transformational sh

Assessment Brief - Final

Academic year 2024/25, FALL

Course

BCOBM312 Transformational Change Management (5 ECTS)

Lecturer

Dr. Angelos Vouldis - Omar Sakkjiha - Christanna Brodbar - Miguel Martins

Assessment Brief - Final

Academic year 2024/25, FALL

Course

BCOBM312 Transformational Change Management (5 ECTS)

Lecturer

Dr. Angelos Vouldis - Omar Sakkjiha - Christanna Brodbar - Miguel Martins

Learning Descriptors 

Fail 

Below 70% 

Fair 

70-79% 

Good  80-89% 

Exceptional  90-100% 

Content

knowledge

40%

Discussion does not promote basic use of content. Posts do not demonstrate

participants’ adequate understanding of content

knowledge. Examples

do not depict understanding of concepts and are unclear and inaccurate. 

Discussion promotes use of content that lacks coherence. Posts demonstrate limited understanding of content knowledge. This is evidenced with little or no use of concepts and terminology across posts/threads. Examples are correct with few details. 

Discussion promotes uncertain or misguided use of concepts. Posts demonstrate participants have not fully grasped content knowledge. This is evidenced with only some use of concepts and terminology across posts/threads. Examples

are correct with some details. 

Discussion promotes basic use of content. Posts demonstrate participants’ adequate understanding of content knowledge. This is evidenced by use of concepts and terminology across some posts/threads. Examples depict understanding of concepts and are clear and accurate. 

Discussion promotes sophisticated use of content. Posts

demonstrate participants’ mastery of content knowledge. This is evidenced by extensive use of concepts and terminology across most or all posts/threads. Examples depict understanding of concepts and are clear and accurate. Posts engage concepts critically.

Connection

10%

Posts do not connect to the

assignment/previous

posts by not addressing of its components. Relevant course topics are not mentioned with connections to course material or topics learned with some details/elaboration. Posts do not draw links between course content and participants’ own professional practice, with no elaboration. 

Posts make only minimal reference to the assignment/previous posts and address hardly any components of the assignment/previous post. Relevant course

topics are mentioned

with very limited connections to course material or topics learned, or with minimal details or elaboration. Participants’ professional practice is not mentioned.

Posts do not connect to the assignment/previous posts and address few components of the assignment/previous post. Relevant course topics are mentioned with very few connections to course material or topics learned, or with no details or elaboration. The participants rarely or never mention their own professional practice. 

Posts connect to the assignment/previous posts by addressing some of its components. Relevant course topics are mentioned with connections to course material or topics learned with some

details/elaboration. Posts draw links between course content and participants’ own professional practice, with some elaboration still needed. 

Posts connect to the assignment/previous posts by addressing most or all its components and linking them to course material or topics learned. Posts draw insightful links between course content and professional practice, with a detailed explanation of participants’ own professional practice. 

Collaboration

20%

Posts do not point to areas of agreement or disagreement and

do not ask clarification questions about previous posts. 

Little attempt is made to respond to previous comments and/or

discussion questions. 

Posts are disjointed. 

Posts mostly point to areas of agreement or disagreement and asking clarification questions about previous posts.

Discussion across the posts serves to build new ideas or stimulate further insight. 

Timeliness

Participants do not show any

Participants show no initiative by

Participants show little initiative by

Participants show some initiative by posting

Participants show a lot of initiative by posting

20%

initiative by not

posting replies or comments within one week. Participants do not invite responses from classmates. Discussion does not end by a deadline. 

posting replies or comments after more than one week. Participants suggest no ideas that encourage responses. Discussion among participants is very limited.

posting replies or comments after more than one week. Participants suggest few ideas that encourage responses. Discussion among participants begins late or not at all (e.g. instructor must

prompt them when

the module is over). 

replies or comments within one week. Participants invite responses from classmates. Discussion ends by a deadline.

replies or comments within days. Participants invite peer responses and engage in meaningful interaction in the discussions. Discussion ends by a deadline (e.g. end of that module).

Conventions

10%

Overall, participants do not follow online conventions, lack courtesy towards fellow participants by being disrespectful, impolite and adopt a negative tone in posts. Participants fail to acknowledge previous posts.

Overall, participants sometimes follow online conventions and at times lack courtesy towards

fellow participants, make curt responses or use an overly critical tone in

posts. Participants often do not acknowledge previous posts.

Overall, participants do not always follow online conventions and occasionally do not extend courtesy towards fellow participants, make curt responses or use a slightly critical tone in posts. Participants sometimes do not acknowledge previous posts.

Overall, participants follow online conventions, extend courtesy towards fellow participants by being respectful, polite and adopting a positive tone in posts. 

Overall, participants follow online conventions, extend courtesy towards fellow participants by being respectful, polite and adopting a positive tone in posts.

Participants compliment and provide constructive feedback to previous posts.

Learning Descriptors

Fail

Below 70%

Fair

70-79%

Good 80-89%

Exceptional 90-100%

Purpose &

Understanding

KNOWLEDGE &

UNDERSTANDIN

G

25%

Very poor coverage of central purpose, goals, research questions or arguments with little relevant information evident. Virtually no evidence of understanding or focus.

Minimal understanding of purpose of the study; factual errors evident. Gaps in knowledge and superficial understanding. A few lines of relevant material.

Reasonable understanding and clearly identifies the purpose, goals, research questions or argument. Reflect partial achievement of learning outcomes.

A sound grasp of, and clearly identifies, the purpose, goals, research questions or argument. Some wider study beyond the classroom content shown.

Effectively describes and explains the central purpose, arguments, research

questions, or goals

of the project; explanation is focused, detailed and compelling. Recognition of alternative forms of evidence beyond that supplied in the classroom.

Content

Content is unclear, inaccurate

Limited content that does not really support the

Presents some information that adequately supports the

Presents clear and appropriate information that adequately supports

Presents balanced, significant and

KNOWLEDGE &

UNDERSTANDIN

G

20%

and/or incomplete. Brief and irrelevant. Descriptive. Only personal views offered.

Unsubstantiated and does not support the purpose, argument or goals of the project. Reader gains no insight through the content of the project.

purpose of the report. Very poor coverage. Displays only rudimentary knowledge of the content area. Reader gains few

if any insights

central purpose, arguments, goals, or research questions of the project. Although parts missing, it demonstrates a level of partially proficient knowledge of the content area. Reader gains some insights.

the central purpose, arguments, goals or research questions of the project.

Demonstrates satisfactory knowledge of the content area. Reader gains proficient insights.

valid information that clearly and convincingly supports the central purpose, arguments, research questions or goals of the project.

Demonstrates indepth and specialised knowledge of the content area. The reader gains important

insights

Organization

COMMUNICATI

ON

5%

Information/cont

ent is not

logically organized or presented. Topics/paragraph s are frequently disjointed and fail to make sense together. Reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and loses interest.

Information/cont ent is not, at times, logically organized or presented. Topics/paragraph s are frequently disjointed which makes the content hard to follow. The reader finds it hard to understand the flow of the report.

Information/content is presented in a reasonable sequence. Topic/paragraph transition is unclear in places with linkages for the most part. Reader can generally understand and follow the line of reasoning, although work needed to be proficiently organized.

Information/content is presented in a clear and understandable sequence. Topic/paragraph transition is good with clear linkages between sections and arguments. Reader can understand and follow the line of reasoning.

Information/cont ent is presented

in a logical, interesting and effective sequence. Topics and arguments flow smoothly and coherently from one to another and are clearly linked.

Reader can easily follow the line of reasoning and enjoyed reading the report.

Style & Tone

COMMUNICATI

ON

5%

Writing is poor, unclear and unengaging, and the reader finds

it difficult to read and maintain interest. Tone is not professional

or suitable for an academic research project. A reorganization and rewrite is needed.

Writing is unengaging and reader finds it difficult to maintain interest. Tone is not consistently professional or

suitable for an academic research project. Work needed on academic writing style.

Writing is usually engaging and keeps the reader’s attention. Tone is generally appropriate for an academic research project, although a clearer and more professional style and tone is needed.

Writing style and tone is generally good and sustains interest throughout. Tone is professional and appropriate for an academic research project.

Writing is compelling and sustains interest throughout. Tone is consistently professional and appropriate for an academic research project.

Use of

References

Little or no evidence of reference sources

Most references are from sources that are not

Professionally legitimate references are generally used. Fair citations are

Professionally and academically legitimate references are used. Clear

Presents compelling evidence from

COMMUNICATI

ON

5%

in the report. Content not supported and based on unsubstantiated views.

peer- reviewed or professional, and have uncertain reliability. Few if any appropriate citations are provided. Reader doubts the validity of much of the material.

presented in most cases. Some of the information/content/evid ence comes from sources that are reliable, but more academic sources needed to be convincing.

and accurate citations are presented in most cases. The majority of the information/content/evid ence comes from sources that are reliable.

professionally and academically legitimate sources. Attribution is clear and accurate. References are 75% from primarily peerreviewed professional

journals or other approved sources.

Formatting

COMMUNICATI

ON

5%

Research project exhibits no formatting, or frequent and

significant

errors in

Harvard formatting.

There are too many errors in the Harvard formatting to be acceptable as a partially proficient piece.

Harvard formatting is employed in the research project with minor errors. A review and rework of format and style of referencing in text and in the bibliography is needed.

Harvard formatting is used accurately and consistently throughout the research project, although some issues are apparent as the reader is unable to find sources.

Harvard formatting is used accurately and consistently throughout the research project. Accurate hyperlinks are included where required, making it easy for readers to review sources.

Written

Communication

Skills

COMMUNICATI

ON

5%

The written project exhibits multiple errors in grammar, sentence structure and/or spelling.

Inadequate

writing skills (e.g., weaknesses in language facility and mechanics) hinder readability and contribute to an ineffective research project.

The written project exhibits errors in

grammar, punctuation and spelling. The written project comes across as untidy and not properly checked for mistakes. Errors present in written communication make readability frustrating.

Written research project displays good word choice, language conventions and mechanics with a few

minor errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure and/or punctuation. Errors do not represent a major distraction or obscure meaning.

Readability of the project is good due to the clarity of language used. Grammar, spelling and punctuation is without error.

Spelling and grammar thoroughly checked.

Readability of the

project is enhanced by

facility in language use/word choice. Excellent mechanics and syntactic variety. Uses language conventions

effectively (e.g., spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, paragraphing, grammar, etc.).

Analytical /

Critical Thinking

Skills

Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated, or its component elements are not identified or

Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated at times and confusing. Research

Adequately identifies and describes (or sketches out) the research problem, concept or idea and its components. Gathers and examines information relating to the research problem,

Formulates a clear description of the research problem, concept or idea, and specifies major elements to be examined. Selects information appropriate to addressing the research problem,

Effectively formulates a clear description of the research problem, concept or idea, and specifies major elements to be

CRITICAL

THINKING

20%

described. Research information is poorly organized, categorized and/or not examined; research information is often inaccurate or incomplete. Presents little if any analysis or interpretation; inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories to the analysis. Presents few solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are often not well supported, are inaccurate and/or inconsistent, and are presented in a vague or rudimentary manner.

information is badly organized, categorized, and/or only

superficially examined; research information is often incomplete. Presents limited analysis or interpretation; inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories to the analysis. Presents some solutions or conclusions but they are often not well supported, or logical.

concept or idea; presents and appraises research information with some minor inconsistencies, irrelevancies or omissions. Generally applies appropriate research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories although with inaccuracies. Outlines solutions or conclusions that are somewhat logical and consistent with the analysis and evidence; identifies and/or lists solutions or conclusions although not always clearly.

concept or idea; accurately and appropriately analyses and interprets relevant research information. Effectively applies appropriate research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories in developing and justifying multiple solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are coherent, well supported and complete.

examined. Selects and prioritizes information appropriate to addressing the research problem, concept, or idea; accurately and appropriately analyzes and interprets relevant research information. Precisely and effectively applies appropriate research methods, employs advanced skills to conduct research. Uses techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories in developing and justifying multiple solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are insightful, coherent, well

supported, logically consistent and complete. Displays a mastery of complex and specialized areas.

Integration Skills

APPLICATION &

EVALUATION

10%

Shows little ability to employ theory and practice across the functional areas of business in the assessment of issues relating to the research problem, concept, or idea. Does not recognize or

Shows some

ability to employ theory and practice across the functional areas of business in the assessment of issues relating to the research problem, concept or idea. Recognizes organizational issues relevant to

Exhibits application of principles, theories and practices across the functional areas of business to the analysis of the research problem, concept or idea. With some exceptions, outlines and describes (or sketches out) some cross- functional organizational issues that are relevant to the research problem, concept or idea.

Demonstrates an ability to integrate and apply principles, theories and practices across the functional areas of business to the analysis of the research problem, concept or idea.

Identifies, examines and critically evaluates important cross- functional organizational issues associated with the research problem,

Demonstrates

well-developed ability to integrate and apply principles, theories and practices across the functional areas of business to the analysis of the research problem, concept or idea. Effectively

correctly identify cross-functional organizational issues relevant to the research problem, concept or idea. Does not adequately evaluate the research problem,

concept or idea in light of relevant principles, theories and practices across the business functional areas. Few if any

solutions,

recommendation

s for action, or conclusions are presented, and/or they are not appropriately justified or supported.

the research problem, concept or idea but does not show understanding. Does not adequately evaluate the research problem, concept or idea in light of relevant principles, theories and practices across the business functional areas. Some solutions offered but difficult to understand.

Recommendation

s for action, or conclusions are presented, but they are often not well supported, or logical.

Adequately identifies and describes (or summarizes)

solutions,

recommendations for action, or conclusions that are, for the most part, appropriate, but which need to be more aligned with principles and concepts in the functional areas of business.

concept or idea. Clearly

justifies solutions,

recommendations for action, or conclusions based on analytics and an insightful synthesis of cross-disciplinary principles and concepts in the functional areas of business.

identifies,

examines and

critically evaluates important crossfunctional organizational issues associated with the research problem, concept, or idea. Clearly and effectively justifies solutions,

recommendatio

ns for action, or conclusions based on strong analytics and an insightful synthesis of cross-disciplinary principles and concepts in the functional areas of business. Can link thinking across disciplines and contexts.