MNG81001 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION
Assessment 3 / ANALYSIS (CASE STUDY)Document design / Memo format
Due Date / Friday 8th September 11.59PM (QLD time)
Length / 1000 words (+/- 10%)
Weight / 25%
The purpose of Assessment 3 is to understand the concept of ‘analysis’ and how to learn to analyse information efficiently and effectively.
According to Rosenwaser and Stephen (2009, p. 4), analysis is:
More than just a set of skills, analysis is a frame of mind, an attitude
toward experience. It is a form of detective work that typically
pursues something puzzling, something you are seeking to
understand rather than something you are already sure you have
the answers to. Analysis finds questions where there seemed not
to be any, and it makes connections that might not have been
evident at first.
Assessment Task
Recent program improvement efforts in graduate business education have begun to focus on initiatives designed to promote student teamwork and cohort development. The increased use of cooperative learning is consistent with changing organisational realities that increasingly require employees to work in teams.
Anecdotal reports, however, from student cohorts suggest that a number are dissatisfied with teamwork for a variety of reasons. These include: frustration over cooperative structures; work takes longer than individual assignments; greater demands on schedules; and the burden of helping marginal performers.
The newly appointed Director of the Executive MBA (EMBA) program at XYZ University, concerned about these anecdotal reports, has asked you to provide an analysis of team-based activities in educational programs.
Please follow these guidelines to complete the assessment:
1. Carefully read the Ivey Business School case: ‘Virtual Teams at Ivey’.
Note: you will need to go onto the Ivey Business School website https://www.iveycases.com/ and purchase a copy of this case (Product Number: 9B13E024) (approximately $AUD5.00).
2. Read the case several times and identify at least three key issues inherent in this case.
3. Answer the following questions in your analysis/recommendation:
· How do the tools and services summarised in case Exhibit 3 differ from the tools and services summarised in case Exhibit 4? How might a team use asynchronous storage tools for a team writing exercise.
· How can learning team members coordinate their activities? Consider the project-management services shown in case Exhibit 5, and/or any other solutions (digital or analog) that you have experienced.
· Identify two important factors for team-based activities in educational programs. Consider whether face-to-face meetings are preferable to virtual meetings? Are virtual meetings ever preferable?
Use three to five secondary sources to support your analysis.
4. You are encouraged you to write a first draft of this memo at least one week prior to the due date to ensure adequate time for revision. Please be aware that the writing quality and appropriate referencing will be marked as well as the content.
5. Submit Assessment 3 to Turnitin via the Blackboard site no later than the due date: Friday 8 th September, 11.00pm (QLD time).
6. Refer to the Marking Criteria Guide and Marking Rubric located in this document.
PRIOS/CDT brief for Assessment 3:
a. Purpose: Analyse key issues in team-based activities in educational programs.
b. Reader: The Director, EMBA program, XYZ University.
c. Information: Based on Internet research.
d. Organisation: Direct order approach.
e. Style: Formal. Be sure to proofread carefully to ensure that there are no sentence-level errors such as spelling mistakes, wrong word choice, incorrect punctuation, etc.
f. Channel choice: written document.
g. Document design: memo format.
h. Length: 1000 words.
(covered in lecture and tutorials – Reading 4)
Please note:
1. All applications for Special Consideration need to be submitted before the due date of the assessment item. For more information see http://scu.edu.au/students/index.php/30 and Rule 3 - Coursework Awards - Student Assessment and Examinations http://policies.scu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=0014
Computer failure will not be accepted as a reason for missing an assessment deadline: you are strongly advised to backup all of your work, for example on a USB flash drive, to ensure that you are still able to submit to a deadline in the event of a computer related failure.
2. In cases where there are no accepted mitigating circumstances as determined through Special Consideration procedures, late submission of assessment tasks will lead automatically to the imposition of a penalty. Penalties will be applied for late submissions as soon as the deadline is reached.
3. Students are reminded of the extremely serious view the University takes with regard to plagiarism and are strongly advised to read the university’s policies on academic integrity and the penalties associated with academic misconduct (see: https://policies.scu.edu.au/ view.current.php?id=00142, as well as information in the UIG).
Marking criteria/weighting
Evaluation criteria / Task / Weighting1.Purpose & Audience
Understanding and addressing the question / Has the student understood the task and covered the key points?
Does the response adequately address the topic and task?
Does this document take into account the needs of the audience?
Does this document provide adequate information for the reader?
Does the writer thoroughly address any potential questions from the reader? / 40%
2. Structure & Organisation
Thesis/argument, introduction, conclusion, paragraphs.
Using referencing in your writing (paraphrasing, synthesising and quotations). / Is there a clear structure to the response?
Does the introduction, body and conclusion contain all the identifying features ?
Do the paragraphs contain one main idea that is explored using relevant evidence? / 30%
3.Research & Language
Integrating evidence (paraphrasing, synthesising and quotations)
Referencing – in-text (citing) and reference list.
Sentences – spelling, punctuation, grammar. / Is there evidence of research?
Is it properly referenced?
Are source materials properly integrated and referenced in-text?
Is there a range of vocabulary?
Are sentences grammatically correct?
Are sentences accurate and complete?
Has a spell check been used?
Is spelling accurate? / 30%
Fail / Pass / Credit / Distinction / High Distinction
0 - 49 / 50 - 64 / 65 - 74 / 75 - 84 / 85 - 100
<12.5 / 12.5 – 15.5 / 16 – 18 / 18.5 – 20.5 / 21+
Multiple parts of the assignment are missing or incomplete. Student fails to answer the question. / Essential elements are imprecise or absent. Work at a level that would be considered basic. / Key elements are presented but could be further developed and given ore depth. / Most aspects included in a final, well-developed form. / The assignment contains all required elements and is of the highest order.
1
MNG81001 2017-Session 2 Assessment 3
MNG81001 2017 SESSION 2 MARKING RUBRIC: ASSESSMENT 3
1. Purpose and Audience (40%) / 2. Structure and Organisation (30%) / 3. Research and Language Use (30%)High Distinction (34 – 40) / High Distinction (25.5 – 30) / Distinction 22.5 – 25)
All aspects of the assessment are comprehensively and appropriately explored, supported and covered.
The writer’s position and/or purpose is clear and fully developed throughout the assessment.
All ideas are relevant and appropriate for the audience.
Reference to required number of relevant sources. The specified word length is met (1000 words +/– 10%).
Writing communicates meaning clearly and achieves purpose of the task. / The introduction is solid and thorough and includes all identifying features.
Strong and relevant thesis statement with controlling idea(s) linked to topic sentences.
Conclusion clearly relates back to the title, thesis statement and main points. Presents a well-defined summary of the whole paper.
Well-defined argument. Information and ideas are logically organised and easily followed.
Cohesion between sentences and paragraphs is highly effective, and all internal headings are used effectively and sufficiently.
Paragraphing is used appropriately and skillfully. Format enhances readability of the paper. / Paraphrases and synthesises information in own words; cites the originating author(s) and provides the corresponding reference.
Quotes (where appropriate) used sparingly and cited correctly.
Information is correctly referenced following the SCU Harvard style for both in-text and end-of-text referencing.
A wide range of vocabulary is used accurately and appropriately (for audience); spelling is correct.
A wide range of grammatical structures are used accurately and appropriately throughout with no errors (incl. punctuation errors.
Reference to required number of three (3) to five (5) relevant sources.
Distinction (30 – 33.5) / Distinction (22.5 – 25) / Distinction (22.5 – 25)
All aspects of the assessment are addressed and supported sufficiently and appropriately.
The writer’s position and/or purpose is clear and well-developed. The specified word length is met (1000 words +/– 10%).
Information and ideas are relevant and appropriate for the audience (minor lapses may occur).
Writing communicates meaning to a satisfactory level and achieves purpose of the task. / The introduction is clear and appropriate and includes all identifying features.
Appropriate and relevant thesis statement with controlling idea(s) linked to topic sentences.
Conclusion clearly relates back to the title, thesis statement and main points. Presents a good summary of the whole paper.
The organisation of information and ideas is logical (only minor lapses/loss of coherence occur).
Cohesion between sentences and paragraphs is often very effective, and internal headings are often effective and sufficient.
Paragraphing is appropriate. Each paragraph has one clear main idea (lapses are rare). / Paraphrases and synthesises information in own words; cites the originating author(s) and provides the corresponding reference. Quotes (where appropriate) used sparingly and cited correctly
In-text and end-of-text referencing is mostly accurate (some minor inconsistencies/inaccuracies)
A range of vocabulary is used accurately and appropriately (for audience); minor spelling errors.
A range of grammatical structures are appropriately used; some minor errors, (incl. punctuation errors).
Reference to required number of three (3) to five (5) relevant sources.
Credit (26 – 29) / Credit (19.5 – 22) / Credit (19.5 – 22)
Nearly all aspects of the assessment are addressed with appropriate support (although more support may be needed in some areas).
The writer’s position and/or purpose are generally developed and clear. The specified word length is met (1000 words +/– 10%).
Most information and ideas are extended sufficiently, but there may be a minor lack of clarity or focus and/or relevance in some supporting ideas/material.
Writing generally communicates effectively but logic and meaning not always clear. / The introduction is adequate; outlines identifying features but greater clarity required.
The thesis statement makes an overly broad claim and is somewhat ambiguous in meaning.
Conclusion addresses most main areas adequately.
Information and ideas are generally organised logically (lapses/loss of coherence may occur).
Cohesion between sentences and paragraphs is helpful (although errors, repetitive use, or underuse occur), and some internal headings are well-managed.
Paragraphing is generally effective and appropriate but may not always be logical, and/or the main idea of the paragraph may not always be clear. / Most attempts at paraphrasing and synthesising are sufficient, accurate, and appropriate; cites the originating author(s) and provides the corresponding reference.
Quotes (where appropriate) used sparingly and mostly cited correctly.
Some errors in the SCU Harvard reference style - in-text and end-of-text referencing.
Vocabulary is generally used adequately, accurately and appropriately (for audience), some spelling errors.
Grammatical structures are generally used accurately and appropriately, although errors (incl. punctuation errors) occur, and these may impede communication.
Reference to required number of three (3) to five (5) relevant sources.
Pass (20 – 25.5) / Pass (15 – 19) / Pass (15 – 19)
Most major aspects of the assessment are addressed (minor aspects may be missing), but some parts lack appropriate support and/or extension.
The format of the assessment may not be appropriate and/or the specified word length (1000 words +/-10%) is not met.
The writer’s position and/or purpose lacks clarity.
Information and ideas may be insufficiently extended for the audience, and there may be a lack of clarity and/or relevance. There may be some repetition.
Writing generally communicates adequately but logic and meaning not always clear. / Some aspects of the introduction are sufficient; although at times overly vague with broad generalisations; greater clarity and direction needed.
Thesis statement makes an overly general claim and is somewhat ambiguous in meaning.
Conclusion attempted but does not appropriately sum up findings or link back to the
Information and ideas may not always have a clear progression, and there may be a lack of coherence in some areas.
Cohesion between sentences and paragraphs is sometimes helpful (although errors, repetitive use, or underuse occur), but internal headings may be missing and/or inappropriate.
Paragraphing is evident but may not always be logical and/or the main idea of some paragraphs is unclear. / Most attempts at paraphrasing and synthesising are insufficient, inaccurate, and/or inappropriate; not all originating author(s) cited with corresponding reference.
Overreliance on quotes (where appropriate); some errors in citation.
In-text and end-of-text referencing lacks accuracy and/or consistency.
Vocabulary is adequate but is sometimes used inaccurately and/or inappropriately (for audience), and spelling errors may occur.
Grammatical structures lack accuracy, and errors (incl. punctuation errors) impede communication.
Reference to required number of three (3) to five (5) relevant sources.
Fail (0 – 19.5) / Fail (0 – 14.5) / Fail (0 – 14.5)
The requirements of assessment are not sufficiently covered and/or supported.
The format of the assessment is not appropriate.
The specified word length exceeds 1100 words/is less than 900 words.
The writer’s position and purpose often lacks clarity.
Information and ideas are insufficiently extended and/or supported for the audience. Those presented are often irrelevant, repetitive and/or inadequate.
Logic and meaning not clear. / The introduction is poorly written; does not address the main identifying features (purpose, thesis statement and blueprint).
No thesis statement provided.
No logical conclusion. Fails to summarise the main ideas which have been discussed or make a final comment about the paper’s main idea.
Information and ideas lack a clear progression and coherence.
Cohesion between sentences and paragraphs is often erroneous or missing, and internal headings are missing and/or inappropriate.
Paragraphing may be missing, and the main idea of paragraphs is often unclear. / Evidence of paraphrasing plagiarism; original author's words moved around, while summarising the main ideas; fails to cite the original author(s) and to provide the corresponding bibliographic reference.
Overreliance on (>10%) or no quotes.
Fails to follow Harvard referencing style for both in-text and end-of-text referencing.
Vocabulary is often inadequate, inappropriate (for audience) and inaccurate; words often incorrect or incorrectly used; substantial spelling errors.
Grammatical structures lack accuracy, and errors (incl. punctuation errors) strain communication.
Attempts at paraphrasing are insufficient, inaccurate, and/or inappropriate.
Reference to <three (3) or > five (5) relevant sources.
8