management

dodo1995

reflective.docx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Economics homework help >management

Course code and name: BUSM4176 Introduction to Management

Assignment name: Academic Reflective Report (Individual)

Length: 1000 words (+ 10% is acceptable) + References

Guidelines: How do I complete this assignment task?

Learning Objectives Assessed:

CL02: Research management theory and explain how this theory applies to contemporary and socially responsible practices.

CL03: Effectively collaborate with others to locate appropriate resources to organise information and generate management solutions.

CL04: Critically (academically) reflect on the relationship between management theory and management research evidence and communicate your knowledge of responsible management practices.

Assignment task: What do I need to do?

Assignment 2 Part 2 requires students to reflect academically on the experience of performing as a team and write a report on the way the team functioned. Please refer to the guidelines on how to structure the academic reflection.

Read the assignment brief carefully and note the submission requirements, resources and support available for this task.

Also, read through the marking rubric carefully to see the criteria on which Assignment 2 Part 2 will be graded.

Rationale: Why is this important?

The contemporary workplace is diverse and complex requiring effective and responsible management and teamwork skills. Teamwork can be challenging but the skills required to successfully negotiate, delegate, contribute to and lead a successful team are important. As important are the knowledge and skills required to manage diverse teams within the workplace.

Assignment Declaration:

I declare that in submitting all work for this assignment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the Assessment declaration .

NOTE: you have to consider :

1- Belbin and tuckman for analysis

2- Hofstede

3- Myers Briggs

Rubric

BUSM4176 – A2.2 - 1910

BUSM4176 – A2.2 - 1910

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeComprehension

8.0 to >7.0 Pts

Has understood and responded to each of the task requirements appropriately. Anticipates how ethical, cultural, social and team (ESCT) issues may affect or influence the team outcomes within their study group. A very high quality, articulative and self-reflective response to the assessment task.

7.0 to >6.0 Pts

Has understood and responded to most task requirements appropriately. Addresses most ethical, cultural, social and team (ESCT) issues that influence the team outcomes within their study group. Demonstrates sufficient self-reflection within the process.

6.0 to >5.0 Pts

Has understood some task requirements and attempted to respond appropriately. Addresses one or two ethical, cultural, social and team (ESCT) issues which may influence the team outcomes within their study group. Demonstrates some aspects of self-reflection within the process.

5.0 to >4.0 Pts

Limited understanding of the task was evident, but some requirements are missing. Marginally address how ethical, cultural, social and team (ESCT) issues may influence the team outcomes within their study group. Demonstrates limited self-reflection within the process.

4.0 to >0 Pts

No evidence that the student has understood what is required in this task. No attempt to address how ethical, cultural, social and team (ESCT) issues may influence the team outcomes within their study group. No attempt at self-reflection.

8.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeStructure & Synthesis of Research

4.0 to >3.5 Pts

The student has seamlessly integrated the reflective analysis structure. Cohesive paragraph structure consistently encourages engagement with the content. New information from research is synthesised and presented thematically.

3.5 to >3.0 Pts

The student has adopted the reflective analysis structure. Cohesive paragraph structure supports engagement with the content. Uses discrete paragraphs to present information. New material from research is mostly structured into themes.

3.0 to >2.5 Pts

The student attempted to adopt a reflective analysis structure. Some effort was made to achieve a cohesive paragraph structure. Some effort was made to include new material from research into themes.

2.5 to >2.0 Pts

The student has loosely adopted the proposed reflective analysis structure. A limited effort was made to achieve a cohesive paragraph structure. Minimal effort to include new materials from research into a thematic structure.

2.0 to >0 Pts

Limited or no attempt to adopt the proposed reflective analysis structure. Information presented randomly without a proper order. No sense of cohesion between ideas. No analysis attempted.

4.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeWritten Expression

4.0 to >3.5 Pts

Uses discipline-specific language appropriate for an academic or professional audience. Writing is fluent and uses appropriate paragraph/sentence structures. No critical language or grammatical errors.

3.5 to >3.0 Pts

Includes discipline-specific language sufficient for an academic or professional audience. Writing is generally fluent and uses mostly appropriate paragraph/ sentence structures. Minor language or grammatical errors usually do not interfere with meaning, but some editing and proofreading are required.

3.0 to >2.5 Pts

Some discipline-specific language included in meeting general expectations of an academic or professional audience. Writing is generally clear and mostly uses appropriate paragraph/ sentence structures. Editing and proofreading are required to reduce errors and improve clarity.

2.5 to >2.0 Pts

Limited use of discipline-specific language which may not always meet expectations of an academic or professional audience. Inconsistent paragraph and sentence structures. Language and grammatical errors are frequent. Little evidence of proofreading or editing.

2.0 to >0 Pts

Limited vocabulary. Inappropriate or incorrect use of discipline-specific language. Consistent and numerous errors in writing (grammar, paragraph and sentence structure) make reading difficult. No evidence of editing or proofreading.

4.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeResearch and referencing skills

4.0 to >3.5 Pts

Uses academic research skills to select current, credible, and authoritative academic references. The student has considered how the articles relate to the assessment requirements. Uses the RMIT Harvard referencing style with no errors.

3.5 to >3.0 Pts

Uses academic research skills to select current, credible and authoritative academic references. Demonstrates some evidence that the student understands the relevance of the articles to the assessment requirements. Uses the RMIT Harvard referencing style with few errors.

3.0 to >2.5 Pts

Uses academic research skills to select some current, credible and authoritative academic references. Attempted to understand the relevance of the articles to the assessment requirements. Uses the RMIT Harvard referencing style with errors.

2.5 to >2.0 Pts

Uses academic research skills to select limited academic references. No real evidence to demonstrate that the student understands the relevance of the articles to assessment requirements. A limited attempt at using the RMIT Harvard referencing style. Frequent referencing errors throughout the paper.

2.0 to >0 Pts

Has not located 3 academic references or selected references do not meet the task requirements. Uses general web searches to locate online webpages or articles rather than library databases. Little or no attempt to use the RMIT Harvard referencing style.

4.0 pts

Total points: 20.0