Due Sunday by 23:55 Points 45 Submitting a media recording or a file upload
Available 2 Mar at 1:00 – 31 May at 23:55 3 months
Submit Assignment
Due Date
• 3R: Written Report: 31 May 2020 @ 23:55
• 3P: Presentation Map: (as Appendix in the 3R report)
Weighting
45% comprising 2 parts:
• Part 1: (3R): 35% Written Report
• Part 2:(3P): 10% Presentation Map – attach as Appendix in the 3R Report
Word Count
• Part 1: (3R): Written Report – 4,000 words
• Part 2: (3P): Maximum 13 Frames ( see Template)
Learning
Outcomes
1: Synthesise a body of knowledge that includes the understanding of recent developments in the
field of managing people.
2: Utilise cognitive and communication skills that demonstrate your mastery of theoretical knowledge
and critical reflection on theory and professional practice.
3: Apply creativity and initiative to new situations in professional practice and further learning.
4: Demonstrate a high level of personal autonomy and accountability in your professional practice.
Rubric: Marking
Criteria
The Rubric, provided below, details the marking criteria for each grade level. Feedback will be
provided through the rubric and written comments.
Details of the range of grades awarded is in the Course Guide.
You may request a review of an assessment result or appeal a final
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/rights-and-responsibilities/appeals) course
grade (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/rights-andresponsibilities/appeals) in accordance with the Conduct of Assessment and Appeals section of the
Assessment processes. Further details regarding the review of assessment are detailed in the
Course Guide.
• Click here (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/results/higher-education-results) to find out how to access your results and understand
your grades.
Task
Part 1: 3R In teams of 4 members, each team will analyse a business case study reflecting a
real-world scenario, as well as reflecting on their effectiveness as a team.
• The final group report will analyse the case study utilising key insights from the scholarly
and professional literature.
Part 2: 3P A Presentation Map (maximum 13 frames) that summarises the range of solutions
and recommendations for short-term implementation from the analysis in the 3R report.
GUIDELINES: Click here for
• the case study
• To reference the case study:
Case Study, 2020. “The Australian Banking Sector”. BUSM1162 course, RMIT University,
Melbourne.
• detailed guidelines on the assessment requirements and structure of the report.
• Case Study Study Map
• Equity of Contribution Policy
• 3R Title Page
• 3P Presentation Map – attach to Appendix in the 3R Report
• Example of a case study report that received a Credit grade
• Marking Rubric
• Scholarly Article: Background Reading: 2016 Montague et al Crisis of confidence in
HRM of Australian banks.pdf
Format:
• 3R: Report style (https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/reports-0)
• 3P: Presentation Map Template
• Click here for information on writing skills
(https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/writing-skills)
Submission
Instructions
• Electronic submission: guidelines (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/studentessentials/assessment-and-exams/assessment/submitting-assessments-in-canvas) for
submission of the assignment can be found through this link (click here)
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/assessment/submitting-assessments-in-canvas)
• When you submit work for assessment, you must include a declaration of authorship. Click
here (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/assessment/assessment-declaration) to access information regarding the Assessment
Declaration (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/assessment/assessment-declaration)
Before you submit your assignment undertake the following:
1. Nominate 1 group member only to submit the assignment on the group’s behalf.
• Advise your tutor who the nominated person is.
2. Format -Word documents only – pdf submissions will not be marked
3. Attach a completed Title Page to the front of the assignment
• all group members must declare the % of contribution and sign the Title page – electronic
signatures are acceptable
4. Criteria – Use the Study Support services (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/studysupport) to check your assignment meets the Rubric criteria
| 5. Reference check that you have applied the RMIT Harvard (https://www.lib.rmit.edu.au/easy-cite/) (or Harvard if you are using EndNote) referencing style 6. Check for plagiarism (https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/academic-integrity harvard) and similarity through Turnitin • see the Assignment submission link in Canvas (%24CANVAS_OBJECT_REFERENCE%24/assignments/i7721d4888d596a753c9293a2a7bdbbfa . You can submit your paper multiple times through Turnitin. The last submission will be the copy that will be marked. 7. Keep a record or screenshot of your submission time in case this is queried by your tutor. You can expect to receive marks and feedback on in-course assessment work after the overall final course results have been approved by the Course Advisory Committee. • This process is generally not completed before Week 17. Students demonstrate academic integrity in their assessment practices by: • engaging with assessment activities in an honest way; • providing accountability for the authorship and originality of work submitted; • acknowledging the work of others and the re-use of original work. Academic misconduct is addressed in accordance with the Student conduct (https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/governance-and-management/policies/student-conduct-policy) |
| policy. (https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/governance-and-management/policies/student conduct-policy) For further information see the Academic Integrity (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-and-exams/academic-integrity) |
| website. Extensions (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-and exams/assessment/special-consideration) are available for unforeseen circumstances of a short term nature. • Applications must be submitted to your tutor and /or coordinator at least one working day before the due date of the assessment. • Extensions can be approved for a maximum of one week (seven calendar days) past the due date for an assessment. (Where students need an extension exceeding one week they must instead apply for special consideration.) Special consideration (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-and exams/assessment/special-consideration) is available for unexpected circumstances outside |
Feedback
Academic
Integrity and
Misconduct
Extensions of
time & Special
Consideration
Assignment 3R + 3P: Group Report
students’ control. These include but are not limited to: unexpected short-term ill health, and
unavoidable family, work, cultural or religious commitments.
• An application for special consideration is made in advance of an assessment wherever possible
but will normally be accepted within five working days after the assessment date.
• For more information, see the Special Consideration page
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-andexams/assessment/special-consideration) of the RMIT website.
| Criteria | Ratings Pts 12.0 pts 10.0 pts 12.0 to >9.6 Pts High Distinction Comprehensive and critical analysis of key issues from the case study. Linking issues from a range of topics with high level analysis and evaluation. Theory, evidence and scholarly references are integrated into the analysis at an advanced level. A range of key concepts, theories, and literature relating to the issues identified in the case have been applied. 9.6 to >8.4 Pts Distinction Very good analysis and evaluation. of key issues from the case study. Deeper critical analysis would have enhanced the overall analysis in sections. Evidence of linking issues from a range of topics. A range of key concepts, theories, and literature relating to the issues identified in the case have been applied at a competent level. 8.4 to >7.2 Pts Credit Good evidence of analysis of key issues from the case study, with sections that are descriptive. More critical analysis and evaluation of key issues is required for a higher grade. Theory, evidence and scholarly references are sufficiently integrated into the analysis. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 7.2 to >6.0 Pts Pass Borderline and limited analysis of key issues from the case study; some gaps in addressing key issues and more analysis and evaluation is required for a higher grade; largely descriptive. Theory, evidence and scholarly references are integrated into the analysis at a basic level. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 6.0 to >0 Pts Fail Too brief; inability to identify and analyse key issues from the case study; superficial analysis; insufficient knowledge or understanding of the topic; much irrelevant material. Theory, evidence and scholarly references are not sufficiently integrated into the analysis. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 10.0 to >9.14 Pts High Distinction You’ve demonstrated very effective analytical and evaluative skills through your report. You have given a diverse range of perspectives drawing on the literature, showing evidence of your ability to draw a deep understanding of the core issues. Evidence of extensive scholarly research beyond sources that were provided to inform the analysis. The report demonstrates a comprehensive and critical understanding of 9.14 to >7.0 Pts Distinction A range of literature relating to the case study has been applied. Demonstrates a good understanding of a range of perspectives drawing on the literature showing evidence of your ability to draw a competent understanding of the core issues. However more refined use of the literature is required to achieve a higher grade. There is evidence of scholarly research to inform the analysis, but the 7.0 to >6.0 Pts Credit An adequate range of key concepts and/or theories from the literature have been applied. Some description in parts. Your application of the literature demonstrates that you are developing your ability to synthesise and integrate the key ideas from different writers, but more work is needed to ensure the literature is applied more effectively. Evidence of scholarly research but the report has applied an insufficient number of recent credible resources either in- 6.0 to >5.0 Pts Pass In general, this report demonstrates a reasonable attempt at using the literature for the analysis, although at times you have described rather than analysed the core issues that arose in the literature. However, you need to work more on integrating and synthesising the ideas rather than summarising one after the other. A range of literature relating to the topic has been drawn from the references provided to you and/or evidence of additional sources that you have 5.0 to >0 Pts Fail The coverage of the literature about the topic is inadequate and does not meet the minimum requirements as detailed in the assignment guidelines. Your understanding of the key ideas and theories presented in the literature indicates a lack of research and is vague, brief, contains irrelevant material. and/or is incomplete. More effective application of the literature in the references is needed to be awarded a higher mark. |
| COMPREHENSION Identification and critical analysis of key issues from the case study EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS Degree of understanding and effective application of the literature |
| Criteria | Ratings Pts 6.0 pts the literature relating to the context of the case study; excellent application of the literature. report has mainly applied sources that were provided. The report demonstrates a competent application of the literature relating to the context of the case study. text citations and/or the reference list. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. researched independently. The literature is not sufficiently applied in some sections throughout the analysis. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 6.0 to >4.8 Pts High Distinction Viable solutions and final recommendations are proposed drawing on key elements of the analysis. Justification for the solutions is made, applying convincing and comprehensive evidence. The final recommendations are viable and relates to the context of the case study. Demonstrates a high level of understanding of how to form solutions and recommendations from the analysis. 4.8 to >4.2 Pts Distinction Solutions and final recommendations are proposed drawing on key elements of the analysis and are mostly viable. Justification for the solutions is made but at a general level. Mostly convincing and comprehensive evidence has been applied. The final recommendations are mostly viable and relate to the context of the case study. Demonstrates a good understanding of how to form solutions and recommendations from the analysis. 4.2 to >3.6 Pts Credit Solutions and final recommendations are proposed drawing on key elements of the analysis and are somewhat viable. Justification for the solutions is made but at a basic level. More convincing and comprehensive evidence could have been applied The final recommendation is somewhat viable and relates to the context of the case study. Mostly convincing and comprehensive evidence. Demonstrates a good understanding of how to form solutions and recommendations from analysis. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning 3.6 to >3.0 Pts Pass Borderline understanding of how to form solutions and recommendations from analysis. Some solutions and final recommendations do not directly relate to the analysis, and / or are not viable in the context of the case study. Justification for the solutions is poorly made and/or at a general level. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. – e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 3.0 to >0 Pts Fail Limited understanding of how to form solutions and recommendations from the analysis. Many solutions and final recommendations do not directly relate to the analysis, and / or are not viable in the context of the case study. Justification for the solutions is poorly made and lacks convincing and comprehensive evidence. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. – e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. |
| SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Degree to which viable solutions and final recommendations have been posed. |
| Criteria | Ratings Pts 5.0 pts 2.0 pts Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 5.0 to >4.0 Pts High Distinction Meets academic requirements for a report structure with numbered headings and sub-headings; Executive Summary; and Table of Contents. Structure of the report flows logically. Well constructed and crafted piece of work; a pleasure to read. Clear and fluent writing. 4.0 to >3.5 Pts Distinction Meets academic requirements for a report structure with numbered headings and sub-headings; Executive Summary; and Table of Contents. Structure of the report flows logically. Clear and fluent writing. 3.5 to >3.0 Pts Credit Meets academic requirements for a report structure with numbered headings and sub-headings; Executive Summary; and Table of Contents. Structure mostly flows logically,with some inconsistencies in some sections. Some evidence of fluency in writing; no obvious errors in grammar and/or syntax. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 3.0 to >2.5 Pts Pass Report mostly meets academic requirements with some errors with numbered headings and sub-headings and/or Executive Summary; and Table of Contents.. The contents of each section in the structure lacks logical flow and/or is disjointed in places. Demonstrates a basic understanding of rules of grammar and syntax; sentence and paragraphs; minor/no spelling errors. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 2.5 to >0 Pts Fail This report does not meet academic requirements as detailed in the assignment guidelines with errors in the numbered headings and sub-headings, and/or the Executive Summary; and/or Table of Contents.. Structure is disjointed and the analysis does not flow logically. Multiple spelling and/or grammatical errors; poor syntax. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 2.0 to >1.6 Pts High Distinction High level of consistency and use of all Harvard referencing guidelines in-text and in reference list. The reference list only contains sources that are applied in-text and vice versa. Evidence of 1.6 to >1.4 Pts Distinction Appropriate and consistent use of Harvard referencing guidelines in-text and in the reference list. The reference list only contains sources that are applied in-text and vice versa. Evidence of scholarly 1.4 to >1.2 Pts Credit Consistent use of Harvard referencing guidelines; some errors in applying the Harvard style in text and/or in the reference list. The reference list only contains sources that are applied in text and vice versa. References are integrated in most parts of the analysis. 1.2 to >1.0 Pts Pass Inconsistent, application of Harvard referencing guidelines both in text and/or in the reference list. The reference list contains some sources that are not applied in-text and/or vice versa. Evidence of some scholarly research to inform the 1.0 to >0 Pts Fail Does not meet minimum referencing guidelines; absence of/extremely poor/ and or inconsistent use of required Harvard referencing. The reference list contains sources not applied in-text and/or vice versa. Recommendation – |
| STRUCTURE AND WRITTEN EXPRESSION A clear and concise writing style, correct spelling and grammar REFERENCING Correct use of the Harvard system of citation |
| Criteria | Ratings Pts 5.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts extensive scholarly research beyond sources that were provided to inform the analysis. References integrated throughout the analysis at a very high standard. research to inform the analysis but mainly used sources that were provided. References are integrated throughout the analysis. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. analysis but at a basic level. Recommendation – use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. use the university study services before you submit your next assignment. –e.g. e.g. Study Learning Hub, English Language Centre, Ask the Library. 5.0 to >4.0 Pts Advanced Advanced degree of understanding and analysis of the identified Solutions and Recommendations. A succinct informed Conclusion and Key Insights – consistent with analysis of the core themes in the Report. Implications for management and the sector were expressed at a high standard . 4.0 to >2.5 Pts Competent Good degree of understanding and analysis of the identified Solutions and Recommendations which were viable. Clear Conclusion and Key Insights – consistent with analysis of the core themes in the topic. Implications for management and the Sector were expressed at a good standard but were generalised in parts. 2.5 to >0 Pts Unsatisfactory Some degree of understanding of the identified Solutions and Recommendations but they lacked viability. Some /all Conclusion and Key Insights lacked relevance to the core themes in the Report. Implications for management of the issues raised were vague and not related to any specific sector. 3.0 to >2.4 Pts Advanced Coherency and Flow were well integrated and relevant to the theme of the Case at an advanced level. Ideas flowed coherently and logically. The characteristics of a corporate audience were considered. Demonstrated high level analysis of the issues raised in the report. Creative original responses to the case data. Able to draw on additional information to construct an informed response. Clear summary of the applicability of your key ideas for the sector. 2.4 to >1.5 Pts Competent Coherency and Flow were mostly integrated and relevant to the theme of the Case at a competent level. Showed evidence that the characteristics of a corporate audience had been considered. Showed good knowledge of the issues raised in the report. Responses succinct and fluent with original insights evident. Effective use of theoretical terms and concepts in the response. Clear summary of the applicability of your key ideas for the sector. 1.5 to >0 Pts No marks Poor /disjointed coherency and flow of ideas were poorly y integrated and not all relevant to the theme of the Case at an unsatisfactory level. Short responses that were essentially descriptive and did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the issues in the report. Did not consider the characteristics of an corporate audience with the final reporting of solutions and recommendations. 2.0 to >1.6 Pts Advanced Evidence of advanced knowledge of the key issues in the case data. Demonstrated high level application of the issues raised in the report. Advanced – very good application of key ideas from the references. Key points from the Solutions in the report 1.6 to >1.0 Pts Competent Evidence of competent knowledge of the key issues in the case data. Demonstrated basic – good application of the issues raised in the report. Competent application of key ideas from the references. Points from the Solutions in the report emphasised/and or some 1.0 to >0 Pts Unsatisfactory Does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the issues raised in the case data. Poor application of the issues raised in the report. Lacks integration of key ideas from the references. Points from the Solutions in the report not sufficiently emphasised with many |
| 3P Presentation Map Criteria 1 This criterion is linked to a learning outcome. Degree to which the final Solutions, Recommendations, Conclusion and Key Insights were convincing 3P Presentation Map Criteria 2 This criterion is linked to a learning outcome . Logical flow of ideas 3P Presentation Map Criteria 3 This criterion is linked to a learning outcome. Ability to present ideas in response to an analysis |
Total points: 45.0
| Criteria | Ratings Pts emphasised. Provides references throughout the presentation and /or as a list at the end. Recent references (2014 -2020) are applied at a high standard. gaps. References in all/some sections of the presentation and /or as a list at the end. Recent references (2014 -2020) are applied at a competent standard. gaps. Few/no references in all/some sections of the presentation and /or as a list at the end. Recent references (2014 -2020) are applied at a inadequate standard. |
The post Submitting a media recording or a file upload appeared first on My Assignment Online.