Argumentative writing(Urgent)

Page 1 of 10

School of Management

— BUSM4551 CID/Innovation Management Assessment 1: Argumentative Essay

Assessment type: Essay

Word limit: 1,500 (+/- 10%) Word count excludes the cover page and reference list.

Due Date: Friday of Week 5 on or before 23:59 (Singapore time)

Weighting: 30%

Rationale As students undertaking undergraduate study in an Australian University, you are expected to develop your critical thinking skills. This requires you to go beyond just describing and summarizing phenomena or criticizing phenomena to find their faults. Critical thinking involves higher level thinking and reasoning skills to independently 'analyse (break things down), evaluate (make judgements based on evidence) and synthesize or create (put parts together into a coherent whole)' (RMIT University n.d). Critical thinking involves doing independent research, reading critically (questioning what you read with an open mind), analysing and evaluating your findings, developing your arguments based on solid evidence and synthesizing your arguments, and presenting them appropriately.

These skills will help you to become good researchers, independent thinkers and challenge established ideas and perspectives.

Reference:

RMIT University n.d., What is critical thinking? RMIT University, viewed 1 February 2020, https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/what-critical-thinking

Learning outcomes

Course Learning Outcomes related to this assessment are:

CLO1 Explain the relationship between creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship and how it impacts business growth, sustainability and wealth creation

CLO2 Investigate factors that inhibit creativity in individuals and innovation within teams and organisations, and recommend strategies and tactics to encourage entrepreneurial behaviour

Page 2 of 10

CLO3 Identify and critique organisational models of innovation management

The Program Learning Outcomes related to this assessment are:

PLO2 Integrate business knowledge, social intelligence and ethical decision-making in ways that are inclusive and culturally appropriate to produce outcomes that are impactful, sustainable and fair.

PLO5 Coherently articulate technical and conceptual business knowledge that is both contemporary and interdisciplinary.

Overview The purpose of this assessment is to provide you with an opportunity to apply your critical thinking skills. This requires you to write an argumentative essay in the context of innovation management.

Your essay is written from the perspective of a university student who is studying the management of innovation. In the essay, you will apply critical thinking skills to argue a specific point of view regarding the practice of innovation.

Assessment details

You will learn from this 12-module course that the management of innovation within the corporate context (medium to large enterprises) is a multi-faceted endeavour that occurs at all levels within the organisation. Demonstration of that learning will require you to apply critical thinking as you argue to show understanding of the many, often competing, viewpoints. One such viewpoint is that innovation is complex, uncertain, and almost impossible to manage.

Your task is to write an argumentative essay in which you critically argue in favour of, or against, the above (underlined) viewpoint. This assessment requires that you focus your arguments on the challenges (and remedies?) associated with the various sub-sets of managing innovation.

To be clear, arguments must be balanced across all four modules, which is reflected in the marking rubric. Select specific concepts, models, theories, frameworks, or tools that you found particularly useful to support those arguments. Critical thinking requires you to make arguments rather than describe materials covered in this course. In those arguments, draw on specific examples of your learnings from each of the first four Modules of this course. As you argue, apply relevant specialist terminology and demonstrate relevance to contemporary creativity and innovation practices. Where possible and appropriate, support your arguments with real-world industry examples.

Important requirements:

• Your chosen examples (concepts, models, theories, frameworks, or tools) must originate from the materials presented in the first four modules in this course. Do not include examples from elsewhere.

• There is no upper limit to the number of examples you may wish to select from each module. • You should include at least two examples of theories and two examples of tools among your

examples across the four modules. • Please be guided by the marking rubric when writing your essay. The four Canvas modules

that you must cover each carries a heavy weighting (20%) in the assessment criteria.

Page 3 of 10

Assessment criteria (100 marks equate to 30% of overall course assessment) This assessment will measure your ability to:

• Introduce the context, background, scope and purpose of your essay (7 marks)

• Critically argue the factors related to Module 1 (20 marks)

• Critically argue the factors related to Module 2 (20 marks)

• Critically argue the factors related to Module 3 (20 marks)

• Critically argue the factors related to Module 4 (20 marks)

• Synthesise and conclude your arguments and relate it back to the broader knowledge of the innovation management field (7 marks)

• Cite appropriate resources using the Harvard /RMIT Harvard style (3 marks)

• Present your arguments professionally (3 marks)

Structure of the argumentative academic essay

Your argumentative academic essay must include the following components:

Cover page (compulsory)

Please include the following detail on your cover page: Your full name and student number; Course title, Tutor name; Assignment 1: Argumentative essay; Tutorial #; Word count.

1. Introduction: must include

• A general statement to provide context and background information.

• A purpose statement that outlines the scope and structure of the essay.

• A statement (argument) that identifies the topic and your position.

2. Argument: Your argumentative academic essay can include any number of paragraphs. Give each set of paragraphs that portray a specific topic a descriptive sub-heading and make it clear which sections relate to which course modules.

Each paragraph should:

• describe one main idea only, supported by information and evidence from your research

• follow the TEEL strategy to ensure all elements of a good paragraph are included

• relate back to the argument you posed in your introduction

In the paragraphs, you must include in-text citations of all scholarly work (i.e., journals, academic textbooks, e-books, etc.) and of non-scholarly work (i.e., company websites, newspaper articles, company videos, etc.) used. Non-scholarly work must be cited when real- world corporate examples are used to support your arguments.

3. Conclusion:

Your conclusion should:

Page 4 of 10

• restate your position (for completeness’ sake)

• summarise how the most important evidence supports this

• show how your position is related to the broader body of knowledge of this field/topic

4. References: List all scholarly and non-scholarly work you have cited in the body of the essay in a Reference List.

• The reference list is not included in the word count. • References should be in RMIT Harvard style (or Harvard style if using Endnote). • The list should be in alphabetical order by family name. • The list should not be listed by numbers or bullet points. • A minimum of 5 references must be from scholarly work, the remainder can be non-scholarly

work where real-world corporate examples are used.

Referencing guidelines

Use RMIT Harvard referencing style for this assessment.

You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.

Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in the appropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such as EndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.

Feedback mode: Feedback will be provided using Canvas/Turnitin's inline marking tool, a Rubric and general comments.

Format: Professionally presented using Ariel or Calibri 12-point font, justified. Cover page must include the word count.

Additional resources | Please refer to the following links for further information on:

Critical thinking:-

• What is critical thinking? by RMIT’s Learning Lab

What is an argumentative academic essay?

An argumentative academic essay is a piece of writing that examines and interprets a given 'claim' or 'statement' and defends or refutes it with the use of theoretical and practical evidence.

In such an essay, you are essentially building up and presenting your own argument(s) on the statement while using scholarly (i.e., journal articles, textbooks, theories, etc.) and practical evidence (e.g., corporate stories, news items relating to companies, etc.) to support your arguments.

Hence, you are not simply describing or summarizing what others have said about a given statement but introducing and developing your own arguments on it. Your arguments must be backed by evidence if they are to be valid.

In summary, in writing an argumentative academic essay, you are using your critical thinking skills.

• How to Write a Good Argumentative Essay: Easy Step-by-Step Guide by MasterClass

Page 5 of 10

• Argument by The Writing Center

Submission

Back up all copies of drafts and your final assignment on a separate device (USB or similar) in case it is required as evidence. Computer failure is not allowable grounds for an Extension or Special Consideration.

Use Word documents in the .doc or .docx formats only. The assessment will be submitted in Canvas as a file upload. Assignments submitted in pdf format will not be graded.

Turnitin

Assignments and other assessments must be submitted through the CANVAS assessment submission system (Turnitin). Submitted assignments that do not have a similarity score will not be graded.

Do NOT look at similar assignments that have been uploaded onto Internet sites by RMIT students or students studying at other universities. If you do so you will be tempted to paraphrase their work, which is not permitted and will lead to a failure mark. You are only allowed to paraphrase information obtained from legitimate sources.

Do NOT attempt to obtain a similarity score by first submitting it to TurnItIn via another course as this will result in you achieving a very high similarity score when you eventually submit your assignment for this course. A 10% penalty will be imposed in such instances.

Do NOT include the declaration form as part of your TurnItIn submission as that will incorrectly increase your similarity score.

Turnitin Similarity Percentage: The Turnitin Similarity Percentage is an indicator of the similarity of your paper with other assignments. This link gives you information on how to interpret the similarity report.

Allow sufficient time for the TurnItIn system to reset before you make another attempt at obtaining a similarity score. Make sure you obtain your final similarity score well in advance of the assignment deadline in order to avoid a penalty for late submission.

Academic integrity and plagiarism

Academic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge, and ideas.

Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:

• Failure to properly acknowledge or accurately document sources used

• Use of Copyright material from the internet or databases

• Collusion and sharing of work between students

You should take extreme care that you have:

• Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have quoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your assessment through the appropriate referencing methods.

Page 6 of 10

• Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if necessary. This includes material taken from Internet sites.

If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were your own.

RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct.

For further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.

Page 7 of 10

Rubric

Introduction Introduces the topic in an interesting and appropriate manner. Defines the purpose, stance, scope and structure of the essay. Provides a perspective on the essay statement. 7 marks

HD Excellent Introduction. Introduces the essay in an interesting way and clearly articulates the purpose, stance, scope and structure of the essay. A concise perspective on the essay statement is given.

D Well written Introduction and well stated purpose, stance, scope and structure of the essay. Provided a good perspective on the essay statement.

C Generally good Introduction of the topic and quite clearly stated purpose, stance, scope and structure of the essay and perspective provided. There is however, room for improvement.

PA Some Introduction of the topic and some statement of the purpose, stance, scope and structure of the essay but not clearly expressed.

NN Inadequate Introduction provided. Has not clearly stated the objectives, stance or the scope of the essay

DNS No introduction provided

Arguments from Module 1 Quality of arguments with regard to critical thinking ability; understanding of course content; relevance to and impact on practice. Arguments are supported with additional scholarly and professional evidence. 20 marks

HD Outstanding quality of arguments and high perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed highly relevant to and impactful on practice.

D High quality of arguments and high perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed relevant to and impactful on practice.

C Acceptable quality of arguments and sufficient perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed somewhat relevant to and impactful on practice.

PA Average quality of arguments and low perceived understanding of content. Some arguments are deemed not very relevant to and impactful on practice.

NN Very poor quality of arguments and no perceived understanding of content. Arguments are not relevant to and not impactful on practice.

DNS Failed to provide any discussion related to the content of module 1

Arguments from Module 2

HD D C PA NN DNS

Page 8 of 10

Quality of arguments with regard to critical thinking ability; understanding of course content; relevance to and impact on practice. Arguments are supported with additional scholarly and professional evidence. 20 marks

Outstanding quality of arguments and high perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed highly relevant to and impactful on practice.

High quality of arguments and high perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed relevant to and impactful on practice.

Acceptable quality of arguments and sufficient perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed somewhat relevant to and impactful on practice.

Average quality of arguments and some low perceived understanding of content. Some arguments are deemed not very relevant to and impactful on practice.

Very poor quality of arguments and very little perceived understanding of content. Arguments are not relevant to and not impactful on practice.

Failed to provide any discussion related to the content of module 2

Arguments from Module 3 Quality of arguments with regard to critical thinking ability; understanding of course content; relevance to and impact on practice. Arguments are supported with additional scholarly and professional evidence. 20 marks

HD Outstanding quality of arguments and high perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed highly relevant to and impactful on practice.

D High quality of arguments and high perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed relevant to and impactful on practice.

C Acceptable quality of arguments and sufficient perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed somewhat relevant to and impactful on practice.

PA Average quality of arguments and some low perceived understanding of content. Some arguments are deemed not very relevant to and impactful on practice.

NN Very poor quality of arguments and very little perceived understanding of content. Arguments are not relevant to and not impactful on practice.

DNS Failed to provide any discussion related to the content of module 3

Arguments from Module 4 Quality of arguments with regard to critical thinking ability; understanding of course content; relevance to and impact on practice.

HD Outstanding quality of arguments and high perceived understanding of content. Arguments are

D High quality of arguments and high perceived understanding of content. Arguments are deemed relevant

C Acceptable quality of arguments and sufficient perceived understanding of content.

PA Average quality of arguments and some low perceived understanding of content. Arguments are

NN Very poor quality of arguments and no perceived understanding of content. Arguments are not relevant to

DNS Failed to provide any discussion related to the content of module 4

Page 9 of 10

Arguments are supported with additional scholarly and professional evidence. 20 marks

deemed highly relevant to and impactful on practice.

to and impactful on practice.

Arguments are deemed somewhat relevant to and impactful on practice.

deemed not very relevant to and impactful on practice.

and not impactful on practice.

Conclusion All aspects are drawn together in a brief concise summary. Consistent with discussion/arguments presented in the Body of the essay. No new materials introduced here 7 marks

HD Excellent conclusion that is written in a very concise, consistent manner. No new material is presented.

D Very clear and concise conclusion. Consistent with the discussion/argum ents provided in the Body

C Good conclusion that summarises the main issues clearly. Yet there is scope for improvement.

PA Satisfactory conclusion but could be done in a clearer and/or more concise manner.

NN Inadequate conclusion provided and poor summary of issues that have been discussed.

DNS No conclusion provided.

Works cited Scholarly and non- scholarly work used is cited in the body of the text. A minimum of 5 scholarly works has been used. A separate reference list accurately applies the RMIT Harvard style of referencing for in-text citations and the reference list. 3 marks

HD Referencing is consistently applied according to the RMIT Harvard style. A minimum of 5 scholarly works has been used. Citations used very well within the Body. A separate reference list is provided with references that

D A minimum of 5 scholarly works has been used. Only minor referencing errors. Citations used well in the Body and the reference list is drawn up well.

C In-text citations and references mostly done well. Has followed the RMIT Harvard style although errors exist.

PA A number of errors in formatting and use of in-text references and listing of references. Some missing references. There is scope for improvement.

NN Very poor attempt at referencing.

DNS No attempt at referencing.

Page 10 of 10

are only cited in- text, and vice versa.

Presentation of Assignment Quality of expression / language, paragraph construction, spelling, and proofreading (lacking in typos). Format and layout presented in professional manner. 3 marks

HD Logical, compelling progression of ideas in essay; clear structure which enhances and showcases the central idea or theme and moves the reader through the text. Excellent expression / language used with minimum spelling errors. Professionally presented in relation to the format and layout.

D Overall, the paper is logically developed. Progression of ideas in essay makes sense and moves the reader easily through the text. Well written and with good expression and very few spelling mistakes. Good use of paragraph constructs. Very well presented.

C Progression of ideas in essay is awkward yet moves the reader through the text without too much confusion. Effective language. Mainly accurate spelling. Well presented.

PA Arrangement of essay is unclear and illogical. The writing lacks a clear sense of direction. Ideas, details or events seem strung together in a loose or random fashion; there is no identifiable internal structure and readers have trouble following the writer's line of thought. Adequate language but some errors in spelling. Format and layout are satisfactory but can be presented more professionally.

NN Arrangement of essay is completely unclear and illogical. The writing lacks any sense of direction. Inappropriate/poor language. Substantial errors in spelling. Need to be proofread. Poor format and layout that do not meet professional expectations.

DNS Not applicable