1200-1400 wrds Project
Halifax
TeamProject.docxTeam Project (25 points)
The team project offers a context in which you can practice and develop teamwork skills through experiential learning. The project is organized around three main parts, namely background, discussion, and leadership intervention:
· Background: You and your team members search for, gather, and organize important information in relation to your team project. Examples can include political, economic, and cultural environment of the world and a nation-state, and trends in a specific industry.
· Discussion: You and your team members analyze the collected background information and identify at least three critical issues that need leaders’ attention and possible intervention. Then your team takes perspectives on these critical issues and prioritizes one as the niche that your team project aims to address.
· Leadership Intervention: You and your team members design two possible interventions for the niche identified in discussion and recommend one intervention over the other. Your team also proposes an action plan so that the recommended intervention can become reality.
· Grading Rubric
· Background (7 points)
·
|
Emerging (1 - 4) |
Developing (5 - 7) |
Mastering (8 - 9) |
|
Student describes background mainly by quoting information from the case description. Some aspects are incorrect or confused.
|
Student describes background mainly in his/her own words, and explores relevant information and assumptions although in a limited way. Most aspects are accurate.
|
Student summarizes relevant background information accurately and interprets the information with consideration of assumptions and their implications. This may include additional research and identification of potential biases. |
·
· Discussion (8 points)
·
|
Emerging (1 - 6) |
Developing (7 - 9) |
Mastering (10 - 12) |
|
Student does not attempt to or fails to identify and summarize critical issues accurately.
Student does not analyze a critical issue from the perspective of a chosen theory and engages ideas that are obvious or agreeable.
Student does not attempt to or fails to integrate his/her world-view in the process of perspective taking.
Student shows little evidence of reflection on his/her own assumptions.
Priority set by students is unclear or simplistic with little consideration of the organization’s goals.
|
Student identifies and summarizes critical issues with most aspects accurate. Nuances and key details are missing or glossed over.
Student clearly analyzes a critical issue from the perspectives of a chosen theory and engages challenging ideas tentatively although he/she may dismiss alternative views hastily.
Student integrates his/her world-view in the process of perspective taking although in a limited way.
Student shows some evidence of reflection on his/her own assumptions.
Priority set by student is generally clear based on accurate understanding of the organization’s goals. |
Student clearly and accurately identifies and summarizes subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the critical issues.
Student clearly analyzes a critical issue from the perspectives of a variety of theories and engages integrating his/her own ideas with others’ ideas.
Student clearly connects his/her worldview and his/her perspectives on the case in a precise meaningful way.
Student shows strong evidence of reflection on his/her own assumptions.
Priority set by student demonstrates sophisticated, integrative thoughts in line with accurate understanding of the organization’s goals.
|
· Leadership intervention (10 points)
·
|
Emerging (1 - 4) |
Developing (5 - 7) |
Mastering (8 - 9) |
|
Student does not attempt to or fails to put forward two possible interventions. |
Student presents two possible interventions although in a limited way. For instance, one option is not really viable.
Student recommends one intervention without addressing the other one, or does so superficially.
Student presents an action plan although some objectives are unclear. |
Student presents two viable interventions with clear integration of the analysis conducted in the discussion.
Student recommends and justifies one intervention over the other even with support from information not available from the assigned case.
Student presents an action plan with clear and specific objectives. |
·
·
