Assessment

This module is exclusively assessed via coursework.  The elements are weighted as follows:

• 50% group report
• 50% individual reflection

Where word limits are specified, you are required to include a ‘word count’ on the front cover of your work.  Bibliographies and Appendices do not contribute to this ‘word count’.

Deadline: 19^th May at 12 pm (noon)

Form of submission: online.  Further instructions will be provided later.

Word count:

Group report – 5000 words,

individual reflection – 2000 words

 

Return of Coursework

The teaching staff will endeavour to mark and return the coursework within 4 working weeks of the coursework deadline.  Feedback and marks will be returned to you online.

 

 

Individual assessment

 

The elements of the individual assessment are:

• Process reflection – 40%
• Academic reflection – 40%
• Reflective Logs – 20%

So here you are – having sorted out what you wished to achieve, prioritised the goals, considered the resources available, worked out your plan and subsequently undertaken the appropriate tasks then the time will come when you should look back over what actually happened.  This is the reflective stage when the project is reviewed in order to, for example, identify elements of best practice to apply in future and improve performance.  Taking a reflective approach should give you the flexibility to tackle a wide range of tasks.  You will be able to learn and adapt continually.  Your competences should, as a consequence, be enhanced.  Looking back along the time line of the project, questions will suggest themselves.  You will be aware of the existence of critical events along the way.

Reflective Logs

To successfully produce a reflective analysis, you will need to firstly keep a log identifying and analysing key developments over time. This acts as a reminder of what happened and also as evidence to support your reflective discussion.  You will find the reflective logs in the appendix at the end of this document and as a Word file on the DLE site.

You should reflect on the team function by logging important events in the project process grid (Part 1 – Project Process Reflection) and also by logging relevant material in the academic reflection grid (Part 2 – Academic Reflection).

Project process reflection

The Project Process Reflection focuses on the functioning of the team/company and its progress (both steps forward and steps backwards) towards the goal.  Were you successful?  Did things work out as planned/anticipated? Did you misjudge certain aspects of the job in hand? Did you learn something from the process that could be useful in the future? In this particular project you are working as part of a team: you are collaborating to produce, and be judged by, the common output. Your reflective analysis should have particular focus on team dynamics including planning, time management, choice of strategies and your contribution.  To complete this, you should:

• identify the tasks and duties of your role within the team/company.
• critically appraise your performance within the team/company.
• critically appraise how well you worked with others (team dynamics).

 

Academic reflection

The Academic Reflection is concerned with assessment of usefulness and appropriateness of academic disciplines and available resources. To what extent did your previous and current studies inform your action?  If you consider that your academic studies have provided you with a toolkit what tools have you used?  Are there tools that you don’t have which would have been useful?  This second part of the process of reflection focuses on methodological and analytical issues where the relationship between content of your academic studies and the requirements of the project are assessed.

 

Marking Criteria:

Both the process reflection and the academic reflection will be given a percentage mark based on the marking rubric provided on the following page:

 

	Weak	Basic	Proficient	Excellent
Connections to Content and Pedagogy	·      Response is random, without connections to important concepts of ideas ·      Response is not connected to previous knowledge or larger issues ·      No information supports the response.	·      Response is incomplete, lacking in connections to important ideas or concepts ·      Response alludes to previous knowledge or larger issues ·      Weak or incomplete information is used to support the response	·      Response is adequate, with some meaningful connections to important ideas and concepts ·      Response integrates previous knowledge or connects to larger issues ·      General information supports the response	·  Response is thorough with meaningful connections to important ideas and concepts ·  Response integrates previous knowledge and connects to larger issues ·  Relevant details and accurate facts support the response
Self-Assessment and Self Disclosure	·      Response does not show how understanding has changed ·      Response does not raise questions or topics for future learning ·      Response demonstrates no self-disclosure and appraisal	·      Response provides information about how understanding has changed, but lacks examples or comparison ·      Response alludes to questions or topics for future learning ·      Response demonstrates little self-disclosure and appraisal	·      Response describes, with examples or comparisons, how understanding has changed ·      Response mentions new topics or questions for future learning ·      Response demonstrates cautious and guarded self-disclosure and appraisal	·  Response describes, with specific detail and examples and comparisons how understanding has changed ·  Response raises important questions for further exploration, learning, or understanding ·  Response demonstrates open and honest self-disclosure and appraisal
Writing and Organization	·      No organization and/or ideas are not developed ·      No transitions between ideas ·      Style is inappropriate and does not follow directions provided	·      Poor organization and/or development of ideas is incomplete ·      Lacks transitions between ideas ·      Style does not conform to directions; many errors	·      Organization and development of ideas lacks in clarity ·      Transitions between ideas are awkward or rough ·      Style generally follows directions provided, with some errors	·  Ideas are logically organized and developed ·  Transitions move reader smoothly between ideas ·  Style is appropriate and follows directions provided
Spelling, Grammar, Writing Conventions	·      Many grammar and/or mechanical errors that make reading difficult ·      Word choices are inappropriate making understanding difficult ·      Many spelling and punctuation errors that make understanding difficult ·      No evidence of proofreading	·      Significant grammar and/or mechanical errors ·      Word choices are inappropriate making understanding difficult ·      Significant spelling and punctuation errors	·      Some grammar and mechanical errors ·      Word choice is sometimes awkward or inappropriate ·      Some spelling and punctuation errors	·  Clear writing grammatically sound and conforms to writing conventions as required ·  Word choices are appropriate ·  Spelling and punctuation are virtually perfect

 

Appendix 1- Project Process Reflection LOG

 

Week Number	Feelings re progress on project	Achievement during period	What went badly	Lessons to learn	Tasks ahead	Strategies to deal with tasks	Functioning of the team
1
2
3
4
5
6

 

 APPENDIX 2 – Academic Reflection Log

Week number	Academic inputs- disciplines, framework and theories	Assessment of academic inputs’ usefulness	Consulting skills which would have been useful	Strategies to deal with skills mis-match	Resources used	Resources sought but not found	Overall assessment of ‘academic toolkit’
1
2
3
4
5
6

 

Source: Northledge, Thomas, Lane and Peasgood (1997)- The Sciences Good Study Guide. Open University: Milton Keynes.

 

 

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"