its 2500 words
MGMT20140 Design Thinking for Managers T2 2019 Assessment 3 (Personal Reflection) assessment criteria · Demonstrate regular use of the weekly blog by providing clear cross-referencing between report and at least 8 time-stamped meaningful blog entries THROUGHOUT the term (20%) · Demonstration of candid and critical self-analysis, including reflection on knowledge AND personal development directly linked to examples of own behaviour to identify personal strengths and weaknesses (30%) · Ability to devise an action plan, supported by literature, that addresses key development needs and identifies specific activities and appropriate timeframes for implementation (20%) · Demonstrate a breadth and quality of research by using a minimum of 10 high-quality sources (10%) · Correct use of the APA referencing system (10%) · Contribution to the group in assessment 2 as evaluated by yourself and your group members (Self- and Peer-Assessment) (10%) See Moodle for more detailed assessment rubric. Late submission and academic misconduct penalties apply as per the university regulations. As Masters students you are required to engage in research as per the Australia Qualifications Framework (AQF) guidelines. Two specific requirements need to be considered. Students need to demonstrate “a body of knowledge that includes the understanding of recent developments in a discipline and/or area of professional practice, and demonstrate "knowledge of research principles and methods applicable to a field of work and/or learning”. Each unit in your course has a number of required weekly readings in terms of academic texts, journals and business publications that represent the appropriate body of knowledge and recent developments referred to by the AQF. In order to demonstrate the ability to engage in appropriate research, students should read and utilise these texts and journals and publications, and as Masters students, indicate a willingness to research beyond this minimum standard through additional texts, journals and studies that demonstrate an ability to engage in independent research. Students should insure that they understand the specific research that is required for each assessment piece and recognise that if they meet this minimum requirement, you will receive the minimum grade for demonstrated research. Your attention is drawn to the University’s stated position on plagiarism. THE WORK OF OTHERS, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE ASSIGNMENT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS SOURCE (a full list of references must be submitted as part of the assessment). MGMT20140 ASSESSMENT ITEM 3 – MARKING RUBRIC In case of high Turnitin similarity scores, markers analyse the similarity score on a case by case basis and you will see relevant comments in your assignment, if necessary. If high similarity derived purely from reference lists and/or the fact that you may have copied the assessment brief into your submission, no comments are made as you can find this information out yourself by exploring the similarity score on your Turnitin report. Late submission penalties are being applied to this assignment as per the university regulations. Any students deemed to have conducted Academic Misconduct are being reported and will be informed of the outcome of the investigation and any related penalties via their student email address. Criteria 0 (Not Shown) 1 (Poor) 2 (Unsatisfactory) 3 (Satisfactory) 4 (Good) 5 (Very Good) 6 (Excellent) 1. Demonstrate regular use of the weekly blog by providing CLEAR CROSS-REFERENCING between report and at least 8 time-stamped meaningful blog entries THROUGHOUT the term 20% No blog submitted. Failure to demonstrate regular engagement with the blog by submitting non-time-stamped blog entries or substantially less than 8 meaningful entries. No clear cross-referencing between blog and report. Failure to demonstrate regular engagement with the blog by submitting non-time-stamped blog entries, or blog entries not written throughout the term, or slightly less than 8 meaningful entries. No clear cross-referencing between blog and report. Demonstrated regular engagement with the blog: 8 time-stamped blog entries (throughout the term), not all of which are meaningful, and limited integration of blog into report through cross-referencing. Demonstrated regular engagement with the blog: 8 meaningful and time-stamped (throughout the term) blog entries, and good integration of blog into report through cross-referencing. Demonstrated regular engagement with the blog: more than 8 meaningful and time-stamped (throughout the term) blog entries, and very good integration of blog into report through cross-referencing. Demonstrated regular engagement with the blog: substantially more than 8 meaningful and time-stamped (throughout the term) blog entries, and excellent integration of blog into report through cross-referencing. 2. Demonstration of candid and critical self-analysis, including reflection on knowledge AND personal development directly linked to examples of own behaviour to identify personal strengths and weaknesses 30% No self-analysis shown, with no reflection on knowledge and personal development included and/or no links to own behavior; no strengths, weaknesses or areas of improvement identified. Minimal self-analysis shown, with very little reflection on knowledge and personal development included and very few or no links to own behaviour; strengths, weaknesses or areas of improvement missing or not clearly derived from analysis and reflection. Inadequate self-analysis shown, with little reflection on knowledge and personal development included and insufficient links to own behaviour; insufficient strengths, weaknesses or areas of improvement identified or not clearly derived from analysis and reflection. Sound level of self-analysis shown, with an acceptable reflection on knowledge and/or personal development included and decent links made to own behavior; strengths, weaknesses or areas of improvement identified but not clearly derived from analysis and reflection. Above average level of self-analysis shown, with proficient reflection on knowledge and personal development included and several links made to own behaviour; suitable strengths, weaknesses or areas of improvement identified, which could be more clearly presented based on analysis and reflection. Well-developed level of self-analysis shown, with good reflection on knowledge and personal development included and high quality links made to own behavior; suitable identification of strengths, weaknesses and related areas of improvement, clearly based on analysis and reflection. Superior level of self-analysis shown, with excellent reflection on knowledge and personal development included and exceptionally high quality links made to own behaviour; excellent identification of strengths, weaknesses and related areas of improvement, clearly based on analysis and reflection. 3. Action plan, supported by literature, that addresses key development needs and identifies specific activities and appropriate timeframes for implementation. 20% No action plan shown, with no specific activities and no consideration of practicality; no supporting literature. Poorly presented action plan, overly generic activities that do not address the full set of identified areas of improvement, and no appropriate consideration of practicality; little to no supporting literature. Inadequate action plan, overly generic activities that do not address the full set of identified areas of improvement; minimal consideration of practicality; little supporting literature. Average action plan presented; vague activities shown that may not address the full set of identified areas of improvement; acceptable consideration of practicality; supported by literature. Above average action plan presented, specific but limited activities related to all identified areas of improvement shown; good consideration of practicality; supported by literature. Very good action plan presented; wide range of specific activities related to all identified areas of improvement shown; comprehensive consideration of practicality; supported by literature throughout. Excellent action plan presented; extensive range of specific activities related to all identified areas of improvement shown, and a comprehensive consideration of practicality; supported by literature throughout. 4. Contribution to the group in assessment 2 as evaluated by yourself and your group members (Self- and Peer-Assessment) 10% A mark will be awarded according to the score achieved from your own (self-assessment) and your group members’ (peer assessment) evaluation of your team contribution and participation. There are no extensions to the cut-off point for the Self- and Peer Assessment questionnaire and late completion is NOT possible – students who fail to fill in the SPA by the given deadline will receive a mark of 0 (zero) for this criterion. 5. Breadth and quality of research, using a minimum of 10 high-quality sources. 10% No sources used. Possible Academic Misconduct case. Limited amount of high-quality sources (<10) and/or="" use="" of="" poor="" quality="" inappropriate="" sources.="" some="" may="" be="" fictional="" or="" irrelevant.="" limited="" amount="" of="" high-quality="" sources=""><10) and/or="" use="" of="" poor="" quality="" inappropriate="" sources.="" some="" may="" be="" fictional="" or="" irrelevant.="" ten="" suitable="" sources="" used,="" which="" may="" include="" a="" couple="" of="" poorer="" quality="" sources="" (e.g.="" websites;="" lecture="" notes).="" a="" body="" (="">10) of generally high-quality and appropriate sources, which may include small omissions and/or errors of judgment. A body (>10) of almost entirely high-quality and appropriate sources. An extensive body (every claim is referenced) of purely high-quality and highly appropriate sources. 6. Correct use of the APA referencing system. 10% No use of the APA referencing system in the assignment, or the reference list with no correctly cited sources. Very poor use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and/or in the reference list, with incorrectly cited sources. Unsatisfactory use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and/or in the reference list, with few correctly cited sources. Satisfactory use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list; mistakes and/or omissions present. Competent use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list; generally correctly cited sources but small omissions and/or errors of judgment may be present. Very good use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list with almost entirely correctly cited sources. Faultless use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list with completely correctly cited sources.