Reflective essay
jacobmartin
LEI425OBAE2Reflectiveessay1.docxSouthampton Solent University
Assessment Brief 2018
Assessment Details
|
Unit Title: |
Organisational Behaviour in the Sports Industry |
|
Unit Code: |
LEI 425 |
|
Unit Leader: |
Georgi Ivanov |
|
Level: |
4 |
|
Assessment Title: |
Reflective essay |
|
Assessment Number: |
2 |
|
Assessment Type: |
Coursework |
|
Restrictions on Time/Length : |
2,000 words +/- 10% |
|
Individual/Group: |
Individual |
|
Assessment Weighting: |
60% |
|
Issue Date: |
Week 16 |
|
Hand In Date: |
Week 30 - 7th May, Monday 16:00hrs |
|
Planned Feedback Date: |
Week 30 |
|
Mode of Submission: |
on-line |
|
Number of copies to be submitted: |
n/a |
Anonymous Marking
|
This assessment will be marked anonymously
|
Assessment Task
Students will individually produce a 2,000 (+/- 10%) word reflective essay based on the following title:
‘An evaluation of what aspect of Organisational Behaviour (OB) theory in the sports or leisure industry is relevant to me’
Hints and tips
1. Research what is meant by ‘reflective writing’. It is not merely a description of an event or experience. Rather, a reflective essay is an evaluation. It is a record of your feelings and findings from the beginning of your experience until the end. For example, ‘I was not really interested in motivation theory at the start of the unit, but by end of it I learned that … and ...’. The most important factor to remember when writing a reflective essay is that your opinions and conclusions should directly relate to the experiences you examined in the essay’s main body.
2. A suggested essay structure for a standard university essay of between 1,500 to 2,000 words (based on succeed@writing; Peck and Coyle, 2005:101).
· Write eight paragraphs:
· One – (Introduction). Briefly tell the reader what you are going to tell them. Briefly describe your main information sources
· Two (Situation) - describe the straightforward aspects of the OB concept being reflected on
· Three and four (Problem) - discuss some of the more complicated implications
· Five and six (Solution) – propose two or more potential OB theories that best explain the concept
· Seven (Evaluation) – state which theory is most valid and why?
· Eight - give a conclusion. Briefly summarise what you have just told the reader
· Include a separate references page (use the Harvard system)
· Start by reading the question carefully, identifying the ‘process’ words
· Identify at least one critical incident (the problem?)
· Explain links between the critical incident(s) and your behaviour
· Suggest solutions, based on organisational behaviour theories
· Evaluate which solution is best for you
· Draft the conclusion first
· Write the introduction last
· Use one and a half lined spacing, size 12 Arial font.
· Try to avoid using too many long quotations, but if you do use one (defined as more than 20 words) indent it and use single line spacing. Always state the page number if using a quotation. However, it is usually better to paraphrase and cite
· Do not use sub-headings, bullet points, figures or tables. They are fine to use in reports. However, this is an essay, which is a written argument. If in doubt, check with your seminar tutor.
3. The choice of OB concepts and theories that you want to reflect on is up to you. However, you are advised that it is usually better to choose one of the main ‘OB in the Sports Industry’ concepts, and argue its relevance to you. For example, whether your personality is best explained by the ‘idiographic’ or ‘nomothetic perspective’, or whether your motivation is best explained by a ‘content’ or ‘process’ theory. Whatever theory you choose to argue for, do support your argument with illustrative examples.
4. Revise from more than one of the textbooks recommended in the unit reading list. For example:
BOLTON, G., (2010). Reflective Practice : Writing and Professional Development. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
FRENCH, R., C. RAYNER, G. REES and S. RUMBLES, (2011). Organizational Behaviour. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley
HEANEY, C., OAKLEY, B., and REA, S., (Eds) (2009). Exploring Sport and Fitness. Work-based practice. Abingdon: Routledge
HUCZYNSKI and BUCHANAN, (2010). Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. 7th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall
MOON, J., (2009). Achieving Success through Academic Assertiveness. New York: Routledge
TRENBERTH, L., and HASSAN, D. (Eds), (2011). Managing sport business. Abingdon: Routledge.
LEI 425 OB in the sports industry unit: Reflective Essay marking scheme
|
% weighting |
Dimensions |
A1 100 |
A2 92 |
A3 83 |
A4 74 |
B1 68 |
B2 65 |
B3 62 |
C1 58 |
C2 55 |
C3 52 |
D1 48 |
D2 45 |
D3 42 |
F1 35 |
F2 20 |
F3 10 |
|
20% |
Presentation (2,000 words +/- 10%) |
Excellent presentation and organisation of essay and lucid communication |
Presentation and organisation of essay is appropriate to the task; communication is clear |
Satisfactory organisation and presentation of essay, communication mostly appropriate to the task |
Adequate organisation and presentation of essay, communication adequate with some errors/irrelevancies |
Elements of disorganisation and poor presentation and communication |
|||||||||||
|
20% |
Knowledge and understanding of organisational behaviour theory at level 4 |
Excellent understanding and synthesis of concepts and theories by use of examples |
Thorough understanding of concepts and theories by use of examples |
Clear understanding of concepts and theories by use of examples |
Satisfactory understanding of concepts and theories, though mainly nominal |
Errors in understanding of concepts and theories |
|||||||||||
|
20% |
Level of academic argument |
Thorough argument generates well-founded conclusions |
Sound argument that generates well-founded conclusions |
Mostly relevant argument, evidence that supports logical conclusions |
Tendency to describe, with few conclusions, sparsely argued or evidenced |
Overly descriptive, few conclusions, insufficiently argued |
|||||||||||
|
20% |
Level of reflective thinking about organisational behaviour |
Critical self-evaluation recognising the influence of external socio-economic factors on one’s learning |
Evaluation generates a number of critical insights, and realistic recommendations |
Satisfactory evaluation with some insights and recommendations |
Limited evaluation with few insights and recommendations |
Minimal reflection, lacks insight |
|||||||||||
|
20% |
Harvard referencing: |
Excellent referencing and citations |
Consistent and accurate referencing and citations |
Mostly consistent referencing and citations |
Some errors in referencing and citations. |
Errors and omissions in referencing and citations |
Learning Outcomes
This assessment will enable students to demonstrate in full or in part the learning outcomes identified in the unit descriptor.
New Assessment Regulations 2018
Students are reminded that the new assessment regulations now mean that:
1. If this assessment is submitted late i.e. within 5 working days of the submission deadline, the mark will be capped at 40% if a pass mark is achieved;
1. If this assessment is submitted later than 5 working days after the submission deadline, the work will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero;
1. If this assessment is being submitted as a referred piece of work (second or third attempt) then it must be submitted by the deadline date; any Refer assessment submitted late will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero.
Extenuating Circumstances
The University’s Extenuating Circumstances procedure is in place if there are genuine circumstances that may prevent a student submitting an assessment. If students are not 'fit to study’, they can either request an extension to the submission deadline of 5 working days or they can request to submit the assessment at the next opportunity (Defer). In both instances students must submit an EC application to the faculty office with relevant evidence. If accepted by the EC Panel there will be no academic penalty for late submission or non-submission dependent on what is requested. Students are reminded that EC covers only short term issues (20 working days) and that if they experience longer term matters that impact on learning then they must contact their Student Support Network Officer for advice.
A summary of guidance notes for students is given below:
Academic Misconduct
Any submissions must be students’ own work and, where facts or ideas have been used from other sources, these sources must be appropriately referenced. The University’s Academic Handbook includes the definitions of all practices that will be deemed to constitute academic misconduct. Students should check this link before submitting their work.
Procedures relating to student academic misconduct are given below:
Ethics Policy
The work being carried out by students must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then students will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project.
The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook:
Anonymous Marking
A copy of the University’s Policy on Anonymous Marking, process details and student guidance on submission sheet completion can be found on the following links, which are also uploaded on the Student Portal. The guidance ‘fact sheet’ will be available at Faculty Reception Points.
Grade marking
The University uses a letter grade scale for the marking of assessments. Unless students have been specifically informed otherwise their marked assignment will be awarded a letter grade. More detailed information on grade marking and the grade scale can be found on myCourse. The guidance ‘fact sheet’ is available at Faculty Reception Points.
