LW166 Criminology Skills Portfolio Brief 2026: Harvard Citations, GenAI Essay Critique and Zero-Tolerance Policing Articles

LW166 Criminology Skills Portfolio (40%): Harvard Citations, GenAI Essay Critique and Critical Reading, Maynooth University

Module	LW166 (Criminology, School of Law and Criminology)
Institution	Maynooth University
Assessment	Skills Portfolio in three parts, 1,200–1,400 words
Weighting	40% of the module mark
Due	Tuesday 3 November 2026, 4:00 pm (Week 6)
Referencing	Harvard, following the Maynooth University guide

The LW166 skills portfolio checks whether new criminology students at Maynooth can reference properly, avoid plagiarism and misuse of AI, and judge the quality of what they read. Learners correct four faulty references, pull apart an essay written by generative AI, compare an opinion column with an evidence-based article on zero-tolerance policing in Dublin, and contrast 1890s and present-day explanations of youth crime.

Format and Submission Instructions

The portfolio has three parts (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), submitted together in a single Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx).
Use a clear font (e.g. Times New Roman, Calibri or Arial), 12-point size and 1.5 line spacing.
Use the Harvard referencing system, following The Maynooth University Guide to the Harvard Referencing System.
Submit through the Skills Portfolio submission inbox in the Assessment tile on the LW166 Moodle page. The inbox is linked to Turnitin, which checks for plagiarism and AI use.
AI tools or other computer-generated material cannot be used for any part of the assessment, including research and preparation.
Penalties: 5% per day for late submission and 5% for going below or above the word limit (a flat 5% of the assignment). The word limit excludes cover pages, headers/footers and the reference list.

Part 1: Understanding the Harvard Referencing System (70–100 words)

Using The Maynooth University Guide to the Harvard Referencing System, correct the citations below so that they conform to the Harvard system, written in full as they would appear in a reference list:

Tim Newburn 2017. Criminology. Third edition. New York: Routledge.
David Garland. “Criminology’s place in the academic field.” In What is criminology?, edited by Mary Bosworth and Carolyn Hoyle, 2011. Chapter 20, pp. 298-317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Claire Hamilton and Lynsey Black 2023. ““Strikingly and Stubbornly High”: Investigating the Paradox of Public Confidence in the Irish Police.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 39, no. 1: 38-57.
Maynooth University Library. Referencing & avoiding plagiarism. Last Updated: Aug 7, 2025. (Library referencing guide web page.)

Part 1 Marking Criteria (per citation)

Marks	Level of understanding
5	The citation is accurate or almost accurate and conforms to the Harvard system, with no more than one formatting error.
4–3	Mostly accurate, with two to three minor formatting errors (e.g. punctuation or italics).
2	Mostly inaccurate, with more than three formatting errors or major errors (e.g. all-caps, authors’ full first names kept, “volume”, “issue” or “pages” written out).
1	Inaccurate; little or no resemblance to Harvard and/or a misunderstanding of the task.

Part 2: Understanding Plagiarism and the Risks of Using Generative AI (600 words)

Watch the School of Law and Criminology videos “Plagiarism training for students” (20 minutes) and “AI and Assessments in Law and Criminology” (9 minutes).

To show the pitfalls of generative AI, the module team asked AI to write a short essay titled “Measuring Crime: How Do We Really Know?”. Critique the essay, point out its problems and explain how we can tell it was written by AI. The essay discusses:

police recorded crime (official statistics) and the “dark figure of crime”, supported by citations such as “Smith (2015)” and “Jones (2018)”;
victimisation surveys such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales and what they miss;
self-report studies, including a claim attributed to a “Professor Michaels” (1996) that they are the “gold standard” of criminological data;
triangulation, changes in police recording practices (e.g. newly criminalised offences such as cyberflashing) and problems comparing crime rates between countries;
a conclusion that crime rates are a construction of methodology and that “more research is needed”.

The essay also contains spelling and grammar errors, informal language, unsupported generalisations and an irrelevant, out-of-place sentence that students are expected to spot.

Part 2 Marking Criteria

Marks	Level of understanding
8–10	Identifies fabricated/hallucinated references; notes grammar and spelling errors; highlights weak, absent or vague analysis; finds unsupported generalisations; explains structural and logical issues; recognises language inconsistent with academic writing.
5–7	Identifies some fabricated references and a few grammar/spelling errors; does not highlight weak analysis in all places; misses some generalisations; needs more attention to structure, logic and academic language.
3–5	Very few fabricated references noted; limited grammar and spelling errors highlighted; weak or absent critical analysis; generalisations not accounted for; little awareness of academic-writing inconsistencies.
1–2	Fabricated references not identified; no evidence of grammar/spelling errors; weak analysis not highlighted; very limited outline of non-academic language.

Part 3: Critical Reading of Sources (complete A and B)

Part A: Critical Reading of Two News Articles (300 words)

Read the two articles: Ciara Kelly, “‘Zero Tolerance’ Crackdown Needed on Dublin’s O’Connell Street”, and Kevin Wozniak & Ian Marder, “Would ‘zero tolerance’ policing make Dublin city centre safer?”. Then answer all of the following:

What are the main points of each article?
What evidence do the authors provide to support their arguments? (Hint: pay attention to the web hyperlinks.)
What do you know about the authors and their qualifications to write about the topic, according to the articles?

Part B: Understanding the Evolution of Criminological Theory Over Time (300 words)

Consider the case of a 16-year-old boy who physically assaulted a man on the street and stole the money he had on him. Explain how (1) a criminologist in 1890 and (2) a criminologist in 2023 might explain why the youth committed the crime.

Part 3 Marking Rubric

Points	Quality of answer content
12.5–10	A thorough, clear and accurate answer showing that the student understands how the two articles differ (one based on opinion, one on empirical evidence); one or two minor errors.
9–6	Clear and mostly accurate, but could be clearer or cite more supporting evidence from module readings and lecture notes; differences between the articles understood but not clearly explained; two to four minor-to-moderate errors.
5–2	Vague, unclear or inaccurate; minimal supporting evidence; confusion about the articles’ core arguments; five or more moderate-to-serious errors.
1	Minimal effort and minimal comprehension of criminological theory.

Get Expert Help with Your LW166 Skills Portfolio

Each part of this portfolio rewards precision. In Part 1, every comma, italic and initial counts; in Part 2, the best answers check whether sources like “Smith (2015)” or “Professor Michaels” actually exist and show where the argument is vague or unsupported; and in Part 3, you need to say clearly that one article argues from opinion while the other draws on research, then link early biological and positivist ideas to modern theories of youth offending.

If you are unsure where to start, our assignment help for students in Kildare and law and criminology assignment help can guide your planning, critical reading and Harvard referencing. For a related criminology task, see our QQI 5N2107 criminology assessment brief.

The post LW166 Criminology Skills Portfolio Brief 2026: Harvard Citations, GenAI Essay Critique and Zero-Tolerance Policing Articles | Maynooth University appeared first on Ireland Assignment Helper.

Academic Writer & Editor