extensions prior to the deadline; ensure academic integrity is understood.

Know Reflective Replication

Quality in writing comes from structure and clarity. Use headings and subheadings to guide the reader through your arguments. Keep paragraphs short and start each with a clear topic sentence. Support your points with evidence, but explain why the evidence matters rather than just quoting it. Imagine a policymaker with five minutes to read your work — they should be able to grasp the key argument quickly. A well-written brief is easy to navigate and persuasive without being wordy.

How can you get help? You can send any drafts to Duncan for feed-forward support.

Analysis means going further than simply presenting evidence. You need to explain what the data or research shows and how it supports your recommendations. Compare sources where possible: is one more convincing or more up-to-date than another? Is there a clear difference between academic and policy perspectives? This kind of critical use of evidence makes your argument persuasive. Remember — you’re not writing a literature review, you’re using evidence to convince policymakers of your recommendations

Does the order help the marker? Guide: Follow the criteria set by the assessment. For example, a policy brief needs sub-headings.

Critical appraisal means showing you can question the foundations of your work, not just present it. In a policy brief, this means checking whether your evidence and arguments are balanced, realistic, and sensitive to different perspectives. By doing this, you show that your recommendations are not just well-written, but robust and credible.

Judgement is where reflective replication comes alive. Here you take the AI’s outputs and compare them with your own sources. If you’re doing a qualitative replication, check whether the explanation is clear, accurate, and faithful to the theory. If you’re doing a quantitative replication, check whether the AI’s calculations or data align with your lecture examples or readings. In both cases, the mark comes from your ability to evaluate the tool’s performance. Don’t just say it was right or wrong — explain specifically where it worked, where it failed, and what that shows about AI and about economics.

Reflection is about learning from the process and showing you understand both the strengths and the weaknesses of your explanation. In the group review, you’ll need to comment on how AI influenced your output and where it added value or created problems. Be specific: don’t just say the explanation was clear or confusing, but explain which parts worked well and which parts didn’t. If you did a quantitative replication, you might reflect on whether the AI handled numbers correctly. If qualitative, you might reflect on whether it captured the meaning of the theory. Strong reflection demonstrates critical thinking — it shows you’ve understood the process, not just the outcome.

Who is it for and what must they take away? Guide: Name the user (e.g. First years for video; government/central bank for policy brief); choose terms/examples for their level; one clear takeaway.

For sources, variety and reliability are key. Use at least one dataset, one academic article, and one policy report to demonstrate breadth. Go beyond lecture materials — they’re a starting point, not enough for the brief itself. Choose sources that are credible and relevant, and make sure you can explain why you selected them. A strong policy brief always signals where the evidence comes from and why it matters.

Good research is the foundation of a strong policy brief. You’re expected to show independence by finding evidence that supports your argument, not just relying on lecture notes. That means using a mix of sources — data, journal articles, and policy reports — and showing that you can evaluate their credibility. A strong brief doesn’t just list information, it integrates evidence to make an argument persuasive. What counts here is not only what you find, but how you use it to support your recommendations. Critical research literacy is one of the most important skills you’ll develop in this module.

Do visuals prove a point? Guide: Rather than copying and pasting, build your own charts/tables wherever possible; label axes/units/years

In Assessment 1, you’re being marked on how you use AI, not what it produces. The key skill is reflective replication. That means generating an explanation of your chosen concept with AI, and then testing it against trusted sources like your lectures, readings, or data. You’ll also decide whether your group’s replication is qualitative or quantitative. If you go down the qualitative route, you’ll focus on clarity and interpretation; if you choose quantitative, you’ll focus on numerical accuracy and method. Either way, the task is to show that you can use AI critically, demonstrate its strengths and weaknesses, and reflect on what that tells us about both the tool and economics

How is it Marked?

This assessment is designed to test how well you work as a group. You’ll only succeed if the final video feels like a single, coherent product, not six separate parts glued together. That means planning roles clearly, sharing drafts, and checking that your contributions fit smoothly together. Think of it like professional teamwork in economics or policy: each member brings their own skills, but the end result is judged as one. Your grade depends not just on what you do individually, but on how well the group organises itself and delivers as a team.

Clear roles make collaboration work. Early on, decide who will lead on different tasks: for example, researching the concept, designing the script, managing visuals, or handling editing. Don’t all try to do the same thing, or you’ll waste time. At the same time, avoid dividing the work too rigidly. Everyone needs to understand the full project so the final video feels consistent. Assign roles that play to people’s strengths, but keep communicating so that all parts contribute to the shared aim.

What outcome should this deliver? Guide: Write a one-line goal; make every aspects of your assessment serve it.

Are citations correct and complete? Guide: Use Harvard referencing in your Policy Brief bibliography. Inaccurate referencing loses marks! ECO Online Study Guide has a referencing tool to help.

Could a sketch explain this faster? Guide: Draw diagrams by hand and then copy/paste a photo of it into your work. Use diagrams to escape word limit constraints

When using evidence, ask yourself: whose experience does this reflect? For example, if you’re writing about a policy in a Global South country but only citing OECD data, note the gap. If a report comes from an international lender, recognise its potential bias. A practical way to do this is to add one line in your brief that flags a missing voice or dataset. This shows you can spot limitations in context, which is exactly what critical appraisal requires.

Relevance is about choosing the right topics and making them matter for your country context. You’ll need to select three module themes, but don’t just pick the easiest ones — pick those that highlight real policy challenges where your analysis can add value. Show why these topics are important now, and how they connect to economic decisions your country is facing. The strength of your brief lies in its ability to show policymakers what is at stake and why your recommendations should be taken seriously.

What exactly do I need to produce?

• Recommend at least one course of action and justify why it dominates the alternatives for this country now.
• Implementation plan: immediate/12-month/2–3 year steps, capacity & budget notes, quick wins, and how you’ll monitor progress.
• Professional brief format: short Executive Summary → Problem & Context → Evidence via (max) 3 topics → Options & Evaluation → Recommendation → Implementation & Risks → References.
• Submission: Turnitin (deadline on eVision). Keep to word limit (10% allowance); reference consistently; uphold academic integrity.

• A 2,000-word policy brief on one country that tackles at least one clear policy problem (who/where/when).
• Use up to 3 module topics as your analytic lenses; say why each is relevant to the problem(s).
• Name the audience (e.g., minister/agency/NGO) and write for them (plain, decision-oriented).

• Apply evidence to this country: define terms, cite readings/data, and state limits/uncertainties.

• Develop options (2–3) grounded in your analysis; evaluate trade-offs (benefits, costs, risks, distributional effects).

Know the Rubric

Where will credible numbers come from? Guide: Check ECO Online Study Guide at http://tiny.cc/ecostudyguide; use official/benchmark sources; record sources beneath charts.

The policy brief develops your professional writing skills. Unlike an essay, it needs to be short, sharp, and directly useful to a policymaker. That means arguments should be well-structured and backed by evidence, but written in clear, concise language. Think about how to guide your reader through the brief — with a clear introduction, well-signposted sections, and a logical flow. Every sentence should earn its place. Long, complicated writing will lose impact. The assessment is testing your ability to communicate complex economics in a professional, accessible style that shows why your policy recommendations matter.

Translation means taking your concept out of textbook language and making it accessible. Use plain English, short sentences, and real-world examples so the ideas are easy to grasp. If you’re doing a quantitative replication, you might translate the results of a calculation into a policy implication or a practical takeaway. If you’re doing a qualitative replication, you might translate a complex theory into an everyday analogy. The point is to make the economics understandable without losing accuracy — clarity is what earns marks here.

Starting Point

Do now

• Complete the AI micro-training

What you submit & the rules

• Submit 3 parts: 1) 5-min training video (using eStream on Blackboard); 2) 750-word reflective replication (Qual/Quant); and 3) 1-page Prompt Log
• Where/when: submit via Blackboard; check eVision for the exact deadline.
• Integrity & AI use: AI is allowed for this assessment; you must review its strengths/limits. Follow UEA integrity guidance (plagiarism/collusion/contract-cheating; paraplagiarism; proof-reading rules).

• Support: Submit drafts to Duncan for feed-forward help.

Communication is at the heart of Assessment 1. You’re being marked on how clearly and effectively you can explain an economic concept, not just to specialists but to a wider audience. If your group chooses a qualitative replication, this means focusing on making theory accessible and easy to follow. If you choose a quantitative replication, this means showing calculations and data in a way that is transparent and convincing. Either way, the skill is clarity: turning complex economics into something that is accurate, engaging, and understandable. Reflection is part of this too — showing what worked, what didn’t, and what that reveals about AI and your own explanation.

When drafting, pause and ask: how else could this issue be explained? Write down at least one alternative viewpoint — for example, a different school of thought, or a real-world behavioural insight that challenges neat models. Then decide whether you’ll use it to strengthen your argument or acknowledge it as a limitation. Including even a short sentence on an alternative perspective shows you are thinking critically and not taking your framework for granted.

Prompts shape what AI gives you, so use them actively. Don’t just take the first answer. Instead, ask the AI to explain your economic concept in different ways. For example, try requesting an explanation for a policymaker, for a school student, or for an economist. Compare the versions and decide which communicates most clearly for your chosen replication approach. In a qualitative replication, you’ll be judging how well the tool explains ideas; in a quantitative replication, you might test whether the AI can reproduce calculations step by step. The point is to design prompts that let you explore how the tool performs and gives you material to reflect on.

What’s in and what’s out? Guide: Keep a tight focus; pick only lenses you can evidence well. This module isn't about covering everything taught.

Accountability means taking responsibility for your part and making sure it supports the group as a whole. Don’t just finish your task and walk away — check your section fits with the others, that the tone is consistent, and that the arguments line up. Share progress regularly so problems are spotted early, not at the last minute. Remember, the video is marked as a single piece of work. If one section is weak or missing, the whole group is affected. Professional standards matter here: reliability and coordination are just as important as the economics itself

What is expected in a Brief?

What are the common pitfalls?

• Over-scope: multiple countries or generic topic summaries with no depth.
• Unverifiable claims: missing definition, data analysis or weak/absent citations.
• Borrowed graphics: pasted screenshots, unlabeled figures, no source notes.
• No evaluation: policy shopping list; no criteria, feasibility, or sequencing.
• Weak finish: fails to show value-added achieved by the analysis.

• Country & scope: one country; up to 3 topic-led questions (one per module topic)
• Evidence: precise citations; bibliography ≥20 academic + official data.
• Analysis: for each topic use Claim → Evidence → Limit (country-specific).
• Original visuals: 2–3 diagrams/tables you created, labelled with sources.
• Decision: options table (A/B/C × criteria) → phased recommendation (now / 12m / 2–3y) with key risks.

Examples of good and poor practice from last year’s guidance.

Choose Replication Path

• Concept: pick one from the first three weekly workshops.

• Path: choose Qualitative (judge clarity & interpretation) or Quantitative (judge method & accuracy).

• Decide on opening line: “For [audience]. By the end you’ll understand [X].”

• Check 5-min viability: teachable in ≤5:00 with one diagram or one worked example and one clear takeaway?

• Prompt Log: add ≥2 targeted prompts matching your audience/path (note why kept/rejected).